Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS:
Respondent Mario Valcueba filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of
wage differential, 13th month pay differential, holiday pay, premium pay for holidays and rest
days, and service incentive leaves with claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorneys
fees, against Hilario Ramirez. Valcueba claimed that Ramirez hired him as mechanic and was
paid per day from 1999 to 2006. On Feb. 27, 2006, Valcueba was advised not to return to work
unless he would agree to work on a pakyaw basis. On the other hand, Ramirez contended that
Valcueba fails to obey the formers lawful order when he had an emergency call and requested
Valcueba to report to Calawisan Station to repair a taxi unit of Ramirez since the mechanic
assigned in the said station was absent. Ramirez insisted that he did not terminate the
complainant, it was the latter who abandoned his job following his absence the following day
after the emergency call without any leave of absence. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision
finding Ramirez not guilty of illegal dismissal and awarded complainant for 13 th month pay and
wage differential for a total of P45, 825.98 and the reinstatement of complainant. Ramirez filed a
memorandum of appeal with urgent motion to reduce bond before the NLRC. For failure to post
a reasonable amount and to offer meritorious grounds, NLRC dismissed his appeal. He went to
the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition outright for failure of Ramirez
to properly verify his petition and to state material dates. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Ramirez has complied with the requirements to perfect his appeal.
HELD:
Under Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of NLRC which explicitly reaffirms the
jurisdictional principle in Art. 223 of the Labor Code, appeals involving monetary awards are
perfected only upon compliance with the following mandatory requisites, namely: (1) payment
of the appeal fees; (2) filing of the memorandum of appeal; and (3) payment of the required cash
or surety bond. The posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases
involving monetary awards from the decision of the labor arbiter. Clearly, the filing of the bond
is not only mandatory but also a jurisdictional requirement that must be complied with in order to
confer jurisdiction upon the NLRC. Non-compliance with the requirement renders the decision
of the Labor Arbiter final and executory. While the bond may be reduced upon motion by the
employer, this is subject to the conditions that (1) the motion to reduce the bond shall be based
on meritorious grounds; and (2) a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award is posted
by the appellant; otherwise, the filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of
the period to perfect an appeal. The NLRC was justified in denying the motion for there was no
meritorious grounds offered by the appellant and the P10, 000.00 bond posted by the latter is not
a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award of P45, 825.98.
Ramirezs failure to verify and state material dates as required under the rules warranted
the outright dismissal of his petition before the Court of Appeals . In an actions filed under Rule
65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or
final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or
reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received. Failure to
comply shall be a ground for dismissal.
Hence, the Supreme Court finds no sufficient justification to set aside the NLRC and
Court of Appeals resolutions. Thus, the decision of the Labor Arbiter is already final and
executory and binding upon this Court.