Borja Estate vs. Ballad

VOL.
459, JUNE 8, 2005

Borja Estate vs. Ballad
657
G.R. No. 152550. June 8, 2005.

BORJA ESTATE AND/OR THE HEIRS OF MANUEL AND PAULA BORJA
and ATTY. MILA LAUIGAN IN HER CAPACITY AS THE ESTATE
ADMINISTRATOR, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES ROTILLO BALLAD and
ROSITA BALLAD, respondents.
*
Labor
Law; Appeals; Surety
Bonds; Pleadings
and
Practice;Statutory
Construction; The intention of the lawmakers to make the surety bond an
indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer is underscored
by the provision that an appeal may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or
surety bondthe word only makes it perfectly clear that the LAWMAKERS
intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer to be the exclusive
means by which an employers appeal may be considered completed; The word may,
on the other hand, refers to the perfection of an appeal as optional on the part of the
defeated party, if he desires to appeal.The intention of the lawmakers to make the
bond an indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer is
underscored by the provision that an appeal may be perfected only upon the posting
of a cash or surety bond. The word only makes it perfectly clear that the
LAWMAKERS intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer to be
the exclusive means by which an employers appeal may be considered completed.
The law however does not require its outright payment, but only the posting of a
bond to ensure that the award will be eventually paid should the appeal fail. What
petitioners have to pay is a moderate and reasonable sum for the premium of such
bond. The word may, on the other hand refers to the perfection of an appeal as
optional on the part of the defeated party, but not to the posting of an appeal bond, if
he desires to appeal.
Same; Same; Same; To extend the period of the appeal is to delay the case, a
circumstance which would give the employer the chance to wear out the efforts and
meager resources of the worker to the point that the latter is constrained to give up for
less than what is due him.Evidently, the posting of a cash or surety bond is
mandatory. And the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period
prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. To extend the period of
the appeal is to delay the case, a circumstance which would give the employer the
chance to wear
_______________
*
SECOND DIVISION.
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
58
out the efforts and meager resources of the worker to the point that the latter is
constrained to give up for less than what is due him. As ratiocinated in the case
of Viron Garments Mfg. v. NLRC: The requirement that the employer post a cash or
surety bond to perfect its/his appeal is apparently intended to assure the workers
that if they prevail in the case, they will receive the money judgment in their favor
upon the dismissal of the employers appeal. It was intended to discourage
employers from using an appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy
their employees just and lawful claims.
Same; Same; Same; While it is true that the Supreme Court has relaxed the
application of the rules on appeal in labor cases, it has only done so where the failure
to comply with the requirements for perfection of appeal was justified or where there
was substantial compliance with the rules.While it is true that this Court has
relaxed the application of the rules on appeal in labor cases, it has only done so
where the failure to comply with the requirements for perfection of appeal was
justified or where there was substantial compliance with the rules. Hence, the
Supreme Court has allowed tardy appeals in judicious cases, e.g., where the
presence of any justifying circumstance recognized by law, such as fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable negligence, properly vested the judge with discretion to
approve or admit an appeal filed out of time; where on equitable grounds, a belated
appeal was allowed as the questioned decision was served directly upon petitioner
instead of her counsel of record who at the time was already dead; where the counsel
relied on the footnote of the notice of the decision of the labor arbiter that the
aggrieved party may appeal . . . within ten (10) working days; in order to prevent a
miscarriage of justice or unjust enrichment such as where the tardy appeal is from a
decision granting separation pay which was already granted in an earlier final
decision; or where there are special circumstances in the case combined with its
legal merits or the amount and the issue involved.
Same; Same; As the losing party has the right to file an appeal within the
prescribed period, so also the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the
finality of the resolution of his/her case.It bears stressing that the bond is sine qua
non to the perfection of appeal from the labor arbiters monetary award. The
requirements for perfecting an appeal must be strictly followed as they are
considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly
discharge of judicial business. The failure of the petitioners to comply with the
requirements for perfection of appeal had the effect of rendering the decision of the
labor arbiter final and execu659
VOL. 459, JUNE 8, 2005

