Você está na página 1de 6

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the petition is

SECOND DIVISION
hereby GRANTED. The assailed decision of the public
respondent NLRC affirming the decision of the Labor
[G.R. No. 155207. April 29, 2005] Arbiter that private respondent Wilhelmina Orozco is an
employee of petitioner PDI is hereby SET ASIDE.
WILHELMINA S. OROZCO, petitioner, vs. THE
Private respondent Orozcos complaint is hereby
FIFTH DIVISION OF THE HONORABLE DISMISSED for lack of merit.
COURT OF APPEALS, PHILIPPINE
DAILY INQUIRER, AND LETICIA SO ORDERED. [3]

JIMENEZ MAGSANOC, respondents.


The above ruling of the Court of Appeals
RESOLUTION reversed the Decision of the National Labor
[4]

TINGA, J.: Relations Commission (NLRC) which affirmed


the Decision of the Labor Arbiter, the decretal
[5] [6]

Ostensibly, the question raised in this present portion of which stated:


petition is of general interest to students of
lawwhether a newspaper columnist is an employee WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, finding
of the newspaper which publishes the columns. complainant to be an employee of respondent company;
However, for failure to file the appeal bond ordering respondent company to reinstate her to her
required by law, the Court is impelled to defer the former or equivalent position, with backwages.
settlement of the above issue until the jurisdictional
requirement has been duly complied with. Respondent company is also ordered to pay her
13th month pay and service incentive leave pay.
This Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court assails the Resolution of the Court
[1]
Other claims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
of Appeals Fifth Division denying the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by Wilhelmina Orozco SO ORDERED. [7]

(Orozco) and the Decision of the same division in


[2]

CA-G.R. SP No. 50970, the dispositive portion of This case arose out of the complaint filed by
which provides: Orozco against private respondents Philippine
Daily Inquirer (PDI) and Leticia Jimenez-Magsanoc Eugenia Apostol (Apostol), the chairperson of PDI,
(Magsanoc), the editor-in-chief of the PDI at that who had decided to stop her column. [13]

time, for illegal dismissal, underpayment, non-


Apostol was out of the country at that time so
payment of allowance, separation pay, retirement
Orozco waited until February 1993 to talk to her. In
pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay,
a telephone conversation with Orozco, Apostol
moral and exemplary damages, discrimination in
stated that she had been told by Magsanoc that
pay and for attorneys fees with the Arbitration
[8]

there were too many columnists in the Lifestyle


Branch of the NLRC on 1 June 1993. [9]

Section. [14]

Based on the records of this case, Orozco was


Aggrieved at the stoppage of her column,
engaged as a columnist by PDI on 8 March 1990.
Orozco filed the instant case against private
She penned the column Feminist Reflections
respondents before the NLRC. The PDI raised as
which appeared in the Lifestyle Section under the
primary defense the claim that Orozco was not an
editorship of Lolita T. Logarta. [10]

