Roos Industrial vs.

NLRC
FACTS:
This is a Petition for Reviw on Certiorari filed by petitioners Roos Industrial
Construction, Inc. and Oscar Tocmo which springs from a case for Illegal Dismissal
and Money Claims filed by respondent Jose Martillos.
It appears that Martillos was hired by respondents as driver-mechanic and claims that
he was illegally dismissed, was underpaid in his Holiday paid, and was not paid his
Service Incentive Leave and 13th month pay despite being entitled thereto as an
employee. Respondents argues that Martillos is a mere project employee and is
therefore not entitled to the said benefits.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Martillos and held that he was, in fact, a regular
employee, and little interruption from one project to another, a task which is necessary
to the usual trade of his employer.
On appeal, petitioners were not able to post the required cash or surety bond on time
and instead submitted a Motion for Extension of Time to Submit/Post Surety Bond.
The Appeal was dismissed by the 2nd Division of the NLRC stating that the timely
posting of the required bond is mandatory and jurisdictional and failure to do so merits
dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed
but likewise denied.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals where they argued, among
others, that the case of BORJA ESTATE VS. BALLAD where the SC stated the
importance of filing bond in the perfection of appeals in labor cases is not applicable
since it was not yet promulgated when they filed their appeal.
The CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC.
Hence this petition.

Issue:
W/N the ruling in BORJA ESTATE VS. BALLAD which emphasized the importance of
posting bond in labor cases does not apply to the instant case.

Ruling:
YES. The SC ruled that the case of Borja Estate vs. Ballad is applicable in the instant
case since it is a mere reiteration of long-standing jurisprudence and that it is mere
judicial interpretation of a statue, hence, considered as a judicial doctrine which does
not amount to the passage of a new law but consists merely of a construction or
interpretation of a pre-existing law, as is the situation in this case.