GR 123204; (July, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123204 July 11, 1997
NATIONWIDE SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC. and/or PRESIDENT/GENERAL MANAGER, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and JUNJIE B. SUICON, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Junjie B. Suicon filed a complaint against petitioners for underpayment of wages, non-payment of various benefits, and later amended to include illegal dismissal. On June 29, 1995, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision ordering petitioners, jointly and severally with GUANI Marketing Inc., to pay Suicon monetary awards totaling P397,990.19 (excluding attorney’s fees). Petitioners received the decision on August 7, 1995. On August 11, 1995, within the reglementary appeal period, petitioners filed a “Motion to Reduce Bond” with the NLRC, arguing that the judgment amount was based on “arbitrary figures” and that the finding of illegal dismissal was a “grave abuse of discretion.” They contended the correct amount due was only P37,538.17, and as the liability was joint and several, they should only post half of that amount (P18,769.08) as an appeal bond. They also claimed they could not afford the full bond from their business with Guani Marketing, Inc., and using funds from other sources would be “unsound business judgment.” The NLRC, in its Order dated November 21, 1995, denied the motion, stating that petitioners’ alleged inability was without basis and that granting the motion on the stated grounds would be tantamount to ruling on the merits. The NLRC directed petitioners to post the full bond of P397,990.19 within five days. Petitioners filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ motion for reduction of the appeal bond.
RULING
No, the NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
The Supreme Court held that the NLRC’s denial of the motion to reduce bond was in accord with law and jurisprudence. Under Article 223 of the Labor Code and the NLRC Rules of Procedure, an employer’s appeal from a Labor Arbiter’s decision involving a monetary award is perfected only upon posting of a cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award. While the NLRC may allow a reduction of the bond upon motion and on meritorious grounds, petitioners’ grounds were not meritorious. Their contention that they could not afford the bond from their business with Guani was an admission they had funds from other sources, and a belief that using them was “unsound business judgment” is not a legal excuse. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the NLRC that petitioners’ justifications in their motion—which essentially challenged the computation of the award and the finding of illegal dismissal—raised errors proper for resolution on appeal, not in a motion to reduce bond. To grant the motion on those grounds would prematurely rule on the merits of the case. The NLRC correctly acted on the motion (as held in Star Angel Handicraft) but correctly denied it.