G.R. No. 93381 - SEPTEMBER 1990 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 93381September 28, 1990YBL (Your Bus Line), et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 89679September 28, 1990Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on Audit G.R. No. 85894September 28, 1990Anscor Transport & Terminals, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 85750September 28, 1990International Catholic Immigration Commission vs. Pura Calleja G.R. No. 80764September 28, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Dante A. Alegria , et al. G.R. No. 74769September 28, 1990Beatriz F. Gonzales vs. Zoilo Aguinaldo, et al. G.R. No. 61950September 28, 1990Marubeni Nederland B.V. vs. J. Ricardo P. Tensuan, et al. G.R. No. 61594September 28, 1990Pakistan Interenational Airlines Corporation vs. Blas F. Ople A.M. Nos. RTJ-89-331; RTJ-89-355; RTJ-89-361; RTJ-89-362; RTJ-89-438; and RTJ-89-439September 28, 1990Prudencio S. Penticostes vs. Rafael Hidalgo G.R. No. 92557September 27, 1990Hadji Ali Mamadsual vs. Corocoy D. Moson G.R. No. 90503September 27, 1990Nestor Sandoval vs. Doroteo Cañeba G.R. No. 89687September 26, 1990Maria B. Lupo, Petitioner, vs. Administrative Action Board G.R. No. 82483September 26, 1990Jaime Bernardo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 82421September 26, 1990Aniceto Siete vs. Sec. of Local Government G.R. No. 48108September 26, 1990Amelito R. Mutuc vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. 76378-81September 24, 1990Bernardino Piczon vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 75814September 24, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Magno G. Gupo G.R. No. 72427September 24, 1990Ruben E. Celerian vs. Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr. G.R. No. 89909September 21, 1990Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Regional Trial Court G.R. No. 86000September 21, 1990Gold City Integrated Port Services, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 83290September 21, 1990Sta. Monica Indust'l. and Dev. Corporation vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 83141September 21, 1990Spouses Fernandez vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 78345September 21, 1990Jose M. Maglutac vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 74323September 21, 1990Wenceslao Hernandez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 50110September 21, 1990Eternity Employees and Workers Union vs. Voluntary Arbitrator, Hon. Jesus De Veyra G.R. Nos. 83886-87September 20, 1990Associated Labor Unions (ALU) vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 80744September 20, 1990Renato De Villa vs. City of Bacolod G.R. No. 38152September 20, 1990Romeo Paylago vs. Nicanor P. Nicolas A.M. No. R-439-PSeptember 19, 1990Adela Reformina vs. Dominador Adriano G.R. Nos. 93419-32September 18, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Gualberto P. Delgado G.R. No. 89684September 18, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Gerardo Sazon G.R. No. 86230September 18, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Edgar Jereza G.R. No. 66715September 18, 1990Philippine National Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 87420September 17, 1990Maximo Gabriel vs. Eufemio C. Domingo G.R. No. 91344September 14, 1990Francisco P. Cando vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. Nos. 90010-11September 14, 1990Cagayan Capitol College vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 87083September 14, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Camasis G.R. No. 86455September 14, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Daniel A. Sison G.R. No. 79986September 14, 1990Granger Associates vs. Microwave Systems, Inc. G.R. No. 77832September 14, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Daniel B. Mangusan G.R. Nos. 76369-70September 14, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Leonardo Manalansan G.R. Nos. 43633-34September 14, 1990Pablo Arizala vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 51768September 14, 1990Prudential Bank vs. Renato M. Martinez G.R. No. 50076September 14, 1990Norberto Quisumbing, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 93335September 13, 1990Juan Ponce Enrile vs. Omar U. Amin G.R. No. 90888September 13, 1990Fructuoso R. Capco vs. Manuel R. Macasaet G.R. No. 90380September 13, 1990Eduardo V. Santos vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 89561September 13, 1990Buenaflor C. Umali vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 89306September 13, 1990Marcelo Jervoso vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 88937September 13, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Alvino Anciano G.R. No. 87685September 13, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Rudy Dekingco G.R. No. 85823September 13, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Alex Padrones G.R. No. 85734September 13, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Romenaldo Murallon G.R. No. 83947September 13, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Dominador Paringit G.R. No. 64677September 13, 1990Nora Lumibao vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 92561September 12, 1990Oscar Orbos vs. Civil Service Com. G.R. No. 90256September 12, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Domer Q. Riego G.R. No. 77808September 12, 1990Ricardo Serrano vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. 