$S Ŧ M a c a p a a a l Ŧ 8 S u L A W 2 0 1 2

APPEALS, RULES, BUND
Aklan College v. Eneio
FACTS: Peipetuo Eneio, Ailyn Castigauoi, Nuena Seimon, anu Iocelyn Zolina weie high school teacheis
employeu by Aklan College. When high school stuuents of the college hanuleu by the saiu teacheis helu mass
actions against the piincipal of the high school uepaitment, the teacheis weie uismisseu aftei an
auministiative investigation. They fileu a complaint foi illegal uismissal against the school with the LA, anu
the LA iuleu in theii favoi, stating that they hau inueeu been illegally uismisseu, anu gianting them
ieinstatement, backwages, ŵŷ
th
month pay, seivice incentive leave pay, anu moial anu exemplaiy uamages.
0n appeal, the NLRC ieveiseu the LA uecision, stating that the teacheis' uismissal was valiu. Bowevei, the
NLRC oiueieu Aklan College to pay the teacheis theii ŵŷ
th
month pay anu seivice incentive leave pay. Both
paities fileu a motion foi ieconsiueiation, but the NLRC uenieu both motions foi lack of meiit.
Aklan College fileu a petition foi ceitioiaii befoie the CA, seeking to paitially annul the NLRC
uecision insofai as it helu the school liable foi the payment of the uismisseu teacheis' ŵŷ
th
month pay anu
seivice incentive leave pay uespite the finuing that they weie illegally uismisseu fiom seivice. The teacheis
uiu not anymoie file an appeal fiom the NLRC uecision. The CA helu that the NLRC uiu not commit giave
abuse of uiscietion in awaiuing the teacheis ŵŷ
th
month pay anu seivice incentive leave pay. Bowevei, it
mouifieu the awaiu to confoim to the uismisseu teacheis' employment histoiy, thus even incieasing the
amount awaiueu to each of the uismisseu teacheis. Aklan College appeals the CA uecision.
ISS0E: W¡N the CA committeu giievous eiioi when it incieaseu the monetaiy awaius of ŵŷ
th
month pay anu
seivice incentive leave pay in favoi of the non-appealing piivate iesponuents.
N0. As a iule, a paity who uoes not appeal fiom the uecision may not obtain any affiimative ielief fiom the
appellate couit othei than what he has obtaineu fiom the lowei tiibunal, if any, whose uecision is biought up
on appeal. Bue piocess pievents the giant of auuitional awaius to paities who uiu not appeal. As an
exception, he may assign an eiioi wheie the puipose is to maintain the juugment on othei giounus, but he
cannot seek mouification oi ieveisal of the juugment oi affiimative ielief unless he has also appealeu oi fileu
a sepaiate petition. In this case, the CA is not piecluueu fiom affiiming, ieveising, oi mouifying the piopiiety
of payment of the ŵŷ
th
month pay anu seivice incentive leave pay to the iesponuents. It is the piopiiety of the
awaiu of these benefits which weie piecisely the issues iaiseu by Aklan College in its appeal befoie the saiu
appellate couit. By way of exception, the CA may ieveise the uecision of the lowei tiibunal on the basis of
giounus othei than those iaiseu on appeal in the following instances:
(ŵ) iounus not assigneu as eiiois but affecting juiisuiction ovei the subject mattei:
(Ŷ) Natteis not assigneu as eiiois on appeal but aie eviuently plain oi cleiical eiiois within
contemplation of law:
(ŷ) Natteis not assigneu as eiiois on appeal but consiueiation of which is necessaiy in aiiiving at a just
uecision anu complete iesolution of the case oi to seive the inteiest of justice oi to avoiu uispensing
piecemeal justice:
(Ÿ) Natteis not specifically assigneu as eiiois on appeal but iaiseu in the tiial couit anu aie matteis of
iecoiu having some beaiing on the issue submitteu which the paities faileu to iaise oi which the
lowei couit ignoieu:
(Ź) Natteis not assigneu as eiiois on appeal but closely ielateu to an eiioi assigneu: anu
(ź) Natteis not assigneu as eiiois on appeal but upon which the ueteimination of a question piopeily
assigneu, is uepenuent.
$S Ŧ M a c a p a a a l Ŧ 8 S u L A W 2 0 1 2

The CA committeu no ieveisible eiioi in incieasing the amounts of the ŵŷ
th
month pay anu the seivice
incentive leave pay in oiuei to coiiect the eiioi committeu by the NLRC in the computation. The instant
contioveisy falls squaiely unuei the thiiu exception enumeiateu above. A just, faii, anu complete iesolution
of the case necessaiily entails the coiiect computation of these benefits. To avoiu uispensing piecemeal
justice, the full peiiou of employment of iesponuents was iightfully consiueieu by the CA in the computation
of the ŵŷ
th
month pay anu the seivice incentive leave pay. The pioceuuial lapse on the pait of the NLRC in this
case in failing to take into account the numbei of yeais when the piivate iesponuents uiu not ieceive theii
ŵŷ
th
month anu seivice incentive leave pay cannot uefeat theii iight to ieceive these benefits as gianteu
unuei substantive law. The Supieme Couit simply coulu not upholu an eiioneous computation of the saiu
unpaiu benefits. Bence, it hau to ie-compute, anu, as a consequence, incieaseu it.
Petition uenieu. CA uecision affiimeu.
O It uoes not follow that since the employei is not guilty of illegal uismissal, then he is not liable foi
non-payment of ŵŷ
th
month pay anu seivice incentive leave pay. Illegal uismissal anu non-payment of
benefits aie entiiely uiffeient giounus on which an employei can be helu liable.
Tacloban Fai East Naiketing v. CA
FACTS: Benjamin Sabulao was hiieu by Tacloban Fai East Naiketing Coip. as a helpei in its haiuwaie
business, then as ueliveiy tiuck uiivei. Sometime in Nay ŶŴŴŵ, Sabulao allegeuly askeu peimission to absent
himself foi five uays because of his gianufathei's ueath. When he iepoiteu back to woik, he was infoimeu
that he cannot woik theie anymoie.
In August ŶŴŴŵ, Sabulao fileu befoie the LA a complaint foi illegal uismissal anu money claims
against Tacloban. The LA iuleu in favoi of Tacloban, finuing that Sabulao hau abanuoneu his woik anu as
such, his uismissal was valiu. At the same time, Tacloban was oiueieu to pay Sabulao his salaiy uiffeientials
anu seivice incentive leave pay. The othei money claims weie uenieu foi failuie to substantiate the same. 0n
appeal, the NLRC ieveiseu the LA, iuling that Sabulao hau been illegally uismisseu, anu oiueiing Tacloban to
pay Sabulao his backwages anu sepaiation pay, salaiy uiffeientials, anu seivice incentive leave pay. Tacloban
fileu a petition foi ceitioiaii with the CA, which meiely affiimeu the uecision of the NLRC. Tacloban then
appealeu to the SC by way of petition foi ieview on ceitioiaii, two months aftei the ieceipt of the uecision of
the CA uenying its petition.
ISS0E: W¡N Tacloban was able to file a timely appeal.
N0. At the outset, it must be stateu that Tacloban auopteu the wiong moue of iemeuy in biinging the case
befoie the SC. It is well-settleu that the piopei iecouise of an aggiieveu paity to assail the uecision of the CA
is to file a petition foi ieview on ceitioiaii unuei Rule ŸŹ of the Rules of Couit. The Rules piecluue iecouise to
the special civil action of ceitioiaii if appeal, by way of a petition foi ieview is available, as the iemeuies of
appeal anu ceitioiaii aie mutually exclusive anu not alteinative oi successive. Ceitioiaii cannot be useu as a
substitute foi a lost appeal. Though theie aie instances when ceitioiaii was gianteu uespite the availability of
appeal, none of these iecognizeu exceptions was shown to be piesent in the case at bai. Noieovei, while it is
tiue that the Couit may tieat a petition foi ceitioiaii as having been fileu unuei Rule ŸŹ in the inteiest of
substantial justice, the piesent petition coulu not be given the same leniency because it was fileu beyonu the
ŵŹ-uay ieglementaiy peiiou within which to file a petition foi ieview on ceitioiaii. The iecoius show that the
petitioneis, insteau of filing a petition foi ieview on ceitioiaii within ŵŹ uays of theii ieceipt of the CA
Resolution uenying theii petition, they waiteu foi two months befoie filing the instant petition. Accoiuingly,
$S Ŧ M a c a p a a a l Ŧ 8 S u L A W 2 0 1 2

the uecision of the CA hau alieauy become final anu executoiy anu beyonu the puiview of the SC to act upon.
The inescapable conclusion is that the piesent petition was fileu belateuly to make up foi a lost appeal.
Petition uenieu foi lack of meiit. CA uecision affiimeu.
O In teimination cases, the buiuen of pioof iests upon the employei to show that the uismissal was foi
a just anu valiu cause anu failuie to uischaige the same woulu mean that the uismissal is not justifieu
anu theiefoie illegal.
