JMM v NLRC (1993)

JMM Promotions & Management, Inc., petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Ulpiano
L. De Los Santos, respondents.

Ponente: Cruz, J.

Facts:

1. Following Secs. 4 and 17, Rule II, Book II of the POEA Rules, the petitioner, a recruiting agency,
made the following:

a. Paid the license fee (Sec. 4)

b. Posted a cash bond of 100k and surety bond of 50k(Sec. 4)

c. Placed money in escrow worth 200k (Sec. 17)

2. The petitioner wanted to appeal a decision of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA) to the respondent NLRC, but the latter dismissed the appeal because of failure of the petitioner
to post an appeal bond required by Sec. 6, Rule V, Book VII of the POEA Rules. The decision being
appealed involved a monetary award.

3. The petitioner contended that its payment of a license fee, posting of cash bond and surety bond,
and placement of money in escrow are enough; posting an appeal bond is unnecessary. According to
Sec. 4, the bonds are posted to answer for all valid and legal claims arising from violations of the
conditions for the grant and use of the license, and/or accreditation and contracts of employment. On
the other hand, according to Sec. 17, the escrow shall answer for valid and legal claims of recruited
workers as a result of recruitment violations or money claims.

4. Sec. 6 reads:

“In case the decision of the Administration involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer shall
be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond…”

The bonds required here are different from the bonds required in Sec. 4.

Issue: Was the petitioner still required to post an appeal bond despite the fact that it has posted bonds
of 150k and placed 200k in escrow before?

Held:

Yes. It is possible for the monetary reward in favor of the employee to exceed the amount of 350,000
because of the stringent requirements posed upon recruiters. The reason for such is that overseas
employees are subjected to greater risks and hence, the money will be used to insure more care on the
part of the local recruiter in its choice of foreign principal to whom the worker will be sent.

Doctrine: Construction:

It is a principle of legal hermeneutics that in interpreting a statute (or a set of rules as in this case), care
should be taken that every part thereof be given effect, on the theory that it was enacted as an
integrated measure and not as a hodge-podge of conflicting provisions. Ut res magis valeat quam
pereat. “That the thing may rather have effect than be destroyed.”

The rule is that a construction that would render a provision inoperative should be avoided; instead,
apparently inconsistent provisions should be reconciled whenever possible as parts of a coordinated and
harmonious whole. With regard to the present case, the doctrine can be applied when the Court found
that Sec. 6 complements Sec. 4 and Sec. 17.

In the POEA Rules, the bonds required in Sec. 4 Rule 2, Book 2 and the escrow required in Sec. 17 Rule 2,
Book 2 have different purposes from the appeal bond required in Sec. 6, Rule 5 Book 7.

The bonds in Sec. 4 are made to answer for all claims against the employer, which is not limited to
monetary awards to employees whose contracts of employment have been violated.

The escrow agreement in Sec. 17 is used only as a last resort in claiming against the employer.

On the other hand, Sec. 6 requires an appeal bond in an amount equivalent to the monetary award.
Indeed, this appeal bond is intended to further insure the payment of the monetary award. Also, it is
possible that the monetary award may exceed the bonds posted previously and the money placed in
escrow. If such a case happens, where will the excess be sourced? To solve such a dilemma, an appeal
bond equivalent to the amount of the monetary award is required by Sec. 6.
JMM Promotions and Management Inc. vs. NLRC and Delos Santos [G.R. No. 109835. November 22,
1993]

15

AUG

Ponente: CRUZ, J.

FACTS:

Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the respondent National Labor Relations Commission citing the
second paragraph of Article 223 of the Labor Code as amended and Rule VI, Section 6 of the new Rules
of Procedure of the NLRC, as amended. The petitioner contends that the NLRC committed grave abuse
of discretion in applying these rules to decisions rendered by the POEA. It insists that the appeal bond is
not necessary in the case of licensed recruiters for overseas employment because they are already
required under Section 4, Rule II, Book II of the POEA Rules not only to pay a license fee of P30,000 but
also to post a cash bond of P100,000 and a surety bond of P50,000. In addition, the petitioner claims it
has placed in escrow the sum of P200,000 with the Philippine National Bank in compliance with Section
17, Rule II, Book II of the same Rule, “to primarily answer for valid and legal claims of recruited workers
as a result of recruitment violations or money claims.” The Solicitor General sustained the appeal bond
and commented that appeals from decisions of the POEA were governed by Section 5 and 6, Rule V,
Book VII of the POEA Rules.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner is still required to post an appeal bond to perfect its appeal from a
decision of the POEA to the NLRC?
HELD:

YES. Petitioner’s contention has no merit.

RATIO:

Statutes should be read as a whole. Ut res magis valeat quam pereat – that the thing may rather have
effect than be destroyed.

It is a principle of legal hermeneutics that in interpreting a statute (or a set of rules as in this case), care
should be taken that every part thereof be given effect, on the theory that it was enacted as an
integrated measure and not as a hodge-podge of conflicting provisions. Under the petitioner’s
interpretation, the appeal bond required by Section 6 of the POEA Rule should be disregarded because
of the earlier bonds and escrow money it has posted. The petitioner would in effect nullify Section 6 as a
superfluity but there is no such redundancy. On the contrary, Section 6 complements Section 4 and
Section 17. The rule is that a construction that would render a provision inoperative should be avoided.
Instead, apparently inconsistent provisions should be reconciled whenever possible as parts of a
coordinated and harmonious whole.