G.R. No. 116464; March 1, 2000
RODENTO NAVARRO, ANTONIO BOCABAL and JULIAN R. DE GUZMAN, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), ARACELI CORNEJO and OLIMPIO BRETON, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, jeepney drivers working on a boundary system for private respondent operator Araceli Cornejo, protested a sudden change in their night shift schedule from 5 PM-4 AM to 7 PM-6 AM on April 20, 1991, by refusing to ply their routes. Petitioner De Guzman cut his trip short due to illness. The following day, the drivers were met with a one-day suspension but were promised a restoration of the original schedule. However, on April 23, petitioners found their jeepneys assigned to others and were told to seek work elsewhere. They subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, awarding separation pay. Private respondents appealed this decision to the NLRC.
Private respondents filed their memorandum of appeal on April 13, 1992, but only posted the required appeal bond on April 30, 1992, which was later discovered to be spurious as the signatory had been disconnected from the insurance company for over a decade. A substitute bond was posted only on July 20, 1993. Despite this, the NLRC proceeded to reverse the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ruling that petitioners had abandoned their jobs and ordering reinstatement.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the appeal of private respondents despite the non-perfection of the appeal within the reglementary period due to the posting of a spurious bond.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional. Article 223 of the Labor Code mandates that an employer’s appeal may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. The word “only” indicates the posting is an exclusive and indispensable requisite, not a mere technicality. In this case, the bond filed by private respondents on April 30, 1992, was fake—a mere scrap of paper in legal contemplation—and thus did not constitute a valid bond. A substitute bond posted months later, on July 20, 1993, could not cure the fatal defect. Consequently, the appeal was not perfected on time. The decision of the Labor Arbiter became final and executory after ten calendar days from private respondents’ receipt thereof. The NLRC therefore acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the appeal and reversing the final judgment. A final and executory judgment is immutable and can no longer be altered. The Court found no cogent reason to relax the bond requirement under the circumstances.