JMM Promotions and Management Inc. vs.

NLRC
and Delos Santos [G.R. No. 109835. November
22, 1993]
Ponente: CRUZ, J.
FACTS:
Petitioners 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. Petitioners 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 petitioners 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.