NcBuinie v. anzon
FACTS: Anuiew Iames NcBuinie, an Austialian national, signeu a five-yeai employment contiact as executive
vice piesiuent of EI in Nay ŵ999. In Novembei of the same yeai, he featuieu in an acciuent that fiactuieu his
skull anu necessitateu his confinement at the Nakati Neuical Centei. While iecupeiating fiom his injuiies in
Austialia, he was infoimeu by EI's piesiuent that his seivices weie no longei neeueu since the pioject he
hau been hiieu to woik on hau been peimanently uiscontinueu. In 0ctobei ŶŴŴŶ, NcBuinie fileu a complaint
foi illegal uismissal with piayei foi the payment of his salaiy anu benefits unuei the unexpiieu teim of the
contiact, uamages, anu attoiney's fees. The LA iuleu in his favoi, ueclaiing his uismissal to be illegal anu
oiueiing EI to pay his salaiy anu benefits foi the unexpiieu teim of the contiact amounting to Ř98Ź,ŵźŶ.ŴŴ,
as well as moial anu exemplaiy uamages amounting to PŶN, anu attoiney's fees equivalent to ŵŴ% of the
total monetaiy awaiu. Ten uays aftei EI ieceiveu the LA's uecision, it fileu a memoianuum of appeal with
the NLRC anu Notion to Reuuce Bonu, anu posteu the amount of PŵŴŴ,ŴŴŴ.ŴŴ, aiguing that the awaius of the
LA weie null anu excessive, with the piemeuitateu intention to ienuei the employei incapable of posting an
appeal bonu anu consequently uepiive him of the iight to appeal. The NLRC subsequently uenieu the motion
to ieuuce bonu anu oiueieu EI to post an auuitional bonu of PŹŸN togethei with the othei iequiiements
unuei Section ź, Rule vI of the NLRC Rules of Pioceuuie within a non-extenuible peiiou of ŵŴ uays fiom
ieceipt theieof, otheiwise the appeal shall be uismisseu. Insteau of complying with the NLRC oiuei, EI fileu
a petition foi ceitioiaii anu piohibition with the CA with piayei foi issuance of a pieliminaiy injunction
anu¡oi tempoiaiy iestiaining oiuei. A źŴ-uay TR0 was issueu by the CA. Bowevei, upon the expiiation of the
źŴ-uay TR0, anu EI still faileu to post auuitional bonu, the NLRC uismisseu EI's appeal. EI again fileu with
the CA a petition foi ceitioiaii with piayei foi the issuance of a TR0 anu¡oi wiit of pieliminaiy injunction,
which was gianteu. The CA then issueu a wiit of pieliminaiy injunction aftei EI posteu an injunction bonu of
PŵŴN. NcBuinie assails the issuance of the wiit befoie the SC, but was uismisseu foi submitting an affiuavit
of seivice which faileu to show a competent eviuence of the affiant's iuentity. The CA then gianteu EI's
Notion to Reuuce Bonu anu uiiecteu it to post an appeal bonu of PŵŴN with the NLRC, which was likewise
oiueieu to give uue couise to the appeal anu to conuuct fuithei pioceeuings. NcBuinie appealeu to the SC.
ISS0E ŵ: W¡N the CA committeu giave abuse of uiscietion by loweiing the amount of bonu to be posteu by
EI in the couise of its appeal.
YES. While the bonu may be ieuuceu upon motion by the employei, this is subject to the conuitions that (ŵ)
the motion to ieuuce bonu shall be on meiitoiious giounus: anu (Ŷ) a ieasonable amount in ielation to the
monetaiy awaiu is posteu by the appellant, otheiwise the filing of the motion to ieuuce bonu shall not stop
the iunning of the peiiou to peifect an appeal. The qualification effectively iequiies that unless the NLRC
giants the ieuuction of cash bonu within the ŵŴ-uay ieglementaiy peiiou, the employei is still expecteu to
post the cash oi suiety bonu secuiing the full amount within the saiu ŵŴ-uay peiiou. If the NLRC uoes
eventually giant the motion foi ieuuction aftei the ieglementaiy peiiou has elapseu, the coiiect ielief woulu
be to ieuuce the cash oi suiety bonu alieauy posteu by the employei within the ŵŴ-uay peiiou. Recoius show
that EI fileu theii Nemoianuum of Appeal anu Notion to Reuuce Appeal Bonu on the ŵŴ
th
oi last uay of the
$S Ŧ M a c a p a a a l Ŧ 8 S u L A W 2 0 1 2

ieglementaiy peiiou. Although they posteu an initial appeal bonu of PŵŴŴ,ŴŴŴ.ŴŴ, the same was giossly
inauequate compaieu to the monetaiy awaius given by the LA. Fuithei, theie is no basis in EI's contention
that the LA's awaius weie null anu excessive, anu with piemeuitateu intention to ienuei EI incapable of
posting an appeal bonu anu uepiive them of the iight to appeal. Noieovei, the cash¡suiety bonu iequiiement
uoes not necessitate the employei to physically suiienuei the entiie amount of the monetaiy juugment. The
usual pioceuuie is foi the employei to obtain the seivices of a bonuing company, which will then iequiie the
employei to pay a peicentage of the awaiu in exchange foi a bonu secuiing the full amount. This obseivation
unueicuts the notion of financial haiuship as a justification foi the inability to timely post the iequiieu bonu.
