JMM PROMOTIONS & MANAGEMENT, INC.

, petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ULPIANO L. DE LOS SANTOS, respondent.

G.R. No. 109835 November 22, 1993

Ponente: CRUZ, J.

FACTS:

 JMM Promotions paid license fee amounting to P30, 000 and posted a cash bond of P100, 000
and a surety bond of P50,000, as required by the POEA Rules. When JMM Promotions appealed
to NLRC regarding a decision rendered by POEA, the NLRC dismissed the petition for failure to
post the required appeal bond as required by Art. 223 of the Labor Code.
 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?

DISCUSSION

 Yes. The POEA Rules regarding monetary appeals are clear. A reading of the POEA Rules shows
that, in addition to the cash and surety bonds and the escrow money, an appeal bond in an
amount equivalent to the monetary award is required to perfect an appeal from a decision of
the POEA.
 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.

DECISION

Petition DENIED.