MERALCO vs.
Jan Gala Gala (resp) – commenced employment
Nationwide Security and Allied Services
(NSAS) vs. CA, NLRC, Dimpaz, et al.
WON the case should be dismissed
as probationary lineman; assigned at
valenzuela sector; joined the crew of
Truck No. 1837 under the supervision
of Zuniga.
Four month on the job, Gala was
dismissed for alleged complicity in
pilferages of MERALCO’s electrical
supplies, particulary for the incident
which took place on May 25, 2006.
LA – dismissed complaint; rendered
him unqualified to become regular
employee
NLRC – reversed LA; Gala had been
illegally dismissed since there was no
concrete proof of the pilferage.
CA – denied MERALCO’s petition and
partially granted Gala’s petition;
concurred with NLRC that Gala was
illegally dismissed.
Gala contends, in regard to the
ALLEGED PROCEDURAL DEFECTS of the
petition, the “Verification and
Certification,” “Secretary’s Certificate”
and “Affidavit of Service” do not
contain the details of the Community
or Residence Tax Certificates of the
affiants, in violation of Section 6 of
Commonwealth Act No. 465 (an Act to
Impose a Residence Tax). Additionally,
the lawyers who signed the petition
failed to indicate their updated
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE) certificate numbers, in violation
of the rules.
LA found NSAS, a security agency, not
liable for I.D. involvingg 8 security
guards who were employees of NSAS.
LA directed NSAS to pay monetary
claims to respondents.
Dissatisfied with the decision,
petitioner appealed to the NLRC which
dismissed its appeal for two reasons --
first, for having been filed beyond the
reglementary period within which to
perfect the appeal and second, for
filing an insufficient appeal bond.
CA - affirmed NLRC
due to the procedural defects raised
by Gala in violation of the rules?
WON Gala was illegally dismissed?
NO. Applying Art. 227 of the Labor
Code and in the case of S.S. Ventures
International, Inc. v. S.S. Ventures
Labor Union, “the application of
technical rules of procedure in labor
cases may be relaxed to serve the
demands of substantial justice.” It is
the spirit and intention of labor
legislation that the NLRC and the labor
arbiters shall use every reasonable
means to ascertain the facts in each
case speedily and objectively, without
regard to technicalities of law or
procedure, provided due process is
duly observed.
With regard to the substantial issue of
whether or not Gala was illegally
dismissed, the SC ruled that he was not
illegally dismissed. As a probationary
employee, his overall job performance
and his behavior were being monitored
and measured in accordance with the
standards (i.e., the terms and
conditions) laid down in his
probationary employment agreement.
The totality of the circumstances
obtaining in the case convinces us that
Gala could not but have knowledge of
the pilferage of company electrical
supplies on May 25, 2006; he was
complicit in its commission, if not by
direct participation, certainly, by his
inaction while it was being perpetrated
and by not reporting the incident to
company authorities.
WON the reglementary period for filing
an appeal must prevail over the spirit
and intention of Art. 227 of LC?
YES. Art. 227 is not applicable.
Petitioner received the decisionn of the
LA on July 16, 1999, then it filed its
“Appeal Memorandum”, “Notice of
Appeal” and “Motion to Reduce
Bbond”, by registered mail on July 29,
1999 and was received by NLRC on July
30, 1999. The appeal to the NLRC
should have been made within 10 days
from receipt of the decision by
petitioner which must be on July 26,
1999. Where in fact petitioner only
filed on July 29, 1999 - 3 days after July

Diamond Tax and/or Bryan Ong vs.
Felipe Llamas, Jr.
(Substantial Compliance)
Petitioner – owned and operated by
Bryan Ong
Llamas – worked as a taxi driver for
Ong.
Llamas filed a complaint for I.D against
petitioners.
Petitioners denied dismissing Llamas
and claimed he had been AWOL for
several days beginning July 14, 2005
until August 1, 2005; petitioners
submitted a copy of the attendance
logbook as proof of Llamas’ absence;
pointeed out that Llamas committed
several traffic violations in the years
2000-2005 and that they had issued
him several memoranda for acts of
insubordination and refusal to heed
26, 1999 in violation of Art. 229. 
Failure to perfect an appeal renders
the decision final and executory. The
right to appeal is a statutory right and
one who seeks to avail of the right
must comply with the statute or the
rules. The rules, particularly the
requirements for perfecting an appeal
within the reglementary period
specified in the law, must be strictly
followed as they are considered
indispensable interdictions against
needless delays and for the orderly
discharge of judicial business. It is only
in highly meritorious cases that this
Court will opt not to strictly apply the
rules and thus prevent a grave injustice
from being done. The exception does
not obtain here. Thus, we are in
agreement that the decision of the
Labor Arbiter already became final and
executory because petitioner failed to
file the appeal within 10 calendar days
from receipt of the decision.
Additional Notes:
At the outset it must be pointed out
here that the petition for certiorari
filed with the Court by petitioner under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is
inappropriate. The proper remedy is a
petition for review under Rule 45
purely on questions of law. There being
a remedy of appeal via petition for
review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court available to the petitioner, the
filing of a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 is improper.
WON CA erred in not dismissing the
complaint for failure of the respondent
employee to file a certificate of non-
forum shopping before the NLRC?
YES. The appeal of Llamas should be
granted for substantial compliance
under Art. 221 (now 227) of LC.
The following circumstances was
shown why the SC ruled that there was
a substantial compliance of Llamas’
appeal: records show that the utter
negligence and inattention of Llamas’
formel counsel (because there was a
change of counsel while filing a MR to
the LA was made)  was the reason why
he was not able to file the required
certification; Llamas' subsequent

Sara Lee Phil., Inc.. vs. Macatlang, et al
(Consolidated petitions including ARIS
PHILIPPINES, INC.).
management instructions – thus all of
these constitute grounds for Llamas’
termination.
Llamas failed to seasonably file his
position paper.
LA - dismissed Respondents complaint;
ruled Llamas was not illegally dismissed
but rather left his job and had been
absent for several days without leave
Llamas filed a MR. LA/NLRC treated the
MR as an appeal.
NLRC - dismissed for failure to attach
the required certification of non-forum
shopping.
CA - reversed NLRC; respondent’s
procedural defect should by excused
for showing manifest equitable
grounds proving subtantial
compliance;  which would result in technicalities
-ruled that Llamas was constructively
dismissed for making him sign a
resignation letter as a precondition for
giving him the key to his assigned taxi
cab.
Aris Philippines ceased operations
displacing 5,984 rank-and-file
employees. Aris Philippines Workers
Confederation of Filipino Workers
(Union), which represents 5,984 rank-
and-file employees of Aris, staged a
strike for violation of duty to bargain
collectively, union busting and illegal
closure. After concilition, parties
entereed into agreement whereby Aris
undertook to pay its employees the
benefits which accrued by virtue of
closure, which settlement amounted to
P419 Million and an additional P15
Million benevolent fund to the Union.
FAPI was incorporated, and when said
incorporation came to the knowledge
compliance with the certification
against forum-shopping requirement;
Llamas' filing of his position paper
before he learned and received a copy
of the LA's decision; the absence of a
meaningful opportunity for Llamas to
present his case before the LA; and the
clear merits of his case the NLRC
should have relaxed the application of
procedural rules in the broader
interests of substantial justice. Indeed,
while the requirement as to the
certificate of non-forum shopping is
mandatory, this requirement should
not, however, be interpreted too
literally and thus defeat the objective
of preventing the undesirable practice
of forum-shopping.
Consistently, we have emphasized that
"rules of procedure are mere tools
designed to facilitate the attainment of
justice. A strict and rigid application
that tend to frustrate rather than
promote substantial justice should not
be allowe. Ultimately, what should
guide judicial action is that a party is
given the fullest opportunity to
establish the merits of his action or
defense rather than for him to lose life,
honor, or property on mere
technicalities. In this case, Llamas'
action against the petitioners
concerned his job, his security of
tenure. This is a property right of which
he could not and should not be
deprived of without due process. But,
more importantly, it is a right that
assumes a preferred position in our
legal hierarchy.
WON the 10% bond requirement is
applicable?
WON the ruling of the NLRC is
premature?
NO. The 10% requirement pertains to
the reasonable amount which the NLRC
would accept as the minimum of the
bond that should accompany the
motion to reduce bond in order to
suspend the period to perfect an
appeal under the NLRC rules. The 10%
is based on the judgment award and
should in no case be construed as the
minimum amount of bond to be posted
in order to perfect appeal.
The NLRC retains its authority and duty

Dela Rosa Liner vs. Borela and Amarille
of the affected EE, they all filed 63
separate complaints aagainst Aris for
illegal dismissal alleging that FAPI was a
continuiing business of Aris.
LA - ruled that complainants were
illegally dismissed.  considering the motion’s merit,
The Corporations filed a Notice of
Appeal with Motion to Reduce Appeal
Bond.
NLRC - granted the reduction of the
appeal bond because of the difficulty
for any surety company to cover the
appeal bond and the huge economic
lossess which the companies and
employees might suffer if the P3.45
billion is still sustained. NLRC issued an
order directing the corporations to
post an additional P4.5 million bond,
bringing the total posted bond to
P9million.
Resp insisted that the appeal was not
perfected due to failure of the
Corporations to post the correct
amount of the bond which is
equivalent to the judgment award.
CA - reversed and set aside NLRC’s
decision and deemed it reasonable to
order the posting of an additional bond
of P1 Billion.
On June 4, 2014, the SC ordered the
Corporations to post P725 million, in
case or surety bond and vacated the
NLRC decision for being premature and
directed the same to act with dispatch
to resolve the merits of the case upon
perfection of the appeal.
Hence, this MR where the
Corporations, relying on McBurnie v.
Ganzon, argued that only 10% of the
monetary award is required to be
posted as bond.
Furthermore, the Corporations filed a
Motion to Admit Confession of
Judgment claiming that the
Corporations entered into as
compromise with some of the former
Aris employees.
Borela, bus driver, and Estelo Amarille,
conductor, filed separate complaints
(later consolidated) against petitioners
for underpayment/non-payment of
salaries, holiday pay, overtime pay,
service incentive leave pay, 13th
to resolve the motion and determine
the final amount of bond that shall be
posted by the appellant, still in
accordance with the standards of
"meritorious grounds" and "reasonable
amount." Should the NLRC, after
determine that a greater amount or
the full amount of the bond needs to
be posted by the appellant, then the
party shall comply accordingly. The
appellant shall be given a period of 10
days from notice of the NLRC order
within which to perfect the appeal by
posting the required appeal bond.
The appeal bond was set at P725
million after taking into consideration
the interests of all parties. The
underlying purpose of the appeal bond
is to ensure that the employer has
properties on which he or she can
execute upon in the event of a final,
providential award. Thus, non-payment
or woefully insufficient payment of the
appeal bond by the employer
frustrates these ends.
(With regard to the premature ruling of
the NLRC)
YES. There was a legal impediment for
NLRC to issue the resolution vacating
the LA’s decision. The principle of
judicial courtesy applies if there is a
strong probability that the issues
before the higher court would be
rendered moot as a result of the
continuation of the proceedings in the
lower court.
The NLRC’s ruling would moot the
appeal filed before the higher courts
because the issue involves the appeal
bond which is an indispensable
requirement to the perfection of the
appeal before the NLRC. Thus, unless
this issue is resolved, the NLRC should
be precluded from ruling on the merits
of the case. Thus, the stage that has
been passed in this case is the
proceedings before the LA. Without the
NLRC stage, the LA’s decision is final
and executory.
WON there was forum shopping or res
judicata with the 2 complaints filed
before the CA?
No, there was no forum shopping/res
judicata. CA did not err in affirming the
month pay, sick leave and vacation
leave, night shift differential, illegal
deductions, and violation of Wage
Order Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16. In a
motion dated October 26, 2011, the
petitioners asked the labor arbiter to
dismiss the case for forum shopping.
They alleged that on September 28,
2011, the CA 13th Division disposed of
a similar case between the parties (CA-
G.R. SP No. 118038) after they entered
into a compromise agreement which
covered all claims and causes of action
they had against each other in relation
to the respondents’ employment.
LA - dismissed the complaint; agreed
with Petitioners that there was forum
shopping
NLRC - reversed the LA and reinstated
the complaint. NLRC held that the
respondents could not have committed
forum shopping as there was no
identity of causes of action between
the two cases. The first complaint, the
NLRC pointed out, charged the
petitioners with illegal dismissal and
unfair labor practice; while the second
complaint was based on the
petitioners' alleged
nonpayment/underpayment of their
salaries and monetary benefits, and
violation of several wage orders.
CA - affirmed NLRC; held that there was
neither forum shopping nor the case
was barred by res judicata arising from
the CA judgment in the first case.
(Take note na may 2 pending appeal sa
CA na finile yung iba’t ibang parties,
baka malito ka)
NLRC’s decision. The first complaint
involved illegal dismissal/suspension,
unfair labor practice with prayer for
damages andattorney's fees; while the
second complaint (the subject of the
present appeal) involves claims for
labor standards benefits — the
petitioners' alleged violation of Wage
Orders Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16;
nonpayment of respondents' sick and
vacation leave pays, 13th-month pay,
service incentive leave benefit,
overtime pay, and night shift
differential.
As the CA correctly held, the same facts
or evidence would not support both
actions.
As the CA aptly cited, the elements of
forum shopping are: (1) identity of
parties; (2) identity of rights asserted
and relief prayed for, the relief being
founded on the same facts; and (3)
identity of the two preceding
particulars such that any judgment
rendered in the other action will,
regardless of which party is successful,
amount to res judicata in the action
under consideration.
We concur with the CA that forum
shopping and res judicata are not
applicable in the present case. There is
no identity of rights asserted and
reliefs prayed for, and the judgment
rendered in the previous action will not
amount to res judicata in the action
now under consideration.
There is also no identity of causes of
action in the first complaint and in the
second complaint. In Yap v. Chua, we
held that the test to determine
whether causes of action are identical
is to ascertain whether the same
evidence would support both actions,
or whether there is an identity in the
facts essential to the maintenance of
the two actions. If the same facts or
evidence would support both actions,
then they are considered the same; a
judgment in the first case would be a
bar to the subsequent action.
Under the circumstances of the case
before us, sufficient basis exists for the
NLRC's and CA's conclusions that there
is no identity of causes of action

Magsaysay Maritime Corporation vs.
Bernadine De Jesus
Magsaysay – local manning agent of
Princess Cruise Lines, Limited.
Berandine De Jesus – was hired as an
Accommodation Supervisor for the
cruise ship REGAL PRINCESS by Princess
Cruise Lines through its manning agent
Magsaysay; he eventually boarded the
Regal Princess but after 10 months was
diagnosed with AORTIC ANEURYSM
and he had a coronary angiography. He
underwent a Left Axillofemoral Bypass
but later died.
Respondent Cynthia De Jesus (Cynthia),
Bernardine's widow, filed a complaint
against Magsaysay for "payment of
death benefits, medical expenses,
sickness allowance, damages, and
attorney's fees."
Cynthia and Magsaysay were unable to
between the respondents' two
complaints against the petitioners.
(With regard dun sa compromise
agreement ng parties sa 1st case na di
na daw sila magffile na kahit anong
kaso related sa case na yun – VOID kasi
di mo naman pwede pag’agreehan
yung jurisdiction nung courts)
Neither are we persuaded by
petitioners' argument that "The
Compromise Agreement covered all
claims and causes of action that the
parties may have against each other in
relation to the private respondents'
employment." The compromise
agreement had been concluded to
terminate the illegal dismissal and
unfair labor case then pending before
the CA. While the parties agreed that
no further action shall be brought by
the parties against each other, they
pointedly stated that they referred to
actions on the same grounds. The
phrase same grounds can only refer to
the grounds raised in the first
complaint and not to any other
grounds.
We likewise cannot accept the
compromise agreement's application
"to all claims and damages or losses
either party may have against each
other whether those damages or losses
are known or unknown, foreseen or
unforeseen."
WON the payment of money
judgmennt has rendered the petition
for certiorari before the CA moot and
academic?
YES. The payment of money judgement
has rendered the Petition for Certiorari
before the Court of Appeals moot and
academic.
In the instant case, the parties entered
into a compromise agreement when
they executed a Conditional
Satisfaction of Judgment Award in
relation to Article 2028 of the Civil
Code which defines a compromise
agreement and its effect as res
judicata. While the general rule is that
a valid compromise agreement has
the power to render a pending case
moot and academic, being a contract,
the parties may opt to modify the
amicably settle the case; hence, they
were directed to submit their
respective position papers.
LA - granted Cynthia's complaint;
directed Magsaysay to pay her claims
for death benefits, additional benefits,
burial expenses, and attorney's fees.
NLRC - affirmed LA
Additional Facts:
Magsaysay paid Cynthia P3,370,514.40
as conditional satisfaction of the
judgment award against it and without
prejudice to its Petition for Certiorari
pending before the Court of Appeals. In
light of the conditional settlement
between the parties, the Labor Arbiter
considered the case closed and
terminated but without prejudice to
Magsaysay's pending petition before
the Court of Appeals.
CA - dismissed the petition for being
moot and academic.
legal effects of their compromise
agreement to prevent the pending
case from becoming moot.
In the Conditional Satisfaction of
Judgment Award, respondent
acknowledged receiving the sum of
P3,370,514.40 from petitioners as
conditional payment of the judgment
award. Both parties agreed that the
payment of the judgment award was
without prejudice to the pending
certiorari proceedings before the Court
of Appeals and was only made to
prevent the imminent execution being
undertaken by respondent and the
National Labor Relations Commission.
Finally, in the event the judgment
award of the labor tribunals is reversed
by the Court of Appeals or by this
Court, respondent agreed to return
whatever she would have received
back to petitioners and in the same
vein, if the Court of Appeals or this
Court affirms the decisions of the labor
tribunals, petitioners shall pay
respondent the balance of the
judgment award without need of
demand.
Respondent, for herself and for her
three (3) minor children with
Bernardine, then signed a Receipt of
Payment. However, in the Affidavit of
Heirship, respondent was prohibited
from seeking further redress against
petitioners, making the compromise
agreement ultimately prejudicial to
respondent.
This prohibition on the part of
respondent to pursue any of the
available legal remedies should the
Court of Appeals or this Court reverse
the judgment award of the labor
tribunals or prosecute any other suit or
action in another country puts the
seafarer's beneficiaries at a grave
disadvantage. A conditional settlement
of a judgement award may be treated
as a compromise agreement and a
judgement on the merits of the case if
it turns out to be highly prejudicial to
one of the parties. Hence, the Court of
Appeals did not err in treating the
conditional settlement as an amicable
settlement, effectively rendering the
Petition for Certiorari moot and

Toyota Alabang, Inc. vs. Edwin Games
Games – worked as foreman for
petitioner; allegedly stole petitioner’s
vehicle lubricants; petitioner
subsequently charged him with
qualified theft.
Two years thereafter, Games filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal,
nonpayment of benefits, and damages
against petitioner. The latter, through
counsel, failed to file its Position Paper
on the date set and that several
resetting of the hearings ensued.
LA – ruled in favor of Games; issued a
writ of execution
Petitioner sought to quash the writ and
prayed that the proceedings be
reopened, explaining that it had failed
to present evidence because of its
counsel's negligence in filing the
appropriate pleadings – but denied by
LA
Petitioner no longer filed a motion for
reconsideration. As a result, the LA's
ruling became final and executory.
NLRC – denied petitioner’s appeal
because he had failed to show proof of
its security deposit for the appeal bond
under Section 6, Rule VI of the 2005
NLRC Rules of Procedure. According to
the NLRC, the bonding company's mere
declaration in the Certification of
Security Deposit that the bond was
fully secured was not tantamount to a
faithful compliance with the rule,
because there must first be an
accompanying assignment of the
employer's bank deposit.
On the merits, the NLRC dismissed the
case on the basis of the rule that no
appeal may be taken from an order of
execution of a final judgment.
CA - affirmed NLRC; petitioner had
failed to comply faithfully with the
bond requirement; it echoed the ruling
of the NLRC that a final judgment is no
longer appealable; the CA found that
petitioner's own negligence had caused
it to lose its right to appeal.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on
academic.
WON the CA erred in refusing to
reopen the proceedings due to the
failure of the petitioner to show proof
of its deposit of appeal bond?
NO. In case the decision of the Labor
Arbiter or the Regional Director
involves a monetary award, an appeal
by the employer may be perfected
only upon the posting of a bond,
which shall either be in the form of
cash deposit or surety bond
equivalent in amount to the monetary
award, exclusive of damages and
attorney's fees.
Evidently, the above rules do not limit
the appeal bond requirement only to
certain kinds of rulings of the LA.
Rather, these rules generally state that
in case the ruling of the LA involves a
monetary award, an employer's appeal
may be perfected only upon the
posting of a bond. Therefore, absent
any qualifying terms, so long as the
decision of the LA involves a monetary
award, as in this case, that ruling can
only be appealed after the employer
posts a bond. If to construe otherwise,
then an aggrieved party may simply
seek the quashal of a writ of execution,
instead of going through the normal
modes of appeal, to altogether avoid
paying for an appeal bond.
An appeal is not a matter of right, but is
a mere statutory privilege. It may be
availed of only in the manner provided
by law and the rules. Thus, a party who
seeks to elevate an action must comply
with the requirements of the 2011
NLRC Rules of Procedure as regards the
period, grounds, venue, fees, bonds,
and other requisites for a proper
appeal before the NLRC; and in Section
6, Rule VI, the aforesaid rules prohibit
appeals from final and executory
decisions of the Labor Arbiter.

GBMLT Manpower Services, Inc. vs.
Ma. Victoria Malinao
Certiorari with Urgent Prayer for
Injunctive Relief before the Supreme
Court - denied the petition, hence, the
instant Motion for Reconsideration.
GBMLT Manpower Services – local
recruitment agency
Alemaya University – hired respondent
Malinao through GBMLT
Malinao – applied for a job as teacher
for deployment abroad (Ethiopa); was
interviewed by the Ethiopian university
president; paid the required fees;
sgined POEA-approved contract; but
upon arriving she was informed that
her credentials were to be reevaluated
because she did not have a master’s
degree; was asked to sign a new
contract; while a memo was issued
lowering the ranks of most Filipino
teaching staff and asking them to sign a
new contract; respondent refused and
protested with the Ministry of
Education in Ethiopia; respondent was
replaced and left idle; and eventually
was issued a notice of termination
issued by Vice President Alamirew –
was told that she was incompetent and
have insulted students, staff and
management; was given 3 months
advance notice as regards contract
termination; while waiting for the 3
month period to she was even offered
a position as an internal auditor but
she rejected it; was eventually
repatriated; she later signed a
quitclaim in favor of petitioner; she
filed a complaint before the LA against
petitioner as local agency and Alemaya
University as foreign principal.
LA – ruled in favor of respondent and
ruled she had been unduly repatriated
in breach of the employment contract.
NLRC – dismissed resp complaint
because her claims had been subject of
a valid release of quitclaim
CA – reversed NLRC; ordered petitioner
and Alemaya to reimburse respondent;
it also ruled that petitioner’s appeal
were filed out of time since petitioner’s
check payment was encashed only
after the reglementary period within
which to appeal, thus the appeal was
considered to have been filed out of
WON petitioner’s appeal was
perfected on time?
YES. Petitioner’s appeal was fled on
time. Petitioner has complied with the
requirements of the law with regard to
posting of the appeal bond.
In case of a judgment involving a
monetary award, an appeal by the
employer may be perfected only upon
the posting of a cash or surety bond
issued by a reputable bonding
company duly accredited by the
Commission in the amount equivalent
to the monetary award in the judgment
appealed from.
The requirement of an appeal bond is
further emphasized in Section 6, Rule
VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of
Procedure. This provision clarifies that
damages and attorney's fees awarded
by the labor arbiter shall not be
included in the computation of the
bond to be posted. In several
pronouncements, this Court has
adopted a particular understanding of
the word "only" in the phrase "an
appeal by the employer may be
perfected only upon the posting of a
cash or surety bond." It has regarded
the phrase as the legislative's
unequivocal declaration that the
posting of a cash or surety bond is the
exclusive means by which an
employer's appeal from a labor
arbiter's decision may be perfected. 
In this case, there is no question that
the NLRC accepted the appeal bond
posted by petitioner through a current-
dated check, as evidenced by Official
Receipt No. 0701550 dated 20 April
2007. That check was deposited to the
bank account of the NLRC on 23 April
2007 without incident. Furthermore,
respondent has never disputed the
sufficiency of the bond posted or
petitioner's manifestation before us
that "up to the present, the cash bond
posted x x x is still in effect and remains
in the coffers of the x x x NLRC and is
susceptible to execution in the

Lepanto Consolidated Mining Corp. vs.
Belio Icao
(Property Bond)
Forever Security & General Services
(FSGS) vs. Flores and Rallama
time – further ruled that the rules
provide that only cash or surety bond
may be considered as appeal bond, and
noncompliance was fatal to petitioner’s
cause.
Resp – employee of petitioner assigned
as a lead miner in its underground in
benguet; he was charged with
“highgrading” or the act of concealing,
possessing or unauthorized extraction
of highgrade material/ore without
proper authority; consequently he was
dismissed from his work and later on
filed a complaint for I.D. And damagees
against petitioner corp and its CEO.
LA – ruled petitioner is liable for I.D.
and ordered petitioner corp to pay resp
Petitioner and its CEO filed an
appearance with Memorandum of
Appeal before NLRC. Instead of posting
the required appeal bond in the form
of a cash or surety bond, they filed a
Consolidated Motion for Release of
Cash Bond and to Apply Bond Subject
for Release As Payment for Appeal
Bond (Consolidated Notion) – they
requested that the NLRC release the
cash bond they had posted in a
separate case in Dangiw Siggao vs.
LCMC, and apply the same cash bond
to their present appeal bond liability.
NLRC – dismissed appeal for non-
perfection for failing to post the
required bond
CA - affirmed
Flores and Rallama – employed as
security officers of petitioner.
FSGS – dismissed resp on the ground
that they abandon their posts, duties
and responsibilities as sec guards.
(thereafter resp filed an I.D. Case in the
NLRC)
Flores – reasoned he did not receive his
salary from jan-feb 1993; allegedly
because of AWOL.
unfortunate event that this Petition
fails."
To our mind, the appeal of petitioner
has been perfected on time by virtue of
its compliance with the appeal bond
requirement. We note that its payment
of the appeal bond through the
issuance of a check was not even an
issue before the NLRC. The latter had
given due course to petitioner's appeal
without any indication of having found
any defect in the appeal bond posted.
WON the dismissal of the appeal was
proper
NO. Petitioner substantially complied
with the mandatory requirement of
posting an appeal bond. First the
appeal was filed within the 10-day
reglementary period. Second,
petitioner has an unencumbered
amount of money in the form of cash
in the custody of the NLRC. The
decision in the Dangiw Siggao vs. LCMC
was already final and executory or
more than 7 months had passed before
petitioner had to file its appeal in the
present case. Once the appeal is finally
decided and no award needs to be
satisfied, the bond is automatically
released. Third, the cash bond (P401k)
posted in Dangiw case is more than
enough to cover the appeal bond in the
amount required of P345k. Fourth, the
spirit behind the appeal bond
requirement is still shown in this case.
There was no showing at all of any
attempt to evade the posting a bond
and on the contrary petitioner move
showed a willingness to comply with
the requirement. Hence, the SC
liberally applied the rules and allowed
the appellant-employer to post a
property bond in lieu of cash/surety
bond.
WON petitioner’s appeal is perfeceted
NO. The requirement of cash or surety
bond for the perfection of an appeal
from the LA’s monetary award is not
only mandatory but jurisdictional as
well, and non-compliance therewith is
fatal and has the effect of rendering
the awards final and executory.
Petitioner filed its appeal and paid the
appeal fee – April 27, 1995.

UERM-Memorial Medical Center vs.
NLRC and UERM Employees Assoc.
Rallama – reasoned he was
hospitalized, but when he returned to
work he was considered AWOL.
LA – ruled in faavor of resp
Petitioners appealed ot NLRC, but
instead of posting cash/surety bond,
they filed a Motion for Extension of
Time to Appeal (finalizing approp
arrangements with an insurance
bondingcompany) due to material lack
of time; requests for a 30 day
extension to file the bond
NLRC – dismissed the appeal for failure
to posst the req cash or surety bond;
the decision became final.
CA – dismissed the petition
Petitioner contends: there was an
invalid service of the NLRC order to the
petitioner’s counsel
RA 6640 took effect – mandated P10
increase of P54 minimum wage.
UERM applied the law and granted
salary increase to their employees.
RA 6727 took effect – mandated
increase by P25
Petitioners increased the hiring rate of
new employees to P188/mo.
Resp demanded from petitioners
payment of salary differential
mandated by RA 6727 and correction
of the wage diistortion brough about
by the increase in the hiring rate of
new employees.
Sec. Drilon issued Policy Instruction No.
54 that resp are entitled additional
salaries.
Petitioners refused; hence complaint
filed by resp, represented by
Federation of Free Workers, for salary
differential correction of the wage
distortion and the payment of salaries
under Policy Instruction No. 54.
LA – ruled in favor of resp except their
(Filed a motion for extension of time to
file appeal or surety bond and asked
that it be given until May 27, 1995 –
but petitioner did not make good its
promise.)
July 31, 1995 – issuance of resolution
by NLRC; no bond was posted
1999 – petitioner just posted the bond
long after the finality of the LA’s
decision.
Substantial compliance rule is N/A
- Petitioner has not shown any
over act showing substantial
compliance or exhibited
intent to comply
- No showing existence of
meritorious grounds to justify
non-compliance.
Also, there was regularity in the
performance of the postmaster of the
Makati Office that was sent to
registered mail over the allegation of
non-receipt by the petitioner without
any contrary proof.
WON the posted REAL ESTATE BOND
complies with Art. 223 of the LC (now
229)
YES. The SC, despite the jurisdictional
requirement, liberally interpreted the
rules (Art. 223; now 229) and allowed
the REAL ESTATE BOND. Adhering to
the principle of substantial justice
which is better served by allowing such
bond.
The requirement is intended to
discourage employers from using an
appeal to delay/evade their obligation
to satisfy the employees’ claim.
In addition, it is the current policy of
the law to not strictly follow techniral
rules but rather to take into account
the spirit and intention of the Labor
Code.
Petitioners sufficiently protects the
interests of resp should they prevail
since the real prop offerered is worth
P102million while the judgment is a
littlle more than P17million.

Manila Mining Corp. (MMC) vs. Lowito
Amor, et al.
Banahaw Broadcasting Corp (BBC) vs.
Cayetano Pacana III, et al.
claim for wage distortion.
