Facts:
Manila Mining Corporation (Petitioner) operated a large-scale open-pit mine in Placer, Surigao del Norte, and maintained
Tailing Pond No. 7 (TP No. 7) for tailings disposal; when tailings reached maximum level in December 2000, petitioner temporarily suspended operations pending DENR-EMB approval, obtained a temporary authority on 25 January 2001 but failed to secure an extension when it lapsed, and on 27 July 2001 notified employees and DOLE of a six-month suspension and temporary lay-off of two-thirds of its workforce and on 11 December 2001 advised DOLE of a further six-month extension; respondents
Lowito Amor, Rollybie Ceredon, Julius Cesar, Ronito Martinez and Fermin Tabili, Jr. filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and monetary claims docketed NLRC Case No. RAB-13-10-00226-2003, and on 25 October 2004 the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision finding constructive dismissal and awarding separation pay, moral and exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees; petitioner filed a memorandum of appeal dated 3 December 2004 and a motion for reduction of bond dated 6 December 2004 accompanied by Philam Bank Check No. 0000627153 for P100,000.00, which was dishonored on presentment and later, petitioner averred, replenished and deposited as reflected in its 1 April 2005 ex-parte manifestation; the NLRC Fifth Division rendered a Resolution on 25 April 2005 reversing the Labor Arbiter and dismissing the complaint on the ground that suspension and eventual closure were due to causes beyond petitioner’s control and thus no separation pay was due, denied reconsideration on 30 June 2005, respondents filed a Rule 65 petition which the Court of Appeals (CA) granted on 29 November 2007 reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s 25 October 2004 Decision on the ground that petitioner failed to perfect its appeal because service of the copy of the memorandum to respondents occurred only on 7 February 2005 and the appeal bond was insufficient and ineffectual, the CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on 2 May 2008, and petitioner filed this Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
Did petitioner timely and validly perfect its appeal to the NLRC by filing and serving the memorandum of appeal within the ten-day reglementary period and by posting a cash or surety appeal bond as required under
Article 223 and the
NLRC Rules of Procedure? Was the posting of Philam Bank Check No. 0000627153 in the amount of P100,000.00 and petitioner’s motion to reduce bond sufficient under the standards enunciated in
McBurnie v. Ganzon, et al. to suspend the running of the reglementary period and confer jurisdiction on the NLRC? May petitioner be excused from payment of separation pay on the ground of closure due to serious business losses under
Article 283 of the Labor Code where it failed to present audited financial statements and to comply with the reportorial requirements?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: