JMM PROMOTIONS & MANAGEMENT, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ULPIANO L. DE LOS SANTOS, RESPONDENTS.

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 Overseas
Employment Administration on the ground of failure to post the required appeal
bond.^[1]

The respondent cited the second paragraph of Article 223 of the
Labor Code, as amended, providing that:

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.

and Rule VI, Section 6 of the new Rules
of Procedure of the NLRC, as amended, reading as follows:

Section 6. Bond. – In
case the decision of a Labor Arbiter involves a monetary award, an appeal by
the 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 or the
Supreme Court in an amount equivalent to the monetary award.

The petitioner contends that the NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion in applying these rules to decisions rendered by the POEA. It
insists that the appeal bond is not necessary in the case of licensed
recruiters for overseas employment because they are already required under
Section 4, Rule II, Book II of the POEA Rules not only to pay a license fee of
P30,000.00 but also to post a cash bond of P100,000.00 and a surety bond of
P50,000.00, thus:

Upon approval of the application, the applicant shall pay a license
fee of P30,000.00. It shall also post a cash bond of P100,000.00 and surety
bond of P50,000.00 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 with the provisions of the Code and its implementing rules and
regulations relating to recruitment and placement, the Rules of the
Administration and relevant issuances of the Department and all liabilities
which the Administration may impose. The surety bonds shall include the
condition that the notice to 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 bonds
shall be co-terminus with the validity period of license. (Emphasis supplied)

In addition, the petitioner claims it has placed in escrow the
sum of P200,000.00 with the Philippine National Bank in compliance with Section
17, Rule II, Book II of the same Rule, “to primarily answer for valid and
legal claims of recruited workers as a result of recruitment violations or
money claims.”

Required to comment, the Solicitor General sustains the appeal
bond requirement but suggests that the rules cited by the NLRC are applicable
only to decisions of the Labor Arbiters and not of the POEA. Appeals from
decisions of the POEA, he says, are governed by the following provisions of
Rule V, Book VII of the POEA Rules:

Section 5. Requisites for Perfection of
Appeal. The appeal shall be filed
within the reglementary period as provided in Section 1 of this Rule; shall be
under oath with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the
posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; shall be accompanied by a memorandum of
appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support
thereof; the relief prayed for; and a statement of the date when the appellant
received the appealed decision and/or award and proof of service on the other
party of such appeal.

A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites
aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.

Section 6. Bond. In case the decision of the
Administration involves a monetary award, an appeal by the 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. (Emphasis supplied)

The question is, having posted the total bond of P150,000.00 and
placed in escrow the amount of P200,000.00 as required by the POEA Rules, was
the petitioner still required to post an appeal bond to perfect its appeal from
a decision of the POEA to the NLRC?

It was.

The POEA Rules are clear. A reading thereof readily shows that in
addition to the cash and surety bonds and the escrow money, an appeal bond in
an amount equivalent to the monetary award is required to perfect an appeal
from a decision of the POEA. Obviously,
the appeal bond is intended to further insure the payment of the monetary award
in favor of the employee if it is eventually affirmed on appeal to the NLRC.

It is true that
the cash and surety bonds and the money placed in escrow are supposed to
guarantee the payment of all valid and legal claims against the employer, but
these claims are not limited to monetary awards to employees whose contracts of
employment have been violated. The POEA can go against these bonds also for
violations by the recruiter of the conditions of its license, the provisions of
the Labor Code and its implementing rules, E.O. 247 (reorganizing the POEA) and
the POEA Rules, as well as the settlement of other liabilities the recruiter
may incur.

As for the escrow agreement, it was presumably intended to
provide for a standing fund, as it were, to be used only as a last resort and
not to be reduced with the enforcement against it of every claim of recruited
workers that may be adjudged against the employer. This amount may not even be
enough to cover such claims and, even if it could initially, may eventually be
exhausted after satisfying other subsequent claims.

As it happens, the decision sought to be appealed grants a
monetary award of about P170,000.00 to the dismissed 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, making them inadequate for the satisfaction
of the other obligations the recruiter may incur.

Indeed, it is possible for the monetary award in favor of the
employee to exceed the amount of P350,000.00, which is the sum of the bonds and
escrow money required of the recruiter.

It is true that these standby guarantees are not imposed on local
employers, as the petitioner observes, but there is a simple explanation for
this distinction. Overseas recruiters are subject to more stringent
requirements because of the special risks to which our workers abroad are
subjected by their foreign employers, against whom there is usually no direct
or effective recourse. The overseas recruiter is solidarily liable with the
foreign employer. The bonds and the escrow money are intended to insure more
care on the part of the local agent in its choice of the foreign principal to
whom our overseas workers are to be sent.

It is a principle of legal hermeneutics that in interpreting a
statute (or a set of rules as in this case), care should be taken that every
part thereof be given effect, on the theory that it was enacted as an
integrated measure and not as a hodge-podge of conflicting provisions. Ut
res magis valeat quam pereat.^[2] Under
the petitioner’s interpretation, the appeal bond required by Section 6 of the
aforementioned POEA Rule should be disregarded because of the earlier bonds and
escrow money it has posted. The petitioner would in effect nullify Section 6 as
a superfluity but we do not see any such redundancy; on the contrary, we find
that Section 6 complements Section 4 and Section 17. The rule is that a
construction that would render a provision inoperative should be avoided;
instead, apparently inconsistent provisions should be reconciled whenever
possible as parts of a coordinated and harmonious whole.

Accordingly, we hold that in addition to the monetary obligations
of the overseas recruiter prescribed in Section 4, Rule II, Book II of the POEA
Rules and the escrow agreement under Section 17 of the same Rule, it is
necessary to post the appeal bond required under Section 6, Rule V, Book VII of
the POEA Rules, as a condition for perfecting an appeal from a decision of the
POEA.

Every intendment of the law must be interpreted in favor of the
working class, conformably to the mandate of the Constitution. By sustaining rather than annulling the
appeal bond as a further protection to the claimant employee, this Court
affirms once again its commitment to interests of labor.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED, with costs against
the petitioner. It is so ordered.

Davide, Jr. and Quiason,
JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., on leave.

^[1]
Order issued by NLRC Commissioner Domingo H. Zapanta, Second Division, dated
October 30, 1992.

^[2]
“That the thing may rather have effect than be destroyed.” Simonds v.
Walker, 100 Mass. 113; National Pemberton Bank v. Lougee, 108 Mass. 373,
11 Am. Rep. 367. Charitable bequests
are also governed by this maxim. King v.
Richardson, C.C.A. N.C., B6 F.2d 849, 858.