Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

THIRD DIVISION


BITOY JAVIER
(DANILO P JAVIER!"
Petitioner,




- versus -




#LY A$E $ORPORATION%
#LORDELYN $ASTILLO,
Respondents.
&R No '()**+

Present:

CARPIO,* J.,
PERALTA,* * Acting Chairperson,
AA!,
PERE",*** and
ME#!O"A, JJ.



Promul$ated:

%e&ruar' (), *+(*


, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------,

D E $ I S I O N

,ENDO-A" J.


T-is is a petition under Rule .) o/ t-e Rules o/ Civil Pro0edure assailin$ t-e Mar0- (1, *+(+ !e0ision2(3 o/
t-e Court o/ Appeals (CA) and its 4une 5, *+(+ Resolution,2*3 in CA-6.R. SP #o. (+775), 8-i0- reversed
t-e Ma' *1, *++7 !e0ision293 o/ t-e #ational La&or Relations Commission (NLRC) in t-e 0ase
entitled Bitoy Javier v. Fly Ace/Flordelyn Castillo,2.3 -oldin$ t-at petitioner ito' 4avier (Javier) 8as ille$all'
dismissed /rom emplo'ment and orderin$ %l' A0e Corporation (Fly Ace) to pa' &a0:8a$es and separation
pa' in lieu o/ reinstatement.

Antece/ent #0cts

On Ma' *9, *++1, 4avier /iled a 0omplaint &e/ore t-e #LRC /or underpa'ment o/ salaries and ot-er la&or
standard &ene/its. ;e alle$ed t-at -e 8as an emplo'ee o/ %l' A0e sin0e Septem&er *++5, per/ormin$
various tas:s at t-e respondent<s 8are-ouse su0- as 0leanin$ and arran$in$ t-e 0anned items &e/ore t-eir
deliver' to 0ertain lo0ations, e,0ept in instan0es 8-en -e 8ould &e ordered to a00ompan' t-e 0ompan'<s
deliver' ve-i0les, as pahinante= t-at -e reported /or 8or: /rom Monda' to Saturda' /rom 5:++ o<0lo0: in t-e
mornin$ to ):++ o<0lo0: in t-e a/ternoon= t-at durin$ -is emplo'ment, -e 8as not issued an identi/i0ation
0ard and pa'slips &' t-e 0ompan'= t-at on Ma' >, *++1, -e reported /or 8or: &ut -e 8as no lon$er
allo8ed to enter t-e 0ompan' premises &' t-e se0urit' $uard upon t-e instru0tion o/ Ru&en On$ (Mr. ng),
-is superior=2)3 t-at a/ter several minutes o/ &e$$in$ to t-e $uard to allo8 -im to enter, -e sa8 On$ 8-om
-e approa0-ed and as:ed 8-' -e 8as &ein$ &arred /rom enterin$ t-e premises= t-at On$ replied &'
sa'in$, ?!an"ngin #o ana$ #o%@ 2>3 t-at -e t-en 8ent -ome and dis0ussed t-e matter 8it- -is /amil'= t-at
-e dis0overed t-at On$ -ad &een 0ourtin$ -is dau$-ter Annal'n a/ter t-e t8o met at a /iesta 0ele&ration in
Mala&on Cit'= t-at Annal'n tried to tal: to On$ and 0onvin0e -im to spare -er /at-er /rom trou&le &ut -e
re/used to a00ede= t-at t-erea/ter, 4avier 8as terminated /rom -is emplo'ment 8it-out noti0e= and t-at -e
8as neit-er $iven t-e opportunit' to re/ute t-e 0auseAs o/ -is dismissal /rom 8or:.

To support -is alle$ations, 4avier presented an a//idavit o/ one en$ie BalenCuela 8-o alle$ed t-at 4avier
8as a stevedore or pahinante o/ %l' A0e /rom Septem&er *++5 to 4anuar' *++1. T-e said a//idavit 8as
su&s0ri&ed &e/ore t-e La&or Ar&iter (LA).253

%or its part, %l' A0e averred t-at it 8as en$a$ed in t-e &usiness o/ importation and sales o/ $ro0eries.
Sometime in !e0em&er *++5, 4avier 8as 0ontra0ted &' its emplo'ee, Mr. On$, as e,tra -elper on
a pa$ya& &asis at an a$reed rate o/ 9++.++ per trip, 8-i0- 8as later in0reased to 9*).++ in 4anuar'
*++1. Mr. On$ 0ontra0ted 4avier rou$-l' ) to > times onl' in a mont- 8-enever t-e ve-i0le o/ its
0ontra0ted -auler, Milmar ;aulin$ Servi0es, 8as not availa&le. On April 9+, *++1, %l' A0e no lon$er
needed t-e servi0es o/ 4avier. !en'in$ t-at -e 8as t-eir emplo'ee, %l' A0e insisted t-at t-ere 8as no
ille$al dismissal.213 %l' A0e su&mitted a 0op' o/ its a$reement 8it- Milmar ;aulin$ Servi0es and 0opies o/
a0:no8led$ment re0eipts eviden0in$ pa'ment to 4avier /or -is 0ontra0ted servi0es &earin$ t-e 8ords,
?dail' manpo8er (pa$ya&/piece rate pay)@ and t-e latter<s si$naturesAinitials.

Rulin1 of the L0bo2 A2bite2

On #ovem&er *1, *++1, t-e LA dismissed t-e 0omplaint /or la0: o/ merit on t-e $round t-at 4avier /ailed to
present proo/ t-at -e 8as a re$ular emplo'ee o/ %l' A0e. ;e 8rote:


Complainant -as no emplo'ee I! s-o8in$ -is emplo'ment 8it- t-e Respondent nor an'
do0ument s-o8in$ t-at -e re0eived t-e &ene/its a00orded to re$ular emplo'ees o/ t-e
Respondents. ;is 0ontention t-at Respondent /ailed to $ive -im said I! and pa'slips
implies t-at indeed -e 8as not a re$ular emplo'ee o/ %l' A0e 0onsiderin$ t-at 0omplainant
8as a -elper and t-at Respondent 0ompan' -as 0ontra0ted a re$ular tru0:in$ /or t-e
deliver' o/ its produ0ts.
Respondent %l' A0e is not en$a$ed in tru0:in$ &usiness &ut in t-e importation and sales o/
$ro0eries. Sin0e t-ere is a re$ular -auler to deliver its produ0ts, 8e $ive 0reden0e to
Respondents< 0laim t-at 0omplainant 8as 0ontra0ted on ?pa:iao@ &asis.
As to t-e 0laim /or underpa'ment o/ salaries, t-e pa'roll presented &' t-e Respondents
s-o8in$ salaries o/ 8or:ers on ?pa:iao@ &asis -as evidentiar' 8ei$-t &e0ause alt-ou$- t-e
si$nature o/ t-e 0omplainant appearin$ t-ereon are not uni/orm, t-e' appeared to &e -is
true si$nature.
, , , ,
;en0e, as 0omplainant re0eived t-e ri$-t/ul salar' as s-o8n &' t-e a&ove des0ri&ed
pa'rolls, Respondents are not lia&le /or salar' di//erentials. 273

Rulin1 of the NLR$

On appeal 8it- t-e #LRC, 4avier 8as /avored. It ruled t-at t-e LA s:irted t-e ar$ument o/ 4avier and
immediatel' 0on0luded t-at -e 8as not a re$ular emplo'ee simpl' &e0ause -e /ailed to present proo/. It
8as o/ t-e vie8 t-at a pa$ya&-&asis arran$ement did not pre0lude t-e e,isten0e o/ emplo'er-emplo'ee
relations-ip. ?Pa'ment &' result , , , is a met-od o/ 0ompensation and does not de/ine t-e essen0e o/ t-e
relation. It is a mere met-od o/ 0omputin$ 0ompensation, not a &asis /or determinin$ t-e e,isten0e or
a&sen0e o/ an emplo'er-emplo'ee relations-ip.2(+3@ T-e #LRC /urt-er averred t-at it did not /ollo8 t-at a
8or:er 8as a Do& 0ontra0tor and not an emplo'ee, Dust &e0ause t-e 8or: -e 8as doin$ 8as not dire0tl'
related to t-e emplo'er<s trade or &usiness or t-e 8or: ma' &e 0onsidered as ?e,tra@ -elper as in t-is 0ase=
and t-at t-e relations-ip o/ an emplo'er and an emplo'ee 8as determined &' la8 and t-e same 8ould
prevail 8-atever t-e parties ma' 0all it. In t-is 0ase, t-e #LRC -eld t-at su&stantial eviden0e 8as su//i0ient
&asis /or Dud$ment on t-e e,isten0e o/ t-e emplo'er-emplo'ee relations-ip. 4avier 8as a re$ular emplo'ee
o/ %l' A0e &e0ause t-ere 8as reasona&le 0onne0tion &et8een t-e parti0ular a0tivit' per/ormed &' t-e
emplo'ee (as a 'pahinante() in relation to t-e usual &usiness or trade o/ t-e emplo'er Eimportation, sales
and deliver' o/ $ro0eriesF. ;e ma' not &e 0onsidered as an independent 0ontra0tor &e0ause -e 0ould not
e,er0ise an' Dud$ment in t-e deliver' o/ 0ompan' produ0ts. ;e 8as onl' en$a$ed as a ?-elper.@

%indin$ 4avier to &e a re$ular emplo'ee, t-e #LRC ruled t-at -e 8as entitled to a se0urit' o/ tenure. %or
/ailin$ to present proo/ o/ a valid 0ause /or -is termination, %l' A0e 8as /ound to &e lia&le /or ille$al
dismissal o/ 4avier 8-o 8as li:e8ise entitled to &a0:8a$es and separation pa' in lieu o/ reinstatement. T-e
#LRC t-us ordered:
3HERE#ORE, premises 0onsidered, 0omplainant<s appeal is partiall' 6RA#TE!. T-e
assailed !e0ision o/ t-e la&or ar&iter is BACATE! and a ne8 one is -ere&' entered -oldin$
respondent %LG ACE CORPORATIO# $uilt' o/ ille$al dismissal and non-pa'ment o/
(9
t-
mont- pa'. ConseHuentl', it is -ere&' ordered to pa' 0omplainant !A#ILO ?ito'@
4ABIER t-e /ollo8in$:

(. a0:8a$es - .),55+.19
*. Separation pa', in lieu o/ reinstatement - 1,.)+.++
9. Inpaid (9
t-
mont- pa' EproportionateF - ),>99.99

TOTAL - )7,1)..(>

All ot-er 0laims are dismissed /or la0: o/ merit.

SO ORDERED2((3


Rulin1 of the $ou2t of Appe0ls

On Mar0- (1, *+(+, t-e CA annulled t-e #LRC /indin$s t-at 4avier 8as indeed a /ormer emplo'ee o/ %l'
A0e and reinstated t-e dismissal o/ 4avier<s 0omplaint as ordered &' t-e LA. T-e CA e,er0ised its aut-orit'
to ma:e its o8n /a0tual determination anent t-e issue o/ t-e e,isten0e o/ an emplo'er-emplo'ee
relations-ip &et8een t-e parties. A00ordin$ to t-e CA:

, , ,

In an ille$al dismissal 0ase t-e on"s pro)andi rests on t-e emplo'er to prove t-at its
dismissal 8as /or a valid 0ause. ;o8ever, &e/ore a 0ase /or ille$al dismissal 0an prosper,
an emplo'er-emplo'ee relations-ip must /irst &e esta&lis-ed. , , , it is in0um&ent upon
private respondent to prove t-e emplo'ee-emplo'er relations-ip &' su&stantial eviden0e.

, , ,

It is in0um&ent upon private respondent to prove, &' su&stantial eviden0e, t-at -e is an
emplo'ee o/ petitioners, &ut -e /ailed to dis0-ar$e -is &urden. T-e non-issuan0e o/ a
0ompan'-issued identi/i0ation 0ard to private respondent supports petitioners< 0ontention
t-at private respondent 8as not its emplo'ee.2(*3

T-e CA li:e8ise added t-at 4avier<s /ailure to present salar' vou0-ers, pa'slips, or ot-er pie0es o/
eviden0e to &olster -is 0ontention, pointed to t-e ines0apa&le 0on0lusion t-at -e 8as not an emplo'ee o/
%l' A0e. %urt-er, it /ound t-at 4avier<s 8or: 8as not ne0essar' and desira&le to t-e &usiness or trade o/
t-e 0ompan', as it 8as onl' 8-en t-ere 8ere s0-eduled deliveries, 8-i0- a re$ular -aulin$ servi0e 0ould
not deliver, t-at %l' A0e 8ould 0ontra0t t-e servi0es o/ 4avier as an e,tra -elper. Lastl', t-e CA de0lared
t-at t-e /a0ts alle$ed &' 4avier did not pass t-e ?0ontrol test.@

;e 0ontra0ted 8or: outside t-e 0ompan' premises= -e 8as not reHuired to o&serve de/inite -ours o/ 8or:=
-e 8as not reHuired to report dail'= and -e 8as /ree to a00ept ot-er 8or: else8-ere as t-ere 8as no
e,0lusivit' o/ -is 0ontra0ted servi0e to t-e 0ompan', t-e same &ein$ 0o-terminous 8it- t-e trip onl'.
2(93 Sin0e no su&stantial eviden0e 8as presented to esta&lis- an emplo'er-emplo'ee relations-ip, t-e
0ase /or ille$al dismissal 0ould not prosper.

T-e petitioners moved /or re0onsideration, &ut to no avail.

;en0e, t-is appeal an0-ored on t-e /ollo8in$ $rounds:

I
3HETHER THE HONORABLE $O4RT O# APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDIN& THAT THE
PETITIONER 3AS NOT A RE&4LAR E,PLOYEE O# #LY A$E
II
3HETHER THE HONORABLE $O4RT O# APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDIN& THAT THE
PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO HIS ,ONETARY $LAI,S2(.3

T-e petitioner 0ontends t-at ot-er t-an its &are alle$ations and sel/-servin$ a//idavits o/ t-e ot-er
emplo'ees, %l' A0e -as not-in$ to su&stantiate its 0laim t-at 4avier 8as en$a$ed on a pa$ya& &asis.
Assumin$ t-at 4avier 8as indeed -ired on a pa$ya& &asis, it does not pre0lude -is re$ular emplo'ment
8it- t-e 0ompan'. Even t-e a0:no8led$ment re0eipts &earin$ -is si$nature and t-e 0on/irmin$ re0eipt o/
-is salaries 8ill not s-o8 t-e true nature o/ -is emplo'ment as t-e' do not re/le0t t-e ne0essar' details o/
t-e 0ommissioned tas:. esides, 4avier<s tas:s as pahinante are related, ne0essar' and desira&le to t-e
line o/ &usiness &' %l' A0e 8-i0- is en$a$ed in t-e importation and sale o/ $ro0er' items. ?On da's 8-en
t-ere 8ere no s0-eduled deliveries, -e 8or:ed in petitioners< 8are-ouse, arran$in$ and 0leanin$ t-e stored
0ans /or deliver' to 0lients.@2()3 More importantl', 4avier 8as su&De0t to t-e 0ontrol and supervision o/ t-e
0ompan', as -e 8as made to report to t-e o//i0e /rom Monda' to Saturda', /rom 5:++ o<0lo0: in t-e mornin$
until ):++ o<0lo0: in t-e a/ternoon. T-e list o/ delivera&le $oods, to$et-er 8it- t-e 0orrespondin$ 0lients and
t-eir respe0tive pur0-ases and addresses, 8ould ne0essaril' -ave &een prepared &' %l' A0e. Clearl', -e
8as su&De0ted to 0omplian0e 8it- 0ompan' rules and re$ulations as re$ards 8or:in$ -ours, deliver'
s0-edule and output, and -is ot-er duties in t-e 8are-ouse.2(>3

T-e petitioner 0-ie/l' relied on Chave* v. NLRC,2(53 8-ere t-e Court ruled t-at pa'ment to a 8or:er on a
per trip &asis is not si$ni/i0ant &e0ause ?t-is is merel' a met-od o/ 0omputin$ 0ompensation and not a
&asis /or determinin$ t-e e,isten0e o/ emplo'er-emplo'ee relations-ip.@ 4avier li:e8ise invo:es t-e rule
t-at, ?in 0ontroversies &et8een a la&orer and -is master, , , , dou&ts reasona&l' arisin$ /rom t-e eviden0e
s-ould &e resolved in t-e /ormer<s /avour. T-e poli0' is re/le0ted is no less t-an t-e Constitution, La&or
Code and Civil Code.@2(13

Claimin$ to &e an emplo'ee o/ %l' A0e, petitioner asserts t-at -e 8as ille$all' dismissed &' t-e latter<s
/ailure to o&serve su&stantive and pro0edural due pro0ess. Sin0e -is dismissal 8as not &ased on an' o/ t-e
0auses re0o$niCed &' la8, and 8as implemented 8it-out noti0e, 4avier is entitled to separation pa' and
&a0:8a$es.

In its Comment,2(73 %l' A0e insists t-at t-ere 8as no su&stantial eviden0e to prove emplo'er-emplo'ee
relations-ip. ;avin$ a servi0e 0ontra0t 8it- Milmar ;aulin$ Servi0es /or t-e purpose o/ transportin$ and
deliverin$ 0ompan' produ0ts to 0ustomers, %l' A0e 0ontra0ted 4avier as an e,tra -elper or pahinante on a
mere ?per trip &asis.@ 4avier, 8-o 8as a0tuall' a loiterer in t-e area, onl' a00ompanied and assisted t-e
0ompan' driver 8-en Milmar 0ould not deliver or 8-en t-e e,i$en0' o/ e,tra deliveries arises /or rou$-l'
/ive to si, times a mont-. e/ore ma:in$ a deliver', %l' A0e 8ould turn over to t-e driver and 4avier t-e
deliver' ve-i0le 8it- its loaded 0ompan' produ0ts. Jit- t-e ve-i0le and produ0ts in t-eir 0ustod', t-e driver
and 4avier ?8ould leave t-e 0ompan' premises usin$ t-eir o8n means, met-od, &est Dud$ment and
dis0retion on -o8 to deliver, time to deliver, 8-ere and 28-en3 to start, and manner o/ deliverin$ t-e
produ0ts.@2*+3

%l' A0e dismisses 4avier<s 0laims o/ emplo'ment as &aseless assertions. Aside /rom -is &are alle$ations,
-e presented not-in$ to su&stantiate -is status as an emplo'ee. ?It is a &asi0 rule o/ eviden0e t-at ea0-
part' must prove -is a//irmative alle$ation. I/ -e 0laims a ri$-t $ranted &' la8, -e must prove -is 0laim &'
0ompetent eviden0e, rel'in$ on t-e stren$t- o/ -is o8n eviden0e and not upon t-e 8ea:ness o/ -is
opponent.@2*(3 Invo:in$ t-e 0ase o/ Lope* v. Bodega City,2**3 %l' A0e insists t-at in an ille$al dismissal
0ase, t-e &urden o/ proo/ is upon t-e 0omplainant 8-o 0laims to &e an emplo'ee. It is essential t-at an
emplo'er-emplo'ee relations-ip &e proved &' su&stantial eviden0e. T-us, it 0ites:



In an ille$al dismissal 0ase, t-e on"s pro)andi rests on t-e emplo'er to prove t-at its
dismissal o/ an emplo'ee 8as /or a valid 0ause. ;o8ever, &e/ore a 0ase /or ille$al
dismissal 0an prosper, an emplo'er-emplo'ee relations-ip must /irst &e esta&lis-ed.

%l' A0e points out t-at 4avier merel' o//ers /a0tual assertions t-at -e 8as an emplo'ee o/ %l' A0e, ?8-i0-
are un/ortunatel' not supported &' proo/, do0umentar' or ot-er8ise.@2*93 4avier simpl' assumed t-at -e
8as an emplo'ee o/ %l' A0e, a&sent an' 0ompetent or relevant eviden0e to support it. ?;e per/ormed -is
0ontra0ted 8or: outside t-e premises o/ t-e respondent= -e 8as not even reHuired to report to 8or: at
re$ular -ours= -e 8as not made to re$ister -is time in and time out ever' time -e 8as 0ontra0ted to 8or:=
-e 8as not su&De0ted to an' dis0iplinar' san0tion imposed to ot-er emplo'ees /or 0ompan' violations= -e
8as not issued a 0ompan' I.!.= -e 8as not a00orded t-e same &ene/its $iven to ot-er emplo'ees= -e 8as
not re$istered 8it- t-e So0ial Se0urit' S'stem (+++) as petitioner<s emplo'ee= and, -e 8as /ree to leave,
a00ept and en$a$e in ot-er means o/ liveli-ood as t-ere is no e,0lusivit' o/ -is 0ontra0ted servi0es 8it- t-e
petitioner, -is servi0es &ein$ 0o-terminus 8it- t-e trip onl'. All t-ese lead to t-e 0on0lusion t-at petitioner is
not an emplo'ee o/ t-e respondents.@2*.3

Moreover, %l' A0e 0laims t-at it -ad ?no ri$-t to 0ontrol t-e result, means, manner and met-ods &' 8-i0-
4avier 8ould per/orm -is 8or: or &' 8-i0- t-e same is to &e a00omplis-ed.@2*)3 In ot-er 8ords, 4avier and
t-e 0ompan' driver 8ere $iven a /ree -and as to -o8 t-e' 8ould per/orm t-eir 0ontra0ted servi0es and
neit-er 8ere t-e' su&De0ted to de/inite -ours or 0ondition o/ 8or:.



%l' A0e li:e8ise 0laims t-at 4avier<s /un0tion as a pahinante 8as not dire0tl' related or ne0essar' to its
prin0ipal &usiness o/ importation and sales o/ $ro0eries. Even 8it-out 4avier, t-e &usiness 0ould operate its
usual 0ourse as it did not involve t-e &usiness o/ inland transportation. Lastl', t-e a0:no8led$ment re0eipts
&earin$ 4avier<s si$nature and 8ords ?pa$iao rate,@ re/errin$ to -is earned salaries on a per trip &asis, -ave
evidentiar' 8ei$-t t-at t-e LA 0orre0tl' 0onsidered in arrivin$ at t-e 0on0lusion t-at 4avier 8as not an
emplo'ee o/ t-e 0ompan'.

T-e Court a//irms t-e assailed CA de0ision.

It must &e noted t-at t-e issue o/ 4avier<s alle$ed ille$al dismissal is an0-ored on t-e e,isten0e o/ an
emplo'er-emplo'ee relations-ip &et8een -im and %l' A0e. T-is is essentiall' a Huestion o/ /a0t. 6enerall',
t-e Court does not revie8 errors t-at raise /a0tual Huestions. ;o8ever, 8-en t-ere is 0on/li0t amon$ t-e
/a0tual /indin$s o/ t-e ante0edent de0idin$ &odies li:e t-e LA, t-e #LRC and t-e CA, ?it is proper, in t-e
e,er0ise o/ Our eHuit' Durisdi0tion, to revie8 and re-evaluate t-e /a0tual issues and to loo: into t-e re0ords
o/ t-e 0ase and re-e,amine t-e Huestioned /indin$s.@2*>3 In dealin$ 8it- /a0tual issues in la&or 0ases,
?su&stantial eviden0e K t-at amount o/ relevant eviden0e 8-i0- a reasona&le mind mi$-t a00ept as
adeHuate to Dusti/' a 0on0lusion K is su//i0ient.@2*53

As t-e re0ords &ear out, t-e LA and t-e CA /ound 4avier<s 0laim o/ emplo'ment 8it- %l' A0e as 8antin$
and de/i0ient. T-e Court is 0onstrained to a$ree. Alt-ou$- Se0tion (+, Rule BII o/ t-e #e8 Rules o/
Pro0edure o/ t-e #LRC2*13 allo8s a rela,ation o/ t-e rules o/ pro0edure and eviden0e in la&or 0ases, t-is
rule o/ li&eralit' does not mean a 0omplete dispensation o/ proo/. La&or o//i0ials are enDoined to use
reasona&le means to as0ertain t-e /a0ts speedil' and o&De0tivel' 8it- little re$ard to te0-ni0alities or
/ormalities &ut no8-ere in t-e rules are t-e' provided a li0ense to 0ompletel' dis0ount eviden0e, or t-e la0:
o/ it. T-e Huantum o/ proo/ reHuired, -o8ever, must still &e satis/ied. ;en0e, ?8-en 0on/ronted 8it-
0on/li0tin$ versions on /a0tual matters, it is /or t-em in t-e e,er0ise o/ dis0retion to determine 8-i0- part'
deserves 0reden0e on t-e &asis o/ eviden0e re0eived, su&De0t onl' to t-e reHuirement t-at t-eir de0ision
must &e supported &' su&stantial eviden0e.@2*73 A00ordin$l', t-e petitioner needs to s-o8 &' su&stantial
eviden0e t-at -e 8as indeed an emplo'ee o/ t-e 0ompan' a$ainst 8-i0- -e 0laims ille$al dismissal.

E,pe0tedl', opposin$ parties 8ould stand poles apart and pro//er alle$ations as di//erent as 0-al: and
0-eese. It is, t-ere/ore, in0um&ent upon t-e Court to determine 8-et-er t-e part' on 8-om t-e &urden to
prove lies 8as a&le to -urdle t-e same. ?#o parti0ular /orm o/ eviden0e is reHuired to prove t-e e,isten0e
o/ su0- emplo'er-emplo'ee relations-ip. An' 0ompetent and relevant eviden0e to prove t-e relations-ip
ma' &e admitted. ;en0e, 8-ile no parti0ular /orm o/ eviden0e is reHuired, a /indin$ t-at su0- relations-ip
e,ists must still rest on some su&stantial eviden0e. Moreover, t-e su&stantialit' o/ t-e eviden0e depends on
its Huantitative as 8ell as its ,"alitative aspe0ts.@29+3 Alt-ou$- su&stantial eviden0e is not a /un0tion o/
Huantit' &ut rat-er o/ Hualit', t-e , , , 0ir0umstan0es o/ t-e instant 0ase demand t-at somet-in$ more
s-ould -ave &een pro//ered. ;ad t-ere &een ot-er proo/s o/ emplo'ment, su0- as , , , in0lusion in
petitioner<s pa'roll, or a 0lear e,er0ise o/ 0ontrol, t-e Court 8ould -ave a//irmed t-e /indin$ o/ emplo'er-
emplo'ee relations-ip.@29(3


In sum, t-e rule o/ t-um& remains: t-e on"s pro)andi /alls on petitioner to esta&lis- or su&stantiate su0-
0laim &' t-e reHuisite Huantum o/ eviden0e.29*3 ?J-oever 0laims entitlement to t-e &ene/its provided &'
la8 s-ould esta&lis- -is or -er ri$-t t-ereto , , ,.@2993 Sadl', 4avier /ailed to addu0e su&stantial eviden0e
as &asis /or t-e $rant o/ relie/.

