GR 168339; (October, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168339 ; October 10, 2008
MA. GREGORIETTA LEILA C. SY, petitioner, vs. ALC INDUSTRIES, INC. and DEXTER P. CERIALES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ma. Gregorietta Leila C. Sy was hired by respondent ALC Industries, Inc. (ALCII) and assigned to its Davao City project from May 1997 to April 15, 1999. She filed a complaint before the labor arbiter for unpaid salaries and allowances, alleging respondents refused to pay her salary beginning August 1998 and allowances beginning June 1998. Respondents failed to file a position paper to controvert the claims. The labor arbiter rendered a decision ordering ALCII and/or Dexter Ceriales to pay petitioner P282,560. Respondents filed an appeal with the NLRC but did not post the required cash or surety bond. The NLRC dismissed the appeal for failure to post the bond and found no justifiable reason for its reduction. Respondents later filed a motion for reconsideration accompanied by a joint undertaking/declaration in lieu of a bond, which was denied. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which set aside the NLRC resolutions and the labor arbiter’s decision and dismissed petitioner’s complaint. Petitioner assails the CA decision, arguing that the labor arbiter’s decision had become final and executory due to respondents’ failure to perfect their appeal, thus depriving the CA of jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to entertain respondents’ petition for certiorari, given that the decision of the labor arbiter had become final and executory due to respondents’ failure to perfect their appeal by posting the required cash or surety bond within the reglementary period.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the CA decision and resolution, and REINSTATED the NLRC resolutions affirming the labor arbiter’s decision. The Court held that the posting of a cash or surety bond is a jurisdictional requisite for the perfection of an employer’s appeal to the NLRC under Article 223 of the Labor Code. Respondents’ failure to post the bond within the ten-day reglementary period rendered the labor arbiter’s decision final and executory. The subsequent filing of a joint undertaking/declaration did not validate the lost appeal. The CA therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The Court found no meritorious reason for a liberal construction of the rules in favor of respondents, as their failure to post the bond was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules, and due process was satisfied as they were given the opportunity to submit their position papers.