Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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. Yes, there is employer-employee With due respect also to the Honorable
VILLA, Petitioner relationship when petitioner was National Labor Relations Commission (First
dismissed due to disciplinary Division) there was no mention about this
reasons (gambling) alleged gambling of the complainant either in
NATIONAL LABOR the Position Paper of the Respondents or in
RELATIONS COMMISSION the Respondents Comment to Complainants
(FIRST DIVISION), OCEAN- Position Paper. It was only on appeal that the
LINK CONTAINER issue of alleged gambling of the complainant
TERMINAL CENTER, was raised. In various Decision (sic) of the
BENJAMIN S. TAN and Supreme Court, it has been held that the
VICTORIA finding of facts of the Labor Arbiter who
ACORDA, respondents 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
3. Boardwalk BOARDWALK BUSINESS Villareal was a distributor of The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor
Business VENTURES, INC., Petitioner Boardwalk’s RTW apparel is it a component of due process. It is a mere
Ventures v. statutory privilege, and may be exercised only
Villareal Jr. ELVIRA A. VILLAREAL in the manner and in accordance with the
(deceased) substituted by provisions of law.
Reynaldo P. Villareal, Jr.-
spouse, Shekinah Marie Petitioner erroneously paid the docket fees and
Villareal-Azugue-daughter, other lawful fees with the RTC.
Reynaldo A. Villareal ill- Petitioner sought an extension of 30 days
son, Shahani A. Villareal- 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.
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.
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.
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 reglementary period as provided in Section 1 of
RELATIONS COMMISSION, monthly salary of P2,940.00. this Rule; shall be under oath with proof of
PANIQUI SUGAR payment of the required appeal fee and the
CORPORATION and JOSE On March 5, 1990, respondent posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in
ROMASANTA, Respondents corporation, by Memorandum No. Section 5 of this Rule; shall be accompanied by
08, terminated petitioners a memorandum of appeal which shall state the
employment effective March 6, grounds relied upon and the arguments in
1990 for engaging in an act support thereof; the relief prayed for; and a
prejudicial to the interests of the statement of the date when the appellant
company. received the appealed decision, order or award
and proof of service on the other party of such
appeal.
7. Philippine PHILIPPINE RURAL Pulgar was the manager of PRRMs We have previously ruled on the Labor Arbiters
Rural RECONSTRUCTION branch office the Tayabas Bay jurisdiction to rule on all money claims,
Reconstruction MOVEMENT (PRRM), Field Office (TBFO) including those of the employer, arising out of
Movement v. Petitioner in Quezon Province. the employer-employee relationship.
Pulgar Unfortunately for PRRM, it never raised as an
VIRGILIO E. PULGAR, PRRM maintains that while the issue the money allegedly still in Pulgars
Respondent investigation was ongoing custody in the proceedings before the Labor
pertaining to anomalous Arbiter, or even before the NLRC.
transactions Pulgar made, Pulgar
went on leave on March 3-10, As a factual matter, this issue should have been
March 20-25, and April 1-15, 1997. raised at the earliest opportunity before the
After the lapse of his last leave on Labor Arbiter, to allow both parties to present
April 15, 1997, Pulgar no longer their evidence. The rule is well-settled that
reported to work, leading PRRM to points of law, theories, issues and arguments
believe that Pulgar had abandoned not adequately brought to the attention of the
his work to evade any liability trial court need not be, and ordinarily will not
arising from the be considered by a reviewing court as they
investigation. PRRM was therefore cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
surprised to learn that Pulgar had
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."
9. Bristol Meyers BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB, Respondent Rogelio T. Viloria was In this case, the respondent received his copy of
Squibb v. (PHILS.), INC., Petitioner accepted by Mead Johnson Phils., the decision of the Labor Arbiter on May 26,
Viloria Inc. as a medical representative- 1999. He had until June 5, 1999 within which to
ROGELIO T. trainee. After successfully perfect his appeal in the NLRC. Since June 5,
VILORIA, Respondent completing his training, he was 1999 was a Saturday, the respondent had
employed on January 2, 1985 as a until June 7, 1999, within which to perfect his
Territory Manager of the appeal. Instead of perfecting his appeal on or
company’s Pharma Sales Group, before the said date, the respondent filed
Marketing Division. He became a on June 8, 1999, a motion for extension to file a
regular employee of the company memorandum of appeal. Aside from such
on April 1, 1985. motion having been filed beyond the period to
perfect the appeal, the respondents motion
After the merger of Mead Johnson was a prohibited pleading. Moreover, the
International, Bristol-Myers respondent filed his memorandum of appeal
Company and E.R. Squibb & Sons only on June 9, 1999 after the period of appeal
Corporation, Bristol Myers Squibb, had lapsed on June 7, 1999.
Inc., became the surviving
company, and the respondent Moreover, the respondent did not submit
became the Territory Manager of proof of payment of the required appeal fee
its Oncology Business Unit. 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.
10. Mortico MARTICIO SEMBLANTE and Petitioners Marticio Semblante Time and again, however, this Court,
Semblante v. DUBRICK PILAR, Petitioners (Semblante) and Dubrick Pilar considering the substantial merits of the case,
CA (Pilar) assert that they were hired has relaxed this rule on, and excused the late
COURT OF APPEALS, by respondents-spouses Vicente posting of, the appeal bond when there are
19THDIVISION, now SPECIAL and Maria Luisa Loot, the owners strong and compelling reasons for the liberality,
FORMER 19TH DIVISION, of Gallera de Mandaue (the such as the prevention of miscarriage of justice
GALLERA DE MANDAUE / cockpit), as the extant in the case or the special circumstances
SPOUSES VICENTE and official masiador and sentenciador, in the case combined with its legal merits or the
MARIA LUISA LOOT, respectively, of the cockpit amount and the issue involved. After all,
Respondents sometime in 1993. technical rules cannot prevent courts from
exercising their duties to determine and settle,
On November 14, 2003, however, equitably and completely, the rights and
petitioners were denied entry into obligations of the parties. This is one case
the cockpit upon the instructions where the exception to the general rule lies.
of respondents, and were
informed of the termination of While respondents had failed to post their
their services effective that date. bond within the 10-day period provided above,
This prompted petitioners to file a it is evident, on the other hand, that petitioners
complaint for illegal dismissal are NOT employees of respondents, since their
against respondents. 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.
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.