John Dominic T.

Buhangin
Labor Law Review II
Professor Natividad Roma

Cases on Appeal
Case Parties Existence of Employer-Employee Doctrine
Relationship and NLRC
jurisdiction
1. Pioneer PIONEER TEXTURIZING Yes, there exists an employer- We note that prior to the enactment of R.A. No.
Texturizing CORP. and/or JULIANO employee relationship 6715, Article 223 of the Labor Code contains no
Corp. v. NLRC LIM, Petitioners provision dealing with the reinstatement of an
illegally dismissed employee. The amendment
NATIONAL LABOR introduced by R.A. No. 6715 is an innovation
RELATIONS COMMISSION, and a far departure from the old law indicating
PIONEER TEXTURIZING thereby the legislatures unequivocal intent to
WORKERS UNION and insert a new rule that will govern the
LOURDES A. DE JESUS, reinstatement aspect of a decision or resolution
Respondents in any given labor dispute. In fact, the law as
now worded employs the phrase shall
immediately be executory without qualification
emphasizing the need for prompt
compliance. As a rule, shall in a statute
commonly denotes an imperative obligation
and is inconsistent with the idea of
discretion and that the presumption is that the
word shall, when used in a statute, is
mandatory. An appeal or posting of bond, by
plain mandate of the law, could not even
forestall nor stay the executory nature of an
order of reinstatement.
2. Villa v. NLRC ARSENIO V.
VILLA, Petitioner
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION
(FIRST DIVISION), OCEAN-
LINK CONTAINER
TERMINAL CENTER,
BENJAMIN S. TAN and
VICTORIA
ACORDA, respondents
3. Boardwalk BOARDWALK BUSINESS
Business VENTURES, INC., Petitioner
Ventures v.
Villareal Jr. ELVIRA A. VILLAREAL
(deceased) substituted by
Reynaldo P. Villareal, Jr.-
spouse, Shekinah Marie
Villareal-Azugue-daughter,
Reynaldo A. Villareal ill-
son, Shahani A. Villareal-
Yes, there is employer-employee
relationship when petitioner was
dismissed due to disciplinary
reasons (gambling)
Villareal was a distributor of
Boardwalk’s RTW apparel
With due respect also to the Honorable
National Labor Relations Commission (First
Division) there was no mention about this
alleged gambling of the complainant either in
the Position Paper of the Respondents or in
the Respondents Comment to Complainants
Position Paper. It was only on appeal that the
issue of alleged gambling of the complainant
was raised. In various Decision (sic) of the
Supreme Court, it has been held that the
finding of facts of the Labor Arbiter who
conducted the actual trial and hearing of the
case wherein the parties usually were required
to the (sic) present have greater weight than
the findings of the Honorable National Labor
Relations Commission, with due respect, who
determine (sic) the fact of the particular case on
the various pleadings of the opposing parties.
Since the issue of gambling was raised only by
the respondents when the appeal was made, it
should not have been given any weight at all in
the determination of the case by the Honorable
National Labor Relations Commission
The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor
is it a component of due process. It is a mere
statutory privilege, and may be exercised only
in the manner and in accordance with the
provisions of law.
Petitioner erroneously paid the docket fees and
other lawful fees with the RTC.
Petitioner sought an extension of 30 days
within which to file its Petition for Review with
 daughter, and Billy Ray A. the CA. This is not allowed. Section 1 of Rule 42
Villareal-son, Respondents allows an extension of only 15 days. "No further
extension shall be granted except for the most
compelling reason x x x." Petitioner never cited
any compelling reason.

Petitioner's appeal is not deemed perfected.

More significantly, Section 8 of Rule 42 provides
that the appeal is deemed perfected as to the
petitioner "upon the timely filing of a petition
for review and the payment of the
corresponding docket and other lawful fees."
Undisputably, petitioner's appeal was not
perfected because of its failure to timely file the
Petition and to pay the docket and other lawful
fees before the proper court which is the CA.
Consequently, the CA properly dismissed
outright the Petition because it never acquired
jurisdiction over the same. As a result, the RTC's
Decision had long become final and executory.

4. Nicol v. RONALDO NICOL, ET AL.,* Nicol, et. al. were employees of It is provided in Article 223 of the Labor Code
Footjoy Petitioners respondent Footjoy Industrial and that in case of a judgment involving a monetary
were dismissed due to severe award, an appeal by the employer may be
FOOTJOY INDUSTRIAL losses brought about by fire that perfected only upon the posting of a cash or
CORP., ANTONIO TAN, gutted the latter’s factory surety bond issued by a reputable bonding
ROBERT LIM, TERESITA company duly accredited by the Commission in
GAMBOA, DANILO the amount equivalent to the monetary award
DOMINGO and CHUEN in the judgment appealed from.
FONG HUI,
Respondents Also, Sections 4(a) of Rule VI of the New Rules
of Procedure of the NLRC the states that one of
the requisites for perfection of appeal is that it
shall be filed with proof of payment of the
 required appeal fee and surety bond as
provided in Section 6 of the Rule. Section 6
provides that In case the decision of the
Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director involves
a monetary award, an appeal by the employer
may be perfected only upon the posting of a
cash or surety bond. The appeal bond shall
either be in cash or surety in an amount
equivalent to the monetary award, exclusive of
damages and attorney’s fees.

The necessary import of the foregoing

provisions is that in the case of an employer
appealing the labor arbiter’s decision to the
NLRC, the posting of a cash or surety bond to
perfect an appeal of a monetary judgment is
not only mandatory but also jurisdictional, non-
compliance with which has the effect of
rendering the judgment final and executory.

As stressed in Ong v. Court of Appeals, it is the

intention of the lawmakers to make the bond
an indispensable requisite for the perfection of
an appeal by the employer.

5. Intertranz INTERTRANZ CONTAINER Respondent Bautista employed as Jurisprudence tells us that in labor cases, an
Container LINES, INC. and JOSEFINA F. a Customs Representative; she appeal from a decision involving a monetary
Lines v. TUMIBAY, was dismissed summarily award may be perfected only upon the posting
Bautista Petitioners of a cash or surety bond. The Court, however,
has relaxed this requirement under certain
MA. TERESA I. BAUTISTA, exceptional circumstances in order to resolve
Respondent controversies on their merits. These
circumstances include: (1) fundamental
consideration of substantial justice; (2)
 prevention of miscarriage of justice or of unjust
enrichment; and (3) special circumstances of
the case combined with its legal merits, and the
amount and the issue involved.

Following jurisprudential standards, we find

that a relaxation of the rules on the appeal
bond requirement in this case is in order. It is
clear from the records that the petitioners
never intended to evade the posting of an
appeal bond. They exerted earnest efforts to
abide by the law and the rules on appeal with a
notice of appeal, appeal memorandum, and an
appeal bond for P531,000.00. They also moved
to reduce the appeal bond. The petitioners
might or might not have been aware that the
accreditation of the bonding company expired
on July 31, 2005 but when the bond was posted
on July 11, 2005, the bonding companys
accreditation and the bond it issued were still
valid. Although the petitioners failed to file a
replacement bond within 10 days from receipt
of the NLRC order requiring them to do so,
again, it cannot be said that they intended to
ignore the order. With the plea that the 10-day
period was too short, they filed a motion for
reconsideration with motion for
suspension/extension of time to file the
replacement bond. They asked for 30 days to
file a new bond and posted the replacement
bond within the requested extended period.

6. Jose Gaudia v. JOSE GAUDIA, Petitioner In November 1977, petitioner was Section 3. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. --
NLRC employed as company driver of (a.) The appeal shall be filed within the
NATIONAL LABOR respondent corporation earning a
RELATIONS COMMISSION, monthly salary of P2,940.00.
PANIQUI SUGAR
CORPORATION and JOSE On March 5, 1990, respondent
ROMASANTA, Respondents corporation, by Memorandum No.
08, terminated petitioners
employment effective March 6,
1990 for engaging in an act
prejudicial to the interests of the
company.
reglementary period as provided in Section 1 of
this Rule; shall be under oath with proof of
payment of the required appeal fee and the
posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in
Section 5 of this Rule; shall be accompanied by
a memorandum of appeal which shall state the
grounds relied upon and the arguments in
support thereof; the relief prayed for; and a
statement of the date when the appellant
received the appealed decision, order or award
and proof of service on the other party of such
appeal.
A mere notice of appeal without complying
with the other requisites aforestated shall not
stop the running of the period for perfecting an
appeal.
The intention of the lawmakers to make the
bond an indispensable requisite for the
perfection of an appeal by the employer, is
clearly limned in the provision that an appeal by
the employer may be perfected only upon the
posting of a cash or surety bond. The word only
makes it perfectly clear, that the lawmakers
intended the posting of a cash or surety bond
by the employer to be the exclusive means by
which an employers appeal may be perfected.
In this case, respondents filed their notice of
appeal within the ten-day period (July 9, 1992),
however, they posted a surety bond only on
August 3, 1992, or almost a month after the
appeal period had lapsed. The explanation

7. Philippine PHILIPPINE RURAL Pulgar was the manager of PRRMs
Rural RECONSTRUCTION branch office the Tayabas Bay
Reconstruction MOVEMENT (PRRM), Field Office (TBFO)
Movement v. Petitioner in Quezon Province.
Pulgar
VIRGILIO E. PULGAR, PRRM maintains that while the
Respondent investigation was ongoing
pertaining to anomalous
transactions Pulgar made, Pulgar
went on leave on March 3-10,
March 20-25, and April 1-15, 1997.
After the lapse of his last leave on
April 15, 1997, Pulgar no longer
reported to work, leading PRRM to
believe that Pulgar had abandoned
his work to evade any liability
arising from the
investigation. PRRM was therefore
surprised to learn that Pulgar had
proferred by respondents that the surety failed
to attach the required Supreme Court
certification to the bond is not an excuse for the
delay. The duty to ensure that the bond
satisfies all the formal requirements before it is
filed within the ten-day appeal period rests
solely on the respondents as appellants.
Having failed to file the required bond within
the reglementary period, private respondents'
appeal to the NLRC had not been perfected,
thus making the Labor Arbiters decision final
and executory.
We have previously ruled on the Labor Arbiters
jurisdiction to rule on all money claims,
including those of the employer, arising out of
the employer-employee relationship.
Unfortunately for PRRM, it never raised as an
issue the money allegedly still in Pulgars
custody in the proceedings before the Labor
Arbiter, or even before the NLRC.
As a factual matter, this issue should have been
raised at the earliest opportunity before the
Labor Arbiter, to allow both parties to present
their evidence. The rule is well-settled that
points of law, theories, issues and arguments
not adequately brought to the attention of the
trial court need not be, and ordinarily will not
be considered by a reviewing court as they
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
 filed an illegal dismissal case on because this would be offensive to the basic
April 3, 1997. rules of fair play, justice and due process.

8. UERM v. NLRC UERM-MEMORIAL Respondents are employees of he applicable law is Article 223 of the Labor
MEDICAL CENTER and DR. UERM Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715,
ISIDRO CARINO, Petitioners which provides:
"In case of a judgment involving a monetary
National Labor Relations award, an appeal by the employer may be
Commission and UERM perfected only upon the posting of a cash or
Employees ASSOCIATION, surety bond issued by a reputable bonding
Priscillo Dalogdog and 516 company duly accredited by the Commission in
Members-Employees of the amount equivalent to the monetary award
UERM in the judgment appealed from."
Hospital, Respondents
We have given a liberal interpretation to this
provision. In YBL (Your Bus Line) v. NLRC[4] we
ruled:
"x x x that while Article 223 of the Labor Code,
as amended by Republic Act No. 6715, requiring
a cash or surety bond in the amount equivalent
to the monetary award in the judgment
appealed from for the appeal to be perfected,
may be considered a jurisdictional requirement,
nevertheless, adhering to the principle that
substantial justice is better served by allowing
the appeal on the merits threshed out by the
NLRC, the Court finds and so holds that the
foregoing requirement of the law should be
given a liberal interpretation."

In the case at bar, the judgment involved is

more than P17 million and its precipitate
execution can adversely affect the existence of
petitioner medical center. Likewise, the issues

9. Bristol Meyers BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB, Respondent Rogelio T. Viloria was
Squibb v. (PHILS.), INC., Petitioner accepted by Mead Johnson Phils.,
Viloria Inc. as a medical representative-
ROGELIO T. trainee. After successfully
VILORIA, Respondent completing his training, he was
employed on January 2, 1985 as a
Territory Manager of the
company’s Pharma Sales Group,
Marketing Division. He became a
regular employee of the company
on April 1, 1985.
After the merger of Mead Johnson
International, Bristol-Myers
Company and E.R. Squibb & Sons
Corporation, Bristol Myers Squibb,
Inc., became the surviving
company, and the respondent
became the Territory Manager of
its Oncology Business Unit.
involved are not insignificant and they deserve
a full discourse by our quasi-judicial and judicial
authorities. We are also confident that the real
property bond posted by the petitioners
sufficiently protects the interests of private
respondents should they finally prevail.
In this case, the respondent received his copy of
the decision of the Labor Arbiter on May 26,
1999. He had until June 5, 1999 within which to
perfect his appeal in the NLRC. Since June 5,
1999 was a Saturday, the respondent had
until June 7, 1999, within which to perfect his
appeal. Instead of perfecting his appeal on or
before the said date, the respondent filed
on June 8, 1999, a motion for extension to file a
memorandum of appeal. Aside from such
motion having been filed beyond the period to
perfect the appeal, the respondents motion
was a prohibited pleading. Moreover, the
respondent filed his memorandum of appeal
only on June 9, 1999 after the period of appeal
had lapsed on June 7, 1999.
Moreover, the respondent did not submit
proof of payment of the required appeal fee
within the period for appeal. There is, likewise,
no showing that the respondent submitted the
requisite certificate of non-forum
shopping. Worse, the respondent failed to
submit any valid explanation for his failure to
perfect his appeal within the period therefor
and why he resorted to filing a prohibited
pleading for the purpose of preserving his
statutory right to appeal the decision of the
Labor Arbiter. While it is true that, in a number
of cases, this Court has relaxed the application
of the period to appeal, it has done so only
where there are special meritorious
circumstances and issues, and when there has
been substantial compliance with the law and
the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC.[35] Indeed,
this Court has allowed appeals from the
decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC even
if filed beyond the reglementary period in the
interest of justice.[36] The rule may be relaxed
where a careful scrutiny of the facts and
circumstances of the case warrants liberality in
the application of pertinent rules of procedure.
However, the appellant must establish a
concrete, cogent, and valid reason for his
failure to comply with the mandatory
requirement under the Labor Code and the
Rules of Procedure of the NLRC.[37]Ordinarily, a
decision not appealed within the period
therefor becomes final and executory and can
no longer be modified or reversed by the NLRC.

In resolving whether or not to relax the rules for

appeal, this Court made an encompassing
review of the records of the CA, including the
respondents four-page memorandum of
appeal vis--vis the decision of the Labor
Arbiter. We find no facts and circumstances
which would warrant a liberality in the
application of the rules. Indeed, aside from his
appeal having been filed out of time, the

10. Mortico MARTICIO SEMBLANTE and Petitioners Marticio Semblante
Semblante v. DUBRICK PILAR, Petitioners (Semblante) and Dubrick Pilar
CA (Pilar) assert that they were hired
COURT OF APPEALS, by respondents-spouses Vicente
19THDIVISION, now SPECIAL and Maria Luisa Loot, the owners
FORMER 19TH DIVISION, of Gallera de Mandaue (the
GALLERA DE MANDAUE / cockpit), as the
SPOUSES VICENTE and official masiador and sentenciador,
MARIA LUISA LOOT, respectively, of the cockpit
Respondents sometime in 1993.
On November 14, 2003, however,
petitioners were denied entry into
the cockpit upon the instructions
of respondents, and were
informed of the termination of
their services effective that date.
This prompted petitioners to file a
complaint for illegal dismissal
against respondents.
respondent herein resorted to filing a
prohibited pleading in the NLRC.
Time and again, however, this Court,
considering the substantial merits of the case,
has relaxed this rule on, and excused the late
posting of, the appeal bond when there are
strong and compelling reasons for the liberality,
such as the prevention of miscarriage of justice
extant in the case or the special circumstances
in the case combined with its legal merits or the
amount and the issue involved. After all,
technical rules cannot prevent courts from
exercising their duties to determine and settle,
equitably and completely, the rights and
obligations of the parties. This is one case
where the exception to the general rule lies.
While respondents had failed to post their
bond within the 10-day period provided above,
it is evident, on the other hand, that petitioners
are NOT employees of respondents, since their
relationship fails to pass muster the four-fold
test of employment We have repeatedly
mentioned in countless decisions: (1) the
selection and engagement of the employee; (2)
the payment of wages; (3) the power of
dismissal; and (4) the power to control the
employee's conduct, which is the most
important element.
Strict implementation of the rules on appeals
must give way to the factual and legal reality
that is evident from the records of this
 case. After all, the primary objective of our laws
is to dispense justice and equity, not the
contrary.

11. Lampesa v. De CORNELIO LAMPESA and Lampesa employed Copsiyat as his Petitioners' liability for moral damages and
Vera DARIO COPSIYAT, driver attorney's fees cannot now be questioned for
Petitioners failure of petitioners to raise it before the Court
of Appeals. It is a well-entrenched rule that
DR. JUAN DE VERA, JR., issues not raised below cannot be raised for the
FELIX RAMOS and first time on appeal as to do so would be
MODESTO TOLLAS, offensive to the basic rules of fair play and
Respondents justice. Moreover, the award of moral damages
in this case is justifiable under Article 2219
(2) of the Civil Code, which provides for said
damages in cases of quasi-delicts causing
physical injuries. The award for attorney's fees
is also proper under Article 2208 (2) of the Civil
Code, considering that De Vera, Jr. was
compelled to litigate when petitioners ignored
his demand for an amicable settlement of his
claim.