G.R. No. 109371 November 18, 1999
JOSE GAUDIA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PANIQUI SUGAR CORPORATION and JOSE ROMASANTA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose Gaudia was employed as a company driver by respondent Paniqui Sugar Corporation. On February 19, 1990, an iron rail was discovered hidden in a company truck driven by his nephew, who implicated Gaudia in the pilferage. Following an investigation, the corporation terminated Gaudia’s employment on March 6, 1990, for acts prejudicial to the company. Gaudia subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. On June 5, 1992, Labor Arbiter Dominador B. Saludares ruled in Gaudia’s favor, ordering the payment of separation pay and damages.
The respondents received the Labor Arbiter’s decision on June 29, 1992, and filed an appeal memorandum with the NLRC on July 9, 1992. Critically, they failed to post the required cash or surety bond at the time of filing the appeal. They only posted a surety bond on August 3, 1992, well beyond the ten-day reglementary period for perfecting an appeal. Despite this procedural lapse, the NLRC gave due course to the appeal and, on November 20, 1992, reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding sufficient cause for dismissal but awarding indemnity for procedural due process lapses.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the respondents’ appeal despite their failure to perfect the appeal by posting the required bond within the reglementary period.

RULING

Yes, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The posting of a cash or surety bond for the full amount of the monetary award is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement for perfecting an employer’s appeal to the NLRC, as expressly mandated by Article 223 of the Labor Code and the NLRC’s own Rules of Procedure. Perfection of an appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by law is not a mere technicality but a jurisdictional prerequisite. The respondents’ filing of their appeal memorandum on July 9, 1992, without the concomitant bond, did not stop the running of the appeal period. Their subsequent posting of a bond on August 3, 1992, was a belated act that did not cure the defect. Consequently, the respondents’ appeal was not perfected, rendering the Labor Arbiter’s decision final and executory. The NLRC, therefore, acted without jurisdiction when it entertained the appeal and reversed the final judgment. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the NLRC decision, and reinstated the final and executory decision of the Labor Arbiter.