Case Digest (G.R. No. 197797)
Facts:
Balagtas Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. and Aurelio Santiago v. Court of Appeals, National Labor Relations Commission and Josefina Herrero, G.R. No. 138520, September 16, 1999, First Division, Kapunan, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Josefina Herrero filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of 13th month pay against petitioners Balagtas Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. and its manager Aurelio Santiago. On March 23, 1998 the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of Herrero ordering the cooperative and Santiago jointly and severally to pay P2,000 as 13th month pay (1995–1997), P188,000 as backwages from dismissal to decision, and P28,000 as separation pay (1991 to decision); all other claims were dismissed.
Petitioners timely appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) but did not post the cash or surety bond required for appeals involving monetary awards. Instead, they filed a Manifestation and Motion asserting exemption from posting bond under paragraph 7, Article 62 of the Cooperative Code (R.A. No. 6938). The NLRC, invoking Article 223 of the Labor Code (as amended by R.A. 6715) and Sections 3 and 6, Rule VI of the 1990 New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, ordered petitioners within ten days to post a cash or surety bond in the amount of P218,000 and to submit a joint sworn declaration that the surety bond is genuine and effective until final disposition.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals asserting that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the bond in disregard of Article 62(7) of the Cooperative Code. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in a January 29, 1999 Resolution for failure to comply with Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — specifically, the petition mentioned a Motion for Reconsideration and a financial statement that were not attached. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration attaching the missing motion and the financial statement, but the CA denied reconsideration on April 26, 1999, holding that other material documents (complaint, position papers, resignation letter) were still missing.
Petitioners then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by the present peti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari for failure to comply with Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure?
- Are cooperatives exempt from posting an appeal bond under Article 62(7) of the Cooperative Code, and was the Cooperative’s submission of a Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) certification and financial statement su...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)