GR 146094; (November, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146094; November 12, 2003
PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., Petitioner, vs. FELIPE D. CORTINA, Respondent.
FACTS
Felipe D. Cortina was employed by Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. as a Third Officer under a one-year contract. On January 20, 1994, after only four months, he was forced to disembark in Singapore due to the alleged sale of the vessel, with a promise of transfer to another ship that never materialized. Cortina subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, ordering the payment of monetary awards.
Petitioner appealed to the NLRC but failed to attach the original copy of the required appeal surety bond and the joint declaration attesting to its genuineness. Consequently, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for non-perfection. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. It then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion and contesting the finding of illegal dismissal, claiming the vessel’s sale justified termination.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether the NLRC correctly dismissed the appeal for failure to perfect it by non-compliance with the mandatory bonding requirements; and (2) whether the dismissal of Cortina was legal based on the alleged sale of the vessel.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the procedural issue, the Court held that the posting of an appeal bond and the submission of a joint declaration of its genuineness are mandatory and jurisdictional requisites for perfecting an appeal from a Labor Arbiter’s decision to the NLRC. Petitioner’s failure to submit the original bond and the required joint declaration at the time of filing the appeal rendered the Labor Arbiter’s decision final and unappealable. The negligence of counsel in complying with these clear rules binds the client.
On the substantive issue of illegal dismissal, the Court upheld the finding that the dismissal was without cause. Petitioner failed to present any credible evidence, such as a deed of sale, to substantiate its claim that the vessel was actually sold. Mere allegation is insufficient to establish a authorized cause for termination under the POEA contract or the CBA. The burden of proving a valid cause for dismissal rests on the employer, and petitioner’s failure to discharge this burden resulted in a conclusive finding of illegal dismissal.