GR 111459; (December, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111459, December 26, 1995
Rogelio M. Banawa, petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Galilee Shipping and Manning Agency and Iolcos Hellenic Maritime, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Rogelio M. Banawa, a licensed seaman, was hired by respondent Iolcos Hellenic Maritime through its local agent, Galilee Shipping and Manning Agency, as Second Engineer for a 12-month contract. After barely four months on board the M/V Iolcos Legend, Banawa was summarily dismissed and repatriated from Cairo, Egypt. The only notation on his Seaman’s Book stated he was “changed by Greek 2nd Engr.,” with no prior notice or explanation given for his termination.
Banawa filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The POEA ruled in his favor, finding the dismissal to be without just cause and due process. It held respondents solidarily liable for his salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract, vacation leave pay, and attorney’s fees. Respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in modifying the POEA decision despite respondents’ failure to perfect their appeal by posting the required bond within the reglementary period.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the POEA decision. The Court emphasized that the perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Under the governing POEA rules, an appeal involving a monetary award is deemed perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond within ten calendar days from receipt of the decision.
The record shows that while respondent Galilee filed its memorandum of appeal within the 10-day period, it failed to post the requisite appeal bond concurrently. The surety bond was executed only on June 17, 1992, which was several weeks after the lapse of the reglementary period. Consequently, the POEA decision had already attained finality. By entertaining the appeal and modifying the final and executory decision, the NLRC blatantly disregarded its own procedural rules and acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court did not find it necessary to delve into the substantive merits of the dismissal, as the procedural lapse was dispositive. The writ of certiorari was thus warranted to correct this jurisdictional error.