employee of the newspaper. However, in


Orozco worked by submitting weekly columns a Decision dated 29 October 1993, Labor Arbiter
with a per article wage of Two Hundred Fifty Pesos Arthur L. Amansec ruled that Orozco had been
(P250.00) which was later increased to Three illegally dismissed, after concluding that Orozco
hundred Pesos (P300.00). [11]
had indeed been an employee of the PDI.
In June 1991, Magsanoc as editor-in-chief of The PDI, through counsel, received a copy of
PDI discussed how to improve the Lifestyle section the Labor Arbiters Decision on 16 December
of the newspaper with the Lifestyle editor. They 1993. It
[15]
timely filed a Notice and
agreed to cut down the number of columnists and Memorandumdated 24 December 1993, but it did
for this reason, PDI decided to drop or terminate not lodge a cash or surety bond in the amount
Orozcos column in November 1992. [12]
equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment
appealed from. PDI adverted to such failure on its
Orozcos column thus appeared in PDI for the
part before the NLRC but justified the same on the
last time on 7 November 1992. Upon inquiry at the
ground that the Decision of the Labor Arbiter did
office of Magsanoc as to why her column was
not fix any amount but merely stated that Orozco
stopped, the secretary told Orozco that it was
was entitled to backwages.
The NLRC dismissed the appeal in their failure to file a cash bond or a surety bond as
its Decision dated 23 August 1994. In provided for in Article 223 of the Labor Code.
this Decision, it made note of the failure of PDI to
In support of the argument, Orozco contends
perfect the appeal by filing the cash or surety
that a grievous error tantamount to grave abuse of
bond. Nonetheless, the NLRC ventured to delve on
discretion was committed by the Court of Appeals
the merits, and thereupon, affirmed the finding of
when it failed to appreciate the observation of the
the Labor Arbiter that Orozco was an employee of
NLRC that private respondents did not perfect their
PDI.
appeal as they did not deposit on time any cash or
Private respondents elevated the case to the surety bond in compliance with the provision of Art.
Supreme Court by way of the special civil action of 223 of the Labor Code when they filed an appeal
certiorari. Pursuant to the ruling in St. Martin of the Labor Arbiters decision at the NLRC. Orozco
Funeral Homes v. NLRC, this Court referred the
[16]
argues that the posting of the cash or surety bond
case to the Court of Appeals. is mandatory and must be made by the employer
within the reglementary period of ten (10) days
On 11 July 2002, the Court of Appeals
from receipt of the Labor Arbiters decision so as to
reversed the decision of the NLRC by holding that
perfect his appeal. Failing to do so, the employer
Orozco is not an employee of PDI. The reversal
loses the right to appeal, and the Labor Arbiters
was grounded on factual premises, the appellate
decision becomes final and executory, regardless
court concluding that the NLRC had
of whether or not the NLRC declares it so, by
misappreciated the facts and rendered a ruling
operation of law.[17]

wanting in substantial evidence. It thereby


dismissed Orozcos complaint for lack of merit. The The NLRC in its decision concluded that it had
Court of Appeals likewise dismissed Orozcos no jurisdiction over PDIs appeal but proceeded
motion for reconsideration on 11 September 2002. nonetheless to discuss the merits of the case. On
Hence, this petition. the other hand, the Court of Appeals made no
mention at all of the jurisdictional defect, whether
In her Memorandum, Orozco posits that the
in its recital of facts or discussion of the
Court of Appeals should have dismissed outright
arguments.
the private respondents petition for certiorari for
The novelty of the argument on the merits The requirement that the employer post a cash or surety
aside, it is essential not to lose sight of the bond to perfect its/his appeal is apparently intended to
jurisdictional issue, as it determines whether or not assure the workers that if they prevail in the case, they
an appeal had indeed been perfected. will receive the money judgment in their favor upon the
dismissal of the employer's appeal. It was intended to
The provisions of the Labor Code are quite
discourage employers from using an appeal to delay, or
clear cut on the matter. The relevant portion of
even evade, their obligation to satisfy their employees'
Article 223 states:
just and lawful claims.
[19]

ART. 223. Appeal. - Decisions, awards or orders of the


But while the posting of a cash or surety bond
Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to
is jurisdictional and is a condition sine qua non to
the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10)
the perfection of an appeal, there is a plethora of
calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or
jurisprudence recognizing exceptional instances
orders. . .
wherein the Court relaxed the bond requirement as
In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an a condition for posting the appeal.
appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon In Olacao v. NLRC for example, the NLRC
[20]

the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a had discovered that the separation pay awarded
reputable bonding company duly accredited by the by the Labor Arbiter had already been paid by the
Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary employer. Since a modification of the Labor
award in the judgment appealed from. (emphasis Arbiters Decision was the only way to forestall the
supplied) grant of separation pay twice, the NLRC allowed
the appeal perfected only on the twelfth (12th)
By explicit provision of law, an appeal is day. In Cosico, Jr. v. NLRC, the employer timely
[21] [22]

perfected only upon the posting of a cash or posted the bond based on the monetary award for
surety bond. The reason behind the imposition of back wages and thirteenth month pay, but
this requirement is not difficult to divine. As the excluding the exorbitant award for moral and
Court said in Viron Garments Mftg., Co., Inc. v. exemplary damages. The Court ruled that there
NLRC: [18]
was substantial compliance, owing to the fact that
the NLRC had since excluded the award of
damages from the computation of the surety As a rule, compliance with the requirements for the
bond. And in Star Angel Handicraft v. NLRC, the
[23] [24]
perfection of an appeal within the reglamentary period
Court noted that a motion for reduction of the is mandatory and jurisdictional. However, in National
appeal bond had been filed within the Federation of Labor Unions v. Ladrido as well as in
reglementary period, and that the appeal should several other cases, this Court relaxed the requirement
not be deemed perfected until the NLRC has acted of the posting of an appeal bond within the
on the motion and the appellant has filed the bond reglementary period as a condition for perfecting the
as fixed by the NLRC. [25]
appeal. This is in line with the principle that substantial
justice is better served by allowing the appeal to be
In YBL v. NLRC, the appeal was interposed
[26]

resolved on the merits rather than dismissing it based on


by the employers on 11 September 1989, or only
a technicality.
[31]

six (6) days from the effectivity of the Interim Rules


on Appeals which incorporated for the first time the
The judgment of the Labor Arbiter in this case
appeal bond requirement imposed by Republic Act
merely stated that petitioner was entitled to
No. 6715, an amendatory law to the Labor Code. backwages, 13th month pay and service incentive
The Court therein considered the apparent fact
leave pay without however including a computation
that neither the counsel for the employer nor that
of the alleged amounts. As the private respondents
for the employee was already aware of the then asserted in their motion for reconsideration anent
new requirement requiring the posting of a bond on
the NLRC decision:
appeal. The same justification was cited with
[27]

approval by the Court in Blancaflor v. NLRC, and[28]


III. NO BOND WAS FILED BECAUSE OF
the same circumstance is likewise apparent THE VAGUENESS OF THE AWARD
in Rada v. NLRC. [29]

In the case of Taberrah v. NLRC, the Court


[30] The award as contained in the appealed 29 October
made note of the fact that the assailed decision of 1993 decision did not state the exact amount to be
the Labor Arbiter concerned did not contain a awarded. In particular, while it may be assumed, as
computation of the monetary award due the stated in the decision subject of this motion, the award
employees, a circumstance which is likewise be based on the P300.00 per column/article basis, this is
present in this case. In said case, the Court stated, 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 exceptions when warranted by the circumstances.
complainant, not being an employee, was not being paid Technicality should not be allowed to stand in the
a fixed salary. Hence, herein respondents-appellants way of equitably and completely resolving the
requested in their memorandum on appeal that the rights and obligations of the parties. But while this
[36]

Commission fixes (sic) the amount of the bond, if it Court may relax the observance of reglementary
finds the same necessary in exceptional cases like the periods and technical rules to achieve substantial
present case, to wit: justice, it is not prepared to give due course to
[37]

this petition and make a pronouncement on the


xxx Respondents-appellants however manifest that they weighty issue obtaining in this case until the law
are able and willing to post a bond that this Commission has been duly complied with and the requisite
may fix if the latter finds it necessary. (Notice and appeal bond duly paid by private respondents.
Memorandum on Appeal dated 24 December 1993, p.
7). (Emphasis in the original)
[32]
WHEREFORE, without giving due course to
the petition, the Labor Arbiter is hereby ordered to
In the case of NFLU v. Ladrido III, this Court
[33] clarify the amount of the award due the petitioner.
postulated that private respondents cannot be Private respondents are ordered to post the
expected to post such appeal bond equivalent to requisite bond in accordance with Article 223 of the
the amount of the monetary award when the Labor Code, whereupon, the petition will be given
amount thereof was not included in the decision of due course. No pronouncement as to costs.
the labor arbiter. The computation of the amount
[34]
SO ORDERED.
awarded to petitioner not having been clearly
stated in the decision of the labor arbiter, private Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo,
respondents had no basis for determining the Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concu
amount of the bond to be posted.
Thus, 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, the law does admit of
[35]