TodayisThursday,June22,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.180147June4,2014

SARALEEPHILIPPINES,INC.,Petitioner,
vs.
EMILINDAD.MACATLANG,ETAL.,1Respondents.

xx

G.R.No.180148

ARISPHILIPPINES,INC.,Petitioner,
vs.
EMILINDAD.MACATLANG,ETAL.,Respondents.

xx

G.R.No.180149

SARALEECORPORATION,Petitioner,
vs.
EMILINDAD.MACATLANG,ETAL.,Respondents.

xx

G.R.No.180150

CESARC.CRUZ,Petitioner,
vs.
EMILINDAD.MACATLANG,ETAL.,Respondents.

xx

G.R.No.180319

FASHIONACCESSORIESPHILS.,INC.,Petitioner,
vs.
EMILINDAD.MACATLANG,ETAL.,Respondents.

xx

G.R.No.180685

EMILINDAD.MACATLANG,ETAL.,Petitioners,
vs.
NLRC,ARISPHILIPPINES,INC.,FASHIONACCESSORIESPHILS.,INC.,SARALEECORPORATION,SARA
LEEPHILIPPINES,INC.,COLLINBEALandATTY.CESARC.CRUZ,Respondents.

DECISION

PEREZ,J.:

The dilemma of the appeal bond in labor cases is epochal, present whenever the amount of monetary award
becomes debatably impedimental to the completion of remedies. Such instances exaggerate the ambivalence
between rigidity and liberality in the application of the requirement that the bond must be equal to the arbiters
award.Theruleofreasonablenessinthedeterminationofthecompliantamountofthebondhasbeenformulated
to allow the review of the arbiters award. However, that rule seemingly becomes inadequate when the award
staggers belief but is, nonetheless, supported by the premises of the controversy. The enormity of the award
cannotpreventthesettlementofthedispute.Theamountofawardmayvarycasetocase.Butthelawremains
constant.

Before us are six (6) consolidated petitions for review on certiorari pertaining to the P3,453,664,710.66 (P3.45
Billion)appealbond,which,asmandatedbyArticle233oftheLaborCode,isequivalenttothemonetaryaward
adjudgedbythelaborarbiterinthecases.Thefirst5petitionsseekarelaxationoftherulewhilethelastpetition
urgesitsstrictinterpretation.

PetitionersinG.R.Nos.180147,180148,180149,180150,and180319areSaraLeePhilippines,Inc.(SLPI),Aris
Philippines, Inc. (Aris), Sara Lee Corporation (SLC), Atty. Cesar Cruz (Cruz), and Fashion Accessories
Philippines,Inc.(FAPI),respectivelyandshallbecollectivelyreferredtoasthe"Corporations."

SLPI is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture and distribution of personal care products and is a
subsidiaryofSLC.

Arisisadomesticcorporationengagedinthebusinessofproducingglovesandotherapparel.2

FAPIisacorporationengagedinthemanufactureofknittedproducts.3

SLC,acorporationdulyorganizedandexistingunderthelawsoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,isastockholderof
Aris.ItexercisedcontroloverAris,FAPI,andSLPIwhichwereallitssubsidiariesoraffiliates.4

CruzwastheexternalcounselofArisatthetimeofitsclosure.WhenArisfiledforitsdissolution,Cruzbecamethe
VicePresidentandDirectorofAris.5

ThepetitiondocketedasG.R.No.180685isfiledbyEmilindaD.Macatlangand5,983otherformeremployeesof
Aris. Emilinda D. Macatlang allegedly represents the employees whose employment was terminated upon the
closureofAris.

I.

This controversy stemmed from a Notice of Permanent Closure filed by Aris on 4 September 1995 with the
Department of Labor and Employment stating that it will permanently cease its operations effective 9 October
1995.AllemployeesofArisweredulyinformed.

Aris Philippines Workers Confederation of Filipino Workers (Union), which represents 5,9846 rankandfile
employeesofAris,stagedastrikeforviolationofdutytobargaincollectively,7unionbustingandillegalclosure.8

Afterconciliation,thepartiesenteredintoanagreementwherebyArisundertooktopayitsemployeesthebenefits
whichaccruedbyvirtueofthecompanysclosure,whichsettlementamountedtoP419Million9andanadditional
P15 Million10 Benevolent Fund to the Union. On 26 October 1995, FAPI was incorporated.11 When said
incorporationcametotheknowledgeoftheaffectedemployees,theyallfiled63separatecomplaintsagainstAris
for illegal dismissal. The complaints were consolidated before the labor arbiter. Later amendments to the
complaintincludedasrespondentsSLC,SLP,FAPIandCruz,andEmilindaD.Macatlang,etal.,iscaptionedas
thecomplainant,representedinthesuitbyEmilindaD.Macatlang.ThecomplaintsallegedthatFAPIisengaged
inthemanufactureandexportationofthesamearticlesmanufacturedbyAristhattherewasamasstransferof
Aris equipment and employees to FAPIs plant in Muntinlupa, Rizal that contractors of Aris continued as
contractors of FAPI and that the export quota of Aris was transferred to FAPI.12 Essentially, the complainants
insisted that FAPI was organized by the management of Aris to continue the same business of Aris, thereby
intending to defeat their right to security of tenure. They likewise impleaded in their subsequent pleadings that
SLCandSLParethemajorstockholdersofFAPI,andCruzasVicePresidentandDirectorofAris.

Ariscounteredthatithadcompliedwithallthelegalrequirementsforavalidclosureofbusinessoperationsthatit
isnot,inanyway,connectedwithFAPI,whichisaseparateanddistinctcorporationthatthecontractsofAriswith
itscontractorswerealreadyterminatedandthatthereisnotruthtotheclaimthatitsexportquotawithGarments
andTextileExportBoardwastransferredtoFAPIbecausetheexportquotaisnontransferable.13

On30October2004,theLaborArbiterrenderedjudgmentfindingthedismissalof5,984complainantsasillegal
and awarding them separation pay and other monetary benefits amounting to P3,453,664,710.86.14 The
dispositiveportionofthedecisionread:

WHEREFORE, premises all considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint for unfair labor
practice(ULP)declaringthatcomplainantswereillegallydismissedorderingrespondentstojointlyandseverally
paythemseparationpayatone(1)monthforeveryyearofservicebackwagesfromthetimetheircompensation
was withheld until the promulgation of this Decision[,] P5,000.00 moral damages and P5,000.00 exemplary
damagesforeachofthem,andeightpercent(8%)attorneysfeeofthetotalmonetaryaward,lesstheseparation
paytheyreceiveduponclosureofAPI.

AllotherclaimsareherebyDISMISSED.

AttachedandmarkedasAnnexes"A"to"A117"andshallformpartofthisdecisionarethelistsofcomplainants
andtheirrespectivemonetaryawards.15

Upon receipt of a copy of the aforesaid decision, the Corporations filed their Notice of Appeal with Motion to
Reduce Appeal Bond and To Admit Reduced Amount with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
TheyaskedtheNLRCtoreducetheappealbondtoP1Millioneachonthegroundsthatitisimpossibleforany
insurancecompanytocoversuchhugeamountandthat,inrequiringthemtopostinfulltheappealbondwould
betantamounttodenyingthemtheirrighttoappeal.16Arisclaimedthatitwasalreadydissolvedandundergoing
liquidation.SLCaddedthatitisnottheemployerofEmilindaD.Macatlang,etal.,andthatthelatterhadalready
received from Aris their separation pay and other benefits amounting to P419,057,348.24, which covers
practicallymorethan10%ofthemonetaryaward.17FAPI,foritspart,claimedthatitstotalassetswouldnotbe
enough to answer for even a small portion of the award. To compel it to post a bond might result in complete
stoppageofoperations.FAPIalsocitedthepossibilitythattheassaileddecisiononcereviewedwillbereversed
andsetaside.18TheCorporationspostedatotalofP4.5Million.

EmilindaD.Macatlang,etal.,opposedthemotionbyassertingthatfailuretocomplywiththebondrequirementis
a jurisdictional defect since an appeal may only be perfected upon posting of a cash bond equivalent to the
monetaryawardprovidedbyArticle223oftheLaborCode.19

Inlightoftheimpossibilityforanysuretycompanytocovertheappealbondandthehugeeconomiclosseswhich
the companies and their employees might suffer if the P3.45 Billion bond is sustained, the NLRC granted the
reduction of the appeal bond. The NLRC issued an Order dated 31 March 200620 directing the Corporations to
post an additional P4.5 Million bond, bringing the total posted bond to P9 Million. The dispositive portion of the
Order provides: WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents are hereby ordered to post bond, either in
cash, surety or property, in the additional amount of FOUR MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P4,500,000.00)withinanINEXTENDIBLEperiodofFIFTEEN(15)calendardaysfromreceipthereof.Tothesaid
extent,theMotionforReductionisgranted.FailuretorenderstrictcompliancewiththeOrderenteredhereinshall
renderthedismissaloftheappealandthedecisionsoughtforreview,asfinalandexecutory.21

EmilindaD.Macatlang,etal.,filedapetitionforcertioraribeforetheCourtofAppeals,docketedasCAG.R.SP
No. 96363. They charged the NLRC with grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the appeal of
petitioners despite the gross insufficiency of the cash bond. They declared that the appeal bond must be
equivalenttotheamountoftheaward.22Anotherpetition,thistimebyPacitaAbelardo,etal.,wasalsofiledbefore
theCourtofAppealsanddocketedasCAG.R.SPNo.95919.

The Corporations filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition in CAG.R. SP No. 95919 on the grounds of forum
shopping, absence of authorization from the employees for Emilinda D. Macatlang to file said petition, and for
failuretostatethematerialdates.23

Whilethecasewaspending,theNLRCissuedaResolutionon19December2006settingasidetheDecisionof
thelaborarbiterandremandingthecasetothe"forumoforiginforfurtherproceedings."24

In view of this related development, the Corporations filed their respective Manifestation and Motion dated 30
January2007prayingforthedismissalofthepetitionforcertiorariforbeingmootandacademic.

On 26 March 2007, the Court of Appeals proceeded to reverse and set aside the 31 March 2006 NLRC
Resolutionanddeemeditreasonableunderthecircumstancesofthecasetoorderthepostingofanadditional
appealbondofP1Billion.Thedispositiveportionofthedecisiondecreed:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the March 31, 2006 Decision of the 2nd Division of the National Labor
RelationsCommission,inNLRCNCRCANo.04668505,whichreducedtherequiredPhp3.453BILLIONPesos
appealbondtoapaltry9MillionPesos,isherebyREVERSEDandSETASIDEandanewoneissued,toensure
availabilityofhardcashorreliablesurety,onwhichvictoriouslaborerscouldrely,DIRECTINGprivaterespondents
toPOSTadditionalappealbondintheamountofPhp1BILLIONPesos,incashorsurety,withinthirty(30)days
fromfinalityofthisjudgment,asprerequisitetoperfectingappeal.25

AllpartiesfiledtheirMotionforReconsiderationbutwerelaterdeniedbytheCourtofAppealsinaResolution26
dated22October2007.

II.
Six(6)petitionsforreviewoncertiorarioftheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealswerefiledbeforethisCourt.They
weredocketedandentitledasfollows:1)G.R.No.180147:SaraLeePhilippines,Inc.v.EmilindaD.Macatlang,et
al. 2) G.R. No. 180148: Aris Philippines, Inc. v. Emilinda D. Macatlang, et al. 3) G.R. No. 180149: Sara Lee
Corporationv.EmilindaD.Macatlang,etal.4)G.R.No.180150:CesarC.Cruzv.EmilindaD.Macatlang,etal.
5) G.R. No. 180319: Fashion Accessories Phils., Inc. v. Emilinda D. Macatlang, et al. and 6) G.R. No. 180685:
EmilindaD.Macatlang,etal.v.NLRC.InResolutionsdated28January2008and18February2008,thisCourt
resolvedtoconsolidatethesesix(6)cases.27

The Corporations argue that the Court of Appeals committed serious error in not dismissing Emilinda D.
Macatlang,etal.spetitionduetothefilingoftwo(2)separatepetitionsforcertiorari,namely:EmilindaMacatlang,
et al. v. Aris Philippines in CAG.R. SP No. 96363 (Macatlang petition) and Pacita S. Abelardo v. NLRC, Aris
Philippines,etal.inCAG.R.SPNo.95919(Abelardopetition).Thesetwopetitions,theCorporationsaver,raise
identical causes of action, subject matters and issues, which are clearly violative of the rule against forum
shopping. Moreover, the petitioners in the Abelardo petition28 consist of 411 employees,29 all of whom are also
petitionersintheMacatlangpetition.TheCorporationsquestiontheauthorityofEmilindaD.Macatlangtofileand
signtheverificationandcertificationofnonforumshoppingbecauseResolusyonBilang09011998(Resolusyon)
dated5September1998didnotmakeanyspecificreferenceorauthoritythatEmilindaD.Macatlangcansignthe
verificationandcertificationagainstforumshoppingonbehalfoftheothercomplainants.TheCorporationsclaim
thattheMacatlangspetitionfailedtostatethematerialdates,suchaswhentheNLRCorderandresolutionwere
receivedandwhenthemotionforreconsiderationthereofwasfiled.30

TheCorporationsimputeanothererrorontheCourtofAppealswhenitdidnotdismissthepetitionforbeingmoot
and academic despite the fact that on 19 December 2006, the NLRC had already set aside the decision of the
LaborArbiter.TheydefendthevalidityoftheNLRCresolutionintheabsenceofatemporaryrestrainingorderor
writofpreliminaryinjunctionissuedbytheCourtofAppeals.31

TheCorporationsassailtheCourtofAppealsindirectingthepostingofanadditionalappealbondofP1 Billion.
They contend that the Court of Appeals overlooked the fact that Macatlang, et al., had already received their
separationpayofP419MillionandP15MillionBenevolentFundwhichwenttotheunion.32TheCourtofAppeals
alsofailedtoexcludetheamountawardedtocomplainantsasdamageswhichundertheNLRCRuleshavetobe
excluded.TheCorporationsseekaliberalinterpretationtotherequirementofpostingofappealbondinthatthe
NLRChasthepowerandauthoritytosetareducedamountofappealbond.33

SLPIalsoaddsthattheirrighttodueprocesswasallegedlyviolatedforthefollowingreasons:first,itwasnever
impleadedinthecomplaintssecond,therequirementsofserviceofsummonsbypublicationwerenotcomplied
with as admitted by the labor arbiter himself thereby making it defective and third, there was no showing that
therewaspriorresorttoserviceofsummonstothedulyauthorizedofficerofthecompanybeforesummonsby
publicationwasmadetoSLPI.34

