SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 195513, June 22, 2015
MARLON BEDUYA, ROSARIO DUMAS* ALEX LEONOZA, RAMBLO FAJARDO, HARLAN LEONOZA, ALVIN ABUYOT, DEVDO URSABIA,** BERNIE BESONA, ROMEO ONANAD,*** ARMANDO LIPORADA,**** FRANKFER ODULIO, MARCELO MATA, ALEX COLOCADO, JOJO PACATANG, RANDY GENODIA AND ISABINO B. ALARMA, JR.,****** PETITIONERS, VS. ACE PROMOTION AND MARKETING CORPORATION AND GLEN******** HERNANDEZ, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises all considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the dismissal illegal and ordering respondents, as follows:Proceedings before the National Labor Relations CommissionThe computation of the monetary award as computed by the Computation Division of this Office is attached hereto and forms part of this decision.
- To reinstate complainants to their former position with full backwages to be reckoned from the date of their dismissal up to the finality of this decision.
- In the alternative, to pay them x x x their backwages plus separation pay equivalent to half month salary for every year of service if employment is no longer tenable.
- To pay the named eighteen (18) employees x x x their unpaid ECOLA for one (1) year.
- To pay complainants x x x their unpaid wages for fifteen (15) days.
- To pay moral damages in the amount of P10,000.00 each.
- To pay exemplary damages [in] the [amount] of P5,000.00 each.
- To pay attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award.
SO ORDERED.14
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered GRANTING the instant appeal. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 24 April 2008 is hereby reversed and set aside, and a new one is issued dismissing the complaint. Respondents-Appellants are, however, directed to cause the immediate satisfaction of complainants-appellees' unpaid wages for fifteen (15) days and ECOLA for one (1) year.In their Motion for Reconsideration,21 complainants maintained that the P437,210.00 appeal bond is insufficient and unreasonable in relation to the total monetary award of P6,269,856.89, which should have warranted the dismissal of respondents' appeal. Complainants likewise pointed out that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it did not resolve respondents' motion to reduce bond and their opposition thereto with motion to dismiss before rendering its decision granting the appeal. Complainants' Motion for Reconsideration was, however, denied by the NLRC in its Resolution22 dated August 4,2009.
SO ORDERED.20
Complainants' Motion for Reconsideration25 was denied by the CA in its Resolution26 of February 3, 2011.chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryThus, petitioners, from among all the complainants, are now before this Court through the present Petition.
WHETHER XXX THE FILING OF APPEAL WITH MOTION TO REDUCE APPEAL BOND WILL TOLL THE RUNNING OF THE PERIOD TO PERFECT AN APPEALFor respondents' alleged failure to comply with the jurisdictional requirements on appeal bonds, petitioners maintain that the NLRC did not acquire jurisdiction over respondents' appeal. Moreover, they claim that the NLRC erred in resolving the merits of the appeal without first ruling on respondents' motion to reduce appeal bond and their opposition thereto with motion to dismiss.(b)
WHETHER X X X AN APPEAL BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF P473,210.00 IS REASONABLE IN RELATION TO [A POSSIBLE] MONETARY AWARD OF P6,269,856.00(c)
WHETHER XXX THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE LABOR ARBITER IS DEEMED FINAL AND EXECUTORY AS THE APPEAL WAS NOT PERFECTED(d)
WHETHER X X X IT IS PROCEDURALLY CORRECT TO PASS JUDGMENT ON A CASE WHEN THERE IS STILL A PENDING MOTION TO BE RESOLVED27
ART. 223. Appeal. — Decisions, 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, awards, or orders. Such appeal may be entertained only on any of the following grounds:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryWhile Sections 4(a) and 6 of Rule VI of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC provide:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(a) If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter;
(b) If the decision, order or award was secured through fraud or coercion, including graft and corruption;
(c) If made purely on questions of law; and
(d) If serious errors in the finding of facts are raised which would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.
