Case Digest (G.R. No. 93690)
Facts:
Erectors, Incorporated v. National Labor Relations Commission and Federico Alconcel, G.R. No. 93690, October 10, 1991, First Division, Narvasa, J., writing for the Court.
Erectors, Incorporated (petitioner) employed Federico Alconcel (private respondent) beginning January 1980 and promoted him to Acting Research and Development Manager on October 1, 1981. Alconcel later worked abroad for Societe Auxiliaire D Enterprises (SAD) from November 5, 1981 until his contract expired and he returned to the Philippines on April 9, 1985. On April 22, 1985 SAD advised Erectors it charged Alconcel’s unsettled courier obligation of $856.62 to its account.
On June 10, 1985 Erectors informed Alconcel that his services were terminated effective July 10, 1985 on the ground of retrenchment and deducted $856.62 from his separation pay; Alconcel refused the deduction and disputed the termination. He filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter (NLRC-NCR-Case No. 05-02209-88). The Labor Arbiter declared the retrenchment illegal, ordered reinstatement with full back wages, and awarded P300,000 moral damages, P100,000 exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
Petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on April 13, 1989 but expressly limited its appeal to contest only the awards of moral and exemplary damages and expressly waived contesting reinstatement and back wages. The NLRC, by order dated October 18, 1989, required petitioner to post an appeal bond of P1,576,224.00 within ten days and to reinstate or place Alconcel on the payroll; failure to post bond would cause dismissal of the appeal. Petitioner moved on January 30, 1990 to reduce the bond to P151,200.00, arguing back wages should be computed on his P4,200 monthly salary (not the US$2,000 he received abroad), and tendered a surety bond in that amount.
The NLRC, by Resolution of February 1, 1990, dismissed the appeal for failure to perfect it for lack of a proper bond; motions for reconsideration were denied in Resolutions of March 6 and April 27, 1990. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion. Meanwhile an Executive Labor Arbiter issued writ of execution (quantified at P620,180.00) and this Court granted a restraining order enjoining ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s appeal for failure to post the required appeal bond when petitioner limited its appeal to contest only the awards of moral and exemplary damages?
- If the NLRC acted with grave abuse, should the Court annul its Resolutions and order the NLRC to give due course to petitioner’s appeal and direct issuance of appropriate writs to enforce the unappealed por...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)