Lawyerly

GR No. 180147

2014-06-04

SARA LEE PHILIPPINES v. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG

PEREZ, J.

Also, since the computation of the award in Star Angel Handicraft v. NLRC[55] was based on erroneous wage and that a big portion of the award had already prescribed, the non-posting of appeal bond was excused.

GR No. 170416

2011-06-22

UNIVERSITY PLANS INCORPORATED v. BELINDA P. SOLANO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In Nicol v. Footjoy Industrial Corporation, [27] the Court reviewed the jurisprudence [28] respecting the bond requirement for perfecting appeal and summarized the guidelines under which the NLRC must exercise its discretion in considering an appellant's motion for reduction of bond, viz: [T]he bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards has been and may be relaxed in meritorious cases. These cases include instances in which (1) there was substantial compliance with the Rules, (2) surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce the bond, (3) a liberal interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond would serve the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits, or (4) the appellants, at the very least, exhibited their willingness and/or good faith by posting a partial bond during the reglementary period.

GR No. 167708

2008-08-22

SECRETARY OF LABOR v. PANAY VETERAN'S SECURITY

CORONA, J.

Respondents assailed the Secretary of Labor and Employment's July 9, 2002 order via a petition for certiorari in the CA. The CA initially dismissed the petition for lack of merit and ordered respondents to pay a total recomputed amount of P224,603.26.[7] However, the CA granted reconsideration by applying the following ruling in Star Angel Handicraft v. National Labor Relations Commission[8] (NLRC) by analogy:Inasmuch as in practice, the NLRC allows the reduction of the appeal bond upon motion of appellant and on meritorious grounds, it follows that a motion to that effect may be filed within the reglementary period for appealing. Such motion may be filed in lieu of a bond which amount is being contested. In the meantime, the appeal is not deemed perfected and the Labor Arbiter retains jurisdiction over the case until the NLRC has acted on the motion and appellant has filed the bond as fixed by the NLRC.

GR No. 172409

2008-02-04

ROOS INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION v. NLRC and JOSE MARTILLOS

TINGA, J,

Before this Court, petitioners reiterate their previous assertions. They insist on the application of Star Angel Handicraft v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.[19] where it was held that a motion for reduction of bond may be filed in lieu of the bond during the period for appeal. They aver that Borja Estate v. Ballad,[20] which underscored the importance of the filing of a cash or surety bond in the perfection of appeals in labor cases, had not been promulgated yet in 2003 when they filed their appeal. As such, the doctrine in Borja could not be given retroactive effect for to do so would prejudice and impair petitioners' right to appeal. Moreover, they point out that judicial decisions have no retroactive effect.[21]

GR No. 170099

2007-11-28

COLBY CONTSRUCTION v. NLRC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Thus, petitioners' reliance on Rosewood Processing, Inc. v NLRC,[31] YBL (Your Bus Line) v. National Labor Relations Commission,[32] Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[33] MERS Shoes Manufacturing, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[34] and Star Angel Handicraft v. National Labor Relations Commission,[35] is misplaced, if not totally misleading. The factual milieu of the said cases is entirely different in the case at bar, and does not bear even a sheer of semblance that would dissuade this Court from relaxing the rules.

GR NO. 159372

2007-07-27

RONALDO NICOL v. FOOTJOY INDUSTRIAL CORP.

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The case of Star Angel Handicraft v. NLRC,[31] which respondents cited in support of their Motion to Reduce Bond, arose from the dismissal by the NLRC of an employer's appeal for failure to put up a bond, the amount of which was contested because the monetary award of the labor arbiter was based allegedly on an erroneous daily-minimum wage. In dismissing the appeal, the NLRC held that the appeal bond must first be posted before the Commission could act on the motion to reduce it.

GR NO. 164888

2006-12-06

RURAL BANK OF CORON v. ANNALISA CORTES

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Petitioners additionally cite Star Angel Handicraft v. NLRC[28] to support their position that there is a distinction between the filing of an appeal within the reglementary period and its perfection. In the parallel case of Computer Innovations Center v. National Labor Relations Commission,[29] this Court hesitated to reiterate the doctrine in Star Angel in this wise:Petitioners invoke the aforementioned holding in Star Angel that there is a distinction between the filing of an appeal within the reglementary period and its perfection, and that the appeal may be perfected after the said reglementary period. Indeed, Star Angel held that the filing of a motion for reduction of appeal bond necessarily stays the reglementary period for appeal. However, in this case, the motion for reduction of appeal bond which was incorporated in the appeal memorandum, ,was filed only on the tenth or final day of the reglementary period. Under such circumstance, the motion for reduction of appeal bond can no longer be deemed to have stayed the appeal, and the petitioner faces the risk, as had happened in this case, of summary dismissal of the appeal for non-perfection.

GR NO. 166594

2006-07-20

CIUDAD FERNANDINA FOOD CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This Court is not unaware of the pronouncement made in the case of Star Angel Handicraft v. National Labor Relations Commission[10] which directly dealt with a Motion to Reduce Bond and cited by the Court of Appeals as basis in its now assailed Decision. In the said case, the petitioner appealed to the NLRC with an Urgent Motion to Reduce Bond citing grave abuse of discretion committed by the Labor Arbiter in computing the award of the claims based on an erroneous applicable daily minimum wage. The NLRC dismissed the petitioner's appeal for failure to put up a bond. In setting aside the dismissal of the appeal by the NLRC, this Court ordered the NLRC instead to act on the Motion for the Reduction of the Appeal Bond and to accept the appeal of the petitioner after the filing of the appropriate appeal bond. The Court in that case ruled:Inasmuch as in practice the NLRC allows the reduction of the appeal bond upon motion of appellant and on meritorious grounds, it follows that a motion to that effect may be filed within the reglementary period for appealing. Such motion may be filed in lieu of a bond which amount is being contested. In the meantime, the appeal is not deemed perfected and the Labor Arbiter retains jurisdiction over the case until the NLRC has acted on the motion and appellant has filed the bond as fixed by the NLRC.

GR NO. 152410

2005-06-29

COMPUTER INNOVATIONS CENTER v. NLRC

TINGA, J.

Before this Court, petitioners insist that they had complied with all the requirements for perfecting an appeal, including the posting of a cash bond, albeit at a reduced amount. Citing Star Angel Handicraft v. NLRC,[10] they allege a distinction between the filing of an appeal within the reglementary period and its perfection, in that while the filing of the appeal must be done within the ten (10)-day reglementary period, its perfection may be accomplished after the said period. They argue that their appeal should have been deemed perfected upon the posting of the insufficient bond. Petitioners likewise claim that they had not been afforded the opportunity to ventilate their side of the controversy before the Labor Arbiter, as they were not properly notified regarding the submission of the required Position Paper.

GR NO. 155207

2005-04-29

WILHELMINA S. OROZCO v. FIFTH DIVISION OF CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In Olacao v. NLRC[20] for example, the NLRC had discovered that the separation pay awarded by the Labor Arbiter had already been paid by the employer. Since a modification of the Labor Arbiter's Decision was the only way to forestall the grant of separation pay twice, the NLRC allowed the appeal perfected only on the twelfth (12th) day.[21] In Cosico, Jr. v. NLRC,[22] the employer timely posted the bond based on the monetary award for back wages and thirteenth month pay, but excluding the exorbitant award for moral and exemplary damages. The Court ruled that there was substantial compliance, owing to the fact that the NLRC had since excluded the award of damages from the computation of the surety bond.[23] And in Star Angel Handicraft v. NLRC,[24] the Court noted that a motion for reduction of the appeal bond had been filed within the reglementary period, and that the appeal should not be deemed perfected until the NLRC has acted on the motion and the appellant has filed the bond as fixed by the NLRC.[25]

