Case Digest (G.R. No. 122725)
Facts:
Biogenerics Marketing and Research Corporation and Wolfgang Roehr, G.R. No. 122725, September 08, 1999, Supreme Court Second Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners challenged resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that dismissed their appeal from a Labor Arbiter’s monetary award in favor of respondent Serafin G. Panganiban.On 13 March 1991 petitioners employed Panganiban as President and General Manager; on 18 December 1992 petitioner Roehr dismissed him for allegedly planning to form a competing corporation. Panganiban filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages on 27 January 1993. On 18 May 1994 the Labor Arbiter found the dismissal illegal and awarded separation pay, back wages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorneys’ fees totaling over P2 million.
On 13 June 1994 BIOGENERICS filed a Memorandum of Appeal and a Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond with the NLRC, and initially posted a cash bond of P50,000. On 17 August 1994 the NLRC required an additional cash or surety bond of P1,950,000 within ten days. After petitioners’ motions for reduction were denied, the NLRC repeatedly extended short non-extendible periods to post the required bond but warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the appeal.
Petitioners submitted an Irrevocable Bank Guarantee for P1,950,000 on 22 November 1994, which the NLRC rejected because Article 223 of the Labor Code and Sec. 6 of Rule 6 of the NLRC New Rules required a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company accredited by the Commission or the Supreme Court. On 20 February 1995 petitioners’ estranged wife, Carmen Rodriguez, deposited a cash bond; she then moved to withdraw it, contending she had posted it under a mistaken belief she was obliged to do so. On 6 March 1995 the NLRC allowed withdrawal and ordered petitioners—this time explicitly the employer—to post the requisite bond within ten days; petitioners’ counsel received that Resolution on 7 March 1995 but did not file a motion for reconsideration nor post the bond.
On 5 June 1995 the NLRC issued a resolution dismissing the appeal for failure to post the required bond; the Commission therefore treated the Labor Arbiter’s decision as affirmed and final. Petitioners’...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did petitioners’ failure to post the required cash or surety bond render their appeal from the Labor Arbiter unperfected, making the Labor Arbiter’s award final and executory?
- Did petitioners’ failure to timely file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC’s Resolution of 6 March 1995 preclude further relief and render that Resolution final?
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse in rejecting the bank guarantee and in allowing the withdrawal of t...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)