INC. AND/OR TERESITA L. SOLIMAN, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby SET ASIDE. However, respondent [before the NLRC] is hereby ordered to pay complainant separation pay computed at one-half (1/2) month for every year of service, reckoned from date of employment on October 9, 1990 up to September 9, 1995, the date the complainant should have been redeployed. [2] A motion for reconsideration, filed by herein private respondent Valenzuela, was denied by the NLRC. Valenzuela forthwith brought the matter up to the Court of Appeals. On the thesis that the only issue interposed was whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it took cognizance of the appeal and reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter despite the failure of herein petitioners to validly post the appeal bond, the appellate court responded in the affirmative, set aside the assailed decision of the NLRC and reinstated that of the Labor Arbiter. A motion to reconsider the decision was denied. In the instant recourse before this Court, petitioners claim that the Court of Appeals (Eleventh Division) has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring petitioners to have failed in perfecting their appeal with the NLRC. This Court finds merit in the petition. Private respondent would posit that the appeal of petitioners to the NLRC should be considered to have been made on 19 January 1999 (when petitioner submitted, pursuant to the NLRC order, a statement under oath to the effect that the surety bond it had posted was genuine and confirmed it to be in effect until the final termination of the case) which was beyond the ten-day period for perfecting an appeal. The records before the Court would show, however, that an appeal bond was posted with the NLRC at the same time that the appeal memorandum of petitioners was filed on 16 October 1998. A certified true copy of the appeal bond [3] would indicate that it was received by the Commission on 16 October 1998, the date reflected by the stamp-mark thereon. The surety bond issued by the Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation bore the date of 14 October 1998 or two days before the appeal memorandum was seasonably filed on 16 October 1998. The Order, [4] dated 11 November 1998, of the NLRC categorically stated that records [would] disclose that the instant appeal [was] accompanied by a surety bond, as the Decision sought to be appealed involved a monetary award. The NLRC, in fact, ordered petitioner to submit an affidavit to confirm that its appeal bond was genuine and would be in force and effect until the final disposition of the case. The Commissions declaration that the appeal was accompanied by a surety bond indicated that there had been compliance with Article 223 [5] of the Labor Code. An appeal to the NLRC is perfected once an appellant files the memorandum of appeal, pays the required appeal fee and, where an employer appeals and a monetary award is involved, the latter posts an appeal bond