MYRNA VINAS, RODELITO AYALA, WINELITO OJEL, RENATO RODREGO, NENA ABINA, EMALYN OLIVEROS, LOUIE ILAGAN, JOEL ENTIG, ARNEL ARANETA, BENJAMIN COSE, WELITO LOON AND WILLIAM ALIPAO, VS. POWER MASTER, INC., TRI-C GENERAL SERVICES, AND SPOUSES HOMER AND CARINA ALUMISIN.

Ruling

Accordingly, the petitioners deliberately did not explain their side. Instead, they continuously resisted their transfer to other PLDT offices and violated company rules and regulations. It also upheld the NLRCs findings on the petitioners monetary claims. The CA denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated August 28, 2009, prompting the petitioners to file the present petition. [19] The Petition In the petition before this Court, the petitioners argue that the CA committed a reversible error when it did not find that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. They reiterate their arguments before the lower tribunals and the CA in support of this conclusion. They also point out that the respondents posted a bond from a surety that was not accredited by this Court and by the NLRC. In effect, the respondents failed to perfect their appeal before the NLRC. They further insist that the NLRC should not have admitted the respondents unverified supplemental appeal. [20] The Respondents Position In their Comments , the respondents stress that the petitioners only raised the issue of the validity of the appeal bond for the first time on appeal. They also reiterate their arguments before the NLRC and the CA. They additionally submit that the petitioners arguments have been fully passed upon and found unmeritorious by the NLRC and the CA. [21] The Issues This case presents to us the following issues: 1) Whether the CA erred when it did not find that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the respondents appeal; a) Whether the respondents perfected their appeal before the NLRC; and b) Whether the NLRC properly allowed the respondents supplemental appeal 2) Whether the respondents were estopped from submitting pieces of evidence for the first time on appeal; 3) Whether the petitioners were illegally dismissed and are thus entitled to backwages; 4) Whether the petitioners are entitled to salary differential, overtime, holiday, premium, service incentive leave, and thirteenth month pays; and 5) Whether the petitioners are entitled to attorneys fees. The Courts Ruling The respondents perfected their appeal with the NLRC because the revocation of the bonding company's authority has a prospective application Paragraph 2, Article 223 of the Labor Code provides that [i]n case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from. Contrary to the respondents claim, the issue of the appeal bonds validity may be raised for the first time on appeal since its proper filing is a jurisdictional requirement. [22] The requirement that the appeal bond should be issued by an accredited bonding company is mandatory and jurisdictional. The rationale of requiring an appeal bond is to