University Plans v. Solano (Case Digest. G.R. No. 170416)
CASE DIGEST: UNIVERSITY PLANS INCORPORATED, Petitioner v. BELINDA P. SOLANO et al., Respondents.
FACTS: Respondents Belinda P. Solano (Solano), Terry A. Lamug (Lamug), Glenda S. Belga (Belga), Melba S. Alvarez (Alvarez), Welma R. Namata (Namata), Marietta D. Bacho (Bacho) and Manolo L. Cenido (Cenido) filed before the Labor Arbiter complaints for illegal dismissal, illegal deductions, overriding commissions, unfair labor practice, moral and exemplary damages, and actual damages against petitioner University Plans Incorporated.
In a Decision dated July 31, 2000, the Labor Arbiter found petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered respondent's reinstatement as well as the payment of their full backwages, proportionate 13th month pay, moral/exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
Petitioner filed before the NLRC its Memorandum on Appeal as well as a Motion to Reduce Bond.Simultaneous with the filing of said pleadings, it posted a cash bond in the amount of P30,000.00.
In its Motion to Reduce Bond, petitioner alleged that it was under receivership and that it cannot dispose of its assets at such a short notice.Because of this, it could not post the required bond.Nevertheless, it has P30,000.00 available for immediate disposition and thus prayed that said amount be deemed sufficient to satisfy the required bond for the perfection of its appeal.
In an Order dated April 25, 2001, the NLRC denied petitioners Motion to Reduce Bond and directed it to post an additional appeal bond in the amount ofP3,013,599.50 within an unextendible period of 10 days from notice, otherwise the appeal shall be dismissed for non-perfection.
In a Decision dated October 27, 2004, the CA held that the NLRC in meritorious cases and upon motion by the appellant may reduce the amount of the bond.However, in order for the NLRC to exercise this discretion, it is imperative for the petitioner to show veritable proof that it is entitled to the same.Since petitioner failed to provide the NLRC with sufficient basis to determine its incapacity to post the required appeal bond, the CA opined that the NLRC's denial of petitioners Motion to Reduce Bond was justified.Hence, it denied the petition.
ISSUE: Was the denial of the motion to reduce bond justified?HELD: Notably, under Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRC's Revised Rules of Procedure, the bond may be reduced albeit only on meritorious grounds and upon posting of a partial bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.Suffice it to state that while said Rules "allows the Commission to reduce the amount of the bond, the exercise of the authority is not a matter of right on the part of the movant, but lies within the sound discretion of the NLRC upon a showing of meritorious grounds."
It is unmistakable that petitioner was under receivership.And from the tenor and contents of said Orders, it is possible that petitioner has no liquid asset which it could use to post the required amount of bond.Also, it is quite understandable that because of petitioner's financial state, it cannot raise the amount of more than P3 million within a period of 10 days from receipt of the Labor Arbiter's judgment.However, the NLRC ignored petitioner's allegations and instead remained adamant that since the amount of bond is fixed by law, petitioner must post an additional bond of more than P3 million.This, to us, is an utter disregard of the provision of the Labor Code and of the NLRC Revised Rules of Procedure allowing the reduction of bond in meritorious cases.While the NLRC tried to correct this error in its March 21, 2003 Resolution by further explaining that it was not persuaded by petitioners alleged incapability of posting the required amount of bond for failure to submit financial statement, list of sources of income and other details with respect to the alleged receivership, we still find the hasty denial of the motion to reduce bond not proper.
Notwithstanding petitioners failure to submit its financial statement and list of sources of income and to give more details relative to its receivership, it was nevertheless able to show through the abovementioned SEC Orders that it was indeed under a state of receivership.This should have been sufficient reason for the NLRC to not outrightly deny petitioners motion.As to the lacking documents and details on the receivership, it is true that they are needed by the NLRC in determining petitioners capacity to post the required amount of bond.However, their absence should not lead to the outright denial of the motion since as earlier discussed, the NLRC is not precluded from conducting a preliminary determination on the merit or lack of merit of a motion to reduce bond. Here, considering the clear showing of petitioners state of receivership, the NLRC should have conducted such preliminary determination and therein require the submission of said documents and other necessary evidence before proceeding to resolve the subject motion.After all, the present case falls under those cases where the bond requirement on appeal may be relaxed considering that (1) there was substantial compliance with the Rules; (2) the surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce the bond; and (3) the petitioner, at the very least, exhibited its willingness and/or good faith by posting a partial bond during the reglementary period.Also, such a procedure would be in keeping with the Labor Codes mandate to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.We thus find error on the part of the NLRC when it denied petitioners Motion to Reduce Bond and likewise on the part of the CA when it affirmed said denial. DENIED.
FACTS: Respondents Belinda P. Solano (Solano), Terry A. Lamug (Lamug), Glenda S. Belga (Belga), Melba S. Alvarez (Alvarez), Welma R. Namata (Namata), Marietta D. Bacho (Bacho) and Manolo L. Cenido (Cenido) filed before the Labor Arbiter complaints for illegal dismissal, illegal deductions, overriding commissions, unfair labor practice, moral and exemplary damages, and actual damages against petitioner University Plans Incorporated.
In a Decision dated July 31, 2000, the Labor Arbiter found petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered respondent's reinstatement as well as the payment of their full backwages, proportionate 13th month pay, moral/exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
Petitioner filed before the NLRC its Memorandum on Appeal as well as a Motion to Reduce Bond.Simultaneous with the filing of said pleadings, it posted a cash bond in the amount of P30,000.00.
In its Motion to Reduce Bond, petitioner alleged that it was under receivership and that it cannot dispose of its assets at such a short notice.Because of this, it could not post the required bond.Nevertheless, it has P30,000.00 available for immediate disposition and thus prayed that said amount be deemed sufficient to satisfy the required bond for the perfection of its appeal.
In an Order dated April 25, 2001, the NLRC denied petitioners Motion to Reduce Bond and directed it to post an additional appeal bond in the amount ofP3,013,599.50 within an unextendible period of 10 days from notice, otherwise the appeal shall be dismissed for non-perfection.
In a Decision dated October 27, 2004, the CA held that the NLRC in meritorious cases and upon motion by the appellant may reduce the amount of the bond.However, in order for the NLRC to exercise this discretion, it is imperative for the petitioner to show veritable proof that it is entitled to the same.Since petitioner failed to provide the NLRC with sufficient basis to determine its incapacity to post the required appeal bond, the CA opined that the NLRC's denial of petitioners Motion to Reduce Bond was justified.Hence, it denied the petition.
ISSUE: Was the denial of the motion to reduce bond justified?HELD: Notably, under Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRC's Revised Rules of Procedure, the bond may be reduced albeit only on meritorious grounds and upon posting of a partial bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.Suffice it to state that while said Rules "allows the Commission to reduce the amount of the bond, the exercise of the authority is not a matter of right on the part of the movant, but lies within the sound discretion of the NLRC upon a showing of meritorious grounds."
It is unmistakable that petitioner was under receivership.And from the tenor and contents of said Orders, it is possible that petitioner has no liquid asset which it could use to post the required amount of bond.Also, it is quite understandable that because of petitioner's financial state, it cannot raise the amount of more than P3 million within a period of 10 days from receipt of the Labor Arbiter's judgment.However, the NLRC ignored petitioner's allegations and instead remained adamant that since the amount of bond is fixed by law, petitioner must post an additional bond of more than P3 million.This, to us, is an utter disregard of the provision of the Labor Code and of the NLRC Revised Rules of Procedure allowing the reduction of bond in meritorious cases.While the NLRC tried to correct this error in its March 21, 2003 Resolution by further explaining that it was not persuaded by petitioners alleged incapability of posting the required amount of bond for failure to submit financial statement, list of sources of income and other details with respect to the alleged receivership, we still find the hasty denial of the motion to reduce bond not proper.
Notwithstanding petitioners failure to submit its financial statement and list of sources of income and to give more details relative to its receivership, it was nevertheless able to show through the abovementioned SEC Orders that it was indeed under a state of receivership.This should have been sufficient reason for the NLRC to not outrightly deny petitioners motion.As to the lacking documents and details on the receivership, it is true that they are needed by the NLRC in determining petitioners capacity to post the required amount of bond.However, their absence should not lead to the outright denial of the motion since as earlier discussed, the NLRC is not precluded from conducting a preliminary determination on the merit or lack of merit of a motion to reduce bond. Here, considering the clear showing of petitioners state of receivership, the NLRC should have conducted such preliminary determination and therein require the submission of said documents and other necessary evidence before proceeding to resolve the subject motion.After all, the present case falls under those cases where the bond requirement on appeal may be relaxed considering that (1) there was substantial compliance with the Rules; (2) the surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce the bond; and (3) the petitioner, at the very least, exhibited its willingness and/or good faith by posting a partial bond during the reglementary period.Also, such a procedure would be in keeping with the Labor Codes mandate to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.We thus find error on the part of the NLRC when it denied petitioners Motion to Reduce Bond and likewise on the part of the CA when it affirmed said denial. DENIED.