FACTS: Petitioners were jeepney driver of private respondent Comejo on the boundary system. Due to a change in schedule, they did not report to work as protest. They were then replaced. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal asking for separation pay and other benefits. On November 26, 1991, the labor arbiter rendered judgment in favor of petitioners. Private respondents were served a cop of the decision on April 3, 1992. They filed their memorandum on appeal on April 13, 1992; however the appeal bond was only filed on April 30, 1992. Also, such bond was found to be spurious. It was only on July 20, 1993 that a substitute bond was issued by another company.
ISSUE: W/N the NLRC has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
HELD: No. 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. Perfection of an appeal includes the filing, within the prescribed period of the memorandum of appeal and posting of the appeal bond. In cases where the judgment involves a monetary award, as in this case, the appeal may be perfected only upon posting of a cash or surety bond to the NLRC. Since the private respondents received the LA’s decision on April 3, they had only until April 13 to file their appeal. The bond was posted only on April 30; beyond the reglementary period. The requirement of posting the bond has only been relaxed on grounds of substantial justice and special circumstances which are not attendant in this case. Furthermore, the bond posted was not genuine. The decision can no longer be amended nor altered by the labor tribunal.
0 comments:
Post a Comment