G.R. No.

192573 October 22, 2014

RICARDO N. AZUELO, Petitioner,

vs.
ZAMECO II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Respondent.

FACTS:
Petitioner Ricardo N. Azuelo (Azuelo) was employed by the respondent ZAMECO II Electric
Cooperative, Inc. (ZAMECO) as a maintenance worker. It appears that sometime in March 2006,
Azuelo filed with the Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) of the NLRC in San Fernando City,
Pampanga a Complaint6 for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits against ZAMECO.
After several mediations, LA Bactin ordered the parties to submit their respective position papers
on July 14, 2006.

On July 14, 2006, Azuelo, instead of submitting his position paper, moved that the submission of
his position paper be extended to August 4, 2006, which was granted by LA Bactin. On August 4,
2006, Azuelo again failed to submit his position paper. LA Bactin then directed Azuelo to submit
his position papers on August 22, 2006. On the said date, Azuelo, instead of submitting his
position paper, moved for the issuance of an order directing ZAMECO to furnish him with a
complete copy of the investigation report as regards his dismissal..

On November 6, 2006, LA Bactin issued an Order, stating that respondent has already filed its
position paper while complainant, despite ample opportunity given him, failed to file his[,]
leaving this office with no option but to dismiss this case for lack of interest.

Azuelo again filed a complaint with the RAB of the NLRC in San Fernando City,containing the
same allegations in his first complaint, and this was assigned to LA Abdon. LA Abdon dismissed
Azuelo's second complaint for illegal dismissal on the ground of res judicata.
On appeal, the NLRC, affirmed the Order issued on March 12, 2007 by LA Abdon. Considering
that the Order issued by LA Bactin did not qualify the nature of the dismissal of the first
complaint, the NLRC opined that the said dismissal is with prejudice. Thus, the filing of the
second complaint for illegal dismissal is already barred by the prior dismissal of Azuelo' s first
complaint. Azuelo elevated the matter through a petition for certiorari before the CA, which
denied the petition.
ISSUE/S:
whether the dismissal of a complaint for illegal dismissal due to the unreasonable failure of the
complainant to submit his position paper amounts to a dismissal with prejudice.
HELD:

The 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC (2005 Revised Rules), the rules applicable at
the time of the controversy, is silent as to the nature of the dismissal of a complaint on the ground
of unreasonable failure to submit a position paper by the complainant. Nevertheless, the 2005
Revised Rules, particularly Section 3, Rule I thereof, provides for the suppletory application of
the Rules of Court to arbitration proceedings before the LAs and the NLRC in the absence of any
applicable provisions therein,

In this regard, Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court provides that:

Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to
appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute
his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the
court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own
motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same
or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits,
unless otherwise declared by the court.
the general rule is that dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute is to be regarded as an
adjudication on the merits and with prejudice to the filing of another action, and the only
exception is when the order of dismissal expressly contains a qualification that the dismissal is
without prejudice."

As already stated, the Order dated November 6, 2006, which dismissed Azuelo's first complaint
due to his unreasonable failure to submit his position paper is unqualified. It is thus considered as
an adjudication on the merits and with prejudice to filing of another complaint. Accordingly, the
NLRC did not abuse its discretion when it affirmed LA Abdon' s dismissal of the second
complaint for illegal dismissal. Azuelo' s filing of a second complaint for illegal dismissal against
ZAMECO based on the same allegations cannot be permitted lest the rule on res judicata be
transgressed.
DEE JAYS INN CAF V. RANESES

FACTS:

Petitioner Ferraris, the owner and manager of petitioner . DJIC, engaged the services of
respondent and a certain Moonyeen J. Bura-ay (Moonyeen) as cashier and cashier/receptionist,
respectively. Respondent filed before the Social Security System (SSS) Office a complaint
against petitioner Ferraris for non-remittance of SSS contributions. Respondent also filed a
complaint against petitioners for underpayment/nonpayment of wages, overtime pay, holiday
pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and moral and exemplary damages

Respondent averred that she asked from petitioner Ferraris the latter's share as employer in the
SSS contributions and overtime pay for the 11 hours of work respondent rendered but Ferraris
got infuriated and told respondent to seek another employment. On the other hand, petitioner
contended that respondent and Moonyeen were not terminated from employment. According to
petitioners, petitioner scolded respondent and Moonyeen and required them to produce the
shortage of P400.00. However, respondent and Moonyeen merely walked out and did not report
back to work anymore.

Respondent submitted the Joint Affidavit of Mercy Joy Christine Bura-ay (Mercy) and Mea
Tormo (Mea) to corroborate her allegations wwhile petitioner submitted the affidavit of Ma. Eva
Gorospe (Eva), another employee of petitioners.

Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision in favor of petitioners, but granted respondent's claim for 13th
month pay. Later on, Moonyeen similarly contended that she was illegally dismissed by
petitioners but the same was dismissed. NLRC issued a Resolution dated August 30, 2006,
dismissing the appeals of respondent and Moonyeen for lack of merit and affirming en toto the
Labor Arbiter's Decisions. In a Petition for Certiorari the Court of Appeals granted respondent's
Petition using the equipoise rule.

ISSUE/S:

1. WON an issue belatedly included in the position paper but not in the original complaint
can still be given cognizance
2. Whether the application of the equipoise rule is proper

HELD:
1. Yes. A claim not raised in the pro forma complaint may still be raised in the position
paper.
The record shows that respondent filed her complaint sometime in January 2005 and
position paper on September 8, 2005. During said period, the 2002 NLRC Rules of
Procedure, as amended by NLRC Resolution No. 01-02, was still in effect. Under Section
4, Rule V of the 2002 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended, the parties shall thereafter
not be allowed to allege facts, or present evidence to prove facts, not referred to and any
cause or causes of action not included in the complaint or position papers, affidavits and
other documents. The Court observes herein that respondent could not have included the
charge of illegal dismissal in her complaint because she filed said complaint (which were
for various money claims against petitioners) in January 2005, and petitioners
purportedly dismissed her from employment only on February 5, 2005. However, since
respondent subsequently alleged and argued the matter of her illegal dismissal in her
position paper filed on September 8, 2005, then the Labor Arbiter could still take
cognizance of the same.
2. The application by the Court of Appeals of the equipoise doctrine and the rule that all
doubts should be resolved in favor of labor was misplaced. Without the joint affidavit of
Mercy and Mea, there only remained the bare allegation of respondent that she was
dismissed by petitioners on February 5, 2005, which hardly constitute substantial
evidence of her dismissal. As both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC held, since
respondent was unable to establish with substantial evidence her dismissal from
employment, the burden of proof did not shift to petitioners to prove that her dismissal
was for just or authorized cause.
Oyster Plaza hotel v. Melivo

FACTS:

On October 22, 2009, respondent Errol 0. Melivo (Melivo) filed before the NLRC a Complaint4
for illegal dismissal with prayers for reinstatement and payment of back wages, holiday pay,
overtime pay service incentive leave, and, 13 rh month pay against petitioners Oyster Plaza Hotel
(Oyster Plaza), Rolito Go (Go), and Jennifer Ampel (Ampel).

The Summons dated October 26, 2009, and a copy of the complaint, were served on the
petitioners thru registered mail which the registry return receipt, showed duly served. The
petitioners, however, failed to appear during the scheduled conferences. Thereafter, two more
notices were sent to petitioners, one was returned unserved as there was no one to receive the
same and the other was received by a certain Charlie Mirafia (Mirana) on January 25, 2010. At
the February 17, 2010 hearing, however, only Melivo appeared thus Melivo filed his Position
Paper, alleging the following: that he was hired as a trainee room boy;and thereafter he was
rehired even after expiration of his contract but in September 2009, his supervisor Ampel
verbally told him that his contract was expiring, thus, he must stop reporting for work.

