NAVARRO v.

NLRC (2000)
Petitioner: Rodento Navarro, Antonio Bocabal, Julian De Guzman
Respondent: NLRC, Araceli Cornejo, Olimpio Breton
Ponente: Quisumbing, J.
DOCTRINE: Posting of Appeal Bond must be done within the 10-day
reglementary period to appeal the LA decision.
FACTS:
1. Rodente Navarro, Antonio Bocabal and Julian De Guzman were night
shift jeepney drivers of Araceli Cornejo on boundary system, usually
working from 5 pm to 4 am. They regularly ply the jeepneys assigned to
them for 11 hrs/day, 5x a week, earning P350/day
2. On April 20, 1991, Navarro and Bocabal were informed by Olimpio
Breton, the dispatcher that their shift has been moved to 7 pm to 6 am.
3. Navarro and Bocabal and 7 other drivers decided not to ply their routes
that day to protest the sudden change of working hours, expecting that
such change would adversely affect their earnings.
a. Julian De Guzman reported to work as usual but cut his trip short
because he felt dizzy and suffered stomach pain.
4. The next day, Breton called all the drivers who protested and imposed a
1 day suspension on them but promised to restore old schedule.
However, the next day, Navarro et.al saw that other drivers have
already been assigned to their jeeps.
a. Breton: precautionary measure in the event that the protest by the
jeepney drivers would continue.
5. Petitioners then filed before the Regional Arbitration Branch a complaint
for illegal dismissal
a.
The minutes of the proceedings indicated that counsel for
Cornejo, Breton willing to take petitioners back but the latter
refused since they only wanted separation pay.
6. LA decided in favor of jeepney drivers; Cornejo held liable to pay
separation pay to each petitioner (Navarro, Bocabal, De Guzman).
7. On April 3, 1992, the respondents received a copy of the LA decision.
On April 13 (10 days after), they filed a memorandum of appeal
However, it was only on April 30, 1992 they filed the appeal bond.
a. Bond was later discovered to be bogus because the person who
signed it was no longer connected with the insurance company for
more than 10 years already.
b. Substitute bond was issued only on July 20, 1993 (1 year 3 mos),
8. NLRC ruled in favor of the private respondents, setting aside the LA
decision and directing the petitioners to report for work.
9. MR-denied, hence this petition (SCA certiorari)
ISSUES: WON Appeal filed by respondents was perfected

RULING + RATIO: NO
1. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period and in the
manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional, and noncompliance with
such legal requirement is fatal and has the effect of rendering the
judgment final and executory.
2. Perfection of an appeal includes the filing, within the prescribed period,
of the memorandum of appeal containing, among others, the
assignment of error/s, arguments in support thereof, the relief sought
and, in appropriate cases, posting of the appeal bond.
a.In case where the judgment involves a monetary award, the appeal may be
perfected only upon posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable
bonding company duly accredited by the NLRC. Amount must be equivalent
to the monetary award, exclusive of moral and exemplary damages and
attorneys fees.
3. In this case, while private respondents filed their memorandum of
appeal on time, they posted surety bond only on April 30, 1992, which
is beyond the 10-day reglementary period, a procedural lapse admitted
by private respondents, which is inexcusable.
4. Worse, the appeal bond was bogus having been issued by an officer no
longer connected for a long time with the bonding company.
a.Respondents should have ensured that the bond is genuine, otherwise, the
purpose of requiring the posting of bond to guarantee the
payment of valid and legal claims against the employer, would not be
served.
5. Although SC has in a number of cases, relaxed this requirement on
grounds of substantial justice and special circumstances of the case,
there is no cogent reason to apply this same liberal interpretation
in this case where the bond posted was not genuine. No bond was
really posted since a fake or expired bond is in legal contemplation
merely a scrap of paper.
6. may be perfected only upon posting of cash/surety bond (2a)
The word only makes it perfectly clear that the lawmakers intended the
posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer to be the exclusive means
by which an employers appeal may be perfected.
Effect of non-perfection of appeal

running of prescriptive period for perfecting an appeal was not tolled

LA decision became final and executory upon the lapse of 10 calendar days from receipt
of the decision

Can no longer be amended or altered by labor tribunal

On NLRC jurisdiction
NLRC has no authority to entertain the appeal, or set aside the LA decision since the timely
posting of appeal bond is an indispensable and jurisdictional requisite and not a mere
technicality of law. Any amendment or alteration made which substantially affects the final and
executory judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings
held for that purpose.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. LA decision reinstated.