G.R. No. 106477 October 23, 1995
Globe General Services and Security Agency and Gaudencio G. Cantos, Jr., petitioners, vs. National Labor Relations Commission (First Division) and Leonardo L. Marbebe, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Leonardo L. Marbebe, a security guard employed by petitioners, filed a complaint for illegal suspension, underpayment of wages, and non-payment of overtime and holiday pay. The Labor Arbiter found that Marbebe’s ten-day suspension, after which he was no longer posted for duty, constituted illegal constructive dismissal. The Arbiter ordered his reinstatement and payment of back wages and overtime pay totaling P40,740.08. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC but failed to post the required supersedeas bond for the monetary award.
The NLRC dismissed the appeal for non-perfection due to the absence of the bond. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing the bond was not filed because the monetary award was erroneously computed. The NLRC denied the motion and, in its challenged Order, proceeded to modify the Labor Arbiter’s decision by increasing the total monetary award to P93,604.58 while affirming the finding of illegal dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of and modifying the Labor Arbiter’s decision after the same had become final and executory due to the petitioners’ failure to perfect their appeal by posting the mandatory appeal bond.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the NLRC acted in excess of its jurisdiction. Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended, explicitly provides that an employer’s appeal from a Labor Arbiter’s decision involving a monetary award may be perfected “only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond.” The use of the word “only” indicates the indispensable and exclusive nature of this requirement. Perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is jurisdictional, and failure to comply renders the decision final and executory.
Since petitioners failed to post the appeal bond within the ten-day period, their appeal was not perfected. Consequently, the Labor Arbiter’s decision attained finality. The NLRC, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, much less to modify the monetary award. The proper recourse for petitioners, if they believed the award was erroneous, was to file a motion for a reduction of the bond within the appeal period, not to disregard the requirement entirely. The NLRC’s act of resolving the merits of an unperfected appeal constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court set aside the NLRC’s orders and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s original decision.