Summary of Jurisprudence on APPEAL BOND as NLRC Requirement
The requirement for posting the surety bond is not merely procedural but jurisdictional and cannot be trifled with. Non-compliance with such legal requirements is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory. (G.R. No. 182626, December 4, 2009)
Contrary to petitioners' assertion, the appeal bond is not merely procedural but jurisdictional. Without said bond, the NLRC does not acquire jurisdiction over the appeal. Indeed, non-compliance with such legal requirements is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory. It must be stressed that there is no inherent right to an appeal in a labor case, as it arises solely from the grant of statute.
Evidently, the NLRC did not acquire jurisdiction over petitioners' appeal within the ten (10)-day reglementary period to perfect the appeal as the appeal bond was filed eight (8) days after the last day thereof. Thus, the Court cannot ascribe grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC or error to the Court of Appeals in refusing to take cognizance of petitioners' belated appeal.
While indeed the Court has relaxed the application of this requirement in cases where the failure to comply with the requirement was justified or where there was substantial compliance with the rules, the overpowering legislative intent of Article 223 remains to be for a strict application of the appeal bond requirement as a requisite for the perfection of an appeal and as a burden imposed on the employer. (G.R. No. 172409, February 4, 2008; G.R. No. 155844, July 14, 2008)
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 may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. The language of the law is perfectly clear that the lawmakers intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer to be an indispensable means by which an employer's appeal is perfected or completed. While the use of the word may makes the perfection of an appeal as optional on the part of the defeated party, but to do so the posting of an appeal bond is required by law. Evidently then, the posting of a bond is mandatory, and the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. (G.R. No. 151854, September 3, 2008; G.R. No. 152550, June 8, 2005)
The requirement that the employer post a cash or surety bond to perfect its/his appeal is apparently intended to assure the workers that if they prevail in the case, they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the employer's appeal. It was intended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy their employees' just and lawful claims. (G.R. No. 151854, September 3, 2008; G.R. No. 97357, March 18, 1992)
Evidently, the NLRC did not acquire jurisdiction over petitioners' appeal within the ten (10)-day reglementary period to perfect the appeal as the appeal bond was filed eight (8) days after the last day thereof. Thus, the Court cannot ascribe grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC or error to the Court of Appeals in refusing to take cognizance of petitioners' belated appeal.
While indeed the Court has relaxed the application of this requirement in cases where the failure to comply with the requirement was justified or where there was substantial compliance with the rules, the overpowering legislative intent of Article 223 remains to be for a strict application of the appeal bond requirement as a requisite for the perfection of an appeal and as a burden imposed on the employer. (G.R. No. 172409, February 4, 2008; G.R. No. 155844, July 14, 2008)
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 may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. The language of the law is perfectly clear that the lawmakers intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer to be an indispensable means by which an employer's appeal is perfected or completed. While the use of the word may makes the perfection of an appeal as optional on the part of the defeated party, but to do so the posting of an appeal bond is required by law. Evidently then, the posting of a bond is mandatory, and the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. (G.R. No. 151854, September 3, 2008; G.R. No. 152550, June 8, 2005)
The requirement that the employer post a cash or surety bond to perfect its/his appeal is apparently intended to assure the workers that if they prevail in the case, they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the employer's appeal. It was intended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy their employees' just and lawful claims. (G.R. No. 151854, September 3, 2008; G.R. No. 97357, March 18, 1992)
