G.R. No. 98108 September 3, 1993
ROMAN P. AQUINO, petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FIRST DIVISION & ROBLETT INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Roman P. Aquino filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against private respondent Roblett Industrial Construction, Inc. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on May 30, 1990, finding the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with full backwages amounting to P80,820.00. Private respondent’s counsel received a copy of the decision on June 13, 1990, making the last day to appeal June 23, 1990, which fell on a Saturday. The appeal was filed on Monday, June 25, 1990. Petitioner moved to dismiss the appeal for being filed out of time and for failure to post the required cash or surety bond under Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended. The NLRC initially dismissed the appeal in a February 18, 1991 Resolution but set it aside in a March 26, 1991 Resolution, justifying the reversal by stating the appeal was timely filed on June 25 because the NLRC had no office on Saturdays, and that the bond requirement under R.A. No. 6715 was not yet in force as the implementing rules had not been promulgated when the appeal was filed. Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Procedural: Whether the special civil action for certiorari can be availed of to review an interlocutory order without first filing a motion for reconsideration and when there exists a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
2. Substantive:
a. Whether a memorandum on appeal due on a Saturday can be filed timely on the following Monday.
b. Whether the filing of a bond to perfect an appeal under Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715 , was required for appeals before the adoption of the NLRC Rules implementing said amendatory law.

RULING

1. On the procedural issues: The Court held that an interlocutory order issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction may be questioned via certiorari under Rule 65, as delaying review until appeal from the main case would not provide a speedy and adequate remedy. The failure to file a motion for reconsideration may be excused where the order is a patent nullity.
2. On the substantive issues:
a. The Court reiterated the ruling in Pacaña v. National Labor Relations Commission that when the reglementary period of ten calendar days prescribed by Article 223 of the Labor Code falls on a Saturday and the NLRC offices are closed, the appeal is seasonably filed on the following Monday. The filing of the appeal on June 25, 1990, was therefore timely.
b. The Court held that the provisions of Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715 , requiring the posting of a cash or surety bond in appeals from decisions of the Labor Arbiter granting monetary awards, are self-executing and do not require administrative rules for implementation. Since the Labor Arbiter’s decision included a monetary award, private respondent’s failure to post the bond meant the appeal was not perfected on time, rendering the Labor Arbiter’s decision final and executory.
The petition was GRANTED. The NLRC’s March 26, 1991 Resolution was REVERSED, and its February 18, 1991 Resolution dismissing the appeal was REINSTATED.