GR 108914; (September, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 108914 September 20, 1994
Star Angel Handicraft, petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission (Third Division) and Spouses Helen and Jolito Fribaldos, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, spouses Helen and Jolito Fribaldos, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and various monetary claims against petitioner Star Angel Handicraft. After being allowed to return to work, the case proceeded solely for the determination of money claims. Petitioner failed to submit its position paper despite directives and did not appear at the scheduled hearing, leading the Labor Arbiter to decide the case ex parte. The Arbiter awarded the spouses a total of P93,472.00. Petitioner moved for reconsideration and, upon denial, appealed to the NLRC.
Petitioner filed its Memorandum of Appeal along with an “Urgent Motion to Reduce Bond,” arguing the monetary award was erroneously computed and that a significant portion had prescribed, justifying a reduction of the bond from P93,472.00 to P19,890.00. The NLRC dismissed the appeal outright for petitioner’s failure to post the full appeal bond, stating the bond must first be posted before any reduction could be considered.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal for failure to post the full appeal bond without first resolving the motion to reduce the bond.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the NLRC’s resolutions. The Court clarified the distinction between the filing of an appeal and its perfection. While Article 223 of the Labor Code requires the posting of a bond equivalent to the monetary award to perfect an appeal, this perfection may occur after the reglementary filing period. The filing of the appeal itself, along with the payment of fees and submission of the memorandum of appeal, must be done within the ten-day period.
The NLRC’s rule allows for the reduction of the bond in meritorious cases upon motion. The Court held that a motion for reduction, filed within the reglementary period for appealing, may be filed in lieu of the contested bond. The NLRC must first act on this motion on its merits. Requiring the appellant to post the full bond first, the amount of which is precisely being contested, renders the motion for reduction nugatory. The appeal remains unperfected, and the Labor Arbiter retains jurisdiction until the NLRC rules on the motion and the appellant posts the bond as may be fixed. The NLRC’s refusal to act on the motion constituted a rigid and unjust application of the rules, amounting to grave abuse of discretion. The case was remanded to the NLRC to act on the motion for bond reduction.