8/9/2019 Hon. Sec. of Labor v. Panay Veterans Security

1/1

Hon. Sec. of Labor & Employment v. Panay Veterans Security &Investigation Agency, Inc.

G.R. No. 167708.August 22, 2008

Facts:

Petitioners Edgardo M. Agapay and Samillano A. Alonso, Jr. were hired by respondent Panay Veterans

Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. They were stationed at the plant site of Food Industries, Inc. (FII) in Sta.Rosa, Laguna until FII terminated its contract with respondent security agency. They were not given new

assignments and their benefits (including 13th month pay, overtime pay and holiday pay as well as wage differentials

due to underpayment of wages) were withheld by respondent security agency. In consequence, they filed a

complaint for violation of labor standards in the regional office of the (DOLE-NCR). The latter conducted an

inspection of the respondent security agency. During such inspection, respondent was not able to present its payroll

as well as the daily time records submitted by the petitioners. Hence, with such violation, DOLE inspector issued anotice of inspection and concomitantly explained to the respondents that they have to comply with labor standards

by paying the claims of the petitioners or otherwise, they can question the notice to the DOLE-NCR within 5 days.Since respondents did not do either of the aforementioned things, the Regional Director of DOLE-NCR adopted the

findings of the inspector. Respondents moved for reconsideration but it was denied. Respondents filed an appeal

(with motion to reduce cash or surety bond) to the SOLE. The SOLE found that respondents failed to perfect their

appeal since they did not post a cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award. Thus, the appeal was

dismissed and the DOLE-NCR Regional Directors order was declared final and executory. The SOLE denied

reconsideration. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issues: 1.) Is there a perfected appeal?

2.) Is motion to reduce appeal bond allowed in appeals to the Secretary of Labor?

Held: 1.) No. Respondents failed to perfect their appeal in the manner prescribed by the Labor Code.

The rule is that, to perfect an appeal of the Regional Directors order involving a monetary award in cases

which concern the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, the appeal must be

filed and the cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award must be posted within ten calendar days from

receipt of the order. Failure either to file the appeal or post the bond within the prescribed period renders the order

final and executory.

The legislative intent to make the bond an indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal by theemployer 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 clear that the lawmakers intended the posting of a cash or suretybond by the employer to be the exclusive means by which an employers appeal may be perfected

2.) No. The jurisdiction of the NLRC is separate and distinct from that of the Secretary of Labor and

Employment. In the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, each agency is governed by its own rules of

procedure. In other words, the rules of procedure of the NLRC are different from (and do not apply in) cases

cognizable by the Secretary of Labor and Employment.

Unlike the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC,]no provision in the Rules on the Disposition of Labor

Standards Cases governs the filing of a motion for the reduction of the amount of the bond. However, on matters

that are not covered by the Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases, the suppletory application of the

Rules of Court is authorized. In other words, the Rules onthe Disposition of Labor Standards Cases does notsanction the suppletory resort to the rules of procedure of the NLRC.

By ruling that the rules of procedure of the NLRC should be applied suppletorily to respondents appeal tothe Secretary of Labor of Employment, the CA effectively amended the Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards

Cases. In the process, it encroached on the rule-making power of the Secretary of Labor and Employment.

The posting of a cash or surety bond to perfect an appeal of an order involving a monetary award has a two-

fold purpose: (1) to assure the employee that, if he finally prevails in the case, the monetary award will be given to

him upon dismissal of the employers appeal and (2) to discourage the employer from using the appeal to delay or

evade payment of his obligations to the employee.WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED