9/7/2016

G.R.No.109835

TodayisWednesday,September07,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.109835November22,1993
JMMPROMOTIONS&MANAGEMENT,INC.,petitioner,
vs.
NATIONALLABORRELATIONSCOMMISSIONandULPIANOL.DELOSSANTOS,respondent.
DonP.Porciunculaforpetitioner.
EulogioNones,Jr.forprivaterespondent.

CRUZ,J.:
The sole issue submitted in this case is the validity of the order of respondent National Labor Relations
Commission dated October 30, 1992, dismissing the petitioner's appeal from a decision of the Philippine
OverseasEmploymentAdministrationonthegroundoffailuretoposttherequiredappealbond.1
TherespondentcitedthesecondparagraphofArticle223oftheLaborCodeasamended,providingthat:
Inthecaseofajudgmentinvolvingamonetaryaward,anappealbytheemployermaybeperfected
only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly
accredited by the Commission in an amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment
appealedfrom.
andRuleVI,Section6ofthenewRulesofProcedureoftheNLRC,asamended,readingasfollows:
Sec.6.BondIncasethedecisionofaLaborArbiterinvolvesamonetaryaward,anappealbythe
employer shall be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable
bondingcompanydulyaccreditedbytheCommissionortheSupremeCourtinanamountequivalent
tothemonetaryaward.
ThepetitionercontendsthattheNLRCcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretioninapplyingtheserulestodecisions
rendered by the POEA. It insists that the appeal bond is not necessary in the case of licensed recruiters for
overseasemploymentbecausetheyarealreadyrequiredunderSection4,RuleII,BookIIofthePOEARulesnot
only to pay a license fee of P30,000 but also to post a cash bond of P100,000 and a surety bond of P50,000,
thus:
Uponapprovaloftheapplication,theapplicantshallpayalicensefeeofP30,000.Itshallalsoposta
cash bond of P100,000 and surety bond of P50,000 from a bonding company acceptable to the
Administration and duly accredited by the Insurance Commission. The bonds shall answer for all
valid and legal claims arising from violations of the conditions for the grant and use of the license,
and/or accreditation and contracts of employment. The bonds shall likewise guarantee compliance
withtheprovisionsoftheCodeanditsimplementingrulesandregulationsrelatingtorecruitmentand
placement,theRulesoftheAdministrationandrelevantissuancesoftheDepartmentandallliabilities
whichtheAdministrationmayimpose.Thesuretybondsshallincludetheconditionthatthenoticeto
the principal is notice to the surety and that any judgment against the principal in connection with
matters falling under POEA's jurisdiction shall be binding and conclusive on the surety. The surety
bondsshallbecoterminuswiththevalidityperiodoflicense.(Emphasissupplied)

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/nov1993/gr_109835_1993.html

1/3

9/7/2016

G.R.No.109835

Inaddition,thepetitionerclaimsithasplacedinescrowthesumofP200,000withthePhilippineNationalBankin
compliance with Section 17, Rule II, Book II of the same Rule, "to primarily answer for valid and legal claims of
recruitedworkersasaresultofrecruitmentviolationsormoneyclaims."
Requiredtocomment,theSolicitorGeneralsustainstheappealbondrequirementbutsuggestthattherulescited
bytheNLRCareapplicableonlytodecisionsoftheLaborArbitersandnotofthePOEA.Appealsfromdecisions
ofthePOEA,hesays,aregovernedbythefollowingprovisionsofRuleV,BookVIIofthePOEARules:
Sec.5.RequisitesforPerfectionofAppeal.Theappealshallbefiledwithinthereglementaryperiod
as provided in Section 1 of this Rule shall be under oath with proof of payment of the required
appealfeeandthepostingofacashorsuretybondasprovidedinSection6ofthisRule shall be
accompanied by a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the
argumentsinsupportthereofthereliefprayedforandastatementofthedatewhentheappellant
receivedtheappealeddecisionand/orawardandproofofserviceontheotherpartyofsuchappeal.
A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the
runningoftheperiodforperfectinganappeal.
Sec.6.Bond.IncasethedecisionoftheAdministrationinvolvesamonetaryaward,anappealbythe
employer shall be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable
bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in an amount equivalent to the monetary
award.(Emphasissupplied)
The question is, having posted the total bond of P150,000 and placed in escrow the amount of P200,000 as
requiredbythePOEARules,wasthepetitionerstillrequiredtopostanappealbondtoperfectitsappealfroma
decisionofthePOEAtotheNLRC?
Itwas.
ThePOEARulesareclear.Areadingthereofreadilyshowsthatinadditiontothecashandsuretybondsandthe
escrowmoney,anappealbondinanamountequivalenttothemonetaryawardisrequiredtoperfectanappeal
from a decision of the POEA. Obviously, the appeal bond is intended to further insure the payment of the
monetaryawardinfavoroftheemployeeifitiseventuallyaffirmedonappealtotheNLRC.
Itistruethatthecashandsuretybondsandthemoneyplacedinescrowaresupposedtoguaranteethepayment
of all valid and legal claims against the employer, but these claims are not limited to monetary awards to
employeeswhosecontractsofemploymenthavebeenviolated.ThePOEAcangoagainstthesebondsalsofor
violationsbytherecruiteroftheconditionsofitslicense,theprovisionsoftheLaborCodeanditsimplementing
rules,E.O.247(reorganizingPOEA)andthePOEARules,aswellasthesettlementofotherliabilitiestherecruiter
mayincur.
Asfortheescrowagreement,itwaspresumablyintendedtoprovideforastandingfund,asitwere,tobeused
onlyasalastresortandnottobereducedwiththeenforcementagainstitofeveryclaimofrecruitedworkersthat
maybeadjudgedagainsttheemployer.Thisamountmaynotevenbeenoughtocoversuchclaimsand,evenifit
couldinitially,mayeventuallybeexhaustedaftersatisfyingothersubsequentclaims.
Asithappens,thedecisionsoughttobeappealedgrantsamonetaryawardofaboutP170,000tothedismissed
employee, the herein private respondent. The standby guarantees required by the POEA Rules would be
depleted if this award were to be enforced not against the appeal bond but against the bonds and the escrow
money,makingtheminadequateforthesatisfactionoftheotherobligationstherecruitermayincur.
Indeed,itispossibleforthemonetaryawardinfavoroftheemployeetoexceedtheamountofP350,000,whichis
thesumofthebondsandescrowmoneyrequiredoftherecruiter.
Itistruethatthesestandbyguaranteesarenotimposedonlocalemployers,asthepetitionerobserves,butthere
isasimpleexplanationforthisdistinction.Overseasrecruitersaresubjecttomorestringentrequirementbecause
ofthespecialriskstowhichourworkersabroadaresubjectedbytheirforeignemployers,againstwhomthereis
usually no direct or effective recourse. The overseas recruiter is solidarily liable with a foreign employer. The
bondsandtheescrowmoneyareintendedtoinsuremorecareonthepartofthelocalagentinitschoiceofthe
foreignprincipaltowhomouroverseasworkersaretobesent.
Itisaprincipleoflegalhermeneuticsthatininterpretingastatute(orasetofrulesasinthiscase),careshouldbe
takenthateverypartthereofbegiveneffect,onthetheorythatitwasenactedasanintegratedmeasureandnot
asahodgepodgeofconflictingprovisions.Utresmagisvaleatquampereat. 2 Under the petitioner's interpretation,
theappealbondrequiredbySection6oftheaforementionedPOEARuleshouldbedisregardedbecauseoftheearlierbonds
andescrowmoneyithasposted.ThepetitionerwouldineffectnullifySection6asasuperfluitybutwedonotseeanysuch
redundancyonthecontrary,wefindthatSection6complementsSection4andSection17.Theruleisthataconstruction
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/nov1993/gr_109835_1993.html

2/3

9/7/2016

G.R.No.109835

thatwouldrenderaprovisioninoperativeshouldbeavoidedinstead,apparentlyinconsistentprovisionsshouldbereconciled
wheneverpossibleaspartsofacoordinatedandharmoniouswhole.

Accordingly,weholdthatinadditiontothemonetaryobligationsoftheoverseasrecruiterprescribedinSection4,
RuleII,BookIIofthePOEARulesandtheescrowagreementunderSection17ofthesameRule,itisnecessary
to post the appeal bond required under Section 6, Rule V, Book VII of the POEA Rules, as a condition for
perfectinganappealfromadecisionofthePOEA.
Everyintendmentofthelawmustbeinterpretedinfavoroftheworkingclass,conformablytothemandateofthe
Constitution.Bysustainingratherthanannullingtheappealbondasafurtherprotectiontotheclaimantemployee,
thisCourtaffirmsonceagainitscommitmenttotheinterestoflabor.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDISMISSED,withcostsagainstthepetitioner.Itissoordered.
DavideandQuiason,JJ.,concur.
Bellosillo,J,isonleave.

#Footnotes
1OrderissuedbyNLRCCommissionerDomingoH.Zapanta,SecondDivision,datedOctober30,
1992.
2"Thatthethingmayratherhaveeffectthanbedestroyed."Simondsv.Walker,100Mass.113
NationalPembertonBankv.Lougee,108Mass.373,11Am.Rep.367.Charitablebequestsarealso
governedbythismaxim.Kiegv.Richardson,C.C.A.N.C.,B6F.2d849,858.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/nov1993/gr_109835_1993.html

3/3