ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE v. EULALIO GANZON, GR Nos.

178034 & 178117, 2013-10-17

FACTS:
McBurnie, an Australian national, instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims against the
respondents.

The respondents opposed the complaint, contending that their agreement with McBurnie was to jointly invest in and
establish a company for the management of hotels. They did not intend to create an employer-employee
relationship... the Labor ArbiterLA declared McBurnie as having been illegally dismissed from employment, and thus
entitled to receive from the respondents the following amounts:... a) US$985,162.00 as salary and benefits for the...
unexpired term of their employment contract, (b) P2,000,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages, and (c) attorney's
fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award.

respondents appealed the Labor ArbiterLA's Decision to the NLRC... they filed their Memorandum of Appeal[8] and
Motion to Reduce Bond[9], and posted an appeal bond in... the amount of P100,000.00.
the NLRC denied[11] the motion to reduce bond,... Thus, the NLRC required from the respondents the posting of an
additional bond in the amount of P54,083,910.00... the CA... rendered its Decision[26] dated October 27, 2008,
allowing the respondents' motion to reduce appeal bond and directing the NLRC to give due course... to their appeal.

ISSUE:
WON there’s sufficiency of the appeal bond that was posted by the respondents

RATIO:We emphasize that the crucial issue in this case concerns the sufficiency of the appeal bond that was posted
by the respondents. The present rule on the matter is Section 6, Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, which
was substantially the same provision in effect at the time of the respondents' appeal to the NLRC, and which reads:

RULE VI – APPEALS . Sec. 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 attorney's 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. (Emphasis supplied)
While the CA, in this case, allowed an appeal bond in the reduced amount of P10,000,000.00 and then ordered the
case's remand to the NLRC, this Court's Decision dated September 18, 2009 provides otherwise, as it reads in part:
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. The lawmakers clearly intended to make the bond a mandatory requisite for the
perfection of an appeal by the employer as inferred from the provision that an appeal by the employer may be
perfected "only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond." The word "only" makes it clear that the posting of a cash or
surety bond by the employer is the essential and exclusive means by which an employer's appeal may be perfected. x
x x.

Moreover, the filing of the bond is not only mandatory but a jurisdictional requirement as well, that must be complied
with in order to confer jurisdiction upon the NLRC. Non-compliance therewith renders the decision of the Labor Arbiter
final and executory. This requirement is intended to assure the workers that if they prevail in the case, they will receive
the money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the employer's appeal. It is intended to discourage employers
from using an appeal to delay or evade their obligation to satisfy their employees' just and lawful claims.
xxxx
Thus, it behooves the Court to give utmost regard to the legislative and administrative intent to strictly require the
employer to post a cash or surety bond securing the full amount of the monetary award within the 10[-]day
reglementary period. Nothing in the Labor Code or the NLRC Rules of Procedure authorizes the posting of a
bond that is less than the monetary award in the judgment, or would deem such insufficient posting as
sufficient to perfect the appeal.

While the bond may be reduced upon motion by the employer, this is subject to the conditions that (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. The qualification effectively requires that unless the NLRC grants the reduction of the
cash bond within the 10[-]day reglementary period, the employer is still expected to post the cash or surety bond
securing the full amount within the said 10-day period. If the NLRC does eventually grant the motion for reduction
after the reglementary period has elapsed, the correct relief would be to reduce the cash or surety bond already
posted by the employer within the 10-day period.[77] (Emphasis supplied; underscoring ours)

1
To begin with, the Court rectifies its prior pronouncement the unqualified statement that even an appellant who seeks
a reduction of an appeal bond before the NLRC is expected to post a cash or surety bond securing the full amount of
the judgment award within the 10-day reglementary period to perfect the appeal.

LEPANTO V. ICAO (G.R. NO. 196047; JANUARY 15, 2014)

FACTS:
Private respondent Belio Icao, alleged in his complaint that he was an employee of petitioner Lepanto Consolidated
Mining Corporation (LEPANTO), assigned as lead miner in its underground mine in Paco, Mankayan, Benguet. On
January 4, 2008, while taking a break from work, Security Guard Larry Bulwayan and Dale Papsa-ao pulled his
skullguard harness. A few minutes later, he saw Bulwayan pick up a wrapped object at the bathing station and gave it
to his companion. The two Security Guards then invited the private respondent to go with them at the investigation
office to answer questions regarding the wrapped object. He was then charged with highgrading or an act of
concealing, possessing or unauthorized extraction of highgrade material without proper authority. Consequently, he
was dismissed from his work despite his vehement denial of the said charges.

Private respondent prayed that the petitioners be held liable for illegal dismissal, to reinstate him to his former position
without loss of seniority rights and benefits, and to pay his full backwages, damages and attorneys fees. He claimed
that his dismissal from work was without just or authorized cause since petitioners failed to prove by ample and
sufficient evidence that he stole gold bearing highgrade ores from the company premises.

Petitioner averred that SG Bulyawan saw private respondent inserting a wrapped object inside his right rubber boot
and was later found in the latters' skullguard upon inspection. The wrapped object turned out to be pieces of stone
ores.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on September 30, 2008, holding petitioner and its CEO liable for illegal
dismissal and ordering to pay respondent his full backwages and separation pay. The alleged highgrading attributed
by LCMCs security guards was found to have been fabricated; consequently, there was no just cause for the
dismissal of respondent.

On December 8, 2008, petitioner and its CEO filed an Appearance with Memorandum of Appeal before the NLRC,
instead of posting the required appeal bond in the form of a cash bond or a surety bond. They requested that the
NLRC release the cash bond which they had posted in the separate case, Dangiw Siggaao case, which was decided
earlier in its favor, and apply that same cash bond to their present appeal bond liability.

NLRC dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and the latters CEO for non-perfection. It found that they had failed to
post the required appeal bond, hence, declared the Labor Arbiters decision to be final and executory. NLRC also
denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner and its CEO.

The CA affirmed the Order of the NLRC. According to the Cam petitioner and the latters CEO lost the right to appeal.
The CA explained that under Article 223 of the Labor Code, an appeal from the labor arbiters Decisionmust be filed
within 10 calendar days from receipt of the decision. In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, the posting of
a cash or surety bond in an amount equivalent to the monetary award is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. In
the instant case, the CA found that petitioner and its CEO did not pay the appeal fees and the required appeal bond
equivalent to₱345,879.45. Instead, it filed a Consolidated Motion praying that the cash bond it had previously posted
in another labor case be released and applied to the present one. According to the CA, this arrangement is not
allowed under the rules ofprocedure of the NLRC. Nevertheless, the CA ruled that the CEO of petitioner should be
drooped as a party to this case. The labor arbiter did not cite any factual or legal basis in its Decision that would
render the CEO liable to respondent.

ISSUE:
Did the petitioner comply with the appeal bond requirement under the Labor Code and the NLRC Rules by
filing a Consolidated Motion to release cash bond it posted in another case?

HELD:
Under Article 223 of the Labor Code, in appeals from any decision or order of the labor arbiter, the posting of an
appeal bond is required. 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 judgment appealed from.

The 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure incorporates this requirement in Rule VI, Section 6, which provides: In case the
decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be
perfect only upon the posting of a bond.

2
In Viron Garments Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. NLRC, the court explained the mandatory nature of this requirement as
follows: The intention of the lawmakers to make the bond an indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal by
the employer, is clearly limned in the provision that an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting
of a cash or surety bond. The word only makes it perfectly clear, that the lawmakers intended the posting of a cash or
surety bond by the employer to be the exclusive means by which an employer's appeal may be perfected.

In Araneta v. Rodas, where the Court said that when the law does not clearly provide a rule or norm for the tribunal to
follow in deciding a question submitted, but leaves to the tribunal the discretion to determine the case in one way or
another, the judge must decide the question in conformity with justice, reason and equity, in view of the circumstances
of the case.

Applying this doctrine, we rule that petitioner substantially complied with the mandatory requirement of posting an
appeal bond for the reasons explained below:

First, there is no question that the appeal was filed within the 10-day reglementary period. Except for the alleged
failure to post an appeal bond, the appeal to the NLRC was therefore in order.

Second, it is also undisputed that petitioner an unencumbered amount of money in the form of cash in the custody of
the NLRC. To reiterate, petitioner had posted a cash bond of ₱401,610.84 in the separate case Dangiw Siggaao,
which was earlier decided in its favor. As claimed by petitioner and confirmed by the Judgment Division of the Judicial
Records Office of this Court, the Decision of the Court in Dangiw Siggaao had become final and executory as of 28
April 2008,or more than seven months before petitioner had to file its appeal in the present case. This fact is shown by
the Entry of Judgment on file with the aforementioned office. Hence, the cash bond in that case ought to have been
released to petitioner then.

Third, the cash bond in the amount of ₱401,610.84 posted in Dangiw Siggaao is more than enough to cover the
appeal bond in the amount of ₱345,879.45required in the present case.
Fourth, this ruling remains faithful to the spirit behind the appeal bond requirement which is to ensure that workers will
receive the money awarded in their favor when the employers appeal eventually fails. There was no showing at all of
any attempt on the part of petitioner to evade the posting of the appeal bond. On the contrary, petitioners move
showed a willingness to comply with the requirement. Hence, the welfare of Icao is adequately protected.

This Court has liberally applied the NLRC Rules and the Labor Code provisions on the posting of an appeal bond in
exceptional cases. In Your Bus Lines v. NLRC, the Court excused the appellants failure to post a bond, because it
relied on the notice of the decision. While the notice enumerated all the other requirements for perfecting an appeal, it
did not include a bond in the list. In Blancaflor v. NLRC, the failure of the appellant therein to post a bond was partly
caused by the labor arbiters failure to state the exact amount of monetary award due, which would have been the
basis of the amount of the bond to be posted. In Cabalan Pastulan Negrito Labor Association v. NLRC, petitioner-
appellant was an association of Negritos performing trash-sorting services in the American naval base in Subic Bay.
The plea of the association that its appeal be given due course despite its non-posting of a bond, on account of its
insolvency and poverty, was granted by this Court.

In the above cited cases, the Court found exceptional circumstance that warranted an extraordinary exercise of its
power to exempt a party from the rules on appeal bond, there is all the more reason in the present case to find that
petitioner substantially complied with the requirement. The Court will liberally apply the rules on in very highly
exceptional cases such as this, in keeping with the dictates of justice, reason and equity. GRANTED.

G.R. No. 87530 June 13, 1990

GERONIMO SADOL, petitioner,
vs.
PILIPINAS KAO, INC., REQUITO VEGA, BELEN GOMEZ, ARTURO GOMEZ & NLRC SECOND DIVISION,
respondents.

FACTS:
Petitioner was recruited as a laborer by private respondents Requito Vega, Antonio Gomez and Belen Gomez, who
are the owners of Vega & Co., a private recruitment agency, with assignment at respondent Pilipinas Kao, Inc. (PKI
for brevity), particularly at the Pit Burning area. Sometime on April 16, 1984, he was allegedly summarily dismissed.
Hence, on July 24, 1986, he filed a complaint for reinstatement and backwages with Region X of the Department of
Labor and Employment in Cagayan de Oro City.

November 13, 1986, the labor arbiter ordered all parties to submit their position papers. Only petitioner complied. On
December 17, 1986, petitioner filed an urgent motion that the failure of respondent to file their position papers is a
waiver and so judgment should be rendered in favor of petitioner. Similar motions were filed by petitioner on January
23, 1987 and May 15, 1987.

3
June 26, 1987, the labor arbiter rendered a decision ordering private respondents to jointly and solidarity pay
petitioner his separation pay computed at one month for every year of service within the reglementary period.
Petitioner appealed to the NLRC. Said respondents also appealed but it was filed out of time.

August 26, 1988, the Second Division of the NLRC promulgated a decision modifying the appealed decision in that
respondent PKI was ordered to reinstate petitioner to his former position without loss of seniority rights and other
accrued benefits and with full backwages from the time of dismissal up to his actual reinstatement, and in case
reinstatement is impossible, payment of full backwages and separation pay of one (1) month salary for every year of
service. The appeal of respondent Pig was dismissed for having been filed out of time.

The PKI allegedly received a copy of the decision of the NLRC only on September 13, 1988. A motion for
reconsideration of said decision dated September 22, 1988 was filed by said respondent and a similar motion was
filed by Samahang Kabuhayan ng Barangay Luz Banzon (SKLB for brevity) to which an opposition was filed by
petitioner.

On September 30, 1988, a resolution was promulgated by the same division of the NLRC, setting aside its decision
and dismissing the case for lack of merit. A motion for reconsideration thereof filed by petitioner who besides
questioning its findings of facts raised the issue that said respondent’s appeal having been filed out of time its motion
for reconsideration of the decision should not have been entertained as it raised issues for the first on appeal which
were not raised before the labor arbiter. This motion was denied on November 27, 1988.

RULING:
There is no question that private respondents failed to file a timely appeal from the derision of the labor arbiter while
the petitioner was able to interpose his appeal within the reglementary period. It is also an accepted postulate that
issues not raised in the lower court or the labor arbiter may not be raised for the first time on appeal.
The rules of technicality must yield to the broader interest of justice. It is only by giving due course to the motion for
reconsideration that was timely filed that the NLRC may be able, to equitably evaluate the conflicting versions of facts
presented by the parties.

Attached to respondent SKLB’s motion likewise is the joint affidavit of one Mario T. Ecarnum and Benito U. Ecarnum
who jointly stated that they were neighbors and co- workers of the complainant in the pit burning area, in a work
contracted by aforesaid respondent with respondent Pilipinas Kao, Inc.; that complainant abandoned his work starting
April 19,1984 when he went to Manila to apply for work abroad and it wall only about eight (8) months later that he
returned when he failed to secure an overseas employment; that complainant’s prolonged absence was without prior
permission or leave of absence.

It does strike Us as odd that if indeed complainant was dismissed sometime in April 1984 it took him almost three (3)
years before filing the instant case for illegal dismissal . This circumstance adds a significant dimension to
respondent’s position that indeed complainant abandoned his job to look for greener pastures and it was only when he
failed to find such opportunity that he came back to demand that he be allowed to resume the employment which he
unceremoniously abandoned.

All the foregoing undisputed taken together, preponderate in favor of respondent SKLB’s claim of being a lawful
independent labor contractor which employed complainant who unjustifiably abandoned his employment.

MARIANO ONG, doing business under the name and style MILESTONE METAL MANUFACTURING v.

THE COURT OF APPEALS, CONRADO DABAC, BERNABE TAYACTAC, MANUEL ABEJUELLA, LOLITO
ABELONG, RONNIE HERRERO, APOLLO PAMIAS, JAIME ONGUTAN, NOEL ATENDIDO, CARLOS TABBAL,
JOEL ATENDIDO, BIENVENIDO EBBER, RENATO ABEJUELLA, LEONILO ATENDIDO, JR.,
LODULADO FAA and JAIME LOZADA G.R. No. 152494
September 22, 2004 YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

PERFECTION OF APPEAL; APPEAL BOND

DOCTRINE:
The NLRC Rules clearly provide that the filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to
perfect appeal. Ong should have seasonably filed the appeal bond within the ten-day reglementary period following
the receipt of the order, resolution or decision of the NLRC to forestall the finality of such order, resolution or decision.
In the alternative, he should have paid only a moderate and reasonable sum for the premium. The law does not
require its outright payment, but only the posting of a bond to ensure that the award will be eventually paid should the
appeal fail. What petitioners have to pay is a moderate and reasonable sum for the premium for such bond.
4
FACTS:
Mariano Ong is the sole proprietor of Milestone Metal Manufacturing, which manufactures, among others, wearing
apparels, belts, and umbrellas. Sometime in May 1998, the business suffered very low sales and productivity
because of the economic crisis in the country. Hence, it adopted a rotation scheme by reducing the workdays of its
employees to 3 days a week or less for an indefinite period.

On separate dates, the 15 respondents filed before the NLRC complaints for illegal dismissal, underpayment of
wages, non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, SIL pay, 13th month pay, damages, and attorney’s fees against
Ong.

Ong claimed that:

 9 of the 15 respondents were not employees of Milestone but of Proton Industrial Corporation which, however,
stopped its operation due to business losses.
 Abuela, Abelong, Herrero, Tabbal, Dabac, and Faa were not dismissed from employment; rather, they refused to
work after the rotation scheme was adopted.
 Anent their monetary claims, Ong presented documents showing that he paid respondents minimum wage, 13th
month pay, holiday pay, and contributions to the SSS, Medicare, and Pag-ibig Funds.

LA RULING: On Nov. 25, 1999, LA awarded respondents P1,111,200.40 representing their wage differential, holiday
pay, SIL pay, and 13th month pay, plus 10% attorney’s fees and ordered Ong to pay respondents separation pay due
to the indefiniteness of the rotation scheme and strained relations caused by the filing of the complaints.

Ong filed with the NLRC a notice of appeal with a memorandum of appeal and paid the docket fees but instead of
posting the required cash or surety bond, he filed a motion to reduce the appeal bond.

NLRC RULING: On April 28, 2000, the NLRC denied the motion to reduce bond and dismissed the appeal for failure
to post cash or surety bond. MR was also denied.

CA RULING: Petition for certiorari was dismissed. MR was denied.

Hence, this petition for review where Ong contends that he was deprived of the chance to post bond because the
NLRC took 102 days to decide his motion.

ISSUE: Is the mere filing of the motion to reduce the appeal bond, without posting the required surety or cash bond,
sufficient to perfect an appeal?

SC RULING:
NO. The NLRC did not act with GAD when it denied Ong’s motion for the same failed to either elucidate why the
amount of the bond was unjustified and prohibitive or to indicate what would be a reasonable level. A substantial
monetary award, even if it runs into millions, does not necessarily give the employer-appellant a meritorious case and
does not automatically warrant a reduction of the appeal bond.

Even granting arguendo that Ong has meritorious grounds to reduce the appeal bond, the result would have been the
same since he failed to post cash or surety bond within the prescribed period.

An appeal from the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC must be perfected within ten calendar days from receipt of such
decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter. In a judgment involving a monetary award, the appeal shall be
perfected only upon (1) proof of payment of the required appeal fee; (2) posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a
reputable bonding company; and (3) filing of a memorandum of appeal. A mere notice of appeal without complying
with the other requisites mentioned shall not stop the running of the period for perfection of appeal. The posting of
cash or surety bond is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well, and non-compliance therewith is fatal and has the
effect of rendering the judgment final and executory. This requirement is intended to discourage employers from
using the appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy their employees just and lawful claims.

The intention of the lawmakers to make the bond an indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the
employer is underscored by the provision that an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a
cash or surety bond. The word only makes it perfectly clear that the lawmakers intended the posting of a cash or
surety bond by the employer to be the exclusive means by which an employers appeal may be perfected.

The fact that the NLRC took 102 days to resolve the motion will not help Ong’s case. The NLRC Rules clearly provide
that the filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect appeal. Ong should have
seasonably filed the appeal bond within the ten-day reglementary period following the receipt of the order, resolution
or decision of the NLRC to forestall the finality of such order, resolution or decision. In the alternative, he should have
paid only a moderate and reasonable sum for the premium. The law does not require its outright payment, but only

5
the posting of a bond to ensure that the award will be eventually paid should the appeal fail. What petitioners have to
pay is a moderate and reasonable sum for the premium for such bond.

While the bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards has been relaxed in certain cases, this can only
be done where there was substantial compliance of the Rules or where the appellants, at the very least, exhibited
willingness to pay by posting a partial bond.

Ong did not post a full or partial appeal bond within the prescribed period, thus, no appeal was perfected from the
decision of the Labor Arbiter. For this reason, the decision sought to be appealed to the NLRC had become final and
executory and therefore immutable. Clearly, then, the NLRC has no authority to entertain the appeal, much less to
reverse the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Any amendment or alteration made which substantially affects the final and
executory judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceeding held for that purpose.

The petition was denied. The CA decision was affirmed.

[G.R. No. 126322. January 16, 2002]

YUPANGCO COTTON MILLS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. URBANO C. VICTORIO, SR.,
Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 50, Manila, RODRIGO SY MENDOZA, SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG ARTEX
(SAMAR-ANGLO) represented by its Local President RUSTICO CORTEZ, and WESTERN GUARANTY
CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS:
“From the records before us and by petitioner’s own allegations and admission, it has taken the following actions in
connection with its claim that a sheriff of the National Labor Relations Commission “erroneously and unlawfully levied”
upon certain properties which it claims as its own.
“1. It filed a notice of third-party claim with the Labor Arbiter on May 4, 1995.
“2. It filed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on July 4, 1995, which
was dismissed on August 30, 1995, by the Labor Arbiter.
“3. It filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 49, docketed as Civil
Case No. 95-75628 on October 6, 1995. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case on October 11, 1995 for lack of
merit.
“4. It appealed to the NLRC the order of the Labor Arbiter dated August 13, 1995 which dismissed the appeal for lack
of merit on December 8, 1995.
“5. It filed an original petition for mandatory injunction with the NLRC on November 16, 1995. This was docketed as
Case No. NLRC-NCR-IC. 0000602-95. This case is still pending with that Commission.
“6. It filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court in Manila which was docketed as Civil Case No. 95-76395. The
dismissal of this case by public respondent triggered the filing of the instant petition.
“In all of the foregoing actions, petitioner raised a common issue, which is that it is the owner of the properties located
in the compound and buildings of Artex Development Corporation, which were erroneously levied upon by the sheriff
of the NLRC as a consequence of the decision rendered by the said Commission in a labor case docketed as NLRC-
NCR Case No. 00-05-02960-90.”[2]
On March 29, 1996, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision[3] dismissing the petition on the ground of forum
shopping and that petitioner’s remedy was to seek relief from this Court.
On April 18, 1996, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration of the decision.[4] Petitioner
argued that the filing of a complaint for accion reinvindicatoria with the Regional Trial Court was proper because it is a
remedy specifically granted to an owner (whose properties were subjected to a writ of execution to enforce a decision
rendered in a labor dispute in which it was not a party) by Section 17 (now 16), Rule 39, Revised Rules of Court and
by the doctrines laid down in Sy v. Discaya,[5] Santos v. Bayhon[6] and Manliguez v. Court of Appeals.[7]
On August 27, 1996, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration

RULING:
1) FORUM SHOPPING. There is no forum-shopping where two different orders were questioned, two distinct causes
of action and issues were raised, and two objectives were sought.
In the case at bar, there was no identity of parties, rights and causes of action and reliefs sought.
The case before the NLRC where Labor Arbiter Reyes issued a writ of execution on the property of petitioner was a
labor dispute between Artex and Samar-Anglo. Petitioner was not a party to the case. The only issue petitioner raised
before the NLRC was whether or not the writ of execution issued by the labor arbiter could be satisfied against the
property of petitioner, not a party to the labor case.
On the other hand, the accion reinvindicatoria filed by petitioner in the trial court was to recover the property illegally
levied upon and sold at auction. Hence, the causes of action in these cases were different.
2) THIRD PARTY CLAIM. a third party whose property has been levied upon by a sheriff to enforce a decision against
a judgment debtor is afforded with several alternative remedies to protect its interests. The third party may avail
himself of alternative remedies cumulatively, and one will not preclude the third party from availing himself of the other
alternative remedies in the event he failed in the remedy first availed of.
Thus, a third party may avail himself of the following alternative remedies:

6
a) File a third party claim with the sheriff of the Labor Arbiter, and
b) If the third party claim is denied, the third party may appeal the denial to the NLRC.[13]
The remedies above mentioned are cumulative and may be resorted to by a third-party claimant independent of or
separately from and without need of availing of the others. If a third-party claimant opted to file a proper action to
vindicate his claim of ownership, he must institute an action, distinct and separate from that in which the judgment is
being enforced, with the court of competent jurisdiction even before or without need of filing a claim in the court which
issued the writ, the latter not being a condition sine qua non for the former. In such proper action, the validity and
sufficiency of the title of the third-party claimant will be resolved and a writ of preliminary injunction against the sheriff
may be issued.

[G.R. No. 120567. March 20, 1998]

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, vs., NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FERDINAND
PINEDA and GODOFREDO CABLING, respondents.

FACTS: Private respondents are flight stewards of the petitioner. Both were dismissed from the service for their
alleged involvement in the currency smuggling in Hong Kong. Aggrieved by said dismissal, private respondents filed
with the NLRC a petition for injunction. The NLRC issued a temporary mandatory injunction enjoining petitioner to
cease and desist from enforcing its Memorandum of dismissal.

In support of the issuance of the writ of temporary injunction, the NLRC adopted the view that: (1) private respondents
cannot be validly dismissed on the strength of petitioner's Code of Discipline which was declared illegal by this Court
for the reason that it was formulated by the petitioner without the participation of its employees (2) the whimsical,
baseless and premature dismissals of private respondents which "caused them grave and irreparable injury" is
enjoinable as private respondents are left "with no speedy and adequate remedy at law' except the issuance of a
temporary mandatory injunction; (3) the NLRC is empowered not only to restrain any actual or threatened commission
of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts but also to require the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute,
which, if not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party; and (4) the
temporary mandatory power of the NLRC was recognized by this Court.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration arguing that the NLRC erred in granting a temporary injunction order when it has
no jurisdiction to issue an injunction or restraining order since this may be issued only under Article 218 of the Labor
Code if the case involves or arises from labor disputes. The NLRC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The
now petitioner, for one, cannot validly claim that NLRC cannot exercise its injunctive power under Article 218 (e) of the
Labor Code on the pretext that what NLRC have here is not a labor dispute as long as it concedes that as defined by
law, Labor Dispute includes any controversy or matter concerning terms or conditions of employment.

ISSUE: WON the NLRC even without a complaint for illegal dismissal filed before the labor arbiter, entertain an action
for injunction and issue such writ enjoining petitioner Philippine Airlines, Inc. from enforcing its Orders of dismissal
against private respondents, and ordering petitioner to reinstate the private respondents to their previous positions.

RULING: No. It is an essential requirement that there must first be a labor dispute between the contending parties
before the labor arbiter. In the present case, there is no labor dispute between the petitioner and private respondents
as there has yet been no complaint for illegal dismissal filed with the labor arbiter by the private respondents against
the petitioner. The petition for injunction directly filed before the NLRC is in reality an action for illegal dismissal. Thus,
the NLRC exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued the assailed Order granting private respondents' petition for
injunction and ordering the petitioner to reinstate private respondents. Under the Labor Code, the ordinary and proper
recourse of an illegally dismissed employee is to file a complaint for illegal dismissal with the labor arbiter. In the case
at bar, private respondents disregarded this rule and directly went to the NLRC through a petition for injunction
praying that petitioner be enjoined from enforcing its dismissal orders. Furthermore, an examination of private
respondents' petition for injunction reveals that it has no basis since there is no showing of any urgency or irreparable
injury which the private respondents might suffer.

An injunction, as an extraordinary remedy, is not favored in labor law considering that it generally has not proved to be
an effective means of settling labor disputes. It has been the policy of the State to encourage the parties to use the
non-judicial process of negotiation and compromise, mediation and arbitration. Thus, injunctions may be issued only
in cases of extreme necessity based on legal grounds clearly established, after due consultations or hearing and
when all efforts at conciliation are exhausted which factors, however, are clearly absent in the present case. Injunction
is a preservative remedy for the protection of one's substantive rights or interest. It is not a cause of action in itself but
merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit. It is resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity to
avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard of compensation. The application of the
injunctive writ rests upon the existence of an emergency or of a special reason before the main case be regularly
heard. The essential conditions for granting such temporary injunctive relief are that the complaint alleges facts which
appear to be sufficient to constitute a proper basis for injunction and that on the entire showing from the contending
parties, the injunction is reasonably necessary to protect the legal rights of the plaintiff pending the litigation. Injunction
is also a special equitable relief granted only in cases where there is no plain, adequate and complete remedy at law
7