TURKS SHAWARMA v. PAJARON

Turks Shawarma Company/Gem Zenarosa Vs. Feliciano Z. Pajaron and Larry A. Carbonilla

G.R. No. 207156. 

January 16, 2017

FACTS:

Petitioners hired Feliciano Z. Pajaron (Pajaron) in May 2007 as service crew and Larey A. Carbonilla (Carbonilla) in April 2007 as head crew. Both Pajaron and Carbonilla claimed that there was no just or authorized cause for their dismissal and petitioners also failed to comply with the requirements of due process. On April 15, 2010, they filed their respective Complaints for constructive and actual illegal dismissal, non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day premium, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay against petitioners. Both Complaints were consolidated.

Petitioners denied having dismissed Pajaron and Carbonilla; they averred that they actually abandoned their work. They likewise failed to substantiate their claims that they were not paid labor standards benefits.

The Labor Arbiter found credible Pajaron and Carbonilla's version and held them constructively and illegally dismissed. Then, petitioners appealed before the NLRC. However, Zefiarosa failed to post in full the required appeal bond. Thus, petitioners' appeal was dismissed by the NLRC for non-perfection. They filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied.

Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA. However, the CA rendered a Decision dismissing the Petition for Certiorari. It held that the NLRC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners' appeal for non-perfection. Hence, this present petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the NLRC's decision in dismissing petitioners’ appeal for non-perfection

HELD:

No. The CA did not err in affirming the NLRC's decision in dismissing petitioners’ appeal for non-perfection.

The Court has time and again held that "[t]he right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost."

It is clear from both the Labor Code (Article 223) and the NLRC Rules of Procedure (Sections 4 and 6 of Rule VI) that there is legislative and administrative intent to strictly apply the appeal bond requirement, and the Court should give utmost regard to this intention."21

The posting of cash or surety bond is therefore mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to comply with this requirement renders the decision of the Labor Arbiter final and executory.22 This indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal ''is to assure the workers that if they finally prevail in the case[,] the monetary award will be given to them upon the dismissal of the employer's appeal [and] is further meant to discourage employers from using the appeal to delay or evade payment of their obligations to the employees.

Stated otherwise, petitioners' case will still fail on its merits even if we are to allow their appeal to be given due course. After scrupulously examining the contracting positions and arguments of the parties, we find that the Labor Arbiter's decision declaring Pajaron and Carbonilla illegally dismissed was supported by substantial evidence. All told, we find no error on the part of the CA in ruling that the NLRC did not gravely abused its discretion in dismissing petitioners' appeal for no perfection due to noncompliance with the requisites of filing a motion to reduce bond.