In t-is 0ase, t-e LA and t-e CA &ot- 0on0luded t-at 4avier /ailed to esta&lis- -is emplo'ment 8it- %l' A0e.
' 8a' o/ eviden0e on t-is point, all t-at 4avier presented 8ere -is sel/-servin$ statements purportedl'
s-o8in$ -is a0tivities as an emplo'ee o/ %l' A0e. Clearl', 4avier /ailed to pass t-e su&stantialit'
reHuirement to support -is 0laim. ;en0e, t-e Court sees no reason to depart /rom t-e /indin$s o/ t-e CA.

J-ile 4avier remains /irm in -is position t-at as an emplo'ed stevedore o/ %l' A0e, -e 8as made to 8or: in
t-e 0ompan' premises durin$ 8ee:da's arran$in$ and 0leanin$ $ro0er' items /or deliver' to 0lients, no
ot-er proo/ 8as su&mitted to /orti/' -is 0laim. T-e lone a//idavit e,e0uted &' one en$ie BalenCuela 8as
unsu00ess/ul in stren$t-enin$ 4avier<s 0ause. In said do0ument, all BalenCuela attested to 8as t-at -e
8ould /reHuentl' see 4avier at t-e 8or:pla0e 8-ere t-e latter 8as also -ired as stevedore.29.3 Certainl', in
$au$in$ t-e eviden0e presented &' 4avier, t-e Court 0annot i$nore t-e ines0apa&le 0on0lusion t-at -is
mere presen0e at t-e 8or:pla0e /alls s-ort in provin$ emplo'ment t-erein. T-e supportin$ a//idavit 0ould
-ave, to an e,tent, &olstered 4avier<s 0laim o/ &ein$ tas:ed to 0lean $ro0er' items 8-en t-ere 8ere no
s0-eduled deliver' trips, &ut no in/ormation 8as o//ered in t-is su&De0t simpl' &e0ause t-e 8itness -ad no
personal :no8led$e o/ 4avier<s emplo'ment status in t-e 0ompan'. Beril', t-e Court 0annot a00ept 4avier<s
statements, -oo:, line and sin:er.

T-e Court is o/ t-e 0onsidera&le vie8 t-at on 4avier lies t-e &urden to pass t-e 8ell-settled tests to
determine t-e e,isten0e o/ an emplo'er-emplo'ee relations-ip,vi*: E(F t-e sele0tion and en$a$ement o/ t-e
emplo'ee= E*F t-e pa'ment o/ 8a$es= E9F t-e po8er o/ dismissal= and E.F t-e po8er to 0ontrol t-e
emplo'ee<s 0ondu0t. O/ t-ese elements, t-e most important 0riterion is 8-et-er t-e emplo'er 0ontrols or
-as reserved t-e ri$-t to 0ontrol t-e emplo'ee not onl' as to t-e result o/ t-e 8or: &ut also as to t-e means
and met-ods &' 8-i0- t-e result is to &e a00omplis-ed.29)3

In t-is 0ase, 4avier 8as not a&le to persuade t-e Court t-at t-e a&ove elements e,ist in -is 0ase. ;e 0ould
not su&mit 0ompetent proo/ t-at %l' A0e en$a$ed -is servi0es as a re$ular emplo'ee= t-at %l' A0e paid -is
8a$es as an emplo'ee, or t-at %l' A0e 0ould di0tate 8-at -is 0ondu0t s-ould &e 8-ile at 8or:. In ot-er
8ords, 4avier<s alle$ations did not esta&lis- t-at -is relations-ip 8it- %l' A0e -ad t-e attri&utes o/ an
emplo'er-emplo'ee relations-ip on t-e &asis o/ t-e a&ove-mentioned /our-/old test. Jorse, 4avier 8as not
a&le to re/ute %l' A0e<s assertion t-at it -ad an a$reement 8it- a -aulin$ 0ompan' to underta:e t-e
deliver' o/ its $oods. It 8as also &a//lin$ to realiCe t-at 4avier did not dispute %l' A0e<s denial o/ -is
servi0es< e,0lusivit' to t-e 0ompan'. In s-ort, all t-at 4avier laid do8n 8ere &are alle$ations 8it-out
0orro&orative proo/.



%l' A0e does not dispute -avin$ 0ontra0ted 4avier and paid -im on a ?per trip@ rate as a stevedore, al&eit
on a pa$ya& &asis. T-e Court 0annot /ail to note t-at %l' A0e presented do0umentar' proo/ t-at 4avier 8as
indeed paid on a pa$ya& &asis per t-e a0:no8led$ment re0eipts admitted as 0ompetent eviden0e &' t-e
LA. In/ortunatel' /or 4avier, -is mere denial o/ t-e si$natures a//i,ed t-erein 0annot automati0all' s8a' us
to i$nore t-e do0uments &e0ause ?/or$er' 0annot &e presumed and must &e proved &' 0lear, positive and
0onvin0in$ eviden0e and t-e &urden o/ proo/ lies on t-e part' alle$in$ /or$er'.@29>3

Considerin$ t-e a&ove /indin$s, t-e Court does not see t-e ne0essit' to resolve t-e se0ond issue
presented.

One /inal note. T-e Court<s de0ision does not 0ontradi0t t-e settled rule t-at ?pa'ment &' t-e pie0e is Dust a
met-od o/ 0ompensation and does not de/ine t-e essen0e o/ t-e relation.@2953 Pa'ment on a pie0e-rate
&asis does not ne$ate re$ular emplo'ment. ?T-e term L8a$e< is &roadl' de/ined in Arti0le 75 o/ t-e La&or
Code as remuneration or earnin$s, 0apa&le o/ &ein$ e,pressed in terms o/ mone' 8-et-er /i,ed or
as0ertained on a time, tas:, pie0e or 0ommission &asis. Pa'ment &' t-e pie0e is Dust a met-od o/
0ompensation and does not de/ine t-e essen0e o/ t-e relations. #or does t-e /a0t t-at t-e petitioner is not
0overed &' t-e SSS a//e0t t-e emplo'er-emplo'ee relations-ip. ;o8ever, in determinin$ 8-et-er t-e
relations-ip is t-at o/ emplo'er and emplo'ee or one o/ an independent 0ontra0tor, ea0- 0ase must &e
determined on its o8n /a0ts and all t-e /eatures o/ t-e relations-ip are to &e 0onsidered.@2913 In/ortunatel'
/or 4avier, t-e attendant /a0ts and 0ir0umstan0es o/ t-e instant 0ase do not provide t-e Court 8it- su//i0ient
reason to up-old -is 0laimed status as emplo'ee o/ %l' A0e.

J-ile t-e Constitution is 0ommitted to t-e poli0' o/ so0ial Dusti0e and t-e prote0tion o/ t-e 8or:in$ 0lass, it
s-ould not &e supposed t-at ever' la&or dispute 8ill &e automati0all' de0ided in /avor o/ la&or.
Mana$ement also -as its ri$-ts 8-i0- are entitled to respe0t and en/or0ement in t-e interest o/ simple /air
pla'. Out o/ its 0on0ern /or t-e less privile$ed in li/e, t-e Court -as in0lined, more o/ten t-an not, to8ard t-e
8or:er and up-eld -is 0ause in -is 0on/li0ts 8it- t-e emplo'er. Su0- /avoritism, -o8ever, -as not &linded
t-e Court to t-e rule t-at Dusti0e is in ever' 0ase /or t-e deservin$, to &e dispensed in t-e li$-t o/ t-e
esta&lis-ed /a0ts and t-e appli0a&le la8 and do0trine.2973

