Cruz v. Golar Maritime Services, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Reynaldo Dela Cruz and Elur Nono were hired by respondent Golar Maritime Services, Inc. (manning agency) for deployment on board the vessel LNGC "Golar Freeze," owned by respondent Gotaas Larsen, Ltd., for a nine-month contract period. On July 15, 1996, before their contracts expired, they were repatriated due to charges of disobedience and insubordination. Procedural History: On October 25, 1996, petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, seeking salaries for the unexpired portion of their contracts, repatriation expenses, damages, and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioners on December 16, 1997. Respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Petitioners filed a Manifestation and Motion to dismiss, alleging failure to file an adequate appeal bond. The NLRC, in its June 5, 1998 Decision, vacated the Labor Arbiter's ruling and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Petitioners sought reconsideration, which was denied by the NLRC on September 14, 1998. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court on December 8, 1998, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The Supreme Court referred the petition to the Court of Appeals (CA) on February 10, 1999. The CA dismissed the petition on May 26, 1999, for being filed beyond the reglementary period under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by Supreme Court Circular No. 39-98. The CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration on November 16, 1999. The Petition: Petitioners filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's dismissal of their petition for certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari for being filed beyond the reglementary period. Whether the appeal bond filed by the respondents was adequate or sufficient to perfect an appeal before the NLRC.
Ruling
The petition is partly granted. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the reglementary period for filing the petition for certiorari: The Court held that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari for being filed beyond the reglementary period. The Court applied Supreme Court Circular No. 56-2000, which amended Section 4 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. This amendment, considered curative in nature, provided that the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari shall be counted from the notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration, if one was timely filed. The petitioners received the denial of their motion for reconsideration on October 9, 1998. They filed their petition for certiorari on December 8, 1998, which was the 60th day, thus seasonably filed. The Court emphasized that procedural laws are generally retroactive and applicable to pending cases, and the amendment was intended to remedy confusion brought about by prior circulars. On the issue of the adequacy of the appeal bond: The Court found that the appeal bond posted by the respondent companies was adequate and sufficient. Article 223 of the Labor Code requires the appeal bond to be in an amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from. In this case, the Labor Arbiter's decision specified the Peso equivalent of the US dollar awards. The respondents posted a bond equivalent to the stated Peso amount. The Court reasoned that the law requires equivalence to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from, which included the specified Peso equivalent. To require a recalculation based on fluctuating foreign currency conversion rates would create confusion and potentially lead to the dismissal of numerous cases. The Court also noted that Section 7 of the NLRC Interim Rules provided that the monetary award computed as of the date of promulgation of the decision appealed from shall be the basis of the bond, which was complied with.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari for being filed beyond the reglementary period, as the subsequent curative amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, granting a fresh 60-day period from notice of denial of a motion for reconsideration, applied retroactively. Furthermore, the appeal bond posted by the respondents was deemed adequate as it was based on the Peso equivalent specified in the Labor Arbiter's decision.