Turks Shawarma Company vs Pajaron and Carbonilla

G.R. No. 207156

January 16, 2017

Topic: Security of Tenure, Appeal

Facts: Respondents are employees of petitioner-company and claimed that they were constructively
and illegally dismissed by the company, hence, prompting the former to file a suit against the latter in
the Labor Tribunal. Petitioner, on the other hand, claimed that the respondents abandoned their work
and even filed criminal cases for estafa against them. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of
respondents and held them to be constructively and illegally dismissed. The LA found it suspicious for
petitioners to file criminal cases against respondents only after the complaints of illegal dismissal had
been filed. Backwages, separation pay, holiday pay, were awarded among others. Petitioner filed a
Notice of Appeal with Memorandum and Motion to Reduce Bond with the NLRC, alleging non-
availability of counsel, insisting that he cannot afford to post the full amount. The NLRC denied the
motion and ruled that financial difficulties may not be invoked as a valid ground to reduce bond; it was
not even substantiated by proof. Petitioners then elevated the case to the CA in a petition for certiorari.
The CA ruled against petitioner.

Issue 1: Were the respondents illegally dismissed?

Ruling 1: Yes. While petitioners argue that respondents abandoned their work, records dont show that
there was intent to relinquish their employment. In fact, petitioner admitted that they refused to rehire
respondents despite persistent requests to admit them to work. Hence, petitioner essentially admitted
the fact of dismissal. Petitioner did not proffer any evidence to support their claim of misconduct or
misbehavior on the part of respondents. Thus, for lack of any clear, valid, and just cause in terminating
respondents employment, petitioners are guilty of illegal dismissal.

Issue 2: Was the dismissal of petitioners appeal proper?

Ruling 2: Yes. Citing previous jurisprudence, as well as, Article 233 of the Labor Code and the Revised
Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, the Court ruled that appeal, is a mere statutory privilege, and may be
exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to
avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is
lost. The posting of cash or surety bond is mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Court in special
and justified circumstances has relaxed the rule subject to the following conditions: 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. In this case, petitioner failed to produce evidence to prove
that the payment of the full amount of the award would greatly affect his business due to financial
setbacks. Moreover, the absence of counsel is not a valid excuse for non-compliance with the rules.
Petitioner even failed to explain why there was no new counsel procured to assist him. Petitioner has no
meritorious appeal as would convince the Court to liberally apply the rule.