G.R. No. 109371 - JOSE GAUDIA, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONSCOMMISSION, PANIQUI SUGAR CORPORATION AND JOSE ROMASANTA. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby entered, ordering the respondents, jointly and severally, as follows: To pay the separation pay of complainant in the sum of P38,220.00 without any deduction or qualification; and To pay moral and exemplary damages in the sum of P25,000.00. "SO DECIDED. "San Fernando, Pampanga, 05 June 1992. "(s/t) DOMINADOR B. SALUDARES "Labor Arbiter" [8] On June 29, 1992, respondents received notice of the Labor Arbiter's decision. On July 9, 1992, respondents filed an appeal memorandum [9] with the NLRC, without posting the cash or surety bond as required under Rule VI, Section 3 of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. On July 15, 1992, petitioner moved for execution of the Labor Arbiter's decision, claiming that said decision had become final and executory for non-perfection of respondent's appeal brought about by their failure to post the required bond within the ten-day reglementary period. On July 17, 1992, Labor Arbiter Saludares issued a writ of execution. On August 6, 1992, private respondents filed with the Labor Arbiter's Office an Ex-Parte Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution. Meantime, on August 3, 1992, private respondents posted with the Labor Arbiter's Office a surety bond. On November 20, 1992, the NLRC rendered decision reversing the Labor Arbiter's judgment. It found that there was sufficient cause to dismiss petitioner, but that there was non-compliance with due process since the dismissal was effective on March 6, 1990 or only a day after petitioner received the notice of dismissal. Private respondents were thus directed to indemnify petitioner in the amount of P3,000.00 for failure to comply strictly with the requisites of due process. [10] On January 29, 1993, the NLRC denied [11] petitioner's motion for reconsideration of its November 20, 1992 decision. Hence, this petition. [12] Petitioner submits that: (1) the NLRC erred in giving due course to the appeal notwithstanding private respondents' failure to post the cash or surety bond within the reglementary period, and (2) the NLRC erred in holding that respondents had sufficient cause to dismiss petitioner. On November 13, 1995, we gave due course to the petition. [13] The petition is impressed with merit. On the procedural issue involved, petitioner points out that the posting of a cash or surety bond is a mandatory requirement for the perfection of an appeal to the NLRC from a judgment of the Labor Arbiter. This is clearly prescribed in Article 223 of the Labor Code and Sections 3 and 6, Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC which read, respectively: "Art. 223. Appeal. -- Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. "x x x x x x x x x "In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a ca