FAPI slams the Court of Appeals for touching on the merits of the case when the only issue brought to its
attentionistheNLRCsrulingontheappealbond.FAPIarguesthattheCourtofAppealshasnobasisinstating
that:(1)therewere7,637employeesofAriswhowerealreadylaidoffandbecamecomplainantswhenthereare
infactonly5,984employeesofArisinvolvedintheillegaldismissalcase(2)thattheP419Millionwasnotproven
tohavebeenpaidtothecomplainantswhenasamatteroffact,recordsoftheNLRCrevealedthattheamount
wasactuallypaidbyAristoitsemployeesand(3)thatadummysubsidiaryreferringtoFAPIwasformedwhen
records disclose that the ownership, incorporators, officers, capitalization, place of business, and product
manufacturedbyFAPIandArisaredifferent.35

Ontheotherhand,EmilindaD.Macatlang,etal.,intheirpetitionforreviewoncertiorariassertthattheappealof
the Corporations had not been perfected in accordance with Article 223 of the Labor Code when they failed to
post the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from amounting to P3.45 Billion.
Emilinda D. Macatlang, et al., submit that the P1 Billion bond is not equivalent to the monetary award of P3.45
Billion.Moreimportantly,EmilindaD.Macatlang,etal.,accusedtheCourtofAppealsofextendingtheperiodof
appealbyprescribinganadditionalamounttobepaidwithinareasonableperiodoftime,whichperioditlikewise
determined, in contravention of Article 223 of the Labor Code. Emilinda D. Macatlang, et al., expound that the
filingofabondoutsidetheperiodofappeal,evenwiththefilingofamotiontoreducebond,wouldnotstopthe
running of the period of appeal. Emilinda D. Macatlang, et al., opine that the Court of Appeals has not been
conferredthepowertolegislatehenceitshouldhavestrictlyfollowedArticle223oftheLaborCode,asthesame
wasclear.36

In an Urgent Manifestation and Motion, the Corporations informed this Court of a Resolution dated 30 March
2009bytheThirdDivisionofthisCourtentitled,"GabrielFulido,etal.v.ArisPhilippines,Inc."docketedasG.R.
No. 185948 (Fulido case) denying the petition for review filed by complainants in that case. The Corporations
intimate that the petitioners in the Fulido case are also former employees of Aris whose employments were
terminated as a result of Aris permanent closure. Petitioners submit that Emilinda D. Macatlang, et al., and
petitioners in the Fulidocase filed illegal dismissal cases before the NLRC seeking identical reliefs. Considering
theidentityinessentialfactsandbasicissuesinvolved,petitionersarguethatthereiscompellingreasontoadopt
andincorporatebyreferencetheconclusionreachedintheFulidocase.37

III.

Theissuesraisedintheseconsolidatedcasescanbesummarizedasfollows:

1. Whether the filing of two (2) petitions for certiorari, namely: the Macatlang petition and the Abelardo
petitionconstitutesforumshopping.

2.WhetherEmilindaD.Macatlangwasdulyauthorizedtosigntheverificationandcertificateofnonforum
shoppingattachedtotheMacatlangpetition.

3.Whetherthepetitionshouldbedismissedforfailuretostatethematerialdates.

4.WhethertheserviceofsummonsbypublicationonSLCisdefective.

5.WhetherthesubsequentNLRCrulingonthemeritsduringthependencyofthepetitionquestioningan
interlocutoryorderrenderstheinstantpetitionmootandacademic.

6.Whethertheappealbondmaybereduced.

Beforeweproceedtothegistofthiscontroversy,weshallresolvethefirst3proceduralissuesfirst.

IV.

TheCorporationsclaimthatthegroupofMacatlangcommittedforumshoppingbyfilingtwopetitionsbeforethe
CourtofAppeals.

Forum shopping is the act of a litigant who repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts,
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and on the same essential
facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved
adverselybysomeothercourt,toincreasehischancesofobtainingafavorabledecisionifnotinonecourt,then
inanother.38

Whatispivotalindeterminingwhetherforumshoppingexistsornotisthevexationcausedthecourtsandparties
litigantsbyapartywhoasksdifferentcourtsand/oradministrativeagenciestoruleonthesameorrelatedcases
and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting
decisionsbeingrenderedbythedifferentcourtsand/oradministrativeagenciesuponthesameissues.39

Forumshoppingexistswhentheelementsoflitispendentiaarepresent,andwhenafinaljudgmentinonecase
willamounttoresjudicataintheother.Forlitispendentiatobeagroundforthedismissalofanaction,theremust
be:(a)identityofthepartiesoratleastsuchastorepresentthesameinterestinbothactions(b)identityofrights
asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same acts and (c) the identity in the two cases
shouldbesuchthatthejudgmentwhichmayberenderedinonewould,regardlessofwhichpartyissuccessful,
amounttoresjudicataintheother.40

TheMacatlangpetitionwasfiledon8September2006whiletheAbelardopetitionwasfiled10dayslater,oron
18September2006.Indeed,thesetwopetitionsassailedthesameorderandresolutionoftheNLRCinNLRCCA
No.04668505,entitledEmilindaMacatlang,etal.v.ArisPhilippines,Inc.,etal.,andsoughtforthedismissalof
the Corporations appeal for nonperfection because of failure to post the required appeal bond. A judgment in
eithercasewouldhave,ifprinciplesarecorrectlyapplied,amountedtoresjudicataintheother.

At first glance, it appears that there is also identity of parties in both petitions which is indicative of forum
shopping.TheMacatlangpetitionconsistsof5,984dismissedemployeesofAriswhiletheAbelardopetitionhas
411dismissedemployees,allofwhichwerealreadyincludedaspetitionersintheMacatlangpetition.Withrespect
to these 411 petitioners, they could be declared guilty of forum shopping when they filed the Abelardo petition
despitethependencyoftheMacatlangpetition.Asamatteroffact,theAbelardopetitionwasdismissedbythe
CourtofAppealsinaResolutiondated17November2006onthegroundofadefectivecertificationonnonforum
shopping, among others.41 The Abelardo petition appears to be defective as the petition itself was replete with
proceduralinfirmitiespromptingtheCourtofAppealstodismissitoutright.Insteadofcuringthedefectsintheir
petition, petitioners in Abelardo revealed that pertinent documents which should have been attached with their
petition were actually submitted before the Sixteenth Division of the Court of Appeals where the Macatlang
petition was pending. Evidently, petitioners in Abelardo have foreknowledge of an existing petition but
nevertheless proceeded to file another petition and omitting to mention it in their certification on nonforum
shopping,eitherintentionallyornot.Clearly,thepetitionersintheAbelardopetitioncommittedforumshopping.
Now,shouldtheactofthese411employeesprejudicetherightsofthe5,573othercomplainantsintheMacatlang
petition?Theanswerisno.Forumshoppinghappenswhenthereisidentityofthepartiesoratleastsuchasto
representthesameinterestinbothactions.Wedonotagreethatthe411petitionersoftheAbelardopetitionare
representative of the interest of all petitioners in Macatlang petition. First, the number is barely sufficient to
comprisethemajorityofpetitionersinMacatlangpetition.Second,itwouldbetheheightofinjusticetodismissthe
Macatlangpetitionwhichevidentlyenjoysthesupportofanoverwhelmingmajorityduetothemistakecommitted
by petitioners in the Abelardo petition. In the absence of substantial similarity between the parties in Macatlang
andAbelardopetitions,wefindthatthepetitionersinMacatlangpetitiondidnotcommitforumshopping.Thisview
wasimplicitlysharedbytheThirteenthDivisionoftheCourtofAppealswhenitdidnotbothertoaddresstheissue
of forum shopping raised by petitioners therein precisely because at the time it rendered the assailed decision,
theAbelardopetitionhadalreadybeensummarilydismissed.

