l\epublic of tbe Jbilippine~

~upreme QCourt
Tf,anguio <!Citp

FIRST DIVISION
MANILA
CORPORATION,

MI.NING

G.R. No. 182800

Petitioner,
Present:
SERENO, C.J.,
Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN
PEREZ, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.

- versus -

LOWITO AMOR, ET. AL.,

Respondents.

Promulgated:

APR 2 0 2015

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

DECISION

PEREZ,J.:

Compliance with the requirements for the perfection of an appeal

from the decision of a Labor Arbiter is at issue in this Rule 45 Petition for
Review on Certiorari which primarily seeks the nullification of the 29
November 2007 Decision 1 rendered by the then Twenty-Second Division of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 00609, 2 the decretal portion
of which states:

f(
I

Penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez and concurred in by Associate
Justices Romulo V. Borja and Elihu A. Ybanez.
CA 's 29 November 2007 Decision; CA rol/o, pp. 152-161.
,.

Decision

G.R. No. 182800

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED.

The
Resolutions of the NLRC dated 25 April 2005 and 30 June 2007,
respectively, are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The 25 October 2004
Resolution of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.3

The facts are not in dispute.

Respondents Lowito Amor, Rollybie Ceredon, Julius Cesar, Ronito
Martinez and Fermin Tabili, Jr. were regular employees of petitioner Manila
Mining Corporation, a domestic corporation which operated a mining claim
in Placer, Surigao del Norte, in pursuit of its business of large-scale open-pit
mining for gold and copper ore. In compliance with existing environmental
laws, petitioner maintained Tailing Pond No. 7 (TP No. 7), a tailings
containment facility required for the storage of waste materials generated by
its mining operations. When the mine tailings being pumped into TP No. 7
reached the maximum level in December 2000, petitioner temporarily shut
down its mining operations pending approval of its application to increase
said faciltys capacity by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources-Environment Management Bureau (DENR-EMB), Butuan City.
Although the DENR-EMB issued a temporary authority on 25 January 2001
for it to be able to continue operating TP No. 7 for another six (6) months
and to increase its capacity, petitioner failed to secure an extension permit
when said temporary authority eventually lapsed.4
On 27 July 2001, petitioner served a notice, informing its employees
and the Department of Labor and Employment Regional Office No. XII
(DOLE) of the temporary suspension of its operations for six months and the
temporary lay-off of two-thirds of its employees.5 After the lapse of said
period, petitioner notified the DOLE on 11 December 2001 that it was
extending the temporary shutdown of its operations for another six months.6
Adversely affected by petitioners continued failure to resume its operations,
respondents filed the complaint for constructive dismissal and monetary
claims which was docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB-13-10-00226-2003
before the Regional Arbitration Branch No. XIII of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC). On 25 October 2004, Executive Labor
Arbiter Benjamin E. Pelaez rendered a Decision holding petitioner liable for
constructive dismissal in view of the suspension of its operations beyond the

3
4
5
6

Id. at 161.
Id. at 153.
Petitioners 27 July 2001 Letter, id. at 74.
Petitioners 11 December 2001 Letter, id. at 75.

Decision

G.R. No. 182800

six-month period allowed under Article 2867 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines. Finding that the cause of suspension of petitioners business
was not beyond its control,8 the Labor Arbiter applied Article 2839 of the
same Code and disposed of the case in the following wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby entered:
1) Declaring [respondents] to have been constructively dismissed
from their employment; and
2) Ordering [petitioner] to pay xxx [respondents] their separation
pay equivalent to one (1) month pay or to at least one-half (1/2)
month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher, a
fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered as one
whole year, moral damages and exemplary damages in the
amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) and Five
Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), respectively, for each of the
[respondents] and attorneys fees equivalent to ten (10%)
percent in the total amount of TWO MILLION ONE
HUNDRED THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED
NINETY & 02/100 PESOS (P2,138,190.02) ONLY x x x x
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.10

Aggrieved, petitioner filed its memorandum of appeal before the

NLRC11 and moved for the reduction of the appeal bond to P100,000.00, on
the ground that its financial losses in the preceding years had rendered it
unable to put up one in cash and/or surety equivalent to the monetary
7

8
9

10
11

Art. 286. When employment not deemed terminated. The bona-fide suspension of the
operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or the fulfillment
by the employee of a military or civic duty shall not terminate employment. In all such cases, the
employer shall reinstate the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights if he
indicates his desire to resume his work not later than one (1) month from the resumption of
operations of his employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty.
Labor Arbiters 25 October 2004 Decision; CA rollo, pp. 44-53.
Art. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. The employer may also
terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices,
redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the
establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions
of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and
Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to
the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled
to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for
every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases
of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business
losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least
one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six
(6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year.
CA rollo, pp. 52-53
Petitioners 3 December 2004 Memorandum of Appeal; id. at 56-68.

Decision

G.R. No. 182800

award.12 In opposition, respondents moved for the dismissal of the appeal in

view of the fact that, despite receipt of the appealed decision on 24
November 2004, petitioner mailed their copy of the memorandum of appeal
only on 7 February 2005. Respondents also argued that the appeal bond
tendered by petitioner was so grossly disproportionate to monetary award for
the same to be considered substantial compliance with the requirements for
the perfection of an appeal from a Labor Arbiters decision.13 Without
addressing the procedural issues raised by respondents, however, the NLRC
Fifth Division went on to render a Resolution dated 25 April 2005 in NLRC
CA No. M-008433-2005, reversing the appealed decision and dismissing the
complaint for lack of merit. Finding that the continued suspension of
petitioners operations was due to circumstances beyond its control, the
NLRC ruled that, under Article 283 of the Labor Code, respondents were
not even entitled to separation pay considering the eventual closure of their
employers business due to serious business losses or financial reverses.14
Unfazed by the denial of their motion for reconsideration in the
NLRCs 30 June 2005 Resolution,15 respondents filed the Rule 65 petition
for certiorari which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 00609 before the
Mindanao Station of the CA. Insisting that petitioners memorandum of
appeal was filed 65 days after the lapse of reglementary period for appeal,
respondents called attention to the fact that, as grossly inadequate as it
already was vis--vis the P2,138,190.0216 monetary award adjudicated in
their favor, the check in the sum of P100,000.00 deposited by petitioner by
way of appeal bond was dishonored upon presentment for payment. Aside
from the fact that the Labor Arbiters 25 October 2004 Decision had already
attained finality, respondents faulted the NLRC for applying Article 283 of
the Labor Code absent allegation and proof of compliance with the
requirements for the closure of an employers business due to serious
business losses.17 In its comment, on the other hand, petitioner claimed that,
having caused the same to be immediately funded, the check it issued for the
appeal bond had since been deposited by the NLRC. Insisting that the
cessation of its operations was due to causes beyond its control, petitioner
argued that the subsequent closure of its business due to business losses
exempted it from paying separation pay.18

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Petitioners 6 December 2004 Motion for Reduction of Bond; id. at 69-71.

Respondents 15 February 2005 Motion to Dismiss Appeal; id. at 76-79.
NLRCs 25 April 2005 Resolution; id. at 35-40.
NLRCs 30 June 2005 Resolution; id. at 42.
Sometimes indicated as P2,138,189.98.00.
Respondents 28 September 2005 Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari; id. at 2-33.
Petitioners 5 December 2005 Comment; id. at 89-108.

Decision

G.R. No. 182800

On 29 November 2007, the CAs then Twenty-Second Division

rendered the herein assailed decision, granting respondents petition and
nullifying the NLRCs 25 April 2005 Resolution. In reinstating the Labor
Arbiters 25 October 2004 Decision, the CA ruled that petitioner failed to
perfect its appeal therefrom considering that the copy of its 3 December
2004 Memorandum of Appeal intended for respondents was served the latter
by registered mail only on 7 February 2005. Aside from posting an
unusually smaller sum as appeal bond, petitioner was likewise faulted for
replenishing the check it issued only on 1 April 2005 or 24 days before the
rendition of the assailed NLRC Decision. Applying the principle that the
right to appeal is merely a statutory remedy and that the party who seeks to
avail of the same must strictly follow the requirements therefor, the CA
decreed that the Labor Arbiters Decision had already attained finality and,
for said reason, had been placed beyond the NLRCs power of review.19
Petitioners motion for reconsideration of the foregoing decision was denied
for lack of merit in the CAs 2 May 2008 Resolution,20 hence, this Rule 45
petition for review on certiorari.21
Petitioner seeks the reversal of the CAs 29 November 2007 Decision
and 2 May 2008 Resolution on the following grounds:
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
RULING THAT PETITIONERS APPEAL FILED WITH
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
WAS FATALLY DEFECTIVE [SINCE IT] HAD FULLY
COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
LABOR CODE FOR PERFECTING AN APPEAL.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN IMMEDIATELY SETTING
ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE NLRC WITHOUT
REVIEWING THE MERITS OF THE CASE.
AT THE TIME OF THE PROMULGATION OF THE
ASSAILED DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS,
THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT HAD ALREADY
AFFIRMED THE FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS
ALREADY PERMANENTLY CLOSED DUE TO
MASSIVE FINANCIAL LOSSES.22
19
20
21
22

CAs 29 November 2007 Decision; id. at 152-161.

CAs 2 May 2008 Resolution; id. at 214-217.
Petitioners 12 June 2008 Petition for Review; rollo, pp. 29-56.
Id. at 40; 48.

Decision

G.R. No. 182800

Time and again, it has been held that the right to appeal is not a
natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and
may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions
of law.23 A party who seeks to avail of the right must, therefore, comply with
the requirements of the rules, failing which the right to appeal is invariably
lost.24 Insofar as appeals from decisions of the Labor Arbiter are concerned,
Article 223 of the Labor Code of the Philippines25 provides that,
(d)ecisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory
unless appealed to the [NLRC] by any or both parties within ten (10)
calendar days from the receipt of such decisions, awards or orders. In case
of a judgment involving a monetary award, the same provision mandates
that, 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 [NLRC] in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the
judgment appealed from. Alongside the requirement that the appellant
shall furnish a copy of the memorandum of appeal to the other party, the
foregoing requisites for the perfection of an appeal are reiterated under
Sections 1, 4 and 6, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure in force at the
time petitioner appealed the Labor Arbiters 25 October 2004 Decision, viz.:

23
24
25

Colby Construction and Management Corp. and/or Lo v. NLRC, 564 Phil. 145, 154 (2007).
Philux, Inc., et al., v. NLRC, 586 Phil. 19, 26 (2008).
Art. 223. Appeal. Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless
appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of
such decisions, awards, or orders. Such appeal may be entertained only on any of the following
grounds:
a. If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter;
b. If the decision, order or award was secured through fraud or coercion, including graft
and corruption;
c.
If
made
purely
on
questions
of
law;
and
d. If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which would cause grave or
irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.
In 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.
In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated
employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, even
pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and
conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely
reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for
reinstatement provided herein.
To discourage frivolous or dilatory appeals, the Commission or the Labor Arbiter shall
impose reasonable penalty, including fines or censures, upon the erring parties.
In all cases, the appellant shall furnish a copy of the memorandum of appeal to the other
party who shall file an answer not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof.
The Commission shall decide all cases within twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of
the answer of the appellee. The decision of the Commission shall be final and executory after ten
(10) calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties.
Any law enforcement agency may be deputized by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment or the Commission in the enforcement of decisions, awards or orders.

Decision

G.R. No. 182800

SECTION 1. PERIODS OF APPEAL. - Decisions, resolutions or

orders of the Labor Arbiter shall be final and executory unless appealed to
the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from
receipt of such decisions, resolutions or orders of the Labor Arbiter x x x
x. If the 10th x x x x day x x x x falls on a Saturday, Sunday or a holiday,
the last day to perfect the appeal shall be the next working day.
SECTION 4. REQUISITES FOR PERFECTION OF APPEAL. - (a)
The Appeal shall be filed within the reglementary period as provided in
Section 1 of this Rule; shall be verified by appellant himself in accordance
with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, with proof of payment of the
required appeal fee and the posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in
Section 6 of this Rule; shall be accompanied by memorandum of appeal in
three (3) legibly typewritten copies which shall state the grounds relied
upon and the arguments in support thereof; the relief prayed for; and a
statement of the date when the appellant received the appealed decision,
resolution or order and a certificate of non-forum shopping with proof of
service on the other party of such appeal. A mere notice of appeal without
complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running
of the period for perfecting an appeal. (Italics supplied)
xxxx
SECTION 6. BOND. - In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or
the Regional Director involves a monetary award, an appeal by the
employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond.
The appeal bond shall either be in cash or surety in an amount equivalent
to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorneys fees.
xxxx
No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on
meritorious grounds and upon the posting of a bond in a reasonable
amount in relation to the monetary award.
The filing of the motion to reduce bond without compliance with
the requisites in the preceding paragraph shall not stop the running of the
period to perfect an appeal.

Having received the Labor Arbiters Decision on 24 November

2004, petitioner had ten (10) calendar days or until 4 December 2004
within which to perfect an appeal. Considering that the latter date fell on a
Saturday, petitioner had until the next working day, 6 December 2004,
within which to comply with the requirements for the perfection of its
appeal. Our perusal of the record shows that, despite bearing the date 3
December 2004, petitioners memorandum of appeal was subscribed before
Notary Public Ronald Rex Recidoro only on 6 December 2004.27 Without
26

26
27

CA rollo, p. 56.
Id. at 66-67.

Decision

G.R. No. 182800

proof as to the actual date of filing of said pleading being presented by both
parties, the CA discounted the timeliness of its filing in light of the
established fact that the copy thereof intended for respondents was only
served by registered mail on 7 February 2005.28 Since proof of service of
the memorandum on appeal is required for the perfection of an appeal from
the decision of the Labor Arbiter, the CA ruled that respondents filed its
appeal not earlier than 07 February 200[5], which is way beyond the ten-day
reglementary period to appeal.29
As allegation is not evidence, however, the rule is settled that the
burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts the affirmative of an
issue.30 As the parties claiming the non-perfection of petitioners appeal, it
was, therefore, respondents who had the burden of proving that said
memorandum of appeal was, indeed, filed out of time. By and of itself, the
fact that the copy of memorandum of appeal intended for respondents was
served upon them by registered mail only on 7 February 2005 does not
necessarily mean that petitioners appeal from the Labor Arbiters decision
was filed out of time. On the principle that justice should not be sacrificed
for technicality,31 it has been ruled that the failure of a party to serve a copy
of the memorandum to the opposing party is not a jurisdictional defect and
does not bar the NLRC from entertaining the appeal.32 Considering that
such an omission is merely regarded as a formal lapse or an excusable
neglect,33 the CA reversibly erred in ruling that, under the circumstances,
petitioner could not have filed its appeal earlier than 7 February 2005.
The question regarding the appeal bond rises from the record which
shows that, in addition to its memorandum of appeal, petitioner filed a 6
December 2004 motion for the reduction of the appeal bond on the ground
that the cash equivalent of the monetary award and/or cost of the surety bond
have proven to be prohibitive in view of the tremendous business losses it
allegedly sustained. As supposed measure of its good faith in complying
with the Rules, petitioner attached to its motion Philam Bank Check No.
0000627153, dated 6 December 2004, in the amount of P100,000.00 only.
As pointed out by respondents, however, said check was subsequently
dishonored upon presentment for payment for insufficiency of funds. In its
1 April 2005 Ex-Parte Manifestation, petitioner informed the NLRC that it
only learned belatedly that the same check was dishonored as there
appeared to be an inadvertent mix-up as other checks issued for [its] other
28
29
30
31
32
33

Id. at 156.
Id. at 159.
Aklan Electric Cooperative Incorported v. NLRC, 380 Phil. 225, 245 (2000).
Okada v. Security Pacific Assurance Corporation, 595 Phil. 732, 746 (2008).
Sunrise Manning Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, 485 Phil. 426, 431 (2004).
J.D. Magpayo Customs Brokerage Corporation v. NLRC, 204 Phil. 276, 278 (1982).

Decision

G.R. No. 182800

obligations were negotiated ahead [thereof], leaving an insufficient balance

in its account. As a consequence, petitioner claimed that the deficiency in
deposit has been promptly and immediately replenished as soon as the
check's dishonor was reported and that the same may already be redeposited at any of NLRC's depositary banks.34
The issue that has bedevilled labor litigation for long has been
clarified by the ruling in McBurnie v. Ganzon, et al.,35 which built on and
extended the ruling that while it is true that reduction of the appeal bond has
been allowed in meritorious cases36 on the principle that substantial justice is
better served by allowing appeals on the merits,37 it has been ruled that the
employer should comply with the following conditions: (1) the motion to
reduce the bond shall be based on meritorious grounds; and (2) a reasonable
amount in relation to the monetary award is posted by the appellant,
otherwise the filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running
of the period to perfect an appeal.38
The McBurnie ruling pronounced:
xxx
Furthermore, on the matter of the filing and acceptance of motions
to reduce appeal bond, as provided in Section 6, Rule VI of the 2011
NLRC Rules of Procedure, the Court hereby RESOLVES that henceforth,
the following guidelines shall be observed:

34
35
36
37
38

(a)

The filing of a motion to reduce appeal bond shall be

entertained by the NLRC subject to the following
conditions: (1) there is meritorious ground; and (2) a
bond in a reasonable amount is posted;

(b)

For purposes of compliance with condition no. (2), a

motion shall be accompanied by the posting of a
provisional cash or surety bond equivalent to ten percent
(10), of the monetary award subject of the appeal, exclusive
of damages and attorney's fees;

(c)

Compliance with the foregoing conditions shall suffice to

suspend the running of the 10-day reglementary period to
perfect an appeal from the labor arbiter's decision to the
NLRC;

Petitioner's 1 April 2005 Ex-Parte; CA rollo, pp. 72-73

G.R. Nos. 178034 & 178117; G.R. Nos. 186984-85, 17 October 2013, 707 SCRA 646.
Coral Point Development Corporation v. NLRC, 383 Phil. 456, 464 (2000).
Miguel v. JCT Group, Inc., 493 Phil. 660, 674 (2005)
Supra note 35, at 658.

Decision

10

G.R. No. 182800

(d)

The NLRC retains its authority and duty to resolve the

motion to reduce bond and determine the final amount of
bond that shall be posted by the appellant, still in
accordance with the standards of meritorious grounds and
reasonable amount; and

(e)

In the event that the NLRC denies the motion to reduce

bond, or requires a bond that exceeds the amount of the
provisional bond, the appellant shall be given a fresh period
of ten (10) days from notice of the NLRC order within
which to perfect the appeal by posting the required appeal
bond.39

In this case, we see that with no proof to substantiate its claim,

petitioner moved for a reduction of the appeal bond on the proferred basis of
serious losses and reverses it supposedly sustained in the years prior to the
rendition of the Labor Arbiter's decision.
The first condition may be left for the nonce. As to the second
condition, we may consider that the amount of P100,000.00 supposedly
posted was provisional bond sufficient to suspend the running of the 10-day
reglementary period to perfect an appeal from the Labor Arbiter's decision.
That would however not improve petitioner's position one bit.
Respondent correctly called attention to the fact that the check
submitted by petitioner was dishonored upon presentment for payment,
thereby rendering the tender thereof ineffectual. Although the NLRC chose
not to address the issue of the perfection of the appeal as well as the
reduction of the bond in its Resolution dated 25 April 2005, the record
shows that petitioner only manifested its deposit of the funds for the check
24 days before the resolution of its appeal or 116 days after its right to
appeal the Labor Arbiters decision had expired. Having filed its motion and
memorandum on the very last day of the reglementary period for appeal,
moreover, petitioner had no one but itself to blame for failing to post the full
amount pending the NLRCs action on its motion for reduction of the appeal
bond. If redundancy be risked it must be emphasized that the posting of a
bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases involving
monetary awards from the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Since it is the
posting of a cash or surety bond which confers jurisdiction upon the

39

Id. at 693-694.

Decision

11

G.R. No. 182800

NLRC,40 the rule is settled that non-compliance is fatal and has the effect of
rendering the award final and executory.41
Viewed in the light of the foregoing considerations, the CA cannot be
faulted for no longer discussing the merits of petitioners case. Although
appeal is an essential part of our judicial process, it has been held, time and
again, that the right thereto is not a natural right or a part of due process but
is merely a statutory privilege. Thus, the perfection of an appeal in the
manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but
also jurisdictional and failure of a party to conform to the rules regarding
appeal will render the judgment final and executory. Once a decision attains
finality, it becomes the law of the case and can no longer be revised,
reviewed, changed or altered. The basic rule of finality of judgment is
grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice
that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of
quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by
law.42
Without necessarily resulting to a termination of employment, an
employer may at any rate, bona fide suspend the operation of its business for
a period of not exceeding six months under Article 286 of the Labor Code.43
While the employer is, on the one hand, duty bound to reinstate his
employees to their former positions without loss of seniority rights if the
operation of the business is resumed within six months, employment is
deemed terminated where the suspension exceeds said period.44 Not having
resumed its operations within six months from the time it suspended its
operations on 27 July 2001, it necessarily follows that petitioner is liable to
pay respondents separation pay45 computed at one (1) month pay or at least
one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher,46 as
well as the damages and attorneys fees adjudicated by the Labor Arbiter.
Without proof of the serious business losses it allegedly sustained and/or
compliance with the reportorial requirements under Article 283 of the Labor
Code, petitioner cannot expediently plead exemption from said liabilities
due to the supposed financial reverses which led to the eventual closure of
its business. It is essentially required that the alleged losses in business
40
41
42

43

44

45

46

Accessories Specialist, Inc. v. Alabanza, 581 Phil. 517, 527 (2008).

Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 513 Phil. 642, 656 (2005).
Zamboanga Forest Managers Corp. v. New Pacific Timber & Supply Co., 647 Phil. 403,
(2010), citing Filipro, Inc, v. Permanent Savings and Loan Bank, 534 Phil. 551, 560 (2006).
Nasipit Lumber Company v. National Organization of Workingmen (NOWM), 486 Phil. 348,
(2004).
Lagonoy Bus Co., Inc./Buencamino v. Court of Appeals (former4th Div.), 556 Phil. 775,
(2007).
Toogue v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 112334, 18 November 1994,
SCRA 241, 246.
Serrano v. NLRC, 380 Phil. 416, 452 (2000).

415
362
781
238

Decision

12

G.R. No. 182800

operations must be proven for, otherwise, said ground for termination would
be susceptible to abuse by scheming employers who might be merely
feigning business losses or reverses in their business ventures in order to
ease out employees. 47 The condition of business losses justifying
. retrenchment is normally shown by audited financial documents like yearly
balance sheets and profit and loss statements as well as annual income tax
returns 48 which were not presented in this case.
Neither can petitioner evade said liabilities on the strength of the 28
July 2005 Decision rendered by the CA's Twenty-Second Division in CAG.R. SP No. 00072, entitled Rosita Asumen, et al. v. National Labor
Relations Commission, et al., where its employees' claim for separation pay
was denied on account of the subsequent .closure of its business due to
serious business losses and financial reverses. 49 Although the employees
Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari had been denied in the 7 February
2007 Resolution issued by this Court's Second Division in UDK-13776, 50
the ruling in said case can hardly be considered binding on respondents who
wer.e not parties thereto. As for the inequality in benefits which would
supposedly result if the CA's assailed decision and resolution were not
reversed, suffice it to say that this Court had sustained the claim for
. separation pay of petitioner's employees in the case of Manila Mining Corp
Employees Association-Federation of Free Workers Chapter, et al. v.
Manila Mining Corporation, et al. 51 Stare decisis is inapplicable; the matter
of separation pay for petitioner's employees has been decided case to case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for
lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.

47
48

49
50

51

F.F Marine Corporation v. The 2nd Division, NLRC, 495 Phil. 140, 157 (2005).
Waterfront Cebu Hotel v. Jimenez, G.R. No. 174214, 13 June 2012, 672 SCRA 185, 197, citing
Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines, Inc., v. Phil. Airlines, Inc., et al.,
581 Phil. 228, 255 (2008).
CA 's 28 July 2005 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 00072; rollo, pp. 244-261.
7 February 2007 Resolution in UDK-13776; id. at 263.
G.R. No. 178222-23, 29 September 2010, 631 SCRA 553.

13

Decision

G.R. No. 182800

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice
Chairperson

~~/k~

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice

MP,.~

ESTELA M.JPERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice