Garais vs. NLRC : 116016 : April 26, 1996 : Padilla, J. : First Division http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116016.htm THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN SIDE-STEPPING THE ISSUE ON FINALITY RAISED BY THE PLEADINGS AND/OR IN NOT HOLDING THE DECISION OF 11 DECEMBER 1991 OF THE POEA ALREADY FINAL AND EXECUTORY; AND II THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT SET ASIDE AND REVERSED THE DECISION OF 11 DECEMBER 1991 OF THE POEA DESPITE THE FACT THE SAME WAS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AND THE LAW APPLICABLE.[4] We will first discuss the procedural aspect of the imputed errors. Petitioners claim that respondent NLRC did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of private respondents because it was filed beyond the ten-day (10) reglementary period for appeal to the NLRC. Surprisingly, private respondents are silent on this issue. They did not refute petitioners argument on the final and executory character of the POEA decision, but they insist that respondent NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaints of petitioners. On the other hand, respondent NLRC thru the Office of the Solicitor General alleges that there is no clear and satisfactory evidence that private respondents failed to perfect the appeal to the NLRC. The Office of the Solicitor General concludes that when the NLRC acted on private respondents motion to reduce the bond dated 20 January 1992, it decreed that it had jurisdiction over the case. The petitioners argument is well-founded. The POEA decision dated 11 December 1991 had indeed become final and executory. Section 5, Rule V of the POEA Rules and Regulations enumerates the requisites for perfection of an appeal to the NLRC, thus: Section 5. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. The appeal shall be filed within the reglementary period as provided in Section 1 of this Rule; shall be under oath with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; shall be accompanied by a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof; the relief prayed for; and a statement of the date when the appellant received the appealed decision and/or award and proof of service on the other party of such appeal. A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites afore stated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal. The requirements above mentioned 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.[5] The Rules likewise stress the importance of posting a bond in the perfection of appeal to the NLRC. Section 6, Rule V thereof states: Section 6. BOND. In case the decision of the Administration involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer shall be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in an amount equivalent to the monetary award. (italics supplied) Section 6, in relation to Section 5, Rule V, earlier quoted, 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. The Court made this pronouncement in the case of Viron Garments v. NLRC[6] which involved the issue of whether or not the posting of a cash or surety bond is a mandatory requirement for the perfection of an appeal to the NLRC. Although the appeal in that 3 of 4 1/20/2016 9:49 PM