Food Services, Inc. v. Bolando
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Perla B. Bolando was hired by Mary Abigail's Food Services, Inc. as a counter-girl. Her employment was terminated on February 10, 1998, due to alleged excessive tardiness and falsification of her time record. Bolando contested her dismissal, claiming it was unjust and that she was denied due process. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and various monetary claims against the company and its owners. 2. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Bolando, ordering the company to pay separation pay and overtime pay, along with attorney's fees. The petitioners received this decision on December 23, 1998. They filed their Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Partial Appeal on January 4, 1999, and posted the required surety bond on January 7, 1999. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed their appeal due to the late posting of the bond, a decision affirmed by the NLRC upon reconsideration. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which also dismissed their petition, affirming the NLRC's resolutions. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek a review of the Court of Appeals' decision via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. They argue that the NLRC should have relaxed the requirement for timely posting of the appeal bond, citing the long holiday season as a reason for the delay. They also contend that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing their petition. The Supreme Court, however, notes that the proper remedy should have been a petition for review under Rule 45 and that even under that rule, the petition was filed out of time. The Court ultimately denies the petition, upholding the dismissal of the appeal for failure to perfect it by not posting the required bond within the reglementary period.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy. Whether the appeal to the NLRC was perfected despite the late posting of the appeal bond. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC's dismissal of the appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the challenged decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that the appeal to the NLRC was not perfected due to the failure to post the required appeal bond within the reglementary period.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to appeal a final disposition of the Court of Appeals. Instead, a petition for review under Rule 45 should be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or denial of the motion for reconsideration. Even if the present recourse were treated as a petition for review, it would still fall for having been filed out of time, as petitioners received the CA's resolution denying their motion for reconsideration on September 23, 1999, and filed their petition on October 22, 1999, beyond the 15-day period. On the perfection of the appeal to the NLRC and the justification for late posting of the bond: The Court affirmed the NLRC's dismissal of the appeal. Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended, explicitly states that an appeal by the employer involving a monetary award may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond in an amount equivalent to the monetary award within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the decision. Rule VI, Section 3(a) of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC further clarifies that the appeal must be filed within the reglementary period and be accompanied by proof of payment of the required appeal bond. The posting of the bond is a sine qua non for the perfection of the appeal, and non-compliance is fatal, rendering the judgment final and executory. The Court found the petitioners' reason for the late posting of the bond – the occurrence of the Christmas holiday season – to be unacceptable and not a valid justification for non-compliance. The Court distinguished this case from instances where it relaxed the rule, such as when the failure to file the bond was due to excusable oversight or error of a third party, or when there was substantial compliance. Here, the petitioners were aware of the requirement and the amount of the bond, and their failure to post it on time was due to their own negligence. The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is statutory and must be exercised in compliance with the prescribed rules, which are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays. On the Court of Appeals' ruling: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals in affirming the NLRC's dismissal of the appeal. Since the appeal to the NLRC was never perfected due to the failure to post the bond within the reglementary period, the Labor Arbiter's decision had attained finality. Consequently, neither the NLRC nor the Court of Appeals could be faulted for ruling against the petitioners.
Main Doctrine
The posting of a cash or surety bond is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement for the perfection of an employer's appeal from a labor arbiter's decision involving a monetary award. Failure to post the bond within the reglementary period renders the appeal unperfected, and the decision becomes final and executory.