	GR No. 180147 2014-06-04	SARA LEE PHILIPPINES v. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG PEREZ, J.
Also, since the computation of the award in Star Angel Handicraft v. NLRC[55] was based on erroneous wage and that a big portion of the award had already prescribed, the non-posting of appeal bond was excused.
	GR No. 170416 2011-06-22	UNIVERSITY PLANS INCORPORATED v. BELINDA P. SOLANO DEL CASTILLO, J.
In Nicol v. Footjoy Industrial Corporation, [27] the Court reviewed the jurisprudence [28] respecting the bond requirement for perfecting appeal and summarized the guidelines under which the NLRC must exercise its discretion in considering an appellant's motion for reduction of bond, viz: [T]he bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards has been and may be relaxed in meritorious cases. These cases include instances in which (1) there was substantial compliance with the Rules, (2) surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce the bond, (3) a liberal interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond would serve the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits, or (4) the appellants, at the very least, exhibited their willingness and/or good faith by posting a partial bond during the reglementary period.
	GR No. 167708 2008-08-22	SECRETARY OF LABOR v. PANAY VETERAN'S SECURITY CORONA, J.
Respondents assailed the Secretary of Labor and Employment's July 9, 2002 order via a petition for certiorari in the CA. The CA initially dismissed the petition for lack of merit and ordered respondents to pay a total recomputed amount of P224,603.26.[7] However, the CA granted reconsideration by applying the following ruling in Star Angel Handicraft v. National Labor Relations Commission[8] (NLRC) by analogy:Inasmuch as in practice, the NLRC allows the reduction of the appeal bond upon motion of appellant and on meritorious grounds, it follows that a motion to that effect may be filed within the reglementary period for appealing. Such motion may be filed in lieu of a bond which amount is being contested. In the meantime, the appeal is not deemed perfected and the Labor Arbiter retains jurisdiction over the case until the NLRC has acted on the motion and appellant has filed the bond as fixed by the NLRC.
	GR No. 172409 2008-02-04	ROOS INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION v. NLRC and JOSE MARTILLOS TINGA, J,
Before this Court, petitioners reiterate their previous assertions. They insist on the application of Star Angel Handicraft v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.[19] where it was held that a motion for reduction of bond may be filed in lieu of the bond during the period for appeal. They aver that Borja Estate v. Ballad,[20] which underscored the importance of the filing of a cash or surety bond in the perfection of appeals in labor cases, had not been promulgated yet in 2003 when they filed their appeal. As such, the doctrine in Borja could not be given retroactive effect for to do so would prejudice and impair petitioners' right to appeal. Moreover, they point out that judicial decisions have no retroactive effect.[21]
	GR No. 170099 2007-11-28	COLBY CONTSRUCTION v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Thus, petitioners' reliance on Rosewood Processing, Inc. v NLRC,[31] YBL (Your Bus Line) v. National Labor Relations Commission,[32] Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[33] MERS Shoes Manufacturing, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[34] and Star Angel Handicraft v. National Labor Relations Commission,[35] is misplaced, if not totally misleading. The factual milieu of the said cases is entirely different in the case at bar, and does not bear even a sheer of semblance that would dissuade this Court from relaxing the rules.
	GR NO. 159372 2007-07-27	RONALDO NICOL v. FOOTJOY INDUSTRIAL CORP. CARPIO MORALES, J.
The case of Star Angel Handicraft v. NLRC,[31] which respondents cited in support of their Motion to Reduce Bond, arose from the dismissal by the NLRC of an employer's appeal for failure to put up a bond, the amount of which was contested because the monetary award of the labor arbiter was based allegedly on an erroneous daily-minimum wage. In dismissing the appeal, the NLRC held that the appeal bond must first be posted before the Commission could act on the motion to reduce it.
	GR NO. 164888 2006-12-06	RURAL BANK OF CORON v. ANNALISA CORTES CARPIO MORALES, J.
Petitioners additionally cite Star Angel Handicraft v. NLRC[28] to support their position that there is a distinction between the filing of an appeal within the reglementary period and its perfection. In the parallel case of Computer Innovations Center v. National Labor Relations Commission,[29] this Court hesitated to reiterate the doctrine in Star Angel in this wise:Petitioners invoke the aforementioned holding in Star Angel that there is a distinction between the filing of an appeal within the reglementary period and its perfection, and that the appeal may be perfected after the said reglementary period. Indeed, Star Angel held that the filing of a motion for reduction of appeal bond necessarily stays the reglementary period for appeal. However, in this case, the motion for reduction of appeal bond which was incorporated in the appeal memorandum, ,was filed only on the tenth or final day of the reglementary period. Under such circumstance, the motion for reduction of appeal bond can no longer be deemed to have stayed the appeal, and the petitioner faces the risk, as had happened in this case, of summary dismissal of the appeal for non-perfection.
	GR NO. 166594 2006-07-20	CIUDAD FERNANDINA FOOD CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court is not unaware of the pronouncement made in the case of Star Angel Handicraft v. National Labor Relations Commission[10] which directly dealt with a Motion to Reduce Bond and cited by the Court of Appeals as basis in its now assailed Decision. In the said case, the petitioner appealed to the NLRC with an Urgent Motion to Reduce Bond citing grave abuse of discretion committed by the Labor Arbiter in computing the award of the claims based on an erroneous applicable daily minimum wage. The NLRC dismissed the petitioner's appeal for failure to put up a bond. In setting aside the dismissal of the appeal by the NLRC, this Court ordered the NLRC instead to act on the Motion for the Reduction of the Appeal Bond and to accept the appeal of the petitioner after the filing of the appropriate appeal bond. The Court in that case ruled:Inasmuch as in practice the NLRC allows the reduction of the appeal bond upon motion of appellant and on meritorious grounds, it follows that a motion to that effect may be filed within the reglementary period for appealing. Such motion may be filed in lieu of a bond which amount is being contested. In the meantime, the appeal is not deemed perfected and the Labor Arbiter retains jurisdiction over the case until the NLRC has acted on the motion and appellant has filed the bond as fixed by the NLRC.
	GR NO. 152410 2005-06-29	COMPUTER INNOVATIONS CENTER v. NLRC TINGA, J.
Before this Court, petitioners insist that they had complied with all the requirements for perfecting an appeal, including the posting of a cash bond, albeit at a reduced amount. Citing Star Angel Handicraft v. NLRC,[10] they allege a distinction between the filing of an appeal within the reglementary period and its perfection, in that while the filing of the appeal must be done within the ten (10)-day reglementary period, its perfection may be accomplished after the said period. They argue that their appeal should have been deemed perfected upon the posting of the insufficient bond. Petitioners likewise claim that they had not been afforded the opportunity to ventilate their side of the controversy before the Labor Arbiter, as they were not properly notified regarding the submission of the required Position Paper.
	GR NO. 155207 2005-04-29	WILHELMINA S. OROZCO v. FIFTH DIVISION OF CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Olacao v. NLRC[20] for example, the NLRC had discovered that the separation pay awarded by the Labor Arbiter had already been paid by the employer. Since a modification of the Labor Arbiter's Decision was the only way to forestall the grant of separation pay twice, the NLRC allowed the appeal perfected only on the twelfth (12th) day.[21] In Cosico, Jr. v. NLRC,[22] the employer timely posted the bond based on the monetary award for back wages and thirteenth month pay, but excluding the exorbitant award for moral and exemplary damages. The Court ruled that there was substantial compliance, owing to the fact that the NLRC had since excluded the award of damages from the computation of the surety bond.[23] And in Star Angel Handicraft v. NLRC,[24] the Court noted that a motion for reduction of the appeal bond had been filed within the reglementary period, and that the appeal should not be deemed perfected until the NLRC has acted on the motion and the appellant has filed the bond as fixed by the NLRC.[25]

STAR ANGEL HANDICRAFT v. NLRC AND SPS. HELEN AND JOLITO FRIBALDOS