Appeal bond
As aptly observed by the CA, Zeñarosa cannot feign ignorance of the law, considering that he was able to post a partial bond and ask for a reduction of the appeal bond.
Respondents Feliciano Z. Pajaron and Larry A. Carbonilla filed complaints for constructive and actual illegal dismissal with money claims against petitioners Turks Shawarma Company/Gem Zeñarosa.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) found for respondents and awarded Pajaron backwages and separation pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay to both of them.
Due to alleged non-availability of counsel, Zeñarosa himself filed a notice of appeal with memorandum and motion to reduce appeal bond with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). He posted a partial cash bond of P15,000.00, maintaining that he could not afford to post the full amount of the award of P197,936.27 since he is a mere backyard micro-entrepreneur.
The NLRC denied the motion to reduce bond. It also denied the motion for reconsideration, reiterating that the grounds for the reduction of the appeal bond are not meretorious and that the partial bond posted is not reasonable.
The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners and sustained the decision of the NLRC.
Did the CA commit a reversible error?
Ruling: No.
The Court, in special and justified circumstances, has relaxed the requirement of posting a supersedeas bond for the perfection of an appeal on technical considerations to give way to equity and justice. Thus, under Section 6 of Rule VI of the 2005 NLRC Revised Rules of Procedure, the reduction of the appeal bond is allowed, subject to the following conditions: (1) the motion to reduce the bond must be based on meritorious grounds; and (2) a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award is posted by the appellant. Compliance with these two conditions will stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.
In the case at bar, petitioners filed a motion to reduce bond together with their notice of appeal and posted a cash bond ofP15,000 within the 10-day reglementary period to appeal.
The CA correctly found that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reduce bond, as such motion was not predicated on meritorious and reasonable grounds and the amount tendered is not reasonable in relation to the award. The NLRC correctly held that the supposed ground cited in the motion is not well-taken for there was no evidence to prove Zeñarosa’s claim that the payment of the full amount of the award would greatly affect his business due to financial setbacks.
Besides, “the law does not require outright payment of the total monetary award; [the appellant has the option to post either a cash or surety bond. In the latter case, appellant must pay only a] moderate and reasonable sum for the premium to ensure that the award will be eventually paid should the appeal fail.” Moreover, the absence of counsel is not a valid excuse for non-compliance with the rules. As aptly observed by the CA, Zeñarosa cannot feign ignorance of the law, considering that he was able to post a partial bond and ask for a reduction of the appeal bond.
At any rate, petitioners did not advance any reason for the alleged absence of counsel except that they were simply abandoned. Neither did petitioners explain why they failed to procure a new counsel to properly assist them in filing the appeal. Moreover, the partial bond posted was not reasonable.
In the case of McBurnie v. Ganzon, 719 Phil. 680, 713-714 (2013), the Court has set a provisional percentage of 10 percent of the monetary award (exclusive of damages and attorney’s fees) as reasonable amount of bond that an appellant should post pending resolution by the NLRC of a motion for a bond’s reduction. Only after the posting of this required percentage shall an appellant’s period to perfect an appeal be suspended. Applying this parameter, the P15,000.00 partial bond posted by petitioners is not considered reasonable in relation to the total monetary award of P197,936.27. (Del Castillo, J., SC 1st Division, Turks Shawarma Company/Gem Zeñarosa vs. Feliciano Z. Pajaron and Larry A. Carbonilla, G.R. No. 207156, January 16, 2017).