(A) JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. v. NLRC (November 22, 1993)

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 109835. November 22, 1993.]
JMM PROMOTIONS & MANAGEMENT, INC., petitioner, vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ULPIANO L.
DE LOS SANTOS, respondents.
Don P. Porciuncula for petitioner.

Eulogio Nones, Jr. for private respondent.
DECISION
CRUZ, J : p
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: LexLib
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.
a n d 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: cdphil
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
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: cdrep
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? LLjur
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. cdphil
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. cdll
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. LLpr
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 the 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 ., is on leave.
Footnotes
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.

(A) JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. v. NLRC (November 22, 1993)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(A) JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. v. NLRC (November 22, 1993)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 109835. November 22, 1993.]

JMM PROMOTIONS & MANAGEMENT, INC., petitioner, vs.

Don P. Porciuncula for petitioner.

In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by

a n d Rule VI, Section 6 of the new Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, as

The petitioner contends that the NLRC committed grave abuse of

Upon approval of the application, the applicant shall pay a

In addition, the petitioner claims it has placed in escrow the sum of

Section 5. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal . — The appeal

A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other

Section 6. Bond. In case the decision of the Administration

As for the escrow agreement, it was presumably intended to provide for a

It is a principle of legal hermeneutics that in interpreting a statute (or a

Every intendment of the law must be interpreted in favor of the working

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like