FSFI v.

NLRC, December 11, 2003

DOCTRINE: The Labor Code provides a ten (10)-day period from receipt of the decision of the
Arbiter for the filing of an appeal together with an appeal bond if the decision involves a
monetary award in favor of the employees.
FACTS: A complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims was filed by respondents against
petitioners before the National Labor Relations Commission. While the Respondents filed their
position papers, the Petitioners did not, thus, the Labor Arbiter construed this as waiver of their
right to present evidence. The Labor Arbiter sustained the claims of the respondents and the
petitioners were ordered to reinstate respondents. Petitioners appealed to the National Labor
Relations Commission. For the first time, they submitted evidence that respondents were
project employees. Respondents, however, assailed the jurisdiction of the NLRC over the appeal
for failure of the petitioners to file the appeal bond within the ten (10)-day reglementary
period. They further contended that it was too late for petitioners to present evidence in the
NLRC. The NLRC nevertheless assumed jurisdiction over the appeal. Due to the evidence
presented by petitioners on the issue of illegal dismissal, the NLRC remanded the case to the
Labor Arbiter for further proceedings. In a petition for certiorari filed by respondents before the
Court of Appeals, the latter reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter, ruling that the NLRC did
not have jurisdiction over the appeal since the appeal bond of the petitioners was filed out of
time. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition revolving around
the issue on the timeliness of the filing of the appeal bond of the petitioners.
ISSUE: WoN the NLRC acquires jurisdiction despite the filing of the bond beyond the 10 day
reglementary period.- None.
RULING: The appeal was dismissed. The Labor Code provides a ten (10)-day period from receipt
of the decision of the Arbiter for the filing of an appeal together with an appeal bond if the
decision involves a monetary award in favor of the employees. The NLRC Rules of Procedure
likewise require the appeal and the appeal bond to be filed within the ten (10)-day
reglementary period. Payment of the appeal bond is a jurisdictional requisite for the perfection
of an appeal to the NLRC. It is only in rare instances that the court relaxes the rule upon a
showing of substantial compliance with it and to prevent patent injustice.
Buenaobra v. Lim King Guan, January 20, 2004
Doctrine: The provision of Art. 223 (now 229) requiring the posting of bond on appeals
involving monetary awards must be given liberal interpretation in line with the desired
objective of resolving controversies on the merits. If only to achieve substantial justice, strict
observance of the reglementary periods may be relaxed if warranted.
Facts: Petitioners (Buenaobra, et. Al.) were employees of private respondent Unix International
Export Corporation (UNIX).
Sometime in 1991 and 1992, petitioners filed several cases against UNIX and its incorporators
and officers for unfair labor practice, illegal lockout/dismissal, underpayment of wages, holiday
pay, proportionate 13thmonth pay, unpaid wages, interest, and damages. Labor Arbiter de Vera
ordered UNIX to pay complainants their backwages, separation pay, wage differentials, regular
holiday pay differentials, and proportionate 13thmonth pay for 1990.
There being no appeal by respondents or petitioners, the decision of labor arbiter eventually
became final and executory. However, petitioners complained that the decision could not be
executed because UNIX allegedly diverted, invested and transferred all its money, assets and
properties to respondent Fuji Zipper Manufacturing Corporation (FUJI) whose stockholders and
officers were also those of UNIX.
Petitioners filed another complaint against respondents UNIX, its corporate officers and
stockholders of record, and FUJI. Petitioners mainly prayed that respondents UNIX and FUJI be
held jointly and severally held liable for the payment of the monetary awards ordered by labor
arbiter de vera.
LA Ruling: Ordered a judgment of piercing the veil of corporate fiction of the two respondent
sister corporations by virtue of this Decision are now considered as mere associations of
persons jointly and severally pay petitioners.
Respondents Argument: Private respondents FUJI filed a memorandum on appeal and a motion
to dispense with the posting of a cash or surety appeal bond on the ground that they were not
the employers of petitioners. They alleged that they could not be held responsible for
petitioners claims and to require them to post the bond would be unjust and unfair, and not
sanctioned by law.
NLRC Ruling: denied respondents motion to be exempted from posting appeal bond.
Petitioners filed a petition in the CA imputing grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC, Third
Division when it allowed private respondents to post the mandated cash or surety bond beyond
4 months after their filing of memorandum on appeal.
CA Ruling: dismissed the petition for lack of merit
Issue: Whether posting of the bond beyond the reglementary period to perfect appeal may be
allowed?
Ruling: YES, the provision of Art. 223 (now 229) requiring the posting of bond on appeals
involving monetary awards must be given liberal interpretation in line with the desired
objective of resolving controversies on the merits. If only to achieve substantial justice, strict
observance of the reglementary periods may be relaxed if warranted. The NLRC, Third Division
could not be said to have abused its discretion in requiring the posting of bond after it denied
private respondents’ motion to be exempted therefrom.

It is true that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law
is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of
making the judgment final and executory. However, technicality should not be allowed to stand
in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties. We
have allowed appeals from the decisions of the labor arbiter to the NLRC, even if filed beyond
the reglementary period, in the interest of justice. The facts and circumstances of the instant
case warrant liberality considering the amount involved and the fact that petitioners already
obtained a favorable judgment on February 23, 1993 against their employer UNIX.

It is only fair and just that respondent FUJI be afforded the opportunity to be heard on appeal
before the NLRC, specially in the light of labor arbiter Pati’s later decision holding FUJI jointly
and severally liable with UNIX in the payment of the monetary awards adjudged by labor
arbiter de Vera against UNIX.