Case Digest (G.R. No. 168985)
Facts:
Accessories Specialist Inc., a.k.a. Arts 21 Corporation, and Tadahiko Hashimoto v. Erlinda B. Alabanza, for and in behalf of her deceased husband, Jones B. Alabanza, G.R. No. 168985, July 23, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.On September 27, 2002, private respondent Erlinda B. Alabanza, acting for and in behalf of her husband Jones B. Alabanza, filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for nonpayment of salaries, separation pay and 13th month pay against petitioners Accessories Specialist, Inc. (ASI) (also known as ARTS 21 Corporation) and its owner Tadahiko Hashimoto. Erlinda alleged that Jones had been ASI’s Vice-President, Manager and Director and rendered services from 1975 until his forced resignation in October 1997; at resignation Jones allegedly had unpaid salaries for 18 months, separation pay for 21 years’ service, and unpaid 13th month pay, demands for which ASI repeatedly promised to satisfy after rank-and-file claims were paid.
Petitioners countered that Jones voluntarily resigned on October 31, 1997, and that any claim filed in 2002 was barred by the three-year prescription under Art. 291 of the Labor Code. On September 14, 2003 the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision ordering petitioners to pay P693,000.00 and US$74,040.00 (or its peso equivalent, said to total P4,765,200.00), plus 5% attorney’s fees. Petitioners filed a notice of appeal with a motion to reduce bond on October 10, 2003, submitting receipts for a P290,000.00 cash bond and P170.00 appeal fee.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) denied the motion to reduce bond and ordered petitioners on January 15, 2004 to post an additional cash or surety bond in the amount equivalent to the monetary award (less the P290,000.00 already posted) and to comply with collateral and indemnity requirements; failure to post would result in dismissal of the appeal. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by NLRC resolution dated March 18, 2004 which dismissed their appeal for non-perfection; this resolution became final and executory on April 22, 2004.
After NLRC’s dismissal, Erlinda moved for execution and the Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution on June 11, 2004. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA) on May 28, 2004 seeking injunctive relief; the CA issued a TRO on June 30, 2004. The CA later dismissed the petition in a Decision dated April 15, 2005 and denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated July 12, 2005. Petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for revie...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the action for unpaid wages, separation pay and 13th month pay barred by prescription under Article 291 of the Labor Code?
- Is posting the full amount of an appeal bond indispensable to perfection of an employer’s appeal to the NLRC even where a motion to reduce bond has been filed?
- Were there sufficient bases to sustain the Labor Arbiter’s ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)