G.R. No. 182626 - HILARIO S. RAMIREZ, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU CITY, HON. NLRC, 4TH DIVISION, CEBU CITY AND MARIO S. VALCUEBA. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, VIEWED FROM THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered declaring respondent HILARIO RAMIREZ, OWNER OF H.R. TAXI, NOT GUILTY of illegally dismissing complainant from the service, it appearing that there is no dismissal to speak of in this case. Consequently, complainant is ordered to report back for work within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, and respondent Hilario Ramirez must complainant (sic) back to work as soon as the latter would express his intention to report for work or within the same period of ten (10) days from receipt hereof, whichever comes first. Proof of compliance hereof, must be submitted within the same period (sic), complainant would be guilty of abandonment and respondent of illegal dismissal. In addition, respondent HILARIO RAMIREZ, owner of H.R. Taxi, is hereby ordered to pay complainant MARIO S. VALCUEBA the following: a. Wage Differential - P30,538.00 b. 13 th Month Pay - 15,287.98 Total Award - P45,825.98 Philippine currency, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, through the Cashier of this Arbitration Branch. Other claims are DISMISSED for failure to substantiate. [7] Records show that Ramirez received the Labor Arbiter's decision on 5 June 2006. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Memorandum of Appeal with Urgent Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond [8] on the 9 th day of the reglementary period or on 14 June 2006 before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Resolving the motion, the NLRC issued a Resolution [9] dated 29 September 2006, which reads: Upon a careful perusal of the motion to reduce bond, however, the Commission found that the same does not comply with Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure. x x x x Respondent has not offered a meritorious ground for the reduction of the appeal bond and the amount of P10,000.00 he posted is not a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award of P45,825.98. Consequently, his motion to reduce appeal bond shall not be entertained and his appeal is dismissed for non-perfection due to lack of an appeal bond. The NLRC then held: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of respondent is hereby DISMISSED for non-perfection due to want of an appeal bond. [10] Ramirez filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the NLRC resolved in a Resolution dated 20 December 2006 in this wise: The mere filing of a motion to reduce bond without complying with the requisites of meritorious grounds and posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award does not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal. Thus, respondent's failure to abide with the requisites so mentioned has not perfected his appeal. Verily, since the assailed Decision of the Labor Arbiter contains a monetary award in favor of complainant, it behooves upon respondent to post the required bond. While the filing of a motion to reduce bond can be considered as a motion of preference in case of an appeal, the same holds true only when such motion complies wi