APPEAL

Q. After the Labor Arbiter dismissed a complaint for illegal dismissal, the
worker appealed. The employer was not furnished a copy of the
memorandum of appeal. Thus, the employer was not aware of the appeal
and did not participate in the appeal interposed by the worker. Without
the employers participation, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiters
decision and ruled in favor of the appellant worker. Is the decision valid?

A. No, the NLRCs decision is null and void. It is a cardinal rule in law that
a decision or judgment is fatally defective if rendered in violation of a party-
litigants right to due process. The fault lies with the NLRC and not with
the appellant worker. While the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC
require proof of service of the appeal on the other party, non-
compliance therewith will present no obstacle to the perfection of the
appeal nor does it amount to a jurisdictional defect to the NLRCs
taking cognizance thereof. While the law excuses the appellant from
notifying the other party of the appeal, no reason can be given by the
NLRC that would exempt it from informing the latter of the appeal and
giving it an opportunity to be heard. The case should be set for further
proceedings to afford the employer the opportunity to be
heard. (Philippine National Construction Corporation v. NLRC, 292
SCRA 266, July 10, 1998)

Q. Simultaneous with the filing of the appeal, the appellant-employer filed a

motion to reduce the amount of the bond. The motion was partially
granted. In the order partially granting the motion to reduce the amount of
the bond, the NLRC directed the appellant to post the bond within ten (10)
days from receipt of the order. Instead of filing the bond, the appellant
employer filed a motion for reconsideration of the NLRCs order reducing
the amount of the bond. Because of the appellant employers failure to
post the bond, the NLRC dismissed the appeal. Is the NLRCs ruling
correct?

A. Yes, the ruling is correct. To have the bond reduced is not a matter
of right on the part of the appellant but lies within the sound
discretion of the NLRC upon showing of meritorious grounds. After
the NLRC had exercised its discretion in fixing the bond, the appellant
should have complied with it. To file a subsequent motion seeking
another reconsideration of the already reduced amount of the bond is
to request for an extension of time to perfect an appeal which is
prohibited. (MERS Shoes Manufacturing, Inc. v. NLRC, 286 SCRA
647, February 27, 1998)

Q. An employer appealed a Writ of Execution issued by the Labor Arbiter

claiming that it had varied the tenor of the judgment. The NLRC dismissed
the appeal stating that it had lost jurisdiction over the case. The NLRC
stated that an order of execution is not merely interlocutory but final in
character and that after a decision has become final, the prevailing party
becomes entitled as a matter of right to its execution. Is the dismissal of
the appeal correct?

A. No, the dismissal of the appeal is erroneous. The NLRCs ruling is

based on the general rule that after a decision has become final, the
prevailing party becomes entitled as a matter of right to its execution, that it
becomes merely the ministerial duty of the court to issue the
execution. This general rule cannot be applied, however, where the
writ of execution is assailed as having varied the decision. In this
case, the employer alleged that the writ of execution materially altered the
decision. If this allegation is correct, the appellant is entitled to the remedy
of appeal. The NLRC is vested with authority to look into the
correctness of the execution of the decision and to consider
supervening events that may affect such execution. (SGS Far East
Ltd. V. NLRC, 286 SCRA 335, February 12, 1998)

Q. In an illegal dismissal case, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the

worker. The total monetary award was more than ONE MILLION
Pesos. The employer appealed and posted a bond in the amount of
P700,000.00 only. In computing the monetary amount for the purpose of
posting an appeal bond, the employer excluded the award for damages,
litigation expenses and attorneys fees. Is the employers computation
correct?
A. Yes, the computation of the monetary award is correct. Under the
NLRC New Rules of Procedure, an appeal is deemed perfected upon
the posting of the bond equivalent to the monetary award exclusive
of moral and exemplary damages as well as attorneys fees. The
said implementing rule is a contemporaneous construction of Article 223 of
the Labor Code by the NLRC pursuant to the mandate. The exclusion of
moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees from the computation of
the monetary award has been recognized by the Supreme Court in a
number of cases. (Fernandez v. NLRC, 285 SCRA 149, January 28,
1998)

Q: In a case of illegal dismissal against the petitioner, the Labor Arbiter

ruled that the dismissal of P was illegal and awarded damages, separation
pay and backwages. The company filed a Motion for Appeal and a Motion
to Reduce Appeal Bond before the NLRC reiterating that P voluntarily
resigned and was not illegally dismissed. Petitioners argued that
considering the authorized capital stock of the corporation was only P2,
000,000.00, an award of P1, 870,000.00 as backwages alone was
excessive and initially posted only a P50,000.00 cash bond. The NLRC
denied the Motion to Reduce the Appeal Bond. The NLRC gave the
company three extensions (totaling 30 days) for them to comply with the
appeal bond requirement. A certain R, wife of the companys chairman,
posted the required bond. Yet when R learned that she was not under any
obligation to post the bond on behalf of her husband, she withdrew the
bond. Should petitioners still be made to post another bond?

A: Yes. Since effectively, no appeal bond was posted by petitioners, no

appeal was perfected from the decision of the Labor Arbiter, for which
reason the decision sought to be appealed to the NLRC became final and
executory and immutable. The requirement of cash or surety bond to
perfect an appeal from the Labor Arbiters monetary award is jurisdictional;
non-compliance is fatal and renders the award final and executory. It is not
an excuse that the bond of P2 million is too much for a small business
enterprise. The law does not require outright payment but only the
posting of a bond to ensure that the award will eventually be paid should
the appeal fail. (Biogenerics Marketing and Research Corporation v.
NLRC, 313 SCRA 748, 8 September 1999)