GR 119289; (April, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 119289; April 12, 2000
EVELYN CATUBAY, ET AL., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
The individual petitioners were employees of Fishwealth Canning Corporation, engaged in handling frozen sardines. They filed a complaint for salary differentials and separation pay after the company refused to reinstate them following approved sick leaves for work-related ailments, demanding they instead re-apply through a labor contractor. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the payment of monetary awards. Private respondents filed their appeal memorandum on the last reglementary day but failed to simultaneously post the required appeal bond. The appeal fee was paid two days late, and the surety bond was posted only on April 22, 1994, long after the decision had been rendered final and a writ of execution issued. The NLRC nevertheless took cognizance of the appeal and remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the appeal and ordering a remand despite the perfection of the appeal being fatally defective due to the late posting of the appeal bond.
RULING
Yes, the NLRC gravely abused its discretion. The posting of a cash or surety bond is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement for perfecting an appeal in labor cases, as prescribed by Article 223 of the Labor Code. This requirement is intended to ensure that the award will be preserved in case the appeal is unsuccessful. The bond must be posted within the ten-day reglementary period for appeal. In this case, private respondents filed their memorandum on the last day but posted the bond only on April 22, 1994, which was beyond the reglementary period. The subsequent posting of the bond did not cure the jurisdictional defect; the decision of the Labor Arbiter had already become final and executory. The NLRC’s act of taking cognizance of a fatally defective appeal and remanding the case constituted a whimsical exercise of judgment. Furthermore, the claim of denial of due process was unfounded, as the records showed private respondents were given ample opportunity to be heard but chose not to participate fully. The Supreme Court reversed the NLRC decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s award.