SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NOE LEVANTINO, IDG HUMAN RESOURCES, INC., (FORMERLY IDG TRADING AND GENERAL SERVICES, INC.), RESPONDENTS.

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency versus Levantino

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, a licensed recruiter of overseas Filipino workers, against its former employee-deployer Noe Levantino and against IDG Human Resources, the agency that later took over its foreign principal. Levantino had sued for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and illegal deductions after his employment in Saudi Arabia was cut short. The Labor Arbiter found no illegal dismissal but ordered Sameer and IDG to pay a wage differential jointly and severally. Sameer appealed, but it filed its appeal bond six days late. The case matters because it fixes the character of the appeal bond in labor cases: it is not a mere procedural nicety but a jurisdictional requirement, without which the labor commission never acquires jurisdiction over the employer's appeal.

Procedural History

Levantino filed his complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. The Labor Arbiter ruled that there was no illegal dismissal, but that Levantino had been underpaid and subjected to illegal deductions, and ordered Sameer and IDG to pay him jointly and severally the sum of six hundred thirty-three United States dollars and sixteen cents, or its peso equivalent, plus attorney's fees.

Sameer received the decision on the seventeenth of October, nineteen hundred ninety-seven, and had until the twenty-eighth of October to perfect its appeal. It filed its notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal on the twenty-seventh, together with a motion for extension of time to post a surety bond. It posted the bond only on the third of November. The National Labor Relations Commission, First Division, dismissed the appeal for failure to perfect it within the ten-day reglementary period. The Court of Appeals, Sixteenth Division, affirmed that dismissal. Sameer then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review.

Facts

Sameer hired Noe Levantino and deployed him for its foreign principal, Arabian Fal Company, on the twentieth of July, nineteen hundred ninety-four. His contract, approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, was for twelve months and fixed his basic monthly salary at two hundred seventy-seven United States dollars.

Upon arriving at the job site the next day, Levantino was made to sign another contract, this time at six hundred seventy-nine Saudi rials basic pay plus one hundred eighty Saudi rials as food allowance. Barely six months into the job, on the fourth of January, nineteen hundred ninety-five, the foreign employer terminated him and he was repatriated.

He filed his complaint on the seventh of February, nineteen hundred ninety-five. Sameer, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against IDG, claiming that its accreditation for Arabian Fal had already been transferred to IDG under an affidavit of assumption of responsibility and quitclaims. The Labor Arbiter held that the termination was for a just or authorized cause, but that Levantino had been underpaid and subjected to illegal deductions, and held Sameer and IDG solidarily liable.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission acquired jurisdiction over Sameer's appeal when the appeal bond was posted six days after the lapse of the ten-day reglementary period.
• Whether or not the appeal bond requirement may be relaxed in this case, given that a motion for extension was filed within the period and the bond was later posted.
• Whether or not Sameer may be held jointly and severally liable with IDG for the monetary award despite the transfer of its accreditation to IDG.

Applicable Provisions

Article 223 of the Labor Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

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. . . 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.

This is the provision the Court construes, and its word "only" is the textual anchor for the ruling that the bond is indispensable to perfection.

Section 3 of Rule VI of the National Labor Relations Commission Rules of Procedure provides:

Section 3. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. – (a) 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 5 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, order or award and proof of service on the other party of such appeal. A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisite aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.

This confirms that a notice of appeal alone does not toll the period, and that the bond must accompany the appeal.

Section 6 of the same Rule provides:

Section 6. Bond. – In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter, the Regional Director or his duly authorized Hearing Officer involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer shall be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond, which shall be in effect until final disposition of the case, issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission or the Supreme Court in an amount equivalent to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorney's fees. The employer, his counsel, as well as the bonding company, shall submit a joint declaration under oath attesting that the surety bond posted is genuine. The Commission may, in justifiable cases and upon Motion of the Appellant, reduce the amount of the bond. The filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect appeal.

This forecloses Sameer's argument that its motion for extension suspended the period, since even a motion to reduce the bond expressly does not stop the running of the period.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commission did not acquire jurisdiction over Sameer's appeal. The Labor Code is explicit that the appeal must be perfected within ten days and that it is perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. The Court stressed that the bond requirement is not merely procedural but jurisdictional, for without it the Commission does not acquire jurisdiction over the appeal. Since the bond was filed six days after the reglementary period lapsed, the appeal was never perfected.

On the second issue, the Court refused to relax the rule. While it has recognized leeway in justifiable cases, the overpowering legislative intent of Article 223 is a strict application of the bond requirement as a burden imposed on the employer. The Court quoted its own recent holding:

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 Court found nothing peculiar or extraordinary in the facts. Sameer could have begun procuring the bond as early as the day it received the decision, and the amount of the judgment, six hundred thirty-three dollars and sixteen cents, was relatively miniscule. Nor did Sameer's three hundred thousand pesos in bonds posted with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration excuse it, because those bonds answer not only monetary awards to employees but also violations of the conditions of its license and other liabilities.

On the third issue, the Court agreed that Sameer's solidary liability was supported by jurisprudence, since it was Sameer, not IDG, that had contracted with Levantino and guaranteed the wages that were not paid. But whatever merit Sameer's case may have had, it could not escape the fact that it inexcusably failed to perfect its appeal within the mandated period. The Court will not bend the rules except in highly meritorious cases, and this was not one of them.

Doctrine

An appeal from a decision of the Labor Arbiter involving a monetary award is perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond within the ten-day reglementary period. The bond requirement is jurisdictional, not merely procedural: without a timely bond, the National Labor Relations Commission acquires no jurisdiction over the appeal, and the Labor Arbiter's decision becomes final and executory. A motion for extension or for reduction of the bond does not stop the running of the period to perfect the appeal. The rule may be relaxed only in highly meritorious cases, and the employer's compliance with separate bonding requirements under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration rules does not substitute for the appeal bond.

Disposition

The petition was denied, with costs against Sameer, and the dismissal of its appeal stood.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the appeal bond in a labor case is jurisdictional, and the word "only" in Article 223 makes it the exclusive means of perfecting an employer's appeal. Examiners use this case to test whether you know that a late bond, a motion for extension, or bonds posted with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration will not save an employer's appeal.