​Balite v. SS Ventures, Feb. 2015

Facts:
 
Respondent SS Ventures International, Inc. is a domestic corporation duly engaged in the business of manufacturing footwear products for local sales and export abroad. It is represented in this action by respondents Sung Sik Lee and Evelyn Rayala. Petitioners Andy Balite (Balite), Monaliza Bihasa (Bihasa) and Delfin Anzaldo (Anzaldo) were regular employees of the respondent company until their employments were severed for violation of various company policies.
 
For his part, Balite was issued a Show Cause Memorandum by the respondent company on 4 August 2005 charging him with the following infractions: (1) making false reports, malicious and fraudulent statements and rumor-mongering against the company; (2) threatening and intimidating co-workers; (3) refusing to cooperate in the conduct of investigation; and (4) gross negligence in the care and use of the company property resulting in the damage of the finished products. After respondent found Balite’s explanation insufficient, he was dismissed from employment, through a Notice of Termination on 6 September 2005.
 
Bihasa, on the other hand, was charged with absence without leave on two occasions and with improper behavior, stubbornness, arrogance and uncooperative attitude towards superiors and employees. Bihasa was likewise terminated from the service on 5 May 2006 after her explanation in an administrative investigation was found unsatisfactory by the respondent company.
 
Anzaldo was also dismissed from employment after purportedly giving him due process. The records of the infractions he committed as well as the date of his termination, however, are not borne by the records.
 
Consequently, the three employees charged respondents with illegal dismissal and recovery of backwages, 13th month pay and attorney’s fees before the Labor Arbiter.
 
Issue:
Whether or not the amount of bond of more than 20% of the judgement award is sufficient as provisional bond pending resolution of motion to reduce bond?

Held:
​Balite v SS Ventures International
G.R. No. 195109; February 4, 2015         Respondent SS Ventures International, Inc. is a domestic corporation duly engaged in the business of manufacturing footwear products for local sales and export abroad. It is represented in this action by respondents Sung Sik Lee and Evelyn Rayala. Petitioners Andy Balite (Balite), Monaliza Bihasa (Bihasa) and Delfin Anzaldo (Anzaldo) were regular employees of the respondent company until their employments were severed for violation of various company policies.
 
For his part, Balite was issued a Show Cause Memorandum by the respondent company on 4 August 2005 charging him with the following infractions: (1) making false reports, malicious and fraudulent statements and rumor-mongering against the company; (2) threatening and intimidating co-workers; (3) refusing to cooperate in the conduct of investigation; and (4) gross negligence in the care and use of the company property resulting in the damage of the finished products. After respondent found Balite’s explanation insufficient, he was dismissed from employment, through a Notice of Termination on 6 September 2005.
 
Bihasa, on the other hand, was charged with absence without leave on two occasions and with improper behavior, stubbornness, arrogance and uncooperative attitude towards superiors and employees. Bihasa was likewise terminated from the service on 5 May 2006 after her explanation in an administrative investigation was found unsatisfactory by the respondent company.
 
Anzaldo was also dismissed from employment after purportedly giving him due process. The records of the infractions he committed as well as the date of his termination, however, are not borne by the records. Consequently, the three employees charged respondents with illegal dismissal and recovery of backwages, 13th month pay and attorney’s fees before the Labor Arbiter. Whether or not the amount of bond of more than 20% of the judgement award is sufficient as provisional bond pending resolution of motion to reduce bond,        Held:
 
Yes. An appeal from the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC must be perfected within ten calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter. In a judgment involving a monetary award, the appeal shall be perfected only upon (1) proof of payment of the required appeal fee; (2) posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company; and (3) filing of a memorandum of appeal.
 
In McBurnie v. Ganzon, the Court harmonized the provision on appeal that its procedures are fairly applied to both the petitioner and the respondent, assuring by such application that neither one or the other party is unfairly favored. It was pronounced that the posting of a cash or surety bond in an amount equivalent to 10% of the monetary award pending resolution of the motion to reduce appeal bond shall be deemed sufficient to perfect an appeal
 
The ruling in McBurnie was clarified by the Court in Sara Lee Philippines v. Ermilinda Macatlang. Considering the peculiar circumstances in Sara Lee, the Court determined what is the reasonable amount of appeal bond and underscored the fact that the amount of 10% of the award is not a permissible bond but is only such amount that shall be deemed reasonable in the meantime that the appellant’s motion is pending resolution by the Commission. The actual reasonable amount yet to be determined is necessarily a bigger amount. In an effort to strike a balance between the constitutional obligation of the state to afford protection to labor on the one hand, and the opportunity afforded to the employer to appeal on the other, the Court considered the appeal bond in the amount of P725M which is equivalent to 25% of the monetary award sufficient to perfect the appeal.
 
In line with Sara Lee and the objective that the appeal on the merits to be threshed out soonest by the NLRC, the Court holds that the appeal bond posted by the respondent in the amount of P100,000.00 which is equivalent to around 20% of the total amount of monetary bond is sufficient to perfect an appeal. With the employer’s demonstrated good faith in filing the motion to reduce the bond on demonstrable grounds coupled with the posting of the appeal bond in the requested amount, as well as the filing of the memorandum of appeal, the right of the employer to appeal must be upheld. This is in recognition of the importance of the remedy of appeal, which is an essential part of our judicial system and the need to ensure that every party litigant is given the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause freed from the constraints of technicalities.