Viron Garments Manufacturing, Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved a complaint filed by the National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) and several employees against Viron Garments Manufacturing, Co., Inc. and Dolly Lim. The complaint alleged unfair labor practice through an illegal shutdown, non-payment of wages and allowances for specific periods in 1985, non-payment of service incentive leave pay from 1983-1985, and illegal deductions from wages in late 1984. Labor Arbiter Dominador B. Saludares found the petitioners guilty and ordered them to pay restitution, reinstate the employees with full backwages and benefits, totaling P5,469,061.60. 2. Procedural History: Following the Labor Arbiter's decision and the issuance of a Writ of Execution, the petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC directed the petitioners to post a cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award. The petitioners requested to be excused from filing the bond until a recomputation of backwages was resolved and were given a non-extendible ten-day period to post the bond. On November 21, 1990, the NLRC dismissed their appeal for failure to file the required bond, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. A Writ of Execution was issued, leading to an auction sale where the company's property was sold for P512,000. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with this Court, assailing the NLRC's dismissal of their appeal as a grave abuse of discretion. They argued that Article 223 of the Labor Code, which requires an appeal by the employer in cases involving monetary awards to be perfected only upon posting a cash or surety bond, was applied too rigidly. They contended that the use of the word "may" in the provision indicated that the bond was not mandatory, but rather discretionary. The Court, however, found no merit in this argument, emphasizing that the word "only" in the provision clearly indicated the lawmakers' intent to make the bond an indispensable requisite for the perfection of an employer's appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioners' appeal for failure to post the required cash or surety bond. Whether the "Appeal Bond/Undertaking" filed by the petitioners constituted substantial compliance with the requirements of Article 223 of the Labor Code.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order issued by the Court is lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and substantial compliance: The Supreme Court held that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioners' appeal. Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715, explicitly states that an appeal by an employer involving a monetary award may be perfected "only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond" issued by a reputable bonding company, in an amount equivalent to the monetary award. The use of the word "only" unequivocally signifies that the posting of such a bond is the exclusive mode by which an employer's appeal can be perfected. The Court clarified that while the word "may" in the provision refers to the option of the employer to appeal, it does not grant discretion regarding the posting of the appeal bond if an appeal is desired. The "undertaking" filed by the petitioners, which merely bound them to pay the judgment or award, did not provide the same assurance of satisfaction as a bond from a reputable bonding company, especially in cases of potential insolvency during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, the petitioners' "Appeal Bond/Undertaking" did not constitute substantial compliance with the mandatory requirement of Article 223 of the Labor Code.
Main Doctrine
An appeal by an employer involving a monetary award may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond in the amount equivalent to the monetary award, as mandated by Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715. The word "only" makes this requirement exclusive, and the word "may" refers to the option to appeal, not the posting of the bond.