G.R. No. 116884 – 351 Phil. 368 – 288 SCRA 129 – Labor Law – Jurisdiction and Reliefs – Quitclaims – NLRC Remedies – Appeal in Labor Cases; Certiorari; Appeal Bond
In 1992, the Apex Mining Co., Inc. shut down its Masara mining operations in Maco, Davao Del Norte. As a result, the employment of Rizalino Alcosero and 260 other employees were terminated. Alcosero et al were supervisors, security guards, and other personnel for the said mining site.
In June 1992, Alcosero et al filed a labor case against Apex for unpaid 13th month pay for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992 for a total of about P11.3 million. Apex admitted liability for unpaid 13th month pay for the year 1990 only or for P3.2 million. The Labor Arbiter then ordered Apex to pay. Apex made separate payments in December 1992 and January 1993. Alcosero et al, however, signed a quitclaim when they received the payment. The quitclaim used was the standard form prepared and issued by the DOLE and were signed with the knowledge of the labor arbiter.
But later, Alcosero et al asserted before the labor arbiter that Apex still has to pay the 13th month pays for 1991 and 1992. The Labor Arbiter ordered Apex to file a comment which it repeatedly failed to do. The labor arbiter then issued an order mandating Apex to pay the rest.
From the date of receipt of the decision, Apex, under NLRC rules, has 10 days to file an appeal and pay the appeal bond. Apex appealed on the 7th day before the NLRC but instead of paying an appeal bond (also required by the rules), Apex filed a motion to reduce the appeal bond. The NLRC granted an extension and Apex filed a reduced bond within the extended period.
Eventually, the NLRC ruled that since the employees signed the quitclaim, Apex was released from the other claims. The employees did not file a motion for reconsideration for the NLRC decision, instead, they immediately filed, through another petitioner, Oscar Atup, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
1. Is the filing of the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 by Atup et al proper?
2. Is the appeal by Apex to the NLRC perfected even though Apex did not pay the appeal bond within the 10-day period?
3. Is the quitclaim valid?
HELD:
1. No. The filing of a motion for reconsideration is 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. Atup et al’s explanation that it is their “quest for justice” which prompted them to avail of Rule 65 is not a valid ground to dispense of the procedural requirement.
2. Yes. As a general rule, in labor cases where the employer has lost and wishes to file an appeal, he must post an appeal bond equivalent to the monetary award (excluding award for moral and exemplary damages). The period of appeal and posting of bond must be within 10 days from receipt of the decision – the posting of bond perfects the appeal. However, if the appellant filed a motion to reduce the appeal bond, the appeal is nevertheless perfected if the appellant pays within the extended period even if it is already beyond the original 10-day period prescribed by the rules. In short, the 10-day rule may be relaxed depending on the merits of the case.
Side issue: Does the Labor Arbiter still have jurisdiction?
Yes, the LA retains jurisdiction over the case until the NLRC has acted on the motion to reduce the appeal bond and appellant has filed the bond as fixed by the NLRC.
3. Yes. 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.
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. 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.
In this case, there is no evidence that Apex pressured the employees into signing the quitclaim. In fact, the employees were assisted by the DOLE and the signing was with the knowledge of the labor arbiter. Further, there was no qualification in the quitclaim which provides that it only covers the liabilities of Apex for the year 1990.
