10/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 429

VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 573

Corporate Inn Hotel vs. Lizo

*
G.R. No. 148279. May 27, 2004.

CORPORATE INN HOTEL, ANNIE DEL ROSARIO AND

JULIE PALINSAD, petitioners, vs. JENNEVIE H. LIZO,
respondent.

Actions; Appeals; The right to appeal is a statutory right and

one who seeks to avail of the right must comply with the statute or
rules.—At the outset, it bears stressing that the right to appeal is
a statutory right and one who seeks to avail of the right must
comply with the statute or rules. The rules, particularly the
requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary
period specified in the law, must be strictly followed as they are
considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays
and for orderly discharge of judicial business.
Same; Same; Labor Law; The National Labor Relations
Commission Rules, akin to the Rules of Court, promulgated by
authority of law, have the force and effect of law.—The NLRC
Rules, akin to the Rules of Court, promulgated by authority of
law, have the force and effect of law; and such NLRC rules
prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or
certain proceedings taken, are considered absolutely
indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the
orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business.
Same; Same; Same; Procedural Rules and Technicalities; The
Court cannot respond with alacrity to every clamor of injustice and
bend the rules to placate a vociferous protestor crying and
claiming to be a victim of a wrong—it is only in highly meritorious
cases that the Court opts not to strictly apply the rules and thus
prevent a grave injustice from being done.—Similarly, in Peftok
Integrated Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, we considered the appeal of
petitioner therein as flawed for being late, its appeal having been
interposed seven (7) days beyond the 10-day reglementary period.
While we may have sidestepped the rule on the statutory or
reglementary period for filing an appeal, yet, we emphasized this
caveat: “we cannot respond with alacrity to every clamor of

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001753670a3f2331523d3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
10/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 429

injustice and bend the rules to placate a vociferous protestor

crying and claiming to be a victim of a wrong. It is only in highly
meritorious cases that this Court opts not to strictly apply the
rules and thus prevent a grave injustice from being done.”
However this exception does not obtain here.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

574

574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Corporate Inn Hotel vs. Lizo

     Hercules O. Cabug-os for petitioners.

     Marlo A. Benzon for private respondent.

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

At the heart of the controversy is the issue of whether

petitioners, by the simple expedient of arguing substantial
justice and miscarriage of justice, may be allowed to
disregard the mandatory 10-day period of perfecting an
appeal from the decision of the Labor Arbiter. A
reverberating negative ruling was rendered by both the
Court of Appeals and the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC).
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules
1
of Civil Procedure, as amended,
assailing the
2
Decision dated March 30, 2001 and the
Resolution dated May 23, 2001 rendered by the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 59037, entitled “Corporate Inn
Hotel, Annie Del Rosario and Julie Palinsad vs. Jennevie
H. Lizo.”
The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:
On January 25, 1999, Corporate Inn Hotel, petitioner,
engaged the services of Jennevie Lizo, respondent, as a
probationary account executive. In such capacity, she was
tasked to deal with clients, entertain customers, and
promote patronage of the hotel. However, just a few weeks
after her employment, petitioner received complaints from
its clients against her for undesirable conduct. They also

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001753670a3f2331523d3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
10/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 429

called petitioner’s attention to her inefficiency in

discharging her duties.
Prompted by such reports, petitioner, on February 8,
1999, evaluated respondent’s performance. The evaluation
disclosed her inability to deal with hotel guests. Thus, she
was recommended to undergo an additional training under
maximum supervision. But barely twenty-one (21) days
after her employment, petitioner terminated her services
effective February 15, 1999.
Aggrieved, respondent filed with the Labor Arbiter a
complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims
against petitioner

_______________

1 Annex “T-1” of the Petition for Review, Rollo at pp. 145-154.

2 Annex “V,” Id., at p. 158.

575

VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 575

Corporate Inn Hotel vs. Lizo

and its officers, Annie Del Rosario and Julie Palinsad,

docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-03-02577-99.
On September 30, 1999, the Labor Arbiter rendered a
Decision holding that respondent was illegally dismissed,
thus:

“All told, it is the finding of this Arbitration Branch that the

imputation against the complainant are but the product of
afterthoughts, if not surmises, and guessworks. The inevitable
conclusion is that complainant was dismissed without just and
valid cause and absent due process. Accordingly, she is entitled to
her backwages from February 15, 1999 up to the date of this
decision and to separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary,
hereunder computed as follows:

Backwages: P6,000.00/mo. x 7.5 mos. = P 45,000.00

Separation Pay: at one (1) month pay = P 6,000.00
  TOTAL   P51,000.00

“On the matter of the complainant’s claim for moral and

exemplary damages, this is not substantiated by the complainant.
Mere allegation of illegal dismissal is not enough as it is required
that complainant must prove that bad faith on the part of the
respondents attended her dismissal from employment.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001753670a3f2331523d3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
10/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 429

“WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises being considered,

judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondents to pay
complainant the sum of P51,000.00.
“SO ORDERED.”

Upon appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission

(NLRC), in a Resolution dated March 31, 2000, dismissed
the same for being late.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but was
denied by the NLRC in a Resolution dated April 28, 2000.
Consequently, petitioners filed with the Court of
Appeals a petition for certiorari.
In a Decision promulgated on March 30, 2001, the
Appellate Court affirmed in toto the NLRC Resolution,
ratiocinating thus:

“We dismiss the petition.

First. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary
period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional. Non-
compliance therewith is fatal and it renders the judgment final
and executory. Noncompliance with the required procedure
deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the final
judgment, much less, to entertain the appeal.

576

576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Corporate Inn Hotel vs. Lizo

The requirements for the perfection of an appeal are intended to

discourage employers from using the appeal to delay or evade
their obligations to their employees. It also assures employees
that the money judgment in their favor will be satisfied.
The reglementary period for perfecting an appeal is provided
for in Art. 223 of the Labor Code, to wit:

‘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: x x x’

Whereas, the manner for perfecting an appeal is outlined in

Section 3(a), Rule VI of the NLRC New Rules of Procedure, to wit:

‘SECTION 3. 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 under oath with proof of payment of the
required appeal fee and the posting of a cash or surety bond as provided

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001753670a3f2331523d3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
10/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 429

in Section 6 of this Rule; shall be accompanied by memorandum of appeal

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, order or award and 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 ours)

In addition, Art. 223 of the Labor Code, 2nd paragraph,

provides that:

‘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.’

Therefore, an appeal is perfected by simultaneously filing a

notice of appeal and a memorandum of appeal and by posting an
appeal bond, all within the period of ten (10) days from receipt of
the questioned decision.
In the instant case, petitioner Corporate Inn’s appeal to the
NLRC was filed out of time and petitioner realized this lapse from
start but it pleaded for leniency with the NLRC, as it does now
before Us. x x x:
xxx

577

VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 577

Corporate Inn Hotel vs. Lizo

Unfortunately, none of these circumstances sways Us to relax

the rules in favor of petitioner. x x x
xxx
Third. So far, petitioner has taken great pains to plead for a
relaxation of the reglementary period for filing an appeal. But
while doing so, it failed to establish the other requisite for the
perfection of an appeal—the posting of an appeal bond.
Understandably, the NLRC no longer saw it fit to discuss this
requisite due to its conclusion that the appeal was filed out of
time. However, it was incumbent upon petitioner to allege
compliance with the required appeal bond in its petition to add
more depth to the theory that it has perfected its appeal, but it
did not. This lapse compounds petitioner’s clearly untenable
position on its tardy appeal and leaves no doubt in Our minds
that indeed petitioners failed in all aspects to perfect its appeal.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001753670a3f2331523d3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
10/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 429

“WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED

and the resolutions of the NLRC, dated 31 March 2000 and 28
April 2000 are SUSTAINED in toto. Costs against petitioners.
“SO ORDERED.”

From the said Decision, petitioners filed a motion for

reconsideration, but was denied by the Court of Appeals in
a Resolution dated May 23, 2001.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
The issue before us is not novel.
At the outset, it bears stressing that the right to appeal
is a statutory right and one who seeks to avail of the right
must comply with the statute or rules. The rules,
particularly the requirements for perfecting an appeal
within the reglementary period specified in the law, must be
strictly followed as they are considered indispensable
interdictions against needless 3
delays and for orderly
discharge of judicial business.
The NLRC Rules, akin to the Rules of Court,
promulgated by authority of law, have the force and effect
of law; and such NLRC rules prescribing the time within
which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings
taken, are considered absolutely indispensable to the
prevention of needless delays 4and to the orderly and speedy
discharge of judicial business.

_______________

3 Arnold Ginete vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127596, September
24, 1998, 296 SCRA 38.
4 See, Shioji vs. Harvey, 43 Phil. 333 (1922).

578

578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Corporate Inn Hotel vs. Lizo

Thus, petitioners are mandated to perfect their appeal in

the manner and within the period permitted by law and
failure to do so renders the judgment of the Labor Arbiter
final and executory.
In Veterans Philippine Scout Security Agency vs.
National5
Labor Relations Commission and Roberto De Los
Santos, we held:

“Under Article 223 of the Labor Code, a decision of a Labor

Arbiter is final and executory unless appealed to the National
Labor Relations Commission by any or both of the parties within

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001753670a3f2331523d3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
10/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 429

ten (10) days from notice of the said Decision. Thus, the perfection
of an appeal within the reglementary period for the same is
jurisdictional in character.”
6
Similarly, in Peftok Integrated Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, we
considered the appeal of petitioner therein as flawed for
being late, its appeal having been interposed seven (7) days
beyond the 10-day reglementary period.
While we may have sidestepped the rule on the
statutory or reglementary period for filing an appeal, yet,
we emphasized this caveat: “we cannot respond with
alacrity to every clamor of injustice and bend the rules to
placate a vociferous protestor crying and claiming to be a
victim of a wrong. It is only in highly meritorious cases that
this Court opts not to strictly apply the rules7
and thus
prevent a grave injustice from being done.” However this
exception does not obtain here.
We thus find no compelling reason to reverse the
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision
dated March 30, 2001 and Resolution dated May 23, 2001
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 59037 are
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

     Vitug (Chairman), Corona and Carpio-Morales, JJ.,

concur.

Petition denied, assailed decision affirmed.

_______________

5 G.R. No. 78062, June 28, 1989, 174 SCRA 347.

6 G.R. No. 124841, July 31, 1998, 293 SCRA 507.
7 Sublay vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 130104,
January 31, 2000, 324 SCRA 188, 194.

579

VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 579

People vs. Belonio

Notes.—The right to appeal is not a natural right or a

part of due process, it is a purely statutory privilege, and
may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance
with the provisions of the law. (Barangay 24 of Legazpi
City vs. Imperial, 338 SCRA 694 [2000])

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001753670a3f2331523d3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
10/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 429

The right to appeal is not a constitutional, natural or

inherent right—it is a statutory privilege of statutory
origin and, therefore, available only if granted or provided
by statute. (Yao vs. Court of Appeals, 344 SCRA 202 [2000])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001753670a3f2331523d3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8