GR 175460; (April, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175460; April 14, 2008
METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION, INC., and JOSE L. CORTEZ, JR., petitioners, vs. PIGLAS NFWU-KMU, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Metro Transit Organization, Inc. (MTO) operated the LRT system under an agreement with the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA). Its rank-and-file employees, represented by respondent union PIGLAS, staged a strike on July 25, 2000, after a bargaining deadlock. The Secretary of Labor immediately issued an Order of Assumption of Jurisdiction and a Return-to-Work Order. The striking employees refused to comply. Consequently, the LRTA allowed its management contract with MTO to expire and took over operations, leading MTO to terminate the employment of the striking workers for abandonment and loss of trust.
The terminated employees filed complaints for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, ordering reinstatement with full backwages. MTO appealed to the NLRC but failed to post the required appeal bond equivalent to the monetary award. The NLRC dismissed the appeal for non-perfection. MTO’s subsequent petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals and this Court were dismissed, primarily for failure to exhaust administrative remedies by not perfecting its NLRC appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed MTO’s petition for certiorari for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, given its non-perfection of an appeal with the NLRC due to non-posting of the requisite bond.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The filing of a motion to reduce bond does not toll the running of the period to perfect an appeal. Perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional. The requirement to post a cash or surety bond for the full amount of the monetary award in an employer’s appeal is mandatory under Article 223 of the Labor Code and the NLRC Rules.
MTO’s failure to post the bond rendered its NLRC appeal incomplete and unperfected. Consequently, the Labor Arbiter’s decision became final and executory. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The special civil action of certiorari is only available when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Since MTO lost its right to a normal appeal through its own failure to comply with mandatory bonding requirements, it cannot resort to certiorari to correct an error of judgment. The NLRC’s dismissal of the appeal for non-perfection was a correct application of procedural rules, not a grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies bars judicial review when the prescribed administrative appeal has not been duly pursued.