G.R. No. 122725 September 8, 1999
BIOGENERICS MARKETING AND RESEARCH CORPORATION and WOLFGANG ROEHR, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and SERAFIN G. PANGANIBAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Biogenerics Marketing and Research Corporation (BIOGENERICS), through its Chairman Wolfgang Roehr, employed respondent Serafin G. Panganiban as President and General Manager on March 13, 1991. On December 18, 1992, Roehr dismissed Panganiban without prior notice based on an allegation that Panganiban was planning to form a competing corporation. Panganiban filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, back wages, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees on January 27, 1993. BIOGENERICS contended that Panganiban voluntarily resigned after being confronted with his alleged disloyalty. On May 18, 1994, the Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissal was illegal for lack of just cause and due process, holding BIOGENERICS and Roehr solidarily liable for monetary awards totaling over P3 million, including attorney’s fees. On June 13, 1994, BIOGENERICS filed a “Memorandum of Appeal” and a “Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond,” initially posting only a P50,000 cash bond, arguing that posting the full bond would jeopardize its financial condition given its authorized capital stock was only P2,000,000. The NLRC, on August 17, 1994, ordered petitioners to post an additional cash or surety bond of P1,950,000 within ten days. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, seeking further reduction, which the NLRC denied on September 30, 1994, but granted an additional five-day period to post the bond. On November 22, 1994, petitioners submitted an “Irrevocable Bank Guarantee” from a bank, valid for only one year, which the NLRC rejected as it did not constitute a cash or surety bond from an accredited bonding company. On February 20, 1995, Carmen Rodriguez (BIOGENERICS’ Chairman and Roehr’s estranged wife) posted a cash bond via manager’s check. She later moved to withdraw it, claiming she posted it under a mistaken belief of obligation. The NLRC allowed the withdrawal on March 6, 1995, and directed petitioners to post the requisite bond within ten days, with a final warning. Petitioners did not file a motion for reconsideration of this March 6 Resolution, which their counsel received on March 7, 1995, nor did they post the bond. Consequently, the NLRC dismissed their appeal on June 5, 1995. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners’ appeal for failure to perfect their appeal by posting the required cash or surety bond and for failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC’s resolution ordering them to post the bond.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC Resolutions. The requirement of a cash or surety bond for perfecting an appeal from a Labor Arbiter’s monetary award is jurisdictional; non-compliance renders the award final and executory. Petitioners failed to post the proper bond despite multiple extensions. The “Irrevocable Bank Guarantee” they submitted was not a cash or surety bond from a reputable bonding company accredited by the NLRC or the Supreme Court as required by the rules. The cash bond posted by Carmen Rodriguez was correctly allowed to be withdrawn, as the rules require the employer-appellant to post the bond, and petitioners failed to substantiate their claim that the money used belonged to Roehr. Furthermore, petitioners’ failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC’s March 6, 1995 Resolution, which they received on March 7, 1995, rendered that resolution final and executory, as a motion for reconsideration is a requisite sine qua non for pursuing further relief. The NLRC’s subsequent resolution of June 5, 1995, dismissing the appeal, was a mere formalization of this finality. Thus, no appeal was perfected from the Labor Arbiter’s decision, making it final and immutable.