G.R. No. 170099 November 28, 2007
COLBY CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and/or JAIME B. LO, Petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ANTONIO R. MACAM and WILLY C. OLAGUER, Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Willy Olaguer was employed by petitioner Colby Construction as a construction foreman. He later engaged in a subcontracting arrangement with the company for a specific project, posting a performance bond. After completing the project, Colby Construction paid the contract price but withheld the performance bond. When Olaguer demanded its return, he was summarily dismissed from his foreman position. Olaguer filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and recovery of the bond before the Labor Arbiter.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in Olaguer’s favor, declaring his dismissal illegal and awarding reinstatement with backwages. The Arbiter, however, declined jurisdiction over the bond claim, deeming it a civil matter. Petitioners received the decision on August 13, 1999, and filed their appeal memorandum with the NLRC on the last day, August 23, 1999, but failed to post the required appeal bond. Instead, they filed a Motion to Reduce Bond. Only after the reglementary period lapsed did they post a partial bond of ₱100,000 on August 27, 1999, against the required ₱315,828.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission correctly dismissed the petitioners’ appeal for failure to perfect it within the reglementary period due to non-posting of the requisite appeal bond.

RULING

Yes, the NLRC correctly dismissed the appeal. 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 and the NLRC Rules of Procedure. The law allows the reduction of the bond only under exceptional circumstances and upon posting of a reasonable bond in the meantime. Petitioners did not post any bond when they filed their appeal; they merely filed a motion for reduction. Their subsequent posting of a partial bond four days after the deadline was insufficient and did not cure the jurisdictional defect.
The Court emphasized that the appeal bond is not a mere technicality but a substantive requirement designed to assure the worker that monetary awards will be secured if the appeal fails. The petitioners’ failure to comply strictly with this requirement rendered the Labor Arbiter’s decision final and executory. The negligence of their counsel in not ensuring timely compliance binds the petitioners. Therefore, the Court of Appeals committed no error in affirming the NLRC’s dismissal of the appeal for non-perfection.