659
tory and placing it beyond the power of the NLRC to review or reverse it. As a
losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so also the
winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of
his/her case.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court
of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Raymundo R. Lauigan for petitioners.
Jose De Luna for private respondents.
TINGA, J.:
In this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioners
Borja Estate and/or the Heirs of Manuel and Paula Borja and Atty. Mila
Lauigan, in her capacity as the estate administrator (the Borjas) assail
theResolution of the Court of Appeals Thirteenth Division denying their
motion for reconsideration and the Decision of the same division in CA-G.R.
SP No. 60700, the dispositive portion of which states:
1
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the assailed Resolutions dated April 14, 2000
and May 31, 2000 are hereby AFFIRMED in toto. The present petition is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
4
The above ruling of the Court of Appeals affirmed theResolution of the

National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the decretal portion of which
reads:
5
_______________
1
Rollo, pp. 11-57; Dated 25 March 2002.

Id., at pp. 72-74; Promulgated on 7 March 2002.
Id., at pp. 59-69; Promulgated on 31 October 2001; Penned by Associate Justice B.A. Adefuin-
De La Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Wenceslao I. Agnir, Jr. and Rebecca De GuiaSalvador.
4
Id., at p. 69.
Id., at pp. 88-91; Promulgated on 14 April 2000; Penned by Commissioner Ireneo B. Bernardo
of the Third Division of the NLRC and con660
660

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents Motion for Reduction of Bond is
hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The instant Appeal is hereby DISMISSED for
failure to post a cash or surety bond within the reglementary period.
SO ORDERED.
6
The
Borjas
motion
for
reconsideration
of
the
above-quoted
NLRC Resolution was likewise dismissed in anotherResolution.
7
As the Borjas appeal was not given due course, the Labor
Arbiters Decision was in effect affirmed, the dispositive portion of which
states:
8
WHEREFORE, with all the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered

declaring the Spouses Rotillo and Rosita Ballad as illegally and unjustly dismissed
in a whimsical and capricious manner which is oppressive to labor and respondents
are jointly and severally ordered to reinstate complainants to their position as
overseers without loss of seniority rights with full backwages, allowances and other
benefits, computed as of the promulgation of this decision, as follows:
1. P25,245.00Backwages, June to October 30, 1999
x _____ 2 (P166 x 365 over 12 x 5 months)
P50,490.00 Backwages for both complainants
2. P 5,0490.0013th month pay x 3 years
P 15,147.00
x_______2
P30,294.0013th month pay for both complainants
3. P100,000.00Moral damages, for both complainants
4. P 50,000.00Exemplary damages, for both complainants
P230,784.00
_______________
curred in by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and Commissioner Tito F. Genilo.
6
Id., at p. 90.
Id., at p. 93; Dated 31 May 2000.
Id., at pp. 77-85; Dated 29 October 1999.
661
VOL.
459,
JUNE 8,
2005
661

5. P272,646.00Separation pay, in case reinstatement is no
longer feasible (P5049 x 27 years x 2 for both
complainants)
6. Money equivalent of 12 cavans of shelled corn per harvest,
transportations expenses, allowances and other benefits
being enjoyed as overseers from the time these were
withheld from them until actual payment, to be computed in
the pre-execution hearing.
7. Plus one percent interest per month and ten percent
attorneys fees.
All other claims are hereby dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
9
The case arose out of the complaint filed by private respondents Spouses
Rotillo and Rosita Ballad (Ballad spouses) against the Borjas for illegal
dismissal, nonpayment of 13th month pay, separation pay, incentive pay,
holiday and premiums pay plus differential pay, and moral and exemplary
damages with the Regional Arbitration Branch No. II of the NLRC in
Tuguegarao, Cagayan, on 8 June 1999.
The Ballad spouses had been employed as overseers of the Borja Estate by
its owners, the spouses Manuel Borja and Paula Borja, since 1972. Their
appointment as such was later made in writing per the certification of
appointment issued by Paula Borja.
The Borja Estate comprises around two hundred (200) hectares of
agricultural lands located in the towns of Iguig, Amulung, Enrile, Solana and
Baggao, Cagayan Province. It includes two apartment buildings consisting of
eleven doors for rent, both located at Caritan, Tuguegarao, Cagayan.
As overseers, the Ballad spouses duties included the collection of owners
share of the harvest from the tenants and the delivery of such share to the
estate administrator, as well as to account for it. They also collected monthly
rentals from the lessees of the apart10
11
12
_______________
9
Id., at p. 85.
10
Id., at pp. 61, 77 and 79.
11
Dated 2 November 1974; Id., at pp. 59, 77 and 279.
12
Id., at pp. 59-60.
662
662

