SANTOS, Jay Mark A.

2016-166335
TURKS SHAWARMA COMPANY VS PAJARON AND CARBONILLA
G.R. NO. 207156
Topic: Security of Tenure, Appeal, bond

Facts: Petitioners hired Feliciano Z. Pajaron (Pajaron) in May 2007 as service crew and Larey A.
Carbonilla (Carbonilla) in April 2007 as head crew. Respondents are employees of petitioner-
company and claimed that they were constructively and illegally dismissed by the company,
hence, prompting the former to file a suit against the latter in the Labor Tribunal. Petitioner, on
the other hand, claimed that the respondents abandoned their work and even filed criminal cases
for estafa against them. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of respondents and held them to
be constructively and illegally dismissed. The LA found it suspicious for petitioners to file
criminal cases against respondents only after the complaints of illegal dismissal had been filed.
Backwages, separation pay, holiday pay, were awarded among others. Petitioner filed a Notice of
Appeal with Memorandum and Motion to Reduce Bond with the NLRC, alleging non-
availability of counsel, insisting that he cannot afford to post the full amount. The NLRC denied
the motion and ruled that financial difficulties may not be invoked as a valid ground to reduce
bond; it was not even substantiated by proof. Further company failed to post in full the required
appeal bond. Thus, petitioners' appeal was dismissed by the NLRC for non-perfection. They
filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied.

Petitioners then elevated the case to the CA in a petition for certiorari. The CA ruled against
petitioner.

Issue 1: Were the respondents illegally dismissed?

Ruling 1: Yes. While petitioners argue that respondents abandoned their work, records don’t
show that there was intent to relinquish their employment. In fact, petitioner admitted that they
refused to rehire respondents despite persistent requests to admit them to work. Hence,
petitioner essentially admitted the fact of dismissal. Petitioner did not proffer any evidence to
support their claim of misconduct or misbehavior on the part of respondents. Thus, for lack of
any clear, valid, and just cause in terminating respondents’ employment, petitioners are guilty of
illegal dismissal.
Issue 2:Was the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal due to non-perfection of bond proper?
Ruling 2: Yes. Citing previous jurisprudence, as well as, Article 233 of the Labor Code and the
Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, the Court ruled that appeal, is a mere 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 to do so, the right to appeal is lost. The posting of cash or surety bond is mandatory and
jurisdictional. However, the Court in special and justified circumstances has relaxed the rule
subject to the following conditions: 1) the motion to reduce the bond shall be based on
meritorious grounds; and 2) a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award is posted by
the appellant. In this case, petitioner failed to produce evidence to prove that the payment of the
full amount of the award would greatly affect his business due to financial setbacks. Moreover,
the absence of counsel is not a valid excuse for non-compliance with the rules. Petitioner even
failed to explain why there was no new counsel procured to assist him. Petitioner has no
meritorious appeal as would convince the Court to liberally apply the rule.
SANTOS, Jay Mark A.
2016-166335