JMM Promotions and Management Inc. vs. NLRC and Delos Santos [G.R. No. 109835. November 22, 1993]

15 Aug

Ponente: CRUZ, J.


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.


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?


YES. Petitioner’s contention has no merit.


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.

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 15, 2012 in Case Digests, Statutory Construction



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: