Facts:

The case involves Benito J. Brizuela as the petitioner and Abraham Dingle and Nicandro Legaspi as the respondents. The events leading to the case began when Dingle and Legaspi were employed by Philippine Media Post, Inc. (PMPI), the publisher of the newspaper Philippine Post. Dingle was hired as an Associate Editor on July 20, 1999, and confirmed as a regular employee on September 23, 1999, with a monthly salary of P22,000. Legaspi started as a City Editor on November 9, 1999, and was later promoted to News Editor on January 7, 2000, earning P25,000 monthly. On May 19, 2003, both respondents filed a complaint against PMPI and Brizuela for various claims, including nonpayment and underpayment of salaries, editorial fees, and other benefits. They alleged that they worked six days a week, often on holidays, without receiving overtime pay. The situation escalated when, on November 16, 2000, the employees, including Dingle and Legaspi, ceased publication due to unpaid salaries. Br...

Facts:

Background of the Parties

• Petitioner Benito J. Brizuela is the president and registered owner of 49% of the authorized capital stock of Philippine Media Post, Inc. (PMPI), publisher of the Philippine Post.
• Respondent Abraham Dingle was employed as Associate Editor, initially under probation and later confirmed as a regular employee with a monthly salary of P22,000.00.
• Respondent Nicandro Legaspi started as City Editor and was promoted to News Editor, with salaries initially at P22,000.00 and later increased to P25,000.00 per month.

Employment Relationship and Claims

• Both respondents, as editors, were assigned various tasks—including editing, supervising page layouts, distributing reporters’ copies, and eventually writing editorials when non-staff writers were relieved of that duty.
• They were made to work on a six-day week schedule and sometimes on Sundays and holidays without receiving appropriate overtime, holiday, or other benefit payments.
• On 16 November 2000, a work stoppage occurred when employees, including the respondents, refused to work due to the nonpayment of salaries and benefits.

Dispute and Filing of the Complaint

• On 19 May 2003, respondents filed a Complaint with the Labor Arbiter against PMPI and petitioner Brizuela for nonpayment/underpayment of salaries, editorial fees, legal and holiday pay, premium pay for holidays, service incentive leave, 13th month pay, vacation and sick leave pay, separation pay, and damages including attorney’s fees.
• The complaint detailed the various administrative functions and editorial tasks performed by the respondents and their subsequent claims for benefits.
• Despite efforts by respondents to secure unpaid claims, Brizuela maintained that all obligations had supposedly been settled through another executive of PMPI, and he even contested the respondents’ request for access to the Post records.

Labor Arbiter and NLRC Proceedings

• The Labor Arbiter ruled that, although closure of an establishment due to serious business losses is a valid ground for termination, there was no conclusive factual or legal basis for PMPI’s closure on that ground.
• In a Decision dated 30 April 2004, the Labor Arbiter ordered joint and several liability against PMPI and petitioner Brizuela for specific monetary awards covering separation pay, unpaid salaries, 13th month pay, and an additional 10% for attorney’s fees, while dismissing other claims.
• Both the respondents and petitioner appealed the Labor Arbiter’s decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), with the petitioner contesting his personal liability and the denial of PMPI’s closure claim on grounds of serious financial losses.

Issues Relative to the Posting of the Appeal Bond and TRO Application

• Respondents alleged that petitioner’s appeal was defective for failure to post the required supersedeas bond equivalent to the monetary award.
• Petitioner, while filing a Motion for Additional Time and subsequently a Motion to Reduce Bond (eventually posting a cash bond of P5,000.00), was directed by the NLRC to post an additional bond amounting to P394,000.00.
• The bond raised further objections by the respondents on the ground that the bond was issued on behalf of PMPI, a party lacking legal standing in the appeal.

Petition for Certiorari and Relief Sought

• Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the NLRC Decision dated 28 October 2005 and challenging, in particular, the issuance’s effect and execution of the monetary award.
• Additionally, petitioner sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to enjoin public respondent NLRC and the Labor Arbiter from executing the monetary award following respondents’ motion for issuance of a writ of execution.
• Petitioner argued that executing the NLRC’s decision could preempt and render moot his appeal, causing grave and irreparable injury.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

• The Court of Appeals initially denied petitioner’s TRO application in its Resolution dated 3 May 2006.
• Petitioner’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was again denied in a Resolution dated 20 September 2006, where the court maintained that the motion was a mere reiteration of earlier issues and that due process was not violated since petitioner had been given an opportunity to be heard.
• The proceedings on petition for certiorari, separate from the TRO issue, were forwarded and remained pending before the Court of Appeals.

Issue:

Whether the closure of PMPI due to alleged financial losses constituted valid grounds for ceasing operations, given the requirements under Article 283 of the Labor Code.

• The issue centers on whether PMPI’s cessation of the Philippine Post’s publication was justified and complied with the legal procedural requirements.

Whether petitioner Brizuela is personally liable for the monetary awards decreed by the labor tribunal or is liable only in his official capacity.

• The separation of corporate personality was raised to limit petitioner’s liability, contesting joint and several liability with PMPI.

Whether the denial of the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

• Petitioner insisted that the TRO should have been issued on the basis of averred grave and irreparable injury.
• The court’s power to grant injunctive relief under Rule 65 was central to this issue.

Whether petitioner’s application for a TRO, based on the potential execution of the NLRC decision, met the requisite showing of immediate and irreparable harm.

• The speculative nature of the harm, based on a potential future writ of execution rather than an actual issuance, was a major concern.

• Whether the posting of the supersedeas bond, particularly the amount and the entity on whose behalf it was issued, satisfied the legal requirements for perfection of the appeal.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)