GUAGUA NATIONAL COLLEGES v.

COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

Under Sec. 5(2) of R.A. 6728 (Government Assistance To Students and Teachers In Private Education Act),
70% of the increase in tuition fees shall go to the payment of salaries, wages, allowances and other benefits
of the teaching and non-teaching personnel. However, the GNC Board of Trustees approved the funding of
the retirement program out of the 70% net incremental proceeds arising from the tuition fee increases.
Respondents GNC-Faculty Labor Union and GNC Non-Teaching Maintenance Labor Union challenged the
petitioner's unilateral decision for violation of R.A. 6728.

VA decided on Jun 16, 2008 in favor of GNC holding that retirement benefits fell within the category of
"other benefits" that could be charged against the 70% net incremental proceeds pursuant to R.A. 6728.

After receiving a copy of the decision on Jun. 16, 2008, the respondents filed an Urgent Motion for
Extension praying that the CA grant them an extension of 15 days from Jul. 1, 2008, or until Jul. 16, 2008,
within which to file their petition for review. The urgent motion was granted and the respondent filed its
petition for review on Jul. 16, 2008.

The petitioner filed its Motion to Dismiss, asserting that the VA decision had already become final and
executory pursuant to Art. 276 of the Labor Code and in accordance with the ruling in Coca-Cola Bottlers
Philippines, Inc. Sales Force Union PTGWO-Balais v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.

On Dec. 15, 2008, the CA dismissed the Motion to Dismiss.

The issue arises because the decision or award of the VA or Panel of Arbitrators is appealable to the CA by
petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, which provides a period of 15 days from notice of
the decision or award within which to file the petition for review. On the other hand, Art. 262-A (now Art.
276)1 of the Labor Code sets 10 days as the period within which the appeal is to be made.

ISSUE:

When is the proper period to appeal the decision by the VA or Panel of Arbitrators? The petition for
review shall be filed within 15 days pursuant to Section 4, Rules 43 of the Rules of Court.

HELD:

The 10-calendar day period stated in Article 276 should be understood as the period within which the party
adversely affected by the ruling of the VA or Panel of Arbitrators may file a motion for reconsideration; and

Only after the resolution of the motion for reconsideration may the aggrieved party appeal to the CA by
filing the petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within 15 days from notice pursuant to
Sec. 4 of Rule 43.
 PACIOS v. TAHANANG WALANG HAGDANAN AND SISTER VALERIANA BAERTS, ICM

FACTS:

Petitioners are physically disabled employees missing one or both limbs, dismissed by Respondent. They
filed an “amended complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salary, non-payment of 13th month pay,
service incentive leave, separation pay, retirement benefits, with claims for moral damages, exemplary
damages, and attorney's fees" before the LA against the respondent. On Oct. 24, 2013, the LA decided in
their favour and ordered the respondent to pay them 16,629,163.63PhP.

The respondent appealed the LA Decision before the NLRC, however the appeal was dismissed for non-
perfection as the 40,000PhP cash bond for the appeal was insufficient. Respondent filed a Motion for
Reconsideration and posted a surety bond amounting to 1,622,916.37PhP. The NRLTC denied this motion,
finding that respondent’s initial 40,000PhP cash bond did not toll the running of the 10-day period to appeal.

Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which in its Apr. 27, 2015 Decision,
reversed the NLRC Feb. 25, 2014 Resolution. The CA reinstated the respondent’s appeal before the NLRC,
finding that the cash bond of 40,000PhP and the supersedes bond of 1,622,916.37PhP were sufficient and
reasonable to perfect the appeal.

In the meantime, before the CA reinstated the appeal before the NLRC, the LA issued a Writ of Execution
on Mar. 30, 2015 to implement the LA's Oct. 24, 2013 Decision awarding 16,629,163.63PhP to the
petitioners. Thus, the cash bond in the amount of 40,000PhP was released to them. Thereafter, they filed a
Motion to Release the Supersedeas Bond. However, Respondent opposed this because of the CA Apr. 27,
2015 Decision reinstating their appeal before the NLRC.

