Petition For Certiorari Sample

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF APPEALS
CITY OF MANILA
_______ Division
ORIGIN
AL
HANS PETER GERHARD BRUNNER,

Petitioner,
CA-G.R.
SP
NO.____________
NLRC LAC NO. 09002596-15
NLRC-RAB IV-12-0171213-RI
-versus13-RI
NLRC-RAB IV-12-01722NLRC-RAB IV-12-0172413-RI

NLRC-RAB IV-12-01728-
13-RI
Page 1 of 35
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (SECOND
DIVISION),
Respondent,
DANILO BOCTON, ET.AL.,
Private Respondents,
x-------------------------------------------------x
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
UNDER RULE 65
(With Application for Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Set Case for Oral
Argument)
Petitioner, through the undersigned counsel, most
respectfully states: That,
I.
1.
NATURE OF THE PETITION
This is a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997

Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the resolution of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC for brevity)
Second Division dated March 31, 2016 (which is referred as
ANNEX A hereof) pertaining to the denial of the Motion for
Reconsideration of the petitioner in the case entitled Danilo
Bocton Et.Al. vs. Hans Peter Gerard Brunner with the
following case nos.,
NLRC LAC NO. 09-002596-15
NLRC-RAB IV-12-01712-13-RI
Page 2 of 35
NLRC-RAB
NLRC-RAB
NLRC-RAB
NLRC-RAB
NLRC-RAB
NLRC-RAB
IV-12-01732-13-RI
IV-03-00318-14-RI
IV-03-00319-14-RI
IV-03-00320-14-RI
IV-03-00321-14-RI
IV-03-00399-14-RI.
2.
Petitioner is now assailing the propriety of the NLRC decision

in dismissing the Appeal and Motion for Reconsideration and
hereby raise grave abuse of discretion, considering that
there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy available in
the ordinary course of law - hence, this petition.
3.
Resolution dated March 31, 2016 denying the petitioners

Motion for Reconsideration; a certified true copy of the said
Resolution is attached hereto as Annex A;
4.
Resolution dated December 29, 2015 dismissing petitioners

appeal for their alleged failure to comply with the requisites
of appeal as mandated by law; a certified true copy of which
is hereto attached as Annex B;
5.
This petition is being filed on grounds of serious errors and

grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of
jurisdiction committed by the Honorable Public Respondent
NLRC, Second Division, in rendering the assailed Resolutions
on December 29, 2015 and March 31, 2016 respectively; and
that there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the course of law available to herein petitioners.
II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES
6.
On December 29, 2015, the Honorable NLRC, Second

Division, issued a Resolution (Annex B hereof) dismissing
the petitioners appeal for alleged failure to comply with the
requisites of appeal mandated by law, copy of which was
received by petitioners on January 19, 2016. The petitioners
timely filed their Motion for Reconsideration on January 29,
2015. A photocopy of the Motion for Reconsideration is
hereto attached as Annex C.
7.
On March 31, 2016, the Honorable NLRC, Second Division

issued another Resolution denying petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration (Annex A hereof). Petitioners received the
said Resolution on April 11, 2016. Petitioners have 60 days
Page 3 of 35
from April 11, 2016 or until June 6, 2016 to file a Petition for
Certiorari unto this Honorable Court. Hence, the instant
Petition is timely filed today.
8.
The docket and legal fees including deposit for costs were
paid simultaneous to the filing of this Petition.
III.
9.
THE PARTIES
Petitioner HANS PETER BRUNNER (Brunner for brevity) is

of legal age, married, with address at Lores Country Homes,
Antipolo City.
10. Respondent NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

2nd Division is a quasi-judicial body tasked to promote and
maintain industrial peace by resolving labor and
management
disputes
involving
both
local
and
overseas workers through compulsory arbitration and
alternative modes of dispute resolution. It is duly
represented by Honorable Commissioner Alan A. Ventura, of
legal age, Filipino with office address at PPSTA Bldg., No. 5,
Banawe cor. P. Florentino Sts., Quezon City, where he may
be served the summons and other processes of this
Honorable Court.
11. Private respondents Danilo Bocton et.al. claim that they are
former employees of ENZIO FERRERA COLLECTIONS
INTERNATIONAL INC. They may be served with pleadings,
processes and notices of this Honorable Commission through
their counsel of record at MENDOZA LAW OFFICE, 2/F
Oblenas Building, 101 M. Paulino Street, San Pablo City,
4000 Laguna.
IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
12. This case stemmed from a complaint filed with the
Honorable NLRC by private respondents Danilo Bocton Et. Al
against herein petitioner Hans Peter Gerard Brunner for
actual illegal dismissal and money claims for underpayment
of wages and 13th month pay, non-payment of holiday
premium, Service Incentive leave, separation pay, ECOLA,
Illegal Deduction, including claims for moral and exemplary
damages and attorneys fees. The complaint was assigned
by computer raffle to Honorable Labor Arbiter Melchisedek A.
Guan and was docketed as NLRC LAC NO. 09-002596-15,
Page 4 of 35
NLRC-RAB IV-12-01712-13-RI, NLRC-RAB IV-12-01714-13-RI,

NLRC-RAB IV-03-00399-14-RI; a photocopy of the complaints,
summons and return cards are hereto attached as Annex
D and D-series respectively.
13. On arbitration, the parties submitted the following pleadings:
*
*
*
*
Annex E -Position Paper for Respondent

Calero Redbull Luggage Inc. dated July 14,
2014
Annex F -Position Paper for Respondent
Peter Brunner Holdings Inc. dated July 14,
2014
Annex F-1 and F-1 Series-Position Paper
for Complainants
Annex G- Reply for Respondent Peter
Brunner Holdings Inc. dated July 24, 2014
Annex H- Reply w/ Manifestation for