V.

Next,theCorporationscomplainthatMacatlangwasnotdulyauthorizedtosigntheverificationandcertificationof
nonforum shopping which accompanied the main petition before the Court of Appeals. They anchored their
argumentonResolusyon,whichreadsinpart:

1. Aming binigyan ng karapatan sina ERNESTO R. ARELLANO AT/O VILLAMOR MOSTRALES, aming mga
abogado/legal advisers ng Arellano & Associates at si EMILINDA D. MACATLANG, aming head complainant,
bilang aming ATTORNEYSINFACT para katawanin at kanilang gampanan ang mga sumusunod na Gawain
alinsunodsaamingkagustuhan:

a.Na,kamiaykatawaninsakasoomgakasolabansamganabanggitnaKompanya:ARIS,FAPIATSARALEE
CORP./SARA LEE PHILS., INC.at sa mga opisyales ng mga nabanggit pirmahan ang anumang demanda o
"complaint" at lahat namga kaukulang papeles tulad ng Position Paper, Reply, Rejoinder, Memorandumat iba
pangpapelesnamaykinalamanopatungkolsakasongitosimulasaNLRC,CourtofAppeals,hanggangsaKorte
Suprema

b. Na, aming malayang iniaatangsa kanila ang karapatan upang makipagkasundo sa mga nademanda sa
pamamagitan ng isang "Compromise Agreement"o Kasunduan, gayon din ang karapatang tanggapin ang
kabuuangkabayaransaaregluhansakasonaayonsakanilangpagsusuriaymabutiatmakatarunganparasa
amin,kaakibatngamingmgapirmangtandangpagsangayonitobilangmayoriananagdemandaotanggapin
angkabuuangbayadsapagtataposngkaso,bilangamingkinatawanatATTORNEYSINFACT

c.Na,sakanilangpuspusanatmatapatnapaghawaksanaturangkaso,amingibibigayangsampungporsiyento
(10%)ng aming "total claims"bilang attorneys fees ng aming humawak na abogado/legal adviser: sina Atty.
Ernesto R. Arellano and/or Villamor A. Mostrales at gayon din sa karagdagang panagot sa kanilang ginastos,
gagastusin sa pagtatanggol ng kaso bilang miscellaneous expensessa kanilang ma[a]yos na pagsulong at
pagtanganngamingpangkalahatanginteressanaturangkaso.42

Fromtheforegoingdocument,itcaneasilybegleanedthatMacatlangwasassignedbythecomplainantsastheir
attorneyinfacttoperformthefollowingacts:1)torepresenttheminthecase/casesfiledagainstAris,FAPI,SLC,
andSLPIsignanycomplaint,pleadings,oranyotherdocumentspertinentorrelatedtotheinstantcasebrought
before the NLRC, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court 2) to enter into any compromise agreement or
settlement and 3) to receive the full payment as a consequence of any settlement. The first act necessarily
encompasses the authority to sign any document related to NLRC NCR No. 00040367798. The petition for
review on certiorari is one of these documents. Supreme Court Circular Nos. 2891 and 0494 require a
Certification of NonForum Shopping in any initiatory pleading filed before the Supreme Court and the Court of
AppealswhileSection1,Rule45oftheRulesofCivilProcedurerequiresthepetitionforreviewoncertioraritobe
verified, thereby making the verification and certification of nonforum shopping essential elements of a petition
forreviewoncertiorari,whichMacatlangherselfwasauthorizedundertheResolusyontosign.

VI.

The Corporations argue that the case before the Court of Appeals should have been dismissed for failure of
Macatlangtostatethematerialdatesinthepetition.Section3,Rule46oftheRulesofCourtmandatesthatina
petitionforcertioraribeforetheCourtofAppeals,thematerialdatesshowingwhennoticeofthejudgmentorfinal
orderorresolutionassailedwasreceived,whenthemotionforreconsiderationwasfiled,andwhennoticeofthe
denialthereofwasreceived,mustbeindicated.Underthesamerule,failuretostatethematerialdatesshallbea
groundfordismissalofthepetition.Therationalefortherequirementistoenabletheappellatecourttodetermine
whetherthepetitionwasfiledwithintheperiodfixedintherules.43However,thestrictrequirementsofthelawmay
be dispensed with in the interest of justice. It may not be amiss to point out this Courts ruling in the case of
Acaylar,Jr.v.Harayo,44andwequote:

Wealsoagreewiththepetitionerthatfailuretostatethematerialdatesisnotfataltohiscauseofaction,provided
the date of his receipt, i.e., 9 May 2006, of the RTC Resolution dated 18 April 2006 denying his Motion for
Reconsideration is duly alleged in his Petition. In the recent case of Great Southern Maritime Services
Corporation v. Acua, we held that "the failure to comply with the rule on a statement of material dates in the
petitionmaybeexcusedsincethedatesareevidentfromtherecords."Themorematerialdateforpurposesof
appeal to the Court of Appeals is the date of receipt of the trial court's order denying the motion for
reconsideration.Theothermaterialdatesmaybegleanedfromtherecordsofthecaseifreasonablyevident.45

Intheinstantcase,theCorporationsallegedintheirpetitionbeforetheCourtofAppealsthatwhentheyreceived
theResolutionoftheNLRCon6July2006,itcanbedeterminedwhethertheappealtotheCourtofAppealswas
filedwithinthe60dayreglementaryperiod.Andasamatteroffact,theappealwasfiledon8September2006,
andwellwithinthe60dayperiod.

VII.

Having disposed the procedural issues, we now tackle the Corporations arguments, in the main, calling for a
reductionoftheappealbond.

Wellsettledisthedoctrinethatappealisnotaconstitutionalright,butamerestatutoryprivilege.Hence,parties
whoseektoavailthemselvesofitmustcomplywiththestatutesorrulesallowingit.46Theprimaryrulegoverning
appealfromtherulingofthelaborarbiterisArticle223oftheLaborCodewhichprovides:

Art.223.Appeal.Decisions,awards,orordersoftheLaborArbiterarefinalandexecutoryunlessappealedto
the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10)calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or
orders.Suchappealmaybeentertainedonlyonanyofthefollowinggrounds:

a.IfthereisprimafacieevidenceofabuseofdiscretiononthepartoftheLaborArbiter

b.Ifthedecision,orderorawardwassecuredthroughfraudorcoercion,includinggraftandcorruption

c.Ifmadepurelyonquestionsoflawandd.Ifseriouserrorsinthefindingsoffactsareraisedwhichwould
causegraveorirreparabledamageorinjurytotheappellant.

Incaseofajudgmentinvolvingamonetaryaward,anappealbytheemployermaybeperfectedonlyuponthe
postingofacashorsuretybondissuedbyareputablebondingcompanydulyaccreditedbytheCommissionin
theamountequivalenttothemonetaryawardinthejudgmentappealedfrom.(Emphasissupplied).

Article223,underPresidentialDecreeNo.442,wasamendedbyRepublicActNo.6715toincludetheprovision
onthepostingofacashorsuretybondasapreconditiontotheperfectionofappeal.

TherequisitesforperfectionofappealasembodiedinArticle223,asamended,are:1)paymentofappealfees
2)filingofthememorandumofappealand3)paymentoftherequiredcashorsuretybond.47 These requisites
mustbesatisfiedwithin10daysfromreceiptofthedecisionororderappealedfrom.