ment and tendered the same to the administrator. They were tasked to
oversee the lands and buildings entrusted to them and were instructed to
report any untoward incident or incidents affecting said properties to the
administrator. They were allegedly required to work all day and night each
week including Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.
For their compensation, the Ballad spouses received a monthly salary of
P1,000.00 for both of them, or P500.00 each. They were provided residential
quarters plus food and traveling allowances equivalent to twelve (12) cavans
of shelled corn every crop harvest. In the year 1980, said salary was
increased to P2,500.00 for each of them by Paula Borja when she came from
abroad. Until the time before their dismissal, the Ballad spouses received the
same amount.
The Ballad spouses further alleged that they were appointed as the
attorney-in-fact of the owners to represent the latter in courts and/or
government offices in cases affecting the titling of the Borjas unregistered
13
14
15
lands, and to institute and prosecute recovery of possession thereof, as well as

in ejectment cases.
They narrated that when the spouses Manuel and Paula Borja went to the
United States of America, their children Lumen, Leonora and Amelia
succeeded to the ownership and management of the Borja Estate. On 16
October 1986, the Ballad spouses claimed that Amelia or Mely, then residing
in Rochester, New York, wrote then administrator Mrs. Lim informing her
that the heirs had extended the services of the Ballad spouses and ordered
Mrs. Lim to pay the hospitalization expenses of Rotillo Ballad which accrued
to Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). It is also alleged that Mely had
instructed Mrs. Lim to cause the registration of the Ballad spouses as Social
Security System (SSS) members so that in case
16
_______________
13
Id., at pp. 60 and 280.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
663
VOL. 459, JUNE 8, 2005

663
any of the latter gets sick, SSS will shoulder their medical expenses and not
the Borjas.
On 10 November 1996, according to the Ballad spouses, when Francisco
Borja, brother of the late Manuel Borja, was appointed the new
administrator, he issued immediately a memorandum to all the tenants and
lessees of the Borja Estate to transact directly with him and to pay their
monthly rentals to him or to his overseers, the Ballad spouses.
Upon his appointment, Francisco Borja allegedly promised to give the
Ballad spouses their food and traveling allowances aforestated but not the
twelve (12) cavans per harvest which he reduced to two (2) cavans per
harvest. Francisco Borja also stopped giving the Ballad spouses their
allowances. For twenty-seven (27) years that the Ballad spouses were in the
employ of the Borjas they were purportedly not paid holiday pay, overtime
pay, incentive leave pay, premiums and restday pay, 13th month pay, aside
from the underpayment of their basic salary.
In June 1999, the Ballad spouses alleged that Francisco Borja
unceremoniously dismissed them and caused this dismissal to be broadcast
over the radio, which caused the former to suffer shock and physical and
mental injuries such as social humiliation, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral anxiety, health deterioration and sleepless nights.
17
18
19
20
Thus, the filing of a case against petitioners before the Labor Arbiter. The
Borjas interposed the defense that respondents had no cause of action against
them because the latter were not their employees. The Borjas insisted that
the Ballad spouses were allowed to reside within the premises of the Borja
Estate only as a gesture of gratitude for Rosita Ballads assistance in the
registration of a parcel of land; and that they were merely utilized to do some
er_______________
17
Id., at pp. 60 and 281.
18
Ibid.
19
Id., at pp. 60 and 281.
20
Id., at p. 60.
664
664

