Loon v. Power Master Inc. FACTS:

Respondents employed and assigned the petitioners as janitors and leadsmen in various Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company(PLDT)offices. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a complaint for money claims against respondents. They alleged that they were not paid minimum wages, overtime, holiday, premium, service incentive leave, and thirteenth month pays. Petitioners amended their complaint and included illegal dismissal as their cause of action claiming that the respondents relieved them from service in retaliation for the filing of their complaint.

During the proceedings before the LA, respondents neither filed any position paper nor proffered pieces of evidence in their defense despite their knowledge of the pendency of the case.

LA: partially ruled in favor of petitioners

Awarded the following: salary differential, service incentive leave, thirteenth month pay and attorneys fee

Denied: backwages, overtime pay, holiday, and premium pays;

Petitioners cannot be declared to have been dismissed from employment because they did not show any notice of termination of employment

Both parties appealed with the NLRC Respondents filed a surety bond issued by Security Pacific Assurance Corporation on June 28, 2002. At that time, Security was still an accredited bonding company. However, the NLRC revoked its accreditation on February 16, 2003NLRC: partially ruled in favor of the respondents

Awarded:holiday pay and attorneys fees

Reversed award of: salary differential, thirteenth month and service incentive leave pays Allowed the respondents to submit evidence for the first time on appeal on the ground that they had been deprived of due process Petitioners werelawfully dismissed on grounds of serious misconduct and willful disobedience Denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration

CA: petition forcertiorariunder Rule 65

Affirmed NLRCs ruling

Denied petitioners motion for reconsideration

SC: petition for review on certiorari

ISSUES:

1. Whether respondents perfected their appeal before the NLRC

2. Whether respondents were estopped from submitting pieces of evidence for the first time on appeal

RULING:

1. Yes. Paragraph 2, Article 223 of the Labor Code provides that "[i]n case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding companyduly accredited by the Commissionin the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from."The subsequent revocation of Security Pacific should not prejudice the respondents who relied on its then subsisting accreditation in good faith. A bonding companys revocation of authority is prospective in application. However, the respondents should post a new bond issued by an accredited bonding company in compliance with paragraph 4, Section 6, Rule 6 of the NLRC Rules of Procedure. This provision states that "[a] cash or surety bond shall be valid and effective from the date of deposit or posting,until the case is finally decided, resolved or terminated or the award satisfied."2. Yes. In labor cases, strict adherence to the technical rules of procedure is not required. The Court allowed evidence to be submitted for the first time on appeal with the NLRC in the interest of substantial justice. The liberality of procedural rules is qualified by two requirements: (1) a party should adequately explain any delay in the submission of evidence; and (2) a party should sufficiently prove the allegations sought to be proven.However, failing to comply with these requirements, respondents were estopped from submitting evidence for the first time on appeal.

Other findings:

Petitioners were illegally dismissedPetitioners entitled to: backwages, salary differential, service incentive, holiday, and thirteenth month pays

Not entitled to: overtime and premium pays

McBurnie v. GanzonFACTS:

McBurnie, an Australian national, instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims against the respondents. McBurnie claimed that he signed a five-year employment agreementwith the company EGI as an Executive Vice-President. Six months into the employment, he figured in an accident that compelled him to go back to Australia while recuperating from his injuries. While in Australia, he was informed by respondent Ganzon that his services were no longer needed because their intended project would no longer push through.

The respondents contends that their agreement with McBurnie was to jointly invest in and establish a company for the management of hotels. They did not intend to create an employer-employee relationship.

LA: McBurnie was illegally dismissed, and

Entitled to the following: US$ 985,162.00 as salary and benefits for the unexpired term of their employment contract; P 2,000,000 as moral and exemplary damages; Attorneys fee = 10% of the total monetary award

NLRC:

Respondents filed their Memorandum of Appeal and Motion to Reduce Bond and posted an appeal bond in the amount of P100,000 Respondents claimed that an award of more thanP60 Million Pesos was a patent nullity and because of their business losses they lacked the capacity to pay the bond of almostP60 Million Denied motion to reduce bond; respondents file with the CA a Petition for Certiorari

Dismissed respondents appeal for failure to post the required additional bond; respondents again filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari

CA:

Allowed the respondents motion to reduce appeal bond = P 10,000,000.00

Directed the NLRC to give due course to their appeal

ISSUES:1. whether the reduced appeal bond posted by respondents is a sufficient compliance with requirements for the perfection of an appeal from the LAs decision

RULING:Yes. Section 6, Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure provides:

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 cash or surety bondNo motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on meritorious grounds and upon the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.In addition to the apparent merit of the respondents appeal, the Court finds the reduction of the appeal bond justified by the substantial amount of the LAs monetary award. To require an appeal bond in such amount could only deprive respondents of the right to appeal, even force them out of business and affect the livelihood of their employees.The Court also holds that, under the circumstances, the respondents had posted a bond in a "reasonable amount", and had thus complied with the requirements for the perfection of an appeal from the LAs decision.On the matter of the filing and acceptance of motions to reduce appeal bond, the following guidelines shall be observed:

(a) The filing of a motion to reduce appeal bond shall be entertained by the NLRC subject to the following conditions: (1) there is meritorious ground; and (2) a bond in a reasonable amount is posted;

(b) For purposes of compliance with condition no. (2), a motion shall be accompanied by the posting of a provisional cash or surety bond equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the monetary award subject of the appeal, exclusive of damages and attorney's fees;

(c) Compliance with the foregoing conditions shall suffice to suspend the running of the 1 0-day reglementary period to perfect an appeal from the labor arbiter's decision to the NLRC;

(d) The NLRC retains its authority and duty to resolve the motion to reduce bond and determine the final amount of bond that shall be posted by the appellant, still in accordance with the standards of meritorious grounds and reasonable amount; and

(e) In the event that the NLRC denies the motion to reduce bond, or requires a bond that exceeds the amount of the provisional bond, the appellant shall be given a fresh period of ten 1 0) days from notice of the NLRC order within which to perfect the appeal by posting the required appeal bond.