Case Digest (G.R. No. 95594)
Facts:
Italian Village Restaurant and/or Mr. Andrew Ng v. National Labor Relations Commission and Felicisimo D. Evangelista, G.R. No. 95594, March 11, 1992, Supreme Court Second Division, Nocon, J., writing for the Court.Private respondent Felicisimo D. Evangelista, a waiter, was dismissed by petitioner Italian Village Restaurant after a physical altercation with a co-employee on August 26, 1988; the dismissal was effected by memorandum dated August 31, 1988 for violation of the employer's House Rules. On September 9, 1988 Evangelista filed a complaint with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC (NCR), docketed NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-09-03813-88, alleging illegal dismissal, underpayment, illegal deductions, and seeking moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
After hearings the Labor Arbiter issued a decision on October 20, 1989 ordering reinstatement with backwages from September 1, 1988 until actual reinstatement, payment of P14,040.00 for accumulated salary deductions, and attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the amounts adjudicated; all other claims were dismissed. Petitioner received a copy of that decision on December 4, 1989 and filed an appeal with the Commission on December 5, 1989.
On April 25, 1990 the NLRC ordered petitioners to post a cash or surety bond in the amount of approximately P37,959.00 (equivalent to the monetary award) within ten (10) days and to reinstate the complainant or place him in the payroll; petitioner received that order on April 26, 1990. Petitioner then filed (a) a motion for a ten-day extension to post the surety bond on May 4, 1990, and (b) a supersedeas bond on May 15, 1990—filed after the ten-day period. The NLRC issued an order dated July 31, 1990 dismissing petitioner's appeal for failure to post the required cash or ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners' appeal for failure to post the required cash or surety bond within the reglementary period?
- Was petitioners' appeal perfected despite the late filing of the supersedeas bond and/or the filing of a m...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)