Globe General Services and Security Agency v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Leonardo L. Marbebe, a security guard employed by petitioners Globe General Services and Security Agency and Gaudencio G. Cantos, Jr., filed a complaint alleging illegal suspension, underpayment of salary, and non-payment of overtime, legal holiday pay, premium pay, and violation of PD No. 851. Marbebe's evidence indicated he was paid below the minimum wage and was suspended on February 13, 1990, after which he was no longer assigned duties. Despite a request for leave and an attempt to return to work, he was refused admittance. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint against Lourdes School after a settlement. On July 30, 1990, the Labor Arbiter ruled that Marbebe's suspension constituted constructive dismissal and ordered petitioners to reinstate him and pay P40,740.08 in overtime pay and back wages. Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), but their appeal was dismissed for failure to file a supersedeas bond as required by Article 223 of the Labor Code. A motion for reconsideration was denied, and the NLRC increased the monetary award to P93,604.58 in an order dated February 6, 1992. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied in a resolution dated July 20, 1992. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the NLRC acted without jurisdiction by affirming a void decision based solely on an unverified position paper. They contended that their failure to file the appeal bond was due to the erroneous computation of the monetary award and that the NLRC should have remanded the case for presentation of their evidence. Petitioners also asserted that the finding of illegal dismissal was unsupported by evidence. The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding that the NLRC exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying the Labor Arbiter's decision after it had become final due to the failure to perfect the appeal with the required bond.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter's decision despite petitioners' failure to perfect their appeal by posting the required supersedeas bond. Whether the NLRC exceeded its jurisdiction when it modified the Labor Arbiter's decision after it had already attained finality.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The challenged Order and Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dated 6 February 1992 and 20 July 1992, respectively, are SET ASIDE and the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 30 July 1990 is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the NLRC's jurisdiction and the perfection of appeal: The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC acted in excess of its jurisdiction. Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 6715, clearly mandates that an appeal by an employer involving a monetary award is perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award within the ten (10) calendar days reglementary period. The word "only" underscores the indispensable nature of the bond for the perfection of the appeal. In this case, petitioners failed to file the required supersedeas bond within the reglementary period, offering no explanation for the omission at that time. Their subsequent attempt to file a bond, even under protest and for a lesser amount, was made long after the appeal period had lapsed and after their appeal had already been dismissed. The Court emphasized that the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is jurisdictional, and failure to comply with the mandatory posting of the bond renders the decision of the Labor Arbiter final and executory. The NLRC's act of proceeding to review the merits of the appeal and modifying the award, despite the non-perfection of the appeal, constituted grave abuse of discretion and an act in excess of its jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that petitioners could not use alleged errors in computation as a justification for not submitting the mandatory bond; instead, they should have filed a motion to reduce the bond within the reglementary period. On the modification of the Labor Arbiter's decision: Since the appeal was not perfected, the decision of the Labor Arbiter became final and executory. Consequently, the NLRC lost its jurisdiction to pass upon the merits of the case. Its subsequent action of modifying the monetary award was therefore an act performed without jurisdiction. The Court reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter, holding that the NLRC had no authority to modify an award that had already attained finality due to the failure of the employer to perfect their appeal in accordance with the law.
Main Doctrine
An appeal by an employer involving a monetary award is perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award within the reglementary period. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the decision final and executory, and any subsequent action by the appellate body on the merits of the appeal constitutes an act in excess of jurisdiction.