rands from time to time. As to the money claims, the Borjas claimed the
defense of prescription.
As aforestated, the Labor Arbiter ruled that the Ballad spouses had been
illegally dismissed, after concluding that they had been employees of the
Borjas.
Aggrieved by the decision, the Borjas filed their appeal on 26 November
1999 before the NLRC together with aMotion for Reduction of Bond.
In a Resolution dated 14 April 2000, the NLRC dismissed the
petitioners Motion for Reduction of Bond. Petitioners appeal was likewise
dismissed in the sameResolution for failure to post a cash or surety bond
within the reglementary period. Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was
also denied for lack of merit in another Resolution.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals by way of a special
civil action of certiorari. On 31 October 2001, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the Resolutions of the NLRC holding that the filing of a cash or surety bond
issine qua non to the perfection of appeal from the labor monetarys award.
The Court of Appeals noted that the Borjas received a copy of the Labor
Arbiters Decision on 18 November 1999. They thereafter filed their Notice of
Appeal and Appeal on 26 November 1999. On even date, they also filed
a Motion for Reduction of Bond. However, no proof was shown that the Borjas
were able to post the required bond during the same period of time to appeal.
The Court of Appeals observed that petitioners were able to post a bond
only on 17 December 1999 in the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos
(P40,000.00) when the same should have been done during
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
_______________
21
Id., at p. 61.
22
Ibid.
23
Id., at pp. 62 and 86-87.
24
Id., at p. 62 and supra note 5.
25
Id., at pp. 62 and 93.
26
Dated 29 October 1999.
27
Rollo, p. 65.
665
VOL. 459, JUNE 8, 2005

665
the same period of appeal. As this was not done and as no justifiable reason
was given for the late filing, the Court of Appeals ruled that the decision of
the Labor Arbiter had become final and executory.
The Court of Appeals likewise relied on the Labor Arbiters finding that
the Ballad spouses were employees of the petitioners.
Hence, the instant petition.
In this petition, petitioners in essence assert that the Court of Appeals
erred in agreeing with the NLRC that the posting of a cash or surety bond
during the period of time to file an appeal is mandatory and the failure to do
so would have the effect of rendering the appealed decision final and
executory. Petitioners further insist that they never hired the Ballad spouses
as employees.
In a Resolution dated 24 April 2002, the Court initially resolved to deny
the petition for failure of the petitioners to show any reversible error in the
decisions and resolution of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of
Appeals.
However, the Court in a Resolution dated 11 November 2002 decided to
reinstate the petition after considering petitioners arguments contained in
theirMotion for Reconsideration, in which the Borjas stressed that the only
issue sought to be resolved by their Petition is the correct interpretation of
the rule requiring the posting of a bond for the perfection of an appeal. They
implored the Court to contrive a definitive ruling on the matter which in
their estimation has sowed confusion among practitioners as well as to those
exercising quasi-judicial and judicial functions.
There is no merit in the petition.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
_______________
28
Ibid.
29
Id., at pp. 67-69.
30
Id., at pp. 17-18.
31
Id., at p. 319.
32
Id., at p. 329.
33
Id., at pp. 320-325.
34
Id., at p. 320.
666
666

The appeal bond is required under Article 223 of the Labor Code which
provides:
ART. 223. Appeal.Decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and
executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. . . .
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.
....
Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC implements this Article
with its Sections 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 providing pertinently as follows:
Section 1. Periods of Appeal.Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter and
the POEA Administrator shall be final and executory unless appealed to the
Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of
such decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter or of the Administrator, and in
case of a decision of the Regional Director or his duly authorized Hearing Officer
within five (5) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders . . .
Section 3. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal.(a) The appeal shall be filed
within the reglementary period as provided in Sec. 1 of this Rule; shall be under
oath with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of a cash or
surety bond as provided in Sec. 5 of this Rule; shall be accompanied by
memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the
arguments in support thereof; the relief prayed for; and a statement of the date
when the appellant received the appealed decision, order or award and proof of
service on the other party of such appeal.
A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisite aforestated
shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.
Section 5. Appeal Fee.The appellant shall pay an appeal fee of One hundred
(P100.00) pesos to the Regional Arbitration Branch, Regional
667
VOL. 459, JUNE 8, 2005