Respondent Leonardo Rinaldi Inc. dated
July 24, 2014
Annex I
-Consolidated Reply
Complainant dated August 11, 2014
Annex J - Rejoinder with Notice of Change

of Address dated October 24, 2014
for
*Annex K -Notice of Decision (Hon. Labor Arbiter)

dated March
31, 2015
*Annex L -Letter from Mr. Rigalado P. Morillo dated
June 1, 2015
*Annex M -Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment
dated July 24,
2015
*Annex N -Partial Answer Ex Abudandi Ad Cautelam
with
Page 5 of 35
Motion to Dismiss Appeal dated August 15,

2015
*Annex O -Memorandum of Partial Appeal with
Motion to
Reduce Appeal Bond dated July 13, 2015
*Annex P -Reply to the Partial Answer with
Opposition to Motion
to Dismiss Ad Abudandi Cautelam
14. After the parties submitted their respective Rejoinders, the
case was deemed submitted for decision.
15. On May 19, 2015 the respondents (hereinafter petitioners)
received a Decision dated March 31, 2015 issued by
Honorable Labor Arbiter Melchisedek A. Guan, the dispositive
portion of which states, to wit:
WHEREFORE, undersigned renders judgment:
1.
Declaring respondents illegally dismissed
complainants;
2.
Directing respondent Enzio, Estellita and
Hans to jointly and severally pay complainants the
total amount of P20,807,437.61 as and for:
Separation Pay
6,933,652.50
Partial backwages
8,559,129.10
Salary & 13th month pay differentials
3,423,070.78
Total
18,915,852.38
Attorneys fees
1,891,585.23
3.
merit
Dismissing the other complaints for lack of
SO ORDERED.
A certified true copy of the above-stated decision is hereto
attached as Annex "K";
Page 6 of 35
16. Aggrieved by the said Decision, the petitioners on July 13,

2015, filed with the NLRC their Notice of Appeal with
Memorandum of Appeal with 50,000 pesos as Appeal Bond
and with Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond; a photocopy of
which is hereto attached as Annex "O";
17. On January 19, 2016 petitioners received a Resolution dated
December 29, 2015 issued by the Honorable NLRC, Second
Division, denying the petitioners motion for reduction and
consequently dismissed the petitioners appeal, its fallo
states, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the Motion to Reduce Appeal
Bond of Hans Peter Gerard Brunner is hereby
DENIED. Consequently, his appeal is hereby
DISMISSED for non-perfection. The Decision dated
March 31, 2015 has become final and executory.
SO ORDERED.
18. On April 11, 2016, petitioners received a Resolution from the
Honorable NLRC dated March 31, 2016 denying the
petitioners Motion for Reconsideration dated January 29,
2016 (Annex "B" hereof). The decretal part of which states as
follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Motion for Reconsideration of respondent Hans
Peter Gerard Brunner relative to Our Resolution
dated December 29, 2015 is hereby DENIED for
lack of merit. No further motion of the same or
similar tenor shall be entertained.
SO ORDERED.
19. Hence, the instant petition.
V.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
20. Petitioner is the former vice-president of Enzio Ferrera

Collections International, Inc. (ENZIO for brevity). He was
Page 7 of 35
forcibly removed as vice-president from the said company on

June 14, 2012.
21. On June 2012, Petitioner, in his capacity as a director of the
ENZIO, received a letter from his wife, Estelita Ferrera
Brunner (Estelita for brevity), informing him that a Board of
Directors meeting shall be held on 13 July 2012 for purposes
of electing a new Board of Directors of ENZO.
22. During the said time, Petitioner has been running ENZIO
following the decision of Estelita sometime in 2005 to
establish her own company and directly compete with
ENZIO.
23. Due to the fact that Estelitas company went bankrupt, she
and her relatives or the Ferrera group decided to wrest
control of ENZIO. The personal relations of the incorporators,
particularly between the spouses Brunner, have been
strained and rendered irreconcilable. This prompted the
Ferrera group to collude and to take advantage of their
number and united against the minority shareholder
Petitioner.
24. Notwithstanding the opposition of Petitioner, on June 14,
2012, the Ferrera group together with a certain Atty. Jaime G.
Balmas, proceeded to the factory of ENZIO and forced it
open to conduct a Board Meeting.
25. Private Respondents cheered Estelita and started cursing
Petitioner for his strict but highly efficient style of
management.
26. Encouraged, Estelita promised the Private Respondents
herein, together with other employees, that she would give
them bonuses, increase their salaries, and even
commissions. In exchange, she asked the individual Private
Respondents for their complete loyalty and to absolutely
ignore the Petitioner.
27. After Estelita spoke, her legal counsel, Atty. Jaime G. Balmas,
took the podium and started describing Petitioner as an
Aleman who should be kicked out of the country. He even
boasted that he would have Petitioner deported and kicked
out of the country.
Page 8 of 35
28. On June 2012, much to Petitioners surprise, he was denied

access to the factory. His own staff members were also
barred from entry.
29. Worse, individual Private Respondents herein even heckled
Petitioner and his staff following their denial of entry to the
factory.
30. Thereafter, around August 2012, Petitioner received an email
from Estelita, which email was sent to all clients of ENZIO,
informing them that Hans Peter Gerhard Brunner has been
excluded from ENZIO and has no right to transact any
business for and on its behalf.
31. Clear from the said email is ENZIOs dissociation with
Petitioner. Also, at the very least, it manifests absolute proof
that Petitioner had nothing to do and could not do anything
about the management and operations of ENZIO from June
2012.
32. From the time the Ferrera group took over the management,
control and supervision of ENZIO, Petitioner never had an
iota of participation because the Ferrera group had
effectively closed the doors of ENZIO, literally and
figuratively, from Petitioner.
33. Petitioner did not receive any income from ENZIO from the
time that he was removed from office on June 14, 2012 up to
the time that ENZIO ceased its operations.
34. Having no job nor property here in the Philippines to which
he can derive income to sustain his and his childrens daily
needs, Petitioner, together with four (4) other stockholders
formed a small corporation. The small corporation was
formed on August 2012 and was named Calero Red Bull
Luggage, Inc. (CALERO for brevity).
35. The dividends and honorarium received by Petitioner for
being a stockholder and director of CALERO are the only
sources of income that he has. Please take note that CALERO
is a small corporation which is relatively new, thus, the
amount received by Petitioner is not that huge and is only
sufficient to provide for his and his childrens daily needs.
36. For this very reason, Petitioner was able to file a bond in the
amount of Php50,000.00 only. This amount is reasonable
considering that his only source of income are the dividends
and honorarium that he receives from CALERO and he
Page 9 of 35
doesnt have any property to post as property bond in lieu of

