Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Quezon City
TEOTIMO B. BIO,
Complainant-Appellee,
-versus-

LAC NO. 03-000554-15

RAV-IV-04-00694-14-C

WOOIN INDUSTRIES PHILS. INC.

SHIH CHOU/HAN HYE JEONG/
JANG WOO LEE,
Respondents-Appellants.
x------------------------------------------x
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
COMPLAINANT-APPELLEE, through undersigned counsel,
unto this Honorable Commission most respectfully moves for
the dismissal of the Motion for Reconsideration and manifests
the following:
1. The dismissal of the appeal by the Honorable
Commission in its Resolution dated April 20, 2015
was well taken for being in accordance with the law
and rules of procedure;
2. The Ex-Parte Motion to be Excused from Posting
Bond and Manifestation allegedly filed with the
Appeal, was correctly acted upon by the Honorable
Commission, for the complainant-appellee was not
provided with a copy of such Motion and was not set
for hearing, is just like a scrap of paper and does not
deserve a favorable action thus, denial of the same
was only proper and in order;

3. That the leading case of Star Angel Handicraft vs.

National Labor Relations Commission (G.R. No.
1208914, 20 September 1994) cited in their Motion
in support thereof, is not applicable because this
instant case is not similar with the cited leading case.
In the case of Star Angel Handicrafts, the Motion was
filed before posting of the bond precisely because
the amount of bond was contested. But in this
instant case of Teotimo Bio, the amount of bond was
not contested;
4. Likewise in the case of Erectors Inc. v. NLRC, the
order of NLRC which required the appellant to post a
bond was nullified as the bond was erroneously
computed based on the salary which the employee
was no longer receiving at the time of his separation
and which even included in the computation the
award of P400,000.00 for moral and exemplary
damages, this prevailing circumstances are not
present in this instant case of Teotimo Bio;
5. Still in another case cited by the respondentsappellants, the case of Rizalino Z. Alcosero et al.,vs.
NLRC, Commissioners Musib M. Buat, Oscar F. Abella,
Leon G. Gonzaga, Jr. and Apex Mining Company, Inc.,
respondents, in this case APEX filed in lieu of an
appeal bond a motion for the reduction of the bond
together with the Memorandum of Appeal seven (7)
days from receipt of the Labor Arbiters decision.
The NLRC held that the appeal of APEX was founded
on meritorious grounds, hence, it gave due course to
the same despite the fact that no appeal bond was
posted at that time. The NLRC could not be faulted
for doing so since it had authority to entertain
motions for the reduction of the appeal bond. And
when APEX posted the required bond within the
extended period granted by the NLRC, it was deemed
to have seasonably perfected its appeal., as ruled
by the Supreme Court. Among the grounds and
2

evidence submitted by APEX were the individual

Receipt and Quitclaim which were found to be
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.
6. Thus, the case of Rizalino A. Alcosero IS NOT ALSO
APPLICABLE in this instant case, for the Motion of
respondents-appellants
WOOIN INDUSTRIES PHILS.
INC. et al., is not founded on meritorious grounds. As
embodied in the NLRC Resolution, respondents filed
their Ex-Parte Motion to be Excused from Posting Bond
and Manifestation asserting that since there is a
reasonable ground to expect a reversal of the decision
being assailed in the appeal filed, and the fact that
they have no financial capability to post a bond, they
should be exempted from posting the required bond.
Respondents-appellants are too presumptuous in
asserting that NLRC will act in their favor further
saying that they cannot afford financially to post a
bond; yet they did not submit evidence of bankruptcy
nor are they in the process of liquidation or under a
court proceeding of receivership. Mere allegation is
not evidence. Moreover, these are not meritorious
grounds to equate themselves with Apex Mining
Company, Inc. case;
7. Moreover, the Law and Rules do not provide for
exemption from posting appeal bond;
8. Furthermore, the appeal and
frivolous and dilatory tactics.

their

Motion

are

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, it is most
respectfully prayed of this Honorable Commission to DENY
respondents-appellants Motion for Reconsideration.
3

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Gen. Mariano Alvarez, Cavite, for Quezon City, May 11,
2015.

Respectfully submitted:
ILUMINADA M. VAFLOR-FABROA
Counsel for Complainant-Appellee
Attorneys Roll No. 21249 3-17-67
P.T.R. No. CAV 5839009A 1-07-15 TMC,
Cavite
IBP O.R. No. 951317 11-06-14 Imus, Cavite
MCLE Compliance No. V-0000208 6-24-13
Office Address: Vaflor-Fabroa Accounting & Law Consultancy
Services
Congressional Ave. cor. Visayas Ave., Brgy.
Maderan
Gen. Mariano Alvarez 4117, Cavite

PROOF OF SERVICE
EXPLANATION
Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of
Court, Counsel for the Respondents-Appellants was furnished a
copy of the Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration by
registered mail with return card due to distance and lack of
office messenger that makes personal delivery hardly feasible.
COPY FURNISHED to:
ATTY. EDSON T. EUFEMIO
Eufemio Law Offices
Counsel for Respondents-Appellants
4

Third Floor, The Esquire Centre

Gomezville St. cor. Guerrero St.
Addition Hills, Mandaluyong City
Tel. No. 7267831, 7267832