Case Digest (G.R. No. 194031)
Facts:
Jobel Enterprises and/or Mr. Benedict Lim v. National Labor Relations Commission (Seventh Division, Quezon City) and Eric Martinez, Sr., G.R. No. 194031, August 08, 2011, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner Jobel Enterprises (the company), owned by Benedict Lim, hired respondent Eric Martinez, Sr. as a driver in 2004. After an initial period of satisfactory performance, Martinez allegedly became obstinate, tardy and sluggish. On January 27, 2005 Martinez fought with a co-employee, Roderick Briones; the proprietor pacified them and instructed Martinez to report early the next day for an important delivery, but Martinez allegedly failed to report and could not be contacted.
On March 6, 2006 the Department of Labor and Employment Regional Office (DOLE-RO-IV-A) conducted conciliation but failed to settle an illegal dismissal complaint filed by Martinez; Martinez demanded P300,000 and allegedly said he no longer wished to work for the company. Martinez then filed a formal illegal dismissal complaint with money claims. On compulsory arbitration, Labor Arbiter Danna M. Castillon ruled on March 12, 2008 that Martinez was illegally dismissed and awarded backwages and separation pay totalling P479,529.49, plus wage differentials and 13th month pay of P53,363.44.
On May 16, 2008 the company appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), filing a notice and memorandum of appeal, a motion to reduce bond, and depositing a P100,000 RCBC manager’s check. In an order dated September 15, 2008 the NLRC denied the motion to reduce bond and directed the posting of an additional cash or surety bond of P432,892.93 within ten unextendible days, warning that failure to post would result in dismissal for non-perfection. The company thereafter posted a surety bond in the required amount and submitted a joint declaration as to the bond’s effectivity, a certificate of authority from the Insurance Commission, and an accreditation certificate from this Court; Martinez questioned the effectiveness and legal standing of the surety.
Despite the posted surety and supporting documents, the NLRC dismissed the appeal on October 7, 2009 for non-perfection and denied the company’s motion for reconsideration. The company filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition on June 9, 2010 for failure to attach a duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed NLRC decision (the copy submitted was a photocopy), citing Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; the CA denied reconsideration on October 5, 2010 though the petitioners had later attached a certified true copy. The company then filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certior...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the petition for certiorari for failure to attach a duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed NLRC decision (Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 1, Rule 65)?
- Did the NLRC err in dismissing the company’s appeal for non-perfection on the ground that the company failed to post the required appeal bond despite the company’s subsequent posting of a surety bond and submission of the surety’s authority (Section 6, Rule VI of the 2...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)