cash or surety bond. The failure of the Petitioner to file
the appeal bond which is equivalent to the monetary
award or atleast 10% of said monetary award is due
to the fact that he has no capacity to produce such
amount, petitioners capacity to file bond is based on
his income as indicated in his Income Tax Return.
Asking him to produce the required amount of appeal bond
may result to him contracting a huge debt and it may
compromise his obligation to support his children, as well as
his capacity to sustain his daily basic needs.
37. Notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioner filed an appeal
with Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond within the reglementary
period and posted an appeal bond in the amount of
Php50,000.00, which is reasonable considering his financial
status and the amount of appeal bond required to be posted,
the Honorable Commission rendered a decision denying the
Petitioners appeal due to non-perfection for not posting the
amount of appeal bond required by law and jurisprudence.
38. On January 29, 2016, the Petitioner filed a timely Motion for
Reconsideration to the decision denying the appeal of the
Petitioner.
39. On March 31, 2016, the Honorable Commission rendered a
resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration of the
Petitioner.
40. Hence, this Petition.
VI.
ISSUES
I.
WITH DUE RESPECT TO THE HONORABLE

COMMISSION,
IT
GRAVELY
ABUSED
ITS
DISCRETION WHEN IT HELD THAT THE PETITIONER
IS JOINTLY AND SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH ENZO
FOR
THE
LIABILITIES
THAT
THE
LATTER
INCURRED.
II.
WITH DUE RESPECT TO THE HONORABLE

COMMISSION,
IT
GRAVELY
ABUSED
ITS
DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR
Page 10 of 35
FAILURE TO PAY THE FULL AMOUNT OF APPEAL

BOND
REQUIRED
BY
THIS
HONORABLE
COMMISSIONER OR ATLEAST 10% OF IT.
VII. ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

I.
P
et
iti
o
n
er
is
n
ot
jo
in
tl
y
a
n
d
so
li
d
ar
il
y
li
a
bl
e
wi
th
E
N
Z
O
fo
r
th
e
Page 11 of 35
li
a
bi
lit
ie
s
th
at
it
h
as
in
c
ur
re
d.
41. Enzio Ferrera Collections International Inc. is a corporation
duly organized and existing under Philippine laws.
42. As a duly organized and existing corporation at the time the

case arose, ENZO enjoys a personality distinct and separate
from its stockholders and officers.
43. It is a hornbook doctrine that a corporation is a distinct and

separate juridical personality from its stockholders and
directors.
44. Section 31 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines states,
to wit
Liability of directors, trustees or officers. Directors or trustees who willfully and
knowingly vote for or assent to patently
unlawful acts of the corporation or who are
guilty of gross negligence or bad faith in
directing the affairs of the corporation or
acquire any personal or pecuniary interest in
conflict with their duty as such directors or
trustees shall be liable jointly and severally
for all damages resulting therefrom suffered
by the corporation, its stockholders or
members and other persons.
Page 12 of 35
45. In other words, proof must be adduced that a director

willfully and knowingly voted or assented to the commission
of a patently unlawful act of the corporation, or that he/she
is guilty of bad faith or gross negligence in directing the
affairs of the corporation.
46. To be held liable, evidence must show that the Petitioner
acted in bad faith or with malice in terminating the private
respondents or in the closure of ENZO. As held by the
Supreme Court in the recent case of Wensha Spa Center
and/or Xu Zhi Jie vs. Yung, G.R. No. 185122,
Elementary is the rule that a corporation is
invested by law with a personality separate and
distinct from those of the persons composing it
and from that of any other legal entity to which it
may be related. Mere ownership by a single
stockholder or by another corporation of all
or nearly all of the capital stock of a
corporation is not of itself sufficient ground
for disregarding the separate corporate
personality.
In labor cases, corporate directors and
officers may be held solidarily liable with the
corporation
for
the
termination
of
employment only if done with malice or in
bad faith. Bad faith does not connote bad
judgment or negligence; it imports a dishonest
purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious
doing of wrong; it means breach of a known duty
through some motive or interest or ill will; it
partakes of the nature of fraud. (Emphasis ours)
47. In this instance, as previously stated, Petitioner ceased to,
was ousted and effectively prevented from having any part
in the management of ENZIO as of June 2012 after his
beloved wife and his wifes relatives kicked him out of ENZIO.
48. How can the Petitioner act in bad faith or with malice if he
does not have any authority to intervene in the management
of ENZIO since he was already kicked out of the company?
Page 13 of 35
49. This is proven by the affidavit of employees Angelito

Bugarin, Gemma A. Bondal, Josephine Alcantara, Geraldine
A. Ocampo, Narciso T. Orsua, Estrella C. Artemio, and Nelia
B. Gabarda. Their affidavits are united in the following
statements, to wit
xxx
4. Isang araw, noong Hunyo 2012, ako at ang
aking mga kasamahan ay nabigla nang
dumating
si
ESTELITA
kasama
sina
ELIZABETH FERRERA, ROBERT FERRER, at
isang ATTY. JAIME BALMAS na nagpakilalang
mga Board of Directors at tunay na may-ari
raw ng ENZIO.
5. Nagsimulang magsalita si ESTELITA at
marami siyang sinabing hindi kanais-nais kay
HANS PETER. Si ATTY. JAIME BALMAS, nang
siya ay magsalita ay tinawag naman na
Aleman si HANS PETER at sinabing wala raw
siyang karapatan makinabang sa kumpanya
at dapat palayasin sa bansa. Nangako din sila
ng mas mataas na sweldo, pagkakaroon ng
union at CBA at malalaking bonuses.
6. Si Gary Javier, at ang iba pang
complainants, ay isa sa mga pumalakpak at
bumulyaw pa noon patungkol kay HANS
PETER at para bang tuwang-tuwa sa mga
masasamang bagay na sinabi. Si Gary Javier
din ang namuno sa pagpalakpak sa mga
sinabi ni ESTELITA at ATTY. BALMAS.
7. Ilang araw ang lumipas at nakita nga
naming na sila na, particular na si ESTELITA
BRUNNER, ang namahala sa ENZIO at nawala
si HANS PETER sa pamumuno nito.
50. Clear from the foregoing statements are:
i.
Petitioner Brunner had nothing to do

with respondent-company Enzio as early
as June 2012;
ii.
Following the humiliation he received

from private respondents, Petitioner
Brunner never attempted to regain
Page 14 of 35
control or influence in the management

and operations of Enzio;
iii. Petitioner Brunner had no participation
in the management of Enzio since June
2012, but during the time that he was its
manager, he ran the same efficiently and
fully paid the employees their rightful
salaries and benefits.
51. Also, the electronic mail sent by Enzios official email
address to Petitioner and Enzios clients clearly support the
fact that Petitioner and Enzo have formally and effectively
severed ties, to wit
That HANS PETER BRUNNER is no
longer authorized to represent
himself as the CEO/COO of EFCII.
This message was signed by Estelita Litay Ferrera herself.
52. Any corporate act committed by the corporation is
considered its own and not of its stockholder and directors.
53. The only exceptions to the rule are: a) the doctrine of
piercing the veil of corporate fiction; and b) Section 31 of the
Corporation Code.
54. Since the Petitioner has already been excluded from the
company and that his authority over the management of
ENZIO has already ceased, it is clear that he is not the one
responsible for the closure of ENZIO as well as the
termination of the private respondents, thus, he should not
be held jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation. As
held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ever Electrical
Manufacturing, Inc. vs. Samahang Manggagawa ng Ever
Electrical/NAMAWU Local 224, G.R. No. 194795,
In the absence of malice, bad faith, or a
specific provision of law making a corporate
officer liable, such corporate officer cannot
be made personally liable for corporate
liabilities. (Emphasis ours)
55. In the case of Rivera vs. United Laboratories, G.R. No.
155639, the Supreme Court had the occasion to discuss the
Page 15 of 35
doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction, and stated

that clear and convincing evidence must be adduced to
justify the same, to wit
While a corporation may exist for any lawful
purpose, the law will regard it as an
association of persons or, in case of two
corporations, mere them into one, when its
corporate legal entity is used as a cloak for
fraud or illegality. The doctrine applied only
when such corporate fiction is used to defeat
public convenience, justify a wrong, protect
fraud, or defend a crime, or when it is made
as a shield to confuse the legitimate issues,
or where a corporation is the mere alter ego
or business conduit of a person, or where the
corporation is so organized the control and
its affairs are so conducted as to make it
merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit or
adjunct of another corporation.
To
disregard
the
separate
juridical
personality of a corporation, the wrongdoing
must be established clearly and convincingly.
It cannot be presumed. (Emphasis ours)
56. Simply put, there is a separation of personalities between a
corporation and its stockholders and directors. To disregard
the same, private respondents must adduce clear and
convincing evidence showing that corporate fiction
is used to defeat public convenience, justify a wrong,
protect fraud, or defend a crime, or when it is made
as a shield to confuse the legitimate issues, or where
a corporation is the mere alter ego or business
conduit of a person, or where the corporation is so
organized the control and its affairs are so conducted
as to make it merely an instrumentality, agency,
conduit or adjunct of another corporation.
57. Also, the private respondents did not allege that the
Petitioner assented to patently unlawful acts of the
corporation, or that the officer was guilty of gross
negligence or bad faith nor presented any clear or
convincing evidence to show that the Petitioner acted
in bad faith or with malice. As ruled by the Supreme
Page 16 of 35
Court in the case of Heirs of Fe Tan Uy vs. International

Exchange Bank, G.R. No. 166282,
Before a director or officer of a corporation can be
held personally liable for corporate obligations,
however, the following requisites must concur: (1)
the complainant must allege in the complaint
that the director or officer assented to
patently unlawful acts of the corporation, or
that the officer was guilty of gross
negligence or bad faith; and (2) the
complainant must clearly and convincingly
prove such unlawful acts, negligence or bad
faith. (Emphasis ours)
58. Clear from the abovementioned jurisprudence that
before a director or officer may be held liable for
corporate obligations, the complainant must first allege
that the director or officer assented to patently unlawful
acts of the corporation and that they must submit clear
and convincing evidence to prove the allegation.
However, none of the requisites were complied by the
private respondents, thus, respondent NLRC must have
not ruled that the Petitioner is jointly and solidarily
liable with the corporation since there is no basis for
them to hold the Petitioner liable for the corporate
obligations.
59. In this case, no evidence, aside from the mere allegations
was ever adduced by private respondents showing that they
are entitled to pierce the veil of corporate fiction as Enzo was
a valid corporation, and was never used for fraud, illegal
acts, nor defeat public convenience.
60. Thus, it is clear that private respondents cannot justify
neither the piercing of the veil of corporate fiction nor the
holding of Petitioner as jointly and solidarily liable with
respondent-company Enzo. Let Enzo and its management be
responsible for the liability that they incurred and spare the
Petitioner who have done nothing wrong in the closure of the
business and termination of the private respondents.
II.
T
h
e
a
Page 17 of 35
m
o
u
nt
of
P
h
p
5
0,
0
0
0.
0
0
p
os
te
d
b
y
th
e
P
et
iti
o
n
er
is
re
as
o
n
a
bl
e
co
n
si
d
er
in
g
hi
s
fi
n
Page 18 of 35
a
n
ci
al
st
at
u
s
a
n
d
in
ca
p
ac
it
y
to
p
a
y
th
e
fu
ll
a
m
o
u
nt
of
a
p
p
e
al
b
o
n
d
re
q
ui
re
d
b
y
th
Page 19 of 35
is
H
o
n
or
a
bl
e
C
o
m
m
is
si
o
n
er
or
at
le
as
t
1
0
%
of
it.
61. Petitioner filed a bond in the amount of Php50,000.00
because he is financially incapacitated to pay the full
amount of the appeal bond or atleast 10% of it.
62. The annual gross income of the Petitioner, as shown in his
latest Income Tax Return, is around Php260,000.00 only. How
can you expect a person to post the amount of TWENTY
MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR
HUNDRED
THIRTY
SEVEN
PESOS
and
61/100
(PhP20,807,437.61) or atleast 10% of it as appeal bond
when his gross annual income is way below the required
amount ordered by the public respondent. It is impossible for
the Petitioner to post the amount of appeal bond required by
the public respondent for the obvious reason that the
required amount of appeal bond is too much and way
beyond his financial capacity as proven by his latest Income
Tax Return. Denial of the appeal of the Petitioner to
prosper is denial of justice to the him. It is not the fault
of the Petitioner that he doesnt have the necessary
Page 20 of 35
resources so that he can post the required amount of appeal

bond. He can only give the amount which is within his
financial capacity. It would then be at the height of
injustice to demand from Petitioner the posting of
TWENTY MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND
FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY SEVEN PESOS and 61/100
(PhP20,807,437.61) or atleast 10% of it as appeal
bond for a liability which he has nothing to do with in
the very first place.
63. There are instances wherein the Supreme Court liberally
applied the NLRC Rules and the Labor Code provisions on the
posting of an appeal bond. In Cabalan Pastulan Negrito
Labor Association v. NLRC, G.R. No. 106108, a case wherein
the petitioners plead for a more considerate and humane
application of the law as would allow their appeal to
prosper despite non-posting of a supersedeas bond
on account of their insolvency, the Supreme Court held
that,
However, in a number of recent cases, the
Court has eased the requirement of posting
a bond, as a condition for perfection of
appeals in labor cases, when to do so would
bring about the immediate and appropriate
resolution of controversies on the merits
without
over-indulgence
in
technicalities, ever mindful of the underlying
spirit and intention of the Labor Code to
ascertain the facts of each case speedily and
objectively without regard to technical rules
of law and procedure, all in the interest of
due process. Punctilious adherence to
stringent technical rules may be relaxed in
the interest of the working man, and should
not defeat the complete and equitable
resolution of the rights and obligations of
the parties. (Emphasis ours)
64. Likewise, in the case of Intertranz Container Lines, Inc. vs.
Bautista, G.R. No. 187693, the Supreme Court held that,
Jurisprudence tells us that in labor cases,
an appeal from a decision involving a
monetary award may be perfected only upon
Page 21 of 35
the posting of a cash or surety bond. The

Court, however, has relaxed this requirement
under certain exceptional circumstances in
order to resolve controversies on their
merits. These circumstances include: (1)
fundamental consideration of substantial
justice; (2) prevention of miscarriage of
justice or of unjust enrichment; and (3)
special circumstances of the case combined
with its legal merits, and the amount and the
issue involved. (Emphasis ours)
65. The highly exceptional circumstance in the case of Petitioner
is quite analogous to the abovementioned cases. In Cabalan
Pastulan Negrito Labor Association v. NLRC, the petitioners
plead for a more considerate and humane application of the
law as would allow their appeal to prosper despite nonposting of a supersedeas bond on account of their
insolvency. Petitioner filed this certiorari to correct the
correct the decision of the public respondent and to consider
his financial incapacity and decide the case based on the
merits and not on the technicalities of the law. Petitioner
has a meritorious case and the denial of his appeal
due to the technicalities of the law resulted to a
miscarriage of justice.
66. The financial incapacity of the Petitioner to pay the
required amount of appeal bond must not be a
hindrance for him to get the justice that he deserves.
Let the case be decided based on its merits and not
on the technicalities of the law. As the Supreme Court
held in the case of In Your Bus Line vs. NLRC, G.R. No.
93381,
"xxx that while Article 223 of the Labor
Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715,
requiring a cash or surety bond in the
amount equivalent to the monetary award in
the judgment appealed from for the appeal
to be perfected, may be considered a
jurisdictional
requirement,
nevertheless,
adhering to the principle that substantial
justice is better served by allowing the
appeal on the merits threshed out by the
NLRC, the Court finds and so holds that the
Page 22 of 35
foregoing requirement of the law should be

given a liberal interpretation." (Emphasis ours)
67. In the case of the Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative vs.
NLRC, G.R. No. 111905, the Supreme Court applied again the
liberality of the law and looked into the merits of the case,
instead of applying the law in its strict and technical sense
when it ruled that,
"The intention of the lawmakers to make the
bond an indispensable requisite for the
perfection of an appeal by the employer is
underscored by the provision that an appeal
by the employer may be perfected "only
upon the posting of a cash or surety bond."
The word "only" makes it perfectly clear, that
the lawmakers intended the posting of a
cash or surety bond by the employer to be
the exclusive means by which an employer's
appeal may be perfected. The requirement is
intended to discourage employers from
using an appeal to delay, or even evade,
their obligation to satisfy their employees'
just and lawful claims.
Considering, however, that the current policy
is not to strictly follow technical rules but
rather to take into account the spirit and
intention of the Labor Code, it would be
prudent for us to look into the merits of the
case, especially since petitioner disputes the
allegation that private respondent was
illegally dismissed." (Emphasis ours)
68. Petitioners case must not be decided based on
technicality of the law. The issues and defenses raised by
the Petitioner to prove that the decision holding him jointly
and solidarily liable with ENZO is meritorious. Petitioner is
humbly asking this Honorable Court to look first into
the merits of the case and take into account the spirit
and intention of the Labor Code.
69. While it may be true that the filing of a supersedeas bond is
required in the perfection of an appeal, the public
respondent must have taken into consideration the financial
incapacity of the Petitioner, the merits of the case and the
Page 23 of 35
willingness of the Petitioner to obey the law even though he

has no sufficient resources to file the full amount of the
required bond or atleast 10% of it so as to serve justice due
to the Petitioner.
70. Petitioner has no intention to circumvent the law. He
even filed his appeal bond within the reglementary
period. It shows the willingness of the Petitioner to
abide by the rules. However, due to his lack of resources,
he is only able to file the amount of Php50,000.00 appeal
bond for he is financially incapable of producing the
amount of appeal bond required by law due to lack of
resources and other circumstances beyond his
control. The public respondent must have taken into
consideration the willingness of the Petitioner to file atleast a
partial appeal bond. As held by the Supreme Court in the
case of Ong vs. CA, G.R. No. 152494,
While the bond requirement on appeals
involving monetary awards has been relaxed
in certain cases, this can only be done where
there was substantial compliance of the
Rules or where the appellants, at the very
least, exhibited willingness to pay by posting
a partial bond. (Emphasis ours)
71. Even the Supreme Court noted, in the abovementioned case,
that the bond requirement may be relaxed as long as
there is a showing of willingness to pay by posting a
partial bond. Petitioner may not have the capacity to
pay the required amount of the appeal bond due to
lack of resources, but he is willing to give what he has
so that justice may be served unto him.
72. It never occurred in the mind of the Petitioner to evade the
filing of an appeal bond in the amount required by law.
However, how can he comply with such requirement if he
doesnt have any means to produce the amount required for
the appeal bond? The case of the Petitioner is an
exceptional circumstance wherein his case is
undeniably meritorious and that the only problem is
that he is financially incapable to produce the amount
asked by the public respondent as his appeal bond.
Justice and Equity must always prevail over the technicalities
Page 24 of 35
of the law. As held in the case of Lepanto Consolidated

Mining Corporation vs. Icao, G.R. No. 196047,
xxx Lest litigants be misled into thinking
that they may now wantonly disregard the
rules on appeal bond in labor cases, we
reiterate the mandatory nature of the
requirement. The Court will liberally apply
the rules only in very highly exceptional
cases such as this, in keeping with the
dictates of justice, reason and equity.
(Emphasis ours)
73. Petitioner is hopeful and positive that this case will be
decided based on the merits and not on the technicalities of
the law in the interest of justice. The Petitioner believes that
the Honorable Court will exercise its power according to
justice, equity and substantial merits of the case. As held in
the case of Surima vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 121147,
However, fundamental consideration of
substantial justice persuades Us to decide
the present case on the merits rather than to
dismiss it on a technicality. In so doing, we
exercise our prerogative in labor cases that
no undue sympathy is to be accorded to any
claim of procedural misstep, the idea being
that our power must be exercised according
to justice and equity and substantial merits
of the controversy. (Ephasis ours)
74. After having stated the reason why the Petitioner filed an
appeal bond which amount is lower than what is prescribed
by law and after reiterating the fact that the Petitioner is not
jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation for the
liabilities that the latter incurred, we humbly ask this
Honorable Court to decide the case based on the merits and
not on the technicalities of the law in the interest of justice
and equity. We believe that this Honorable Court is fair and
just, and will not let a man suffer for the wrongdoings
committed by other people. The Petitioner should have not
been held liable in the first place since he was already out of
Enzo and did not have any participation in the closure of
Enzo and termination of the private respondents. Also, the
Petitioner does not want to circumvent the law, nor
maliciously disregard it. He fully understands that the appeal
bond is required by law and successfully demonstrated his
Page 25 of 35
willingness to abide by the rules when he filed his appeal

bond.
75. Let us always consider the exceptional circumstances and
financial capacity of every litigant. Let us always keep in our
mind that justice must always be served, by giving decisions
based on merits and not on the technicalities of the law, and
be made available to every person, whether he has the
capacity to pay the appeal bond or not. As former President
Magsaysay said,
Those who have less in life should have more in
law
VIII. APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR THE WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
76. The execution of the judgment therein would cause grave
injustice, extreme prejudice, and gross violation of
petitioners rights, in that petitioners would be further
subjected to unnecessary inconvenience, humiliation,
serious anxiety. Unless a writ of preliminary injunction and or
temporary restraining order is issued, petitioners would
clearly suffer irreparable damage and extreme prejudice. If a
writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining
order is not issued, the petitioners will be made to pay a
judgment which was rendered without jurisdiction.
77. Herein petitioners are extremely concerned of the prejudice
and damages that they will suffer in event that the judgment
award is executed against them. It would then be virtually
impossible to recover garnished funds in circumstances
wherein the Court of Appeals and/or the Supreme Court has
overturned or modified NLRC Decisions.
78. The view that petitioners interests would not be unduly
prejudiced by garnishment as they would simply proceed to
recover those funds from the private respondents with
interest in the event that higher courts did overturn or
modify the NLRC Decision is not as easy as it sounds.
Recovery would be extremely difficult, if not virtually
impossible.
79. In view thereof, the issuance of a Temporary Restraining
Order in this case is a matter of extreme urgency. Unless a
Temporary Restraining Order is immediately issued, grave
injustice and irreparable injury will be suffered by the
Page 26 of 35
petitioners upon execution of the appealed resolutions.

More so since the public respondent rendered the
assailed decision with grave abuse of discretion and
in complete disregard of the basic tenets of law.
80. If a Temporary Restraining Order is not forthwith issued, the
assailed resolutions shall be executed and may render the
present Petition ineffectual for under Rule XI, Section 4 of the
2011 Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations
Commission, a petition for Certiorari with the Court of
Appeals or the Supreme Court shall not stay the execution of
the assailed decision unless a restraining order is issued by
said courts.
81. Under Section 5, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, petitioners are entitled to the immediate issuance
of a Temporary Restraining Order before the application for
Preliminary Injunction can be heard on notice.
82. Also, under Section 3, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, Petitioners are entitled, before the instant Petition
is finally resolved on the merits, to the issuance of a
preliminary injunction in their favor directed against the
NLRC, INCLUDING ANY AND ALL PERSONS ACTING UNDER ITS
AUTHORITY, enjoining them from executing the assailed
resolution.
83. Enzio and its management should be held liable for the
closure of Enzio and the termination of the private
respondents. Petitioner has long been separated from the
abovementioned corporation and his authority over Enzo and
its management have already ceased from the time he was
kicked out of the company up to the time of the closure of
Enzo.
84. The Petitioner
The issuance
judgment of
Petitioner and
does not have
has the right to protect his economic interest.

of a writ of execution or execution of the
the NLRC will prejudice the right of the
may lead to his bankruptcy especially that he
the money to pay the said judgment.
85. It is only fair and just to determine first whether or not the
Petitioner is jointly and solidarily liable with Enzo.
86. The case subject of this certiorari was decided not on the
merits, but only on the technicalities of the law. It will be
unjust and unfair on the part of the Petitioner if the
Page 27 of 35
issuance of the writ of execution or execution of the

judgment of NLRC will not be prevented.
87. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted to this
Honorable Court that issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order or an Order for a Preliminary
Injuction is proper in this case since the merits of the
Petitioners appeal was not the main consideration in
resolving Petitioners appeal hence, the execution of
the case will prejudice the rights of the former.
IX.
MOTION TO SET CASE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
88. The Petitioner reiterates the fact that he should have not
been liable in this case in the first place.
89. To be fully enlightened as to the liability of the Petitioner in
the case subject of this certiorari, the Honorable Court must
conduct a trial to determine whether or not the Petitioner is
liable or not. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of
Lanuza Jr. vs. BF Corporation, G.R. No. 174938,
When there are allegations of bad faith or malice
against corporate directors or representatives, it
becomes the duty of courts or tribunals to
determine
if these
persons
and
the
corporation should be treated as one. Without
a trial, courts and tribunals have no basis for
determining whether the veil of corporate fiction
should be pierced. Courts or tribunals do not have
such prior knowledge. Thus, the courts or tribunals
must first determine whether circumstances exist
to warrant the courts or tribunals to disregard the
distinction between the corporation and the
persons representing it. The determination of
these circumstances must be made by one
tribunal or court in a proceeding participated
in by all parties involved, including current
representatives of the corporation, and those
persons whose personalities are impliedly the
same as the corporation. (Emphasis ours)
90. Petitioners seek to move for an oral argument for the
formers application of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Preliminary Injunction based on Sec. 9, Rule 3 of the 1999
INTERNAL RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (IRCA) to wit:
Page 28 of 35
Section 9. When a petition includes an

application for writ of habeas corpus, or a
temporary restraining order, or involves any other
urgent matter and there is no way to convene the
Raffle Committee or call any of its members, the
Presiding Justice may act on such matter, subject
to a raffle on the next working day in accordance
with Section 7 of this Rule. (emphasis ours)
91. Correspondingly, Sec. 10 of Rule 3 also provides that, viz;
Section 10. Action by a Justice. The
following may be acted upon by the Justice to
whom the case is assigned.
(a)
Motions for bail;
(b) Motions or applications for temporary

restraining order and other auxiliary writs;
(c) Motions for extension of time to file
petitions for review;
(d) Motions for extensions of time to file
briefs,
answers,
replies
comments,
oppositions and memoranda; and
(e) Motions
to
set
a
case
for
preliminary conference, hearing or oral
arguments. (emphasis ours)
92. Additionally, if the Honorable Court of Appeals allows the
petitioners Motion, the latter pray that the Honorable Court
extends the discussion for oral arguments by including the
merits of the Petition for under IRCA Rule 11, section 1, to
wit:
Section 1. When Allowed. At its own instance
or upon motion of a party, the Court may hear the
parties in oral argument on the merits of a case,
or on any material incident in connection
therewith.
The oral argument shall be limited to such matters
as the Court may specify in its resolution. (Sec. 1,
Rule 49, RCP)
Page 29 of 35
The necessity or propriety of oral argument shall

be determined by the Justice assigned to the case.
However, in lieu of oral arguments, said Justice
may allow the parties to file their respective
memoranda within fifteen (15) days from notice.
(Sec. 1, Rule 8, RIRCA)
93. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted to this
Honorable Court that an Oral Argument be set for the
purpose of determining whether or not the Petitioner
shall be held liable with the corporation so as to
prevent a miscarriage of justice.
X. PRAYERS
WHEREFORE, premises
respectfully prays that,
considered,
Petitioner
most
1.
The Honorable Court of Appeals declares that the Petitioner

is not jointly and solidarily liable with Enzio Ferrera
Collections International, Inc.;
2.
Reverse the Resolutions of respondent NLRC denying the

Motion for Reconsideration and Memorandum on Appeal filed
by the Petitioner and declare that the amount of
Php50,000.00 appeal bond filed by the Petitioner is
reasonable based on petitioners financial capacity and
ordering the REMAND of this case to the NLRC for it to give
DUE COURSE to the appeal in the interest of justice,
fairness and equity;
3.
To ISSUE a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a writ of

Preliminary Injunction to prevent the execution of the instant
case to prevent injustice to petitioner; and
4.
Upon due notice and hearing, for the Honorable Court to SET
the case for ORAL ARGUMENTS when the Honorable Court
deemed it necessary for the swift disposition of this case.
5.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are

likewise prayed for.
Makati City for the City of Manila. May 20, 2016.

Page 30 of 35
ATTY. APOLLO X.C.S. SANGALANG

Counsel for the Respondents
IBP Lifetime No. 06541; IBP-PPLM Chapter
PTR No. MKT 5336403-1/26/2016
MCLE Compliance No. MCLE no. V-002-1060,
APRIL 20, 2016, PASIG CITY
Roll of Attorney No. 40222
5th Floor Builders Center
170 Salcedo Street, Legaspi Village
Makati City 1229
Tel. 208-2606; Cel. 0917-821-6848
Email: apollo.sangalang@lawyer.com
COPY FURNISHED:
ATTY. RESTITUTO MENDOZA
Counsel for Complainants
Mendoza Law Office
2nd Floor Oblenas Building
101 M. Paulino St. Barangay 7D
San Pablo City, Laguna
ATTY. JAIME G. BALMES

Rm. 345 Republic Supermarket
F. Torres cor. Soler Street
Sta. Cruz, Manila City
COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION)
PPSTA Bldg. 5, Banawe, cor.
Florentino Sts., Quezon City
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
GENERAL
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village,
Makati City
EXPLANATION
Due to lack of messengerial personnel, a copy of the foregoing
motions served to all parties by registered mail in lieu of the
preferred mode of personal service.
Page 31 of 35
ATTY. APOLLO X.C.S.

