G.R. No. 183417 - Mindanao Times Corporation vs. Confesor

Mindanao Times Corporation (petitioner), a publisher of a widely circulated newspaper in Mindanao and Davao City, employed Mitchel R. Confesor (respondent) in May 1998.
Confesor quickly ascended to the position of Associate Editor and served the company until his resignation on June 17, 2003.

On August 28, 2003, respondent filed a verified complaint before the Labor Arbiter seeking separation pay and pro-rated 13th month pay for the year 2003.
Respondent later amended his complaint, alleging illegal dismissal by arguing that petitioner’s President and Chief Operating Officer forced his resignation following his publication of articles—alongside columnist Anthony Allada—accusing government officials of involvement in anomalies.

The Labor Arbiter issued a decision on January 19, 2004, finding that respondent was constructively dismissed.
He was awarded P71,909.77 in backwages along with separation pay and an additional 10% of the total award as attorney’s fees.

Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Cagayan de Oro City.
Respondent claimed entitlement to extra benefits such as service incentive leave pay and moral and exemplary damages, whereas petitioner challenged the finding of constructive dismissal.
In compliance with the appeal bond requirement, petitioner deposited an amount of P71,909.77 with United Coconut Planters Bank and submitted a passbook along with a Deed of Assignment to the NLRC. The deed assigned the deposit proceeds in favor of respondent, with instructions for release should the Labor Arbiter’s decision become final and executory.

The NLRC, by its Resolution on November 30, 2004 (and later on February 28, 2005), reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling by dismissing respondent’s complaint on the ground that there was no constructive dismissal since respondent effectively resigned.
The Court of Appeals initially dismissed respondent’s petition for certiorari (Decision of November 13, 2006) but later, on respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration, issued an Amended Decision on November 29, 2007.
The Court of Appeals set aside the NLRC’s February 28, 2005 Resolution and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, declaring it final and executory on the basis that petitioner’s bank deposit and Deed of Assignment failed to substantially comply with the appeal bond requirement.

Article 223 of the Labor Code mandates that an appeal by the employer from a labor arbiter’s monetary award must be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company accredited by the NLRC.
Section 4 and Section 6 of the NLRC Rules of Procedure clarify that the appeal must include proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of an appropriate bond.
Jurisprudence cited, including Accessories Specialist, Inc. v. Alabanza, reiterates that filing of a bond is not merely procedural but is a jurisdictional requirement essential for the perfection of the appeal.

Dissatisfied with the decisions of the NLRC and Court of Appeals, petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Petitioner argued that its submission of the bank deposit, passbook, and Deed of Assignment was in substantial compliance with the rules on the perfection of appeals.

Whether the bank deposit and accompanying Deed of Assignment submitted by the petitioner can be deemed as complying with the mandatory requirement of posting a cash or surety bond under Article 223 of the Labor Code and Section 6 of the NLRC Rules of Procedure.
Whether the failure to post a proper cash or surety bond renders the appeal defective and, consequently, the Labor Arbiter’s decision final and executory.
Whether the legislative intent behind the mandatory posting of a cash or surety bond is satisfied by the petitioner’s submission, considering that a Deed of Assignment is not a substitute for the unequivocal requirements set by the statute and rules.