Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII
City of Tagbilaran

VILMA S. LOON and AMALIA O. BIBAY

Complainants,

NLRC SRAB-VII Case No. 08-0066-20-B

-VERSUS-

EFREN A. ARAUNE
Varescon Transport Services
Respondent.
x---------------------------/

MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF BAIL

FOR RESPONDENT EFREN A. ARAUNE

RESPONDENT through undersigned counsel most respectfully submit this

MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF BAIL, and in doing so hereby state:

1. That herein complainants filed for illegal dismissal with money claims against
respondent with Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII of the
Department of Labor and Employment last August 20, 2020;

2. That respondent EFREN A. ARAUNE received an order from NATIONAL

LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch
No. VII located at Tagbilaran City directing him and the complainants to
submit/file their respective verified position paper within fifteen days from
receipt of the order in relation to a complaint of illegal dismissal filed by
VILMA S. LOON and AMALIA O. BIBAY against VARESCON TRANSAPORT
SERVICES headed by respondent EFREN A. ARAUNE. Respondent
received such order last October 6, 2020;

3. That the said order was made by NLRC-City of Tagbilaran Branch in view of
the failure of both parties to reach a compromise agreement or to settle the
issues amicably within a period given in the summons dated August 20, 2020;

4. That the respondent through undersigned counsel filed its position paper on
October 21, 2020 while complainants through counsel filed their position
paper on November 6, 2020. A reply was then made by the respondent
through undersigned counsel on the position paper of the complainant on

1
 November 11, 2020 whereas complainant made a reply on respondent’s
position paper last November 20, 2020. Respondent furthermore made a
Comment on the Reply of the complainants’ Position Paper on December 2,
2020;

5. That on December 29, 2020, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision adverse to
the position of the respondent declaring there was an illegal dismissal and
ordering respondent to pay complainants a total monetary amount of ONE
MILLION ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
SIXTY FOUR PESOS AND TWENTY EIGHT CENTAVOS (P 1, 123,664.28)
inclusive of back wages, separation pay, salary differentials, 13 th month pay
and attorney’s fees. The Notice of decision together with the Decision of the
Labor Arbiter was received by the respondent on February 17, 2021. A copy
of the decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby attached as ANNEX A;

6. That the respondent is given ten (10) days upon receipt of the said decision to
file his memorandum of appeal pursuant to Article 223 of the Labor Code as
amended under Section 1, Rule VI of the 2011 National Labor Relations
Commission Rules of Procedure. The filing of the appeal requires posting of
the bond equivalent to the amount of monetary award exclusive of Attorney’s
fees so that the appeal shall be considered as perfected;

7. That the respondent intends to appeal the adverse decision of the Labor
Arbiter but has no sufficient fund to file an amount equivalent to the monetary
award granted by the Labor Arbiter in favor of the complainants. No surety
Bond would likewise guarantee such amount without asking for a higher
amount of deposit from the respondent considering that the monetary award
reached a million pesos;

8. That a close perusal of the computation would point out that there was a
patent mistake in the simple addition of the monetary claims of the two
complainants. The total awards for Amalia O. Bibay seems to have been
doubled when the accurate and correct amount should have been P
365,979.99 instead of P 692,301.00. Then using the correct amount the total
monetary award should have been P 686,191.98 instead of P 1,021,512.99.
The attorney’s fees which is 5 percent of the Total Monetary award should
have been P 68,619.19 instead of P 102,151.29. Hence, the grand total
including the attorney’s fees must be P 754,811.17 and not P 1,123,664.28 as

2
 erroneously computed by this Honorable Office. A copy of the correct
computation is hereby attached as ANNEX B;

9. That as already pointed out in its position paper; respondent’s business has
been one of those greatly affected by the COVID-19 Pandemic and had in
fact filed a temporary closure of its business on August 19, 2020. Even if
some of its units were still running nevertheless whatever income generated
is given to the drivers who will be left to beg on the streets if all operations will
totally shut down. The business in reality has been incurring losses since the
start of the pandemic and continues to do so; to the point that it has to put
some employees to a floating status which includes the herein complainants
which they misunderstood as illegal dismissal. A copy of the Executive Orders
of the Provincial Government of Bohol placing the province in various level of
community quarantine is hereby attached as ANNEX C 1-C6. A copy of the
Quarterly Percentage Return of the respondent submitted to the Bureau of
Internal Revenue from May 2020 up to present is hereby attached as ANNEX
D 1-D-6 ;

10. That due to such losses, the respondent was not able to pay its rent of its
office prompting him to transfer temporarily his house. In view of the current
scenario where things have not returned to its normal pace; the business of
the respondent continued to operate at a loss and truth be told respondent is
incapable of putting of that amount of bond. A copy of the respondent’s Bank
Statement is hereby attached as ANNEX E;

11. That the respondent has meritorious ground to which its memorandum of
appeal is anchored particularly on the erroneous computation of the monetary
award and the other errors committed by the Labor Arbiter when it did not
recognize failure of the complainants to file its position paper on time;

12. That the respondent can only put up as much as TWENTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P 20,000) as a bond to perfect its appeal as it will have to sell its
entire business if the aforesaid amount of monetary bond will be asked in
order for his appeal to be perfected;

13. That for humanitarian reason; the respondent prays that the amount of bond
be reduced so as to not to deprive respondent of the opportunity to appeal.
While protection for labor is strong; it should not be done to unjustly enrich
someone at the expense of another;

3
14. As held by the Supreme Court in the case NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, INC. VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION:

“However, the Court, in special and justified circumstances, has relaxed

the requirement of posting a supersedeas bond for the perfection of an
appeal on technical considerations to give way to equity and justice.
Thus under Section VI of the 2005 NLRC Revised Rules of Procedure,
the reduction of the appeal bond is allowed, the subject to the following
conditions (1.) the motion to reduce bond shall be based on meritorious
ground; and (2.) a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award
is posted by the appellant.

15. That respondent humbly moves for the reduction of the bond to an amount
which the respondent in consideration of his current financial situation is
permitted to do so.
Respectfully manifested on_________________. Tagbilaran City, Bohol,
Philippines