In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, 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.
x x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
SECTION 4. REQUISITES FOR PERFECTION OF APPEAL. - (a) The Appeal shall be: 1) filed within the reglementary period as provided in Section 1 of this Rule; 2) verified by appellant himself in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as amended; 3) in the form of a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof, the relief prayed for, and with a statement of the date the appellant received the appealed decision, resolution or order; 4) in three (3) legibly written or printed copies; and 5) accompanied by i) proof of payment of the required appeal fee; ii) posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; iii) a certificate of non-forum shopping; and iv) proof of service upon the other parties.It is thus clear from the foregoing that the filing of supersedeas bond for the perfection of an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional and failure to comply with this requirement renders the decision of the Labor Arbiter final and executory.28 However, this Court, in many cases,29 has relaxed this stringent requirement whenever justified. Thus, the rules, specifically Section 6 of Rule VI of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, allows the reduction of the appeal bond subject to the conditions that: (1) the motion to reduce the bond shall be based on meritorious grounds; and (2) a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award is posted by the appellant. Otherwise, the filing of a motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal. Still, the rule that the filing of a motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal is not absolute.30 The Court may relax the rule under certain exceptional circumstances which include fundamental consideration of substantial justice, prevention of miscarriage of justice or of unjust enrichment and special circumstances of the case combined with its legal merits, and the amount and the issue involved.31 Indeed, in meritorious cases, the Court was propelled to relax the requirements relating to appeal bonds such as when there are valid issues raised in the appeal32 and in the absence of any valid claims against the employer.33chanrobleslaw
xxxx
SECTION 6. BOND. - In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a bond which shall either be in the form of cash deposit or surety bond equivalent in amount to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorney's fees.
xxxx
No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on meritorious grounds, and only upon the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.
The mere filing of a motion to reduce bond without complying with the requisites in the preceding paragraphs shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
We find and so rule that private respondents are independent contractors, and petitioners were deployed to Delfi Foods to render various services. This was admitted by petitioners during the proceedings before the labor tribunal. The relationship between the parties is governed by the Employment Contract which petitioners voluntarily signed before being deployed at Delfi Foods.WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The November 30, 2010 Decision and February 3, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 111536 are AFFIRMED.
The NLRC extensively quoted the aforesaid contract which primarily provided that petitioners' employment was for a fixed period, that is, from 1 December 2006 until 30 January 2007. Significantly, no allegations were made that petitioners were forced or pressured into affixing their signatures upon the contract. There is likewise no concrete proof that private respondents prevailed upon petitioners, exercising moral dominance over the latter, to accept the conditions set forth in the said contract. Having accepted the terms thereof, petitioners were bound by its unequivocal stipulation that their employment was not permanent, but would expire at the end of the fixed period.41
Endnotes:
* Also referred to as Rosario Dumain in some parts of the records.
** Also referred to as Dindo Orsabia in some parts of the records.
*** Also referred to as Romeop Onanab in some parts of the records.
**** Also referred to as Armando Liforada in some parts of the records.
***** Per Special Order No. 2067 dated June 22, 2015.
****** Petitioners Rosario Dumas, Ramilo Fajardo, Romeo Onanad, Alex Colocado, Jojo Pacatang and Isabino B. Alarma, Jr. did not sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping in the Petition before this Court. However, we find no need to drop them as parties in view of our disposition denying the present Petition and affirming the assailed CA Decision and Resolution.
******* Per Special Order No. 2056 dated June 10, 2015.
******** Also referred to as Glenn Hernandez in some parts of the records.
1Rollo, pp. 14-31.
2 CA rollo, pp. 248-256; penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and concurred in by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion.
3 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 220-238; penned by Presiding Commissioner Benedicto R. Palacol and concurred in by Commissioner Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra, with Commissioner Nieves E. Vivar-De Castro, dissenting.
