Garais vs. NLRC : 116016 : April 26, 1996 : Padilla, J. : First Division 4 of 4 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116016.htm case was from the decision of the labor arbiter and not of the POEA, the POEA Rules and Regulations and the Labor Code provide for similar provisions governing appeals to the NLRC. The presence of this provision in legislation and in the POEA rules is evidence of the states adherence to the policy of full protection to labor. 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.[7] In the case at bar, the records do not show clearly when the private respondents received the POEA decision. Neither was the date of appeal to the NLRC indicated in the pleadings submitted before this Court. However, it can be gathered from the records that private respondents received copy of the POEA decision before 3 January 1992 because the memorandum of appeal to the NLRC was dated 3 January 1992. If we were to give a wide latitude to respondent A.P. Placement by supposing that it received the POEA decision only on 3 January 1992, private respondents would have ten (10) days from 3 January 1992 or until 13 January 1992 to post the required bond in order to perfect the appeal to the NLRC. Even again assuming that the memorandum of appeal was filed on the same day the POEA decision was received, still the motion to fix the bond was filed more than ten (10) days therefrom, or on 20 January 1992 and the bond was posted only on 25 March 1992. Therefore, since the appeal from the POEA was not perfected within the reglementary period, the NLRC did not acquire jurisdiction over the case, as perfection of the appeal to the NLRC is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional.[8] Hence, the petitioners first argument is well-taken. Consequently, the Court sees no need for a discussion of the second issue. Besides, said second issue requires a determination of facts that can no longer be raised by the parties on certiorari. WHEREFORE, the Court finds the respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the appeal of private respondents. The NLRC resolutions dated 29 November 1993 and 15 April 1994 are hereby SET ASIDE, and the POEA decision dated 11 December 1991 is DECLARED to have become final and executory. Cost against private respondents. SO ORDERED. Bellosillo, Vitug, Kapunan, and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur. [1] Rollo, p. 84. [2] Rollo, p. 52. [3] Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment (1991). [4] Rollo, p. 10. [5] Section 1 in relation to Section 5, Rule V of the POEA Rules and Regulations. [6] G.R. No. 97357, 18 March 1992, 207 SCRA 339, 342. [7] Supra at 342. [8] Lucero vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 74197, 28 October 1991, 203 SCRA 218,224. 1/20/2016 9:49 PM