Garais vs. NLRC : 116016 : April 26, 1996 : Padilla, J. : First Division FIRST DIVISION [G.R. No. 116016. April 26, 1996] ALDIN H. GARAIS, NILO DEL SOL, NESTOR A. MENDOZA, CELESTINO E. BALMES, DOMINGO O. MENDOZA, EDUARDO A. RAYOS, ARNEL C. CASTANEDA, ERNESTO M. PERCULEZA, EDGARDO PENALOSA, OSCAR T. SANTOS, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, A.P. PLACEMENT SPECIALIST CENTER and SAAD CONSTRUCTION ESTABLISHMENT, respondents. SYLLABUS 1. LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR CODE; REQUISITES FOR THE PERFECTION OF APPEAL TO THE NLRC; EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE. - Section 5, Rule V of the POEA Rules and Regulations enumerates the requisites for perfection of an appeal to the NLRC. The requirements shall be filed by the appellant within ten (10) days from receipt of the POEA decision, otherwise, the decision becomes final and executory. Non-compliance with such requisites will not stop the running of the prescriptive period. (Section 1 in relation to Section 5, Rule V of the POEA Rules and Regulations) The Rules likewise stress the importance of posting a bond in the perfection of appeal to the NLRC. Section 6, in relation to Section 5, Rule V attests to the intention of the lawmaker to make the bond an indispensable requirement for the perfection of an appeal to the NLRC by the employer. 2. ID.; ID.; ID.; RATIONALE FOR THE POSTING OF BOND. - The posting of a cash or surety bond is intended to assure the workers that if they finally prevail in the case, the monetary award will be given to them upon the dismissal of the employers appeal. It is further intended to discourage employers from using the appeal to delay or evade payment of their obligations to the employees. APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL Potenciano R. Napenas for petitioners. Onofre A. Francisco, Jr. for private respondents. DECISION PADILLA, J.: Petitioners seek to annul the resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated 29 November 1993 and 15 April 1994 dismissing their complaints for lack of merit. Petitioners applied for overseas employment thru private respondent A.P. Placement Specialist Center. After going through different types of examination, petitioners were hired by respondent SAAD Construction Establishment, as either technician, air duct fabricator, plumber or pipe insulator at the King Khalid Military Camp, Batin, Saudi Arabia. Petitioners were deployed on different dates from October 10 to December 1989, but each worked for less than three (3) months, because on 11 February 1990, they were sent home allegedly without a justifiable cause. Before they were repatriated, the sums of US$435 or US$635 were also deducted from their wages. 1 of 4 1/20/2016 9:49 PM

Select target paragraph3