ISSUE:

W/N, during appeal before the NLRC, the LA decision ordering payment to the dismissed employee should
be executor. YES.

HELD:

The CA pointed out that Rule XI, Sec. 17 of the NLRC Rules “explicitly mandates the suspension of the
execution proceedings in case of total or partial reversal of judgment by the Court of Appeals.” It held that
because its April 27, 2015 Decision reversed the NLRC’s February 25, 2014 Resolution, suspension of the
execution was mandated under the rules. However, the Court of Appeals failed to note that under the Rules,
the execution proceedings should be suspended only “insofar as the reversal is concerned.” This omission
leads to an incorrect reading of the rule and suggests that any reversal on appeal leads to the automatic
suspension of execution of the appealed decision. When used as basis for suspending execution, the rule
requires an extra step, namely, the determination of what part of the execution is affected by the
reversal.

The more relevant rule in this case is Rule XI, Sec. 3 of the NLRC Rules, which provides:

Sec. 3. Effect of Perfection of Appeal on Execution. — The perfection of an appeal shall stay the
execution of the decision of the Labor Arbiter except execution for reinstatement pending appeal.
Under this provision, the perfection of an appeal stays the execution of a Labor Arbiter’s decision. Thus, for
clarity, the CA should have explained that because its Apr. 27, 2015 Decision deemed respondents’ appeal
before the NLRC as reinstated, the execution of the LA’s Oct. 24, 2013 Decision was stayed under Rule XI,
Sec. 3 of the NLRC Rules of Procedure. However, despite the applicability of Rule XI, Sec. 3 of the NLRC
Rules to the factual circumstances before the CA as of its assailed Jul. 22, 2016 Decision and Jan. 23, 2017
Resolution in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 142199, the Petition must be granted.

This Court finds that the principles allowing execution pending appeal invoked in Aris are equally
applicable here as petitioners are poor employees, deprived of their only source of livelihood for years
and reduced to begging on the streets. In view of their dire straits and since the NLRC has already ruled
twice on the case in a way that supports the release of the supersedeas bond, it is proper to continue with
execution proceedings in this case despite a pending motion for reconsideration.
 KARJ GLOBAL MARKETING NETWORK, INC., vs. MARA

FACTS:

Respondent MARA instituted a complaint before the LA against the Petitioner for non-payment of 14th
month pay and refund of his car's maintenance expenditures, damages and attorney's fees.

The LA ordered the petitioner to pay the respondent, and the latter appealed before the NLRC. Prior to the
issuance of the LA decision, three creditors of the Petitioner instituted before the RTC a Petition for
Involuntary Insolvency against the Petitioner and the RTC enjoined the petitioner from disposing, in any
manner, of its property except in so far as it concerns the ordinary operations of commerce or industry in
which it is engaged in and furthermore, from making any payments outside of necessary or legitimate
expenses of its business or industry so long as the proceeding is pending.

Meanwhile, on Nov. 28, 2008, the NLRC dismissed Petitioner's appeal, for non-perfection being that it
filed without the required bond. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA arguing that the NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed
petitioner's appeal despite the RTC Order which petitioner claims was a legal justification for not posting
the cash or surety bond normally required for an appeal.

The CA affirmed the NLRC, ruling that an appeal bond is an indispensable requirement in perfecting an
appeal before the NLRC and that petitioner's claim that the RTC Order prohibited it from disposing of its
property as baseless as the posting of the bond did not mean that petitioner had to dispose a portion of its
property. And even if such constituted a disposal of property, it would not have been a violation of the RTC
Order because the case involves payment of an employee's benefits, which is within the ambit of a
legitimate operation of petitioner's business.

ISSUE

W/N strict adherence to the requirement for the posting of an appeal bond in order to perfect an
appeal before the NLRC is proper. NO.

HELD:

This Court has liberally applied the NLRC Rules and the Labor Code provisions on the posting of an
appeal bond in exceptional cases.