SANGALANG
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

) SS.
VERIFICATION, AUTHENTICATION OF ANNEXES,
AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, HANS PETER GERHARD BRUNNER, subscribing under oath,
do hereby depose and say that:
1.
I am one of the petitioner in the above-entitled case;
2.
I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 (With Application for
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction
and Motion to Set Case for Oral Argument);
3.
I have read and understood the contents thereof and the
allegations contained therein are true and correct of my own
personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records;
4.
Moreover, I hereby identify and authenticate as either
original or certified true photocopies all the Annexes
attached to said Petition;
5.
Finally, pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, I
hereby certify that I have not, therefore, commenced any other
action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, and
to the best of my knowledge, no such proceeding or action is
pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency, and if I should thereafter learn that a similar
action or proceeding has been filed or is pending in the Supreme
Page 32 of 35
Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I

undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom; and,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed
my signature this
day of May 2016 here at _______________.
HANS PETER GERHARD

BRUNNER
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this

day of
May 2016 here at _____________. Affiant exhibited to me his ID No.
_____________.
Doc. No. ______
Page No. ______
Book No. ______
Series of 2016.
Page 33 of 35
Republic of the Philippines)

________________________) SS.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, Rigalado P. Morillo, under oath, depose and state THAT:
1. I am the Liaison Officer of HANS PETER GERHARD BRUNNER,
with address at Lores Country Homes, Antipolo City, 1229,
Philippines.
2. I served copies of THE Petition for Certiorari on the following
parties at their respective addresses and on the dates indicated
below:
Name/Address
Date
Proof of Service
ATTY. RESTITUTO MENDOZA

Counsel for Complainants
Mendoza Law Office
2nd Floor Oblenas Building
101 M. Paulino St. Barangay 7D
San Pablo City, Laguna
ATTY. JAIME G. BALMES
Rm. 345 Republic Supermarket
F. Torres cor. Soler Street
Sta. Cruz, Manila City
COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION)
PPSTA Bldg. 5, Banawe, cor.
Florentino Sts., Quezon City
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
GENERAL
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village,
Makati City
By delivering a copy of the notice of compliance and
manifestation on each of the above offices or duly authorized
representative or by depositing a copy in the post office, in a
sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the addressee at their
Page 34 of 35
respective offices, with postage fully prepaid, and with

instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender
after ten (10) days if undelivered.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ____ day
of May 2016 in ___________, Metro Manila.
RIGALADO P. MORILLO
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of May 2016
in the City of Manila, Metro Manila, affiant exhibiting to me his
_________________________________________
issued
on
____________and issued at_____________, Metro Manila.
Doc. No. ____;
Page No. ____;
Book No. ____;
Series of 2016.
Page 35 of 35

Petition For Certiorari Sample

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petition For Certiorari Sample

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

HANS PETER GERHARD BRUNNER,

NLRC-RAB IV-12-01722NLRC-RAB IV-12-0172413-RI

NATURE OF THE PETITION

This is a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997

Petitioner is now assailing the propriety of the NLRC decision

Resolution dated March 31, 2016 denying the petitioners

Resolution dated December 29, 2015 dismissing petitioners

This petition is being filed on grounds of serious errors and

On December 29, 2015, the Honorable NLRC, Second

On March 31, 2016, the Honorable NLRC, Second Division

Petitioner HANS PETER BRUNNER (Brunner for brevity) is

10. Respondent NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

NLRC-RAB IV-12-01712-13-RI, NLRC-RAB IV-12-01714-13-RI,

Annex E -Position Paper for Respondent

Annex H- Reply w/ Manifestation for

Annex J - Rejoinder with Notice of Change

*Annex K -Notice of Decision (Hon. Labor Arbiter)

Motion to Dismiss Appeal dated August 15,

Dismissing the other complaints for lack of

16. Aggrieved by the said Decision, the petitioners on July 13,

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

20. Petitioner is the former vice-president of Enzio Ferrera

forcibly removed as vice-president from the said company on

28. On June 2012, much to Petitioners surprise, he was denied

doesnt have any property to post as property bond in lieu of

WITH DUE RESPECT TO THE HONORABLE

WITH DUE RESPECT TO THE HONORABLE

FAILURE TO PAY THE FULL AMOUNT OF APPEAL

VII. ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

42. As a duly organized and existing corporation at the time the

43. It is a hornbook doctrine that a corporation is a distinct and

45. In other words, proof must be adduced that a director

49. This is proven by the affidavit of employees Angelito

Petitioner Brunner had nothing to do

Following the humiliation he received

control or influence in the management

doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction, and stated

Court in the case of Heirs of Fe Tan Uy vs. International

resources so that he can post the required amount of appeal

the posting of a cash or surety bond. The

foregoing requirement of the law should be

willingness of the Petitioner to obey the law even though he

of the law. As held in the case of Lepanto Consolidated

willingness to abide by the rules when he filed his appeal

petitioners upon execution of the appealed resolutions.

has the right to protect his economic interest.

issuance of the writ of execution or execution of the

MOTION TO SET CASE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

Section 9. When a petition includes an

Motions for bail;

(b) Motions or applications for temporary

The necessity or propriety of oral argument shall

The Honorable Court of Appeals declares that the Petitioner

Reverse the Resolutions of respondent NLRC denying the

To ISSUE a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a writ of

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are

Makati City for the City of Manila. May 20, 2016.

ATTY. APOLLO X.C.S. SANGALANG

ATTY. JAIME G. BALMES

ATTY. APOLLO X.C.S.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )