Case Digest: UERM-Memorial Medical Center v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110419, March 3, 1997
- Republic Act No. 6640 and 6727 mandated salary increases, causing discrepancies in pay among faculty members, union, and non-union rank-and-file employees.
- Labor Secretary Franklin Drilon also issued Policy Instruction No. 54, demanding full weekly wages for hospital and clinic personnel who complete a 40-hour/5-day workweek.
- Petitioners challenged the policy, refusing salary payments for Saturdays and Sundays.
- Private respondents filed a complaint claiming salary differentials and correction of salary distortion.
- Labor Arbiter: Favored private respondents, directing payment of salary differentials under RA Nos. 6640 and 6727, and salary for Saturdays and Sundays as per Policy Instruction No. 54.
- Petitioners filed an appeal with a Real Estate Bond worth P102,345,650, contrary to the requirement of a cash or surety bond.
- NLRC: Directed petitioners to post a cash or surety bond amounting to the monetary award, warning that failure would result in appeal dismissal.
WoN in perfecting an appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a property bond is excluded by the two forms of appeal bond — cash or surety — as enumerated in Article 223 of the Labor Code. NO
The applicable law is Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715, which provides:
In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from.
We have given a liberal interpretation to this provision. In YBL (Your Bus Line) v. NLRC we ruled:
. . . that while Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715, requiring a cash or surety bond in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from for the appeal to be perfected, may be considered a jurisdictional requirement, nevertheless, adhering to the principle that substantial justice is better served by allowing the appeal on the merits threshed out by the NLRC, the Court finds and so holds that the foregoing requirement of the law should be given a liberal interpretation.
Then too, in Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission we held:
The intention of the lawmakers to make the bond an indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer is underscored by the provision that an appeal by the employer may be perfected "only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond." The word "only" makes it perfectly clear, that the lawmakers intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer to be the exclusive means by which an employer's appeal may be perfected. The requirement is intended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy their employees' just and lawful claims.
Considering, however, that the current policy is not to strictly follow technical rules but rather to take into account the spirit and intention of the Labor Code, it would be prudent for us to look into the merits of the case, especially since petitioner disputes the allegation that private respondent was illegally dismissed.
We reiterate this policy which stresses the importance of deciding cases on the basis of their substantive merit and not on strict technical rules. In the case at bar, the judgment involved is more than P17 million and its precipitate execution can adversely affect the existence of petitioner medical center. Likewise, the issues involved are not insignificant and they deserve a full discourse by our quasi-judicial and judicial authorities. We are also confident that the real property bond posted by the petitioners sufficiently protects the interests of private respondents should they finally prevail. It is not disputed that the real property offered by petitioners is worth P102,345,650. The judgment in favor of private respondent is only a little more than P17 million.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the resolutions dated October 6, 1992 and June 7, 1993 of the public respondent are set aside. The case is remanded to the NLRC for continuation of proceedings. No costs.
Comments
Post a Comment