3HERE#ORE, t-e petition is DENIED. T-e Mar0- (1, *+(+ !e0ision o/ t-e Court o/ Appeals and its 4une
5, *+(+ Resolution, in CA-6.R. SP #o. (+775), are -ere&' A##IR,ED.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 186344 February 20, 2013
LEOPAR SECUR!T" AN !N#EST!GAT!ON AGENC", Petitioner,
vs.
TOMAS $U!TO", RAUL SA%ANG a&' !EGO MORALES, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PERE(, J.:
Is an aard of separation pa! proper despite lac" of shoin# of ille#al dis$issal% &his is the $ain issue' in this Rule
() Petition for Revie on Certiorari assailin# the Decision* dated +, Septe$ber +--.+ rendered and the Resolution
dated +* /anuar! +--01 issued b! the &entieth Division of the Court of 2ppeals 3C24 in C2'5.R. SP No. -1-06.
&he factual antecedents are not in dispute.
2lon#side Nu$eriano Ondong, respondents &o$as 7uito!, Raul Saban# and Die#o Morales ere hired as securit!
#uards b! petitioner 8eopard Securit! and Investi#ation 2#enc! 3LSIA4 hich $aintained its office at 9CC :ouse,
)16 Sha 9oulevard, Mandalu!on# Cit!.( 2ll bein# residents of Cebu Cit!, respondents ere assi#ned b! 8SI2 to
the different branches of its onl! client in said localit!, ;nion 9an" of the Philippines 3 Union Bank4. On * 2pril
+--), it appears that ;nion 9an" served a notice to 8SI2, ter$inatin# the parties< securit! service contract effective at
the end of business hours of 1- 2pril +--).) &hru its representative, Ro#elioMorales, 8SI2 infor$ed respondents on
+0 2pril +--) of the ter$ination of its contract ith ;nion 9an" hich had decided to chan#e its securit! provider.
;pon Morales< instruction, respondents ent to the ;nion 9an" Cebu 9usiness Par" 9ranch on 1- 2pril +--), for the
turnover of their service firear$s to 2rnel Cortes, ;nion 9an"<s Chief Securit! Officer.,
On 1 Ma! +--), respondents and Ondon# filed a co$plaint for ille#al dis$issal, unpaid *1th $onth pa! and service
incentive leave pa! 3SILP4, $oral and e=e$plar! da$a#es as ell as attorne!<s fees a#ainst 8SI2, its President,
/ose Poe III, ;nion 9an", its Re#ional Service and Operations Officer, Catherine Cheung, :erbertHojas, Protectors
Services, Inc. 3PSI4 and Capt. 5erardo Jaro. >ith the co$plaint alread! doc"eted as R29 Case No. -6'-)'-060'+--)
before the Re#ional 2rbitration 9ranch No. VII of the National 8abor Relations Co$$ission 3N8RC4 in Cebu
Cit!,6 it appears that 8SI2 sent on *- Ma! +--) a notice re?uirin# respondents to report for or" to its Mandalu!on#
Cit! office.. In an Order dated , /une +--), Cheun# and :o@as ere later dropped as parties'respondents fro$ the
case upon $otion of respondents. In vie of Ondon#<s e=ecution of a ?uitclai$, on the other hand, his co$plaint as
li"eise dis$issed ith pre@udice, resultin# in the e=clusion of PSI and /aro as parties'respondents fro$ the case.0
In support of their co$plaint, respondents averred that the! ere hired and assi#ned b! 8SI2 to the different Cebu
Cit! branches of ;nion 9an" hich directl! paid their salaries and hose branch $ana#ers e=ercised direct control
and supervision over the$. Re?uired to or" fro$ 6A1- a.$. to 0A-- p.$. dail!, respondents clai$ed that the! too"
orders and instructions fro$ ;nion 9an"<s branch $ana#ers since 8SI2 had no ad$inistrative personnel in Cebu Cit!.
Respondents further asserted that, after introducin# hi$self as a representative of 8SI2 on +0 2pril +--), Morales
belatedl! infor$ed the$ that their services ould be ter$inated at the end of the office hours on the sa$e business
da!. Directed b! Morales to report to ;nion 9an"<s Cebu 9usiness Par" 9ranch the ne=t da!, respondents $aintained
that the! surrendered their service firear$s to Cortes ho told the$ that ;nion 9an" ould be en#a#in# the services
of another securit! a#enc! effective the ne=t or"in# da!. Not even rei$bursed their firear$ bond nor told that ;nion
9an" had no $onetar! obli#ation to the$, respondents clai$ed the! ere constrained to file their co$plaint and to
pra! that the for$er be held @ointl! and severall! liable ith 8SI2 for their clai$s.*-
In its position paper, 8SI2, on the other hand, asseverated that upon bein# hired, respondents opted for an assi#n$ent
in Cebu Cit! and ere, accordin#l!, detailed at the different branches of ;nion 9an" in said localit!. Infor$ed b!
;nion 9an" on * 2pril +--) of the ter$ination of their securit! service contract effective 1- 2pril +--), 8SI2
clai$ed that it relieved respondents fro$ their assi#n$ents b! the end of the business hours of the latter date.
Petitioners ould, on *- Ma! +--), direct respondents to report for or" at its Mandalu!on# Cit! office. 2s
respondents failed to do so, 8SI2 alle#ed that it issued sho cause letters on +* /une +--), re?uirin# the for$er to
e=plain h! the! should not be ad$inistrativel! sanctioned for their une=plained absences. 2s the avoed direct
e$plo!er of respondents, 8SI2 also pra!ed that ;nion 9an" be dropped fro$ the case and that the co$plaint be
alto#ether dis$issed for lac" of $erit.** Invo"in# the securit! service contract it e=ecuted ith 8SI2 fro$ hich its
lac" of an e$plo!er'e$plo!ee relationship ith respondents could be readil! #leaned, ;nion 9an", in turn, asserted
that the co$plaint should be dis$issed as a#ainst it for lac" of cause of action.*+
On , 2pril +--,, 8abor 2rbiter Violeta OrtiB'9antu# rendered a Decision, findin# 8SI2 liable for the ille#al dis$issal
of respondents. Caultin# 8SI2 for infor$in# respondents of the ter$ination of their services onl! on 1- 2pril +--)
despite ;nion 9an"<s * 2pril +--) advice of the ter$ination of its securit! service contract, the 8abor 2rbiter ruled
that the *- Ma! +--) report to or" order did not sho a sincere intention on the part of 8SI2 to provide respondents
ith other assi#n$ents. 2side fro$ respondents< clai$s for bac"a#es, 8SI2 as ordered b! the 8abor 2rbiter to pa!
the for$er<s clai$ for separation pa! on the #round that reinstate$ent as no lon#er feasible under the circu$stances.
2lthou#h absolved fro$ liabilit! for the fore#oin# aards upon the findin# that 8SI2 as an independent contractor,
;nion 9an" as, hoever, held @ointl! and severall! liable ith said securit! a#enc! for the pa!$ent of respondents<
clai$s for proportionate *1th $onth pa! and SI8P for the three !ears i$$ediatel! precedin# the institution of the
case.*1
On appeal, the fore#oin# decision as $odified in the +- March +--6 Decision rendered b! the Courth Division of the
N8RC in N8RC Case No. V'---)6-'+--,. 2ppl!in# the principle that securit! a#encies li"e 8SI2 are alloed to put
securit! #uards on te$porar! off'detail or floatin# status for a period not e=ceedin# si= $onths, the N8RC discounted
the factual and le#al bases for the ille#al dis$issal deter$ined b! the 8abor 2rbiter as ell as the bac"a#es aarded
in favor of respondents. Cindin# that the filin# of the co$plaint on 1 Ma! +--) as pre$ature, the N8RC too" note of
the fact that respondents did not even protest a#ainst the report to or" order issued b! 8SI2. Even then, the N8RC
upheld the 8abor 2rbiter<s aard of separation pa! on the theor! that reinstate$ent as no lon#er viable. &he aards
of proportionate *1th $onth pa! and SI8P for hich ;nion 9an" and 8SI2 ere held solidaril! liable ere li"eise
sustained for failure of the latter to dischar#e the burden of provin# pa!$ent of said labor standard
benefits.*( 9elatedl! sub$ittin# docu$ents to prove its pa!$ent of SI8P, 8SI2 filed a $otion for reconsideration of
the fore#oin# decision*) hich as, hoever, denied for lac" of $erit in the N8RC<s +1 /ul! +--6 Resolution.*,
Dissatisfied, 8SI2 filed the Rule ,) Petition for Certiorari doc"eted before the C2 as C2'5.R. SP No. -1-06. Callin#
attention to the i$propriet! of the aard of separation pa! absent a findin# of ille#al dis$issal, 8SI2 also faulted the
N8RC for i#norin# the evidence it sub$itted alon#side its $otion for reconsideration to prove the pa!$ent of
respondents< SI8P for the !ears +--1, +--( and +--).*6 On +, Septe$ber +--., the then &entieth Division of the
C2 rendered the herein assailed decision, affir$in# the N8RC<s +1 /ul! +--6 Decision and den!in# 8SI2<s petition
for lac" of $erit. 2ppl!in# the principle that respondents could not be considered ille#all! dis$issed before the lapse
of si= $onths fro$ their bein# placed on floatin# status b! 8SI2, *. the C2 @ustified the aards of separation pa!,
proportionate *1th $onth pa! and SI8P in the folloin# iseA
In another vein, hoever, === respondents ere cau#ht off #uard hen Ro#elio Morales, D8SI2<sE representative
su$$aril! told the$ not to report to ;nion 9an" an!$ore. &he! did not understand its i$plications as no one
bothered to e=plain hat ould happen to the$. 2t an! rate, it is clear as da! that === respondents no lon#er ish to
continue their e$plo!$ent ith D8SI2E because of the shabb! treat$ent previousl! #iven the$. &heir relations have
obviousl! turned sour. Such bein# the case, separation pa!, in lieu of reinstate$ent, is proper. Separation pa! is
#ranted here reinstate$ent is no lon#er advisable because of strained relations beteen the e$plo!er and the
e$plo!ee.
= = = =
&he burden of provin# pa!$ent of holida! pa! and salar! differentials belon# to the e$plo!er, not the e$plo!ee. :ere
D8SI2E failed to present proofs that === respondents received pa!$ent for DSI8PE and thirteenth $onth pa! hich
accrued to the$ under the la. 2s the labor arbiter ruled, hoever, pa!$ent of DSI8PE shall onl! be for the last three
314 !ears of === respondents< service ta"in# into consideration the provisions on prescription of $one! clai$s and
proportionate *1th $onth pa! for the !ear +--(.*0
2##rieved b! the fore#oin# decision as ell as the C2<s +* /anuar! +--0 denial of their $otion for reconsideration
thereof,+- 8SI2 and Poe filed the Petition for Revie on Certiorari at bench, on the folloin# #roundsA
!
T)E COURT OF APPEALS COMM!TTE RE#ERS!%LE ERROR *)EN !T UP)EL T)E NLRC
EC!S!ON A*AR!NG TO RESPONENTS SEPARAT!ON PA" ESP!TE !TS F!N!NGS T)AT
T)E" *ERE NOT !LLEGALL" !SM!SSE.
!!
T)E COURT OF APPEALS ERRE *)EN !T UP)EL T)E NLRC EC!S!ON A*AR!NG TO
RESPONENTS SER#!CE !NCENT!#E LEA#E PA" FOR T)E "EARS 2003, 2004 AN 200+.+*
In ur#in# the #rant of their petition, 8SI2 and Poe ar#ue that, upon discountin# the factual basis for respondents<
clai$ that the! ere ille#all! dis$issed fro$ e$plo!$ent, the C2 should have disalloed the aard of separation
pa! aarded b! the 8abor 2rbiter and the N8RC. &he! insist that li"e bac"a#es, separation pa! is the le#al
conse?uence of a findin# of ille#al dis$issal and should, perforce, be deleted in the absence thereof, particularl! hen
no evidence as adduced to prove the strained relations beteen the e$plo!er and e$plo!ee. 8SI2 and Poe also fault
the C2 for i#norin# the 9an" 2dvice Slips and On De$and State$ent of 2ccount belatedl! sub$itted alon#side the
$otion for reconsideration the! filed before the N8RC, to prove pa!$ent of respondents< SI8P for the !ears +--( and
+--).++ In their co$$ent to the petition, on the other hand, respondents insist that the! have been ille#all! dis$issed
fro$ e$plo!$ent and that the 8abor 2rbiter<s deter$ination to that effect as erroneousl! reversed b! both the
N8RC and the C2.+1
&he petition is i$pressed ith $erit.
2ppl!in# 2rticle +.,+( of the Labor Code of the Philippines b! analo#!, this Court has repeatedl! reco#niBed that
securit! #uards $a! be te$poraril! sidelined b! their securit! a#enc! as their assi#n$ents pri$aril! depend on the
contracts entered into b! the latter ith third parties.+) &e$porar! Foff'detailF or Ffloatin# statusF is the period of ti$e
hen securit! #uards are in beteen assi#n$ents or hen the! are $ade to ait after bein# relieved fro$ a previous
post until the! are transferred to a ne one. It ta"es place hen, as here, the securit! a#enc!<s clients decide not to
rene their contracts ith the a#enc!, resultin# in a situation here the available posts under its e=istin# contracts are
less than the nu$ber of #uards in its roster.+, Cor as lon# as such te$porar! inactivit! does not continue for a period
e=ceedin# si= $onths, it has been ruled that placin# an e$plo!ee on te$porar! Foff'detailF or Ffloatin# statusF is not
e?uivalent to dis$issal.+6
In the case at bench, respondents ere infor$ed on +0 2pril +--) that the! ere #oin# to be relieved fro$ dut! as a
conse?uence of the 1- 2pril +--) e=piration of the securit! service contract beteen ;nion 9an" and 8SI2. >hile
respondents lost no ti$e in i$$ediatel! filin# their co$plaint on 1 Ma! +--), the record e?uall! shos that the! ere
directed b! 8SI2 to report for or" at its Mandalu!on# Cit! office on *- Ma! +--) or a $ere ten da!s fro$ the ti$e
the for$er ere effectivel! sidelined. Considerin# that a securit! #uard is onl! considered ille#all! dis$issed fro$
service hen he is sidelined fro$ dut! for a period e=ceedin# si= $onths,+. e find that the C2 correctl! upheld the
N8RC<s rulin# that respondents ere not ille#all! dis$issed b! 8SI2. Parentheticall!, said rulin# is bindin# on
respondents ho did not appeal either the decision rendered b! the N8RC or the C2 in line ith the entrenched
procedural rule in this @urisdiction that a part! ho did not appeal cannot assi#n such errors as are desi#ned to have
the @ud#$ent $odified.+0
:avin# correctl! ruled out ille#al dis$issal of respondents, the C2 reversibl! erred, hoever, hen it sustained the
N8RC<s aard of separation pa! on the #round that the parties< relationship had alread! been strained. Cor one,
liabilit! for the pa!$ent of separation pa! is a le#al conse?uence of ille#al dis$issal here reinstate$ent is no lon#er
viable or feasible. ;nder 2rticle +60 of the Labor Code, an illegally dismissed e$plo!ee is entitled to the tin reliefs
of full bac"a#es and reinstate$ent ithout loss of seniorit! ri#hts.1- 2side fro$ the instances provided under
2rticles +.11* and +.(1+ of the Labor Code, separation pa! is, hoever, #ranted hen reinstate$ent is no lon#er
feasible because of strained relations beteen the e$plo!er and the e$plo!ee.11 In cases of ille#al dis$issal, the
accepted doctrine is that separation pa! is available in lieu of reinstate$ent hen the latter recourse is no lon#er
practical or in the best interest of the parties.1(
2s a relief #ranted in lieu of reinstate$ent, hoever, it conse?uentl! #oes ithout sa!in# that an aard of separation
pa! is inconsistent ith a findin# that there as no ille#al dis$issal. Standin# alone, the doctrine of strained relations
ill not @ustif! an aard of separation pa!, a relief #ranted in instances here the co$$on deno$inator is the fact that
the e$plo!ee was dismissed b! the e$plo!er.1) Even in cases of ille#al dis$issal, the doctrine of strained relations is
not applied indiscri$inatel! as to bar reinstate$ent, especiall! hen the e$plo!ee has not indicated an aversion to
returnin# to or"1, or does not occup! a position of trust and confidence in16 or has no sa! in the operation of the
e$plo!er<s business.1. 2lthou#h liti#ation $a! also en#ender a certain de#ree of hostilit!, it has li"eise been ruled
that the understandable strain in the parties< relations ould not necessaril! rule out reinstate$ent hich ould,
otherise, beco$e the rule rather than the e=ception in ille#al dis$issal cases.10
Our perusal of the position paper the! filed a quo shos that, despite erroneousl! believin# the$selves to have been
ille#all! dis$issed, respondents had alle#ed no circu$stance indicatin# the strained relations beteen the$ and 8SI2
and had even alternativel! pra!ed for reinstate$ent alon#side the pa!$ent of separation pa!.(-Since application of
the doctrine of strained relations presupposes a ?uestion of fact hich $ust be de$onstrated and ade?uatel! supported
b! evidence,(* the C2 clearl! erred in rulin# that the parties< relations had alread! soured and that an aard of
separation pa! in favor of respondents is proper. 2pprised b! ;nion 9an" on * 2pril +--) that it as no lon#er
renein# its securit! service contract after 1- 2pril +--), 8SI2 $a! have tarried in infor$in# respondents of the fact
onl! on +0 2pril +--). 2s correctl! ruled b! the N8RC, hoever, the resultant inconvenience to respondents cannot
detract fro$ the fact that the e$plo!er'e$plo!ee relationship beteen the parties still subsisted and had !et to be
severed hen respondents filed their co$plaint on 1 Ma! +--).*Gphi*
2bsent ille#al dis$issal on the part of 8SI2 and abandon$ent of e$plo!$ent on the part of respondents, e find that
the latter<s reinstate$ent ithout bac"a#es is, instead, in order. In addition to respondent<s alternative pra!er
therefor in their position paper, reinstate$ent is @ustified b! 8SI2<s directive for the$ to report for or" at its
Mandalu!on# Cit! office as earl! of *- Ma! +--). 2s for the error ascribed the C2 for failin# to correct the N8RC<s
disre#ard of the evidence shoin# 8SI2<s pa!$ent of respondents< SI8P, suffice it to sa! that the N8RC is not
precluded fro$ receivin# evidence, even for the first ti$e on appeal, because technical rules of procedure are not
bindin# in labor cases.(+ Considerin# that labor officials are, in fact, encoura#ed to use all reasonable $eans to
ascertain the facts speedil! and ob@ectivel!, ith little resort to technicalities of la or procedure,(18SI2 correctl!
faults the C2 for li"eise brushin# aside the evidence of SI8P pa!$ents it sub$itted durin# the appeal sta#e before
the N8RC.
&he record shos that respondents ere unifor$l! aarded SI8P at the rate of P,,,.-- for the period Ma! 1 to
Dece$ber 1*, +--+, P*,---.-- for the period /anuar! * to Dece$ber 1*, +--1, P*,-(-.-- for the period /anuar! * to
Dece$ber 1*, +--( and P1(6.1, for the period /anuar! * to Ma! 1, +--) or a total of P1,-)1.1, each.((&he 9an"
2dvice Slips and On De$and State$ent of 2ccount() sub$itted b! 8SI2 before the N8RC shos unifor$ pa!$ents
of SI8P to respondents in the su$ of P*,-+) for the !ear +--( hich should, therefore, be deducted fro$ the aard of
said benefit in favor of respondent. 2lthou#h 8SI2 also sub$itted a 9an" 2dvice Slip shoin# a supposed P*,-,).--
pa!$ent of SI8P for the !ear +--) in favor of respondent Saban# onl!, the absence of an On De$and State$ent of
2ccount for said a$ount i$pels ;s to disallo the further deduction thereof fro$ the SI8P aard.
*)EREFORE, pre$ises considered, the petition is GRANTE and the assailed Decision dated +, Septe$ber +--.
is, accordin#l!, MO!F!E to direct the reinstate$ent of respondents in lieu of the aard of separation pa! and to
deduct the su$ of P*,-+).-- fro$ the SI8P individuall! aarded in favor of respondents. &he rest isAFF!RME.
SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECON !#!S!ON
G.R. No. 1,608+ February 8, 2012
FEER!CO S. RO%OSA, ROLANO E. PAN", NOEL . RO-AS, ALE-ANER ANGELES, #ERON!CA
GUT!ERRE(, FERNANO EM%AT, a&' NANETTE ). P!NTO, Petitioners,
vs.
NAT!ONAL LA%OR RELAT!ONS COMM!SS!ON .F/r01 /2/0/o&3, C)EMO4TEC)N!SC)E
MANUFACTUR!NG, !NC. a&' /10 re05o&0/b6e o77/8/a60 6e' by FRAN9L!N R. E LU(UR!AGA, a&'
PROCTER : GAM%LE P)!L!PP!NES, !NC., Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
%R!ON, J.:
>e resolve the petition for revie on certiorari* see"in# the reversal of the resolutions of the Court of 2ppeals 3C24
rendered on Cebruar! +(, +--,+ and Dece$ber *(, +--,1 in C2'5.R. SP No. .-(1,.
Cactual 9ac"#round
Cederico S. Robosa, Rolando E. Pand!, Noel D. Ro=as, 2le=ander 2n#eles, Veronica 5utierreB, Cernando E$bat and
Nanette :. Pinto 3petitioners4 ere ran"'and'file e$plo!ees of respondent Che$o'&echnische Manufacturin#, Inc.
3C&MI4, the $anufacturer and distributor of F>ellaF products. &he! ere officers and $e$bers of the C&MI
E$plo!ees ;nion'DC2 3union4. Respondent Procter and 5a$ble Philippines, Inc. 3P H 5PI4 ac?uired all the interests,
franchises and #oodill of C&MI durin# the pendenc! of the dispute.
So$eti$e in the first se$ester of *00*, the union filed a petition for certification election at C&MI. On /une *-, *00*,
Med'2rbiter Rasidali 2bdullah of the Office of the Depart$ent of 8abor and E$plo!$ent in the National Capital
Re#ion 3DO8E'NCR4 #ranted the petition. &he DO8E'NCR conducted a consent election on /ul! ), *00*, but the
union failed to #arner the votes re?uired to be certified as the e=clusive bar#ainin# a#ent of the co$pan!.
On /ul! *), *00*, C&MI, throu#h its President and 5eneral Mana#er Cran"lin R. de 8uBuria#a, issued a
$e$orandu$( announcin# that effective that da!A 3*4 all sales territories ere de$obiliBedI 3+4 all vehicles assi#ned
to sales representatives should be returned to the co$pan! and ould be soldI 314 sales representatives ould continue
to service their custo$ers throu#h public transportation and ould be #iven transportation alloanceI 3(4 deliveries of
custo$ers< orders ould be underta"en b! the arehousesI and 3)4 revolvin# funds for e='truc" sellin# held b! sales
representatives should be surrendered to the cashier 3for Metro Manila4 or to the supervisor 3for Visa!as and
Mindanao4, and truc" stoc"s should i$$ediatel! be surrendered to the arehouse.
On the sa$e da!, C&MI issued another $e$orandu$) infor$in# the co$pan!<s sales representatives and sales
drivers of the ne s!ste$ in the Salon 9usiness 5roup<s sellin# operations.
&he union as"ed for the ithdraal and defer$ent of C&MI<s directives, brandin# the$ as union bustin# acts
constitutin# unfair labor practice. C&MI i#nored the re?uest. Instead, it issued on /ul! +1, *00* a notice of ter$ination
of e$plo!$ent to the sales drivers, due to the abolition of the sales driver positions.,
On 2u#ust *, *00*, the union and its affected $e$bers filed a co$plaint for ille#al dis$issal and unfair labor
practice, ith a clai$ for da$a#es, a#ainst C&MI, De 8uBuria#a and other C&MI officers. &he union also $oved for
the issuance of a rit of preli$inar! in@unction andJor te$porar! restrainin# order 3&RO4.
&he Co$pulsor! 2rbitration Proceedin#s
&he labor arbiter handlin# the case denied the union<s $otion for a sta! order on the #round that the issues raised b!
the petitioners can best be ventilated durin# the trial on the $erits of the case. &his pro$pted the union to file on
2u#ust *,, *00* ith the National 8abor Relations Co$$ission 3N8RC4, a petition for the issuance of a preli$inar!
$andator! in@unction andJor &RO.6
On 2u#ust +1, *00*, the N8RC issued a &RO.. It directed C&MI, De 8uBuria#a and other co$pan! e=ecutives to 3*4
cease and desist fro$ dis$issin# an! $e$ber of the union and fro$ i$ple$entin# the /ul! +1, *00* $e$orandu$
ter$inatin# the services of the sales drivers, and to i$$ediatel! reinstate the$ if the dis$issals have been effectedI
3+4 cease and desist fro$ i$ple$entin# the /ul! *), *00* $e$orandu$ #roundin# the sales personnelI and 314 restore
the status ?uo ante prior to the for$ation of the union and the conduct of the consent election.
2lle#edl!, the respondents did not co$pl! ith the N8RC<s 2u#ust +1, *00* resolution. &he! instead $oved to
dissolve the &RO and opposed the union<s petition for preli$inar! in@unction.
On Septe$ber *+, *00*, the N8RC up#raded the &RO to a rit of preli$inar! in@unction.0 &he respondents $oved
for reconsideration. &he union opposed the $otion and ur#entl! $oved to cite the responsible C&MI officers in
conte$pt of court.
On 2u#ust +), *001, the N8RC denied the respondents< $otion for reconsideration and directed 8abor 2rbiter
Cristeta &a$a!o to hear the $otion for conte$pt. In reaction, the respondents ?uestioned the N8RC orders before this
Court throu#h a petition for certiorari and prohibition ith preli$inar! in@unction. &he Court dis$issed the petition
for bein# pre$ature. It also denied the respondents< $otion for reconsideration, as ell as a second $otion for
reconsideration, ith finalit!. &his notithstandin#, the respondents alle#edl! refused to obe! the N8RC directives.
&he respondents< defiance, accordin# to the petitioners, resulted in the loss of their e$plo!$ent.
Meanhile, the N8RC heard the conte$pt char#e. On October 1*, +---, it issued a resolution*- dis$issin# the
char#e. It ordered the labor arbiter to proceed hearin# the $ain case on the $erits.
&he petitioners $oved for, but failed to secure, a reconsideration fro$ the N8RC on the dis$issal of the conte$pt
char#e. &he! then sou#ht relief fro$ the C2 b! a! of a petition for certiorari under Rule ,).
&he C2 Decision
&he C2 sa no need to dell on the issues raised b! the petitioners as the ?uestion it dee$ed appropriate for
resolution is hether the N8RC<s dis$issal of the conte$pt char#e a#ainst the respondents $a! be the proper sub@ect
of an appeal. It opined that the dis$issal is not sub@ect to revie b! an appellate court. 2ccordin#l!, the C2 Special
Si=th Division dis$issed the petition in its resolution of Cebruar! +(, +--,.**
&he C2 considered the pra!er of P H 5PI to be dropped as part!'respondent $oot and acade$ic.
&he petitioners sou#ht a reconsideration, but the C2 denied the $otion in its resolution of Dece$ber *(,
+--,.*+:ence, the present Rule () petition.
&he Petition
&he petitioners char#e the C2 ith #rave abuse of discretion in upholdin# the N8RC resolutions, despite the
reversible errors the labor tribunal co$$itted in dis$issin# the conte$pt char#e a#ainst the respondents. &he!
contend that the respondents ere #uilt! of conte$pt for their failure 3*4 to observe strictl! the N8RC status ?uo
orderI and 3+4 to reinstate the dis$issed petitioners and to pa! the$ their lost a#es, sales co$$issions, per die$s,
alloances and other e$plo!ee benefits. &he! also clai$ that the N8RC, in effect, overturned this Court<s affir$ation
of the &RO and of the preli$inar! in@unction.
&he petitioners assail the C2<s reliance on the Court<s rulin# that a conte$pt char#e parta"es of a cri$inal proceedin#
here an ac?uittal is not sub@ect to appeal. &he! ar#ue that the facts obtainin# in the present case are different fro$
the facts of the cases here the Court<s rulin# as $ade. &he! further ar#ue that b! the nature of this case, the 8abor
Code and its i$ple$entin# rules and re#ulations should appl!, but in an! event, the appellate court is not prevented
fro$ reviein# the factual basis of the ac?uittal of the respondents fro$ the conte$pt char#es.
&he petitioners la$ent that the N8RC, in issuin# the challen#ed resolutions, had unconstitutionall! applied the la.
&he! $aintain that not onl! did the N8RC unconscionabl! dela! the disposition of the case for $ore than telve 3*+4
!earsI it also rendered an un@ust, un"ind and dubious @ud#$ent. &he! beail that FDfEor so$e stran#e reason, the
respondent N8RC $ade a ?ueer Dso$ersaultE fro$ its earlier rulin#s hich favor the petitioners.F*1
&he Case for the Respondents
Cran"lin K. De 8uBuria#a
De 8uBuria#a filed a Co$$ent*( on Ma! *6, +--6 and a Me$orandu$ on Dece$ber (, +--.,*) pra!in# for a
dis$issal of the petition.
De 8uBuria#a ar#ues that the C2 co$$itted no error hen it dis$issed the petition for certiorari since the dis$issal of
the conte$pt char#e a#ainst the respondents a$ounted to an ac?uittal here revie b! an appellate court ill not lie.
In an! event, he sub$its, the respondents ere char#ed ith indirect conte$pt hich $a! be initiated onl! in the
appropriate re#ional trial court, pursuant to Section *+, Rule 6* of the Rules of Court. :e posits that the N8RC has no
@urisdiction over an indirect conte$pt char#e. :e thus ar#ues that the petitioners i$properl! brou#ht the conte$pt
char#e before the N8RC.
2dditionall!, De 8uBuria#a points out that the petition raises onl! ?uestions of facts hich, procedurall!, is not
alloed in a petition for revie on certiorari. 9e this as it $a!, he sub$its that pursuant to Philippine 8on# Distance
&elephone Co$pan!, Inc. v. &ia$son,*, factual findin#s of labor officials, ho are dee$ed to have ac?uired e=pertise
