Aquino v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Roman P. Aquino filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Roblett Industrial Construction, Inc., alleging he was removed from the payroll in January 1987 without pay. The private respondent countered that Aquino had abandoned his work after being held accountable for advances totaling P48,921.94. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal illegal and ordered the company to reinstate Aquino with full backwages amounting to P80,820.00. 2. Procedural History: The private respondent received the Labor Arbiter's decision on June 13, 1990, making the appeal deadline June 23, 1990. The appeal was filed on June 25, 1990, two days late. The petitioner moved to dismiss the appeal for being late and for failure to post the required bond. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially dismissed the appeal on February 18, 1991, but later set aside this resolution on March 26, 1991, deeming the appeal timely and the bond requirement not yet applicable. The NLRC's March 26, 1991 resolution is the subject of the current petition. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Roman P. Aquino filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The petition questions the NLRC's March 26, 1991 resolution, specifically its findings that the appeal was timely filed on a Monday following a Saturday deadline and that the appeal bond requirement under Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, was not yet in effect at the time of filing. The petition also addresses procedural issues regarding the availability of certiorari for interlocutory orders and the necessity of a motion for reconsideration.
Issue(s)
Whether a special civil action for certiorari can be availed of to review an interlocutory order without first filing a motion for reconsideration and when a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists. Whether a memorandum of appeal due on a Saturday can be filed timely on the following Monday. Whether the filing of a bond to perfect an appeal, under Article 223 of the Labor Code as amended by R.A. No. 6715, was required for appeals before the adoption of the NLRC Rules implementing said amendatory law.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The March 26, 1991 Resolution of the NLRC is REVERSED, and its February 18, 1992 Resolution is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari: The Court held that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 may be availed of to review an interlocutory order issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Delaying the review until the appeal from the main decision would not provide a speedy, plain, and adequate remedy. The failure to file a motion for reconsideration may be excused when the order sought to be reviewed is a patent nullity. Therefore, the petition for certiorari was the proper remedy in this case. On the timeliness of the appeal: The Court reiterated the ruling in Pacaña v. National Labor Relations Commission and subsequent amendments to the NLRC Rules of Procedure. It held that when the reglementary period for appeal falls on a Saturday, and the NLRC office is closed on Saturdays, the appeal is seasonably filed on the following Monday, which is the next working day. This is based on the principle that the law does not require the performance of an impossible act (impossibilium nulla obligatio est). Thus, the filing of the appeal on June 25, 1990, was considered timely. On the requirement of an appeal bond: The Court ruled that the provisions of Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, requiring the posting of a cash or surety bond in appeals from decisions of Labor Arbiters granting monetary awards, are self-executing. These provisions do not need administrative rules to implement them. Since the Labor Arbiter's decision included a monetary award, private respondent was required to post a bond equivalent to the money judgment to perfect its appeal. Failure to do so meant the appeal was not perfected, and the decision of the Labor Arbiter became final and executory.
Main Doctrine
The filing of an appeal bond is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal before the NLRC when the Labor Arbiter's decision grants a monetary award. Failure to post the bond renders the decision final and executory. Furthermore, an appeal memorandum due on a Saturday may be filed on the following Monday if the NLRC office is closed on Saturdays, as per established jurisprudence and amended NLRC Rules.