 In Your Bus Lines v. NLRC – the Court relied on the notice of the decision. While the notice
enumerated all the other requirements for perfecting an appeal, it did not include a bond in the list.

 In Blancaflor v. NLRC – the failure of the appellant therein to post a bond was partly caused by the
labor arbiter's failure to state the exact amount of monetary award due, which would have been the
basis of the amount of the bond to be posted.

 In Cabalan Paslulan Negrito Labor Association v. NLRC – petitioner-appellant’s insolvency and

poverty.
  In UERM-Memorial Medical Center v. NLRC – allowed the appellant-employer to post a
property bond in lieu of a cash or surety bond. The assailed judgment involved more than P17
million; thus, its execution could adversely affect the economic survival of the employer, which was
a medical center.

Here, the Court deems the existence of the insolvency proceedings as an exceptional circumstance to
warrant the liberal application of the rules requiring an appeal bond. The failure to file an appeal bond
did not contradict the need to ensure that respondent, if his claim is deemed valid, will receive the money
judgment.

The rule on a requirement of an appeal bond cannot operate in a vacuum. “When the law does not clearly
provide a rule or norm for the tribunal to follow in deciding a question submitted, but leaves to the tribunal
the discretion to determine the case in one way or another, the judge must decide the question in conformity
with justice, reason and equity, in view of the circumstances of the case.”
 INTERORIENT MARITIME ENTERPRISES, INC. vs. HECHANOVA

FACTS:

Petitioner Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. (Interorient) hired respondent Hechanova as master on
board M/V Livadi for nine months. However, three months after boarding the vessel, Hechanova was
relieved from duty and was repatriated despite an uncompleted employment contract. Pursuing
redeployment, he was found with “low blood count” and from there zigzagged from being fit and unfit for
work. His wife requested for medical assistance from Interorient, who asked for proof of Hechanova's
medical conditions. Having been denied medical assistance, Hechanova filed a complaint for total and
permanent disability benefits against Interorient.

Interorient averred that Hechanova performed poorly on board, which prompted his early repatriation. On
his return to the Philippines, he reported to Interorient's office for debriefing and filled up his Offsigners
Data Slip stating he had no unpaid claims against Interorient, and he did not suffer any illness or injury
during his employment.

The LA rendered a decision in Interorient's favour, noting that Hechanova didn’t report anything
unsatisfactory while working on board. Thus, there is no reason for post-medical examination. Even if he
did undergo such examination, his claim would still fail because there is no basis that his illness was work-
related.

The NLRC affirmed the LA and denied Hechanova's motion for reconsideration. The CA affirmed the
NLRC's decision with modification ordering Interorient to: (1) fully reimburse Hechanova of his placement
fee and deductions with12% interest per annum; (2) salary for the unexpired portion of his employment
contract; and (3) attorney's fees at10% of the wages recovered.

Interorient argues that there is no basis for the monetary award because Hechanova did not claim them.

ISSUE:

W/N the CA erred in modifying the NLRC's decision. YES.

HELD:

Courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the pleadings or in excess of what is being sought by a
party to a case.

Due process considerations justify this requirement. It is improper to enter an order which exceeds the
scope of relief sought by the pleadings, absent notice which affords the opposing party an opportunity
to be heard with respect to the proposed relief. The fundamental purpose of the requirement that
allegations of a complaint must provide the measure of recovery is to prevent surprise to the defendant.

This protection against surprises granted to defendants should also be available to petitioners.Verily,
both parties to a suit are entitled to due process against unforeseen and arbitrary judgments. The very
essence of due process is "the sporting idea of fair play" which forbids the grant of relief on matters where a
party to the suit was not given an opportunity to be heard.
The records reveal that Hechanova's complaint is for total and permanent disability benefits. He
neither complained of illegal dismissal, nor claimed for salary for the unexpired portion of the contract and
reimbursement of placement fee and other deductions. Hechanova was consistent in his pleadings that he
was interested in total and permanent disability benefits and not the monetary claims of an illegally
dismissed seafarer.