in $atters ithin their respective @urisdictions, are #enerall! accorded not onl! respect but even finalit!. :e stresses
that the C2 co$$itted no reversible error in not reviein# the N8RC<s factual findin#s.
Curther, De 8uBuria#a contends that the petitioners< verification and certification a#ainst foru$ shoppin# is defective
because it as onl! Robosa and Pand! ho e=ecuted the docu$ent. &here as no indication that the! ere authoriBed
b! Ro=as, 2n#eles, 5utierreB, E$bat and Pinto to e=ecute the re?uired verification and certification.
8astl!, De 8uBuria#a $aintains that the petitioners are #uilt! of foru$ shoppin# as the reliefs pra!ed for in the petition
before the C2, as ell as in the present petition, are the sa$e reliefs that the petitioners $a! be entitled to in the
co$plaint before the labor arbiter.*6
P H 5PI
2s it did ith the C2 hen it as as"ed to co$$ent on the petitioners< $otion for reconsideration, *. P H 5PI pra!s
in its Co$$ent*0 and Me$orandu$+- that it be dropped as a part!'respondent, and that it be e=cused fro$ further
participatin# in the proceedin#s. It ar#ues that inas$uch as the N8RC resolved the conte$pt char#e on the $erits, an
appeal fro$ its dis$issal throu#h a petition for certiorari is barred. Especiall! in its case, the dis$issal of the petition
for certiorari is correct because it as never $ade a part! to the conte$pt proceedin#s and, thus, it as never afforded
the opportunit! to be heard. It adds that it is an entit! separate fro$ C&MI. It sub$its that it cannot be $ade to assu$e
an! or all of C&MI<s liabilities, absent an a#ree$ent to that effect but even if it $a! be liable, the present proceedin#s
are not the proper venue to deter$ine its liabilit!, if an!.
On Dece$ber *,, +--., the petitioners filed a Me$orandu$+* raisin# essentiall! the sa$e issues and ar#u$ents laid
don in the petition.
&he Court<s Rulin#
Issues
&he parties< sub$issions raise the folloin# issuesA
3*4 hether the N8RC has conte$pt poersI
3+4 hether the dis$issal of a conte$pt char#e is appealableI and
314 hether the N8RC co$$itted #rave abuse of discretion in dis$issin# the conte$pt char#e a#ainst the
respondents.
On the first issue, e stress that under 2rticle +*.++ of the 8abor Code, the N8RC 3and the labor arbiters4 $a! hold
an! offendin# part! in conte$pt, directl! or indirectl!, and i$pose appropriate penalties in accordance ith la. &he
penalt! for direct conte$pt consists of either i$prison$ent or fine, the de#ree or a$ount depends on hether the
conte$pt is a#ainst the Co$$ission or the labor arbiter. &he 8abor Code, hoever, re?uires the labor arbiter or the
Co$$ission to deal ith indirect conte$pt in the $anner prescribed under Rule 6* of the Rules of Court.+1
Rule 6* of the Rules of Court does not re?uire the labor arbiter or the N8RC to initiate indirect conte$pt proceedin#s
before the trial court. &his $ode is to be observed onl! hen there is no la #rantin# the$ conte$pt poers. +( 2s is
clear under 2rticle +*.3d4 of the 8abor Code, the labor arbiter or the Co$$ission is e$poered or has @urisdiction to
hold the offendin# part! or parties in direct or indirect conte$pt. &he petitioners, therefore, have not i$properl!
brou#ht the indirect conte$pt char#es a#ainst the respondents before the N8RC.
&he second issue pertains to the nature of conte$pt proceedin#s, especiall! ith respect to the re$ed! available to the
part! ad@ud#ed to have co$$itted indirect conte$pt or has been absolved of indirect conte$pt char#es. In this re#ard,
Section **, Rule 6* of the Rules of Court states that the @ud#$ent or final order of a court in a case of indirect
conte$pt $a! be appealed to the proper court as in a cri$inal case. &his is not the point at issue, hoever, in this
petition. It is rather the ?uestion of hether the dis$issal of a conte$pt char#e, as in the present case, is appealable.
&he C2 held that the N8RC<s dis$issal of the conte$pt char#es a#ainst the respondents a$ounts to an ac?uittal in a
cri$inal case and is not sub@ect to appeal.
&he C2 rulin# is #rounded on prevailin# @urisprudence.
In Lasa!, /r. v. Recto,+) the Court declaredA
2 distinction is $ade beteen a civil and DaE cri$inal conte$pt. Civil conte$pt is the failure to do so$ethin# ordered
b! a court to be done for the benefit of a part!. 2 cri$inal conte$pt is an! conduct directed a#ainst the authorit! or
di#nit! of the court.+,
&he Court further e=plained in Re$$an Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of 2ppeals+6 and People v. 5odo!+. the character
of conte$pt proceedin#s, thus M
&he real character of the proceedin#s in conte$pt cases is to be deter$ined b! the relief sou#ht or b! the do$inant
purpose. &he proceedin#s are to be re#arded as cri$inal hen the purpose is pri$aril! punish$ent and civil hen the
purpose is pri$aril! co$pensator! or re$edial.
Still further, the Court held in Santia#o v. 2nunciacion, /r.+0 thatA
9ut hether the first or the second, conte$pt is still a cri$inal proceedin# in hich ac?uittal, for instance, is a bar to a
second prosecution. &he distinction is for the purpose onl! of deter$inin# the character of punish$ent to be
ad$inistered.
In the earlier case of &he Insurance Co$$issioner v. 5lobe 2ssurance Co., Inc.,1- the Court dis$issed the appeal
fro$ the rulin# of the loer court den!in# a petition to punish the respondent therein fro$ conte$pt for lac" of
evidence. &he Court said in that caseA
It is not the sole reason for dis$issin# this appeal. In the leadin# case of In re Mison, /r. v. Subido, it as stressed b!
/ustice /.9.8. Re!es as ponente, that the conte$pt proceedin# far fro$ bein# a civil action is Fof a cri$inal nature and
of su$$ar! character in hich the court e=ercises but li$ited @urisdiction.F It as then e=plicitl! heldA F:ence, as in
cri$inal proceedin#s, an appeal ould not lie fro$ the order of dis$issal of, or an e=oneration fro$, a char#e of
conte$pt of court.F Dfootnote o$ittedE
Is the N8RC<s dis$issal of the conte$pt char#es a#ainst the respondents be!ond revie b! this Court% On this
i$portant ?uestion, e note that the petitioners, in assailin# the C2 $ain decision, clai$ that the appellate court
co$$itted #rave abuse of discretion in not rulin# on the dis$issal b! the N8RC of the conte$pt char#es. 1* &he! also
char#e the N8RC of havin# #ravel! abused its discretion and havin# co$$itted reversible errors inA
3*4 settin# aside its earlier resolutions and orders, includin# the rit of preli$inar! in@unction it issued, ith
its dis$issal of the petition to cite the respondents in conte$pt of courtI
3+4 overturnin# this Court<s resolutions upholdin# the &RO and the rit of preli$inar! in@unctionI
314 failin# to i$pose ad$inistrative fines upon the respondents for violation of the &RO and the rit of
preli$inar! in@unctionI and
3(4 failin# to order the reinstate$ent of the dis$issed petitioners and the pa!$ent of their accrued a#es and
other benefits.
In vie of the #rave abuse of discretion alle#ation in this case, e dee$ it necessar! to loo" into the N8RC<s
dis$issal of the conte$pt char#es a#ainst the respondents. 2s the char#es ere rooted into the respondents< alle#ed
non'co$pliance ith the N8RC directives contained in the &RO1+ and the rit of preli$inar! in@unction,11e first
in?uire into hat reall! happened to these directives.
&he assailed N8RC resolution of October 1*, +---1( #ave us the folloin# account on the $atter '
On the first directive, = = = >e find that there as no violation of the said order. 2 perusal of the records ould sho
that in co$pliance ith the te$porar! restrainin# order 3&RO4, respondents reinstated bac" to or" the sales drivers
ho co$plained of ille#al dis$issal 3Me$orandu$ of Respondents, pa#e (4.
Petitioners< alle#ation that there as onl! pa!roll reinstate$ent does not $a"e the respondents #uilt! of conte$pt of
court. Even if the drivers ere @ust in the #ara#e doin# nothin#, the sa$e does not $a"e respondents #uilt! of
conte$pt nor does it $a"e the$ violators of the in@unction order. >hat is i$portant is that the! ere reinstated and
receivin# their salaries.
2s for petitioners Danilo Real, Roberto Sedano and Rolando Manalo, the! have resi#ned fro$ their @obs and ere
paid their separation pa! === 3E=hibits F,,F F,'2,F F6,F F6'2,F F.,F F.'2,F Respondents< Me$orandu$ dated 2u#ust
*+, *00,4. &he issue of hether the! ere ille#all! dis$issed should be threshed out before the 8abor 2rbiter in
hose sala the case of unfair labor practice and ille#al dis$issal ere 3sic4 filed. Records also sho that petitioner
2ntonio Des?uitado durin# the pendenc! of the case e=ecuted an affidavit of desistance as"in# that he be dropped as
part! co$plainant in as $uch as he has alread! accepted separation benefits totalin# toP,1,-.6.11.
>ith respect to the second directive orderin# respondents to cease and desist fro$ i$ple$entin# the $e$oranda
dated /ul! *), *00* desi#ned to #round sales personnel ho are $e$bers of the union, respondents alle#ed that the!
can no lon#er be restrained or en@oined and that the status ?uo can no lon#er be restored, for i$ple$entation of the
$e$orandu$ as alread! consu$$ated or as a fait acco$pli. = = =
2ll sales vehicles ere ordered to be turned over to $ana#e$ent and the sa$e ere alread! soldD.E === DIEt ould be
hard to undo the sales transactions, the sa$e bein# valid and bindin#. &he $e$orandu$ of /ul! *), *00* authoriBed
still all sales representatives to continue servicin# their custo$ers usin# public transportation and a transportation
alloance ould be issued.
= = = =
&he third directive of the Co$$ission is to preserve the Fstatus ?uo anteF beteen the parties.
Records reveal that >E882 25 of 5er$an! ter$inated its 8icensin# 2#ree$ent ith respondent co$pan! effective
Dece$ber 1*, *00* 3E=hibit F**,F Respondents< Me$orandu$4.
On /anuar! 1*, *00+, individual petitioners to#ether ith the other e$plo!ees ere ter$inated ===. In fact, this event
resulted to the closure of the respondent co$pan!. &he $anufacturin# and $ar"etin# operations ceased. &his is
evidenced b! the testi$on! of Rosalito del Rosario and her affidavit 3E=h. F0,F $e$orandu$ of Respondents4 as ell
as E$plo!er<s Monthl! Report on E$plo!ees &er$inationJdis$issalsJsuspension === 3E=hibits F*+'2F to F*+'C,F
ibid4 as ell as the report that there is a per$anent shutdonJtotal closure of all units of operations in the
establish$ent 3Ibid4. 2 letter as li"eise sent to the Depart$ent of 8abor and E$plo!$ent 3E=h. F*+,F Ibid4 in
co$pliance ith 2rticle +.1 of the 8abor Code, servin# notice that it ill cease business operations effective /anuar!
1*, *00+.
&he petitioners stron#l! dispute the above account. &he! $aintain that the N8RC failed to consider the folloin#A
*. C&MI violated the status ?uo ante order hen it did not restore to their for$er or" assi#n$ents the
dis$issed sales drivers. &he! la$ent that their bein# F#ara#edF deprived the$ of benefits, and the! ere
sub@ected to ridicule and ps!cholo#ical abuse. &he! assail the N8RC for considerin# the pa!roll reinstate$ent
of the drivers as co$pliance ith its sta! order.
&he! also beail the N8RC<s reco#nition of the resi#nation of Danilo Real, Roberto Sedano, Rolando
Manalo and 2ntonio Des?uitado as the! ere @ust co$pelled b! econo$ic necessit! to resi#n fro$ their
e$plo!$ent. &he ?uitclai$s the! e=ecuted ere contrar! to public polic! and should not bar the$ fro$
clai$in# the full $easure of their ri#hts, includin# their counsel ho as undul! deprived of his ri#ht to
collect attorne!<s fees.
+. It as error for the N8RC to rule that the $e$orandu$, #roundin# the sales drivers, could no lon#er be
restrained or en@oined because all sales vehicles ere alread! sold. No substantial evidence as presented b!
the respondents to prove their alle#ation, but even if there as a valid sale of the vehicles, it did not relieve
the respondents of responsibilit! under the sta! order.
1. &he alle#ed ter$ination of the licensin# a#ree$ent beteen C&MI and >E882 25 of 5er$an!, hich
alle#edl! resulted in the closure of C&MI<s $anufacturin# and $ar"etin# operations, occurred after the
N8RC<s issuance of the in@unctive reliefs. C&MI failed to present substantial evidence to support its
contention that it folded up its operations hen the licensin# a#ree$ent as ter$inated. Even assu$in# that
there as a valid closure of C&MI<s business operations, the! should have been paid their lost a#es,
alloances, incentives, sales co$$issions, per die$s and other e$plo!ee benefits fro$ 2u#ust +1, *00* up
to the date of the alle#ed ter$ination of C&MI<s $ar"etin# operations.
Did the N8RC co$$it #rave abuse of discretion in dis$issin# the conte$pt char#es a#ainst the respondents% 2n act
of a court or tribunal $a! onl! be considered as co$$itted in #rave abuse of discretion hen it as perfor$ed in a
capricious or hi$sical e=ercise of @ud#$ent hich is e?uivalent to lac" of @urisdiction. &he abuse of discretion $ust
be so patent and #ross as to a$ount to an evasion of a positive dut! en@oined b! la, or to act at all in conte$plation
of la, as here the poer is e=ercised in an arbitrar! and despotic $anner b! reason of passion or personal
hostilit!.1)
&he petitioners insist that the respondents violated the N8RC directives, especiall! the status ?uo ante order, for their
failure to reinstate the dis$issed petitioners and to pa! the$ their benefits. In li#ht of the facts of the case as dran
above, e cannot see ho the status ?uo ante or the e$plo!er'e$plo!ee situation before the for$ation of the union
and the conduct of the consent election can be $aintained. 2s the N8RC e=plained, C&MI closed its $anufacturin#
and $ar"etin# operations after the ter$ination of its licensin# a#ree$ent ith >E882 25 of 5er$an!. In fact, the
closure resulted in the ter$ination of C&MI<s re$ainin# e$plo!ees on /anuar! 1*, *00+, aside fro$ the sales drivers
ho ere earlier dis$issed but reinstated in the pa!roll, in co$pliance ith the N8RC in@unction. &he petitioners<
ter$ination of e$plo!$ent, as ell as all of their $one! clai$s, as the sub@ect of the ille#al dis$issal and unfair
labor practice co$plaint before the labor arbiter. &he latter as ordered b! the N8RC on October 1*, +--- to proceed
hearin# the case.1, &he N8RC thus subsu$ed all other issues into the $ain ille#al dis$issal and unfair labor practice
case pendin# ith the labor arbiter. On this point, the N8RC declaredA
Note that hen the in@unction order as issued, >E882 25 of 5er$an! as still under licensin# a#ree$ent ith
respondent co$pan!. :oever, the situation has chan#ed hen >E882 25 of 5er$an! ter$inated its licensin#
a#ree$ent ith the respondent, causin# the latter to close its business.
Respondents could no lon#er be ordered to restore the status ?uo as far as the individual petitioners are concerned as
these $atters re#ardin# the ter$ination of the e$plo!ees are no pendin# liti#ation ith the 2rbitration 9ranch of the
Co$$ission. &o resolve the incident no re#ardin# the closure of the respondent co$pan! and the $atters alle#ed b!
petitioners such as the creations of three 314 ne corporations === as successor'corporations are $atters best left to the
8abor 2rbiter hearin# the $erits of the unfair labor practice and ille#al dis$issal cases.16
>e find no #rave abuse of discretion in the assailed N8RC rulin#. It ri#htl! avoided delvin# into issues hich ould
clearl! be in e=cess of its @urisdiction for the! are issues involvin# the $erits of the case hich are b! la ithin the
ori#inal and e=clusive @urisdiction of the labor arbiter.1. &o be sure, hether pa!roll reinstate$ent of so$e of the
petitioners is properI hether the resi#nation of so$e of the$ as co$pelled b! dire econo$ic necessit!I hether the
petitioners are entitled to their $one! clai$sI and hether ?uitclai$s are contrar! to la or public polic! are issues
that should be heard b! the labor arbiter in the first instance. &he N8RC can in?uire into the$ onl! on appeal after the
$erits of the case shall have been ad@udicated b! the labor arbiter.
&he N8RC correctl! dis$issed the conte$pt char#es a#ainst the respondents.*Gphi* &he C2 li"eise co$$itted no
#rave abuse of discretion in not disturbin# the N8RC resolution.
In li#ht of the above discussion, e find no need to dell into the other issues the parties raised.
>:ERECORE, pre$ises considered, e hereb! DENL the petition for lac" of $erit and 2CCIRM the assailed
resolutions of the Court of 2ppeals.
SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 16;4;4 <u6y 24, 200,
CA%ALEN MANAGEMENT CO., !NC., MA. ESTELA O. N!E#ERA, !AN T!ONGSON, A<! T!ONGSON,
ESTER O. N!E#ERA a&' ANASTAC!A NA#AL, AR!ANO <R. CORPORAT!ON, LEA A. PANG!L!NAN,
E#A S. CANELAR!A, ROSE MAR!E MORALES, AN!LO SUNU%A, LETEC!A A#!, MARLON
%ULANA!, MA. T)ERESA L. GA! a&' CONSUELO )AL!L! RE"ES, Petitioners,
vs.
<ESUS P. $U!AM%AO, GERAL!NE M. PALERMO, ROEL %. PANG!L!NAN, *!LL!AM F. LACSON,
ROC)ELLE %. E LEON, <OCEL"N %. EANG, EGAR E. E GU(MAN, #!(!ER !NOCENC!O,
#!NCENT E*AR C. MAPUA a&' <ESSE%EL G. O%!EN, Respondents.
R E S O 8 ; & I O N
CARP!O MORALES, J.:
Cro$ this Court<s Decision* of March *(, +--6, petitioners see" reconsideration.
In their petition for revie on certiorari before this Court, petitioners sou#ht to set aside the 2pril +0, +--)
Decision+ of the Court of 2ppeals 3C24 in C2'5.R. SP No. .)*)0, hich reversed the earlier rulin#s of the 8abor
2rbiter and the National 8abor Relations Co$$ission 3N8RC4I and its Resolution of 2u#ust +), +--),1 hich denied
their $otion for reconsideration.
&he assailed C2 Decision held that e=cept for respondents ViBier Inocencio and Vincent Edard Mapa hose
petitions ere dis$issed pursuant to Section ), Rule 6 of the Rules of Court and Section ( 3a4 of the Rules of
Procedure of the N8RC, herein respondents ere ille#all! dis$issed fro$ their e$plo!$ent.
&his Court, b! Decision of March *(, +--6, affir$ed the C2 Decision, hence, petitioners< Motion for Reconsideration
no sub@ect of the present Resolution. &o the Motion, respondents filed their Opposition.
In pleadin# a reconsideration of the Decision, petitioners invite attention to the fact that not one, but to
ad$inistrative bodies possessin# specialiBed "noled#e and e=pertise in their respective fields, i.e, the office of the
8abor 2rbiter and the N8RC, had previousl! ruled that the dis$issal of respondents fro$ or" as le#al.
Petitioners clai$ that contrar! to the C2<s and this Court<s holdin#s, the affidavits of their itnesses, :enr! dela Ve#a
9alen 39alen4 and Roderic" Malana 3Malana4, as ell as the audit report dated Septe$ber *0, +--*, are ad$issible
and of rational probative value.
>ith respect to the state$ents e=ecuted b! 9alen and Malana, petitioners $anifest that the ori#inals thereof ere
sub$itted to the 8abor 2rbiter durin# the preli$inar! conference of the caseI and even respondents have not ob@ected
to the sub$ission of the state$ents, either on the #round that the! ere photocopies or that the! ere altered or ere
not presented to the$ at all.
Curther, petitioners contend that respondents did not contest the findin#s of the audit report that the cancelled Order
Slips 3OS4 and receipts, and the incidents of sappin# dinin# OS ith bar OS ere be!ond the course of ordinar!
business. Such findin# should thus be accorded credit, the! ur#e, #iven the observations of the 8abor 2rbiter about a
Fholl! credible scenarioF of tip poc"etin# b! respondents and the alle#ed ad$ission of respondent /esus 7uia$bao
in his Sinu$paan# Sala!sa! dated March *(, +--+, of the e=istence of the ano$alous activit!.
Petitioners further$ore $aintain that the C2 should have dis$issed the petition ith respect to respondents 5eraldine
Paler$o, Rochelle De 8eon, and >illia$ 8acson. Cor, so petitioners contend, respondents failed to si#n the
verification of their appeal to the N8RC to thus render the decision of the 8abor 2rbiter final as to the$.
Cinall!, petitioners posit that the Decision of this Court should not have passed upon the le#alit! of the dis$issal of
7uia$bao because the sa$e is sub@ect of another case, N8RC NCR Case No. --'-)'-,+*-'+--1, hich is still
pendin# consideration b! 8abor 2rbiter Ra$on Valentin Re!es.
It bears stressin# that this Court thorou#hl! considered the rulin#s $ade b! the 8abor 2rbiter and the N8RC, hich
ere pleaded b! petitioners both in their petition for certiorari before the C2 and in their petition for revie before
this Court. &hen, as no, this Court appreciates no error in the reversal b! the C2 of the findin#s of the 8abor 2rbiter
and the N8RC.
>ith respect to the state$ents of 9alen and Malana and the audit report, petitioners need onl! to be re$inded that
evidence, even if not ob@ected to, $a! still carr! no probative value. Cor ad$issibilit!, should not be e?uated ith
ei#ht, of evidence.(
Moreover, as respondents correctl! point out in their Opposition, the! have vehe$entl! ob@ected to the state$ents of
petitioners< itnesses in their Repl!) for bein# self'servin#, undated, antin# in $aterial particulars and not e=ecuted
under oath. &he sa$e Repl! bears out the fact that respondents ob@ected to the audit report for bein# self'servin#.,
Even assu$in# that the ori#inals of the state$ents of 9alen and Malana ere sub$itted to the 8abor 2rbiter, still the
copies e=tant in the records are lac"in# in $aterial particulars, specificall! the dates of e=ecution and the persons
before ho$ the! ere e=ecuted.
Notabl!, these particulars are deter$inative of hether the state$ents as ell as the audit report had indeed
precipitated the investi#ation of respondents as petitioners had clai$edI or ere presented onl! after the cases for
ille#al dis$issal ere filed as respondents had contended.
It $a! not be a$iss to reiterate that it is the e$plo!er<s burden to prove a valid dis$issal. &he case of the e$plo!er
$ust stand or fall on its on $erits and not on the ea"ness of the e$plo!eeJs< defense.6
In dischar#in# this bounden dut!, it is not enou#h that petitioners shoed that 7uia$bao had confir$ed the
occurrence of incidents of tip poc"etin#I the! also had to prove that he and the rest of the respondents ere
responsible for it. &his dut! is all the $ore pressin# in the case of 7uia$bao considerin# that it as he ho called the
$ana#e$ent<s attention to the incidents of tip poc"etin# a$on# so$e of his co'e$plo!ees, onl! to be char#ed ith
the offense he had as"ed to be investi#ated.. Not onl! that. Petitioners also had to prove that due process as
observed in ter$inatin# the e$plo!$ent of respondents. 2s previousl! traversed in the Decision under
reconsideration, petitioners unfortunatel! failed in all respects.*avvphi*
2s to the alle#ed error of the C2 in rela=in# the verification re?uire$ent ith respect to petitioners Paler$o, De 8eon
and 8acson, it bears notin# that petitioners had failed to raise this as an issue in its $otion for reconsideration of the
C2 Decision,0 thus precludin# the appellate court fro$ addressin# the sa$e. In fact, it is onl! no that the issue is
presented before this Court.
Cinall!, re#ardin# this Court<s @ud#$ent on the le#alit! of 7uia$bao<s dis$issal, respondents< Opposition affir$s that
his case for ille#al dis$issal due to business losses, hich is doc"eted as N8RC NCR Case No. --'-)'-,+*-'+--1, is
still unresolved before 8abor 2rbiter Ra$on Valentin Re!es. On this score, this Court sets aside the @ud#$ent
concernin# the dis$issal of respondent 7uia$bao.
>:ERECORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is P2R&8L 5R2N&ED. &he @ud#$ent pertainin# to respondent /esus
P. 7uia$bao is V2C2&ED and SE& 2SIDE. Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration is, in all other respects, DENIED
for lac" of $erit, and the DENI28 is CIN28.
SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
T)!R !#!S!ON
G.R. No. 168;88 <u&e 1;, 200,
FERNANO G. MANA"A, petitioner,
vs.
ALA%ANG COUNTR" CLU% !NCORPORATE, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
C)!CO4NA(AR!O, J.:
&his is a Petition for Revie on Certiorari under Rule () of the *006 Rules of Civil Procedure filed b! Cernando 5.
Mana!a 3petitioner4 assailin#A 3*4 the Decision* of the Court of 2ppeals in C2'5.R. SP No. 6)(*6, dated 0 Ma!
+--), #rantin# the Petition of 2laban# Countr! Club Inc. 3respondent4 and settin# aside the Resolutions dated 1-
2u#ust +--+ and 1- October +--+ of the National 8abor Relations Co$$ission 3N8RC4I and 3+4 the Resolution+of
the Court of 2ppeals dated +* /ul! +--) den!in# petitioner<s Motion for Reconsideration of its earlier Decision.
&he assailed decision of the Court of 2ppeals reversed the Resolution of the N8RC dis$issin# the appeal of the
respondent for failure to perfect its appeal ithin the statutor! period. Instead, the Court of 2ppeals ordered the N8RC
to #ive due course to the appeal of the respondent.
&he antecedent facts areA
Petitioner alle#ed that on +* 2u#ust *0.0, he as initiall! hired b! the respondent as a $aintenance helper1receivin#
a salar! of P*0..-- per da!. :e as later desi#nated as co$pan! electrician. :e continued to or" for the respondent
until ++ 2u#ust *00. hen the latter, throu#h its En#ineerin# and Maintenance Depart$ent Mana#er, En#r. Ronnie 9.
de la CruB, infor$ed hi$ that his services ere no lon#er re?uired b! the co$pan!.(Petitioner alle#ed that he as
forcibl! and ille#all! dis$issed ithout cause and ithout due process on ++ 2u#ust *00..) :ence, he filed a
Co$plaint, before the 8abor 2rbiter. :e clai$ed that he had not co$$itted an! infraction of co$pan! policies or
rules and that he as not paid his service incentive leave pa!, holida! pa! and *1th $onth pa!. :e further asserted
that ith his $ore or less nine !ears of service ith the respondent, he had beco$e a re#ular e$plo!ee. :e, therefore,
de$anded his reinstate$ent ithout loss of seniorit! ri#hts ith full bac"a#es and all $onetar! benefits due hi$.6
In its 2nser, respondent denied that petitioner as its e$plo!ee. It countered b! sa!in# that petitioner as e$plo!ed
b! Cirst Staffin# Netor" Corporation 3CSNC4, ith hich respondent had an e=istin# Me$orandu$ of 2#ree$ent
dated +* 2u#ust *0.0. &hus, b! virtue of a le#iti$ate @ob contractin#, petitioner, as an e$plo!ee of CSNC, ca$e to
or" ith respondent, first, as a $aintenance helper, and subse?uentl! as an electrician. Respondent pra!ed for the
dis$issal of the co$plaint insistin# that petitioner had no cause of action a#ainst it.
In a Decision, dated +- Nove$ber +---, the 8abor 2rbiter heldA
>:ERECORE, pre$ises considered, co$plainant Cernando 5. Mana!a is hereb! found to be a re#ular e$plo!ee of
respondent 2laban# Countr! Club, Inc., as aforediscussed. :is dis$issal fro$ the service havin# been effected
ithout @ust and valid cause and ithout the due observance of due process is hereb! declared ille#al. Conse?uentl!,
respondent 2laban# Countr! Club, Inc. is hereb! ordered to reinstate co$plainant to his for$er position ithout loss
of seniorit! ri#hts and other benefits appurtenant thereto ith full bac"a#es in the partial a$ount of P*,-,6+(.(. as
co$puted b! Ms. Ma. Concepcion Manliclic and dul! noted b! Ms. Ma. Elena 8. Estadilla, OIC'CE;, NCR'South
Sector hich co$putation has been $ade part of the records.
Curther$ore, respondent 2laban# Countr! Club, Inc. and Cirst Staffin# Netor" Corporation are hereb! ordered to
pa! co$plainant, @ointl! and severall! the folloin# a$ounts b! a! of the folloin#A
*. Service Incentive 8eave +,0,*.6)
+. *1th Month Pa! *),(-*.*-, and
1. 2ttorne!<s fees of ten 3*-N4 percent of the total
$onetar! aard herein ad@ud#ed due hi$, ithin ten 3*-4 da!s fro$ receipt hereof..
Respondent filed an 2ppeal ith the N8RC hich dis$issed the sa$e.0 In a Resolution dated 1- 2u#ust +--+, the
N8RC heldA
PREMISES CONSIDERED, instant appeal fro$ the Decision of Nove$ber +-, +--- is hereb! DISMISSED for
failure to perfect appeal ithin the statutor! period of appeal. &he Decision is no final and e=ecutor!.*-
&he N8RC found that respondent<s counsel of record 2tt!. 2n#elina 2. Mailon of Monsod, Valencia and 2ssociates
received a cop! of the 8abor 2rbiter<s Decision on or before ** Dece$ber +--- as shon b! the postal sta$p or
re#istr! return card.** Said counsel did not file a ithdraal of appearance. Instead, a Me$orandu$ of
2ppeal*+ dated +, Dece$ber +--- as filed b! the respondent<s ne counsel, 2tt!. 2riBala of &ierra and 2ssociates
8a Office. Rec"oned fro$ ** Dece$ber +---, the date of receipt of the Decision b! respondent<s previous counsel,
the filin# of the Me$orandu$ of 2ppeal b! its ne counsel on +, Dece$ber +--- as clearl! $ade be!ond the
re#le$entar! period. &he N8RC held that the failure to perfect an appeal ithin the statutor! period is not onl!
$andator! but @urisdictional. &he appeal havin# been belatedl! filed, the Decision of the 8abor 2rbiter had beco$e
final and e=ecutor!.*1
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration,*( hich the N8RC denied in a Resolution dated 1- October
+--+.*) &he N8RC held that the decision of the 8abor 2rbiter has beco$e final and e=ecutor! on +. Nove$ber +--+I
thus, Entr! of /ud#$ent, dated . /anuar! +--1*, as issued.
Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari*6 under Rule ,) of the Rules of Court before the Court of 2ppeals. In a
Decision dated 0 Ma! +--),*. the Court of 2ppeals #ranted the petition and ordered the N8RC to #ive due course to
respondent<s appeal of the 8abor 2rbiter<s Decision. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration hich as denied
b! the Court of 2ppeals in a Resolution*0 dated +* /ul! +--).
Not to be dissuaded, petitioner filed the instant petition before this Court.
&he issue for resolutionA
>:E&:ER OR NO& &:E CO;R& OC 2PPE28S COMMI&&ED 2N ERROR >:EN I& ORDERED &:E N8RC
&O 5IVE D;E CO;RSE &O &:E 2PPE28 OC RESPONDEN& 28292N5 CO;N&RL C8;9, INCORPOR2&ED
EVEN IC &:E S2ID 2PPE28 >2S CI8ED 9ELOND &:E RE58EMEN&2RL PERIOD OC &EN 3*-4 D2LS COR
PERCEC&IN5 2N 2PPE28.+-
Essentiall!, the issue raised b! the respondent before the N8RC in assailin# the decision of the 8abor 2rbiter pertains
to the findin# of the 8abor 2rbiter that petitioner as a re#ular e$plo!ee of the respondent.
In #rantin# the petition, the Court of 2ppeals relied $ainl! on the case of 2#ua$ v. Court of 2ppeals,+* here this
Court held that liti#ation $ust be decided on the $erits and not on technicalities. &he appellate court further @ustified
the #rant of respondent<s petition b! sa!in# that the ne#li#ence of its counsel should not bind the respondent.++
&he Court of 2ppeals #ave credence to respondent<s clai$ that its la!er abandoned the caseI hence, the! ere not
effectivel! represented b! a co$petent counsel. It further held that the respondent, upon its receipt of the Decision of
the 8abor 2rbiter on *) Dece$ber +---, filed its appeal on +, Dece$ber +--- throu#h a ne la!er. &he appeal filed
b! respondent throu#h its ne la!er on +, Dece$ber +--- as ell ithin the re#le$entar! period, +) Dece$ber
+--- bein# a holida!.
It is a=io$atic that hen a client is represented b! counsel, notice to counsel is notice to client. In the absence of a
notice of ithdraal or substitution of counsel, the Court ill ri#htl! assu$e that the counsel of record continues to
represent his client and receipt of notice b! the for$er is the rec"onin# point of the re#le$entar! period. +1 2s
heretofore adverted, the ori#inal counsel did not file an! notice of ithdraal. Neither as there an! inti$ation b!
respondent at that ti$e that it as ter$inatin# the services of its counsel.
Cor ne#li#ence not to be bindin# on the client, the sa$e $ust constitute #ross ne#li#ence as to a$ount to a deprivation
of propert! ithout due process.+( &his does not e=ist in the case at bar. Notice sent to counsel of record is bindin#
upon the client and the ne#lect or failure of counsel to infor$ hi$ of an adverse @ud#$ent resultin# in the loss of his
ri#ht to appeal is not a #round for settin# aside a @ud#$ent, valid and re#ular on its face.+)
Even $ore, it is respondent<s dut! as a client to be in touch ith his counsel so as to be constantl! posted about the
case. It is $andated to in?uire fro$ its counsel about the status and pro#ress of the case fro$ ti$e to ti$e and cannot
e=pect that all it has to do is sit bac", rela= and aait the outco$e of the case.+,
On this score, e hold that the notice to respondent<s counsel, 2tt!. 2n#elina 2. Mailon on ** Dece$ber +--- is the
controllin# date of the receipt of the decision.
>e no co$e to the issue of hether or not the Court of 2ppeals properl! #ave due course to the petition of the
respondent before it.
Of relevance is Section *, Rule VI of the +--) Revised Rules of the N8RC O
Section *. PERIODS OC 2PPE28. M Decisions, resolutions or orders of the 8abor 2rbiter shall be final and e=ecutor!
unless appealed to the Co$$ission b! an! or both parties ithin ten 3*-4 calendar da!s fro$ receipt thereofI and in
case of decisions, resolutions or orders of the Re#ional Director of the Depart$ent of 8abor and E$plo!$ent
pursuant to 2rticle *+0 of the 8abor Code, ithin five 3)4 calendar da!s fro$ receipt thereof. If the *-th or )th da!, as
the case $a! be, falls on a Saturda!, Sunda! or holida!, the last da! to perfect the appeal shall be the first or"in# da!
folloin# such Saturda!, Sunda! or holida!.
No $otion or re?uest for e=tension of the period ithin hich to perfect an appeal shall be alloed.
Re$ar"abl!, in hi#hl! e=ceptional instances, e have alloed the rela=in# of the rules on the application of the
re#le$entar! periods of appeal.+6 &husA
In Ra$os v. 9a#asao, 0, SCR2 10), e e=cused the dela! of four da!s in the filin# of a notice of appeal because the
?uestioned decision of the trial court as served upon appellant Ra$os at a ti$e hen her counsel of record as
alread! dead. :er ne counsel could onl! file the appeal four da!s after the prescribed re#le$entar! period as over.
In Republic v. Court of 2ppeals, .1 SCR2 ()1, e alloed the perfection of an appeal b! the Republic despite the
dela! of si= da!s to prevent a #ross $iscarria#e of @ustice since the Republic stood to lose hundreds of hectares of land
alread! titled in its na$e and had since then been devoted for educational purposes. In Olacao v. National 8abor
Relations Co$$ission, *66 SCR2 1., (*, e accepted a tard! appeal considerin# that the sub@ect $atter in issue had
theretofore been @udiciall! settled, ith finalit!, in another case. &he dis$issal of the appeal ould have had the effect
of the appellant bein# ordered tice to $a"e the sa$e reparation to the appellee.+.
>e pronounced in those cases that technicalit! should not be alloed to stand in the a! of e?uitabl! and co$pletel!
resolvin# the ri#hts and obli#ations of the parties.
In all these, the Court alloed liberal interpretation #iven the e=traordinar! circu$stances that @ustif! a deviation fro$
an otherise strin#ent rule.+0
Clearl!, e$phasiBed in these cases is that the polic! of liberal interpretation is ?ualified b! the re?uire$ent that there
$ust be e=ceptional circu$stances to allo the rela=ation of the rules.1-
2bsent e=ceptional circu$stances, e adhere to the rule that certain procedural precepts $ust re$ain inviolable, li"e
those settin# the periods for perfectin# an appeal or filin# a petition for revie, for it is doctrinall! entrenched that the
ri#ht to appeal is a statutor! ri#ht and one ho see"s to avail oneself of that ri#ht $ust co$pl! ith the statute or
rules. &he rules, particularl! the re?uire$ents for perfectin# an appeal ithin the re#le$entar! period specified in the
la, $ust be strictl! folloed as the! are considered indispensable interdictions a#ainst needless dela!s and for
orderl! dischar#e of @udicial business. Curther$ore, the perfection of an appeal in the $anner and ithin the period
per$itted b! la is not onl! $andator! but also @urisdictional and the failure to perfect the appeal renders the
@ud#$ent of the court final and e=ecutor!. /ust as a losin# part! has the ri#ht to file an appeal ithin the prescribed
period, the innin# part! also has the correlative ri#ht to en@o! the finalit! of the resolution of hisJher case.1*
In this particular case, e adhere to the strict interpretation of the rule for the folloin# reasonsA
Cirstl!, in this case, entr! of @ud#$ent had alread! been $ade1+ hich rendered the Decision of the 8abor 2rbiter as
final and e=ecutor!.
Secondl!, it is a basic and irrefra#able rule that in carr!in# out and in interpretin# the provisions of the 8abor Code
and its i$ple$entin# re#ulations, the or"in#$an<s elfare should be the pri$ordial and para$ount consideration.
&he interpretation herein $ade #ives $eanin# and substance to the liberal and co$passionate spirit of the la
enunciated in 2rticle ( of the 8abor Code that Fall doubts in the i$ple$entation and interpretation of the provisions of
the 8abor Code includin# its i$ple$entin# rules and re#ulations shall be resolved in favor of labor.F11
In the case of 9una#an v. Sentinel1( e declared thatA
D&Ehat the perfection of an appeal ithin the statutor! or re#le$entar! period is not onl! $andator!, but @urisdictional,
and failure to do so renders the ?uestioned decision final and e=ecutor! and deprives the appellate court of @urisdiction
to alter the final @ud#$ent, $uch less to entertain the appeal. &he underl!in# purpose of this principle is to prevent
needless dela!, a circu$stance hich ould allo the e$plo!er to ear out the efforts and $ea#er resources of the
or"er to the point that the latter is constrained to settle for less than hat is due hi$. &his Court has declared that
althou#h the N8RC is not bound b! the technical rules of procedure and is alloed to be liberal in the interpretation of
the rules in decidin# labor cases, such liberalit! should not be applied here it ould render futile the ver! purpose
for hich the principle of liberalit! is adopted. &he liberal interpretation ste$s fro$ the $andate that the
or"in#$an<s elfare should be the pri$ordial and para$ount consideration. >e see no reason in this case to aive
the rules on the perfection of appeal.1)
&he Court is aare that the N8RC is not bound b! the technical rules of procedure and is alloed to be liberal in the
interpretation of rules in decidin# labor cases. :oever, such liberalit! should not be applied in the instant case as it
ould render futile the ver! purpose for hich the principle of liberalit! is adopted. &he liberal interpretation in favor
of labor ste$s fro$ the $andate that the or"in#$an<s elfare should be the pri$ordial and para$ount
consideration. = = =.1, 3E$phases supplied.4
Indeed, there is no roo$ for liberalit! in the instant case Fas it ould render futile the ver! purpose for hich the
principle of liberalit! is adopted.F 2s so ri#htfull! enunciated, Fthe liberal interpretation in favor of labor ste$s fro$
the $andate that the or"in#$an<s elfare should be the pri$ordial and para$ount consideration.F &his Court has
repeatedl! ruled that dela! in the settle$ent of labor cases cannot be countenanced. Not onl! does it involve the
survival of an e$plo!ee and his loved ones ho are dependent on hi$ for food, shelter, clothin#, $edicine and
educationI it also ears don the $ea#er resources of the or"ers to the point that, not infre?uentl!, the! either #ive
up or co$pro$ise for less than hat is due the$.16
>ithout doubt, to allo the appeal of the respondent as hat the Court of 2ppeals had done and re$and the case to
the N8RC ould onl! result in dela! to the detri$ent of the petitioner. In Nara# v. National 8abor Relations
Co$$ission,1. citin# Vir'/en Shippin# and Marine Services, Inc. v. National 8abor Relations Co$$ission,10 e
held that dela! in $ost instances #ives the e$plo!ers $ore opportunit! not onl! to prepare even in#enious defenses,
hat ith ell'paid talented la!ers the! can afford, but even to ear out the efforts and $ea#er resources of the
or"ers, to the point that not infre?uentl! the latter either #ive up or co$pro$ise for less than hat is due the$.(-
Nothin# is $ore settled in our @urisprudence than the rule that hen the conflictin# interest of loan and capital are
ei#hed on the scales of social @ustice, the heavier influence of the latter $ust be counter'balanced b! the s!$path!
and co$passion the la $ust accord the under'privile#ed or"er.(*
&hirdl!, respondent has not shon sufficient @ustification to reverse the findin#s of the 8abor 2rbiter as affir$ed b!
the N8RC.
Pertinent provision of the 8abor Code providesA
2R&. ++1. 2PPE28. M Decisions, aards, or orders of the 8abor 2rbiter are final and e=ecutor! unless appealed to the
Co$$ission b! an! or both parties ithin ten 3*-4 calendar da!s fro$ receipt of such decisions, aards, or orders.
Such appeal $a! be entertained onl! on an! of the folloin# #roundsA
3a4 If there is pri$a facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the 8abor 2rbiterI
3b4 If the decision, order or aard as secured throu#h fraud or coercion, includin# #raft an corruptionI
3c4 If $ade purel! on ?uestion of laI and
3d4 If serious errors in the findin# of facts are raised hich ould cause #rave or irreparable da$a#e or in@ur! to the
appellant.
;nder the above provision, to obtain a reversal of the decision of the 8abor 2rbiter, the respondent $ust be able to
sho in his appeal that an! one of the above instances e=ists.
Respondent failed to sho the e=istence of an! of the above. 2 $ore than perfunctor! readin# of the Decision of the
8abor 2rbiter shos that the sa$e is supported b! the evidence on record.
Respondent narrates that it had a contract of services, first, ith Supre$e Construction 3Supre$e4. Supre$e assi#ned
petitioner to or" ith the respondent startin# as a painter and $ovin# on to perfor$ electrical @obs. Respondent
ter$inated its contract ith Supre$e and entered into another contract of services ith another @ob'contractin#
a#enc!, Cirst Staffin# Netor" Corporation. Petitioner continued to or" for the respondent hich clai$ed that the
for$er as supplied b! CNSC to it as part of its contract to suppl! the $anpoer re?uire$ents of the respondent.
Petitioner is not the e$plo!ee of the respondent. :e as directl! hired first b! Supre$e then later b! CNSC and
deplo!ed to or" ith the respondent based on the contract of services beteen respondent and these @ob'contractin#
a#encies. 2ll these considered, respondent insists that petitioner is therefore not its e$plo!ee.
>e do not a#ree to this sub$ission of the respondent. &he 8abor 2rbiter concluded otherise and this finds support
fro$ the evidence, thusA
DREespondent as not able to convincin#l! disprove co$plainant<s clai$s that at the outset, he as directl! hired b! it
as a $aintenance helper on +* 2u#ust *0.0. 2lthou#h said respondent alle#es that co$plainant as hired b! its @ob
contractor, Supre$e Construction, it failed to sub$it in evidence the Contract of Service it had entered into in order to
establish the entr! of co$plainant as deplo!ed b! said co$pan! for his duties at 2laban# Countr! Club, Inc. pursuant
to the said 2#ree$ent. It can therefore be readil! presu$ed that said respondent did not produce the said docu$ent
because the production of the sa$e ill readil! prove co$plainant<s assertion of havin# been hired lon# before said
contractor Supre$e Construction entered into the picture. >e have noted co$plainant<s ad$ission of havin# been
later coerced to si#n up ith said Supre$e Construction b! respondent 2laban# Countr! Club, Inc. hich he did as he
as told in his fear of losin# his @ob.
2s shon b! respondent 2laban# Countr! Club, Inc.<s on evidence, it later ter$inated its contract of service or
Me$orandu$ of 2#ree$ent ith Supre$e Construction and entered into a ne contract of service ith respondent
Cirst Staffin# Netor" Corporation effective on *, /une *00(. :oever b! said respondent<s on alle#ation, even
ith the absence of co$plainant<s supposed direct e$plo!er Supre$e Construction, he still re$ained in its e$plo!
until he si#ned up ith respondent Cirst Staffin# Netor" Corporation on ** Cebruar! *00,. &his indeed runs counter
to the nor$al course of hu$an e=perience such that hen a contractor losses 3sic4 his contract of service he pac"s up
alon# ith all his e$plo!ees, but in this case, co$plainant as not ter$inated fro$ the service notithstandin# the
e=pirationJter$ination of the contract of service of his alle#ed direct e$plo!er. Co$plainant re$ained or"in# ith
respondent 2laban# Countr! Club, Inc. despite the severance of the contractual relations beteen itself and Supre$e
Construction.
&he initial Me$orandu$ of 2#ree$ent entered into b! respondents 2laban# Countr! Club, Inc. and Cirst Staffin#
Netor" Corporation as dated, *, /une *00(, and as apparentl! reneed thereafter providin# under 2rticle III M
On Co$pensation thereof, the folloin#, viBA
F1.-* Cor and in consideration of the perfor$ance b! CIRS& S&2CCIN5 of its obli#ations under this 25REEMEN&,
the C8IEN& a#rees to pa! the for$er based on the schedule of billin# rates hich shall be specified in the Personnel
Re?uisition Cor$ si#ned b! the C8IEN&. &he schedule of billin# rates is as follos, to itA
F9I88IN5 R2&ESJ:O;R P8;S *-N V28;E 2DDED &2P
FCovered Pos.
2 9 C
>aiters 2ccountin# Supervisor
/anitors Data Encoders
9a# 9o! 5en. Cler"s
Steards Secretar!
Coo" :elpers Receptionist
Messen#ers Secretar!
CashierF
F===.F
Nohere, does co$plainant<s position of electrician appear as covered in the said contract. Cinall!, suffice it for ;s to
stress that the said contract covers al$ost all of respondent<s 2laban# Countr! Club, Inc.<s or"force includin# those
hose @obs or activities are directl! related to said respondents< business, e$phasiBin# in no uncertain ter$s that
respondent Cirst Staffin# Netor" Corporation as not a trul! bonafide @ob contractor, as it did not contract out
specific service but $erel! supplied or" personnel, a clear indication, that it as en#a#ed in a F@ob M onl!F
contractin# hich is prohibited b! la.
9esides, the said respondent Cirst Staffin# Netor" Corporation failed to prove that it is a bonafide @ob contractor b!
shoin# that it had an ade?uate capital or invest$ent in tools, e?uip$ents and $achineries and pre$ises for that
$atter, and so did respondent 2laban# Countr! Club, Inc. fail to establish the sa$e. Cor that $atter, respondent Cirst
Staffin# Netor" Corporation had aived its ri#ht to present an! evidence in its favor in this case.
Obviousl!, herein respondent 2laban# Countr! Club, Inc. actuall! resorted to contractin# out all the positions for its
or"force in violation of la in its desire to circu$vent said e$plo!ees< ri#hts as re#ular e$plo!ees under the la.(+
&he e=istence of an e$plo!er'e$plo!ee relationship beteen petitioner and respondent is fortified b! the fact that
durin# his stint ith the respondent, petitioner as #iven the opportunit! to attend a se$inarJtrainin# on refri#eration
and air conditionin# fro$ *, /anuar! *00) to *. Cebruar! *00).(1 2 certificate of participation si#ned b! three of
respondent<s officials as issued to the petitioner.
E?uall! si#nificant is 2rticle *-, of the 8abor Code, as a$ended, hich provides that le#iti$ate @ob contractin# is
per$itted, but labor'onl! contractin# is prohibited. &he said provision readsA
2rt. *-,. Contractor or subcontractor. M >henever an e$plo!er enters into a contract ith another person for the
perfor$ance of the for$er<s or", the e$plo!ees of the contractor and of the latter<s subcontractor, if an!, shall be
paid in accordance ith the provisions of this Code.
In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pa! the a#es of his e$plo!ees in accordance ith this Code,
the e$plo!er shall be @ointl! and severall! liable ith his contractor or subcontractor to such e$plo!ees to the e=tent
of the or" perfor$ed under the contract, in the sa$e $anner and e=tent that he is liable to e$plo!ees directl!
e$plo!ed b! hi$.
&he Secretar! of 8abor $a!, b! appropriate re#ulations, restrict or prohibit the contractin# out of labor to protect the
ri#hts of or"ers established under the Code. In so prohibitin# or restrictin#, he $a! $a"e appropriate distinctions
beteen labor M onl! contractin# and @ob contractin# as ell as differentiations ithin these t!pes of contractin# and
deter$ine ho a$on# the parties involved shall be considered the e$plo!er for purposes of this Code, to prevent an!
violation or circu$vention of an! provision of this Code.
&here is FlaborMonl!F contractin# here the person suppl!in# or"ers to an e$plo!er does not have substantial
capital or invest$ent in the for$ of tools, e?uip$ent, $achineries, or" pre$ises, a$on# others, and the or"ers
recruited and placed b! such person are perfor$in# activities hich are directl! related to the principal business of
such e$plo!er. In such cases, the person or inter$ediar! shall be considered $erel! as an a#ent of the e$plo!er ho
shall be responsible to the or"ers in the sa$e $anner and e=tent as if the latter ere directl! e$plo!ed b! hi$.
Rule VIII'2, 9oo" III of the O$nibus Rules I$ple$entin# the 8abor Code, as a$ended b! Depart$ent Order No. *.,
distin#uishes beteen le#iti$ate and labor M onl! contractin#A
Section 1. &rilateral Relationship in Contractin# 2rran#e$ents. ' In le#iti$ate contractin#, there e=ists a trilateral
relationship under hich there is a contract for a specific @ob, or" or service beteen the principal and the contractor
or subcontractor, and a contract of e$plo!$ent beteen the contractor and subcontractor and its or"ers. :ence,
there are three parties involved in these arran#e$ents, the principal hich decides to far$ out a @ob or service to a
contractor or subcontractor, the contractor or subcontractor hich has the capacit! to independentl! underta"e the
perfor$ance of the @ob, or" or service, and the contractual or"ers en#a#ed b! the contractor or subcontractor to
acco$plish the @ob, or" or service.
Section ). Prohibition a#ainst laborMonl! contractin#. M 8abor'onl! contractin# is hereb! declared prohibited. Cor this
purpose, labor M onl! contractin# shall refer to an arran#e$ent here the contractor or subcontractor $erel! recruits,
supplies or places or"ers to perfor$ a @ob, or" or service for a principal, and an! of the folloin# ele$ents are
presentA
i4 &he contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or invest$ent hich relates to the @ob, or" or
service to be perfor$ed and the e$plo!ees recruited, supplied or placed b! such contractor or subcontractor are
perfor$in# activities hich are directl! related to the $ain business of the principal, or
ii4 &he contractor does not e=ercise the ri#ht to control over the perfor$ance of the or" of the contractual e$plo!ee.
&he fore#oin# provisions shall be ithout pre@udice to the application of 2rticle +(.3c4 of the 8abor Code, as
a$ended.
FSubstantial capital or invest$entF refers to capital stoc"s and subscribed capitaliBation in the case of corporations,
tools, e?uip$ents, i$ple$ents, $achineries and or" pre$ises, actuall! and directl! used b! the contractor or
subcontractor in the perfor$ance or co$pletion of the @ob, or" or service contracted out.
&he Fri#ht to controlF shall refer to the ri#ht reserved to the person for ho$ the services of the contractual or"ers
are perfor$ed, to deter$ine not onl! the end to be achieved, but also the $anner and $eans to be used in reachin#
that end.
&he test to deter$ine the e=istence of independent contractorship is hether one clai$in# to be an independent
contractor has contracted to do the or" accordin# to his on $ethods and ithout bein# sub@ect to the control of the
e$plo!er, e=cept onl! as to the results of the or".
In le#iti$ate labor contractin#, the la creates an e$plo!er'e$plo!ee relationship for a li$ited purpose, i.e., to ensure
that the e$plo!ees are paid their a#es. &he principal e$plo!er beco$es @ointl! and severall! liable ith the @ob
contractor, onl! for the pa!$ent of the e$plo!ees< a#es henever the contractor fails to pa! the sa$e. Other than
that, the principal e$plo!er is not responsible for an! clai$ $ade b! the e$plo!ees. ((
Despite respondent<s disavoal of the e=istence of the e$plo!er'e$plo!ee relationship beteen it and petitioner and
its insistence that petitioner is an e$plo!ee first, of Supre$e and subse?uentl!, of CSNC, the totalit! of the facts and
surroundin# circu$stances of the case conve! otherise.
On this point, the la is clear'cut. In laborMonl! contractin#, the statute creates an e$plo!erMe$plo!ee relationship
for a co$prehensive purposeA to prevent a circu$vention of labor las. &he contractor is considered $erel! an a#ent
of the principal e$plo!er and the latter is responsible to the e$plo!ees of the laborMonl! contractor as if such
e$plo!ees had been directl! e$plo!ed b! the principal e$plo!er.
&he 8abor Code and its i$ple$entin# rules e$poer the 8abor 2rbiter to be the trier of facts in labor cases. Much
reliance is placed on findin#s of facts of the 2rbiter havin# had the opportunit! to tal" to and discuss ith the parties
and their itnesses the factual $atters of the case durin# the conciliation phase. () >e, thus, #ive full credence to the
findin#s of facts of the labor arbiter.
>herefore, pre$ises considered, the Petition is 5R2N&ED. &he Decision of the Court of 2ppeals dated 0 Ma! +--)
and its Resolution dated +* /ul! +--) is REVERSED. &he Decision of the 8abor 2rbiter dated +- Nove$ber +--- is
reinstated. 8et the records of the above'entitled case be re$anded to the 8abor 2rbiter for i$$ediate e=ecution of the
Decision. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
T)!R !#!S!ON
G.R. No. 1,+460 A5r/6 14, 2008
METRO TRANS!T ORGAN!(AT!ON, !NC., a&' <OSE L. CORTE(, <R., petitioners,
vs.
P!GLAS NF*U49MU, SAMM" MALUNES, ROMULO $U!GAO, ROULFO CAMER!NO, %RENO
MA9!L!NG, MA-!MO #!TANGCOL, PETER !A, ELMER %O%A!LLA, NOEL ESGASANE, !S!RO
CORTE(, CR!SP!N "APC)!ONGCO, MARLON E. SANTOS, *!LFREO E RAMOS, ARTEM!O
SAL!G, AGR!F!NO GOROSPE, RUEL MAG%ALANA, <OEL MARANO, MELC)OR ALARCON, ROMEO
TAGU!, EMERSON LUMA%!, AT!LANO <O%, ENN!S T. CRU(, ARNOL !MALANTA, CARL!TO
MAN(AN!LLA, GU!LLERMO UMAN, CR!SANTO S. MAGNA"E, RONALO ESTRELLA, EMUNO
$UEMAA, MAR!TO N. )E%REO, EGARO C. RAMOS, #!CTOR G. %A%!ERA, EMUNO %.
GON(ALE(, ROSELL #!LLANUE#A, FLOR!FE %LAS, <A!ME A%ULENC!A, ROOLFO GAM%OA,
#ALENT!N %OR%ON, ALAN ATUR%A, TEOFANES TES!OMA, PERO TES!OMA, CESAR %ATTUNG,
E*!N ENR!$UE(, ROOLFO P!LAF!L, AR!EL %USTAMANTE, CR!SENO CASAS, RONAL
LO#EOREAL, #!CENTE RAM!RE(, GERARO E GU(MAN, RO%!NSON #!N(ON, ELP!!O P.
#ARGAS, LC ELA CRU(, AR!EL !MA*ALA, <OE" A. LO%ER!ANO, RE"NALO S. EL ROSAR!O,
PAUL #. LEGASP!, EUARO C. SANTOS, <O)N R. NUNE(, <UST!NO %. ASA"TANO, <R., RONAL G.
ECOSTO, <OENEL G. %AL!GUAT, RUTC)!E R. REL!M%O, %EN<AM!N A. A%!!N, ALLAN CORTE(,
ALE<ANRO M. !A(, ANTON!O %ALANGUE, R!CARO G. ALUNSONG, ER*!N S. %ARRERA,
ALLAN M. MARANG, PONC!ANO M. (AMORA, APOL!NAR!O M. %OLGEN, ARNOL %. ESTORES,
RU%EN %ERNAL, ROLANO %. CANLAS, ROOLFO C. )ERESE, ANTON!O #!LLAMOR, <R.,
ART)UR %. )ERM!TAN!O, )ERNAN! M. L!%ANT!NG, AL%ERTO T. ELA CRU(, <EREM!A) #.
MA)!NA", )ELEN P. !OLANA, PAMP!LO R. %ALAS%AS, EUARO G. MANOSCA, NATAL!A
PA"ONGA"ONG, <O)N M. %!SCOC)O, ES!ER!O S. MOS$UEA, G!O#ANN! #. MUESCAN, M.
MAUR A. MENELE#AR, ORLANO MALA"%A, ROLANO E GU(MAN, EGAR #. #!CELLA<E,
<OEL G. E#ANGEL!STA, RE"NALO C. #ERANO, C"R!LL MA"OR, <OE" <. SA%ANAL, <ONN" L.
!GNAC!O, <ESUS C. FA<ARO, LEOPOLO CA(ENAS, ANASTAC!O <ANA#AN, #!RG!LO C. CRU(,
EGARO ESP!NOSA, ROMEO M!RAFUENTE, E*!N R. <UAT, RENATO TAPALLA, E*AR F.
MAR!ANO, <ESS!E A. U$UE, MANUEL M. FLOG!O, ROR!GO SARASUA, E*AR M. !A(,
TEOF!LO R!( MOCORRO, <R., CESAR CUENCO, <R., AR!EL MAGNO, NEPTAL! PASAAS,
MAUR!C!O ELA CRU(, *!L)EM!NE POL!NTAN, AN!EL F. !<!RAN, EL!A O. CUPCUP!N,
%ERNAR!NO G. MAT!AS, AN!LO %. MAR!ANO, <OSEL!TO G. CONC!O, RAMON CA$U!AT,
R!CARO %. ANO, <R., LA*RENCE SACALAN, M!C)AEL GU!NTO, RA"MUNO L!TAN, <R.,
EUCL!A GAURANO, GENEROSO RAPOSA, R!CARO SANTOS, ROLANO PERE(, E-E<ESON E#A
RUA(OL, EUARO RO$UE, RONALO GELLE, R)OEL!O G. CRU(, RONN!E M. GON(ALES,
EL!(ALE <ANAP!N, E*!N %OR<A, REN!ERO L. GA9O, RE"NALO T. !GNAC!O, <OSE A.
CEN!ON!A, GLEC!R!O M. SA"AT, ROGEL!O LUMA%AN, LARR" ORATE, SANT!AGO CLAR!N,
ANTON!O LEGASP!, MAR!L"N %RA#O, EUARO AGU!LA, ANA 9!NG9!NG, TERES!TA
#ELAS$UE(, AUREL!O PAGTA9)AN, AL%ERTO %RA#O, ONAL RE"ES, RE!NER!O R!PA",
ALFONSO TR!N!A, <R., CESAR CANETE, S!L#ESTRE AL#ANO, <OSEP) ROR!GUE(, )AROL
FLORES, M!CA)EL ROM%LON, RAMON AMEGLEO, PASCUAL PARAGAS, #!CTOR SANC)E(,
EST)ELA AT!EN(A, ANTON" E LUNA, AGNES ELA CRU(, CLAR"MAR ESTO$UE, FEL!-
ARR!OLA, CARLOS SAMONTE, ME*!N MES!NA, REGG!E FEL!-MEN!A, R!CARO
E#ANGEL!STA, E!SON <OSE ORAS, LORNA SALON, LEL!%ET) CAS!NO, GREGOR!O
SAL#E!A, A$U!L!NO E%EN, REST!TUTO FEL!PE, NELFRE ELET!NA, FERNANO MALLAR!,
RAM!R GORO, CARLOS %AN!LLA, ERNESTOR SERENA, MATEO )AO, RON!LO E #ERA,
AL%ERTO AS!S, <R., <A!ME %ARCOMA, *!LL!AM #!LLANUE#A, ARMANO NOAO, ENR!$UE
ESPANOL, <R., FRANC!SCO FLORES, ELMER CRU(, AN!LO "U, ENR!$UE FLORES, <A"SON
L!*AG, ROMEO PALAGANAS, EUARO %ER%A, MELC)OR REGALAO, REEN NOLASCO,
MAR!O S. ELA CRU(, ARNOL MENO(A, ANTE MENO(A, LARR" TAN, LARR"
)ERNANE(, GOOFREO %EUNO, MANOLO SANTOS, R!CARO PATR!ARCA, AL%ERTO RAMOS,
ARNULFO E LARA, *!LFREO %AN!ALA, LO#!N E L!MA, GEORGE ELA CUE#A, NELSO
LA%A"O, E!T)A ELA ROSA, EL!(A%ET) RE"ES, EMUNO L!ONGSON, <R., AN!LO R!#ERA,
SR., %EN<AM!N CANOLE, CATAL!NO MELEGR!TO, respondents.
E C ! S ! O N
C)!CO4NA(AR!O, J.=
2ssailed in the instant Petition for Revie on Certiorari under Rule () of the *006 Rules of Civil Procedure is the
Resolution* dated +( 2u#ust +--, of the Court of 2ppeals in C2'5.R. SP. No. 0),,), as ell as its Resolution+dated
*( Nove$ber +--, dis$issin# petitioners< Motion for Reconsideration thereof.
Petitioner Metro &ransit Or#aniBation, Inc. 3M&O4 is a #overn$ent oned and controlled corporation hich entered
into a Mana#e$ent and Operations 2#ree$ent 3MO24 ith the 8i#ht Rail &ransit 2uthorit! 38R&24 for the operation
of the 8i#ht Rail &ransit 38R&4 9aclaran'Monu$ento 8ine. Petitioner /ose 8. CorteB, /r. as sued in his official
capacit! as then ;ndersecretar! of the Depart$ent of &ransportation and Co$$unications and Chair$an of the 9oard
of Directors of petitioner M&O.
Cor purposes of collective bar#ainin# a#ree$ent 3C924, petitioner M&O<s ran" and file e$plo!ees for$ed the Pina#'
isan# 8a"as n# Man##a#aa sa Metro, Inc.'National Cederation of 8abor 3PI582S4. Meanhile, its $ana#erial and
supervisor! e$plo!ees created their on union bearin# the na$e Supervisor! E$plo!ees 2ssociation of Metro
3SE2M4.
Petitioners M&O and PI582S entered into a C92 coverin# the period of *1 Cebruar! *00) to *1 Cebruar! +---.
SE2M si$ilarl! ne#otiated ith petitioner M&O under a separate C92. 2lle#edl! dis#runtled ith PI582S, so$e
ran" and file e$plo!ees for$ed another union under the u$brella of the Philippine &ransport 5roup >or"ers
Or#aniBation'&rade ;nion Con#ress of the Philippines 3P&5>O'&;CP4, hich ne#otiated ith $ana#e$ent for
certification as the ne bar#ainin# a#ent. &he aforesaid intra'union dispute as settled throu#h a certification election
hich PI582S on. &hereafter, PI582S rene#otiated the C92 de$andin# hi#her benefits.
On +) /ul! +---, due to a bar#ainin# deadloc", PI582S filed a Notice of Stri"e before the National Conciliation and
Mediation 9oard 3NCM94. On the sa$e date, PI582S sta#ed a stri"e. Conse?uentl!, :on. 9ienvenido E. 8a#ues$a,
then Secretar! of the Depart$ent of 8abor and E$plo!$ent 3DO8E4, issued an Order of 2ssu$ption of
/urisdictionJReturn to >or",1 dated +) /ul! +---, directin# the stri"in# e$plo!ees to i$$ediatel! return to or", and
petitioner M&O to ta"e the$ bac" under the sa$e ter$s and conditions of e$plo!$ent prevailin# prior to the stri"e.
&he Order of 2ssu$ption of /urisdictionJReturn to >or" as published in nespapers of #eneral circulation. &he
stri"in# e$plo!ees refused to receive a cop! of said OrderI hence, copies thereof ere posted in the stations and
ter$inals of the 8R&.
&he stri"in# PI582S $e$bers refused to accede to the Return to >or" Order. Colloin# their continued non'
co$pliance, on +. /ul! +---, the 8R&2 for$all! infor$ed petitioner M&O that it had issued a 9oard Resolution
hichA 3*4 alloed the e=piration after 1* /ul! +--- of 8R&2<s MO2 ith petitioner M&OI and 3+4 directed the 8R&2
to ta"e over the operations and $aintenance of the 8R& 8ine. 9! virtue of said Resolution, petitioner M&O sent
ter$ination notices to its e$plo!ees, includin# herein respondents.
Resultantl!, respondents filed ith the 8abor 2rbiter Co$plaints( a#ainst petitioners and the 8R&2 for the folloin#A
3*4 ille#al dis$issalI 3+4 unfair labor practice for union bustin#I 314 $oral and e=e$plar! da$a#esI and 3(4 attorne!<s
fees.
On *1 Septe$ber +--(, the 8abor 2rbiter rendered @ud#$ent in favor of respondents. &he decretal portion of the
8abor 2rbiter<s Decision, statesA
>:ERECORE, pre$ises considered, @ud#$ent is hereb! rendered declarin# the dis$issal of the
co$plainants as ille#al and orderin# respondents Metro &ransit Or#aniBation, Inc. and 8i#ht Rail &ransit
2uthorit! to @ointl! and severall! pa! co$plainants their separation pa! and bac"a#es in the a$ounts
indicated opposite their respective na$es as shon in 2nne=es F2F to F2')F of this decision or in the total
a$ount of P+-.,+1),,.+.6+.
Respondents are further ordered to pa! the su$ e?uivalent to ten 3*-N4 percent of the @ud#$ent aard as and
b! a! of attorne!<s fees or in the a$ount of P+-,.+1,),..+6.
&he clai$ of co$plainant Ronald 8ovedoreal is ordered dis$issed ithout pre@udice.
2ll other clai$s are ordered dis$issed for lac" of $erit.)
Petitioners appealed to the National 8abor Relations Co$$ission 3N8RC4. In a Resolution dated *0 Ma! +--,, the
N8RC dis$issed petitioners< appeal for non'perfection since it failed to post the re?uired bond. &he N8RC
ratiocinatedA
Section ,, Rule VI of the Rules of Procedure of the National 8abor Relations Co$$ission, as a$ended b! Resolution
No. -*'-+, Series of +--+ provides, to itA
FSECTION 6 ON!" In #ase the de#ision of the Labor $rbiter or the %egional !ire#tor in&ol&es a monetary
award' an appeal by the employer may be perfe#ted only upon the posting of a #ash or surety bond" The
appeal bond shall either be in #ash or surety in an amount equi&alent to the monetary award' e(#lusi&e of
damages and attorney)s fees.F
In this case DpetitionersE filed a propert! bond, and appl!in# a liberal interpretation of the above Rule and
findin# support in the Supre$e Court pronounce$ent in the case of ;ERM'Me$orial Medical Center, et al.
vs. N8RC, et al., 5.R. No. **-(*0, March 1, *006, e conditionall! accepted the propert! bond sub@ect to the
sub$ission of the re?uire$ents specified in the Order. Moreover, DpetitionersE ere directed to co$pl! ith
the re?uire$ents ithin ten 3*-4 da!s fro$ receipt of the Order ith a arnin# that failure to co$pl! ill
result in the dis$issal of the appeal for non'perfection thereof.
It appears that to date, hich is $ore than a $onth fro$ receipt of the Order, DpetitionersE failed to co$pl!
ith the conditions re?uired in the postin# of the propert! bond, this Co$$ission is therefore constrained to
dis$iss the appeal for non'perfection thereof.,
&he N8RC thus disposedA
>:ERECORE, pre$ises considered, an order is hereb! issued DISMISSIN5 the appeal of DpetitionersE for
non'perfection thereof and the Decision dated *1 Septe$ber +--( has beco$e final.
&he Motion for Reconsideration filed b! co$plainants'appellees and the $otion to suspend proceedin#s filed
b! DpetitionersE are both DENIED for lac" of $erit.
No further $otion of si$ilar nature shall be entertained.6
>ithout filin# a Motion for Reconsideration of the afore'?uoted N8RC Resolution, petitioners filed a Petition
forCertiorari ith the Court of 2ppeals assailin# the sa$e.
On +( 2u#ust +--,, the Court of 2ppeals issued a Resolution dis$issin# the Petition. It ruledA
&he petitioners have filed this petition for #ertiorari a#ainst the resolution of the N8RC dated Ma! *0, +--,
dis$issin# the appeal for non'perfection. &he! have not, hoever, filed a $otion for reconsideration of the
rulin# prior to filin# the petition. &his renders the petition fatall! defective. &he $otion for reconsideration
has been held to be a condition sine ?ua non for #ertiorari, the rationale bein# that the loer court should be
#iven the opportunit! to correct its error before recourse to the hi#her court is $ade. DLauE vs. Manila
9an"in# Corp. 1.( SCR2 1(-. &he Dac"noled#edE e=ceptions to the rule find no application here. &he order
of dis$issal is issued b! the N8RC in the e=ercise of its discretionar! authorit! to fi= the re?uire$ents of the
propert! bond for appeal, and the findin# that the petitioners failed to perfect the appeal for non'co$pliance
ith these conditions is both a factual and le#al issue. >e have a perfect te=tboo" e=a$ple of an order that is
a$enable to a $otion for reconsideration..
Petitioners $oved for the reconsideration of the appellate court<s dis$issal of its Petition. &he Court of 2ppeals,
hoever, in a Resolution dated *( Nove$ber +--, found no co#ent reason to disturb its ori#inal conclusions.
:ence, petitioners co$e to this Court, challen#in# the dis$issal b! the Court of 2ppeals of its Petition.0
It $ust be pri$aril! established that petitioners contravened the procedural rule for the e=traordinar! re$ed!
of#ertiorari. &he rule is, for the rit to issue, it $ust be shon that there is no appeal, nor an! plain, speed! and
ade?uate re$ed! in the ordinar! course of la.*-
&he settled rule is that a $otion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filin# of a petition
for#ertiorari.** Its purpose is to #rant an opportunit! for the court to correct an! actual or perceived error attributed to
it b! the re'e=a$ination of the le#al and factual circu$stances of the case.*+ &he rationale of the rule rests upon the
presu$ption that the court or ad$inistrative bod! hich issued the assailed order or resolution $a! a$end the sa$e,
if #iven the chance to correct its $ista"e or error.*1
>e have held that the Fplain,F Fspeed!,F and Fade?uate re$ed!F referred to in Section *, Rule ,) of the Rules of
Court*( is a $otion for reconsideration of the ?uestioned Order or Resolution. 2s e consistentl! held in nu$erous
cases, a motion for re#onsideration is indispensable for it affords the N8RC an opportunit! to rectif! errors or
$ista"es it $i#ht have co$$itted before resort to the courts can be had.*)
In the case at bar, petitioners directl! ent to the Court of 2ppeals on #ertiorari ithout filin# a $otion for
reconsideration ith the N8RC. &he $otion for reconsideration ould have aptl! furnished a plain, speed!, and
ade?uate re$ed!. 2s a rule, the Court of 2ppeals, in the e=ercise of its ori#inal @urisdiction, ill not ta"e co#niBance
of a petition for #ertiorari under Rule ,), unless the loer court has been #iven the opportunit! to correct the error
i$puted to it.*, &he Court of 2ppeals correctl! ruled that petitioners< failure to file a $otion for reconsideration
a#ainst the assailed Resolution of the N8RC rendered its petition for #ertiorari before the appellate court as fatall!
defective.
>e a#ree in the Court of 2ppeals< findin# that petitioners< case does not fall under an! of the reco#niBed e=ceptions to
the filin# of a $otion for reconsideration, to itA 3*4 hen the issue raised is purel! of laI 3+4 hen public interest is
involvedI 314 in case of ur#enc!I*6 or hen the ?uestions raised are the sa$e as those that have alread! been s?uarel!
ar#ued and e=haustivel! passed upon b! the loer court.*. 2s the Court of 2ppeals reasoned, the issue before the
N8RC is both factual and le#al at the sa$e ti$e, involvin# as it does the re?uire$ents of the propert! bond for the
perfection of the appeal, as ell as the findin# that petitioners failed to perfect the sa$e. Evidentl!, the burden is on
petitioners see"in# e=ception to the rule to sho sufficient @ustification for dispensin# ith the
re?uire$ent.*0 Certiorari cannot be resorted to as a shield fro$ the adverse conse?uences of petitionersQ on
o$ission of the filin# of the re?uired $otion for reconsideration.+-
Nonetheless, even if e are to disre#ard the petitioners< procedural fau( pas ith the Court of 2ppeals, and proceed to
revie the propriet! of the *0 Ma! +--, N8RC Resolution, e still arrive at the conclusion that the N8RC did not err
in den!in# petitioners< appeal for its failure to file a bond in accordance ith the Rules of Procedure of the N8RC.+*
In cases involvin# a $onetar! aard, an e$plo!er see"in# to appeal the decision of the 8abor 2rbiter to the N8RC is
unconditionall! re?uired b! 2rticle ++1++ of the 8abor Code to post a cash or suret! bond e?uivalent to the a$ount of
the $onetar! aard ad@ud#ed.+1 It should be stressed that the intention of la$a"ers to $a"e the bond an
indispensable re?uisite for the perfection of an appeal b! the e$plo!er is underscored b! the provision that an appeal
b! the e$plo!er $a! be perfected onl! upon the postin# of a cash or suret! bond.+( &he ord Fonl!F $a"es it
perfectl! clear that the la$a"ers intended the postin# of a cash or suret! bond b! the e$plo!er to be the e=clusive
$eans b! hich an e$plo!er<s appeal $a! be perfected.+) Moreover, it bears stressin# that the perfection of an
appeal in the $anner and ithin the period prescribed b! la is not onl! $andator! but @urisdictional,+, and failure to
confor$ to the rules ill render the @ud#$ent sou#ht to be revieed final and unappealable.+6 It cannot be
overe$phasiBed that the N8RC Rules, a"in to the Rules of Court, pro$ul#ated b! authorit! of la, have the force and
effect of la.+.
2s borne b! the records, petitioners filed a propert! bond hich as conditionall! accepted b! the N8RC sub@ect to
the folloin# conditions specified in its +( Cebruar! +--, OrderA
&he conditional acceptance of petitioner<s propert! bond as sub@ect to the sub$ission of the folloin#A *4
Certified cop! of 9oard Resolution or a Certificate fro$ the Corporate Secretar! of 8i#ht Rail &ransit
2uthorit! statin# that the Corporation President is authoriBed b! a 9oard Resolution to sub$it title as
#uarantee of @ud#$ent aardI +4 Certified Cop! of the &itles issued b! the Re#istr! of Deeds of Pasa! Cit!I
14 Certified Cop! of the current ta= declarations of &itlesI (4 &a= clearance fro$ the Cit! &reasurer of Pasa!
Cit!I )4 2ppraisal report of an accredited appraisal co$pan! attestin# to the fair $ar"et value of propert!
ithin ten 3*-4 da!s fro$ receipt of this Order. Cailure to co$pl! thereith ill result in the dis$issal of the
appeal for non'perfection thereof.+0
In the sa$e Order, the N8RC arned that failure of the petitioners to co$pl! ith the conditions ould result in the
dis$issal of the appeal for non'perfection thereof. Petitioners ere directed to co$pl! ith its #iven conditions ithin
*- da!s fro$ receipt of the Order ith a caveat that their failure ill result in the dis$issal of the appeal.
Subse?uentl!, in its *0 Ma! +--, Resolution, the N8RC finall! $ade a factual findin# that petitioners failed to
co$pl! ith the conditions attached to their postin# of the propert! bond. &hus, the N8RC dis$issed petitioners<
appeal for non'perfection thereof.
Essentiall!, the failure of petitioners to co$pl! ith the conditions for the postin# of the propert! bond is tanta$ount
to a failure to post the bond as re?uired b! la. >hat is even $ore salient is the fact that the N8RC had stressed that
petitioners had, for $ore than a $onth fro$ receipt of its +( Cebruar! +--, Order, to co$pl! ith the conditions set
forth therein for the postin# of the propert! bond. It cannot be #ainsaid that the N8RC had #iven petitioners a period
of *- da!s fro$ receipt of the Order ith a arnin# that non'co$pliance ould result in the dis$issal of their appeal
for failure to perfect the sa$e. Petitioners therefore disre#arded the rudi$ents of the la in the perfection of their
appeal. >e are ithout recourse but to ta"e petitioners< failure a#ainst their interest.
*)EREFORE, the Petition is EN!E. &he Resolutions dated +( 2u#ust +--, and *( Nove$ber +--, of the
Court of 2ppeals in C2'5.R. SP. No. 0),,) are AFF!RME. Costs a#ainst petitioners.
SO ORERE.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN 92NC
G.R. No0. 1,8034 : 1,811, G R. No0. 186;8448+ O81ober 1,, 2013
ANRE* <AMES MC%URN!E, Petitioner,
vs.
EULAL!O GAN(ON, EG!4MANAGERS, !NC. a&' E. GAN(ON, !NC., Respondents.
R E S O 8 ; & I O N
RE"ES, J.:
Cor resolution are the M
3*4 third $otion for reconsideration* filed b! Eulalio 5anBon 35anBon4, E5I'Mana#ers, Inc. 3E5I4 and E.
5anBon, Inc. 3respondents4 on March +6, +-*+, see"in# a reconsideration of the Court<s Decision+ dated
Septe$ber *., +--0 that ordered the dis$issal of their appeal to the National 8abor Relations Co$$ission
3N8RC4 for failure to post additional appeal bond in the a$ount of P)(,-.1,0*-.--I and
3+4 $otion for reconsideration1 filed b! petitioner 2ndre /a$es Mc9urnie 3Mc9urnie4 on Septe$ber +,,
+-*+, assailin# the Court en banc<s Resolution( dated Septe$ber (, +-*+ that 3*4 accepted the case fro$ the
Court<s &hird Division and 3+4 en@oined the i$ple$entation of the 8abor 2rbiter<s 3824 decision findin# hi$
to be ille#all! dis$issed b! the respondents.
2ntecedent Cacts
&he Decision dated Septe$ber *., +--0 provides the folloin# antecedent facts and proceedin#s M
On October (, +--+, Mc9urnie, an 2ustralian national, instituted a co$plaint for ille#al dis$issal and other $onetar!
clai$s a#ainst the respondents. Mc9urnie clai$ed that on Ma! **, *000, he si#ned a five'!ear e$plo!$ent
a#ree$ent) ith the co$pan! E5I as an E=ecutive Vice'President ho shall oversee the $ana#e$ent of the
co$pan!<s hotels and resorts ithin the Philippines. :e perfor$ed or" for the co$pan! until so$eti$e in
Nove$ber *000, hen he fi#ured in an accident that co$pelled hi$ to #o bac" to 2ustralia hile recuperatin# fro$
his in@uries. >hile in 2ustralia, he as infor$ed b! respondent 5anBon that his services ere no lon#er needed
because their intended pro@ect ould no lon#er push throu#h.
&he respondents opposed the co$plaint, contendin# that their a#ree$ent ith Mc9urnie as to @ointl! invest in and
establish a co$pan! for the $ana#e$ent of hotels. &he! did not intend to create an e$plo!er'e$plo!ee relationship,
and the e=ecution of the e$plo!$ent contract that as bein# invo"ed b! Mc9urnie as solel! for the purpose of
alloin# Mc9urnie to obtain an alien or" per$it in the Philippines. 2t the ti$e Mc9urnie left for 2ustralia for his
$edical treat$ent, he had not !et obtained a or" per$it.
In a Decision, dated Septe$ber 1-, +--(, the 82 declared Mc9urnie as havin# been ille#all! dis$issed fro$
e$plo!$ent, and thus entitled to receive fro$ the respondents the folloin# a$ountsA 3a4 ;SR0.),*,+.-- as salar!
and benefits for the une=pired ter$ of their e$plo!$ent contract, 3b4 P+,---,---.-- as $oral and e=e$plar!
da$a#es, and 3c4 attorne!<s fees e?uivalent to *-N of the total $onetar! aard.
Ceelin# a##rieved, the respondents appealed the 82<s Decision to the N8RC.6 On Nove$ber ), +--(, the! filed their
Me$orandu$ of 2ppeal. and Motion to Reduce 9ond0, and posted an appeal bond in the a$ount ofP*--,---.--. &he
respondents contended in their Motion to Reduce 9ond, inter alia, that the $onetar! aards of the 82 ere null and
e=cessive, alle#edl! ith the intention of renderin# the$ incapable of postin# the necessar! appeal bond. &he!
clai$ed that an aard of F$ore than P,- Million Pesos to a sin#le forei#ner ho had no or" per$it and ho left the
countr! for #ood one $onth after the purported co$$ence$ent of his e$plo!$entF as a patent
nullit!.*- Curther$ore, the! clai$ed that because of their business losses that $a! be attributed to an econo$ic crisis,
the! lac"ed the capacit! to pa! the bond of al$ost P,- Million, or even the $illions of pesos in pre$iu$ re?uired for
such bond.
On March 1*, +--), the N8RC denied** the $otion to reduce bond, e=plainin# that Fin cases involvin# $onetar!
aard, an e$plo!er see"in# to appeal the D82<sE decision to the Co$$ission is unconditionall! re?uired b! 2rt. ++1,
8abor Code to post bond in the a$ount e?uivalent to the $onetar! aard = = =.F*+ &hus, the N8RC re?uired fro$ the
respondents the postin# of an additional bond in the a$ount of P)(,-.1,0*-.--.
>hen their $otion for reconsideration as denied,*1 the respondents decided to elevate the $atter to the Court of
2ppeals 3C24 via the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition 3>ith E=tre$el! ;r#ent Pra!er for the Issuance of a
Preli$inar! In@unction andJor &e$porar! Restrainin# Order4*( doc"eted as C2'5.R. SP No. 0-.().
In the $eanti$e, in vie of the respondents< failure to post the re?uired additional bond, the N8RC dis$issed their
appeal in a Resolution*) dated March ., +--,. &he respondents< $otion for reconsideration as denied on /une 1-,
+--,.*, &his pro$pted the respondents to file ith the C2 the Petition for Certiorari 3>ith ;r#ent Pra!ers for the
I$$ediate Issuance of a &e$porar! Restrainin# Order and a >rit of Preli$inar! In@unction4 *6doc"eted as C2'5.R.
SP No. 0)0*,, hich as later consolidated ith C2'5.R. SP No. 0-.().
C2'5.R. SP Nos. 0-.() and 0)0*,
On Cebruar! *,, +--6, the C2 issued a Resolution*. #rantin# the respondents< application for a rit of preli$inar!
in@unction. It directed the N8RC, Mc9urnie, and all persons actin# for and under their authorit! to refrain fro$
causin# the e=ecution and enforce$ent of the 82<s decision in favor of Mc9urnie, conditioned upon the respondents<
postin# of a bond in the a$ount of P*-,---,---.--. Mc9urnie sou#ht reconsideration of the issuance of the rit of
preli$inar! in@unction, but this as denied b! the C2 in its Resolution*0 dated Ma! +0, +--6.
Mc9urnie then filed ith the Court a Petition for Revie on Certiorari+- doc"eted as 5.R. Nos. *6.-1( and *6.**6,
assailin# the C2 Resolutions that #ranted the respondents< application for the in@unctive rit. On /ul! (, +--6, the
Court denied the petition on the #round of Mc9urnie<s failure to co$pl! ith the +--( Rules on Notarial Practice and
to sufficientl! sho that the C2 co$$itted an! reversible error.+* 2 $otion for reconsideration as denied ith
finalit! in a Resolution++ dated October ., +--6.
;n!ieldin#, Mc9urnie filed a Motion for 8eave 3*4 &o Cile Supple$ental Motion for Reconsideration and 3+4 &o
2d$it the 2ttached Supple$ental Motion for Reconsideration,+1 hich as treated b! the Court as a second $otion
for reconsideration, a prohibited pleadin# under Section +, Rule ), of the Rules of Court. &hus, the $otion for leave
as denied b! the Court in a Resolution+( dated Nove$ber +,, +--6. &he Court<s Resolution dated /ul! (, +--6 then
beca$e final and e=ecutor! on Nove$ber *1, +--6I accordin#l!, entr! of @ud#$ent as $ade in 5.R. Nos. *6.-1(
and *6.**6.+)
In the $eanti$e, the C2 ruled on the $erits of C2'5.R. SP No. 0-.() and C2'5.R. SP No. 0)0*, and rendered its
Decision+, dated October +6, +--., alloin# the respondents< $otion to reduce appeal bond and directin# the N8RC
to #ive due course to their appeal. &he dispositive portion of the C2 Decision readsA
>:ERECORE, in vie of the fore#oin#, the petition for certiorari and prohibition doc"eted as C2 5R SP No. 0-.()
and the petition for certiorari doc"eted as C2 5R SP No. 0)0*, are 5R2N&ED. Petitioners< Motion to Reduce
2ppeal 9ond is 5R2N&ED. Petitioners are hereb! DIREC&ED to post appeal bond in the a$ount ofP*-,---,---.--.
&he N8RC is hereb! DIREC&ED to #ive due course to petitioners< appeal in C2 5R SP No. 0)0*, hich is ordered
re$anded to the N8RC for further proceedin#s.
SO ORDERED.+6
On the issue+. of the N8RC<s denial of the respondents< $otion to reduce appeal bond, the C2 ruled that the N8RC
co$$itted #rave abuse of discretion in i$$ediatel! den!in# the $otion ithout fi=in# an appeal bond in an a$ount
that as reasonable, as it denied the respondents of their ri#ht to appeal fro$ the decision of the 82. +0 &he C2
e=plained that F34hile 2rt. ++1 of the 8abor Code re?uirin# bond e?uivalent to the $onetar! aard is e=plicit,
Section ,, Rule VI of the N8RC Rules of Procedure, as a$ended, reco#niBed as e=ception a $otion to reduce bond
upon $eritorious #rounds and upon postin# of a bond in a reasonable a$ount in relation to the $onetar! aard.F1-
On the issue1* of the N8RC<s dis$issal of the appeal on the #round of the respondents< failure to post the additional
appeal bond, the C2 also found #rave abuse of discretion on the part of the N8RC, e=plainin# that an appeal bond in
the a$ount of P)(,-.1,0*-.-- as prohibitive and e=cessive. Moreover, the appellate court cited the pendenc! of the
petition for certiorari over the denial of the $otion to reduce bond, hich should have prevented the N8RC fro$
i$$ediatel! dis$issin# the respondents< appeal.1+
;ndeterred, Mc9urnie filed a $otion for reconsideration. 2t the sa$e ti$e, the respondents $oved that the appeal be
resolved on the $erits b! the C2. On March 1, +--0, the C2 issued a Resolution11 den!in# both $otions. Mc9urnie
then filed ith the Court the Petition for Revie on Certiorari1( doc"eted as 5.R. Nos. *.,0.('.).
In the $eanti$e, the N8RC, actin# on the C2<s order of re$and, accepted the appeal fro$ the 82<s decision, and in
its Decision1) dated Nove$ber *6, +--0, reversed and set aside the Decision of the 82, and entered a ne one
dis$issin# Mc9urnie<s co$plaint. It e=plained that based on records, Mc9urnie as never an e$plo!ee of an! of the
respondents, but a potential investor in a pro@ect that included said respondents, barrin# a clai$ of dis$issal, $uch
less, an ille#al dis$issal. 5rantin# that there as a contract of e$plo!$ent e=ecuted b! the parties, Mc9urnie failed
to obtain a or" per$it hich ould have alloed hi$ to or" for an! of the respondents. 1, In the absence of such
per$it, the e$plo!$ent a#ree$ent as void and thus, could not be the source of an! ri#ht or obli#ation.
Court Decision dated Septe$ber *., +--0
On Septe$ber *., +--0, the &hird Division of this Court rendered its Decision16 hich reversed the C2 Decision
dated October +6, +--. and Resolution dated March 1, +--0. &he dispositive portion readsA
>:ERECORE, the petition is 5R2N&ED. &he Decision of the Court of 2ppeals in C2'5.R. SP Nos. 0-.() and
0)0*, dated October +6, +--. #rantin# respondents< Motion to Reduce 2ppeal 9ond and orderin# the National 8abor
Relations Co$$ission to #ive due course to respondents< appeal, and its March 1, +--0 Resolution den!in#
petitioner<s $otion for reconsideration, are REVERSED and SE& 2SIDE. &he March ., +--, and /une 1-, +--,
Resolutions of the National 8abor Relations Co$$ission in N8RC NCR C2 NO. -(+0*1'-) dis$issin# respondents<
appeal for failure to perfect an appeal and den!in# their $otion for reconsideration, respectivel!, are REINS&2&ED
and 2CCIRMED.
SO ORDERED.1.
&he Court e=plained that the respondents< failure to post a bond e?uivalent in a$ount to the 82<s $onetar! aard as
fatal to the appeal.10 2lthou#h an appeal bond $a! be reduced upon $otion b! an e$plo!er, the folloin# conditions
$ust first be satisfiedA 3*4 the $otion to reduce bond shall be based on $eritorious #roundsI and 3+4 a reasonable
a$ount in relation to the $onetar! aard is posted b! the appellant. ;nless the N8RC #rants the $otion to reduce the
cash bond ithin the *-'da! re#le$entar! period to perfect an appeal fro$ a @ud#$ent of the 82, the e$plo!er is
$andated to post the cash or suret! bond securin# the full a$ount ithin the said *-'da! period. (- &he respondents<
initial appeal bond of P*--,---.-- as #rossl! inade?uate co$pared to the 82<s $onetar! aard.
&he respondents< first $otion for reconsideration(* as denied b! the Court for lac" of $erit via a Resolution(+dated
Dece$ber *(, +--0.
Meanhile, on the basis of the Court<s Decision, Mc9urnie filed ith the N8RC a $otion for reconsideration ith
$otion to recall and e=pun#e fro$ the records the N8RC Decision dated Nove$ber *6, +--0. (1 &he $otion as
#ranted b! the N8RC in its Decision(( dated /anuar! *(, +-*-.()
;ndaunted b! the denial of their first $otion for reconsideration of the Decision dated Septe$ber *., +--0, the
respondents filed ith the Court a Motion for 8eave to Sub$it 2ttached Second Motion for Reconsideration(,and
Second Motion for Reconsideration,(6 hich $otion for leave as #ranted in a Resolution(. dated March *), +-*-.
Mc9urnie as alloed to sub$it his co$$ent on the second $otion, and the respondents, their repl! to the co$$ent.
On /anuar! +), +-*+, hoever, the Court issued a Resolution(0 den!in# the second $otion Ffor lac" of $erit,F
Fconsiderin# that a second $otion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleadin# = = =.F)-
&he Court<s Decision dated Septe$ber *., +--0 beca$e final and e=ecutor! on March *(, +-*+. &hus, entr! of
@ud#$ent)* as $ade in due course, as follosA
EN&RL OC /;D5MEN&
&his is to certif! that on Septe$ber *., +--0 a decision rendered in the above'entitled cases as filed in
this Office, the dispositive part of hich reads as follosA
= = = =
and that the sa$e has, on March *(, +-*+ beco$e final and e=ecutor! and is hereb! recorded in the 9oo" of Entries of
/ud#$ents.)+
&he Entr! of /ud#$ent indicated that the sa$e as $ade for the Court<s Decision rendered in 5.R. Nos. *.,0.('.).
On March +6, +-*+, the respondents filed a Motion for 8eave to Cile 2ttached &hird Motion for Reconsideration, ith
an attached Motion for Reconsideration 3on the :onorable Court<s +) /anuar! +-*+ Resolution4 ith Motion to Refer
&hese Cases to the :onorable Court En 9anc.)1 &he third $otion for reconsideration is founded on the folloin#
#roundsA
I.
&:E PREVIO;S *) M2RC: +-*- RESO8;&ION OC &:E :ONOR298E CO;R& 2C&;288L
5R2N&ED RESPONDEN&S< FMO&ION COR 8E2VE &O S;9MI& 2 SECOND MO&ION COR
RECONSIDER2&ION.F
:ENCE, RESPONDEN&S RESPEC&C;88L CON&END &:2& &:E S;9SE7;EN& +) /2N;2RL
+-*+ RESO8;&ION C2NNO& DENL &:E F SECOND MO&ION COR RECONSIDER2&ION F ON
&:E 5RO;ND &:2& I& IS 2 PRO:I9I&ED P8E2DIN5. MOREOVER, I& IS RESPEC&C;88L
CON&ENDED &:2& &:ERE 2RE VERL PEC;8I2R CIRC;MS&2NCES 2ND N;MERO;S
IMPOR&2N& ISS;ES IN &:ESE C2SES &:2& C8E2R8L /;S&ICL 5IVIN5 D;E CO;RSE &O
RESPONDEN&S< FSECOND MO&ION COR RECONSIDER2&ION,F >:IC: 2REA
II.
&:E *- MI88ION PESOS 9OND >:IC: >2S POS&ED IN COMP8I2NCE >I&: &:E OC&O9ER
+6, +--. DECISION OC &:E CO;R& OC 2PPE28S IS 2 S;9S&2N&I28 2ND SPECI28
MERI&ORIO;S CIRC;MS&2NCE &O MERI& RECONSIDER2&ION OC &:IS 2PPE28.
III.
&:E :ONOR298E CO;R& :2S :E8D IN N;MERO;S 829OR C2SES &:2& >I&: RESPEC&
&O 2R&IC8E ++1 OC &:E 829OR CODE, &:E RE7;IREMEN&S OC &:E 82> S:O;8D 9E
5IVEN 2 8I9ER28 IN&ERPRE&2&ION, ESPECI288L IC &:ERE 2RE SPECI28 MERI&ORIO;S
CIRC;MS&2NCES 2ND ISS;ES.
IV. &:E 82<S /;D5MEN& >2S P2&EN&8L VOID SINCE I& 2>2RDS MORE &:2N P,-
MI88ION PESOS &O 2 SIN58E COREI5NER >:O :2D NO >ORK PERMI&, 2ND NO
>ORKIN5 VIS2.
V.
PE&I&IONER MC9;RNIE DID NO& IMP8E2D &:E N2&ION28 829OR RE82&IONS
COMMISSION 3N8RC4 IN :IS 2PPE28 :EREIN, M2KIN5 &:E 2PPE28 INECCEC&IVE
252INS& &:E N8RC.
VI.
N8RC :2S DISMISSED &:E COMP82IN& OC PE&I&IONER MC9;RNIE IN I&S NOVEM9ER
*6, +--0 DECISION.
VII.
&:E :ONOR298E CO;R&<S *. SEP&EM9ER +--0 DECISION >2S &2IN&ED >I&: VERL
SERIO;S IRRE5;82RI&IES.
VIII.
5R NOS. *6.-1( 2ND *6.**6 :2VE 9EEN IN2DVER&EN&8L INC8;DED IN &:IS C2SE.
IP.
&:E :ONOR298E CO;R& DID NO& D;8L R;8E ;PON &:E O&:ER VERL MERI&ORIO;S
2R5;MEN&S OC &:E RESPONDEN&S >:IC: 2RE 2S CO88O>SA
324 PE&I&IONER NEVER 2&&ENDED 2NL OC 288 *( :E2RIN5S 9ECORE &:E D82E
3>:EN + MISSED :E2RIN5S ME2N DISMISS284.
394 PE&I&IONER RECERRED &O :IMSE8C 2S 2 FVIC&IMF OC 8EIS;RE EPPER&S,
INC., 9;& NO& OC 2NL OC &:E RESPONDEN&S.
3C4 PE&I&IONER<S POSI&IVE 8E&&ER &O RESPONDEN& MR. E;828IO 52NSON
C8E2R8L S:O>S &:2& :E >2S NO& I88E5288L DISMISSED NOR EVEN
DISMISSED 9L 2NL OC &:E RESPONDEN&S 2ND PE&I&IONER EVEN PROMISED &O
P2L :IS DE9&S COR 2DV2NCES M2DE 9L RESPONDEN&S.
3D4 PE&I&IONER >2S NEVER EMP8OLED 9L 2NL OC &:E RESPONDEN&S.
PE&I&IONER PRESEN&ED >ORK COR CORON2DO 9E2C: RESOR& >:IC: IS
DNEI&:ERE O>NED NOR CONNEC&ED >I&: 2NL OC &:E RESPONDEN&S.
3E4 &:E D82E CONC8;DED &:2& PE&I&IONER >2S DISMISSED EVEN IC &:ERE >2S
29SO8;&E8L NO EVIDENCE 2& 288 PRESEN&ED &:2& PE&I&IONER >2S
DISMISSED 9L &:E RESPONDEN&S.
3C4 PE&I&IONER 8EC& &:E P:I8IPPINES COR 2;S&R28I2 /;S& + MON&:S 2C&ER
&:E S&2R& OC &:E 288E5ED EMP8OLMEN& 25REEMEN&, 2ND :2S S&I88 NO&
RE&;RNED &O &:E P:I8IPPINES 2S CONCIRMED 9L &:E 9;RE2; OC
IMMI5R2&ION.
354 PE&I&IONER CO;8D NO& :2VE SI5NED 2ND PERSON288L 2PPE2RED 9ECORE
&:E N8RC 2DMINIS&ERIN5 OCCICER 2S INDIC2&ED IN &:E COMP82IN& S:EE&
SINCE :E 8EC& &:E CO;N&RL 1 LE2RS 9ECORE &:E COMP82IN& >2S CI8ED 2ND
:E NEVER C2ME 92CK.)(
On Septe$ber (, +-*+, the Court en banc)) issued a Resolution), acceptin# the case fro$ the &hird Division. It also
issued a te$porar! restrainin# order 3&RO4 en@oinin# the i$ple$entation of the 82<s Decision dated Septe$ber 1-,
+--(. &his pro$pted Mc9urnie<s filin# of a Motion for Reconsideration,)6 here he invo"ed the fact that the Court<s
Decision dated Septe$ber *., +--0 had beco$e final and e=ecutor!, ith an entr! of @ud#$ent alread! $ade b! the
Court.
Our Rulin#
In li#ht of pertinent la and @urisprudence, and upon ta"in# a second hard loo" of the parties< ar#u$ents and the
records of the case, the Court has ascertained that a reconsideration of this Court<s Decision dated Septe$ber *., +--0
and Resolutions dated Dece$ber *(, +--0 and /anuar! +), +-*+, alon# ith the liftin# of the entr! of @ud#$ent in
5.R. No. *.,0.('.), is in order.
&he Court<s acceptance of the
third $otion for reconsideration
2t the outset, the Court e$phasiBes that second and subse?uent $otions for reconsideration are, as a #eneral rule,
prohibited. Section +, Rule )+ of the Rules of Court provides that Fno second $otion for reconsideration of a
@ud#$ent or final resolution b! the sa$e part! shall be entertained.F &he rule rests on the basic tenet of i$$utabilit!
of @ud#$ents. F2t so$e point, a decision beco$es final and e=ecutor! and, conse?uentl!, all liti#ations $ust co$e to
an end.F).
&he #eneral rule, hoever, a#ainst second and subse?uent $otions for reconsideration ad$its of settled e=ceptions.
Cor one, the present Internal Rules of the Supre$e Court, particularl! Section 1, Rule *) thereof, providesA
Sec. 1. Second $otion for reconsideration. T &he Court shall not entertain a second $otion for reconsideration, and
an! e=ception to this rule can onl! be #ranted in the hi#her interest of @ustice b! the Court en banc upon a vote of at
least to'thirds of its actual $e$bership. &here is reconsideration Fin the hi#her interest of @usticeF hen the assailed
decision is not onl! le#all! erroneous, but is li"eise patentl! un@ust and potentiall! capable of causin# unarranted
and irre$ediable in@ur! or da$a#e to the parties. 2 second $otion for reconsideration can onl! be entertained before
the rulin# sou#ht to be reconsidered beco$es final b! operation of la or b! the Court<s declaration.
= = = = 3E$phasis ours4
In a line of cases, the Court has then entertained and #ranted second $otions for reconsideration Fin the hi#her interest
of substantial @ustice,F as alloed under the Internal Rules hen the assailed decision is Fle#all! erroneous,F Fpatentl!
un@ustF and Fpotentiall! capable of causin# unarranted and irre$ediable in@ur! or da$a#e to the parties.F In &iraBona
v. Philippine EDS &echno'Service, Inc. 3PE&, Inc.4,)0 e also e=plained that a second $otion for reconsideration $a!
be alloed in instances of Fe=traordinaril! persuasive reasons and onl! after an e=press leave shall have been
obtained.F,- In 2po Cruits Corporation v. 8and 9an" of the Philippines,,*e alloed a second $otion for
reconsideration as the issue involved therein as a $atter of public interest, as it pertained to the proper application of
a basic constitutionall!'#uaranteed ri#ht in the #overn$ent<s i$ple$entation of its a#rarian refor$ pro#ra$. In San
Mi#uel Corporation v. N8RC,,+ the Court set aside the decisions of the 82 and the N8RC that favored clai$ants'
securit! #uards upon the Court<s revie of San Mi#uel Corporation<s second $otion for reconsideration. In Vir'/en
Shippin# and Marine Services, Inc. v. N8RC, et al.,,1the Court en banc reversed on a third $otion for reconsideration
the rulin# of the Court<s Division on therein private respondents< clai$ for a#es and $onetar! benefits.
It is also reco#niBed that in so$e instances, the prudent action toards a @ust resolution of a case is for the Court to
suspend rules of procedure, for Fthe poer of this Court to suspend its on rules or to e=cept a particular case fro$ its
operations henever the purposes of @ustice re?uire it, cannot be ?uestioned.F,( In De 5uB$an v.
Sandi#anba!an,,) the Court, thus, e=plainedA
&he rules of procedure should be vieed as $ere tools desi#ned to facilitate the attain$ent of @ustice. &heir strict and
ri#id application, hich ould result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than pro$ote substantial @ustice,
$ust ala!s be avoided. Even the Rules of Court envision this liberalit!. &his poer to suspend or even disre#ard the
rules can be so pervasive and enco$passin# so as to alter even that hich this Court itself has alread! declared to be
final, as e are no co$pelled to do in this case. = = =.
= = = =
&he Rules of Court as conceived and pro$ul#ated to set forth #uidelines in the dispensation of @ustice but not to
bind and chain the hand that dispenses it, for otherise, courts ill be $ere slaves to or robots of technical rules,
shorn of @udicial discretion. &hat is precisel! h! courts in renderin# real @ustice have ala!s been, as the! in fact
ou#ht to be, conscientiousl! #uided b! the nor$ that hen on the balance, technicalities ta"e a bac"seat a#ainst
substantive ri#hts, and not the other a! around. &rul! then, technicalities, in the appropriate lan#ua#e of /ustice
Ma"alintal, Fshould #ive a! to the realities of the situation.F = = =.,, 3Citations o$itted4
Consistent ith the fore#oin# precepts, the Court has then reconsidered even decisions that have attained finalit!,
findin# it $ore appropriate to lift entries of @ud#$ents alread! $ade in these cases. In Navarro v. E=ecutive
Secretar!,,6 e reiterated the pronounce$ent in De 5uB$an that the poer to suspend or even disre#ard rules of
procedure can be so pervasive and co$pellin# as to alter even that hich this Court itself has alread! declared final.
&he Court then recalled in Navarro an entr! of @ud#$ent after it had deter$ined the validit! and constitutionalit! of
Republic 2ct No. 01)), e=plainin# thatA
Veril!, the Court had, on several occasions, sanctioned the recall of entries of @ud#$ent in li#ht of attendant
e=traordinar! circu$stances. &he poer to suspend or even disre#ard rules of procedure can be so pervasive and
co$pellin# as to alter even that hich this Court itself had alread! declared final. In this case, the co$pellin# concern
is not onl! to afford the $ovants'intervenors the ri#ht to be heard since the! ould be adversel! affected b! the
@ud#$ent in this case despite not bein# ori#inal parties thereto, but also to arrive at the correct interpretation of the
provisions of the D8ocal 5overn$ent Code 385C4E ith respect to the creation of local #overn$ent units. = =
=.,. 3Citations o$itted4
In MunoB v. C2,,0 the Court resolved to recall an entr! of @ud#$ent to prevent a $iscarria#e of @ustice. &his
@ustification as li"eise applied in &an &iac Chion# v. :on. Cosico,6- herein the Court held thatA
&he recall of entries of @ud#$ents, albeit rare, is not a novelt!. In MuUoB v. C2 , here the case as elevated to this
Court and a first and second $otion for reconsideration had been denied ith finalit! , the Court, in the interest of
substantial @ustice, recalled the Entr! of /ud#$ent as ell as the letter of trans$ittal of the records to the Court of
2ppeals.6* 3Citation o$itted4
In 9arnes v. /ud#e Padilla,6+ e ruledA
2 final and e=ecutor! @ud#$ent can no lon#er be attac"ed b! an! of the parties or be $odified, directl! or indirectl!,
even b! the hi#hest court of the land.
:oever, this Court has rela=ed this rule in order to serve substantial @ustice considerin# 3a4 $atters of life, libert!,
honor or propert!, 3b4 the e=istence of special or co$pellin# circu$stances, 3c4 the $erits of the case, 3d4 a cause not
entirel! attributable to the fault or ne#li#ence of the part! favored b! the suspension of the rules, 3e4 a lac" of an!
shoin# that the revie sou#ht is $erel! frivolous and dilator!, and 3f4 the other part! ill not be un@ustl! pre@udiced
thereb!.61 3Citations o$itted4
2s e shall e=plain, the instant case also ?ualifies as an e=ception to, first, the proscription a#ainst second and
subse?uent $otions for reconsideration, and second, the rule on i$$utabilit! of @ud#$entsI a reconsideration of the
Decision dated Septe$ber *., +--0, alon# ith the Resolutions dated Dece$ber *(, +--0 and /anuar! +), +-*+, is
@ustified b! the hi#her interest of substantial @ustice.
&o be#in ith, the Court a#rees ith the respondents that the Court<s prior resolve to #rant , and not @ust $erel! note,
in a Resolution dated March *), +-*- the respondents< $otion for leave to sub$it their second $otion for
reconsideration alread! arranted a resolution and discussion of the $otion for reconsideration on its $erits. Instead
of doin# this, hoever, the Court issued on /anuar! +), +-*+ a Resolution6( den!in# the $otion to reconsider for lac"
of $erit, $erel! citin# that it as a Fprohibited pleadin# under Section +, Rule )+ in relation to Section (, Rule ), of
the *006 Rules of Civil Procedure, as a$ended.F6) In 8ea#ue of Cities of the Philippines 38CP4 v. Co$$ission on
Elections,6, e reiterated a rulin# that hen a $otion for leave to file and ad$it a second $otion for reconsideration
is #ranted b! the Court, the Court therefore allos the filin# of the second $otion for reconsideration. In such a case,
the second $otion for reconsideration is no lon#er a prohibited pleadin#. Si$ilarl! in this case, there as then no
reason for the Court to still consider the respondents< second $otion for reconsideration as a prohibited pleadin#, and
den! it plainl! on such #round. &he Court intends to re$ed! such error throu#h this resolution.
More i$portantl!, the Court finds it appropriate to accept the pendin# $otion for reconsideration and resolve it on the
$erits in order to rectif! its prior disposition of the $ain issues in the petition. ;pon revie, the Court is constrained
to rule differentl! on the petitions. >e have deter$ined the #rave error in affir$in# the N8RC<s rulin#s, pro$otin#
results that are patentl! un@ust for the respondents, as e consider the facts of the case, pertinent la, @urisprudence,
and the de#ree of the in@ur! and da$a#e to the respondents that ill inevitabl! result fro$ the i$ple$entation of the
Court<s Decision dated Septe$ber *., +--0.
&he rule on appeal bonds
>e e$phasiBe that the crucial issue in this case concerns the sufficienc! of the appeal bond that as posted b! the
respondents. &he present rule on the $atter is Section ,, Rule VI of the +-** N8RC Rules of Procedure, hich as
substantiall! the sa$e provision in effect at the ti$e of the respondents< appeal to the N8RC, and hich readsA
R;8E VI
2PPE28S
Sec. ,. 9OND. M In case the decision of the 8abor 2rbiter or the Re#ional Director involves a $onetar! aard, an
appeal b! the e$plo!er $a! be perfected onl! upon the postin# of a cash or suret! bond. &he appeal bond shall either
be in cash or suret! in an a$ount e?uivalent to the $onetar! aard, e=clusive of da$a#es and attorne!<s fees.
= = = =
No $otion to reduce bond shall be entertained e=cept on $eritorious #rounds and upon the postin# of a bond in a
reasonable a$ount in relation to the $onetar! aard.
&he filin# of the $otion to reduce bond ithout co$pliance ith the re?uisites in the precedin# para#raph shall not
stop the runnin# of the period to perfect an appeal. 3E$phasis supplied4
>hile the C2, in this case, alloed an appeal bond in the reduced a$ount of P*-,---,---.-- and then ordered the
case<s re$and to the N8RC, this Court<s Decision dated Septe$ber *., +--0 provides otherise, as it reads in partA
&he postin# of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases involvin# $onetar! aards fro$ the
decision of the 8abor 2rbiter. &he la$a"ers clearl! intended to $a"e the bond a $andator! re?uisite for the
perfection of an appeal b! the e$plo!er as inferred fro$ the provision that an appeal b! the e$plo!er $a! be
perfected Fonl! upon the postin# of a cash or suret! bond.F &he ord Fonl!F $a"es it clear that the postin# of a cash
or suret! bond b! the e$plo!er is the essential and e=clusive $eans b! hich an e$plo!er<s appeal $a! be perfected.
= = =.
Moreover, the filin# of the bond is not onl! $andator! but a @urisdictional re?uire$ent as ell, that $ust be co$plied
ith in order to confer @urisdiction upon the N8RC. Non'co$pliance thereith renders the decision of the 8abor
2rbiter final and e=ecutor!. &his re?uire$ent is intended to assure the or"ers that if the! prevail in the case, the!
ill receive the $one! @ud#$ent in their favor upon the dis$issal of the e$plo!er<s appeal. It is intended to
discoura#e e$plo!ers fro$ usin# an appeal to dela! or evade their obli#ation to satisf! their e$plo!ees< @ust and
laful clai$s.
= = = =
&hus, it behooves the Court to #ive ut$ost re#ard to the le#islative and ad$inistrative intent to strictl! re?uire the
e$plo!er to post a cash or suret! bond securin# the full a$ount of the $onetar! aard ithin the *-D'Eda!
re#le$entar! period. Nothin# in the 8abor Code or the N8RC Rules of Procedure authoriBes the postin# of a bond
that is less than the $onetar! aard in the @ud#$ent, or ould dee$ such insufficient postin# as sufficient to perfect
the appeal.
>hile the bond $a! be reduced upon $otion b! the e$plo!er, this is sub@ect to the conditions that 3*4 the $otion to
reduce the bond shall be based on $eritorious #roundsI and 3+4 a reasonable a$ount in relation to the $onetar! aard
is posted b! the appellant, otherise the filin# of the $otion to reduce bond shall not stop the runnin# of the period to
perfect an appeal. &he ?ualification effectivel! re?uires that unless the N8RC #rants the reduction of the cash bond
ithin the *-'da! re#le$entar! period, the e$plo!er is still e=pected to post the cash or suret! bond securin# the full
a$ount ithin the said *-'da! period. If the N8RC does eventuall! #rant the $otion for reduction after the
re#le$entar! period has elapsed, the correct relief ould be to reduce the cash or suret! bond alread! posted b! the
e$plo!er ithin the *-'da! period.66 3E$phasis suppliedI underscorin# ours4
&o be#in ith, the Court rectifies its prior pronounce$ent M the un?ualified state$ent that even an appellant ho
see"s a reduction of an appeal bond before the N8RC is e=pected to post a cash or suret! bond securin# the full
a$ount of the @ud#$ent aard ithin the *-'da! re#le$entar! period to perfect the appeal.
&he suspension of the period to
perfect the appeal upon the filin# of
a $otion to reduce bond
&o clarif!, the prevailin# @urisprudence on the $atter provides that the filin# of a $otion to reduce bond, coupled ith
co$pliance ith the to conditions e$phasiBed in 5arcia v. K/ Co$$ercial 6. for the #rant of such $otion, na$el!,
3*4 a $eritorious #round, and 3+4 postin# of a bond in a reasonable a$ount, shall suffice to suspend the runnin# of the
period to perfect an appeal fro$ the labor arbiter<s decision to the N8RC. 60 &o re?uire the full a$ount of the bond
ithin the *-'da! re#le$entar! period ould onl! render nu#ator! the le#al provisions hich allo an appellant to
see" a reduction of the bond. &hus, e e=plained in 5arciaA
&he filin# of a $otion to reduce bond and co$pliance ith the to conditions stop the runnin# of the period to perfect
an appeal. = = =
= = = =
&he N8RC has full discretion to #rant or den! the $otion to reduce bond, and it $a! rule on the $otion be!ond the
*-'da! period ithin hich to perfect an appeal. Obviousl!, at the ti$e of the filin# of the $otion to reduce bond and
postin# of a bond in a reasonable a$ount, there is no assurance hether the appellant<s $otion is indeed based on
F$eritorious #roundF and hether the bond he or she posted is of a Freasonable a$ount.F &hus, the appellant ala!s
runs the ris" of failin# to perfect an appeal.
= = = In order to #ive full effect to the provisions on $otion to reduce bond, the appellant $ust be alloed to ait for
the rulin# of the N8RC on the $otion even be!ond the *-'da! period to perfect an appeal. If the N8RC #rants the
$otion and rules that there is indeed $eritorious #round and that the a$ount of the bond posted is reasonable, then the
appeal is perfected. If the N8RC denies the $otion, the appellant $a! still file a $otion for reconsideration as
provided under Section *), Rule VII of the Rules. If the N8RC #rants the $otion for reconsideration and rules that
there is indeed $eritorious #round and that the a$ount of the bond posted is reasonable, then the appeal is perfected.
If the N8RC denies the $otion, then the decision of the labor arbiter beco$es final and e=ecutor!.
= = = =
In an! case, the rule that the filin# of a $otion to reduce bond shall not stop the runnin# of the period to perfect an
appeal is not absolute. &he Court $a! rela= the rule. In IntertranB Container 8ines, Inc. v. 9autista, the Court heldA
F/urisprudence tells us that in labor cases, an appeal fro$ a decision involvin# a $onetar! aard $a! be perfected
onl! upon the postin# of cash or suret! bond. &he Court, hoever, has rela=ed this re?uire$ent under certain
e=ceptional circu$stances in order to resolve controversies on their $erits. &hese circu$stances includeA 3*4
funda$ental consideration of substantial @usticeI 3+4 prevention of $iscarria#e of @ustice or of un@ust enrich$entI and
314 special circu$stances of the case co$bined ith its le#al $erits, and the a$ount and the issue
involved.F.- 3Citations o$itted and e$phasis ours4
2 serious error of the N8RC as its outri#ht denial of the $otion to reduce the bond, ithout even considerin# the
respondents< ar#u$ents and totall! un$indful of the rules and @urisprudence that allo the bond<s reduction. Instead
of resolvin# the $otion to reduce the bond on its $erits, the N8RC insisted on an a$ount that as e?uivalent to the
$onetar! aard, $erel! e=plainin#A
>e are constrained to den! respondents< $otion for reduction. 2s held b! the Supre$e Court in a recent case, in cases
involvin# $onetar! aard, an e$plo!er see"in# to appeal the 8abor 2rbiter<s decision to the Co$$ission is
unconditionall! re?uired b! 2rt. ++1, 8abor Code to post bond in the a$ount e?uivalent to the $onetar! aard
3Calabash 5ar$ents vs. N8RC, 5.R. No. **-.+6, 2u#ust ., *00,4. = = =.* 3E$phasis ours4
>hen the respondents sou#ht to reconsider, the N8RC still refused to full! decide on the $otion. It refused to at least
$a"e a preli$inar! deter$ination of the $erits of the appeal, as it heldA
>e are constrained to dis$iss respondents< Motion for Reconsideration. Respondents< contention that the appeal bond
is e=cessive and based on a decision hich is a patent nullit! involves the $erits of the case. = = =.+
Prevailin# rules and @urisprudence
allo the reduction of appeal bonds.
9! such haste of the N8RC in pere$ptoril! den!in# the respondents< $otion ithout considerin# the respondents<
ar#u$ents, it effectivel! denied the respondents of their opportunit! to see" a reduction of the bond even hen the
sa$e is alloed under the rules and settled @urisprudence. It as e?uivalent to the N8RC<s refusal to e=ercise its
discretion, as it refused to deter$ine and rule on a shoin# of $eritorious #rounds and the reasonableness of the bond
tendered under the circu$stances..1 &i$e and a#ain, the Court has cautioned the N8RC to #ive 2rticle ++1 of the
8abor Code, particularl! the provisions re?uirin# bonds in appeals involvin# $onetar! aards, a liberal interpretation
in line ith the desired ob@ective of resolvin# controversies on the $erits..( &he N8RC<s failure to ta"e action on the
$otion to reduce the bond in the $anner prescribed b! la and @urisprudence then cannot be countenanced. 2lthou#h
an appeal b! parties fro$ decisions that are adverse to their interests is neither a natural ri#ht nor a part of due
process, it is an essential part of our @udicial s!ste$. Courts should proceed ith caution so as not to deprive a part! of
the ri#ht to appeal, but rather, ensure that ever! part! has the a$plest opportunit! for the proper and @ust disposition of
their cause, free fro$ the constraints of technicalities..) Considerin# the $andate of labor tribunals, the principle
e?uall! applies to the$.
5iven the circu$stances of the case, the Court<s affir$ance in the Decision dated Septe$ber *., +--0 of the N8RC<s
strict application of the rule on appeal bonds then de$ands a re'e=a$ination. 2#ain, the e$er#in# trend in our
@urisprudence is to afford ever! part!'liti#ant the a$plest opportunit! for the proper and @ust deter$ination of his
cause, free fro$ the constraints of technicalities.., Section +, Rule I of the N8RC Rules of Procedure also provides
the polic! that Fthe Rules shall be liberall! construed to carr! out the ob@ectives of the Constitution, the 8abor Code of
the Philippines and other relevant le#islations, and to assist the parties in obtainin# @ust, e=peditious and ine=pensive
resolution and settle$ent of labor disputes.F.6
In accordance ith the fore#oin#, althou#h the #eneral rule provides that an appeal in labor cases fro$ a decision
involvin# a $onetar! aard $a! be perfected onl! upon the postin# of a cash or suret! bond, the Court has rela=ed
this re?uire$ent under certain e=ceptional circu$stances in order to resolve controversies on their $erits. &hese
circu$stances includeA 3*4 the funda$ental consideration of substantial @usticeI 3+4 the prevention of $iscarria#e of
@ustice or of un@ust enrich$entI and 314 special circu$stances of the case co$bined ith its le#al $erits, and the
a$ount and the issue involved... 5uidelines that are applicable in the reduction of appeal bonds ere also e=plained
in Nicol v. Coot@o! Industrial Corporation..0 &he bond re?uire$ent in appeals involvin# $onetar! aards has been
and $a! be rela=ed in $eritorious cases, includin# instances in hich 3*4 there as substantial co$pliance ith the
Rules, 3+4 surroundin# facts and circu$stances constitute $eritorious #rounds to reduce the bond, 314 a liberal
interpretation of the re?uire$ent of an appeal bond ould serve the desired ob@ective of resolvin# controversies on the
$erits, or 3(4 the appellants, at the ver! least, e=hibited their illin#ness andJor #ood faith b! postin# a partial bond
durin# the re#le$entar! period.0-
In 9lancaflor v. N8RC,0* the Court also e$phasiBed that hile 2rticle ++10+ of the 8abor Code, as a$ended b!
Republic 2ct No. ,6*), hich re?uires a cash or suret! bond in an a$ount e?uivalent to the $onetar! aard in the
@ud#$ent appealed fro$ $a! be considered a @urisdictional re?uire$ent for the perfection of an appeal, nevertheless,
adherin# to the principle that substantial @ustice is better served b! alloin# the appeal on the $erits to be threshed out
b! the N8RC, the fore#oin# re?uire$ent of the la should be #iven a liberal interpretation.
2s the Court, nonetheless, re$ains fir$ on the i$portance of appeal bonds in appeals fro$ $onetar! aards of 82s,
e stress that the N8RC, pursuant to Section ,, Rule VI of the N8RC Rules of Procedure, shall onl! accept $otions
to reduce bond that are coupled ith the postin# of a bond in a reasonable a$ount. &i$e and a#ain, e have e=plained
that the bond re?uire$ent i$posed upon appellants in labor cases is intended to ensure the satisfaction of aards that
are $ade in favor of appellees, in the event that their clai$s are eventuall! sustained b! the courts. 01 On the part of
the appellants, its postin# $a! also si#nif! their #ood faith and illin#ness to reco#niBe the final outco$e of their
appeal.
2t the ti$e of a $otion to reduce appeal bond<s filin#, the ?uestion of hat constitutes Fa reasonable a$ount of bondF
that $ust acco$pan! the $otion $a! be sub@ect to differin# interpretations of liti#ants. &he @ud#$ent of the N8RC
hich has the discretion under the la to deter$ine such a$ount cannot as !et be invo"ed b! liti#ants until after their
$otions to reduce appeal bond are accepted.
5iven these li$itations, it is not unco$$on for a part! to undul! forfeit his opportunit! to see" a reduction of the
re?uired bond and thus, to appeal, hen the N8RC eventuall! disa#rees ith the part!<s assess$ent. &hese have also
resulted in the filin# of nu$erous petitions a#ainst the N8RC, citin# an alle#ed #rave abuse of discretion on the part
of the labor tribunal for its findin# on the sufficienc! or insufficienc! of posted appeal bonds.
It is in this li#ht that the Court finds it necessar! to set a para$eter for the liti#ants< and the N8RC<s #uidance on the
a$ount of bond that shall hereafter be filed ith a $otion for a bond<s reduction. &o ensure that the provisions of
Section ,, Rule VI of the N8RC Rules of Procedure that #ive parties the chance to see" a reduction of the appeal bond
are effectivel! carried out, ithout hoever defeatin# the benefits of the bond re?uire$ent in favor of a innin#
liti#ant, all $otions to reduce bond that are to be filed ith the N8RC shall be acco$panied b! the postin# of a cash
or suret! bond e?uivalent to *-N of the $onetar! aard that is sub@ect of the appeal, hich shall provisionall! be
dee$ed the reasonable a$ount of the bond in the $eanti$e that an appellant<s $otion is pendin# resolution b! the
Co$$ission. In confor$it! ith the N8RC Rules, the $onetar! aard, for the purpose of co$putin# the necessar!
appeal bond, shall e=clude da$a#es and attorne!<s fees.0( Onl! after the postin# of a bond in the re?uired percenta#e
shall an appellant<s period to perfect an appeal under the N8RC Rules be dee$ed suspended.
&he fore#oin# shall not be $isconstrued to undul! hinder the N8RC<s e=ercise of its discretion, #iven that the
percenta#e of bond that is set b! this #uideline shall be $erel! provisional. &he N8RC retains its authorit! and dut! to
resolve the $otion and deter$ine the final a$ount of bond that shall be posted b! the appellant, still in accordance
ith the standards of F$eritorious #roundsF and Freasonable a$ountF. Should the N8RC, after considerin# the
$otion<s $erit, deter$ine that a #reater a$ount or the full a$ount of the bond needs to be posted b! the appellant,
then the part! shall co$pl! accordin#l!. &he appellant shall be #iven a period of *- da!s fro$ notice of the N8RC
order ithin hich to perfect the appeal b! postin# the re?uired appeal bond.
Meritorious #round as a condition
for the reduction of the appeal bond
In all cases, the reduction of the appeal bond shall be @ustified b! $eritorious #rounds and acco$panied b! the postin#
of the re?uired appeal bond in a reasonable a$ount.
&he re?uire$ent on the e=istence of a F$eritorious #roundF delves on the orth of the parties< ar#u$ents, ta"in# into
account their respective ri#hts and the circu$stances that attend the case. &he condition as e$phasiBed in ;niversit!
Plans Incorporated v. Solano,0) herein the Court held that hile the N8RC<s Revised Rules of Procedure Fallos
the DN8RCE to reduce the a$ount of the bond, the e=ercise of the authorit! is not a $atter of ri#ht on the part of the
$ovant, but lies ithin the sound discretion of the N8RC upon a shoin# of $eritorious #rounds.F0, 9!
@urisprudence, the $erit referred to $a! pertain to an appellant<s lac" of financial capabilit! to pa! the full a$ount of
the bond,06 the $erits of the $ain appeal such as hen there is a valid clai$ that there as no ille#al dis$issal to
@ustif! the aard,0. the absence of an e$plo!er'e$plo!ee relationship,00 prescription of clai$s,*-- and other
si$ilarl! valid issues that are raised in the appeal.*-* Cor the purpose of deter$inin# a F$eritorious #roundF, the
N8RC is not precluded fro$ receivin# evidence, or fro$ $a"in# a preli$inar! deter$ination of the $erits of the
appellant<s contentions.*-+
In this case, the N8RC then should have considered the respondents< ar#u$ents in the $e$orandu$ on appeal that
as filed ith the $otion to reduce the re?uisite appeal bond. 2lthou#h a consideration of said ar#u$ents at that point
ould have been $erel! preli$inar! and should not in an! a! bind the eventual outco$e of the appeal, it as
apparent that the respondents< defenses ca$e ith an indication of $erit that deserved a full revie of the decision of
the 82. &he C2, b! its Resolution dated Cebruar! *,, +--6, even found @ustified the issuance of a preli$inar!
in@unction to en@oin the i$$ediate e=ecution of the 82<s decision, and this Court, a te$porar! restrainin# order on
Septe$ber (, +-*+.
Si#nificantl!, folloin# the C2<s re$and of the case to the N8RC, the latter even rendered a Decision that contained
findin#s that are inconsistent ith Mc9urnie<s clai$s. &he N8RC reversed and set aside the decision of the 82, and
entered a ne one dis$issin# Mc9urnie<s co$plaint. It e=plained that Mc9urnie as not an e$plo!ee of the
respondentsI thus, the! could not have dis$issed hi$ fro$ e$plo!$ent. &he purported e$plo!$ent contract of the
respondents ith the petitioner as ?ualified b! the conditions set forth in a letter dated Ma! **, *000, hich readsA
Ma! **, *000
MR. 2NDRE> MC9;RNIE
ReA E$plo!$ent Contract
Dear 2ndre,
It is understood that this Contract is $ade sub@ect to the understandin# that it is effective onl! hen the
pro@ect financin# for our 9a#uio :otel pro@ect pushed throu#h.
&he a#ree$ent ith E5I Mana#ers, Inc. is $ade no to support !our need to facilitate !our or" per$it
ith the Depart$ent of 8abor in vie of the e=piration of !our contract ith Pan Pacific.
Re#ards,
S#d. Eulalio 5anBon 3p. +-1, Records4*-1
Cor the N8RC, the e$plo!$ent a#ree$ent could not have #iven rise to an e$plo!er'e$plo!ee relationship b! reason
of le#al i$possibilit!. &he to conditions that for$ part of their a#ree$ent, na$el!, the successful co$pletion of the
pro@ect financin# for the hotel pro@ect in 9a#uio Cit! and Mc9urnie<s ac?uisition of an 2lien E$plo!$ent Per$it,
re$ained unsatisfied.*-( &he N8RC concluded that Mc9urnie as instead a potential investor in a pro@ect that
included 5anBon, but the said pro@ect failed to pursue due to lac" of funds. 2n! or" perfor$ed b! Mc9urnie in
relation to the pro@ect as $erel! preli$inar! to the business venture and part of his Fdue dili#enceF stud! before
pursuin# the pro@ect, Fdone at his on instance, not in furtherance of the e$plo!$ent contract but for his on
invest$ent purposes.F*-) 8astl!, the alle#ed e$plo!$ent of the petitioner ould have been void for bein# contrar! to
la, since it is undisputed that Mc9urnie did not have an! or" per$it. &he N8RC declaredA
2bsent an e$plo!$ent per$it, an! e$plo!$ent relationship that Mc9urnie conte$plated ith the respondents as
void for bein# contrar! to la. 2 void or ine=istent contract, in turn, has no force and effect fro$ the be#innin# as if it
had never been entered into. &hus, ithout an 2lien E$plo!$ent Per$it, the FE$plo!$ent 2#ree$entF is void and
could not be the source of a ri#ht or obli#ation. In support thereof, the DO8E issued a certification that Mc9urnie has
neither applied nor been issued an 2lien E$plo!$ent Per$it 3p. +-(, Records4.*-,
Mc9urnie $oved to reconsider, citin# the Court<s Decision of Septe$ber *., +--0 that reversed and set aside the C2<s
Decision authoriBin# the re$and. 2lthou#h the N8RC #ranted the $otion on the said #round via a Decision*-6 that
set aside the N8RC<s Decision dated Nove$ber *6, +--0, the findin#s of the N8RC in the Nove$ber *6, +--0
decision $erit consideration, especiall! since the findin#s $ade therein are supported b! the case records.
In addition to the apparent $erit of the respondents< appeal, the Court finds the reduction of the appeal bond @ustified
b! the substantial a$ount of the 82<s $onetar! aard. 5iven its considerable a$ount, e find reason in the
respondents< clai$ that to re?uire an appeal bond in such a$ount could onl! deprive the$ of the ri#ht to appeal, even
force the$ out of business and affect the livelihood of their e$plo!ees. *-. In Roseood Processin#, Inc. v.
N8RC,*-0 e e$phasiBedA F>here a decision $a! be $ade to rest on infor$ed @ud#$ent rather than ri#id rules, the
e?uities of the case $ust be accorded their due ei#ht because labor deter$inations should not be Vsecundu$
ratione$ but also secundu$ caritate$.<F**-
>hat constitutes a reasonable
a$ount in the deter$ination of the
final a$ount of appeal bond
2s re#ards the re?uire$ent on the postin# of a bond in a Freasonable a$ount,F the Court holds that the final
deter$ination thereof b! the N8RC shall be based pri$aril! on the $erits of the $otion and the $ain appeal.
2lthou#h the N8RC Rules of Procedure, particularl! Section , of Rule VI thereof, provides that the bond to be posted
shall be Fin a reasonable a$ount in relation to the $onetar! aard ,F the $erit of the $otion shall ala!s ta"e
precedence in the deter$ination. Settled is the rule that procedural rules ere conceived, and should thus be applied in
a $anner that ould onl! aid the attain$ent of @ustice. If a strin#ent application of the rules ould hinder rather than
serve the de$ands of substantial @ustice, the for$er $ust !ield to the latter.***
&hus, in Nicol here the appellant posted a bond of P*-,---,---.-- upon an appeal fro$ the 82<s aard
ofP)*,0),,1*(.--, the Court, instead of rulin# ri#ht aa! on the reasonableness of the bond<s a$ount solel! on the
basis of the @ud#$ent aard, found it appropriate to re$and the case to the N8RC, hich should first deter$ine the
$erits of the $otion. In ;niversit! Plans,**+ the Court also reversed the outri#ht dis$issal of an appeal here the
bond posted in a @ud#$ent aard of $ore than P1-,---,---.-- as P1-,---.--. &he Court then directed the N8RC to
first deter$ine the $erit, or lac" of $erit, of the $otion to reduce the bond, after the appellant therein clai$ed that it
as under receivership and thus, could not dispose of its assets ithin a short notice. Clearl!, the rule on the postin#
of an appeal bond should not be alloed to defeat the substantive ri#hts of the parties.**1
Notabl!, in the present case, folloin# the C2<s rendition of its Decision hich alloed a reduced appeal bond, the
respondents have posted a bond in the a$ount of P*-,---,---.--. In Roseood, the Court dee$ed the postin# of a
suret! bond of P)-,---.--, coupled ith a $otion to reduce the appeal bond, as substantial co$pliance ith the le#al
re?uire$ents for an appeal fro$ a P6.0,*)(.10 $onetar! aard Fconsiderin# the clear $erits hich appear, res ipsa
lo?uitor, in the appeal fro$ the 82<s Decision, and the petitioner<s substantial co$pliance ith rules #overnin#
appeals.F**( &he fore#oin# @urisprudence stron#l! indicate that in deter$inin# the reasonable a$ount of appeal
bonds, the Court pri$aril! considers the $erits of the $otions and appeals.
5iven the circu$stances in this case and the $erits of the respondents< ar#u$ents before the N8RC, the Court holds
that the respondents had posted a bond in a Freasonable a$ountF, and had thus co$plied ith the re?uire$ents for the
perfection of an appeal fro$ the 82<s decision. &he C2 as correct in rulin# thatA
In the case of Nueva Eci@a I Electric Cooperative, Inc. 3NEECO I4 E$plo!ees 2ssociation, President Rodolfo
/i$eneB, and $e$bers, Re!naldo Ca@ardo, et al. vs. N8RC, Nueva Eci@a I Electric Cooperative, Inc. 3NEECO I4 and
Patricio de la PeUa 35R No. **,-,,, /anuar! +(, +---4, the Supre$e Court reco#niBed thatA Fthe N8RC, in its
Resolution No. **'-*'0* dated Nove$ber 6, *00* deleted the phrase Fe=clusive of $oral and e=e$plar! da$a#es as
ell as attorne!<s fees in the deter$ination of the a$ount of bond, and provided a safe#uard a#ainst the i$position of
e=cessive bonds b! providin# that F3&4he Co$$ission $a! in $eritorious cases and upon $otion of the appellant,
reduce the a$ount of the bond.F
In the case of Cosico, /r. vs. N8RC, +6+ SCR2 ).1, it as heldA
F&he unreasonable and e=cessive a$ount of bond ould be oppressive and un@ust and ould have the effect of
deprivin# a part! of his ri#ht to appeal.F
= = = =
In dis$issin# outri#ht the $otion to reduce bond filed b! petitioners, N8RC abused its discretion. It should have fi=ed
an appeal bond in a reasonable a$ount. Said dis$issal deprived petitioners of their ri#ht to appeal the 8abor 2rbiter<s
decision.
= = = =
N8RC Rules allo reduction of appeal bond on $eritorious #rounds 3Sec. ,, Rule VI, N8RC Rules of Procedure4.
&his Court finds the appeal bond in the a$ount of P)(,-.1,0*-.-- prohibitive and e=cessive, hich constitutes a
$eritorious #round to allo a $otion for reduction thereof.**)
&he fore#oin# declaration of the Court re?uirin# a bond in a reasonable a$ount, ta"in# into account the $erits of the
$otion and the appeal, is consistent ith the oft'repeated principle that letter'perfect rules $ust !ield to the broader
interest of substantial @ustice.**,
&he effect of a denial of the appeal
to the N8RC
In findin# $erit in the respondents< $otion for reconsideration, e also ta"e into account the unarranted results that
ill arise fro$ an i$ple$entation of the Court<s Decision dated Septe$ber *., +--0. >e e$phasiBe, $oreover, that
althou#h a re$and and an order upon the N8RC to #ive due course to the appeal ould have been the usual course
after a findin# that the conditions for the reduction of an appeal bond ere dul! satisfied b! the respondents, #iven
such results, the Court finds it necessar! to $odif! the C2<s order of re$and, and instead rule on the dis$issal of the
co$plaint a#ainst the respondents.
>ithout the reversal of the Court<s Decision and the dis$issal of the co$plaint a#ainst the respondents, Mc9urnie
ould be alloed to clai$ benefits under our labor las despite his failure to co$pl! ith a settled re?uire$ent for
forei#n nationals.
Considerin# that Mc9urnie, an 2ustralian, alle#ed ille#al dis$issal and sou#ht to clai$ under our labor las, it as
necessar! for hi$ to establish, first and fore$ost, that he as ?ualified and dul! authoriBed to obtain e$plo!$ent
ithin our @urisdiction. 2 re?uire$ent for forei#ners ho intend to or" ithin the countr! is an e$plo!$ent per$it,
as provided under 2rticle (-, &itle II of the 8abor Code hich readsA
2rt. (-. E$plo!$ent per$it for non'resident aliens. 2n! alien see"in# ad$ission to the Philippines for e$plo!$ent
purposes and an! do$estic or forei#n e$plo!er ho desires to en#a#e an alien for e$plo!$ent in the Philippines
shall obtain an e$plo!$ent per$it fro$ the Depart$ent of 8abor.
In >PP Mar"etin# Co$$unications, Inc. v. 5alera,**6 e held that a forei#n national<s failure to see" an
e$plo!$ent per$it prior to e$plo!$ent poses a serious proble$ in see"in# relief fro$ the Court. **. &hus, althou#h
the respondent therein appeared to have been ille#all! dis$issed fro$ e$plo!$ent, e e=plainedA
&his is 5alera<s dile$$aA 5alera or"ed in the Philippines ithout proper or" per$it but no ants to clai$
e$plo!ee<s benefits under Philippine labor las.
= = = =
&he la and the rules are consistent in statin# that the e$plo!$ent per$it $ust be ac?uired prior to e$plo!$ent. &he
8abor Code statesA F2n! alien see"in# ad$ission to the Philippines for e$plo!$ent purposes and an! do$estic or
forei#n e$plo!er ho desires to en#a#e an alien for e$plo!$ent in the Philippines shall obtain an e$plo!$ent
per$it fro$ the Depart$ent of 8abor.F Section (, Rule PIV, 9oo" I of the I$ple$entin# Rules and Re#ulations
providesA
FE$plo!$ent per$it re?uired for entr!. M No alien see"in# e$plo!$ent, hether as a resident or non'resident, $a!
enter the Philippines ithout first securin# an e$plo!$ent per$it fro$ the Ministr!. If an alien enters the countr!
under a non'or"in# visa and ishes to be e$plo!ed thereafter, he $a! be alloed to be e$plo!ed upon presentation
of a dul! approved e$plo!$ent per$it.F
5alera cannot co$e to this Court ith unclean hands. &o #rant 5alera<s pra!er is to sanction the violation of the
Philippine labor las re?uirin# aliens to secure or" per$its before their e$plo!$ent. >e hold that the status ?uo
$ust prevail in the present case and e leave the parties here the! are. &his rulin#, hoever, does not bar 5alera
fro$ see"in# relief fro$ other @urisdictions.**0 3Citations o$itted and underscorin# ours4
Clearl!, this circu$stance on the failure of Mc9urnie to obtain an e$plo!$ent per$it, b! itself, necessitates the
dis$issal of his labor co$plaint.
Curther$ore, as has been previousl! discussed, the N8RC has ruled in its Decision dated Nove$ber *6, +--0 on the
issue of ille#al dis$issal. It declared that Mc9urnie as never an e$plo!ee of an! of the respondents.*+-It e=plainedA
2ll these facts and circu$stances prove that Mc9urnie as never an e$plo!ee of Eulalio 5anBon or the respondent
co$panies, but a potential investor in a pro@ect ith a #roup includin# Eulalio 5anBon and MartineB but said pro@ect
did not ta"e off because of lac" of funds.
Mc9urnie further clai$s that in confor$it! ith the provision of the e$plo!$ent contract pertainin# to the obli#ation
of the respondents to provide housin#, respondents assi#ned hi$ Condo ;nit W .*+ of the Ma"ati Cine$a S?uare
Condo$iniu$ oned b! the respondents. :e as also alloed to use a :!undai car. If it ere true that the contract of
e$plo!$ent as for or"in# visa purposes onl!, h! did the respondents perfor$ their obli#ations to hi$%
&here is no ?uestion that respondents assi#ned hi$ Condo ;nit W .*+ of the MCS, but this as not free of char#e. If it
ere true that it is part of the co$pensation pac"a#e as e$plo!ee, then Mc9urnie ould not be obli#ated to pa!
an!thin#, but clearl!, he ad$itted in his letter that he had to pa! all the e=penses incurred in the apart$ent.
2ssu$in# for the sa"e of ar#u$ent that the e$plo!$ent contract is valid beteen the$, record shos that Mc9urnie
or"ed fro$ Septe$ber *, *000 until he $et an accident on the last ee" of October. Durin# the period of
e$plo!$ent, the respondents $ust have paid his salaries in the su$ of ;SR+,,---.--, $ore or less.
:oever, Mc9urnie failed to present a sin#le evidence that Dthe respondentsE paid his salaries li"e pa!slip, chec" or
cash vouchers dul! si#ned b! hi$ or an! docu$ent shoin# proof of receipt of his co$pensation fro$ the
respondents or activit! in furtherance of the e$plo!$ent contract. 5rantin# a#ain that there as a valid contract of
e$plo!$ent, it is undisputed that on Nove$ber *, *000, Mc9urnie left for 2ustralia and never ca$e bac". = =
=.*+* 3E$phasis supplied4
2lthou#h the N8RC<s Decision dated Nove$ber *6, +--0 as set aside in a Decision dated /anuar! *(, +-*-, the
Court<s resolve to no reconsider its Decision dated Septe$ber *., +--0 and to affir$ the C2<s Decision and
Resolution in the respondents< favor effectivel! restores the N8RC<s basis for renderin# the Decision dated Nove$ber
*6, +--0.
More i$portantl!, the N8RC<s findin#s on the contractual relations beteen Mc9urnie and the respondents are
supported b! the records.
Cirst, before a case for ille#al dis$issal can prosper, an e$plo!er'e$plo!ee relationship $ust first be
established.*++ 2lthou#h an e$plo!$ent a#ree$ent for$s part of the case records, respondent 5anBon si#ned it ith
the notation Fper $! note.F*+1 &he respondents have sufficientl! e=plained that the note refers to the letter*+( dated
Ma! **, *000 hich e$bodied certain conditions for the e$plo!$ent<s effectivit!. 2s e have previousl! e=plained,
hoever, the said conditions, particularl! on the successful co$pletion of the pro@ect financin# for the hotel pro@ect in
9a#uio Cit! and Mc9urnie<s ac?uisition of an 2lien E$plo!$ent Per$it, failed to $aterialiBe. Such defense of the
respondents, hich as dul! considered b! the N8RC in its Decision dated Nove$ber *6, +--0, as not sufficientl!
rebutted b! Mc9urnie.
Second, Mc9urnie failed to present an! e$plo!$ent per$it hich ould have authoriBed hi$ to obtain e$plo!$ent
in the Philippines. &his circu$stance ne#ates Mc9urnie<s clai$ that he had been perfor$in# or" for the respondents
b! virtue of an e$plo!er'e$plo!ee relationship. &he absence of the e$plo!$ent per$it instead bolsters the clai$ that
the supposed e$plo!$ent of Mc9urnie as $erel! si$ulated, or did not ensue due to the non'fulfill$ent of the
conditions that ere set forth in the letter of Ma! **, *000.
&hird, besides the e$plo!$ent a#ree$ent, Mc9urnie failed to present other co$petent evidence to prove his clai$ of
an e$plo!er'e$plo!ee relationship. 5iven the parties< conflictin# clai$s on their true intention in e=ecutin# the
a#ree$ent, it as necessar! to resort to the established criteria for the deter$ination of an e$plo!er'e$plo!ee
relationship, na$el!A 3*4 the selection and en#a#e$ent of the e$plo!eeI 3+4 the pa!$ent of a#esI 314 the poer of
dis$issalI and 3(4 the poer to control the e$plo!ee<s conduct.*+) &he rule of thu$b re$ainsA the onus probandi falls
on the clai$ant to establish or substantiate the clai$ b! the re?uisite ?uantu$ of evidence. >hoever clai$s
entitle$ent to the benefits provided b! la should establish his or her ri#ht thereto. *+, Mc9urnie failed in this
re#ard.*Gphi* 2s previousl! observed b! the N8RC, Mc9urnie even failed to sho throu#h an! docu$ent such as
pa!slips or vouchers that his salaries durin# the ti$e that he alle#edl! or"ed for the respondents ere paid b! the
co$pan!. In the absence of an e$plo!er'e$plo!ee relationship beteen Mc9urnie and the respondents, Mc9urnie
could not successfull! clai$ that he as dis$issed, $uch less ille#all! dis$issed, b! the latter. Even #rantin# that
there as such an e$plo!er'e$plo!ee relationship, the records are barren of an! docu$ent shoin# that its
ter$ination as b! the respondents< dis$issal of Mc9urnie.
5iven these circu$stances, it ould be a circuitous e=ercise for the Court to re$and the case to the N8RC, $ore so in
the absence of an! shoin# that the N8RC should no rule differentl! on the case<s $erits. In Medline Mana#e$ent,
Inc. v. Roslinda,*+6 the Court ruled that hen there is enou#h basis on hich the Court $a! render a proper
evaluation of the $erits of the case, the Court $a! dispense ith the ti$e'consu$in# procedure of re$andin# a case
to a labor tribunal in order Fto prevent dela!s in the disposition of the case,F Fto serve the ends of @usticeF and hen a
re$and Fould serve no purpose save to further dela! its disposition contrar! to the spirit of fair pla!.F*+. In Real v.
San#u Philippines, Inc.,*+0 e a#ain ruledA
>ith the fore#oin#, it is clear that the C2 erred in affir$in# the decision of the N8RC hich dis$issed petitioner<s
co$plaint for lac" of @urisdiction. In cases such as this, the Court nor$all! re$ands the case to the N8RC and directs
it to properl! dispose of the case on the $erits. F:oever, hen there is enou#h basis on hich a proper evaluation of
the $erits of petitioner<s case $a! be had, the Court $a! dispense ith the ti$e'consu$in# procedure of re$and in
order to prevent further dela!s in the disposition of the case.F FIt is alread! an accepted rule of procedure for us to
strive to settle the entire controvers! in a sin#le proceedin#, leavin# no root or branch to bear the seeds of liti#ation. If,
based on the records, the pleadin#s, and other evidence, the dispute can be resolved b! us, e ill do so to serve the
ends of @ustice instead of re$andin# the case to the loer court for further proceedin#s.F = = =.*1- 3Citations o$itted4
It bears $entionin# that althou#h the Court resolves to #rant the respondents< $otion for reconsideration, the other
#rounds raised in the $otion, especiall! as the! pertain to insinuations on irre#ularities in the Court, deserve no $erit
for bein# founded on baseless conclusions. Curther$ore, the Court finds it unnecessar! to discuss the other #rounds
that are raised in the $otion, considerin# the #rounds that alread! @ustif! the dis$issal of Mc9urnie<s co$plaint.
2ll these considered, the Court also affir$s its Resolution dated Septe$ber (, +-*+I accordin#l!, Mc9urnie<s $otion
for reconsideration thereof is denied.
>:ERECORE, in li#ht of the fore#oin#, the Court rules as follosA
3a4 &he $otion for reconsideration filed on Septe$ber +,, +-*+ b! petitioner 2ndre /a$es Mc9urnie is
DENIEDI
3b4 &he $otion for reconsideration filed on March +6, +-*+ b! respondents Eulalio 5anBon, E5I'Mana#ers,
Inc. and E. 5anBon, Inc. is 5R2N&ED.
3c4 &he Entr! of /ud#$ent issued in 5.R. Nos. *.,0.('.) is 8IC&ED. &his Court<s Decision dated Septe$ber
*., +--0 and Resolutions dated Dece$ber *(, +--0 and /anuar! +), +-*+ are SE& 2SIDE. &he Court of
2ppeals Decision dated October +6, +--. and Resolution dated March 1, +--0 in C2'5.R. SP No. 0-.() and
C2'5.R. SP No. 0)0*, are 2CCIRMED >I&: MODICIC2&ION. In lieu of a re$and of the case to the
National 8abor Relations Co$$ission, the co$plaint for ille#al dis$issal filed b! petitioner 2ndre /a$es
Mc9urnie a#ainst respondents Eulalio 5anBon, E5I'Mana#ers, Inc. and E. 5anBon, Inc. is DISMISSED.
Curther$ore, on the $atter of the filin# and acceptance of $otions to reduce appeal bond, as provided in Section ,,
Rule VI of the +-** N8RC Rules of Procedure, the Court hereb! RESO8VES that henceforth, the folloin#
#uidelines shall be observedA
3a4 &he filin# o a $otion to reduce appeal bond shall be entertained b! the N8RC sub@ect to the folloin#
conditionsA 3*4 there is $eritorious #roundI and 3+4 a bond in a reasonable a$ount is postedI
3b4 Cor purposes o co$pliance ith condition no. 3+4, a $otion shall be acco$panied b! the postin# o a
provisional cash or suret! bond e?uivalent to ten percent 3*-,4 of the $onetar! aard sub@ect o the appeal,
e=clusive o da$a#es and attorne!Qs feesI
3c4 Co$pliance ith the fore#oin# conditions shall suffice to suspend the runnin# o the * -'da! re#le$entar!
period to perfect an appeal fro$ the labor arbiterQs decision to the N8RCI
3d4 &he N8RC retains its authorit! and dut! to resolve the $otion to reduce bond and deter$ine the final
a$ount o bond that shall be posted b! the appellant, still in accordance ith the standards o $eritorious
#rounds and reasonable a$ountI and
3e4 In the event that the N8RC denies the $otion to reduce bond, or re?uires a bond that e=ceeds the a$ount
o the provisional bond, the appellant shall be #iven a fresh period o ten * -4 da!s fro$ notice o the N8RC
order ithin hich to perfect the appeal b! postin# the re?uired appeal bond.
SO ORDERED.