The previous revision to the NLRC rules was made in Procedure for recovery of amount paid to seafarer during execution proceedings. of the Labor Code prior to , the NLRC had generally recognised the concept of provisions of the Labor Code and the NLRC’s Revised Rules of Procedure. THE NLRC RULES OF PROCEDURE. Pursuant to the provisions of Article of Presidential Decree No. , as amended, otherwise.
|Published (Last):||20 October 2008|
|PDF File Size:||17.49 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.81 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The factual background of the case may be stated, as follows: Mfor recovery of sickness and disability benefits and claim for personal belongings and underpayment of wages against petitioner. In Decemberanother complaint rulees petitioner was lodged by respondent before the POEA for the same causes of action recovery of sickness and disability benefits and claim nllrc personal belongings and underpayment of wages.
Mwas dismissed by the POEA on ground of res judicata.
Andaya vs NLRC : : July 15, : J. Panganiban : Third Division : Decision
Q, for the Annulment of the Receipt and Release. In his complaint, respondent alleged that he was mentally incapacitated to execute the SPA in favor of his sister Anita Alpino. Q for insufficiency of evidence. In time, respondent moved for a reconsideration but his motion was denied by the appellate court.
In resolving the case, Labor Arbiter Santos ratiocinated as follows: The principal issue to be resolved is whether or not the special power of attorney executed by [respondent] in favor of [his] sister and the subsequent Receipt and Release are valid documents to forestall any claim by [respondent].
Both documents were prepared on the same day. In fact, the Receipt and Release was not even executed under oath so that its due execution is put under a cloud of doubt.
Secondly, even gratia argumenti that the documents adverted to are valid and were entered into voluntarily, the consideration thereof is provedure, unreasonable and unconscionable. It is a public policy that where the consideration in a public document is disproportionately unconscionable to the claims of [respondent] who was declared to be mentally unfit, the State should step in to protect the rights of the aggrieved party and declare the same document to be invalid and without force and effect.
Thirdly, the consideration of P, The Research and Information Unit is hereby ordered to make the proper computation which will become part and parcel of this decision. Sickness benefit for October Injury and sickness lnrc Sept.
Sickness benefit for March Payment for sickness of. Q and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. In so ruling, the NLRC reasoned: The aforequoted provisions are very clear, that all the requirements for the perfection of an appeal must be made and complied with within the reglementary period to appeal, that is: The filing of a Motion to Reduce Bond will not suspend the running of the ten 10 days period.
If at all, the movant should have secured the approval of the Commission for the reduction of bond within the same period allowed by law. Considering that the movant failed to comply with the requirements for perfecting an appeal, said motion is therefore denied.
The NLRC then decreed: Martin Funeral Home vs. National Labor Relations Commission. As stated at the threshold hereof, the appellate court, in its decision of March 29,affirmed the judgment of the NLRC, thus: The law is clear.
An appeal, per article of the Labor Code, shall be perfected only upon posting of a cash or surety bond in cases involving monetary award. On perfection of appeal, it is well entrenched in this jurisdiction that perfection of an appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional and non-compliance with such requirement is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory. In implementing articlerespondent NLRC however laid down the rule allowing reduction of the amount of bond which it can approve in meritorious cases.
There is a caveat however that the filing of the motion to reduce bond does not stop the running of the period to perfect appeal. The plain import of article of the Labor Code and the amended section 6, Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure is that the reduction of the bond should be approved within the ten 10 day appeal period and the appellant should exert its utmost diligence to obtain the approval of respondent NLRC before the lapse of the period or else there is a big risk that the appeal will be dismissed for non-perfection of the appeal due to the absence of the appeal bond.
Thus respondent NLRC correctly affirmed the decision of Arbiter Santos since the appeal was not perfected due to lack of an appeal bond.
There being no capricious, arbitrary or whimsical exercise judgment on the part of respondent NLRC, this petition perforce must fall. The petition lacks merit. Time and again, it has been held that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but merely a 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 in which the right to appeal is lost.
In 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 company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from.
If the 10 th or 5 th day, as the case may be, falls on a Saturday, Sunday or a holiday, the last day to perfect the appeal shall be the next working day. As amended on November 7, Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal. The employer as well as counsel shall submit a joint declaration under oath attesting that the surety bond posted is genuine and that it shall be in effect until final disposition of the case.
The Commission may, in meritorious cases and upon Motion of the Appellant, reduce the amount of the bond.
New NLRC Rules of Procedure: impact on seafarers and manning agents
The filing, however, of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect appeal. As amended on November 5, No Extension of Period. Evident it is from the foregoing that an appeal from rulings of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC must be perfected within ten 10 calendar days from receipt thereof, otherwise the same shall become final and executory. In a judgment involving a monetary award, the appeal shall be perfected only upon 1 proof of payment of the required appeal fee and 2 posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company and 3 filing of a memorandum of appeal.
A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites mentioned shall not stop the running of the period for perfection of appeal.
Del Rosario & Del Rosario Lawfirm – Significant Changes in the NLRC Rules of Procedure
Here, petitioner received the decision of the Labor Arbiter on July 18, From July 18,petitioner has a limited period of ten 10 days to perfect its appeal. Petitioner filed its memorandum of appeal on July 25, However, fules lieu of the required cash or surety bond, petitioner filed a motion to reduce or be exempted from filing an appeal bond. The mandatory filing of a bond for the nkrc of an appeal is evident from the aforequoted provision of Article of the Labor Code which explicitly states that the appeal may be perfected only upon the posting of cash or surety bond.
Since petitioner failed to post an appeal bond within the reglementary period, no appeal was perfected from the decision of Labor Arbiter Santos, for which reason, the decision sought to be appealed to the NLRC had become final and executory and therefore immutable.
It is true that the requirement of posting a bond on appeals involving monetary awards has been given a liberal interpretation in certain cases.
Petitioner did not post a full or partial appeal bond o the prescribed period. Petitioner could have even paid a moderate and reasonable sum as premium for such bond as the law does not require outright payment but merely the posting of a bond to ensure that the award will be eventually paid should the appeal be dismissed, but still, petitioner failed to do so.
Hence, we find no cogent reason to apply the same liberal interpretation in this case. As payment of the appeal bond is an indispensable and jurisdictional requisite and not a mere technicality of law or procedure, we find the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals in accordance with law. Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
Section 10 thereof provides: Money Claims — Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission NLRC shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide within ninety 90 calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages.