Manuel v. Ballad

TINGA, J.:

In this petition for review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioners Borja Estate and/or the Heirs of Manuel and Paula Borja and Atty. Mila Lauigan, in her capacity as the estate administrator (the Borjas) assail the Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals Thirteenth Division denying their motion for reconsideration and the 3 of the same division in CA-G.R. SP No. 60700, the dispositive portion of which states: WHEREFORE , foregoing considered, the assailed Resolutions dated April 14, 2000 and May 31, 2000 are hereby AFFIRMED in toto. The present petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.4 The above ruling of the Court of Appeals affirmed the Resolution 5 WHEREFORE , premises considered, respondents' Motion for Reduction of Bond is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

The instant Appeal is hereby DISMISSED for failure to post a cash or surety bond within the reglementary period. SO ORDERED. 6 The Borjas's motion for reconsideration of the above-quoted NLRC Resolution was likewise dismissed in another Resolution.

7 As the Borjas's appeal was not given due course, the Labor Arbiter's 8 WHEREFORE, with all the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the Spouses Rotillo and Rosita Ballad as illegally and unjustly dismissed in a whimsical and capricious manner which is oppressive to labor and respondents are jointly and severally ordered to reinstate complainants to their position as overseers without loss of seniority rights with full backwages, allowances and other benefits, computed as of the promulgation of this decision, as follows: 1. ₱25,245.00 - Backwages, June to October 30, 1999 x 2 (₱166 x 365 over 12 x 5 months)