G.R. No. 199660 , July 13, 2015
U-BIX CORPORATION and EDILBERTO B. BRAVO, Petitioners, vs. VALERIE ANNE H. HOLLERO, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners U-Bix Corporation and Edilberto B. Bravo filed a complaint against respondent Valerie Anne H. Hollero for reimbursement of training costs. Respondent filed a separate complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. The cases were consolidated. The Labor Arbiter initially found the dismissal valid and ordered respondent to reimburse training costs. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, declared the dismissal illegal, awarded backwages and separation pay, and dismissed petitioners’ reimbursement complaint for lack of jurisdiction. This NLRC decision was affirmed by the CA and subsequently by the Supreme Court in a final and executory Decision dated October 31, 2008. Respondent then filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution. A recomputation of the monetary award resulted in a total of P3,270,512.82. Labor Arbiter Flores approved this recomputation and issued a Writ of Execution. Petitioners filed an appeal before the NLRC and posted a supersedeas bond issued by Mapfre Insular Insurance Corporation. The NLRC denied the appeal, ruling the supersedeas bond had no force and effect because the Certification of Accreditation and Authority for Mapfre covered only “CIVIL/SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASES” and not labor cases, and petitioners failed to present proof of security deposit or collateral. The NLRC also denied petitioners’ Omnibus Motion to Quash Writ of Execution. The CA affirmed the NLRC, emphasizing that posting a supersedeas bond is mandatory and jurisdictional for perfecting an employer’s appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the NLRC’s dismissal of petitioners’ appeal on the ground that the accompanying supersedeas bond was invalid.

RULING

The Petition has no merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA and NLRC rulings. While the Court agreed with petitioners that the NLRC’s 2010 Memorandum endorsing a list of Supreme Court-accredited bonding companies (including Mapfre) could plausibly be for the purpose of considering them for labor cases, petitioners nevertheless failed to comply with the bond requirement for perfecting their appeal. The law (Article 223 of the Labor Code and Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules) requires the posting of a cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award. For a surety bond, it must be accompanied by, among others, a copy of the security deposit or collateral securing the bond. Petitioners failed to present proof of this security deposit or collateral. This failure rendered their appeal imperfect. The requirement for posting a bond is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to conform to the rules renders the judgment final and unappealable. The NLRC and CA correctly dismissed the appeal.