73777-78September 12, 1990Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 71625September 12, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Dominador Munda, Sr. G.R. No. 66237September 12, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Jonathan V. Adap G.R. No. 60025September 11, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Virginia G. Matos-Viduya G.R. No. 75267September 10, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Carlos V. Dela Cruz G.R. Nos. 67801-02September 10, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto P. Gonzales G.R. No. 84431September 2, 1990Macario Talag vs. Court of Appeals The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. YBL (Your Bus Line), et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on AuditAnscor Transport & Terminals, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.International Catholic Immigration Commission vs. Pura CallejaPeople of the Philippines vs. Dante A. Alegria , et al.Beatriz F. Gonzales vs. Zoilo Aguinaldo, et al.Marubeni Nederland B.V. vs. J. Ricardo P. Tensuan, et al.Pakistan Interenational Airlines Corporation vs. Blas F. OplePrudencio S. Penticostes vs. Rafael HidalgoHadji Ali Mamadsual vs. Corocoy D. MosonNestor Sandoval vs. Doroteo CañebaMaria B. Lupo, Petitioner, vs. Administrative Action BoardJaime Bernardo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Aniceto Siete vs. Sec. of Local GovernmentAmelito R. Mutuc vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Bernardino Piczon vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Magno G. GupoRuben E. Celerian vs. Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr.Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Regional Trial CourtGold City Integrated Port Services, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionSta. Monica Indust'l. and Dev. Corporation vs. Court of AppealsSpouses Fernandez vs. Court of AppealsJose M. Maglutac vs. National Labor Relations CommissionWenceslao Hernandez vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtEternity Employees and Workers Union vs. Voluntary Arbitrator, Hon. Jesus De VeyraAssociated Labor Unions (ALU) vs. National Labor Relations CommissionRenato De Villa vs. City of BacolodRomeo Paylago vs. Nicanor P. NicolasAdela Reformina vs. Dominador AdrianoPeople of the Philippines vs. Gualberto P. DelgadoPeople of the Philippines vs. Gerardo SazonPeople of the Philippines vs. Edgar JerezaPhilippine National Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtMaximo Gabriel vs. Eufemio C. DomingoFrancisco P. Cando vs. National Labor Relations CommissionCagayan Capitol College vs. National Labor Relations CommissionPeople of the Philippines vs. Romeo CamasisPeople of the Philippines vs. Daniel A. SisonGranger Associates vs. Microwave Systems, Inc.People of the Philippines vs. Daniel B. MangusanPeople of the Philippines vs. Leonardo ManalansanPablo Arizala vs. People of the PhilippinesPrudential Bank vs. Renato M. MartinezNorberto Quisumbing, Sr. vs. Court of AppealsJuan Ponce Enrile vs. Omar U. AminFructuoso R. Capco vs. Manuel R. MacasaetEduardo V. Santos vs. Court of AppealsBuenaflor C. Umali vs. Court of AppealsMarcelo Jervoso vs. People of the PhilippinesPeople of the Philippines vs. Alvino AncianoPeople of the Philippines vs. Rudy DekingcoPeople of the Philippines vs. Alex PadronesPeople of the Philippines vs. Romenaldo MurallonPeople of the Philippines vs. Dominador ParingitNora Lumibao vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtOscar Orbos vs. Civil Service Com.People of the Philippines vs. Domer Q. RiegoRicardo Serrano vs. Court of AppealsConsolidated Bank and Trust Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Dominador Munda, Sr.People of the Philippines vs. Jonathan V. AdapPeople of the Philippines vs. Virginia G. Matos-ViduyaPeople of the Philippines vs. Carlos V. Dela CruzPeople of the Philippines vs. Ernesto P. GonzalesMacario Talag vs. Court of AppealsThe Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 93381 September 28, 1990
YBL (YOUR BUS LINE) AND PRUDENCIO JARINGpetitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RUFINO C. LAMBINO, ALEJANDRO BASBAS, CRESENCIANO BELTRAN, NANCY MARCAIDA, YOLANDA MENDOZA, RODELIO TAPIA, REYNALDO RAMILO, FRANCISCO BALINGIT, PURITA GUPIT, M. DIONADA, and NOEL DEOCAREZA,respondents.
Redemberto R. Villanueva for petitioners.
Venida & Associates for private respondents.
GANCAYCO,J.:
The need to render substantial justice as against technicality is put to test in this case.
Private respondents were drivers and conductors of petitioner-corporation which was operating buses it leased from the Metro Manila Transit Corporation (MMTC). During the period 1983-1986, it appears that it incurred serious business losses and failed to pay rentals to the MMTC which in turn instituted a civil action against it. During the pendency of the case the MMTC was able to reposses all the buses operated by petitioner corporation. Since it had no more buses to operate and was severely financially distressed, it stopped its operations and the employment of private respondents was discontinued.
Private respondents thus filed a case for illegal dismissal in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which was subsequently amended to a complaint for payment of separation pay.
Impleaded in the complaint was petitioner Prudencio Jaring who is sought to be principally liable with the petitioner corporation as president thereof.
After the parties submitted their position papers, the labor arbiter rendered a decision declaring private respondents entitled to separation pay and ordering the petitioners to jointly and severally pay private respondents their separation pay computed from the date of hiring up to their termination at the rate of one-half (½) month for every year of service. Within the reglementary period for appeal, petitioners filed a notice of appeal and a memorandum of appeal with the respondent NLRC wherein they questioned the award of separation pay despite the acknowledgment by the labor arbiter that petitioner corporation suffered business losses. It was also advocated in the same appeal that petitioner Jaring was no longer an officer at the time of the termination of private respondents, and granting that he was the president of petitioner corporation then, the latter has a separate and distinct personality from petitioner Jaring who cannot be jointly and severally be held liable in this case with petitioner corporation.
However, on January 30, 1990 an order was issued by the NLRC stating that as the petitioners failed to post the required bond, their appeal was rendered imperfect making the decision appealed from final and executory.1
A motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners was denied by the NLRC in a resolution dated May 8, 1990.
Hence, this petition for review, which this Court will treat as a special civil action forcertiorari,whereby petitioners raised the sole issue that the NLRC erred in not giving due course to the appeal for failure to satisfy a purely technical requirement when issues involving substantial rights were raised in the appeal.
The petition is impressed with merit.
Article 223 of the Labor Code as amended by Republic Act No. 6715 provides as follows:
ART. 223.Appeal.. . . — case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employermay be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bondissued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from. (Emphasis supplied.)
The NLRC Interim Rules on Appeals under Republic Act No. 6715, which took effect on September 5, 1989, provide in Section 5 thereof as follows:
Sec. 5. Requisites of Appeal;When Perfected.. . . shall be under oath with proof of payment of the required appeal feeand the posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 7 of these rules.. . . (Emphasis supplied.)
The appeal interposed by petitioners to the NLRC was made on September 11, 1989, or just after six (6) days from the effectivity of the aforestated Interim Rules. In undertaking the appeal, the counsel of petitioners relied on the notice of the decision in the case which stated the requirements of an appeal without any mention that a bond must be filed.2Apparently said counsel did not know as yet of said new law and Interim Rules requiring the posting of a bond on appeal. It also appears that private respondents did not know about it as no opposition to the appeal was made on this account.
Moreover, in the appealed decision of the labor arbiter the exact total amount due to the private respondents as separation pay is not stated which would be the basis of the bond that is required to be filed by petitioners under the said law.ℒαwρhi৷Thus even if petitioners may be expected to know the law, then they allege that they would have to go to the socio-analyst of the NLRC to compute the approximate amount due the private respondents as the basis of the amount of the bond to be filed so that it is not probable that they may be able to secure such computation within the non-extendible period of ten (10) days to appeal provided for by law.
Petitioners also assert that at that time the petitioner corporation was in financial distress. At any rate they offered to post the bond in compliance with the requirement of the law so that they may be afforded the relief of an appeal.
The Court finds that while Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715, requiring a cash or surety bond in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from for the appeal to be perfected, may be considered a jurisdictional requirement, nevertheless, adhering to the principle that substantial justice is better served by allowing the appeal on the merits threshed out by the NLRC,3the Court finds and so holds that the foregoing requirement of the law should be given a liberal interpretation.
InSun Insurance Office, Ltd. vs. Maximiano C. Asuncion,4this Court relaxed the rule inManchester Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,5by allowing a liberal interpretation of the rule that the payment of the docket fees is jurisdictional. More so when the party involved demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules to pay the docket fees required. This Court held that the payment of said fees may be authorized by the Court within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. The greater interest of justice will be served by giving due course to the appeal despite the much delayed filing of the appeal bond.6
In this case, the circumstances of the non-filing of the bond are understandable and could be attributed to excusable oversight. The Court holds that petitioners should be given the opportunity to file the required bond and avail of the remedy of appeal.
Further, considering that in the appeal valid issues are raised as to whether or not under Rule 1, Section 9 of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code where the termination of employment is due to serious business losses or financial reverses, as in this case, the employee shall still be entitled to separation pay, and whether or not petitioner Jaring, assuming that he was president of petitioner corporation at the time of the separation from the service of private respondents, can be held jointly and severally liable with petitioner corporation for the separation pay due private respondents.
WHEREFORE,the petition isGRANTED.The questioned orders of the public respondent NLRC dated January 30, 1990 and May 3, 1990 are herebySET ASIDE.The respondent NLRC is hereby directed to give due course to the appeal of the petitioners after the filing of the required appeal bond within such reasonable period of time it may set. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
Footnotes