|
|
|
|
|
UERM-MEMORIAL
MEDICAL CENTER
G. R. No. 110419
March 3, 1997
-versus-
NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
and UERM 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:
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:
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:
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 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:
1.2. Under RA 6727 P3,559,613.06 1.3. Policy Instructions 54 P11,779,328.00 Total P17,082,448.56
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. The applicable
law is Article 223 of the Labor
Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715, which provides:
We have given a liberal interpretation to this provision. In YBL [Your Bus Line] v. NLRC[4] we ruled:
Then too, in Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission[5] we held:
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. 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. SO ORDERED. Regalado, Romero, Mendoza and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur. __________________________________
[2] Rollo, p. 64. [3] Ibid., pp. 35-38. [4] 190 SCRA 164 [1990]. [5] 246 SCRA 801 [1995]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|