LAW DUTIES

Article 223 of the Labor Code, which sets forth the rules on appeal from the Labor Arbiter's monetary award, provides: 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 off the following grounds: (a) If there is  prima facie  evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter; (b) If the decision, order or award was secured through fraud or coercion, including graft and corruption; (c) If made purely on questions of law; and (d) If serious errors in the finding of facts are raised which would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant. 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 ...

The Court has time and again held that "[t]he right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law."  "The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost." G.R. No. 207156, TURKS SHAWARMA COMPANY/GEM ZEÑAROSA v. FELICIANO Z. PAJARON and LARRY A. CARBONILLA , January 16, 2017

1.     My lawyer shared the case of  Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas and Emily Rose Ko Lim Chao v. Mary Ann T. Castro, G.R. No. 172637, April 22, 2015, the Supreme Court says; We point out that to constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. The respondent in the present case summoned the SWAT for a purely personal matter, i.e., to aid her brother and sister-in-law. There was no link between the respondent’s acts and her official functions as a city prosecutor. In Manuel v. Judge Calimag, Jr., the Court explained that: x x x Misconduct in office has been authoritatively defined by Justice Tuazon in Lacson v. Lopez in these words: "Misconduct in office has a definite and well-understood legal meaning. By uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct such as affects his performance of his duties as an officer and not such only as affects hi...