Procedural Due Process

 Turks Shawarma Company v Pajaron, GR 207156, Jan 16, 2017

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA afiirming NLRC Decision dismissing
their appeal on the ground of nonperfection due to failure to post the required bond.
PETITION is DISMISSED
FACTS:
Petitioners hired Feliciano Z. Pajaron (Pajaron) in May 2007 as service crew and Larey A. Carbonilla
(Carbonilla) in April 2007 as head crew.
Both Pajaron and Carbonilla claimed that there was no just or authorized cause for their dismissal
and petitioners also failed to comply with the requirements of due process. On April 15, 2010, they
filed their respective Complaints for constructive and actual illegal dismissal, non-payment of
overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day premium, service incentive leave pay and 13th
month pay against petitioners. Both Complaints were consolidated.
Petitioners denied having dismissed Pajaron and Carbonilla; they averred that they actually
abandoned their work. They likewise failed to substantiate their claims that they were not paid labor
standards benefits.
The Labor Arbiter found credible Pajaron and Carbonilla's version and held them constructively and
illegally dismissed.
Then, petitioners appealed before the NLRC. However, Zefiarosa failed to post in full the required
appeal bond. Thus, petitioners' appeal was dismissed by the NLRC for non-perfection. They filed a
motion for reconsideration but the same was denied.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA. However, the CA rendered a Decision dismissing
the Petition for Certiorari. It held that the NLRC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing petitioners' appeal for non-perfection. Hence, this present petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the NLRC's decision in dismissing petitioners’ appeal for
non-perfection
HELD:
No. The CA did not err in affirming the NLRC's decision in dismissing petitioners’ appeal for non-
perfection.
The Court has time and again held that "[t]he right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a
component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner
and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must
comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.
It is clear from both the Labor Code (Article 223) and the NLRC Rules of Procedure (Sections 4 and 6
of Rule VI) that there is legislative and administrative intent to strictly apply the appeal bond
requirement, and the Court should give utmost regard to this intention."
The posting of cash or surety bond is therefore mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to comply with
this requirement renders the decision of the Labor Arbiter final and executory. This indispensable
requisite for the perfection of an appeal ''is to assure the workers that if they finally prevail in the case
[,] the monetary award will be given to them upon the dismissal of the employer's appeal [and] is
further meant to discourage employers from using the appeal to delay or evade payment of their
obligations to the employees.
Stated otherwise, petitioners' case will still fail on its merits even if we are to allow their appeal to be
given due course. After scrupulously examining the contracting positions and arguments of the
parties, we find that the Labor Arbiter's decision declaring Pajaron and Carbonilla illegally dismissed
was supported by substantial evidence. All told, we find no error on the part of the CA in ruling that
the NLRC did not gravely abused its discretion in dismissing petitioners' appeal for no perfection due
to noncompliance with the requisites of filing a motion to reduce bond.
Procedural rules should not likewise be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance
might result in prejudice to a party’s substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be follow
except only for the most persuasive of reasons.
ESCRA
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; The Supreme Court (SC) has time and again held that “[t]he
right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere statutory
privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the
law.”—The Court has time and again held that “[t]he right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a
component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner
and in accordance with the provisions of the law.” “The party who seeks to avail of the same must
comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so the right to appeal is lost.”

Same; Same; Same; Appeal Bonds; The posting of cash or surety bond is mandatory and
jurisdictional; failure to comply with this requirement renders the decision of the Labor Arbiter
(LA) final and executory.—
“It is clear from both the Labor Code and the NLRC Rules of Procedure that there is legislative and
administrative intent to strictly apply the appeal bond requirement, and the Court should give utmost
regard to this intention.” The posting of cash or surety bond is therefore mandatory and jurisdictional;
failure to comply with this requirement renders the decision of the Labor Arbiter final and executory.
This indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal “is to assure the workers that if they finally
prevail in the case[,] the monetary award will be given to them upon the dismissal of the employer’s
appeal [and] is further meant to discourage employers from using the appeal to delay or evade
payment of their obligations to the employees.”
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 6 of Rule VI of the 2005 NLRC Revised Rules of Procedure, the reduction of the
appeal bond is allowed, subject to 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.

Compliance with these two conditions will stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The reduction of the bond is not a matter of right on the part of the
movant [but] lies within the sound discretion of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC).—The NLRC exercises full discretion in resolving a motion for the reduction of bond in
accordance with the standards of meritorious grounds and reasonable amount. The “reduction of the
bond is not a matter of right on the part of the movant [but] lies within the sound discretion of the
NLRC x x x.” In order to give full effect to the provisions on motion to reduce bond, the appellant must
be allowed to wait for the ruling of the NLRC on the motion even beyond the 10-day period to perfect
an appeal. If the NLRC grants the motion and rules that there is indeed meritorious ground and that
the amount of the bond posted is reasonable, then the appeal is perfected. If the NLRC denies the
motion, the appellant may still file a motion for reconsideration as provided under Section 15, Rule VII
of the Rules. If the NLRC grants the motion for reconsideration and rules that there is indeed
meritorious ground and that the amount of the bond posted is reasonable, then the appeal is
perfected. If the NLRC denies the motion, then the decision of the Labor Arbiter becomes final and
executory.

Labor Law; Termination of Employment; Burden of Proof; In termination cases, the burden of
proof rests on the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just cause.—Petitioners’ case will still
fail on its merits even if we are to allow their appeal to be given due course. After scrupulously
examining the contrasting positions and arguments of the parties, we find that the Labor Arbiter’s
Decision declaring Pajaron and Carbonilla illegally dismissed was supported by substantial evidence.
While petitioners vehemently argue that Pajaron and Carbonilla abandoned their work, the records
are devoid of evidence to show that there was intent on their part to forego their employment. In fact,
petitioners adamantly admitted that they refused to rehire Pajaron and Carbonilla despite persistent
requests to admit them to work. Hence, petitioners essentially admitted the fact of dismissal.
However, except for their empty and general allegations that the dismissal was for just causes,
petitioners did not proffer any evidence to support their claim of misconduct or misbehavior on the
part of Pajaron and Carbonilla. “In termination cases, the burden of proof rests on the employer to
show that the dismissal is for a just cause.” For lack of any clear, valid, and just cause in terminating
Pajaron and Carbonilla’s employment, petitioners are indubitably guilty of illegal dismissal. Turks
Shawarma Company vs. Pajaron, 814 SCRA 359, G.R. No. 207156 January 16, 2017