667
Office, or to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration and the official
receipt of such payment shall be attached to the records of the case.
Section 6. Bond.In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter, the Regional Director
or his duly authorized Hearing Officer involves a monetary award, an appeal by the
employer shall be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond, which
shall be in effect until final disposition of the case, issued by a reputable bonding
company duly accredited by the Commission or the Supreme Court in an amount
equivalent to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorneys fees.
....
The Commission may, in justifiable cases and upon Motion of the Appellant,
reduce the amount of the bond. The filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop
the running of the period to perfect appeal.
Section 7. No extension of Period.No motion or request for extension of the
period within which to perfect an appeal shall be allowed.
Thus, it is clear from the foregoing that the appeal from any decision, award
or order of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC shall be made within ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of such decision, award or order, and must be
under oath, with proof of payment of the required appeal fee accompanied by
a memorandum of appeal. In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter involves a
monetary award, the appeal is deemed perfected only upon the posting of a
cash or surety bond also within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such
decision in an amount equivalent to the monetary award.
The intention of the lawmakers to make the bond an indispensable
requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer is underscored by
the provision that an appeal may be perfected only upon the posting of a
cash or surety bond. The word only makes it perfectly clear that the
LAWMAKERS intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer
to be the exclusive means by which an employers appeal may be considered
completed. The law however does not require its outright payment, but only
the
35
36
_______________
35
Biogenerics Marketing & Research Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 372 Phil.
653, 661; 313 SCRA 748, 755 (1999).

36
Globe Gen. Services and Security Agency v. National Labor Relations Commission, 319 Phil.
531, 535; 249 SCRA 408, 413 (1995).

668
668

posting of a bond to ensure that the award will be eventually paid should the
appeal fail. What petitioners have to pay is a moderate and reasonable sum
for the premium of such bond.
The word may, on the other hand refers to the perfection of an appeal as
optional on the part of the defeated party, but not to the posting of an appeal
bond, if he desires to appeal.
Evidently, the posting of a cash or surety bond is mandatory. And the
perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by
37
38
law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. To extend the period of the
appeal is to delay the case, a circumstance which would give the employer the
chance to wear out the efforts and meager resources of the worker to the
point that the latter is constrained to give up for less than what is due
him. As ratiocinated in the case of Viron Garments Mfg. v. NLRC:
39
40
41
The requirement that the employer post a cash or surety bond to perfect its/his
appeal is apparently intended to assure the workers that if they prevail in the case,
they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the
employers appeal. It was intended to
_______________
37
Biogenerics Marketing & Research Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 372 Phil. 653,
661; 313 SCRA 748, 755 (1999); See Rosewood Processing, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 352 Phil. 1013, 1029;290 SCRA 408 (1998) citing Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative,
Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 31 July 1995, 246 SCRA 794, 801.
38
Viron Garments Mfg. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 97357, 18 March
1992, 207 SCRA 339.

39
Catubay v. National Labor Relations Commission, 386 Phil. 648, 657; 330 SCRA 440, 447
(2000); Taberrah v. National Labor Relations Commission, 342 Phil. 394, 404; 276 SCRA 431, 440
(1997); Italian Village Restaurant v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 95594, 11 March
1992, 207 SCRA 204, 208 (1992); Cabalan Pastulan Negrito Labor Association v. National Labor
Relations Commission, 311 Phil. 744; 241 SCRA 643 (1995);Rosewood Processing, Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, 352 Phil. 1013, 1028; 290 SCRA 408, 420 (1998).
40
Italian Village Restaurant v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra.
41
Supra note 38.
669
VOL. 459, JUNE 8, 2005

