G.R. No. 89324 October 11, 1990
EDWARD DIAZ, petitioner, vs. LABOR ARBITER RICARDO C. NORA, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND THE MERALCO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Edward Diaz filed a complaint for illegal suspension and damages against private respondent Meralco Transit Organization, Inc. On April 28, 1989, Labor Arbiter Ricardo C. Nora rendered a decision ordering Diaz’s reinstatement with full backwages and monetary awards. Private respondent received the decision on May 15, 1989, and filed a notice of appeal to the NLRC on May 25, 1989, within the reglementary period. However, the employer did not post the required appeal bond pursuant to Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6715 (amending Article 223 of the Labor Code), which mandates that an employer’s appeal from a monetary award is perfected only upon posting a cash or surety bond.
On May 29, 1989, Diaz filed a motion for execution with the Labor Arbiter, contending that the decision had become final and executory due to the employer’s failure to post the bond. The Labor Arbiter did not act on this motion and instead forwarded the entire records of the case to the NLRC, where the appeal remains pending. Diaz then filed this petition for mandamus directly with the Supreme Court to compel the Labor Arbiter to issue a writ of execution and the NLRC to remand the records, arguing that the non-posting of the bond rendered the appeal unperfected and the decision final.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitioner properly availed of the extraordinary writ of mandamus to compel the execution of the Labor Arbiter’s decision, given the employer’s failure to post an appeal bond.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for being premature. The Court clarified that the failure of an employer to post the required bond for a monetary award does not automatically oust the NLRC of jurisdiction to determine the perfection of the appeal. The NLRC retains the authority to dismiss an appeal if it finds the appeal was not duly perfected. The proper remedy for the petitioner was not to immediately seek mandamus from the Supreme Court but to first file a motion to dismiss the appeal with the NLRC itself, raising the specific ground of non-perfection due to lack of bond.
Mandamus lies only when a tribunal unlawfully neglects a duty enjoined by law and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Here, the Labor Arbiter’s inaction on the motion for execution did not constitute a clear unlawful neglect, as he merely elevated the records for the NLRC’s review. More importantly, the petitioner failed to exhaust the available administrative remedy by not first seeking a resolution from the NLRC on the issue of the appeal’s perfection. Since the NLRC was not given the opportunity to rule on the matter, the petitioner could not claim that the public respondents had unlawfully excluded him from his rights. Therefore, the petition was procedurally infirm and dismissed.