G.R. No. 88943 May 21, 1990
ROGELIO INCIONG, ET AL., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PROCTER AND GAMBLE PHILIPPINES (PMC) AND/OR THE PRESIDENT/GENERAL MANAGER, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners were regular employees of Procter and Gamble Philippines Manufacturing Corporation (PMC). In the early 1980s, PMC implemented redundancy programs, namely a Special Early Retirement Program (SERP) and a Special Separation Package (SSP), as an economic recessionary measure. The petitioners accepted separation benefits under these programs. However, they later alleged that the company hired new employees at lower pay after their termination. Consequently, in 1986, they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, seeking reinstatement with backwages and other benefits.
On December 15, 1988, Labor Arbiter Felipe Pati ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring their termination illegal and ordering their reinstatement with backwages, minus the separation benefits received. PMC appealed this decision to the NLRC on January 6, 1989. The petitioners then moved for immediate execution of the Labor Arbiter’s decision pending appeal, arguing that PMC’s failure to file a supersedeas bond to stay execution rendered the decision immediately executory. The NLRC denied the motion for execution, prompting the petitioners to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the employer’s failure to file a supersedeas bond automatically entitles the employees to execution pending appeal of a Labor Arbiter’s reinstatement order.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative and dismissed the petition. The Court clarified the distinction between perfecting an appeal and staying its execution. The petitioners erroneously contended that under Book V, Rule XVI, Section 11 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, the employer’s failure to post an appeal bond automatically results in the finality and executability of the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The Court, agreeing with the NLRC’s interpretation, held that the second paragraph of Section 11 pertains specifically to staying the execution of a decision, not to the perfection of the appeal itself. An appeal is perfected upon timely filing and payment of the required appeal fee.
Since PMC timely perfected its appeal by filing it and paying the fee, the Labor Arbiter’s decision did not become final and executory. The requirement for a supersedeas bond is triggered only when there is an actual order of execution to be stayed. In this case, the NLRC denied the motion for execution pending appeal; thus, there was no execution order to stay, and the bond requirement was not applicable. Furthermore, the Court noted that Republic Act No. 6715 , which mandated the immediate execution of reinstatement orders, became law only on March 21, 1989, and contained no retroactive provision. Therefore, it could not apply to this case where the Labor Arbiter’s decision was rendered in December 1988. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for execution.