G.R. No. 172409 , February 4, 2008
ROOS INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION, INC. and OSCAR TOCMO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and JOSE MARTILLOS, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Jose Martillos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims against petitioners Roos Industrial Construction, Inc. and Oscar Tocmo. Martillos alleged he was hired as a driver-mechanic in 1988, worked daily from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and was terminated without due process on March 16, 2002. He claimed non-payment of service incentive leave, 13th month pay, and proper holiday pay. Petitioners countered that Martillos was a project employee hired for specific construction projects, and his employment ended upon each project’s completion. The Labor Arbiter ruled Martillos was a regular employee, having been continuously rehired for tasks vital to the employer’s business, and ordered petitioners to pay him over P224,000 in backwages and other benefits.
Petitioners filed a Memorandum of Appeal with the NLRC on the last day of the reglementary period and paid the appeal fee but failed to post the required cash or surety bond. Instead, they filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Bond, citing the holiday unavailability of signatories, and posted the bond six days after the deadline. The NLRC dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating the bond was an indispensable requirement for perfection of appeal and that no motion for extension was allowed under its rules. The NLRC’s resolution became final and executory.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners’ appeal for failure to perfect it by not posting the appeal bond within the reglementary period.

RULING

The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The posting of a cash or surety bond is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement for perfecting an employer’s appeal under Article 223 of the Labor Code and the NLRC Rules of Procedure. The Court has consistently held that the bond must be filed within the ten-day reglementary period for appeal. Petitioners’ failure to post the bond within this period rendered their appeal unperfected, depriving the NLRC of jurisdiction. The filing of a motion for extension to post the bond did not toll the period, as the rules expressly prohibit such motions. The subsequent posting six days late was insufficient. The legal principle that the appeal bond is indispensable is not a new doctrine but a long-standing rule; thus, its application is not prospective. The Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding Martillos to be a regular employee based on continuous rehiring for necessary tasks, became final and executory. The petition was denied.