This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-09-16 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| However, in the case at bar, we find no substantial compliance with the bond requirement. The NLRC Rules state that in cases where the decision of the labor arbiter involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer shall be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the NLRC or this Court in an amount equivalent to the monetary award, exclusive of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.[21] We agree with the petitioners that the bank certification submitted by respondents does not come close to the cash or surety bond required by law. The obvious purpose of an appeal bond is to ensure, during the period of appeal, against any occurrence that would defeat or diminish recovery by the aggrieved employees under the judgment if subsequently affirmed.[22] As petitioners pointed out, the bank certification does not, in any way, ensure that the labor arbiter's award will be paid should the appeal fail. Respondents are not prevented from making withdrawals from their savings account. And, the total amount deposited in respondents' savings account, twenty-three thousand eight pesos and nineteen centavos (P23,008.19), is measly compared to the monetary award by the labor arbiter which amounts to three hundred eighty four thousand three hundred fifty two pesos and fifteen centavos (P384,352.15). In Biogenerics Marketing and Research Corp. vs. NLRC,[23] the NLRC, upon motion of the appellant to reduce the appeal bond, ordered appellant to post an additional cash or surety bond in the amount of P1,950,000.00. It found no justification for a substantial reduction of the bond. Appellant initially posted a cash bond of P50,000.00 for a monetary award totaling P2,200,000.00. The NLRC, as well as this Court, rejected the additional "bond" filed by appellant which was denominated as an "Irrevocable Bank Guarantee" in the amount of P1,950,000.00 and entered into by and between appellant and Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited. It was held that the bank guarantee cannot be a substitute for the cash or surety bond contemplated under Art. 223 of the Labor Code. | |||||