Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Casimiro vs.

Stern Real Estate and Development Corporation

Private Respondent is a domestic corporation engaged in real estate. It owns

and operates Hotel Rembrandt.

The case started in May 6, 1999 when the hotel issued a Special Separation
Program (SSP) for all interested employees due to its deteriorating financial
condition. Under the program, an employee will no longer work for the hotel but
he will be entitled to separation pay and other benefits. 49 applied for this
program. In May 28, 1999, the management selected 29 from the applicants and
filed the corresponding Establishment Term Report before the DOLE. It states
that the selected applicants will be terminated on June 28, 1999. Letters and
notices were sent to the concerned employees, informing them that their services
will be terminated one month from receipt of the letters.

Petitioners, among those retrenched, filed a case for illegal dismissal before the
NLRC. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of the retrenched.
>The financial statements were bloated.
>"First in, Last out Rule" was not complied with.
>The award was computed to be 1.9M

Respondents filed an appeal before the NLRC. On the other hand, the petitioners
filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the 50k cash bond posted by
respondents was a "measly amount" and as such, it was as if no appeal had
been perfected. The NLRC and the CA ruled in favor of the respondents.

1) Procedural
a) Was there a perfected appeal pursuant to Article 223?
b) Was the reception of the NLRC of evidence proper?
Were petitioners validly retrenched?

a) Yes. Article 223 provides that when a judgment involving a monetary
award is appealed, the appeal may be perfected only upon the posting of a bond
equivalent to the monetary award. However, the bond need not always be
equivalent to the monetary award if justified by the circumstances. For instance,
Section 6 of Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC provides that
such amount may be reduced in meritorious cases. Such is present in the case
at bar. It is evident that the bond was not equal to the monetary award because
the computation of the monetary award was only done several days after the
decision of the labor arbiter.
b) The NLRC did not err when it admitted evidence. It has already been
held that the NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence on appeal because
the technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases. This is pursuant
to Article 221 of the LC and Sec 10 Rule VII of the New Rules of Procedure of
the NLRC.

2)YES! the requisites were validly complied with.