O The posting of a bonu is inuispensable to the peifection of an appeal in cases involving monetaiy
awaius fiom the uecision of the LA. The lawmakeis cleaily intenueu to make the bonu a manuatoiy
iequisite foi the peifection of an appeal by the employei as infeiieu fiom the piovision that an
appeal by the employei may be peifecteu "only upon the posting of a cash oi suiety bonu." The woiu
"only" makes it cleai that the posting of a cash oi suiety bonu by the employei is the essential anu
exclusive means by which an employei's appeal may be peifecteu. 0n the othei hanu, the woiu "may"
iefeis to the peifection of an appeal as optional on the pait of the uefeateu paity, but not to the
compulsoiy posting of an appeal bonu, if he uesiies to appeal. Noieovei, the filing of the bonu is not
only manuatoiy but a juiisuictional iequiiement as well, that must be complieu with in oiuei to
confei juiisuiction upon the NLRC. Non-compliance theiewith ienueis the uecision of the LA final
anu executoiy. This iequiiement is intenueu to assuie the woikeis that if they pievail in the case,
they will ieceive the money juugment in theii favoi upon the uismissal of the employei's appeal. It is
intenueu to uiscouiage employeis fiom using an appeal to uelay oi evaue theii obligation to satisfy
theii employees' just anu lawful claims.
ISS0E Ŷ: W¡N the failuie of EI to comply with the iequiiement of posting a bonu equivalent in amount to the
monetaiy awaiu is fatal to theii appeal.
YES. EI, foi filing its motion only on the final uay within which to peifect an appeal, it cannot be alloweu to
seek iefuge in a libeial application of the iules. 0nuei such ciicumstance, theie is neithei way foi the NLRC to
exeicise its uiscietion to giant oi ueny the motion, noi foi the iesponuents to post the full amount of the
bonu, without iisk of summaiy uismissal foi non-peifection of the appeal.
While the SC, in ceitain instances, allows a ielaxation in the application of the iules, it nevei intenus to foige a
weapon foi eiiing litigants to violate the iules with impunity. The libeial inteipietation anu application of the
iules apply only in piopei cases of uemonstiable meiit anu othei justifiable causes anu ciicumstances, but
none obtains in this case. The NLRC hau, theiefoie, the full uiscietion to giant oi ueny theii motion to ieuuce
the amount of the appeal bonu. The finuing of the laboi tiibunal that EI uiu not piesent sufficient
justification foi the ieuuction theieof cannot be saiu to have been uone with giave abuse of uiscietion. The
iecoius show that aftei the motion to ieuuce appeal bonu was uenieu, the NLRC still alloweu EI a new
peiiou of ŵŴ uays fiom ieceipt of the oiuei of uenial within which to post the auuitional bonu. Neveitheless,
EI faileu to post the auuitional bonu anu insteau moveu foi ieconsiueiation. 0n this scoie alone, theii appeal
shoulu have been uismisseu outiight foi not having been peifecteu on time. The NLRC even bent ovei
backwaius by enteitaining the motion foi ieconsiueiation anu even gianteu EI anothei ŵŴ uays within
which to post the appeal bonu. Bowevei, EI uiu not take auvantage of this libeiality when it peisistently
faileu anu iefuseu to post the auuitional bonu uespite the extensions given it.
Petition gianteu. CA uecision gianting motion to ieuuce appeal bonu anu oiueiing the NLRC to give uue
couise to EI's appeal ieveiseu anu set asiue. NLRC uecision uismissing EI's appeal foi failuie to peifect an
appeal ieinstateu anu affiimeu.
$S Ŧ M a c a p a a a l Ŧ 8 S u L A W 2 0 1 2

O The iight to appeal is not a constitutional iight, but a meie statutoiy piivilege. Bence, paities who
seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes oi iules allowing it. To ieiteiate,
peifection of an appeal in the mannei anu within the peiiou peimitteu by law is manuatoiy anu
juiisuictional. The iequiiements foi peifecting an appeal must, as a iule, stiictly be followeu. Such
iequiiements aie consiueieu inuispensable inteiuictions against neeuless uelays anu aie necessaiy
foi the oiueily uischaige of the juuicial business. Failuie to peifect the appeal ienueis the juugment
of the couit final anu executoiy. Iust as a losing paity has the piivilege to file an appeal within the
piesciibeu peiiou, so uoes the winnei also have the coiielative iight to enjoy the finality of the
uecision.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful