SECOND
DIVISION
UERM-MEMORIAL
MEDICAL CENTER
and DR. ISIDRO CARINO,
Petitioners,
G. R. No. 110419
March 3, 1997
-versus-
NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSIONand UERM
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
PRISCILLO
DALOGDOG
and 516 MEMBER -
EMPLOYEES of UERM HOSPITAL,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
The question
presented in this petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 is whether or not in perfecting an appeal to the National
Labor Relations Commission [NLRC], a property bond is excluded by the
two
forms of appeal bond - cash or surety - as enumerated in Article 223 of
the Labor Code.
The facts show
that on 14 December 1987, Republic
Act No. 6640 took effect which mandated a ten [P10.00] peso increase on
the prevailing daily minimum wage of P54.00. In applying said law, the
petitioners granted salary increases to their employees based on the
following
computation, to wit:
1. To members of the faculty who are
non-union
members, P304.17 per month;
2. To rank-and-file employees [individual
complainants
who are union members], P209.17 per month.
There was a
difference of P95.00 in the salaries
of the two classes of employees. Private respondents who are
rank-and-file
employees demanded payment of the difference. Before the parties could
settle their dispute, Republic Act No. 6727 took effect on 1 July 1989
which again increased the daily minimum wage in the private sector
[whether
agricultural or non-agricultural] by P25.00. In compliance, petitioners
paid their employees using the following computation, to wit:
1. To members of the faculty who are
non-union
members, P760.42 a month; and
2. To rank-and-file employees [individual
complainants
who are union members], P523.00 a month.
Again, there
was a difference of P237.42 per month
between the salaries of union members and non-union members. In
September
1987, petitioners increased the hiring rate of the new employees to
P188.00
per month. Private respondents once more demanded from the petitioners
payment of the salary differential mandated by R. A. No. 6727 and
correction
of the wage distortion brought about by the increase in the hiring rate
of new employees.
On 12 April 1988,
Policy Instructions No. 54 was
issued by the then Secretary of Labor Franklin Drilon, the pertinent
provision
of which reads:
xxx the personnel in subject hospitals
and
clinics
are entitled to a full weekly wage of seven days if they have completed
the 40-hour/5-day workweek in any given workweek.
All enforcement and adjudicatory
agencies of
this
Department shall be guided by this issuance in the disposition of cases
involving the personnel of covered hospitals and clinics.
Done in the City of Manila, this 12th
day of
April,
1988.
[Sgd.] FRANKLIN M. DRILON
Secretary
Petitioners
challenged the validity of said Policy
Instruction and refused to pay the salaries of the private respondents
for Saturdays and Sundays. Consequently, a complaint was filed by the
private
respondents, represented by the Federation of Free Workers [FFW],
claiming
salary differentials under Republic Acts Nos. 6640 and 6727, correction
of the wage distortion and the payment of salaries for Saturdays and
Sundays
under Policy Instructions No. 54.
Labor Arbiter
Nieves de Castro sustained the private
respondents except for their claim of wage distortion. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, respondents are
hereby
directed
to pay the 517 individual complainants:
[1] Their Salary Differentials, to wit:
1.1. Under RA 6640
P1,743,582.50
1.2. Under RA 6727
P3,559,613.06
1.3. Policy Instructions
54
P11,779,328.00
Total P17,082,448.56
[2] Exemplary Damages of P2,000.00 each.
Within the
reglementary period for appeal, the petitioners
filed their Notice and Memorandum of Appeal with a Real Estate Bond
consisting
of land and various improvements therein worth P102,345,650.[2]
The private respondents moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that
Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended, requires the posting of a
cash
or surety bond. The NLRC directed petitioners to post a cash or surety
bond of P17,082,448.56 with a warning that failure to do so would cause
the dismissal of the appeal. The petitioners filed a Motion for
Reconsideration
alleging it is not in a viable financial condition to post a cash bond
nor to pay the annual premium of P700,000.00 for a surety bond. On 6
October
1992, the NLRC dismissed petitioners' appeal. Petitioners' Motion for
Reconsideration
was also denied by the NLRC in a resolution[3]
dated 7 June 1993.
Hence, this
petition assailing the two resolutions
as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. On 28 June 1993,
We temporarily enjoined the NLRC from implementing the questioned
resolutions
and from executing the decision of the Labor Arbiter.cralaw:red
The applicable
law is Article 223 of the Labor
Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715, which provides:
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.
We have given a
liberal interpretation to this provision.
In YBL [Your Bus Line] v. NLRC[4]
we ruled:
xxxthat while Article 223 of the Labor
Code,
as amended by Republic Act No. 6715, requiring a cash or surety bond in
the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed
from
for the appeal to be perfected, may be considered a jurisdictional
requirement,
nevertheless, adhering to the principle that substantial justice is
better
served by allowing the appeal on the merits threshed out by the NLRC,
the
Court finds and so holds that the foregoing requirement of the law
should
be given a liberal interpretation.
Then too, in
Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative,
Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission[5]
we held:
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 requirement is intended to discourage
employers
from using an appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligation to
satisfy
their employees' just and lawful claims.
Considering,
however, that the current policy is
not to strictly follow technical rules but rather to take into account
the spirit and intention of the Labor Code, it would be prudent for us
to look into the merits of the case, especially since petitioner
disputes
the allegation that private respondent was illegally dismissed.
We reiterate this
policy which stresses the importance
of deciding cases on the basis of their substantive merit and not on
strict
technical rules. In the case at bar, the judgment involved is more than
P17 million and its precipitate execution can adversely affect the
existence
of petitioner medical center. Likewise, the issues involved are not
insignificant
and they deserve a full discourse by our quasi-judicial and judicial
authorities.
We are also confident that the real property bond posted by the
petitioners
sufficiently protects the interests of private respondents should they
finally prevail. It is not disputed that the real property offered by
petitioners
is worth P102,345,650. The judgment in favor of private respondent is
only
a little more than P17 million.cralaw:red
IN VIEW WHEREOF,
the resolutions dated October
6, 1992 and June 7, 1993 of the public respondent are SET ASIDE. The
case
is REMANDED to the NLRC for continuation of proceedings. No costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Regalado, Romero,
Mendoza and Torres, Jr., JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
__________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Original Records, pp. 39-51.
[2]
Rollo, p. 64.
[3]
Ibid., pp. 35-38.
[4]
190 SCRA 164 [1990].
[5]
246 SCRA 801 [1995]. |