669
discourage employers from using an appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligation
to satisfy their employees just and lawful claims.
42
In the case at bar, while the petitioners Appeal Memorandum and Motion for
Reduction of Bond, which was annexed thereto, were both filed on time, the
appeal was not perfected by reason of the late filing and deficiency of the
amount of the bond for the monetary award with no explanation offered for
such delay and inadequacy.
As there was no appeal bond filed together with theAppeal
Memorandum within the ten (10)-day period provided by law for the
perfection of appeal, it follows that no appeal from the decision of the Labor
Arbiter had been perfected. Accordingly, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter
became final and executory upon the expiration of the reglementary period.
While it is true that this Court has relaxed the application of the rules on
appeal in labor cases, it has only done so where the failure to comply with the
43
44
requirements for perfection of appeal was justified or where there was

substantial compliance with the rules. Hence, the Supreme Court has
allowed tardy appeals in judicious cases, e.g., where the presence of any
justifying circumstance recognized by law, such as fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence, properly vested the judge with discretion to approve or
admit an appeal filed out of time; where on equitable grounds, a belated
appeal was allowed as the questioned decision was served directly upon
petitioner instead of her counsel of record who at the time was already
dead; where the counsel relied on the footnote of the notice of the decision of
the labor arbiter that the aggrieved party may appeal . . . within ten (10)
working days; in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice or unjust
enrichment such as
45
_______________
42
Id., at p. 342.
43
Rollo, p. 16.
44
Cabalan Pastulan Negrito Labor Association v. National Labor Relations Commission, 311
Phil. 744, 762-763; 241 SCRA 643, 656 (1995).

45
Catubay v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note 39 at p. 658; p. 448.
670
670

where the tardy appeal is from a decision granting separation pay which was
already granted in an earlier final decision; or where there are special
circumstances in the case combined with its legal merits or the amount and
the issue involved.
Here, no justifiable reason was put forth by the petitioners for the nonfiling of the required bond, or the late filing of the defective bond for that
matter as in fact the bond they filed late on 17 December 1999 in the amount
of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) was not even equivalent to the reduced
amount of bond they prayed for in their Motion for Reduction of Bond. The
Court then is not prepared to hold that the petitionersMotion for Reduction
of Bond was substantial compliance with the Labor Code for failure to
demonstrate willingness to abide by their prayer in said Motion.
In addition, no exceptional circumstances obtain in the case at bar which
would warrant the relaxation of the bond requirement as a condition for
perfecting the appeal.
It bears stressing that the bond is sine qua non to the perfection of appeal
from the labor arbiters monetary award. The requirements for perfecting an
appeal must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable
interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial
business. The failure of the petitioners to comply with the requirements for
46
47
perfection of appeal had the effect of rendering the decision of the labor
arbiter final and executory and placing it beyond the power of the NLRC to
review or reverse it. As a losing party has the right to file an appeal within
the prescribed period, so also the winning party has the correlative right to
enjoy the finality of the resolution of his/her case.
48
_______________
46
Rosewood Processing, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 352 Phil. 1013,
1029; 290 SCRA 408, 421 (1998) citingPhilippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 263 SCRA 638, 658 (1996).
47
Rollo, pp. 65 and 86.
48
See Ginete v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 36, 46-47; 296 SCRA 38, 46 (1998).
671
VOL. 459, JUNE 8, 2005

Zulueta vs. Wong
671
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the petition is

DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Austria-Martinez (Actg. Chairman), Callejo, Sr. andChico-Nazario,
JJ., concur.
Puno (Chairman), J., On Official Leave.
Petition denied.
Note.The provision stating that an appeal by an employer may be
perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bonds shows the
intention of the lawmakers to make the posting of a cash or surety bond by
the employer to be the exclusive means by which an employers appeal may
be perfected. (Catubay vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 330 SCRA
440 [2000])
o0o
Copyright 2013 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Borja Estate vs. Ballad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Borja Estate vs. Ballad

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Borja Estate vs. Ballad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VOL.

459, JUNE 8, 2005

G.R. No. 152550. June 8, 2005.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 459, JUNE 8, 2005

The above ruling of the Court of Appeals affirmed theResolution of the

Rollo, pp. 11-57; Dated 25 March 2002.

of the Third Division of the NLRC and con660

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

WHEREFORE, with all the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered

Id., at p. 93; Dated 31 May 2000.

Id., at pp. 77-85; Dated 29 October 1999.