Case Digest (G.R. No. 110419)
Facts:
In UERM-Memorial Medical Center and Dr. Isidro Carino v. National Labor Relations Commission and UERM Employees Association, Priscillo Dalogdog and 516 Members-Employees of UERM Hospital, G.R. No. 110419, March 03, 1997, the Supreme Court Second Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court, considered whether a real estate bond may be accepted in lieu of the cash or surety bond enumerated in Article 223 of the Labor Code when perfecting an employer's appeal to the NLRC.The petitioners are UERM-Memorial Medical Center and Dr. Isidro Carino; the respondents are the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the UERM Employees Association, represented by Priscillo Dalogdog and 516 rank-and-file employees (private respondents). The dispute arose from wage-adjustment laws and an administrative policy instruction. After Republic Act No. 6640 took effect on December 14, 1987 (P10 increase on prevailing daily minimum wage) petitioners granted different monthly increases to faculty/non-union employees (P304.17) and to rank-and-file union members (P209.17), producing a P95.00 monthly difference which rank-and-file employees protested.
Before resolution of that dispute, Republic Act No. 6727 effective July 1, 1989 again increased minimum wages by P25.00 daily. Petitioners applied that increase but again paid faculty/non-union employees more (P760.42 monthly) than rank-and-file union employees (P523.00 monthly), creating a P237.42 monthly differential. Petitioners also raised the hiring rate for new employees to P188.00 per month, which private respondents claimed produced a wage distortion. Additionally, on April 12, 1988 Secretary of Labor Franklin Drilon issued Policy Instruction No. 54, directing that personnel in subject hospitals and clinics who completed a 40-hour/5-day workweek are entitled to a full weekly wage of seven days; petitioners refused to pay Saturday and Sunday wages and questioned the validity of the Policy Instruction.
The private respondents, through the Federation of Free Workers, filed complaints claiming salary differentials under RA 6640 and RA 6727, correction of wage distortion, and payment for Saturdays and Sundays under Policy Instruction No. 54. Labor Arbiter Nieves de Castro ruled largely for private respondents and awarded, inter alia, salary differentials under RA 6640 (P1,743,582.50), RA 6727 (P3,559,613.06), and for Policy Instruction No. 54 (P11,779,328.00), totaling P17,082,448.56, plus exemplary damages of P2,000.00 each.
Within the appeal period petitioners filed a Notice and Memorandum of Appeal to the NLRC and tendered a real estate bond—land and improvements valued at P102,345,650—as security instead of a cash or surety bond. Private respondents moved to dismiss the appeal, citing Article 223 of the Labor Code as amended by RA 6715 which, they argued, requires a cash or surety bond. The NLRC ordered petitioners to post a cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award (P17,082,448.56) and warned that failure would result in dismissal. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration claiming inability to post a cash bond or to pay the premium on a surety bond; the NLRC dismissed the appeal on October 6, 1992 and denied reconsideration in a resolution ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715, exclude a real estate (property) bond and permit only a cash or surety bond to perfect an employer's appeal to the NLRC?
- If Article 223 is read to require exclusively a cash or surety bond, did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners' appeal where petitioners had posted a real property bond whose value substan...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)