Orozco vs. Court of Appeals, Fifth Division

700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDOrozco vs. Court of Appeals, Fifth Division * G.R. No. 155207. April 29, 2005. WILHELMINA S. OROZCO, petitioner, vs. THE FIFTH DIVISION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER, AND LETICIA JIMENEZ MAGSANOC, respondents. Labor Law; Appeals; By explicit provision of law, an appeal by an employer is perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond.·By explicit provision of law, an appeal is perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. The reason behind the imposition of this requirement is not difficult to divine. As the Court said in Viron Garments Mftg., Co., Inc. v. NLRC: The requirement that the employer post a cash or surety bond to perfect its/his appeal is apparently intended to assure the workers that if they prevail in the case, they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the employerÊs appeal. It was intended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy their employeesÊ just and lawful claims. _______________ * SECOND DIVISION. 701 VOL. 457, APRIL 29, 2005 701 Orozco vs. Court of Appeals, Fifth Division Same; Same; While the requirements for perfecting an appeal must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable Court of Appeals. Del Castillo. the question raised in this present petition is of general interest to students of law·whether a newspaper 702 702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Orozco vs. private respondents had no basis for determining the amount of the bond to be posted. But while this Court may relax the observance of reglementary periods and technical rules to achieve substantial justice. Technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties. RESOLUTION TINGA. J. this Court postulated that „private respondents cannot be expected to post such appeal bond equivalent to the amount of the monetary award when the amount thereof was not included in the decision of the labor arbiter. Jr. Odulio. E. The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court. Bacorro.: Ostensibly. Ortega. the law does admit of exceptions when warranted by the circumstances·technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties. D. Fifth Division . it is not prepared to give due course to this petition and make a pronouncement on the weighty issue obtaining in this case until the law has been duly complied with and the requisite appeal bond duly paid by private respondents.·In the case of NFLU v. Ladrido III. Salonga.interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial business. Thus. PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. Calma & Carbonell for respondent. while the requirements for perfecting an appeal must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial business. for petitioner. the law does admit of exceptions when warranted by the circumstances.‰ The computation of the amount awarded to petitioner not having been clearly stated in the decision of the labor arbiter. the Court is impelled to defer the settlement of the above issue until the jurisdictional requirement has been duly complied with.. 6 Arthur L. at pp. the decretal portion of which stated: „WHEREFORE. pp. Id. Court of Appeals. Calaycay of the Second Division. the petition is hereby GRANTED. Labitoria and Teodoro P. 107. APRIL 29. 89-98. judgment is hereby rendered. p. for failure to file the appeal bond required by law. the dispositive portion of which provides: „WHEREFORE. penned by Commissioner Rogelio I. 3 SO ORDERED. Amansec. 106. Private respondent OrozcoÊs complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. ordering respon- _______________ 1 Promulgated on 11 September 2002. promulgated on 11 July 2002. 703 VOL. Fifth Division . Rollo. Id. based on the foregoing. This Petition for Review 1under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Resolution of the Court of Appeals Fifth Division denying the Motion for Reconsideration 2 filed by Wilhelmina Orozco (Orozco) and the Decision of the same division in CA-G. The assailed decision of the public respondent NLRC affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter that private respondent Wilhelmina Orozco is an employee of petitioner PDI is hereby SET ASIDE. 101-106. SP No.columnist is an employee of the newspaper which publishes the columns. 457. However.‰ The above 4 ruling of the Court of Appeals reversed the Decision of the National Labor Relations 5 Commission6 (NLRC) which affirmed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. concurred in by Associate Justices Eugenio S.. Ragala and concurred in by Commissioner Victoriano R. at p. Jr. 3 Id. 4 Dated 23 August 1994.. 2 Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q.R. 50970. Enriquez. 2005 703 Orozco vs.. at pp. Rollo. 83-88. 5 Dated 29 October 1993. finding complainant to be an employee of respondent company. Regino. PDI decided 12 to drop or terminate OrozcoÊs column in November 1992. the editor-in-chief of the PDI at that time.. 7 SO ORDERED.. moral and exemplary 8 damages.. Other claims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit. OrozcoÊs column thus appeared in PDI for the last time on 7 November 1992. service incentive leave pay. at p. 186. 8 Id. discrimination in pay and for attorneyÊs fees9 with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC on 1 June 1993.. Orozco was engaged as a columnist by PDI on 8 March 1990.00) which 11 was later increased to Three hundred Pesos (P300. p. 12 Id. 352. They agreed to cut down the number of columnists and for this reason. 704 704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED . 185. non-payment of allowance. 348. 10 Id. Respondent company is also ordered to pay her 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay. In June 1991. Magsanoc as editor-in-chief of PDI discussed how to improve the Lifestyle section of the newspaper with the Lifestyle editor.dent company to reinstate her to her former or equivalent position. 13th month pay. at p. 350. 11 Id. at pp. Orozco worked by submitting weekly columns with a per article wage of Two Hundred Fifty Pesos (P250. 309. at p. at pp. underpayment. separation pay. with backwages.‰ This case arose out of the complaint filed by Orozco against private respondents Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) and Leticia Jimenez-Magsanoc (Magsanoc). for illegal dismissal. Upon inquiry at the office of Magsanoc as _______________ 7 Rollo. 350. 9 Id.. retirement pay. Logarta.00). Based on the records of this case. She penned the column „Feminist Reflections‰ which appeared in the 10 Lifestyle Section under the editorship of Lolita T. 88. . the secretary told Orozco that it was Eugenia Apostol (Apostol). Private respondents elevated the case to the Supreme Court by way of the special civil action of certiorari. after concluding that Orozco had indeed been an employee of the PDI. Orozco filed the instant case against private respondents before the NLRC. received a 15copy of the Labor ArbiterÊs Decision on 16 December 1993. Pursuant _______________ 13 Id. Orozco vs. at pp. the NLRC ventured to delve on the merits. PDI adverted to such failure on its part before the NLRC but justified the same on the ground that the Decision of the Labor Arbiter did not fix any amount but merely stated that Orozco was entitled to backwages. 15 Id. affirmed the finding of the Labor Arbiter that Orozco was an employee of PDI. Labor Arbiter Arthur L. Nonetheless. Fifth Division to why her column was stopped. the13 chairperson of PDI. 350-351. Apostol stated that she had been told by Magsanoc that 14 there were too many columnists in the Lifestyle Section. In this Decision. The NLRC dismissed the appeal in its Decision dated 23 August 1994. 705 . Aggrieved at the stoppage of her column. It timely filed a Notice and Memorandum dated 24 December 1993.. but it did not lodge a cash or surety bond in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from. Apostol was out of the country at that time so Orozco waited until February 1993 to talk to her. and thereupon. it made note of the failure of PDI to perfect the appeal by filing the cash or surety bond. 14 Ibid. Court of Appeals. who had decided to stop her column. Amansec ruled that Orozco had been illegally dismissed. 292. The PDI. through counsel. The PDI raised as primary defense the claim that Orozco was not an employee of the newspaper. at p. However. In a telephone conversation with Orozco. in a Decision dated 29 October 1993. Orozco argues that the posting of the cash or surety bond is mandatory and must be made by the employer within the reglementary period of ten (10) days from receipt of the Labor ArbiterÊs decision so as to perfect his appeal. Court of Appeals. On the other hand. In her Memorandum. and the Labor ArbiterÊs decision becomes final and executory. 811. On 11 July 2002. this Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals. 457. Failing to do so. regardless of whether 17 or not the NLRC declares it so. 223 of the Labor Code when they filed an appeal of the Labor ArbiterÊs decision at the NLRC. Hence. Martin Funeral Homes v. this petition. Fifth Division 16 to the ruling in St. The Court of Appeals likewise dismissed OrozcoÊs motion for reconsideration on 11 September 2002. 17 Rollo. . 5-6. by operation of law. the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the NLRC by holding that Orozco is not an employee of PDI. the appellate court concluding that the NLRC had misappreciated the facts and rendered a ruling wanting in substantial evidence. NLRC. APRIL 29. The reversal was grounded on factual premises. the employer loses the right to appeal. The NLRC in its decision concluded that it had no jurisdiction over PDIÊs appeal but proceeded nonetheless to discuss the merits of the case. 2005 705 Orozco vs. Orozco contends that a grievous error tantamount to grave abuse of discretion was committed by the Court of Appeals when it failed to appreciate the observation of the NLRC that private respondents did not perfect their appeal as they did not deposit on time any cash or surety bond in compliance with the provision of Art. VOL. It thereby dismissed OrozcoÊs complaint for lack of merit. Orozco posits that the Court of Appeals should have dismissed outright the private respondentÊs petition for certiorari for their failure to file a cash bond or a surety bond as provided for in Article 223 of the Labor Code. the Court of Ap- _______________ 16 356 Phil. pp. In support of the argument. 