GR 153859; (December, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153859 ; December 11, 2003
FILIPINAS (Pre-fabricated Bldg.) SYSTEMS “FILSYSTEMS,” INC. and FELIPE A. CRUZ, JR., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and CRESENCIANO BEBANCO, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims against petitioners. The Labor Arbiter ordered the parties to submit position papers. Respondents complied, but petitioners did not, despite warnings. The Arbiter deemed this a waiver of their right to present evidence and ruled for respondents, ordering reinstatement and monetary awards. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, belatedly submitting evidence to argue respondents were project employees dismissed due to project completion. Respondents contested the NLRC’s jurisdiction, citing petitioners’ failure to file the required appeal bond within the ten-day reglementary period. The NLRC assumed jurisdiction and remanded the case to the Arbiter for further proceedings due to the newly presented evidence.
Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The CA ruled the NLRC did not acquire jurisdiction because the appeal bond was filed seven days late. It reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the NLRC lacked jurisdiction due to the late filing of the appeal bond and in annulling the NLRC’s resolutions.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. The filing of an appeal bond within the ten-day reglementary period from receipt of the Labor Arbiter’s decision is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement for perfecting an appeal to the NLRC, as stipulated under Article 223 of the Labor Code and the NLRC Rules of Procedure. The Court strictly applies this rule, allowing relaxation only in rare instances of substantial compliance to prevent patent injustice, which were not present here. Petitioners received the decision on October 31, 1998, and while their memorandum of appeal was dated November 9, 1998, their appeal bond was executed only on November 17, 1998, clearly beyond the jurisdictional period.
Consequently, the NLRC never validly acquired jurisdiction over the appeal. The Labor Arbiter’s decision thus became final and executory. The Court also noted that the present petition was filed out of time, as petitioners received the CA’s denial of their motion for reconsideration on November 9, 2001, but filed an extension to appeal only on June 16, 2002. The procedural lapse is binding on them. The petition was dismissed, and the Labor Arbiter’s decision was reinstated with modification that if reinstatement is not feasible, separation pay shall be paid.