Case Digest (G.R. No. 170416)
Facts:
University Plans Incorporated v. Belinda P. Solano, G.R. No. 170416, June 22, 2011, the Supreme Court First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court. The petition arises from respondents Belinda P. Solano, Terry A. Lamug, Glenda S. Belga, Melba S. Alvarez, Welma R. Namata, Marietta D. Bacho and Manolo L. Cenido (respondents) who filed complaints for illegal dismissal, illegal deductions, overriding commissions, unfair labor practice, and damages against petitioner University Plans Incorporated (UPI) before the Labor Arbiter.The Labor Arbiter, in a decision dated July 31, 2000, found UPI guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered reinstatement of the seven complainants with full backwages, proportionate 13th month pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees; other claims were dismissed. UPI filed a Memorandum on Appeal and a Motion to Reduce Bond with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and posted a partial cash bond of P30,000.00. The NLRC, by Order dated April 25, 2001, required an additional bond of P3,013,599.50 and denied the motion to reduce bond; it later denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated March 21, 2003 and dismissed the appeal for non-perfection.
UPI argued it was under receivership (citing SEC Cease and Desist Order, Aug. 23, 1999, and SEC May 23, 2000 Order placing it under receivership) and could not readily post the full bond. The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated October 27, 2004 (and denial of reconsideration Nov. 10, 2005), affirmed the NLRC’s denial, holding that reduction is discretionary and that UPI failed to show veritable proof of incapacity to post the bond. UPI filed a Pet...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the NLRC’s denial of petitioner’s Motion to Reduce Bond given petitioner’s alleged receivership?
- Should the Court of Appeals have disposed of the merits of the underlying labor claims instead of affirming dismissal for non-perfection of appeal?
- Did the CA err in not addressing petitioner’s contention that certain persons were improperly impleaded so that the Labor Arbiter lacked jurisdiction over them?
- Was the CA’s affirmation of the Labor Arbiter’s order of reins...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)