G.R. No. 151854 September 3, 2008
PHILUX, INC. and MAX KIENLE, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PATRICIA PERJES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Philux, Inc. is a corporation engaged in manufacturing and selling wood furniture. Private respondent Patricia Perjes was a daily-paid regular saleslady assigned to Philux’s showroom at SM Southmall, Las Piñas City. On April 20, 1999, a complaint was filed on behalf of Perjes before the Labor Arbiter for various money claims, including unpaid commissions, unauthorized salary deductions, and leave benefits. On June 24, 1999, Perjes amended her complaint to include illegal dismissal, alleging that her transfer of work assignment from SM Southmall to SM Megamall constituted constructive dismissal. She argued the transfer was harassing, imposed due to her filing of claims, and caused her significant travel inconvenience from her residence in Laguna.
Philux and its officer Max Kienle countered that Perjes and a co-employee, Francis Otong, had admitted in writing to manipulating sales records and pocketing company funds. Management condoned the offense and agreed to a repayment scheme via payroll deductions, which Perjes authorized. The transfer to Megamall was a business decision to allow closer supervision and prevent future losses, as she was often alone at the Southmall branch and had propensity for absences. They contended her refusal to transfer constituted willful disobedience.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Perjes, declaring her illegally dismissed. The Arbiter found that management had condoned the offense and was thus estopped from taking prejudicial acts like the involuntary transfer, which amounted to constructive dismissal. Philux was ordered to reinstate Perjes and pay backwages. Petitioners received the decision on July 14, 2000, and filed a Motion for Reconsideration on July 24, 2000 (the last day to perfect an appeal), but failed to post the required appeal bond. The NLRC treated the motion as an appeal and dismissed it for lack of an appeal bond. Petitioners later filed a motion to reinstate appeal with a supersedeas bond, but the NLRC denied it for being filed beyond the reglementary period. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners’ subsequent petition for certiorari, affirming the NLRC. Petitioners now argue before the Supreme Court that the CA erred in inflexibly applying the procedural rule on appeal bonds.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed serious error in affirming the NLRC’s dismissal of the petitioners’ appeal for failure to perfect the appeal by posting the required appeal bond within the reglementary period.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that the Court of Appeals committed no error. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right, and must be exercised in accordance with law. Under the Labor Code and its implementing rules, an appeal from a Labor Arbiter’s decision involving a monetary award must be perfected within ten calendar days from receipt by: (1) paying the appeal fee, (2) posting a cash or surety bond, and (3) filing a memorandum of appeal. The posting of a bond is mandatory and jurisdictional. The mere filing of a notice of appeal or motion for reconsideration without the bond does not stop the running of the appeal period. In this case, petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration (treated as an appeal) on the last day but failed to post any bond. Their subsequent filing of a bond was beyond the ten-day period. The Court found no compelling reason to relax the rule, as the negligence of petitioners’ former counsel in not posting the bond is binding on the client. The rules on appeal periods are applied strictly in labor cases to ensure finality of judgments. Therefore, the NLRC correctly dismissed the appeal for non-perfection, and the CA correctly affirmed this dismissal.