GR 140294; (May, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140294 ; May 9, 2005
MARY ABIGAILS FOOD SERVICES, INC., MARY RESURRECCION T. PUNO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PERLA B. BOLANDO, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Perla Bolando was dismissed by petitioner Mary Abigail’s Food Services, Inc. for alleged habitual tardiness and falsification of her time record. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering the petitioners to pay separation pay, overtime pay, and attorney’s fees. Petitioners received the Labor Arbiter’s decision on December 23, 1998, making January 2, 1999, the last day to perfect an appeal, which fell on a Saturday. They filed their Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Partial Appeal on the next business day, Monday, January 4, 1999. However, they posted the required appeal bond only on January 7, 1999.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed the appeal for failure to perfect it within the reglementary period, as the bond was filed three days late. The NLRC denied their motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s dismissal. Petitioners now argue before the Supreme Court that the long Christmas holidays and a liberal interpretation of the rules should excuse the late posting of the bond.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC’s dismissal of the petitioners’ appeal for failure to perfect it by posting the appeal bond beyond the reglementary period.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the requirement to post an appeal bond within the ten-day reglementary period for perfecting an appeal from a Labor Arbiter’s decision involving a monetary award. Under Article 223 of the Labor Code and the NLRC Rules, the filing of a bond is an indispensable requirement for the perfection of an appeal; the filing of the memorandum of appeal alone is insufficient. The period for appeal is strictly construed and cannot be extended by the parties or the court.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ claim of impossibility due to the Christmas holidays, noting they had from December 23, 1998, to January 2, 1999, to comply, and the bond was posted only on January 7. The right to appeal is statutory, and compliance with its requirements is mandatory to forestall needless delays. The NLRC and the Court of Appeals correctly applied the law, and no grave abuse of discretion attended their rulings. The Labor Arbiter’s decision had thus become final and executory.