G.R. No. 123669 February 27, 1998
MERS SHOES MANUFACTURING, INC., MARIANO ENRIQUEZ, ROSALITA S. ENRIQUEZ, VILMA S. ENRIQUEZ, EDITH E. VALERIO, RODOLFO S. ENRIQUEZ, MA. CRISTINA ENRIQUEZ and EVERILDA ENRIQUEZ, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MELINDA OLIVEROS, SOLEDAD LOTINO, ROMEO B. ANONUEVO, ROLANDO FAJARDO, BLANCA PESCALLON, JULIUS YAP, REMEDIOS CABALLERA, ANDRES TABANGCURA, ANTONIO A. MANAOG, DOMINGA B. GUARIN, JOSE LEONIN, ANICIA PANGANTIHAN, ANGELES SALVADOR, REMELA H. MARASIGAN, MILA L. PERING, LORNA L. LACERNA, ROMEO M. LOTINO, SERGIO VECINA, BELINDA REVECHE, ARLYN H. MARASIGAN, FLORENTINO DAUS, ROBERTO CASCANTE, CLODUALDO CO., JR., ANGELINA DELA PAZ, MERLY AMBROCIO, ARNEL COBARRUBBIA, SALVADOR TAROY, MILAGROS LEONIN, HERMINIGILDO D. TOYOON, EDGAR MARQUEZ, LUZVIMINDA TAROY, CENTENO ROGELIO, FRANCISCO BRUAL, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Mer’s Shoe Manufacturing, Inc. (MSMI) employed respondents as piece-rate workers. On February 22, 1993, respondents were barred from entering the company compound due to alleged serious business decline. Respondents filed a complaint assailing the legality of the shutdown and for recovery of separation pay, among other claims. On January 24, 1994, Labor Arbiter Melquiades Sol D. Del Rosario rendered a decision finding the shutdown to be with cause but without the required notice, ordering petitioners to pay each complainant a P1,000.00 indemnity, 13th month pay for 1990 and proportionate 13th month pay for 1993, separation pay, and attorney’s fees. Petitioners received the decision on February 4, 1994, and perfected their appeal before the NLRC on February 14, 1994, simultaneously filing a motion to reduce the appeal bond. On May 31, 1995, the NLRC partially granted the motion, ordering petitioners to post a bond in the amount of P403,126.20 within ten calendar days. On July 28, 1995, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC’s order. The NLRC treated this as a motion for extension of time to perfect an appeal—a prohibited pleading under its New Rules of Procedure—and, ruling that the ten-day reglementary period to post the bond had lapsed, dismissed the appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners’ appeal for their failure to post the required appeal bond within the reglementary period.

RULING

No, the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The posting of a cash or surety bond for the full amount of the monetary award is an indispensable requirement for the perfection of an employer’s appeal under Article 223 of the Labor Code. Perfection of an appeal within the period and manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional; non-compliance renders the judgment final and executory. While the NLRC Rules allow for a reduction of the bond upon motion and on meritorious grounds, such motion must be filed within the reglementary period for appealing. In this case, the NLRC exercised its discretion and reduced the bond. Petitioners’ subsequent motion for reconsideration of the reduced bond amount was, in effect, a request for an extension of time to perfect the appeal, which is a prohibited pleading. The factual circumstances of this case are distinguishable from cited precedents (YBL v. NLRC, Erectors, Incorporated v. NLRC, and Rada v. NLRC) where the labor arbiters’ decisions did not state the exact monetary awards, making the bond amount indeterminable. Here, the Labor Arbiter’s decision specified the exact amounts awarded. Therefore, petitioners’ failure to post the required bond within the reglementary period after it was ordered reduced warranted the dismissal of their appeal. The petition was dismissed and the Labor Arbiter’s decision was affirmed.