5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In its decision of May 6, 2010,[20] the CA granted the petition and set aside the NLRC rulings. It found that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it decided the appeal on the merits despite Princess Joy’s failure “to comply with the essential requirement to perfect an appeal.”[21] It emphasized that under the law (Article 223 of the Labor Code) and the NLRC rules (Rule VI, Section 6 of the NLRC 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure), 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 equivalent in amount to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorney’s fees, within the ten-day appeal period. The CA found the P250,000.00 posted by Princess Joy insufficient in relation to the monetary award of P800,875.00. While it acknowledged that Princess Joy moved for a reduction of the bond, it stressed that the employer must post the bond within the 10day period for appeal inasmuch as the motion does not stop the running of the reglementary period; otherwise, the appeal is not deemed perfected. It noted that the NLRC did not act on Princess Joy’s motion to reduce and fix bond within the 10-day period. There being no perfected appeal, it opined, the labor arbiter’s judgment had become final and executory. Princess Joy moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion; thus the petition. The Petition Princess Joy prays for the reversal of the CA decision on the ground that the appellate court committed a serious reversible error in ruling that it failed to perfect its appeal. It argued that it complied with the requirements of the NLRC rules for perfection of the appeal, including the filing of a motion to reduce bond and the posting of a reasonable amount (P250,000.00) in relation to the monetary award. Princess Joy maintains that when the NLRC required the posting of an additional bond in its order of May 12, 2006, within ten days from receipt of the order, it timely posted the additional bond of P550,875.00 with supporting documents,[22] thus completing the required bond. It took exception to the CA’s opinion that the granting of the motion to reduce bond, as well as the posting of the additional bond set by the NLRC, must be made within the ten-day period. It regarded the CA opinion incorrect, pointing out that this Court had recognized situations where the bond has been validly posted after the ten-day period.[23] On the merits of the case, Princess Joy insisted that the NLRC correctly ruled that it should be dropped as a party respondent and absolved of liability in the case considering that Binalla’s alleged “re-processing” had not been proven. It argued that the individuals he mentioned as having recruited and facilitated his employment abroad were not its employees or agents; also, evidence showed that it was CBM who deployed Binalla to Saudi Arabia. Further, Princess Joy maintains that even assuming that it is liable, its liability to Binalla elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57076 4/12