FIRSTDIVISION

OSCAR G. SAPITAN ANDRES M.

LADISLA NICANIO E. PURA
MARCILINO G. HAMTO EFREN B.
BELEN OSCAR O. DOMALAON
DELFIN D. PURA, SR. ROGERIO G.
OLIQUINO LARY E. ESCARILLA
ABELARDOD.MANGAMPORUBEN
E. EREPOL EDUARDO ESCUREL
FELIMINO
BREMEN
RUBEN
ESCOLORA
ARMANDO
LLADONES ARMANDO ALAMER
ROMANFIGUERASGOMERCANO
RONALDO DECANO NOEL H.
HAPIN DANIEL EBUENGA JESUS
VELARDE DANILO ACUA ALEX
MIRANDILLA
ALFREDO
BONAGUA SUSANTE PANTUA
ZACARIAS BURAC RODERICK
AJEDO
ALFREDO
ALBERGA
ELIJIO NICOL DAMIAN JANABAN,
JR.
EDWARDO
AGUILAR
ROLANDO E. EPINO PATERNO T.
SINCERO LAZARO E. RAPSING
ALEX F. ESPERA ALEX F. EVORA
JESUS E. FRANDO EDGAR L.
BITANCUR ARNEL M. IBAEZ
EMERSON E. MILAES WILFREDO
G. BAROGA REDENTRO B. LELIS
EMILIO E. ESCANDOR ROMEO E.
ERMINO SALVACION M. HASTA
EDISON B. BELEN BENJAMIN O.
PURA ROMEO O. DOMALAON
EDMUNDO R. LANON REYNALDO
NUGALES
ROBERTO
BRIN
RUSTICO LAGONOY SERAFIN
DONGAOL EDUARDO GOTIS
DOMINGO
SEVERINO
JOSE
MANGAMPO
ROLANDO
GREBIALDEEDDIEGINETERENE
GEDAYAOSALVADORR.GENETIA
WILFREDO BORINGOT
JOUE
BALDERAMA ROMEO ORTIOLA
MANUEL
FREJAS
ROBERTO
PARANIAL EDMUNDO ESPINEDA
ROMEO MANLANGIT and JOHN
CO,
Petitioners,

G.R.No.163775

Present:

PUNO,C.J.,Chairperson,
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,
CORONA,
AZCUNAand
GARCIA,*JJ.

versus

JBLINEBICOLEXPRESS,INC./
LAOHUANLING/JOSEBARITUA,
Respondents.

Promulgated:

October19,2007

xx

DECISION

CORONA,J.:

[1]
ThisisapetitionforreviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCourtassailingthedecision ofthe
CourtofAppeals(CA)datedAugust14,2003inCAG.R.SPNo.75535entitledJBLineBicol
Express,Inc.,JoseBaritua/LaoHuanLingv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,etal.

Thefactsfollow.

Petitioners filed a case against respondent JB Line Bicol Express, Inc. (JB Line) in the
RegionalArbitrationBranchoftheNationalLaborRelationsCommission(NLRC)inLegazpi
City,Albayforillegaldismissal,underpaymentofsalaries/wages,overtimepay,premiumpay
for the holiday and rest day, night shift differential, 13th month pay, separation pay and
damages.Intheircomplaint,theyclaimedthat:

Therespondent[JBLine]isabuscompanyoperatorplyingtheBicolManilaroute.The
[petitioners]areallemployeesofrespondent[JBLine].Mostof[them]aredrivers,conductors
andmechanicswhiletherestareregularemployeeswhoassistintheconductofthebusinessof
transportationof[respondentJBLine].AllthedriversandconductorswhoplytheBicolManila
routewouldrendertheirservicesatnightuntilmorningwhentheyreachtheplaceofdestination.

Most of the [petitioners] have been with the company for at least ten years. In fact[,]
some of them have been with the company for more than twenty years. Most of them are
members of the ABC [l]abor [u]nion and there is an existing [c]ollective [b]argaining
[a]greement between the company and the said labor union. All of them were underpaid and
most of them, particularly those who travel the BicolManilaBicol route were not given
overtimeandnightdifferentialpay.

Sometime beginning the year 2000, the company started constructively dismissing
[petitioners]. This was done by not allowing [them] to perform their duties and function or
simply by not admitting them to their work by stating that they should just return some other
time.Whatthecompanywoulddoistoinformtheconcernedemployeesthattheyshouldnot
[reporttowork]onthatdateandtoreturntoanotherdateasthebustheyweresupposedtodrive

is[not]serviceable.[Petitioners]wouldjustbeinformedtoreturntoalatterdatebutwhenthey
returned,anotherexcusewillgreetthemforthemnottoperformtheirregularfunction.These
sameactsoftherespondent[JBLine]holdtruetoall[petitioners].

Tiredofbeingtreatedinthesamemannerandforfailureonthepartof[JBLine]togive
themtheirworkdespitenocessationofoperationsandfornonpaymentoftheirsalaries,wage
adjustmentsandotherbenefits,[petitionerswere]leftwithnorecourseexcepttofiletheinstant
[2]
casetoforcerespondent[JBLine]toreinstatethemintheirjobsand[pay]theirbenefits.

RespondentJBLine,representedbyitsowners,LaoHuanLingandJoseBaritua,repudiated
the allegations claiming that petitioners were not dismissed constructively from their jobs.
RespondentJBLineclaimed:

[Petitioners]arestillregularemployeesofrespondent[JBLine].Norecordwillshowthat
letter of suspension were sent to them. Their claim for alleged... constructive dismissal is
baselessconsideringtheabsenceofanydocumentaryevidencerelativetheretoandtheirfailure
topresenttestimonialevidencetoprovethatrespondent[JBLine]violatedtheessentialelements
forconstructivedismissal.

Theirfailuretoworkregularlywasduetoeconomiccrisesthatnecessitatedthereduction
of trips for drivers and conductors and shortened workdays for office personnel and
maintenancecrew.Themeasurestakenbyrespondent[JBLine]topreventlossesandpossible
closure of the business [were] management prerogative and were not resorted to as a ploy to
constructivelydismissed[petitioners].

Onthecontrary,[petitioners]canresumedutiesanytimedependingontheavailabilityof
busesandpassengers...

As to [petitioners] Joue Balderama, Jesus Velarde, Edison Belen, Wilfredo Loscano,

[3]
[4]
Marcelino Hamto, Romeo Ermino, Eduardo Escurel, Benjamin Pura, Noel Hapin and
[5]
Albert Binaday , respondent [JB Line] asserts that these [petitioners] were separated and
dismissedforjustandvalidcauses...[A]sto[petitioner]SalvadorGenetia,respondent[JBLine]
contends that he suffered a stroke five (5) years ago and has already availed of his disability
[6]
benefits...while[petitioner]EmilioEscandorhasbeenlegallyterminatedforcause.

[7]
Although the labor arbiter (LA) found that some of JB Line's employees were validly
dismissed from their jobs, he nonetheless ruled that JB Line was liable for constructive
dismissal.InadecisiondatedAugust24,2001,heruled:

...[I]t can be deduced that because of the reduced number of trips and shortened
workdays,[petitioners]wouldnaturallysufferdiminutioninpay.Onedoesnotneedtostretch
his imagination to arrive at a conclusion that because at present, only two (2) buses are
dispatcheddaily,almostallofthe[petitioners]losttheirjobs.Withonlytwo(2)busespresently
dispatched, continuation of [petitioners'] employment with respondent [JB Line] is rendered
impossible. There is constructive dismissal when [petitioners suffer] diminution in pay and/or
[8]
continuedemploymentisrenderedimpossible.


xxxxxxxxx
The normal consequences of constructive dismissal are reinstatement and payment of
backwages.However,inthiscase...the1999CollectiveBargainingAgreement,signedbyboth
parties, provide only for payment of separation pay to every employee whose service is
terminatedduetoreductioninworkforcebecauseoflackofworkorfinancialdifficulty,inan
amount equivalent to twenty four (24) days for every year of service, computed based [on
[9]
petitioners']latestdailywage...

xxxxxxxxx

...As to [petitioners] Joue Balderama, Jesus Velarde, Edison Belen, Wilfredo Lascano,
Marcelino Hamto, Romeo Ermino, Eduardo Escurel, Benjamin Pura, Noel Hapin...this
Arbitration Branch believes and so holds that they were validly dismissed. Respondent [JB
Line]presentedsubstantialevidencewhichclearlysupportitscontentionthatthese[petitioners]
either committed dishonesty, grave misconduct or went AWOL and subsequently abandoned
theirjobs...

[10]
...[T]he complaint and claim of [petitioner] Larry Escarilla
should also be denied
becauseofprescription...[H]efiledhiscomplaintafterthelapseofmorethanfive(5)yearsfrom
thedateofhisdismissal.Underthe[LaborCode]...allmoneyclaimsarisingfromtheemployer
employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three (3)
[11]
yearsfromthetimethatthecauseofactionaccrued,otherwisetheyshallbeforeverbarred.

xxxxxxxxx

Asto[petitioners]SalvadorGenetiaandEmilioEscandor,thisBranchfindsfor[them].
Again, respondent [JB Line] miserably failed to substantiate its allegations that Salvador
Genetia suffered stroke five (5) years ago, while [petitioner] Emilio Escandor had been
terminatedforcause...

Anent[petitioners']claimforunderpaymentofwages,nonpaymentof13thmonthpay
andofnightshiftdifferentialpay,thisArbitrationBranchfindsfor[petitioners],therebeingno
[12]
contraryevidencepresentedtocontrovertsaidclaims...

xxxxxxxxx

[Petitioners]...OscarO,Domalaon,AbelardoD.Mangampo,ArmandoLladones,Alfredo
[13]
Bonagua,SosantePantua,
EligioNicol,EdgarL.Bitancur,EmilioS.Escandor,SalvacionM.
[14]
Hasta,RomeoO.Domalaon,RusticoLagonoy,SerafinDongaol,RolandoGribialde,
Eddie
Ginete,SalvadorR.Genetia[and]ManuelFrejasshould[,]however,beexcludedintheawardof
[15]
nightshiftdifferentialpay...

xxxxxxxxx

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring

[16]
[petitioners
] to have been constructively dismissed by respondent [JB Line] and
consequently, ordering the latter to pay complainants the total amount of NINE MILLION
NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR PESOS (P9,097,624.00)
representing [petitioners'] separation pay, wage differential, 13th month and night shift
differential...

All other claims and charge[s] are DISMISSED finding no factual and legal basis
therefor.

[17]
SOORDERED.

RespondentJBLineappealedthearbitersdecision(accompaniedbyaP200,000 supersedeas
bond)totheNLRC.Findingthatthebondpostedwasnotequivalenttothemonetaryjudgment,
theNLRCorderedrespondentJBLinetopostanadditionalbond,otherwise,itsappealwould
[18]
be dismissed for nonperfection.
The latter failed, hence, the NLRC denied its appeal,
saying:

Todate...respondent[JBLine]failedtopostanadditionalbondintheamountofP8,897,624.00
inblatantdisregardofourOrder.

xxxxxxxxx
..[I]ndeed, for respondent [JB Line's] failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of a
valid appeal, the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated August 24, 2001 has already attained
[19]
finality.

Respondent JB Line elevated the case to the CA via Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. In a
[20]
resolution,
however, the CA dismissed the petition for failure to attach a secretary's
certificate or board resolution authorizing Lao Huan Ling to sign the verification and
certification of nonforum shopping for and on behalf of respondent JB Line. The coowner,
JoseBaritua,alsodidnotexecuteaspecialpowerofattorneyauthorizinghim(LaoHuanLing)
tosigntheverificationandcertification.
[21]
On MR, however, the CA reinstated respondent JB Lines petition.
Subsequently, in its
assailed decision of August 14, 2003, the CA set aside the LA and NLRC's decision and
exoneratedrespondentJBLinefromanyliability.Itheld:

..[I]tisclearthatthelawdoesnotawardseparationpaytoemployeeswhentheclosure
is due to serious business losses. [Respondent JB Line] [has] the burden to prove that such
lossesactuallyexist.

Inthecaseatbar,[respondentJBLine]convincinglydischargedsuchburden.Fromthe
evidencepresentedby[it]consistingoffinancialstatementsauditedbyanindependentauditor,
ithasbeensatisfactorilyestablishedthat[respondentJBLine]indeedsufferedseriousbusiness
losses for the three preceding years to its closure. Hence, it is not legally obligated to grant

separationpayto[petitioners].

xxxxxxxxx

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The

assailed [o]rders issued by the NLRC as well as the decision of the Labor Arbiter...are SET
ASIDE.

[22]
SOORDERED.

Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the decision but it was denied. Thus, this
appeal.

IntheirbidtoreversetheCAdecision,petitionersarguethattheCAerredin(1)giving
duecoursetorespondentJBLine'spetitiondespitetheabsenceofasecretary'scertificateor
board resolution or special power of attorney authorizing Lao Huan Ling to sign the
verificationandthecertificationofnonforumshopping(2)allowingthepetitiondespitethe
factthattheLAsdecisionhadalreadybecomefinalafterrespondentJBLinefailedtopostthe
requiredbondand(3)holdingthattheywerenotentitledtoseparationpaysincerespondentJB
Linehadceasedoperationsduetoseriousfinanciallosses.

Wefindthepetitionmeritorious.

LACKOFPROOFOFAUTHORITYTOSIGNTHE
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON
FORUMSHOPPING

Onthefirstissue,theappellatecourtshouldnothavegivenduecoursetorespondentJB
Line's petition due to the improper verification and certification. Over time, we have
emphasized the importance of complying with the procedural requirements of the Rules of
[23]
Court.InHyungHyungParkv.EngWonChoi,
wesaid:

Verificationisnotanemptyritualorameaninglessformality.Itsimportmustneverbe

sacrificedinthenameofmereexpedienceorsheercaprice.Forwhatisatstakeisthematterof
verity attested by the sanctity of an oath to secure an assurance that the allegations in the
pleadinghavebeenmadeingoodfaith,oraretrueandcorrectandnotmerelyspeculative.

This Court has strictly been enforcing the requirement of verification and certification
and enunciating that the obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed if fair
resultsaretobeexpectedtherefrom.Utterdisregardoftherulescannotjustberationalizedby
harking on the policy of liberal construction. While the requirement is not jurisdictional in
nature,itdoesnotmakeitlessarule...

[24]
In Fuentebella and Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Inc. v. Castro,
we likewise
declared that a certification without the proper authorization is defective and constitutes a
validcausefordismissalofthepetition.Weexplained:

Thereasonforthisisthattheprincipalpartyhasactualknowledgewhetherapetition
haspreviouslybeenfiledinvolvingthesamecaseorsubstantiallythesameissues.If,forany
reason, the principal party cannot sign the petition, the one signing on his behalf must have
beendulyauthorized.

ThisrequirementisintendedtoapplytobothnaturalandjuridicalpersonsasSupreme
[25]
Court Circular No. 2891
and Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court do not make a
distinction between natural and juridical persons. Where the petitioner is a corporation, the
certification against forum shopping should be signed by its duly authorized director or
representative...[I]f the real partyininterest is a corporate body, an officer of the corporation
cansignthecertificationagainstforumshoppingaslongasheisauthorizedbyaresolutionof
itsboardofdirectors.

xxxxxxxxx

Acertificationwithouttheproperauthorizationisdefectiveandconstitutesavalidcause
forthedismissalofthepetition.

This holds true in the present case...the Administrative Manager of petitioner

corporation,whosignedtheverificationandcertificateofnonforumshopping,initiallyfailed
to submit a secretary's certificate or a board resolution confirming her authority to sign on
behalfofcopetitioner...

AlthoughrespondentJBLineclaimsthatitsubstantiallycompliedwiththerequirement,albeit
belatedly(whenitsubmittedasecretary'scertificatetotheCA),saidcertificate,however,was
neither dated nor its signatory Lao Huan Ling authorized to sign the verification and the
certificationofnonforumshoppingtobefiledintheCA.TherecordsdisclosethatLaoHuan
Lings authority was to represent respondent JB Line only before the LA and in the NLRC.
While,asarule,factual(andevidentiary)issuesarebeyondtheprovinceofourjudicialreview
[26]
under Rule 45,
a discrepancy between the findings of the CA and those of the LA and

[27]
NLRC(asinthiscase)excludesitfromthepurviewofsaidrule.

EFFECTOFFAILURETOPOSTBONDWHERE
THE JUDGMENT INVOLVES MONETARY
AWARD

Onthesecondassignederror,therecordsshowthatrespondentJBLineclearlyfailedto
postthebondrequiredbytheNLRC.Article223oftheLaborCodeprovides:

ARTICLE223.Appeal.Decisions,awards,orordersoftheLaborArbiterarefinaland
executoryunlessappealedtotheCommissionbyanyorbothpartieswithinten(10)calendardays
fromreceiptofsuchdecisions,awards,ororders...

xxxxxxxxx

In case of judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be

perfected only upon the posting of a cash bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly
accreditedbytheCommissionintheamountequivalenttothemonetaryawardinthejudgment
appealedfrom.

xxxxxxxxx

Theperfectionofanappealinamannerandwithintheperiodprescribedbylawisnot
[28]
only mandatory but also jurisdictional.
For respondent JB Line's failure to comply with
therulesonappeal,theLA'sdecisionbecamefinalandexecutory.Nothingmorecantherefore
be done to change the decision. Respondent JB Line had lost the privilege of seeking relief
fromtheappellatecourt.

[29]
Inonecase,
weheld:

The intention of the lawmakers to make the bond an indispensable requisite for the
perfectionofanappealbytheemployer,isclearlylimnedintheprovisionthatanappealbythe
employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. The word only
makesitperfectlyclearthatthelawmakersintendedthepostingofacashorsuretybondbythe
employermaybetheexclusivemeansbywhichanemployer'sappealmaybeperfected.

[30]
Insomecases,
therequirementtopostasupersedeasbondfortheperfectionofan
appealwasrelaxedbutthiswasjustifiedbysubstantialcompliance.Inthiscase,however,no

similar reason existed to excuse respondent JB Line from complying with the requirement.
ThebondpostedbyrespondentJBLinewasnotevenclosetohalfoftheamountrequiredby
[31]
theNLRC.

CLOSURE OF BUSINESS DUE TO SERIOUS

FINANCIALLOSSES

[32]
We likewise hold that the CA erred in ruling that petitioners
were no longer entitled to
separation pay on the ground alone that respondent JB Line had ceased to operate due to
seriouslosses.

Thecrucialpointtoconsideriswhenpetitioners'employmentwasputonholduntilthefiling
of the case with the LA. At that time, respondent JB Line admitted that it was financially
distressedbutitneverclaimeditwasclosingdown.Infact,intheproceedingsbeforetheLA
and in the NLRC, it argued that it could not be liable for constructive dismissal since
[33]
petitioners (were) still (its) regular employees
and could resume performing their duties
[34]
dependingontheavailabilityofbusesandpassengers.

Assuming such closure indeed took place, respondent JB Line was still not off the hook.
Underthelaw,incaseofclosureofbusinessduetoseriousfinanciallosses,itisimperativefor
theemployertosendanoticeofclosuretotheemployeesandtotheDepartmentofLaborand
[35]
Employment(DOLE).
Article283oftheLaborCode,asamended,provides:

ARTICLE283:Closureofestablishmentandreductionofpersonnel.Theemployer
mayalsoterminatetheemploymentofanyemployeeduetoinstallationoflaborsavingdevices,
redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the
establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the
provisions of this Title, by serving a notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and
[36]
Employment
atleastone(1)monthbeforetheintendeddatethereof.xxx

The records are devoid of proof that respondent JB Line ever furnished the DOLE or

petitionerswithsuchnotice.

Moreover,evenifweweretograntthatrespondentJBLinewasonthebrinkofclosing
down at that time, the reduction of petitioners' workload and/or the floating of their
employment was still not warranted. Petitioners' plight had persisted for months which only
meant that they were already constructively dismissed. In International Hardware, Inc. v.
[37]
NLRC,
wedeclaredthatanemployeeisconstructivelydismissedwhenhisworkingdays
aresubstantiallycutformorethansixmonthsduetotheemployer'sfinanciallosses.

Lastly, the LA found that because of the reduced number of trips and shortened
workdays, petitioners naturally suffer(ed) diminution in pay. We agree with him that there
(was) constructive dismissal (because of the) diminution in pay and/or (the) continued
[38]
employment(was)renderedimpossible...

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No.

75535datedAugust14,2003isherebySETASIDE.Accordingly, the decision of the labor
arbiterdatedAugust24,2001isREINSTATED.
SOORDERED.

RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
Chairperson

ANGELINASANDOVALGUTIERREZADOLFOS.AZCUNA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice


(NoPart)
CANCIOC.GARCIA
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
abovedecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
*Nopart.
TheCourtofAppealswasalsoimpleadedasarespondentbutwasdeletedinthetitlepursuanttoRule45,Section4(a)ofthe
RulesofCourt.
[1]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeEloyR.Bello,Jr.(retired),andconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesAmelitaG.TolentinoandArturo
Brion(nowSecretaryofLabor)oftheSixteenthDivision,CourtofAppeals.
[2]
Rollo,pp.100101.
[3]
AlsoreferredtointhepleadingstobeMarcilinoHamto.
[4]
AlsoreferredtointhepleadingstobeHoelH.Hapin.
[5]
Notapetitionerinthiscase
[6]
Rollo,pp.101102.
[7]
LaborArbiterJoseC.DelValle.
[8]
LADecision,rollo,p.103.
[9]
Id.,p.104.
[10]
Inthepetitionandotherpleadings,LarryE.EscarillawasalsoreferredtoasLaryE.Escarilla.
[11]
LADecision,rollo,pp.105106.
[12]
Id.,p.106.
[13]
AlsoreferredtointhepleadingstobeSusantePantua.
[14]
AlsoreferredtointhepleadingstobeRolandoGrebialde.
[15]
Rollo,p.107.
[16]
ExceptJoueBalderama,JesusVelarde,EdisonBelen,WilfredoLascano,MarcelinoHamto,RomeoErmino,EduardoEscurel,
Benjamin Pura and Noel Hapin/Hoel H. Hapin who were found to have been dismissed for just cause, and Larry
Escarilla/LaryE.EscarillawhosecauseofactionagainstrespondentJBLineprescribed.
[17]
TheLAattachedinhisdecisionacomputationofrespondentJBLine'sliabilitytopetitioners.Rollo,pp.110121.
[18]
NLRCOrderdatedMay30,2002.Id.,pp.151155.
[19]
Order dated November 27, 2002. Id., pp. 145148. In January 2003, the NLRC Arbitration Branch set the case for a pre
execution conference where both parties attended. There, respondent JB Line manifested that the LA's computation of
payment/award included those he held to have already been validly dismissed from service. Subsequently, the NLRC
ArbitrationBranchissuedanorderdeletingthenamesofthedismissedemployeesandthecorrespondingmonetaryawards

madetothem.
[20]
DatedMarch17,2003issuedbyAssociateJusticeEloyR.Bello(retired)withtheconcurrenceofAssociateJusticesCancioS.
Garcia(nowaSupremeCourtJustice)andSergioL.Pestao(retired),FirstDivisionoftheCourtofAppeals.Id.,pp.134
136.
[21]
CAResolutiondatedJuly30,2003.
[22]
Supraatnote1.Rollo,pp.3036.
[23]
G.R.No.165496,February12,2007.
[24]
G.R.No.150865,June30,2006.
[25]
Additional Requisites for Petitions filed with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals to Prevent Forum Shopping or
MultipleFilingofPetitionsandComplaints.
[26]
Gerlachv.ReutersLimited.,Inc.,G.R.No.148542,17January2005,448SCRA535EasternOverseasEmploymentCenter,
Inc.v.Bea,G.R.No.143023,29November2005,476SCRA384ProfessionalAcademicPlans,Inc.v.Crisostomo,G.R.
No.148599,14March2005,453SCRA342.
[27]
Almendralav.Ngo,G.R.No.142408,30September2005,471SCRA311.
[28]
Quiambaov.NLRC,G.R.No.91935,4March1996,254SCRA211Aquinov.NLRC,G.R.No.98108,3September1993,226
SCRA76.
[29]
CoralPointDevelopmentCorporationv.NLRC,383Phil.456(2000).
[30]
Gensoli&Co.v.NLRC,G.R.No.113051,22April1998,289 SCRA 407 Blancaflor v. CA,G.R. No. 101013, 2 February
1993,218SCRA366.
[31]
RespondentJBLineonlypostedaP200,000bondvisvistheP9,097,624bondsetbytheNLRC.
[32]
ExceptthosefoundbytheLAasvalidlydismissedfromtheirjobsorwhosecauseofactionprescribed.Astothem,theLA
decisionhadlikewiseattainedfinality.Seenoteat16.
[33]
Supraatnote4.
[34]
Id.
[35]
SeeSebuguero,etal.v.NLRC,G.R.No.115394,27September1995,248SCRA532Fuentesv.NLRC,G.R.No.110017,2
January1997,266SCRA24.
[36]
NowDOLE.
[37]
G.R.No.80770,10August1989,176SCRA256.
[38]
Supra.