295 SCRA 494 (1998). The reason behind the imposition of this requirement is not difficult to divine.·Decisions. as it determines whether or not an appeal had indeed been perfected. an appeal is perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. it is essential not to lose sight of the jurisdictional issue. awards. Appeal. The relevant portion of Article 223 states: ART. The provisions of the Labor Code are quite clear cut on the matter.. 223. v. awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions. Court of Appeals. In case of a judgment involving a monetary award. or even evade. It was intended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay.. (emphasis supplied) By explicit provision of law. . . their obligation to satisfy their employeesÊ just 19 and lawful claims. Co. 706 706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Orozco vs. NLRC: The requirement that the employer post a cash or surety bond to perfect its/his appeal is apparently intended to assure the workers that if they prevail in the case. Inc. Fifth Division peals made no mention at all of the jurisdictional defect. an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from. they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the employerÊs appeal. The novelty of the argument on the merits aside. But while the posting of a cash or surety bond is jurisdictional and is a condition sine qua non to the perfection of an _______________ . As18the Court said in Viron Garments Mftg. whether in its recital of facts or discussion of the arguments. or orders. National Labor Relations Commission. NLRC. NLRC. And in Star Angel Handicraft v. the Court noted that a motion for reduction of the appeal bond had been filed within the reglementary period. v. the NLRC allowed21 the appeal perfected22 only on the twelfth (12th) day. 226. the NLRC had discovered that the separation pay awarded by the Labor Arbiter had already been paid by the employer. 18 Ibid. APRIL 29. Since a modification of the Labor ArbiterÊs Decision was the only way to forestall the grant of separation pay twice. The Court ruled that there was substantial compliance. 548. 555. v. an amendatory law to the Labor Code. Calabash Garments. owing to the fact that the NLRC had since excluded the 23 award of damages from the computation of24the surety bond. In Cosico. there is a plethora of jurisprudence recognizing exceptional instances wherein the Court relaxed the bond requirement as a condition20 for posting the appeal. 376 Phil. 2005 707 Orozco vs. In Olacao v. 707 VOL. 26 In YBL v. or only six (6) days from the effectivity of the Interim Rules on Appeals which incorporated for the first time the appeal bond requirement imposed by Republic Act No. Fifth Division appeal. Court of Appeals. 329 Phil. National Labor Relations Commission. the employer timely posted the bond based on the monetary award for back wages and thirteenth month pay. NLRC for example. See also Guadia v. 260 SCRA 441 (1996). NLRC. The Court therein considered the apparent fact that neither the counsel for the employer nor that for the employee was already aware of the then new requirement requiring the _______________ . 444 (1999). but excluding the exorbitant award for moral and exemplary damages. 19 Id. Jr. 6715. the appeal was interposed by the employers on 11 September 1989. 457. 318 SCRA 438. and that the appeal should not be deemed perfected until the NLRC has acted on the motion25and the appellant has filed the bond as fixed by the NLRC. Inc. compliance with the requirements for the perfection of an appeal within the reglamentary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. NLRC. No. and the29 same circumstance is likewise apparent in Rada v. 272 SCRA 583 (1997). at p. the Court made note of the fact that the assailed decision of the Labor Arbiter concerned did not contain a computation of the monetary award due the employees. 25 Id.R. NLRC. NO BOND WAS FILED BECAUSE OF THE VAGUENESS OF THE AWARD The award as contained in the appealed 29 October 1993 decision did not state the exact amount to be awarded. 236 SCRA 580. The judgment of the Labor Arbiter in this case merely stated that petitioner was entitled to backwages. p. 29 August 1989. a circumstance which is likewise present in this case. No.. 22 G. 20 September 1994. As the private respondents asserted in their motion for reconsideration anent the NLRC decision: III. 584. No. Fifth Division 27 posting of a bond on appeal. In said case. 1080. 93381. 49. This is in line with the principle that substantial justice is better served by allowing the appeal to be resolved on the merits rather than 31 dismissing it based on a technicality. 592. 108914.R. 28 September 1990. 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay without however including a computation of the alleged amounts. 20 G. 24 G. In particular. 21 Id. 708 708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Orozco vs. the Court stated.R. 81390. while it may be assumed. as stated in the decision subject of this motion. Ladrido as well as in several other cases. . 190 SCRA 160. at p. 338 Phil. As a rule.. The same justification was 28 cited with approval by the Court in Blancaflor v. 26 G. 177 SCRA 38. this Court relaxed the requirement of the posting of an appeal bond within the reglementary period as a condition for perfecting the appeal. 30 In the case of Taberrah v. 23 Id. Court of Appeals.. at p. 118432. However. NLRC. 1092.R. in National Federation of Labor Unions v. No. 2005 709 Orozco vs. 709 VOL. at p. not being an employee. Ladrido III. 29 G. this Court postulated that „private respondents cannot be expected to post such appeal bond equivalent to the amount of the monetary award when the amount thereof 34 was not included in the decision of the labor arbiter.‰ The computation of the amount awarded to petitioner not having been clearly stated in the decision of the labor arbiter. 101013. was not being paid a fixed salary. 371. _______________ 27 Id. Thus. No. private respondents had no basis for determining the amount of the bond to be posted. 7). 28 G. while the requirements for perfecting an appeal must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless 35 delays and for orderly discharge of judicial business. if it finds the same necessary in exceptional cases like the present case. Court of Appeals. No. 30 342 Phil. Hence. 31 Ibid. 276 SCRA 431 (1997). Fifth Division this is not clear in the decision which likewise mentioned an award for thirteenth (13th) month pay and service incentive leave pay. Noteworthy is the fact that the complainant. 9 January 1992.R. 96078.the award be based on the P300. (Emphasis in the original) 33 In the case of NFLU v. But while this Court may relax the observance of reglementary periods and technical rules . 218 SCRA 366. Technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely 36 resolving the rights and obligations of the parties. APRIL 29. 457.R. herein respondentsappellants requested in their memorandum on appeal that the Commission fixes (sic) the amount of the bond..‰ (Notice and Memorandum on Appeal dated 24 December 32 1993. 394.00 per column/article basis. 163. 205 SCRA 69. the law does admit of exceptions when warranted by the circumstances. 2 February 1993. p. to wit: „x x x Respondents-appellants however manifest that they are able and willing to post a bond that this Commission may fix if the latter finds it necessary. 196 SCRA 833. 36 Buenaobra vs. Sr. otherwise the running of the prescriptive period for perfecting an appeal will not be tolled. Austria-Martinez. without giving due course to the petition. p. whereupon. 296 SCRA 38. 24 September 1998. No. citing Arnold Ginete v. Labor Arbiter ordered to clarify amount due to petitioner. G. 35 Id. 127596.·An appeal from the Labor ArbiterÊs decision to the NLRC may be taken (1) by filing a verified memorandum of appeal and (2) by paying the appeal fees filed within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of a decision. Court of Appeals.R. Notes. concur. 33 G. Hon.R. 420 SCRA 359. 364.. both of which requisites must be satisfied. 94540-41. WHEREFORE. and Chico-Nazario. Fifth Division 37 tice. Private respondents ordered to post bond.R. award or order of the Labor Arbiter. Lim King Guan. No.to achieve substantial jus- _______________ 32 Rollo. 34 Ibid. 20 January 2004. JJ. 710 710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Orozco vs. Private respondents are ordered to post the requisite bond in accordance with Article 223 of the Labor Code. 150147. Puno (Chairman). No pronouncement as to costs. Court of Appeals. the petition will be given due course. Nos. 8 May 1991. 270 SCRA 227 [1997]) . SO ORDERED. it is not prepared to give due course to this petition and make a pronouncement on the weighty issue obtaining in this case until the law has been duly complied with and the requisite appeal bond duly paid by private respondents. National Labor Relations Commission. (Luna vs. 140.. the Labor Arbiter is hereby ordered to clarify the amount of the award due the petitioner. Callejo. G. 711 © Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply. . Icawat. All rights reserved. 338 SCRA 648 [2000]) ··o0o·· _______________ 37 Ibid. (Basas vs. Inc. A lawyerÊs failure to file the memorandum of appeal required by the NLRC Rules of Procedure reveals his poor grasp of labor law.