InYBLv.NLRC,48theCourtwasmoreliberalinconstruingArticle223.TheNLRCdismissedtheappealforfailure
topostthebond.TheCourtfavoredtheappellantpartlybecausetheappealwasmadejustaftersix(6)daysfrom
theeffectivityoftheInterimRulesofRepublicActNo.6715.TheCourtobservedthatbothpartiesdidnotknow
aboutthenewruleyet.

Itispresumedthatanappealbondisonlynecessaryincaseswherethelaborarbitersdecisionorordercontains
amonetaryaward.Conversely,whenthelaborarbiterdoesnotstatethejudgmentaward,postingofbondmay
beexcused.

InYBL,theexacttotalamountduetotheprivaterespondentsasseparationpaywasnotstatedwhichwouldhave
beenthebasisofthebondthatisrequiredtobefiledbypetitionersunderthesaidlaw.

FromanawardofbackwagesandovertimepaybythelaborarbiterinRadav.NLRC,49petitionerthereinfailedto
postthesupersedeasbond.Nevertheless,theCourtgaveduecoursetotheappealfor"thebroaderinterestsof
justiceandthedesiredobjectiveofresolvingcontroversiesonthemerits."Theamountofthesupersedeasbond
couldnotbedeterminedanditwasonlyintheNLRCorderthattheamountwasspecifiedandwhichbond,after
extensiongrantedbytheNLRC,wastimelyfiledbypetitioner.

In the same vein, the Court in Blancaflor v. NLRC,50 excused the failure of appellant to post a bond due to the
failureoftheLaborArbitertostatetheexactamountofbackwagesandseparationpaydue.

CitingTaberrahv.NLRC51andNationalFederationofLaborUnionv.Hon.LadridoIII,52theCourtinOrozcov.The
FifthDivisionoftheCourtofAppeals53postulatedthat"respondentscannotbeexpectedtopostsuchappealbond
equivalenttotheamountofthemonetaryawardwhentheamountthereofwasnotincludedinthedecisionofthe
laborarbiter."Thecomputationoftheamountawardedtopetitionerwasnotstatedclearlyinthedecisionofthe
laborarbiter,hence,respondentshadnobasisindeterminingtheamountofthebondtobeposted.
Furthermore, when the judgment award is based on a patently erroneous computation, the appeal bond
equivalenttotheamountofthemonetaryawardisnotrequiredtobeposted.Erectors,Inc.v.NLRC54isagood
example on this point. The NLRCs order to post a bond of P1,576,224.00 was nullified because the bond was
erroneouslycomputedonthebasisofthesalarywhichtheemployeewasnolongerreceivingatthetimeofhis
separation.

Also,sincethecomputationoftheawardinStarAngelHandicraftv.NLRC55wasbasedonerroneouswageand
thatabigportionoftheawardhadalreadyprescribed,thenonpostingofappealbondwasexcused.

InDr.Postigov.Phil.TuberculosisSociety,Inc.,56respondentdeferredthepostingofthesuretybondinviewof
the alleged erroneous computation by the labor arbiter of the monetary award. While the labor arbiter awarded
P5,480,484.25asretirementbenefits,onlyP5,072,277.73,accordingtotherespondent'scomputation,wasdue
andowingtothepetitioners.

In sum, the NLRC may dispense of the posting of the bond when the judgment award is: (1) not stated or(2)
basedonapatentlyerroneouscomputation.Sansthesetwo(2)instances,theappellantisgenerallyrequiredto
postabondtoperfecthisappeal.

The Court adhered to a strict application of Article 223 when appellants do not post an appeal bond at all. By
explicitprovisionoflaw,anappealisperfectedonlyuponthepostingofacashorsuretybond.Thepostingofthe
appealbondwithintheperiodprovidedbylawisnotmerelymandatorybutjurisdictional.57Thereasonbehindthe
impositionofthisrequirementisenunciatedinVironGarmentsMfg.Co.,Inc.v.NLRC,58thus:

Therequirementthattheemployerpostacashorsuretybondtoperfectits/hisappealisapparentlyintendedto
assuretheworkersthatiftheyprevailinthecase,theywillreceivethemoneyjudgmentintheirfavoruponthe
dismissal of the employer's appeal. It was intended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay, or
evenevade,theirobligationtosatisfytheiremployees'justandlawfulclaims.59

Thus,whenpetitioners,inthecasesofOngv.CourtofAppeals,60RuralBankofCoron(Palawan),Inc.v.Cortes,61
Sy v. ALC,62 Ciudad Fernandina Food Corporation Employees UnionAssociation Labor Unions v. Court of
Appeals,63 and StoltNielsen Maritime Services, Inc. v. NLRC,64 did not post a full or partial appeal bond, it was
heldthatnoappealwasperfected.Alongerlookonpastrulingswouldshowthat:

InNationwideSecurityandAlliedServices,Inc.v.NLRC,65itwasfoundthatpetitionershadfundsfromitsother
businessestoposttherequiredbond.TheCourtdidnotfindasacceptablepetitionersexcuse,that"[using]funds
from sources other than that earned from [its company is not] a sound business judgment" to exempt it from
postinganappealbond.

PetitionersfailureinMersShoesMfg,Inc.v.NLRC,66 to post the required bond within the reglementary period

afterithasbeenorderedreduced,justifiedthedismissalofitsappeal.

ThelaborarbitersdecisioninSantosv.Velarde67statedtheexactawardofbackwagestobepaidbypetitioner,
thus the Court affirmed the dismissal of the appeal by the nonpayment of the appeal bond within the 10day
periodprovidedbylaw.

EvenifpetitionerinHeritageHotelManilav.NLRC68questionedasbasisoftheappealbondthecomputationof
themonetaryaward,theCourtdidnotexcuseitfrompostingabondinareasonableamountorwhatitbelieved
tobethecorrectamount.

InBanahawBroadcastingCorporationv.PacanaIII,69theNLRCissuedanorderdenyingpetitionersmotionfor
recomputationofthemonetaryawardandorderedittoposttherequiredbondwithin10days.

When BBC further demonstrated its unwillingness by completely ignoring this warning and by filing a Motion for
Reconsideration on an entirely new ground, we held that the NLRC cannot be said to have committed grave
abuseofdiscretionbymakinggooditswarningtodismisstheappeal.70

Upon the other hand, the Court did relax the rule respecting the bond requirement to perfect appeal in cases
where: (1) there was substantial compliance with the Rules, (2) surrounding facts and circumstances constitute
meritoriousgroundstoreducethebond,(3)aliberalinterpretationoftherequirementofanappealbondwould
serve the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits, or (4) the appellants, at the very least,
exhibitedtheirwillingnessand/orgoodfaithbypostingapartialbondduringthereglementaryperiod.71

InLopezv.QuezonCitySportsClubInc.,72thepostingoftheamountofP4,000,000.00 simultaneously with the

filing of the motion to reduce the bond to that amount, as well as the filing of the memorandum of appeal, all
within the reglementary period, altogether constitute substantial compliance with the Rules. In Intertranz
ContainerLines,Inc.v.Bautista,73thisCourthasrelaxedtheappealbondrequirementwhenitwasclearfromthe
records that petitioners never intended to evade the posting of an appeal bond. In Semblante v. Court of
Appeals,74theCourtstatedthattheruleonthepostingofanappealbondcannotdefeatthesubstantiverightsof
respondents to be free from an unwarranted burden of answering for an illegal dismissal for which they were
never responsible. It was found that respondents, not being petitioners employees, could never have been
dismissedlegallyorillegally.IntherecentcaseofGarciav.KJCommercial,75respondentshowedwillingnessto
postapartialbondwhenitpostedaP50,000.00cashbonduponfilingofamotiontoreducebond.Inaddition,
whenrespondentsmotionforreconsiderationwasdenied,itpostedthefullsuretybond.

