Rizal Lamzon v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Edilberto T. Cuetara and Manuel M. Banta were hired by Rizal International Shipping Services for employment on a vessel. They filed separate complaints, later consolidated, against their employer for alleged non-payment of wages, overtime pay, and sales bonus for the period of January 1 to March 6, 1988. Procedural History: The Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) ruled in favor of Cuetara and Banta on October 28, 1992, ordering Rizal International Shipping Services to pay their claims. The petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal with the POEA on November 12, 1992, along with an Appeal Memorandum and a Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Bond. The appeal fee was paid, and the appeal bond was filed on November 20, 1992. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed the appeal on October 26, 1993, for failure to perfect the appeal within the reglementary period due to the late filing of the appeal bond. A motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC on January 11, 1994. The Petition: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari, arguing that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing its appeal and motion for reconsideration. Petitioner contends that its appeal was perfected on November 12, 1992, with the filing of the Notice of Appeal, Appeal Memorandum, and Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Bond, asserting that the filing of the bond itself could be extended. The petition challenges the NLRC's strict adherence to the rules regarding the perfection of appeals, particularly the timely posting of the appeal bond, and the prohibition against extensions for perfecting an appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal for failure to perfect it within the reglementary period. Whether the filing of a "Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Bond" within the reglementary period, along with the notice of appeal, appeal memorandum, and appeal fee, can perfect an appeal despite the appeal bond being filed after the reglementary period.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The challenged NLRC Resolution dated October 28, 1993, and Order dated January 11, 1994, are affirmed. The temporary restraining order issued on April 11, 1994, is lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal for failure to perfect it within the reglementary period: The Supreme Court held that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the appealed decision final and executory, depriving the appellate body of jurisdiction to alter the judgment. In this case, the petitioner received the POEA decision on November 7, 1992, giving them ten (10) calendar days to perfect their appeal. The appeal was dismissed because the appeal bond was filed on November 20, 1992, which was beyond the ten-day reglementary period. The Court found no cogent reason to deviate from this established principle. On the issue of whether the filing of a "Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Bond" within the reglementary period, along with the notice of appeal, appeal memorandum, and appeal fee, can perfect an appeal despite the appeal bond being filed after the reglementary period: The Supreme Court disagreed with the petitioner's contention. The Court emphasized that Section 7, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended, explicitly states that "No motion or request for extension of the period within which to perfect an appeal shall be allowed." The filing of a motion for extension to file the appeal bond, even if filed within the reglementary period, does not stop the running of the period to perfect the appeal, nor does it grant an extension. The posting of the appeal bond is an indispensable and jurisdictional requisite for perfecting an appeal in cases involving monetary awards. Therefore, the appeal bond filed on November 20, 1992, was considered out of time, rendering the POEA decision final and executory.
Main Doctrine
A motion for extension of time to file an appeal bond does not toll the reglementary period for perfecting an appeal, especially when Section 7, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure explicitly states that no motion or request for extension of the period within which to perfect an appeal shall be allowed. The filing of the appeal bond is a jurisdictional requirement, and failure to comply within the reglementary period renders the decision final and executory.