Case Digest (G.R. No. 181516)
Facts:
Cesario L. Del Rosario v. Philippine Journalists, Inc., G.R. No. 181516, August 19, 2009, the Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Cesario L. del Rosario sued respondent Philippine Journalists, Inc. (PJI) for illegal dismissal with money claims, alleging he was hired as a libel scanner in March 1997 and was terminated by a notice dated April 6, 1999 without just cause or compliance with required procedural safeguards.The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner on November 5, 2002, finding illegal dismissal and awarding various monetary claims (unpaid salaries, bonuses, allowances, gasoline, back pay for procedural defect, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees). PJI appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and, on January 6, 2003, filed its memorandum of appeal accompanied by an appeal bond issued by Philippine Pryce Assurance Corporation (PPAC).
On December 15, 2003, the NLRC dismissed PJI’s appeal for failure to perfect the appeal because the appeal bond was posted through a bonding company not duly accredited to transact business with the courts, citing a certification from the Office of the Court Administrator. PJI moved for reconsideration (filed January 23, 2004). The NLRC, in a February 23, 2004 resolution, directed PJI to post a new bond from a duly accredited bonding company within ten days; PJI did not comply, and on March 31, 2005 the NLRC issued a resolution dismissing the appeal for lack of merit.
PJI filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). On November 29, 2007, the CA granted the petition, set aside the NLRC resolutions, directed the NLRC to admit the appeal and decide it on the merits, and ordered PJI to replace the surety bond with one from a Sup...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the NLRC resolutions that dismissed PJI’s appeal for failure to post a valid appeal bond?
- Was the CA correct in ordering the NLRC to admit PJI’s appeal and decide it on the merits despite defects in the appeal bond?
- Was the CA’s directive that PJI replace its surety bond with one obtained from a Supreme Court–accredited bonding company within five days (and the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)