JMM PROMOTIONS & MANAGEMENT, INC.

vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ULPIANO L. DE LOS

SANTOS
G.R. No. 109835
November 22, 1993
Cruz, J.

Facts:
Following Secs. 4 and 17, Rule II, Book II of the POEA Rules, the petitioner, a
recruiting agency, paid the license fee (Sec. 4), posted a cash bond of 100k and surety
bond of 50k (Sec. 4) and placed money in escrow worth 200k (Sec. 17). 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.
 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.

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. POEA rules are clear. 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.
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.