For the last time, another notice of hearing for the March 24, 2010, was again sent to the
petitioners with a directive to file their position paper, but it was again returned unserved. Hence,
the case was submitted for decision ex parte. The LA ruled in favor of Melivo ordering his
reinstatement. When Melivo moved for the execution of the order, petitioners filed a motion to
quash the writ of execution. They alleged that Mirafia, was not its employee but merely assigned
to it by VICAR Security Agency; that "Oyster Plaza Hotel" was only a name and business style
of its owner, Martyniuk Development Corporation (MDC) and, hence, could not be sued because
it had no legal personality; that Go was not a stockholder, officer, or director of, and had no
connection with, Oyster Plaza and MDC; that Ampel, whose real name was Jennilyn not
Jennifer, was a mere assistant desk officer of Oyster Plaza; and that assuming there was valid
service of summons, Melivo was not illegally dismissed because he was merely employed for a
fixed term, which term already expired. The NLRC affirmed the LA decision. When it reached
the CA, it was again affirmed. The CA stated that the failure to implead MDC in the proceedings
before the LA and the NLRC was merely a procedural error which did not affect the jurisdiction
of the labor tribunals.

ISSUE:

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS WERE DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHT TO

DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS THEY WERE NOT PROPERLY SERVED WITH
SUMMONS
 2. WON MELIVO WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.
3. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING PETITIONERS GO
AND AMPEL SOLIDARIL Y LIABLE WITH OYSTER PLAZA/MDC

HELD:

1. In quasi-judicial proceedings before the NLRC and its arbitration branch, procedural
rules governing service of summons are not strictly construed. Substantial compliance
thereof is sufficient. Court considered as substantial compliance the service of summons
by registered mail at the respondent's place of business. Court concurs with the CA that
failure to include MDC's corporate name in the complaint did not necessarily result in the
loss of the labor tribunals' jurisdiction over the former. The essence of due process is
simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain one's side or to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.

The Court notes that even though the petitioners failed to participate in the proceedings before
the LA, they were able to argue their case before the NLRC. The petitioners, through their
pleadings, were able to argue their position and submit evidence in support of their position that
they did not receive the summons and notices from the LA; and that Melivo was not illegally
dismissed.

Evidently, the petitioners' contention that they were denied due process is devoid of any merit

2. Yes Melivo was illegally dismissed.

the CA correctly affirmed the ruling of the NLRC. Probation is the period during which
the employer may determine if the employee is qualified for possible inclusion in the
regular force. 32 The employer has the right or is at liberty to choose who will be hired
and who will be denied employment. An employee allowed to work beyond the
probationary period is deemed a regular employee.
As a room boy, his performance was certainly under observation. Thus, it can be
reasonably deduced that Melivo' s probationary employment actually started in August
2008, at the same time he started working as a trainee. Therefore, when he was re-hired
as room boy after his training period sometime in November 2008 he attained regular
employment status.
3. In the present case, there is nothing substantial on record which can justify Go and Ampel
's solidary liability with Oyster Plaza or MDC. As to Ampel, records reveal that her
participation in the illegal dismissal was her verbally informing Melivo that his services
were being terminated; and the said act could hardly be considered malicious enough to
make Ampel solidarily liable with Oyster Plaza or MDC.
4. With regard to Go, aside from the assertion that he was the owner of Oyster Plaza, no
other act, relating to Melivo' s illegal dismissal, was ever averred against him. Besides,
Go's relation with Oyster Plaza or MDC was only based from the bare allegations of
Melivo who failed to provide substantial evidence to prove them. It is of no moment that
Go failed to produce evidence to show that he was no longer connected with MDC or
 Oyster Plaza. Melivo should have relied on the strength of his evidence and not on the
weakness of the defense offered by the petitioners.39 Clearly, without any participation in
the illegal dismissal of Melivo, no malice or bad faith can be attributed to Go to justify
his solidary liability with Oyster Plaza. In fine, the petition must be partially granted to
the effect that only Oyster Plaza/MDC should be adjudged liable to Melivo.

EMMANUEL M. OLORES, Petitioners,

vs.
MANILA DOCTORS COLLEGE and/or TERESITA 0. TURLA, Respondent.

FACTS:

[Petitioner] was hired as a part-time faculty of respondent on 07 November 2005. In November

2008, [petitioner] signed fixed term employment contracts, this time as a full- time instructor.

[Petitioner] submitted the final grades of his students to Mr. Jacinto Bernardo, Jr. (Bernardo), the
chair of the Humanities Area. On 13 April 2010, Bernardo charged [petitioner] with gross
misconduct and gross inefficiency in the performance of duty.

On 14 April 2010, [petitioner] submitted his answer AND wrote a letter to respondents Human
Resources Manager asking that he should now be granted a permanent status. Respondent
created the Manila Doctors Tribunal (MDT) which was tasked to ascertain the truth. Eventually
MDT established the culpability of Olores and recommended his dismissal.

Aggrieved, [petitioner] filed a case for: a) illegal dismissal with a claim for reinstatement; b)
non-payment of service incentive leave and 13th month pay; c) moral and exemplary damages;
d) attorneys fees; and e) regularization.3

The Labor Arbiter found merit in petitioners charge for illegal dismissal. However, it dismissed
petitioners claim for regularization. Respondent appealed to the NLRC. However, the same was
denied on the ground that respondents appeal was not accompanied by neither a cash nor surety
bond, thus, no appeal was perfected from the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

Respondent, thus, sought reconsideration which the NLRC granted. Thus the petitioner filed
a certiorari petition with the CA. The CA dismissed petitioners special civil action
for certiorari since petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration against the NLRC
decision before seeking recourse to it via a certiorari petition

ISSUE/S:
1) whether respondents appeal with the NLRC was perfected despite its failure to post a bond;
and (2) whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioners Rule 65 petition.
HELD:
1. No, the appeal was not perfected. Article 22312 of the Labor Code states that an appeal by
the employer to the NLRC from a judgment of a Labor Arbiter, which involves a
monetary award, may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued
by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the NLRC, in an amount equivalent
to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from. Sections 4 (a) and 6 of Rule VI of
the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, as amended, reaffirm the explicit jurisdictional
principle in Article 223. The posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an
appeal in cases involving monetary awards from the decisions of the Labor Arbiter.1a\^/

The word "only" makes it clear that the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer is the
essential and exclusive means by which an employers appeal may be perfected. Moreover, the
filing of the bond is not only mandatory, but a jurisdictional requirement as well, that must be
complied with in order to confer jurisdiction upon the NLRC. Non-compliance therewith renders
the decision of the Labor Arbiter final and executory. This requirement is intended to assure the
workers that if they prevail in the case, they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon
the dismissal of the employers appeal. It is intended to discourage employers from using an
appeal to delay or evade their obligation to satisfy their employees just and lawful claims.16

Here, it is undisputed that respondents appeal was not accompanied by any appeal bond despite
the clear monetary obligation to pay petitioner his separation pay in the amount of P100,000.00.
Since the posting of a bond for the perfection of an appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional,
the decision of the Labor Arbiter sought to be appealed before the NLRC had already become
final and executory. Therefore, the NLRC had no authority to entertain the appeal, much less to
reverse the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

2. Yes the CA erred dismissing petitioners Rule 65 petition. The general rule is that a
motion for reconsideration is indispensable before resort to the special civil action
for certiorari to afford the court or tribunal the opportunity to correct its error, if any. The
rule is well settled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable
condition to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari. However, said rule recognize
as one among the exceptions a situation where the questions raised in
the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or
are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court. In the instant case, the
NLRC had all the opportunity to review its ruling and correct itself. In the present case,
the NLRC was already given the opportunity to review its ruling and correct itself when
the respondent filed its motion for reconsideration of the NLRC's initial ruling in favor of
petitioner. In fact, it granted the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent and
reversed its previous ruling and reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter dismissing
the complaint of the petitioner. It would be an exercise in futility to require the petitioner
to file a motion for reconsideration since the very issues raised in the petition
for certiorari, i.e., whether or not the petitioner was constructively dismissed by the
respondent and whether or not she was entitled to her money claims, were already duly
passed upon and resolved by the NLRC. Thus, the NLRC had more than one opportunity
to resolve the issues of the case and in fact reversed itself upon reconsideration. It is
 highly improbable or unlikely under the circumstances that the Commission would
reverse or set aside its resolution granting a motion for reconsideration.

5a
SUGAR STEEL INDUSTRIAL V. ALBINA ET AL

FACTS:
Sometime in August 1996, a clog-up occurred at the kettle sheet guide, where herein
respondents were assigned, causing damage to the herein petitioner. On the same day, Manager
issued a memo requiring all the petitioners to submit written explanation on the aforesaid
incident and why no action shall be taken against them for gross negligence. After an
investigation, respondents were found guilty of gross neglect of duty and by reason thereof~
they were terminated from their employment. Thus the respondents instituted a case of illegal
dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that the dismissal of the respondents was justified because of their
being guilty of gross negligence.
On appeal, the NLRC, observing that the ground stated in support or the respondents' appeal
-that "the decision with all due respect, is not supported by evidence and is contrary to the facts
obtaining" -was not among those expressly enumerated under Article 223 of the Labor Code,
upheld the LA's decision. After a motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC,
respondents elevated the case to the CA via petition for certiorari. The CA granted the petition
and ruled that the NLRC's affirmance of the LA's decision did not accord with the evidence on
record and the applicable law and jurisprudence.
Thus this petition. Petitioners submit that the CA gravely abused its discretion by disregarding
the factual findings of the LA that the NLRC affirmed and that CA thus exceeded its jurisdiction
in making its own findings after re-assessing the facts and the sufficiency of the evidence
presented to the LA.

ISSUE:
WON the CA correctly ruled on the petition.

HELD:
Yes. As a rule, the certiorari proceeding, being confined to the correction of acts rendered
without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion that amounts to
lack or excess of jurisdiction, is limited in scope and narrow in character. As such, the judicial
inquiry in a special civil action for certiorari in labor litigation ascertains only whether or not
the NLRC acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.
We find that the CA did not exceed its jurisdiction by reviewing the evidence and deciding the
case on the merits despite the judgment of the NLRC already being final.
we have pronounced that the CA is "given the power to pass upon the evidence, if and when
necessary, to resolve factual issues," wit hout contravening the doctrine of the immutability of
judgments. The judicial function of the CA in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction over the
NLRC extends to the careful review of the NLRC's evaluation of the evidence because the
factual findings of the NLRC are accorded great respect and finality only when they rest on
substantial evidence. Accordingly, the CA is not to be restrained from revising or correcting
such factual findings whenever warranted by the circumstances simply because the NLRC is not
infallible. Indeed, to deny to the CA this power is to diminish its corrective jurisdiction through
the writ of certiorari. In our view, the CA acted judiciously in undoing the too literal
interpretation of Article 223 of the Labor Code by the NLRC. the CA's overturning of the
NLRC's ruling was based on its finding that the petitioners did not sufficiently establish the just
and valid cause to dismiss the respondents from their employment. As the assailed judgment
indicates, the CA's review was thorough and its ruling judicious. The CA thereby enforced
against the petitioners the respected proposition that it was the employer who bore the burden to
show that the dismissal was for just and valid cause.21 The failure of the petitioners to
discharge their burden of proof as the employers necessarily meant that the dismissal was
illegal.22 The outcome could not be any other way.
5B
SMART COMMUNICATIONS V. SOLIDUM

FACTS:
In 2004, Smart Communications, Inc. (Smart) hired Jose Leni Solidum (Solidum) as
Department Head of Smart Prepaid/Buddy Activations under the Product Marketing Group.
On September 21, 2005, Solidum received a Notice to Explain of even date from the Company
charging him with acts of dishonesty and breach of trust and confidence. Solidum denied the
charges. Continued audit investigation, however, revealed that Solidum approved/noted several
CEs covering activities for which payments were made but did not actually carried out. Thus,
the Company issued another Notice to Explain and Solidum was again preventively suspended
for another ten (10) days. In his last letter dated October 28, 2005,Solidum declared that he shall
no longer receive or entertain notices or memorandum, except the final decision resolving the
administrative charges against him. The Company imposed an additional preventive suspension
of ten (10) days on Solidum alleging that Solidum refused to accept the documents that he had
requested.
Later on, the company decided to terminate the services of Solidum. Aggrieved, Solidum filed a
complaint dated November 19, 2005 for illegal suspension and dismissal with money claims.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Solidum. The Company appealed the adverse decision of the
labor arbiter to the NLRC but was denied for having been filed out of time and/or for
nonperfection. On a motion for reconsideration, the NLRC reversed its ruling and gave due
course to the appeal stating that the appeal was filed within reglementary period and that
respondents were able to comply substantially with the pre-requisite for the perfection of
appeal. The NLRC likewise reversed the ruling of LA. On appeal to CA, the NLRC ruling was
affirmed with modification. Thus this petition.

ISSUE/S:
WON Smarts appeal before the NLRC was perfected by the validity of the appeal bond posted
by Smart even if there was no security deposit or collateral in accordance with Section 4 and 6,
Rule VI of the 2005 NLRC Revised Rules of Procedure,

HELD:
Yes Smarts appeal was perfected despite the allegations of Solidum. Smart substantially
complied with the requirements of an appeal bond.
To recall, Section 6, Rule VI of the 2005 NLRC Revised Rules of Procedure states:
Section 6. Bond. -In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director involves a
monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a bond,
which shall either be in the form of cash deposit or surety bond equivalent in amount to the
monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorney's fees.
In case of surety bond, it shall be issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the
Commission or the Supreme Court, and shall be accompanied hy original or certified true
copies of the following proof of security deposit or collateral securing the bond: provided, that a
check shall not be considered as an acceptable security.
As aptly found by the NLRC, substantial compliance with the rules on appeal bonds has been
repeatedly held by this Court to be sufficient for the perfection of an appeal
Likewise, in Ong v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that the bond requirement on appeals may
be relaxed when there is substantial compliance with the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC or
when the appellant shows willingness to post a partial bond. The Court held that "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.
It matters not that the bond was issued on behalf of respondents without collateral for after all,
the bond is accompanied by a declaration under oath bearing the bonding company's
commitment to honor the validity of the surety bond and attesting that the surety bond is
genuine and shall be in effect until the final disposition of the case.
5c
QUIRANTE V. OROPORT

FACTS:

Petitioner worked for OROPORT as claims staff.

On November 27, 2006, Administrative Memo No. 137-2006, was issued against Quirante.
directing her to show cause in writing within 24 hours from the memos receipt why she should
not be dismissed for serious misconduct in disposing without authority property under her
custody and unjustifiably withholding collections related thereto. Quirante submitted an answer
alleging the custody of the subject trays of eggs has not been endorsed to her.
On January 12, 2007, the AIB recommended to OROPORTs President the dismissal of
Quirante from service for serious misconduct. On the same day, OROPORTs President adopted
the AIBs recommendation. Quirante was formally notified of her termination from
employment, effective January 15, 2007. On January 22, 2007, Quirante filed before the NLRC
a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and payment of full backwages,
damages and attorneys fees.
The respondents jointly filed a Position Paperdated November 9, 2007. However, earlier, on
October 17, 2007, LA Magbanua had already resolved Quirantes complaint stating that the
respondents failed to submit their respective position papers despite the lapse of seven months.
Hence, he resolved the complaint solely on the basis of evidence submitted by Quirante.
Respondents filed an appeal before NLRC. However, the respondents, in lieu of a cash or surety
bond, submitted before the NLRC a Bank Certification22 issued by the Metropolitan Bank and
Trust Company (Metrobank) stating that OROPORT has a cash deposit of 97,941.28 in a
regular savings account. The said deposit would be held by Metrobank pending the final
disposition of Quirantes complaint before the NLRC. The NLRC reversed LA Magbanuas
decision and dismissed Quirantes complaint. Quirante appealed to the CA but the same was
denied.

ISSUE/S:
1. WON the requirement of appeal bond under paragraph 2, Article 223 of the Labor Code has
been substantially complied with
2. WON evidence not presented before the LA may be admitted by the NLRC

HELD:
1. There was no compliance with the appeal bond requirement.
The posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases involving
monetary awards from the decision of the LA. Clearly, an appeal from a judgment as that
involved in the present case is perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond.
Non-compliance therewith renders the decision of the LA final and executory.

OROPORTs submission before the NLRC of a Bank Certification, in lieu of posting a cash
or surety bond, cannot be considered as substantial compliance with Article 223 of the
Labor Code. The filing of the appeal bond is a jurisdictional requirement and the rules
 thereon mandate no less than a strict construction. For failure to properly post a bond,
OROPORTs appeal was not perfected.
2. Labor tribunals, such as the NLRC, are not precluded from receiving evidence submitted on
appeal as technical rules are not binding in cases submitted before them. However, any
delay in the submission of evidence should be adequately explained and should adequately
prove the allegations sought to be proven. In the present case, the NLRC erroneously
admitted evidence presented for the first time during appeal when there was no ample
justification provided for their belated submission.