Petitioners filed their notiice and
memorandum of appeal and posted a
REAL ESTATE BOND. Resp filed MTD on
the ground that Art. 223 of LC requires
posting of a cash/surety bond only.
MMC – dom corp operating mining
claim in Placer, Surigao Del Norte (large
scale for gold and copper ore)
Resp – regular employees of MMC
MMC maintains TP No. 7, a tailings
containment facility required for
storage of waste materials generated
by its mining operations — when it
reached the max level, MMC
temporarily shuts down such facility
pending approval to increase its
capacity with DENR-Environment
Management Bureau
DENR-EMB issued temporary authority
to continue operating the facility for
another 6 months but petitioner failed
to secure an extension permit when
the temporary authority lapsed.
MMC issued notice to DENR for
temporary suspension of its operations
and informs 2/3 of its employees in
their temporary lay-off. It extended to
another 6 months – hence resp filed a
complaint for constructive dismissal
and monetary claims.
LA – MMC liable for constructive
dismissal
MMC filed an appeal and moved for
the reduction of the appeal bond to
P100k, on the ground of financial
losses in the preceding years.
NLRC – dismissed complaint; applied
Art 283, now 298 of LC (serious
business losses); resp were not even
entitled to separation pay.
CA – reversed NLRC; LA’s decision
became final already.
Petitioner (BBC) – corp managed by IBC
Resp (DXWG personnel) – supervisory
and rank and file employees of the
DXWG-Iligan City radio station ownbed
by petitioner.
DXWG filed I.D., ULP, reimbursement
of unpaid CBA benefitis, and attys fees
WON the appeal of MMC to NLRC was
perfected
NO. First, there was no proof to
substantiate its claim of serious losses
and reverses when it moved for the
reduction of an appeal bond.
While it is true that reduction of the
appeal bond has been allowed in
meritorious cases on the principle that
substantial justice is better served by
allowing appeals on the merits, it has
been ruled that the employer should
comply with the following conditions:
(1) the motion to reduce the bond shall
be based on meritorious grounds; and
(2) a reasonable amount in relation to
the monetary award is posted by the
appellant, otherwise the filing of the
motion to reduce bond shall not stop
the running of the period to perfect an
appeal.
Second, the check submitted by
MMMC was dishonored upon
presentation for payment, rendering
the tender ineffectual. In effect, it
failed to post the fill amount pending
the NLRC action on its motion for
reduction of the appeal bond. The
posting of a bond is indispensable to
the perfection of an appeal in cases
involving monetary awards from the
decision of the Labor Arbiter. Since it is
the posting of a cash or surety bond
which confers jurisdiction upon the
NLRC, the rule is settled that non-
compliance is fatal and has the effect
of rendering the award final and
executory.
WON BBC is exempted from posting of
the appeal bonds
NO. BBC was an organized private corp,
sequestered in the 1980’s and the
ownership was subsequently
transferred to the GOV’T. Its functions
is purely commercial/proprietary and
against IBC and BBC.
LA – ruled in favor of resp; BBC was
ordered to pay.
BBC filed a memorandum of appeal
challenging the award; in the same
memorandum, it incorporated a
MOTION FOR THE RECOMPUTATION
OF THE MONETARY BOND – for the
reduction of the appeal bond.
NLRC – denied motion for
recomputation; ordered BBC to post
the req bond within 10 days
BBC instead of complying with the
order, filed a MR alleging that it is
wholly owned by the Republic of the
Phil. – hence need not post an appeal
bond.
NLRC – denied MR; dismissed the
appeal for non-perfection of the bond.
CA – denied petition; treated BBC as
corporation with personality and not
exempted from posting of appeal
bonds
not governmental. Hence, BBC cannot
be deemed entitled to an exemption
from posting an appeal bond. NLRC
was correct in dismissing the appeal for
non-perfection of the posting of the
bond applying Art. 223, now 229, of LC.
The posting of the appeal bond within
the period provided by law is not
merely mandatory but jurisdictional.
The failure on the part of BBC to
perfect the appeal thus had the effect
of rendering the judgment final and
executory. Neither was there an
interruption of the period to perfect
the appeal when BBC filed (1) its
Motion for the Recomputation of the
Monetary Award in order to reduce the
appeal bond, and (2) its Motion for
Reconsideration of the denial of the
same.
Additional Notes:
When the State litigates, it is not
required to put up an appeal bond
because it is presumed to be always
solvent. However, a GOCC that is sued
in relation to its governmental
functions may be, under appropriate
circumstances, exempted from the
payment of appeal fees.