TheoldNLRCRulesofProcedure,whichtookeffectin5November1993,76provides:

SECTION 6. Bond. In case the decision of a Labor Arbiter POEA Administrator and Regional Director or his
duly authorized hearing officer involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer shall be perfected only
upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the
Commission or the Supreme Court in an amount equivalent to the monetary award, exclusive of moral and
exemplarydamagesandattorneysfees.

Theemployeraswellascounselshallsubmitajointdeclarationunderoathattestingthatthesuretybondposted
isgenuineandthatitshallbeineffectuntilfinaldispositionofthecase.

TheCommissionmay,inmeritoriouscasesanduponMotionoftheAppellant,reducetheamountofthebond.(As
amendedbyNov.5,1993)(EmphasisSupplied).

Thus,appellantsaregiventheoptiontofileamotiontoreducetheamountofbondonlyinmeritoriouscases.In
theNLRCNewRulesofProcedurepromulgatedin2002,anotherqualificationtothereductionofanappealbond
wasaddedinSection6thereof:

No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on meritorious grounds, and only upon the posting of a
bondinareasonableamountinrelationtothemonetaryaward.(EmphasisSupplied).

SaidRulessignificantlyprovidethat:

Thefilingofthemotiontoreducebondwithoutcompliancewiththerequisitesintheprecedingparagraphs,shall
notstoptherunningoftheperiodtoperfectanappeal.

Clearlytherefore,theRulesonlyallowthefilingofamotiontoreducebondontwo(2)conditions:(1)thatthereis
meritoriousgroundand(2)abondinareasonableamountisposted.Compliancewiththetwoconditionsstops
the running of the period to perfect an appeal provided that they are complied within the 10day reglementary
period.

InRamirezv.CourtofAppeals,77theCourtdidnotfindanymerittoreducethebond.AlthoughRamirezpostedan
appeal bond, the same was insufficient, as it was not equivalent to the monetary award of the Labor Arbiter.
Moreover, when Ramirez sought a reduction of the bond, he merely said that the bond was excessive and
baselesswithoutamplifyingwhyheconsidereditassuch.

The grounds to be cited in the motion to reduce must be valid and acceptable. For instance, in Pasig Cylinder,
Mfg., Corp. v. Rollo,78 we found as acceptable reason for reducing the appeal bond the downscaling of their
operations considered together with the amount of the monetary award appealed. In University Plans
Incorporatedv.Solano,79thefactofreceivershipwasconsideredasameritoriousgroundinreducingtheappeal
bond.

SincetheintentionismerelytogivetheNLRCanideaofthejustificationforthereducedbond,theevidencefor
thepurposewouldnecessarilybelessthantheevidencerequiredforarulingonthemerits.80Asamatteroffact,
inStarAngel,theNLRCwasorderedtomakeapreliminarydeterminationonthemeritsforgrantingareduction
of the appeal bond. In University Plans, the Court took into consideration the fact that petitioner was under
receivershipanditwaspossiblethatpetitionerhasnoliquidassetanditcouldnotraisetheamountofmorethan
P3Millionwithinaperiodof10daysfromreceiptoftheLaborArbitersjudgment.Therefore,theCourtordereda
remand of the case to the NLRC for the conduct of preliminary determination of the merit or lack of merit of
petitioners motion to reduce bond. The Court adopted the ruling in Nicol v. Footjoy Industrial Corp., where the
casewasalsoremandedtotheNLRCtodeterminethemeritsofthemotiontoreduceinviewofourfindingthat
the NLRC in that case gravely abused its discretion when it dismissed Footjoys appeal, without even receiving
evidencefromwhichitcouldhavedeterminedthemeritorlackofitofthemotiontoreducetheappealbond.

In the recent case of McBurnie v. Ganzon,81 we held that merit may "pertain to an appellants lack of financial
capabilitytopaythefullamountofthebond,themeritsofthemainappealsuchaswhenthereisavalidclaim
that there was no illegal dismissal to justify the award, the absence of an employeremployee relationship,
prescription of claims, and other similarly valid issues that are raised in the appeal. For the purpose of
determining a meritorious ground, the NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence, or from making a
preliminarydeterminationofthemeritsoftheappellantscontentions."82
In order to toll the running of the period to appeal once the motion for reduction is filed, McBurnie has set a
parameteronwhatamountisreasonableforsuchpurpose:

ToensurethattheprovisionsofSection6,RuleVIoftheNLRCRulesofProcedurethatgivepartiesthechanceto
seekareductionoftheappealbondareeffectivelycarriedout,withouthoweverdefeatingthebenefitsofthebond
requirementinfavorofawinninglitigant,allmotionstoreducebondthataretobefiledwiththeNLRCshallbe
accompaniedbythepostingofacashorsuretybondequivalentto10%ofthemonetaryawardthatissubjectof
the appeal, which shall provisionally be deemed the reasonable amount of the bond in the meantime that an
appellants motion is pending resolution by the Commission. In conformity with the NLRC Rules, the monetary
award, for the purpose of computing the necessary appeal bond, shall exclude damages and attorneys fees.
Onlyafterthepostingofabondintherequiredpercentageshallanappellantsperiodtoperfectanappealunder
theNLRCRulesbedeemedsuspended.83(Emphasisandunderlinesupplied).

While McBurnie has effectively addressed the preliminary amount of the bond to be posted in order to toll the
runningoftheperiodtoappeal,thereisnohardandfastruleindeterminingwhethertheadditionalbondtobe
postedisreasonableinrelationtothejudgmentaward.

In Rosewood Processing Inc. v. NLRC,84 we found the reduced bond of P50,000.00 acceptable as substantial
compliance relative to the P789,000.00 judgment award. In Nicol, the P10 Million bond was enough to perfect
appealfromaP51.9Millionjudgmentaward.

InLopezv.QuezonCitySportsClub,Inc.,theNLRCorderedthepostingofanadditionalP6Millionandheldas
compliantaP10MillionbondrelativetothejudgmentawardofP27Million.InPasigCylinderMfg.Corp.v.Rollo,
weruledthatthereducedappealbondofP100,00.00satisfiestherequirementforanappealfromthejudgment
award of P3.13 Million. In University Plans, the P30,000.00 bond was accepted in perfecting an appeal from a
P3.013Millionjudgment.

In the case at bar, the motion to reduce bond filed by the Corporations was resolved by the NLRC in the
affirmativewhenitfoundthattherearemeritoriousgroundsinreducingthebondsuchasthehugeamountofthe
awardandimpossibilityofproceedingagainsttheCorporationspropertieswhichcorrespondtoalowervaluation.
Also, the NLRC took into consideration the fact of partial payment of P419 Million. The NLRC found the P4.5
Million bond posted by the Corporations as insufficient, hence ordering them to post an additional P4.5 Million.
Thus,P9Millionwasheldastheamountofthebondasreduced.

TheCourtofAppealsfoundtheamountoftheappealbondadjudgedbytheNLRCasmeaslyandinsufficientand
raisedittoP1Billion.Theappellatecourtrationalized:

TherequiredPhp3.453BILLIONappealbondsoughttobereducedbytheprivaterespondentsisequivalenttoan
averageofPhp452,140.00separationpayforeachofthe7,637employeesheldtobeillegallydismissedbythe
employerwhosoughtareductionoftherequiredPhp3.453BILLIONappealbondbecausetheemployerallegedly
putupPhp428MillionwhichconsistsofthePhp419MILLIONunpaidcommitmentplusthePhp9Millionalready
paidupcashappealbond.

Even if we consider Php 419 MILLION unpaid commitment plus the Php 9 Million already paidup cash appeal
bond, the unpaid appeal bond is still Php 3.025 BILLION. Php428 Million is still miniscule compared to the
Php3.025BILLIONunpaidportionoftheappealbond.Whatthe7,637workersneediscashorsuretyguarantyin
theeventofrenewedvictoryonappealforthe7,637petitionersemployeeswhowereawardedonemonthsalary
foreveryyearofserviceasseparationpaytotalingPhp3.453BILLIONPesos.Php419MILLIONPesospromise
andthePhp3.025BILLIONunpaidappealbondbothbecomemoreobscureiftheemployerwouldbepermittedto
subsequentlyemployartificestoevadeexecutionofjudgment.

ThedecisiontoreducetheamountofappealbondisnotablanketpowertotheNLRC,becausethediscretionis
not unbridled and is subject to strict guidelines because Art. 223 of the Labor Codeis a rule of jurisdiction that
affordslittleleewayforliberalinterpretation.TheorderoftheNLRCreducingtherequiredappealbondfromPhp
3.453BILLIONPesostoonlyPhp9MILLIONPesosisingraveabuseofitsdiscretionandthereforevoid,notto
mentionthatitisperseunreasonableandwithoutfactualbasis.

We have considered the circumstances and evidence presented in this case relative to the motion to reduce
appealbond. WehavetakenintoconsiderationthePhp419MILLIONunpaidcommitmentplusthePhp9Million
1 w p h i1

alreadypaidupcashappealbond,andtheresultingunpaidappealbondwhichisstillPhp3.025BILLION.Westill
deemitproperunderthelawandtheConstitutionfortheprotectionoflaborthatprivaterespondentsberequired
as prerequisite to perfecting appeal, to POST, within thirty (30) days from finality of this judgment, additional
appeal bond of Php 1 BILLION Pesos, in cash or surety, which amount is even less than onethird (1/3) of the
originalappealbondrequiredbylaw,whichWeholdtobereasonableunderthecircumstancesandtobebased
ontheevidencepresentedinthiscase.TheadditionalappealbondofPhp1BILLIONisequivalenttoanaverage
ofPhp130,941.46(insteadoftheoriginalaverageofPhp452,140.00)foreachoftheallegedillegallydismissed
7,637workers.85Notably,thecomputationofthejudgmentawardinthiscaseincludesdamages.
The NLRC Interim Rules on Appeals under Republic Act No. 6715 specifically provides that damages shall be
excludedinthedeterminationoftheappealbond,thus:

SECTION 7. Bond. In case of a judgment of the Labor Arbiter involving a monetary award, an appeal by the
employer shall be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding
company duly accredited by the Commission in an amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment
appealedfrom.

For purposes of the bond required under Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended, the monetary award
computedasofthedateofpromulgationofthedecisionappealedfromshallbethebasisofthebond.Forthis
purpose,moralandexemplarydamagesshallnotbeincludedinfixingtheamountofthebond.

Pending the issuance of the appropriate guidelines for accreditation, bonds posted by bonding companies duly
accredited by the regular courts, shall be acceptable. (Emphasis supplied). When the rules were amended in
1993,attorneysfeeswerealsoexcludedinthejudgmentawardforthepurposeofcomputingtheappealbond,
viz:

SECTION6.BOND.IncasethedecisionoftheLaborArbiter,POEAAdministratorandRegionalDirectororhis
duly authorized hearing officer involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer shall be perfected only
upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the
Commission or the Supreme Court in an amount equivalent to the monetary award, exclusive of moral and
exemplarydamagesandattorneysfees.

Subsequently,inanamendmentbyNLRCResolutionNo.0102,Seriesof2002,therulesineffectatthetimethe
appealbondwasinterposedbytheCorporations,theprovisiononexclusionofdamagesandattorneysfeeswas
retained:86

SECTION 6. BOND. In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director involves a monetary
award,anappealbytheemployermaybeperfectedonlyuponthepostingofacashorsuretybond.Theappeal
bondshalleitherbeincashorsuretyinanamountequivalenttothemonetaryaward,exclusiveofdamagesand
attorneysfees.

Thus, under the applicable rules, damages and attorneys fees are excluded from the computation of the
monetary award to determine the amount of the appeal bond. We shall refer to these exclusions as
"discretionaries," as distinguished from the "mandatories" or those amounts fixed in the decision to which the
employee is entitled upon application of the law on wages. These mandatories include awards for backwages,
holidaypay,overtimepay,separationpayand13thmonthpay.

Asamatteroffact,inErectors,Inc.v.NLRC,87itwasconcludedthatnobondisrequiredifanappealraisesno
question other than as regards the award of moral and/or exemplary damages. In Cosico, Jr., v. NLRC,88 the
employerwasheldtohavesubstantiallycompliedwiththerequirementwhenitpostedthebondontimebasedon
the monetary award for backwages and thirteenth month pay, excluding the exorbitant award for moral and
exemplarydamages.

The judgment award in the instant case amounted to an immense P3.45 Billion. The award is broken down as
follows:backwages,separationpay,moralandexemplarydamages.Forpurposesofdeterminingthereasonable
amountoftheappealbond,wereducethetotalamountofawardsasfollows:

The mandatories comprise the backwages and separation pay. The daily wage rate of an employee of Aris
rangesfromP170P200.Theaverageyearsofservicerangesfrom535years.Thebackwageswerecomputed
at 108 months or reckoned from the time the employees were actually terminated until the finality of the Labor
Arbiters Decision. Approximately, the amount to be received by an employee, exclusive of damages and
attorneysfees,isaboutP600,000.00.TheLaborArbitergrantedmoraldamagesamountingtoP10,000.00,and
another P10,000.00 as exemplary damages. The total number of employees receiving P20,000.00 each for
damagesis5,984,bringingthetotalamountofdamagestoP119,680,000.00.Thisamountshouldbededucted
aswellastheP419MillionunpaidcommitmentplustheP9Millionalreadypaidupcashappealbondfromthe
actualamounttodeterminetheamountonwhichtobasetheappealbond.Thus,thetotalamountisP2.9Billion.

WesustaintheCourtofAppealsinsofarasitincreasestheamountoftherequiredappealbond.Butwedeemit
reasonable to reduce the amount of the appeal bond to P725 Million. This directive already considers that the
award if not illegal, is extraordinarily huge and that no insurance company would be willing to issue a bond for
suchbigmoney.TheamountofP725Millionisapproximately25%ofthebasisabovecalculated.Itisabalancing
oftheconstitutionalobligationofthestatetoaffordprotectiontolaborwhich,specifictothiscase,isassurance
that in case of affirmance of the award, recovery is not negated and on the other end of the spectrum, the
opportunityoftheemployertoappeal.
By reducing the amount of the appeal bond in this case, the employees would still be assured of at least
substantial compensation, in case a judgment award is affirmed. On the other hand, management will not be
effectivelydeniedofitsstatutoryprivilegeofappeal.

VIII.

The Corporations invoked the decision issued by the NLRC last 19 December 2006 which set aside the labor
arbitersdecisionandorderedremandofthecasetotheforumoforigintohavetheinstantpetitionsdismissedfor
beingmoot.

When the NLRC granted the motion to reduce the appeal bond and the Corporations posted the required
additionalbond,theappealwasdeemedtohavebeenperfected.TheactoftheNLRCindecidingthecasewas
basedonpetitionersappealofthelaborarbitersruling,whichitdeemedtohavebeenperfectedandtherefore,
ripefordecision.

PrudencehoweverdictatesthattheNLRCshouldnothavedecidedthecaseonitsmeritsduringthependencyof
the instant petition. The very issue raised in the petitions determines whether or not the appeal by the
Corporations has been perfected. Until its resolution, the NLRC should have held in abeyance the resolution of
thecasetopreventthecasefrombeingmooted.TheNLRCdecisionwasissuedprematurely.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 96363 dated 26 March 2007 is
MODIFIED. The Corporations are directed to post 1!725 Million, in cash or surety bond, within TEN ( 10) days
fromthereceiptofthisDECISION.TheResolutionoftheNLRCdated19December2006isVACATEDforbeing
prematureandtheNLRCisDIRECTEDtoactwithdispatchtoresolvethemeritsofthecaseuponperfectionof
theappeal.

SOORDERED.

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

ARTUROD.BRION MARIOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1
Duetothesheernumberofcomplainants,thenamesofthe5,983otherswereomittedbutwhichcouldbe
foundintheannexesoftheLaborArbiter'sdecision.SeeRollo(G.R.No.180147),pp.230348.
2
Rollo(G.R.No.180319,Vol.I),p.12.
3
Id.at4950.
4
Id.at13.
5
Rollo(G.R.No.180150),p.14.
6
Theoriginalnumberofcomplainantsis7,637,howeveruponcounterchecking,thenumberwasreduced
to 5,984 because a good number of complainants filed their complaints several times. See Labor Arbiter
Decision.Rollo(G.R.No.180147),p.197.
7
The Union submitted a proposal for the renegotiation of the CBA but Aris gave no counterproposal.
Thereafter,Arissentanoticeofclosuretoallitsemployees.Id.at208209.
8
Rollo(G.R.No.180148),p.17.
9
Id.at87.
10
Id.at18.
11
Rollo(G.R.No.180319,Vol.III),p.1751.
12
Id.at1752.
13
Id.
14
Id.at359.
15
Id.at241.
16
Id.at360373.
17
Rollo(G.R.No.180147),p.22.
18
Rollo(G.R.No.180319,Vol.I),pp.365369.
19
Rollo(G.R.No.180150),p.431.
20
Rollo(G.R.No.180319,Vol.I),pp.126131.
21
Id.at130.
22
Rollo(G.R.No.180147),pp.577578.
23
Rollo(G.R.No.180150),pp.2627.
24
Rollo(G.R.No.180147),p.789.
25
Rollo(G.R.No.180319,Vol.I),p.27.
26
Id.at2932.
27
Rollo(G.R.No.180149),pp.908909.
28
ThepetitionwasdismissedontechnicalgroundsbytheCourtofAppealson17November2006.Id.at
902.
29
Id.3538.
30
Id.at3445.
31
Id.at50.
32
Id.at51.
33
Id.at58.
34
Id.at79.
35
Rollo(G.R.No.180319,Vol.I),pp.6469.
36
Rollo(G.R.No.180685),pp.1017.
37
Rollo(G.R.No.180148),pp.11911201.
38
SM Systems Corporation v. Camerino, G.R. No. 178591, 26 July 2010, 625 SCRA 482, 489 citing Atty.
Brionesv.HensonCruz,585Phil.63,80(2008).
39
Yuv.Lim,G.R.No.182291,22September2010,631SCRA172,184citingLimv.JudgeVianzon,529
Phil.472,484485(2006)citingfurtherRudeconManagementCorporationv.Singson,494Phil.581,599
600(2005).
40
InRe:ReconstitutionofTransferCertificatesofTitleNos.303168and303169andIssuanceofOwners
DuplicateCertificatesofTitleinLieuofthoseLost,RolandoEdwardG.Lim,G.R.No.156797,6July2010,
624 SCRA 81, 8889 citing Cooperative Development Authority v. Dolefil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries
Cooperative,Inc.,432Phil.290,317(2002)Sps.Cruzv.Sps.Caraos,550Phil.98,110(2007)Republicv.
CarmelDevelopment,Inc,427Phil.723,739(2002)R&MGeneralMerchandise,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,
419 Phil. 131, 145 (2001) Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank and Trust Company,361 Phil. 744,
755(1999)CebuInternationalFinanceCorp.v.CourtofAppeals,374Phil.844,857(1999).
41
Rollo(G.R.No.180149),p.902.
42
Id.at622.
43
Technological Institute of the Philippines Teachers and Employees Organization (TIPTEO) v. Court of
Appeals,608Phil.632(2009).
44
582Phil.600,612(2008)citingGreatSouthernMaritimeServicesCorp.v.Acua,492Phil.518,525527
(2005)SecurityBankCorporationv.IndianaAerospaceUniversity,500Phil.51,5760(2005).
45
Acaylar,Jr.v.Harayo,id.
46
Calipayv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.166411,3August2010,626SCRA409,416
citing McBurnie v. Ganzon, G.R. Nos. 178034, 178117, 18698485, 18 September 2009, 600 SCRA 658,
672 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Ascot Holdings and Equities, Inc., 562 Phil. 974, 983984 (2007)
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Raut, 613 Phil. 427 (2009) citing Accessories Specialist,
Inc.v.Alabanza,581Phil.517,530(2008)citingfurtherCuevasv.BaisSteelCorporation,439Phil.793,
805(2002).
47
Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182626, 4 December 2009, 607 SCRA 752, 761 citing Ciudad
Fernandina Food Corporation Employees UnionAssociated Labor Unions v. Court of Appeals, 528 Phil.
415,430(2006).
48
268Phil.169(1990).
49
G.R.No.96078,9January1992,205SCRA69,205SCRA69,76.
50
G.R.No.101013,2February1993,218SCRA366.
51
342Phil.394(1997).
52
274Phil.244(1991).
53
497Phil.227,236(2005).
54
G.R.No.93690,10October1991,202SCRA597.
55
G.R.No.108914,20September1994,236SCRA580.
56
515Phil.601(2006).
57
BanahawBroadcastingCorp.v.PacanaIII,G.R.No.171673,30May2011,649SCRA196,210.
58
G.R.No.97357,18March1992,207SCRA339.
59
Id.at342.
60
482Phil.170(2004).
 61
539Phil.498(2006).
62
589Phil.354(2008).
63
Supranote42.
64
513Phil.642(2005).
65
341Phil.393,403(1997).
66
350Phil.294(1998).
67
450Phil.381(2003).
68
614Phil.320(2009).
69
Supranote52.
70
Id.
71
Nicolv.FootjoyIndustrialCorp.,555Phil.275,292(2007).
72
596Phil.204(2009).
73
G.R.No.187693,13July2010,625SCRA75.
74
G.R.No.196426,15August2011,655SCRA444.
75
G.R.No.196830,29February2012,667SCRA396.
76
AsamendedbyResolutionNo.0102,seriesof2002.ItamendedcertainprovisionsoftheNewRulesof
ProcedureoftheNLRCwhichwaspromulgatedonFebruary12,2002andtookeffectonMarch18,2002.
77
G.R.No.182626,4December2009,607SCRA752.
78
G.R.No.173631,8September2010,630SCRA320.
79
G.R.No.170416,22June2011,652SCRA492.
80
Id.at506.
81
G.R.Nos.178034&178117,G.R.Nos.18698485,17October2013.
82
Id.
83
Id.
84
352Phil.1013(1998).
85
Rollo(G.R.No.180149),pp.122123.
86
Itwaslikewiseretainedinthepresent2011NLRCRulesofProcedure.
87
Supranote49.
88
338Phil.1080(1997).

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation