SARA LEE PHILIPPINES, INC., VS. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG, ET AL.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises all considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint for unfair labor practice (ULP); declaring that complainants were illegally dismissed; ordering respondents to jointly and severally pay them separation pay at one (1) month for every year of service; backwages from the time their compensation was withheld until the promulgation of this Decision[,] P5,000.00 moral damages and P5,000.00 exemplary damages for each of them, and eight percent (8%) attorneys fee of the total monetary award, less the separation pay they received upon closure of API. All other claims are hereby DISMISSED. Attached and marked as Annexes A to A-117 and shall form part of this decision are the lists of complainants and their respective monetary awards. [15] Upon receipt of a copy of the aforesaid decision, the Corporations filed their Notice of Appeal with Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond and To Admit Reduced Amount with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). They asked the NLRC to reduce the appeal bond to P1 Million each on the grounds that it is impossible for any insurance company to cover such huge amount and that, in requiring them to post in full the appeal bond would be tantamount to denying them their right to appeal. [16] Aris claimed that it was already dissolved and undergoing liquidation. SLC added that it is not the employer of Emilinda D. Macatlang, et al ., and that the latter had already received from Aris their separation pay and other benefits amounting to P419,057,348.24, which covers practically more than 10% of the monetary award. [17] FAPI, for its part, claimed that its total assets would not be enough to answer for even a small portion of the award. To compel it to post a bond might result in complete stoppage of operations. FAPI also cited the possibility that the assailed decision once reviewed will be reversed and set aside. [18] The Corporations posted a total of P4.5 Million. Emilinda D. Macatlang, et al., opposed the motion by asserting that failure to comply with the bond requirement is a jurisdictional defect since an appeal may only be perfected upon posting of a cash bond equivalent to the monetary award provided by Article 223 of the Labor Code. [19] In light of the impossibility for any surety company to cover the appeal bond and the huge economic losses which the companies and their employees might suffer if the P3.45 Billion bond is sustained, the NLRC granted the reduction of the appeal bond. The NLRC issued an Order dated 31 March 2006 [20] directing the Corporations to post an additional P4.5 Million bond, bringing the total posted bond to P9 Million. The dispositive portion of the Order provides: WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents are hereby ordered to post bond, either in cash, surety or property, in the additional amount of FOUR MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P4,500,000.00) within an INEXTENDIBLE period of FIFTEEN (15) calendar days from receipt hereof. To the said e