G.R. No. 201237 - PHILIPPINE TOURISTERS, INC. and/or ALEJANDRO R. YAGUE, JR., VS. MAS TRANSIT WORKERS UNION-ANGLO-KMU* AND ITS MEMBERS, REPRESENTED BY ABRAHAM TUMALA, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, MTI and petitioners were adjudged jointly and severally liable for the individual respondents backwages, separation pay, and attorneys fees. [30] The NLRC Proceedings Dissatisfied, petitioners appealed before the NLRC by filing their Notice of Appeal [31] and Appeal Memorandum, [32] accompanied by a Manifestation with Motion for Reduction of Bond, [33] praying that the required bond covering the monetary judgment of P12,833,210.00 (full judgment award) be reduced in view of PTIs liquidity problems. Simultaneously, petitioners posted South Sea Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. (SSSICI) Surety Bond No. G(21) 002718 [34] in the amount of P5,000,000.00 (partial bond), seeking that the same be considered as substantial compliance for purposes of perfecting their appeal. MTI, on the other hand, did not interpose any appeal. Meanwhile, respondents opposed petitioners motion to reduce bond and moved for the dismissal of their appeal for failure to perfect the same as the bond posted was not in an amount equivalent to the full judgment award as mandated by law. [35] On September 12, 2003, petitioners filed a Manifestation and Motion attaching thereto PTIs Audited Financial Statement (AFS) as of December 31, 2001 in support of the motion to reduce bond. [36] Pending the NLRCs action, petitioners subsequently filed a Supplemental Manifestation on January 12, 2004, withdrawing its initial motion and, instead, submitting for approval their additional surety bond, SSSICI Surety Bond No. G(16) 002066 in the amount of P7,833,210.00, to cover the full judgment award. [37] This was followed by another motion seeking to substitute SSSICI Surety Bond No. G(21)002718 in the amount of P5,000,000.00 with that of SSSICI Surety Bond No. G(16) 003459 for the same amount as the former bond was found to have been erroneously and inadvertently issued in favor of MTI and not PTI. [38] Again, respondents vehemently opposed the foregoing actions of petitioners and sought for the inhibition [39] of the Commissioners of the NLRC-Third Division for failure to dismiss the appeal despite the apparent failure to perfect the same. In a Decision [40] dated April 19, 2004, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for petitioners failure to post the required bond equal to the full judgment award within the ten (10)-day reglementary period prescribed under the NLRC Rules of Procedure. It also pointed out that the partial bond petitioners posted was invalid since it was not signed by an authorized signatory of the insurance company as advised by the NLRC in a Memorandum dated January 5, 2004, and that the ground relied upon for the reduction of the bond was not substantiated. [41] Likewise, it dismissed respondents motion for inhibition for lack of basis. [42] Undeterred, petitioners moved for reconsideration, [43] insisting that the NLRC should adopt a liberal interpretation of the rules on perfection of appeal considering that they had substantially complied with the same and