4 Id. at 307-310.
5 Id. at. 203-213; penned by Labor Arbiter Ramon Valentin C. Reyes.
6 CA rollo, pp. 273-274.
7 Records, Vol. I, pp. 87-93.
8 Also referred to as Delfi Foods, Inc. in some parts of the records.
9 Records, Vol. I, pp. 94-127 and 200.
10 Id. at 128.
11 Id. at 2-5, 14-15 and 23.
12 Id. at 28-34; signed by only 26 out of the 34 employees who filed the same.
13 Id. at 203-213.
14 Id. at 212-213.
15 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 3-35.
16 Id. at 595-603.
17 Id. at 605.
18 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 248-249.
19 Id. at 220-238.
20 Id. at 237.
21 Id. at 240-249.
22 Id. at 307-310.
23 CA rollo, pp. 3-18.
24 Id. at 248-256.
25 Id. at 257-260.
26 Id. at 273-274.
27Rollo, p. 22.
28Quiambao v. National Labor Relations Commission, 324 Phil. 455,461 (1996).
29Grand Asian Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Galvez, G.R. No. 178184, January 29, 2014, 715 SCRA 1; Mendoza v. HMS Credit Corporation, G.R. No. 187232, April 17, 2013, 696 SCRA 794; Pasig Cylinder Manufacturing, Corporation v. Rollo, G.R. No. 113631, September 8, 2010, 630 SCRA 320; Nicol v. Footjoy Industrial Corporation, 555 Phil. 275 (2007); Nueva Ecija I Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 380 Phil. 44 (2000); Rosewood Processing, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 352 Phil. 1013 (1998); Fernandez v. National Labor Relations Commission, 349 Phil. 65 (1998); and, Manila Mandarin Employees Union v. National Labor Relations Commission, 332 Phil. 354 (1996).
30Garcia v. KJ Commercial, G.R. No. 196830, February 29, 2012, 667 SCRA 396, 411.
31Intertranz Container Lines, Inc. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 187693, July 13, 2010, 625 SCRA 75, 84.
32YBL (Your Bus Line) v. National Labor Relations Commission, 268 Phil. 169, 173-174. (1990).
33Semblante v. Court of Appeals, 19th Division, G.R. No. 196426, August 15, 2011, 655 SCRA 444, 451-452.
34 G.R. No. 192650, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA 561, 574-578.
35 Although as alleged by respondents, there were indeed nine complainants who withdrew their complaints, two of them were already among the other eight complainants who failed to verify the Position Paper filed with the Labor Arbiter.
36 G.R. Nos. 178034 & 178117, 186984-85, October 17, 2013, 707 SCRA 646, 677.
37chanrobleslaw
A.
Total Monetary Award as computed by the Labor Arbiter P6,269,856.89Less: Attorney's Fees -569,986.99Total of the awards made in favor of the eights complainants who did not verify the Position Paper filed with Labor Arbiter and of the seven complainants who withdrew their complaints (See Table B) -2,423,649.60TOTAL MONETARY AWARD P3,276,220.30
B.
Complainants who did not verify the Position Paper filed with the Labor Arbiter Amount of Award1. Rex Antoque P149,064.142. Roberto Corpuz 149.064.143. Renato Premacio 166,074.644. Dindo Ursabia 158,866.145. Frederick Barquilla 180,777.646. Juanito Amado 170,975.647. Romeo Onanab 149,064.148. Rolando Soron 180,777.64Complainants who withdrew their complaints 1. Cecilio Bantilan 180,777.642. Nemesio Cordero 144,163.143. Gil Balbadores 180,777.644. Joey Gutierrez 161,173.645. Dionelito Cadiliz 153,965.146. Edgardo Abeleda 149,064.147. Rey Antonio Goncena 149.064.14TOTAL P2,423,649.60
See Computation of Monetary Awards as per Decision of Labor Arbiter Valentin C. Reyes, records, vol. I, pp. 213-A to 213-C.
38McBurnie v. Guanzon, supra note 36 at 672.
39 Opinaldo v. Ravina, G.R. No. 196573, October 16, 2013, 707 SCRA 545, 558.
40 NLRC REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE, Rule VII, Section 10.
41 CA rollo, pp. 253-254.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary