8/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 288

VOL. 288, MARCH 26, 1998 129

Alcosero vs. National Labor Relations Commission

*
G.R. No. 116884. March 26, 1998.
RIZALINO Z. ALCOSERO, ELIAS Z. ALCOSERO, OSCAR
P. ATUP, FRANCISCO MANLOD, RAMON A. PAZ,
MARLON ALCANTARA, BENJAMIN PURGANAN,
JOSELITO M. BAYOT, RUFINO RAMOS, REGULO T.
BALNEG, MANUEL L. CIAR, VIRGILIO D. FACUNLA,
DOMINADOR GANIOLA, GODOFREDO VARGAS,
TEJOME ALREDO, ROMEO TUAZON, GEORGE
VILLANUEVA, REUBEN VILLANUEVA, ROGELIO
BABA, BENITO ALCOSERO, GILBERTO AMBION,
FELIX BAYOT, REYNALDO BAYOT, NELSON BAYOT,
RONNIE BAYOT, NATHANIEL BURGOS, HUNECITO
CAMUS, OLIVER DE LEON, SANTIAGO ESTARES, JR.,
NORMAN B. GONZALES, RIZALINO OPULENCIA,
ISAAC LABRILLAZO, JEMENIANO QUEVADA, BENITO
AMBION, FLORENCIO CESICAR, RICKY
DAYANGHIRANG, ROGELIO AGUILA, EDWIN
AGUILAR, MENANDRO ATIENZA, EFREN BAYOT,
WILFREDO BASINILLO,

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

130

130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alcosero vs. National Labor Relations Commission

JOSELITO CAUSAREN, EULOGIO CASAR, MARIETTA

CESICAR, JOSEPH CEGAYLE, PATRICIA CUAMAG,
ERNESTO DAGBAY, SOLOMON DELA PEÑA, JR.,
HENRY DE GUZMAN, MARIVIC DE GUZMAN, JOSEPH
DE LEON, ROLLY DE VILLA, MARIO FERRER,
NORMAN GONZALES, HIROLITO LINAWAN, ARNEL
LUGTO, GENEROSO MADIANO, RODOLFO MAGNO,
EDWIN MANLULU, RODOLFO MARINAS, NEMECIO
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca2876350d4a7b9db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16
8/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 288

MENDOZA, NONITO HICBAN, ROMEO PARAJITO,

GAUDIOSO PALAGTIW, EDUARDO PALANCA,
AMELITO RAPAL, PRIMITIVO SANTANA, RICARDO
SICAT, LOLITO SUBOL, ARNEDO TAJAO, NONNY
TUMANGAN, EDILBERTO UPO, ARISTEO URMENITA,
MARCELINO BATION, FELINO CREMIN, BARTOLOME
LEAL, GREG MARTIN, ANGELITO MALABANAN,
ANTONIO NAVIDA, RICARDO PAR, FLORIZEL
QUIAMBAO, JUANITO SEDUCON, MERLITO MADON,
ELIAS PANCHO, PEDRO GERONO, ROMY LEGASPI,
DOMINGO PAMA, REY REBOTON, ALONZO VIGAFRIA,
ROBERTO BASINILLO, MARIO BONGABONG,
PATRICK ALLAN CABRIT, VICTOR DANTE, ERNESTO
LIVA, ROGER ONG, VICTOR PETALLANA, ELEUTERIO
SUAREZ, HERNANITO LINAWAN, ROGELIO ANICETO,
JOHN T. FENNETE, REY DURON, EUSEBIO TANGARO,
DAMIANO ARCENA, URBANO NIONES, RHENE
OLIVAR, RAUL SABALES, VICTOR NIONES, RITO
RAMOS, ANTONIO TOLENTINO, GERALD DELA
CHINA, EDGAR CARAEL, ROLANDO CASTRO,
LEONILO GUMATO, VICENTE TRABUCON,
EMETERIO MEDINA, MARIO SORIANO, CRISTINO
TALBO, LOURDES GALLARDO, EMFROSO
MOSQUERA, NESTOR RONTAL, JR., VICENCIO
BAITAN, VICTOR BASACA, SAMUEL DELA CHINA,
PATRICIO RENDAJE, FLORENCIO BASALAN,
LUDEVICO HISULA, LEOPOLDO DELA CHINA,
IRENEO OLIVEROS, SYLVIA PINEDA, BIBIANO TUIZA,
EDILBERTO IBAG, CRISTINA P. ASIS, ROSENDA J.
MARINAS, FELIPE RECENTES, TEODULO PATALINO
and RUBY R. OMICTEN, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FIFTH DIVISION),
COMMISSIONERS MUSIB M. BUAT, OSCAR F.
ABELLA, LEON G. GONZAGA, JR. and

131

VOL. 288, MARCH 26, 1998 131

Alcosero vs. National Labor Relations Commission

APEX MINING COMPANY, INC., respondents.

Labor Law; Actions; Certiorari; Motions for Reconsideration;

The filing of a motion for reconsideration of the order, resolution
or decision of the tribunal, board or office is, subject to well-
recognized exceptions, a condition sine qua non to the institution of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca2876350d4a7b9db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/16
8/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 288

a special civil action for certiorari; Certiorari cannot be resorted to

as a shield from the adverse consequences of a party’s omission to
file the required motion for reconsideration.—It is settled that the
filing of a motion for reconsideration of the order, resolution or
decision of the tribunal, board or office is, subject to well-
recognized exceptions, a condition sine qua non to the institution
of a special civil action for certiorari. The rationale therefor is that
the law intends to afford the tribunal, board or office an
opportunity to rectify the errors and mistakes it may have lapsed
into before resort to the courts of justice can be had. Petitioners’
explanation concerning their failure to move for reconsideration is
not sufficient justification for dispensing with the requirement. In
fact, it is not even among the recognized exceptions to the above
rule. Certiorari cannot be resorted to as a shield from the adverse
consequences of petitioners’ own omission to file the required
motion for reconsideration.
Same; Same; Appeals; Appeal Bond; In a growing number of
cases, the Supreme Court has relaxed the stringent application of
the rule concerning the posting of appeal bond within the 10-day
reglementary period as a requirement for the perfection of an
appeal.—Ordinarily, where the losing party desires to appeal
from the decision of the Labor Arbiter it must be done within ten
(10) days from receipt of the decision. When the judgment
involves 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 NLRC or the
Supreme Court in an amount equivalent to the monetary award
in the judgment appealed from. Compliance with these
requirements is both mandatory and imperative as the perfection
of an appeal within the reglementary period is jurisdictional. But
in a growing number of cases, we have relaxed the stringent
application of the rule concerning the posting of appeal bond
within the 10-day reglementary period as a requirement for the
perfection of an appeal.
Same; Quitclaims; While quitclaims executed by employees are
commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and are
ineffec-

132

132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alcosero vs. National Labor Relations Commission

tive to bar claims for the full measure of the employees’ legal
rights, there are legitimate waivers that represent a voluntary and

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca2876350d4a7b9db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/16
8/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 288

reasonable settlement of laborers’ claims which should be respected

by the courts as the law between the parties.—While quitclaims
executed by employees are commonly frowned upon as contrary to
public policy and are ineffective to bar claims for the full measure
of the employees’ legal rights, there are legitimate waivers that
represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of laborers’
claims which should be respected by the courts as the law
between the parties. Thus, in Periquet v. National Labor
Relations Commission we held—Not all waivers and quitclaims
are invalid as against public policy. If the agreement was
voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement,
it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply
because of a change of mind. It is only where there is clear proof
that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible
person, or the terms of the settlement are unconscionable on its
face, that the law will step in to annul the questionable
transaction. But where it is shown that the person making the
waiver did so voluntarily, with full understanding of what he was
doing, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and
reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and
binding undertaking.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Conrado O. Macasa, Sr. for petitioners.
          The Law Firm of Chan, Robles & Associates for
private respondent.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

WHILE the Constitution is committed to the policy of social

justice and the protection of the working class, it should not
be supposed that every labor dispute would automatically
be decided in favor of labor. Management also has its own
rights which, as such, are entitled to respect and
enforcement in the interest of simple fair play. Out of its
concern for those with less privileges in life, this Court has
inclined more often than not toward the worker and upheld
his cause in his conflicts
133

VOL. 288, MARCH 26, 1998 133

Alcosero vs. National Labor Relations Commission

with the employer. Such favoritism, however, has not

blinded us to the rule that justice is in every case for the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca2876350d4a7b9db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/16
8/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 288

deserving, to be dispensed in the light of 1

the established
facts and the applicable law and doctrine.
On 31 October 1985 The Security Professionals, Inc.
(TSPI), and Apex Mining Co., Inc. (APEX) entered into a
contract whereby the former bound itself to supply security
personnel to the latter for its security requirements at its2
Masara minesite operations, Maco, Davao del Norte.
Pursuant to their agreement Rizalino Z. Alcosero and many
others were assigned at the minesite of APEX at Masara
either as officers, supervisors, contractual personnel or
security guards. The agreement between TSPI and APEX
remained in force, subject only to periodic adjustments
regarding the amount of consideration until sometime in
1992 when APEX closed down its Masara minesite 3
due to
serious business losses and financial reverses.
On 21 July 1992 Rizalino Z. Alcosero,
4
for himself and in
behalf of 260 other complainants, wrote a letter addressed
to

_______________

1 Sosito v. Aguinaldo Development Corporation, No. L-48926, 14

December 1987, 156 SCRA 392, 396, per Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz.
2 The contract provides among others that: a) TSPI shall establish and
maintain a security force of 200 guards at the minesite, which number of
guards may be increased or decreased by mutual agreement of the parties;
and, b) the guards shall not become employees of private respondent but
will remain to be under the sole and exclusive employ of TSPI; see Rollo,
pp. 138-140; Annex “1.”
3 Private respondent’s Comment, p. 5; Rollo, p. 99.
4 Rizalino Z. Alcosero, Elias Z. Alcosero, Oscar P. Atup, Francisco
Manlod, Ramon A. Paz, Marlon Alcantara, Benjamin Purganan, Joselito
M. Bayot, Rufino Ramos, Regulo T. Balneg, Manuel L. Ciar, Virgilio D.
Facunla, Dominador Ganiola, Godofredo Vargas, Tejome Alredo, Romeo
Tuazon, George Villanueva, Reuben Villanueva, Rogelio Baba, Benito
Alcosero, Gilberto Ambion, Felix Bayot, Reynaldo Bayot, Nelson Bayot,
Ronnie Bayot, Nathaniel Burgos, Hunecito Camus, Oliver De Leon,
Santiago Estares, Jr., Norman B. Gonzales, Rizalino Opulencia, Isaac
Labrillazo, Jeme-

134

134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alcosero vs. National Labor Relations Commission

the Regional Director, Regional Office No. XI, Department

of Labor and Employment (DOLE), presenting their claims
5
for unpaid wages and 13th month pay against APEX. The
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca2876350d4a7b9db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/16
8/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 288

letter was indorsed to the Regional Arbitration Branch No.

XI, Davao City, for appropriate action. On the basis
thereof, APEX was invited on 27 July 1992 to 6a conference
before Labor Arbiter Antonio M. Villanueva. During the
conference, complainants submitted a so-called certificate
of net collectibles representing the unpaid wages and 13th
month pay of about 311 security personnel for the calendar
years 1990 and

_______________

niano Quevada, Benito Ambion, Florencio Cesicar, Ricky

DayangHirang, Rogelio Aguila, Edwin Aguilar, Menandro Atienza, Efren
Bayot, Wilfredo Basinillo, Joselito Causaren, Eulogio Casar, Marietta
Cesicar, Joseph Cegayle, Patricia Cuamag, Ernesto Dagbay, Solomon Dela
Peña, Jr., Henry De Guzman, Marivic De Guzman, Joseph De Leon, Rolly
De Villa, Mario Ferrer, Norman Gonzales, Hirolito Linawan, Arnel Lugto,
Generoso Madiano, Rodolfo Magno, Edwin Manlulu, Rodolfo Marinas,
Nemecio Mendoza, Nonito Hicban, Romeo Parajito, Gaudioso Palagtiw,
Eduardo Palanca, Amelito Rapal, Primitivo Santana, Ricardo Sicat, Lolito
Subol, Arnedo Tajao, Nonny Tumangan, Edilberto Upo, Aristeo Urmenita,
Marcelino Bation, Felino Cremin, Bartolome Leal, Greg Martin, Angelito
Malabanan, Antonio Navida, Ricardo Par, Florizel Quiambao, Juanito
Seducon, Merlito Madon, Elias Pancho, Pedro Gerono, Romy Legaspi,
Domingo Pama, Rey Reboton, Alonzo Vigafria, Roberto Basinillo, Mario
Bongabong, Patrick Allan Cabrit, Victor Dante, Ernesto Liva, Roger Ong,
Victor Petallana, Eleuterio Suarez, Hernanito Linawan, Rogelio Aniceto,
John T. Fennete, Rey Duron, Eusebio Tangaro, Damiano Arcena, Urbano
Niones, Rhene Olivar, Raul Sabales, Victor Niones, Rito Ramos, Antonio
Tolentino, Gerald Dela China, Edgar Carael, Rolando Castro, Leonilo
Gumato, Vicente Trabucon, Emeterio Medina, Mario Soriano, Cristino
Talbo, Lourdes Gallardo, Emfroso Mosquera, Nestor Rontal, Jr., Vicencio
Baitan, Victor Basaca, Samuel Dela China, Patricio Rendaje, Florencio
Basalan, Ludevico Hisula, Leopoldo Dela China, Ireneo Oliveros, Sylvia
Pineda, Bibiano Tuiza, Edilberto Ibag, Cristina P. Asis, Rosenda J.
Marinas, Felipe Recentes, Teodulo Patalino and Ruby R. Omicten.
5 Private respondent’s Comment, id., p. 141; Annex “2.”
6 Id., p. 142; Annex “3.”

135

VOL. 288, MARCH 26, 1998 135

Alcosero vs. National Labor Relations Commission

1991, and for the period from January to May 1992, with
the following computations: P3,225,110.52 (January-
December 1990); P5,656,041.88 (January-December 1991);

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca2876350d4a7b9db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/16
8/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 288

P2,525,858.93 (January-May7
1992); and, P11,407,011.33 as
total actual collectibles.
Represented by its counsel, Atty. Ruben V. Abarquez,
and its Officer-In-Charge for Operations, Engr. Alexander
D. Tulio, APEX expressed conformity as to its liability for
unpaid wages and 13th month pay for the calendar year
1990 amounting to P3,225,110.52 but denied the rest of the
claim. Accordingly, on 3 August 1992, the Labor Arbiter
issued an order requiring APEX to pay the uncontested
amount of P3,225,110.52 within twenty (20) days from
receipt of the order.
On 15 August 1992 the Labor Arbiter issued a notice of
levy against the properties of APEX and eventually a notice
of sale thereof for the purpose of executing his 3 August
1992 Order. But APEX moved to hold in abeyance the sale
of its properties, manifesting that it would pay and settle
all its obligations due the complainants. Then, on different
dates in December 1992 and January 1993, it paid
complainants and the latter 8signed the corresponding
receipts and quitclaims therefor.
Later, complainants asserted that the payments made to
them pertained to their unpaid wages and 13th month pay
for the year 1990 only. At the succeeding hearing held on
19 November 1992, complainants submitted another
certificate of net collectibles for the years 1991 and 1992,
with added claims for vacation and sick leave pay, and
uniform allowances. This prompted the Labor Arbiter to
issue an order dated 10 February 1993 directing APEX to
submit its comment on the issue of unpaid wages, 13th
month pay, leave pay and allowances for the years 1991
and 1992. But APEX failed to comment thereon despite
reasonable time granted by the

_______________

7 Records, pp. 3-15.

8 Rollo, pp. 143-326; Annexes “9” to “9-GA.”

136

136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alcosero vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Labor Arbiter, and repeatedly failed to comply with

subsequent orders of the Labor Arbiter requiring it to file
its position paper. It was not until 23 July 1993 that
private respondent was finally able to submit its position
paper, but by then the Labor Arbiter had already resolved
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca2876350d4a7b9db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/16
8/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 288

the case and awarded complainants a total of

P5,287,055.29 plus 10% of the amount as attorney’s fees.
Incidentally, during the pendency of the case before the
Labor Arbiter, some of the complainants withdrew from the
case either verbally or by personally
9
erasing their names in
the Special Power of Attorney. Hence, out of the original
260 complainants, only 131 continued to prosecute the
case. These 131 remaining complainants were later joined
in by 5 others, thereby raising the number of complainants
to 136. Thus, the Labor Arbiter clarified that his decision
should apply only to the 136 complainants, but without
prejudice to the others who might subsequently pursue
their legitimate claims.
APEX appealed to the NLRC on 15 August 10
1993
assailing the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Instead of
posting an appeal bond, however, APEX filed in lieu thereof
a motion for the reduction of the appeal bond seven (7) days
from its receipt of the Labor Arbiter’s decision. After due
consideration, the NLRC on 4 May 1994 promulgated a
resolution providing in part that APEX had already paid
all the claims due to complainants in connection with this
case as evidenced by the individual receipts and quitclaims
executed by the latter. There being no allegation that
complainants were forced or pressured into signing the
receipts and quitclaims, the NLRC sustained as valid the
aforementioned documents. Accordingly, the Labor
Arbiter’s decision was ordered vacated and set aside, and
the above entitled case dismissed for lack of

_______________

9 The Special Power of Attorney authorized Rizalino Z. Alcosero to

represent complainants in all proceedings in connection with this case
before the Labor Arbiter.
10 Docketed as NLRC CA No. M-00526-93 (Case No. RAB-11-07-00615-
92), “Rizalino Z. Alcosero and 260 others vs. APEX Mining Co., Inc.”

137

VOL. 288, MARCH 26, 1998 137

Alcosero vs. National Labor Relations Commission

11
merit. Hence, the instant petition for certiorari
questioning the resolution of the NLRC.
Preliminarily, we noted that herein petitioners elevated
this case to us on certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court without previously filing a motion for
reconsideration of the NLRC decision. One of the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca2876350d4a7b9db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/16
8/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 288

petitioners, Oscar Atup, explained to the Court in the form

of a certification the reason for his failure thus—

This is to certify that I, OSCAR ATUP, have signed this Special

Civil Action for Certiorari in this case, in lieu of our former
representative, Rizalino Z. Alcosero, whom we have deputized to
represent us and sign all documents, papers and submissions
relative to our complaint/case as principal complainant. This is
done so on account of failure and refusal of said Rizalino Z.
Alcosero, for unknown reasons to see our counsel and sign these
submissions after Presiding Commissioner Musib M. Buat and
two (2) others reversed the Decision of Labor Arbiter Antonio M.
Villanueva.
This further certifies the fact that the failure to file Motion for
Reconsideration from the resolution of the Commission was due to
the aforesaid reasons, coupled with the delay in contacting other
complainants who have dispersed temporarily to look for other
means of livelihood.
Our quest for justice regarding our unpaid earned wages is the
sole reason why we executed this Certification and the filing of
Certiorari with this Honorable Supreme Court.

It is settled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration of

the order, resolution or decision of the tribunal, board or
office is, subject to well-recognized exceptions, a condition
sine qua non to the institution of a special civil action for
certiorari. The rationale therefor is that the law intends to
afford the tribunal, board or office an opportunity to rectify
the errors and mistakes it may have lapsed into before
resort to the

_______________

11 Penned by Presiding Commissioner Musib M. Buat and concurred in

by Commissioners Oscar F. Abella and Leon G. Gonzaga, Jr.; Rollo, pp. 24-
34.

138

138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alcosero vs. National Labor Relations Commission

12
courts of justice can be had. Petitioners’ explanation
concerning their failure to move for reconsideration is not
sufficient justification for dispensing with the requirement.
In fact, it is not even among the recognized exceptions to
the above rule. Certiorari cannot be resorted to as a shield

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca2876350d4a7b9db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/16
8/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 288

from the adverse consequences of petitioners’ own 13

omission
to file the required motion for reconsideration.
It is worth stressing, since so often it is overlooked, that
certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal nor any other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law against the acts of the NLRC. In the instant case,
the remedy expressly provided by law was a motion for
reconsideration, which was not only expected to be but
would actually have provided an adequate and 14more speedy
remedy than the present petition for certiorari.
Also, Sec. 2, pars. (a), (b) and (c), Rule VIII, of the New
Rules of Procedure of the NLRC specifically provides for
the finality of the decision of the Commission after the
lapse of the 10-day reglementary period—

(a) Finality of the decisions, resolutions or orders of the

Commission.—Except as provided in Rule XI,
Section 2, the decisions, resolutions or orders of the
Commission/Division shall become executory after
ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the same.
(b) Effect of filing of a motion for reconsideration.—
Should there be a motion for reconsideration
entertained pursuant to Section 14, Rule VII of
these rules, the decision shall be executory after ten
(10) calendar days from receipt of the resolution on
such motion.
(c) Entry of judgment.—Upon the expiration of the ten
(10) calendar day period provided in the preceding
paragraph, the order/resolution shall, immediately
thereafter, be entered in the book of entry of
judgment (italics supplied).

_______________

12 Zapata v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 77827, 5

July 1989, 175 SCRA 56.
13 Purefoods Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R.
No. 78591, 21 March 1989, 171 SCRA 415, 425.
14 Plaza v. Mencias, No. L-18253, 31 October 1962, 6 SCRA 563.

139

VOL. 288, MARCH 26, 1998 139

Alcosero vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Thus, without the required motion for reconsideration

nothing prevented the resolution of the NLRC from

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca2876350d4a7b9db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/16
8/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 288

becoming final and executory. Petitioners cannot now, by

an overdue strategy, question the correctness of the
resolution.
On the basis of the foregoing discussion alone, the
instant petition should already be dismissed. Nonetheless,
for the satisfaction particularly of petitioners, we shall
traverse their arguments and demonstrate their utter lack
of merit.
Petitioners contend that the NLRC committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in entertaining the appeal of APEX
notwithstanding that the assailed decision of the Labor
Arbiter had long become final and executory for failure of
APEX to file the required appeal bond within the
reglementary period of ten (10) days, which bond was an
indispensable requirement for the perfection of the appeal.
Ordinarily, where the losing party desires to appeal
from the decision of the Labor Arbiter it must 15
be done
within ten (10) days from receipt of the decision. When the
judgment involves 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 NLRC or the Supreme Court in an
amount equivalent
16
to the monetary award in the judgment
appealed from. Compliance with these requirements is
both mandatory and imperative as the perfection of an 17
appeal within the reglementary period is jurisdictional.
But in a growing number of cases, we have relaxed the
stringent application of the rule concerning the posting of
appeal bond within the 10-day reglementary period as a
requirement for the perfection of an appeal. Thus, in the
leading case of Star Angel
18
Handicraft v. National Labor
Relations Commission, we held—

_______________

15 Art. 223, first par., Labor Code.

16 Id., second par.
17 See Italian Village Restaurant v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 95594, 11 March 1992, 207 SCRA 204.
18 G.R. No. 108914, 20 September 1994, 236 SCRA 580.

140

140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alcosero vs. National Labor Relations Commission

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca2876350d4a7b9db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/16
8/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 288

Neither the Labor Code nor its implementing rules specifically

provide for a situation where the appellant moves for a reduction
of the appeal bond. Inasmuch as in practice the NLRC allows the
reduction of the appeal bond upon motion of appellant and on
meritorious grounds, it follows that a motion to that effect may be
filed within the reglementary period for appealing. Such motion
may be filed in lieu of a bond which amount is being contested. In
the meantime, the appeal is deemed perfected and the Labor
Arbiter retains jurisdiction over the case until the NLRC has
acted on the motion and appellant has filed the bond as fixed by
the NLRC.
We have, therefore, relaxed the requirement of the posting of
an appeal bond as a condition for perfecting an appeal under Art.
223 of the Labor Code. In Erectors, Inc. v. NLRC, we nullified an
order of the NLRC which required the appellant to post a bond of
P575,222.00 within ten (10) days from receipt of the order or
suffer the dismissal of the appeal. The bond therein required was
based on the award which was erroneously computed based on the
salary which the employee was no longer receiving at the time of
his separation and “which even included in the computation the
award of P400,000.00 for moral and exemplary damages.”

Moreover, under Rule VI, Sec. 6, of the NLRC New Rules of

Procedure, the Commission may, in meritorious cases and
upon motion of the appellant, reduce the amount of the
bond. However, an appeal is deemed perfected only upon
the posting of the bond equivalent to the monetary award
exclusive of moral and exemplary damages as well as
attorney’s fees.
In this case, APEX filed in lieu of an appeal bond a
motion for the reduction of the bond together with the
Memorandum of Appeal seven (7) days from receipt of the
Labor Arbiter’s decision. The NLRC held that the appeal of
APEX was founded on meritorious grounds, hence, it gave
due course to the same despite the fact that no appeal bond
was posted at that time. The NLRC could not be faulted for
doing so since it had authority to entertain motions for the
reduction of the appeal bond. And when APEX posted the
required bond within the extended period granted by the
NLRC, it was deemed to have seasonably perfected its
appeal.
Petitioners then argue that it was grave abuse of
discretion for the NLRC to reverse the decision of the Labor
Arbiter and
141

VOL. 288, MARCH 26, 1998 141

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca2876350d4a7b9db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/16
8/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 288

Alcosero vs. National Labor Relations Commission

hold that the receipts and quitclaims represented a full

settlement of all the workers’ claims, although petitioners
made it clear before the Labor Arbiter that they were still
pursuing their entitlements for 1991 and 1992.
We do not agree.
First. The subject receipts and quitclaims provide almost
uniformly thus—

Receipt and Quitclaim

Received from APEX Mining Co., Inc., respondent/s the amount of

PESOS: full payment of the above-entitled case.
That in consideration of the amount herein above-mentioned
receipt of which I/We hereby acknowledged, I/We declared that
I/We have no more claim against the above-named respondent/s
and therefore release and discharge APEX Mining Company, Inc.
from whatever claims and liabilities arising out of and in
connection with this case.
We therefore request the Regional Arbitration Branch No. XI of
the National Labor Relations Commission to consider this case
CLOSED and TERMINATED.

It may be observed that in the herein quoted “Receipt and

Quitclaim,” which exemplifies the terms of the agreement
between private respondent APEX and petitioners for the
release of their claims, there is nothing that states that
petitioners reserved their right to pursue whatever claims
they still had against APEX. On the other hand, the subject
receipts and quitclaims are clear and absolute on their
faces, i.e., they completely discharged APEX from whatever
liabilities might be due petitioners. Further, note that
under the third paragraph petitioners even requested the
Regional Arbitration Branch to consider the case
terminated.
Second. Significantly, petitioners signed the subject
documents on different dates in December 1992 and
January 1993. The inescapable conclusion is that the
receipts and quitclaims were meant to fully discharge
APEX from whatever amounts were still due the
petitioners, including their supposedly unpaid wages for
1991 and 1992.
142

142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alcosero vs. National Labor Relations Commission

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca2876350d4a7b9db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/16
8/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 288

Third. The documents were in standard “Receipt and

Quitclaim” forms prepared by the Regional Arbitration
Branch of DOLE, all of which were duly signed before
Labor Arbiter Antonio M. Villanueva and witnessed by
representatives of the Regional Arbitration Branch XI of
DOLE. Therefore, if it was true that the payments made by
APEX applied only to the 1990 claims, the Labor Arbiter
should have indicated that fact in the individual receipts
and quitclaims; and
Fourth. We discern nothing from the records that would
suggest that petitioners were coerced, intimidated or
deceived into signing the subject receipts and quitclaims.
On the contrary, petitioners never denied that they signed
the documents voluntarily. In fact, they never even for a
moment assailed the genuineness and due execution of
those documents. Neither are we convinced that the
amounts received by petitioners as consideration for the
quitclaims were scandalously low as to render the
quitclaims inequitable. There being no countervailing proof
presented by petitioners other than their bare and
unsubstantiated allegations, it must be presumed that they
were satisfied when they signed the receipts and quitclaims
that the settlement reached was just and reasonable. They
cannot thereafter renege on the agreement simply because
they now feel they made a mistake in signing the
quitclaims.
In this connection, it must be underscored that
petitioners were supervisors, officers and security guards of
TSPI and, as such, are better off in general than the
average laborer in terms of educational attainment. Hence,
it may safely be assumed that they knew the legal
implications of what they were signing.
Finally, while quitclaims executed by employees are
commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and
are ineffective to bar claims
19
for the full measure of the
employees’ legal rights, there are legitimate waivers that
represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of
laborers’ claims which

_______________

19 Lopez Sugar Corporation v. Federation of Free Workers, G.R. Nos.

75700-75710, 30 August 1990, 189 SCRA 179.

143

VOL. 288, MARCH 26, 1998 143

Alcosero vs. National Labor Relations Commission
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca2876350d4a7b9db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/16
8/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 288

should be respected by the courts as the law between the

parties. Thus, in Periquet
20
v. National Labor Relations
Commission we held —

Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public

policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and
represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties
and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of
mind. It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was
wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of
the settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will
step in to annul the questionable transaction. But where it is
shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily, with
full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration
for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must
be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking.

So it is, likewise, in the instant case.

WHEREFORE, petition is DISMISSED. The assailed
resolution of 4 May 1994 of the National Labor Relations
Commission—which VACATED and SET ASIDE the
decision of the Labor Arbiter awarding petitioner a total of
P5,287,055.29 plus 10% of the amount as attorney’s fees,
and completely absolved private respondent APEX Mining
Co., Inc., from all liabilities to petitioners—is AFFIRMED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.

          Davide, Jr. (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban and

Quisumbing, JJ., concur.

Petition dismissed; Assailed resolution affirmed.

Notes.—Before certiorari may be availed of, petitioner

must have filed a motion for the reconsideration of the
order or act complained of to enable the tribunal, board or
office concerned to pass upon and correct its mistakes, if
any, with-

_______________

20 G.R. No. 91298, 22 June 1990, 186 SCRA 724, 730-731.

144

144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Pedro Escanlar vs. Court of Appeals

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca2876350d4a7b9db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/16
8/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 288

out the intervention of the higher court. (Belaunzaran vs.

National Labor Relations Commission, 265 SCRA 800
[1996])
The rule that the execution of a quitclaim will not bar an
employee from questioning the legality of his dismissal
finds no justifiable application to a case which is simply
limited to money claims. (American Home Assurance Co.,
Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 252 SCRA
202 [1996])
A deed of release or quitclaim can not bar an employee
from demanding what is legally due him—necessitous men
are not free men. (JGB and Associates, Inc. vs. National
Labor Relations Commission, 254 SCRA 457 [1996])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca2876350d4a7b9db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/16