G.R. No. 97357 March 18, 1992
Viron Garments Manufacturing, Co., Inc. and Dolly Lim, petitioners, vs. The National Labor Relations Commission (Third Division), National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) and Rodolfo Romero, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, employees of petitioner Viron Garments, filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal shutdown, and various monetary claims. Labor Arbiter Dominador B. Saludares rendered a decision on December 20, 1988, finding petitioners guilty and ordering them to jointly and severally pay reinstatement and backwages, with the total monetary award amounting to P5,469,061.60. The Labor Arbiter subsequently issued a Writ of Execution. Petitioners appealed this decision to the NLRC.
The NLRC, in an order dated April 10, 1990, directed petitioners to post a cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award to perfect their appeal, as mandated by Article 223 of the Labor Code. Petitioners requested to be excused from filing the bond pending a recomputation. The NLRC granted a non-extendible ten-day period to comply. Instead of posting the required bond, petitioners filed a “Manifestation and Motion” with an attached “Appeal Bond/Undertaking,” which was essentially a mere promise to pay the judgment. The NLRC dismissed the appeal for failure to file the proper bond and later denied their motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioners’ appeal for their failure to post the cash or surety bond required under Article 223 of the Labor Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition was dismissed. The Court emphasized that the posting of a cash or surety bond is a mandatory and indispensable requirement for perfecting an employer’s appeal from a labor arbiter’s decision involving a monetary award. Article 223, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715 , explicitly states that an appeal by the employer “may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond.”
The legal logic is clear from a plain reading of the statute. Petitioners argued that the use of the word “may” implies the bond is not mandatory. The Court rejected this, explaining that the term “may” refers to the optional act of appealing, not to the manner of its perfection. The clause “only upon the posting” is unequivocal and exclusive, leaving no discretion to accept an alternative. The legislative intent is to assure employees that monetary awards will be secured during the appeal and to prevent employers from using appeals to delay or evade legitimate obligations. The petitioners’ submitted “undertaking” was a mere personal promise to pay, which did not provide the same security as a bond from a reputable bonding company and would not protect the employees if the petitioners became insolvent. Therefore, the NLRC correctly dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with a jurisdictional requirement.