GR 140753; (April, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140753; April 30, 2003
BENJAMIN S. SANTOS, petitioner, vs. ELENA VELARDE, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Respondents, garment workers, were illegally dismissed when Fordien Garments Ltd. Co. allegedly closed. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the company and petitioner Benjamin S. Santos. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the workers, finding Santos jointly and solidarily liable with the company for backwages and benefits. Santos appealed this decision to the NLRC.
Petitioner filed his Appeal Memorandum within the reglementary period but did not post the required appeal bond. He claimed exemption, asserting he was “not an employer.” The NLRC treated this as a motion for exemption, denied it, and ordered him to post the bond within ten days. Santos subsequently filed motions for bond reduction and to admit a surety bond, which the NLRC ultimately accepted. The NLRC then gave due course to the appeal and modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision by deleting Santos as a party respondent. The workers elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion in giving due course to petitioner’s appeal despite his failure to perfect the appeal by not posting the required cash or surety bond within the reglementary period.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ruling that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The posting of a cash or surety bond is a mandatory requirement for perfecting an appeal from a Labor Arbiter’s decision involving a monetary award. This requirement is jurisdictional; non-compliance renders the decision final and executory. Petitioner’s unilateral declaration that he was “not an employer” and thus exempt did not excuse compliance. The determination of his liability as an employer was precisely the substantive issue on appeal, which could not be prejudged to excuse a procedural mandate.
The Court emphasized that the rule on the appeal bond is applied strictly. The liberal construction of labor laws and procedures cannot be invoked to justify a blatant disregard of mandatory and jurisdictional rules. Validating Santos’s act would set a dangerous precedent for delaying the execution of monetary awards crucial for the survival of dismissed workers. The NLRC’s acceptance of the late bond, after initially denying the exemption, arbitrarily disregarded its own rules. Consequently, petitioner’s appeal was not perfected, making the Labor Arbiter’s decision immediately final and executory.