G.R. No. 197005, June 4, 2014
PRINCESS JOY PLACEMENT AND GENERAL SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, vs. GERMAN A. BINALLA, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent German A. Binalla, a registered nurse, filed a complaint against local manning agent CBM Business Management and Manpower Services (CBM) and/or Princess Joy Placement and General Services, Inc. (Princess Joy)/Al Adwani General Hospital (Al Adwani) for various money claims arising from his employment in Saudi Arabia from April 19, 2002, to April 28, 2004. Binalla alleged that he applied with Princess Joy, which processed his papers through Reginaldo Paguio and Cynthia Latea, and he signed a four-year contract with Al Adwani. However, upon departure, he discovered that CBM was listed as his deploying agency in a POEA-certified contract with a different salary. He worked for two years and returned to the Philippines after posting a bond. He claimed violations of his contract, including salary deductions, non-payment of overtime and leave benefits, and unauthorized deductions for board and lodging.
Princess Joy denied recruiting Binalla, claiming Paguio and Latea were not its registered agents and that CBM was Al Adwani’s Philippine agent. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in Binalla’s favor, holding Princess Joy and CBM jointly and severally liable for various monetary awards, including salary differentials, overtime pay, and damages. Princess Joy appealed to the NLRC, posting a surety bond of ₱250,000 against the LA’s monetary award of ₱800,875 (exclusive of damages) and filing a motion to reduce bond. The NLRC later required an additional bond, which Princess Joy posted. The NLRC reversed the LA, absolving Princess Joy and reducing Binalla’s award. Binalla challenged this via certiorari in the CA, which set aside the NLRC ruling, holding that Princess Joy failed to perfect its appeal due to an insufficient bond within the reglementary period. Princess Joy’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Princess Joy failed to perfect its appeal from the Labor Arbiter’s decision due to non-compliance with the bond requirement under Article 223 of the Labor Code and the NLRC Rules.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration and affirmed the CA’s decision. The Court held that under Article 223 of the Labor Code and Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRC 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure, an appeal involving a monetary award is perfected only upon posting of a cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorney’s fees, within the ten-day reglementary period. Princess Joy’s initial bond of ₱250,000 was insufficient relative to the ₱800,875 award. While it filed a motion to reduce bond, such motion does not toll the appeal period. The NLRC’s order to post an additional bond was issued beyond the ten-day period, and the subsequent compliance did not cure the defect. Thus, the appeal was not perfected, rendering the LA’s decision final and executory. The Court also found no merit in Princess Joy’s arguments on the substantive issues, as the lack of a perfected appeal precluded review of the NLRC’s decision on the merits. The CA correctly annulled the NLRC resolutions for having been issued without jurisdiction.