G.R. No. 162385 - SAMAR-MED DISTRIBUTION, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND JOSAFAT GUTANG.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, Our decision is hereby MODIFIED , reinstating and giving due course to respondents appeal. The decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one entered DISMISSING the complaint for illegal dismissal. SO ORDERED . Gutang sought reconsideration, but the NLRC denied his motion. Ruling of the CA Gutang then assailed the outcome in the NLRC through a petition for certiorari that he filed in the CA, submitting the following issues, namely: WHETHER OR NOT THE NLRC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT ADMITTED PRIVATE RESPONDENTS APPEAL DESPITE THE LATE POSTING OF AN APPEAL BOND. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED. On November 24, 2003, the CA promulgated its decision, [9] to wit: The petition is partly meritorious. On the first issue, this Court finds that the NLRC did not abuse its discretion when it considered private respondents appeal as perfected. Indeed, the Supreme Court has relaxed the requirement of posting a supersedeas bond for the perfection of appeal when there is a substantial compliance with the rules ( Star Angel Handicraft v. NLRC , 236 SCRA 580, Globe General Services and Security Agency v. NLRC, 249 SCRA 408 ). It appears from the records that private respondent filed a manifestation to allow the late filing of a surety bond within the period to appeal. Thereafter, it filed the surety bond on March 8, 2000. As such, the NLRC acted within its discretion when it reconsidered its resolution dismissing the appeal for failure to post a bond and considered petitioners manifestation as a motion to reduce bond. It is worthy to note that the purpose of the posting of a bond is to assure the workers that if they finally prevail in the case the monetary award will be given to them upon dismissal of the employers appeal. It is further meant to discourage employers from using the appeal to delay or evade payment of their obligations to the employees ( Coral Point Development Corporation v. NLRC, 336 SCRA 554 ). On the second issue, however, the Court finds the same meritorious. It is clear from the records that there is an employer-employee relationship between the parties. As such, a valid termination of the same by the employer may only be had after the latter has complied with both the substantive and procedural requirements of the law. The Labor Code in Articles 282 and 283 provide for the just and authorized causes for termination while the procedural requirement pertains to the two notices and hearing requirements. These requirements provide that the employer must: 1) serve notice to the employee informing him/her of the grounds for his/her possible termination, 2) give the employee a chance to be heard, and 3) serve termination notice to the employee therefore (Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Rule XXIII, Section 2) . The employer has the burden of proving the same. Based on the foregoing requirements, petitioners termination from employment is illegal. Privat