Diola v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners, former regular security guards of Retired Army Protective and Security Agency, Inc. (RAPSA), filed complaints against RAPSA, its President Herminia Crisologo, and Ms. Malou Alviar for various monetary claims including illegal deductions, underpayment of wages, overtime pay, and separation pay. They later impleaded ESA Protective and Security Agency (ESAPSA). ESAPSA and Ms. Alviar contended they were separate entities from RAPSA and that Ms. Alviar was not an employee of RAPSA. Labor Arbiter Ricardo C. Nora, piercing the corporate veil, found RAPSA, ESAPSA, Ms. Crisologo, and Ms. Alviar jointly and severally liable for the total monetary award of P155,052.94. 2. Procedural History: Private respondents ESAPSA and Ms. Alviar were notified of the Labor Arbiter's decision on April 3, 1990. They filed their Memorandum on Appeal on April 10, 1990, without posting the required surety bond. Petitioners moved for execution and opposed the appeal due to the lack of a perfected appeal bond. Private respondents belatedly posted the bond on April 26, 1990. Petitioners later filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and remand for execution, which was not acted upon. On August 2, 1991, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) issued a resolution modifying the Labor Arbiter's decision, absolving ESAPSA and Ms. Alviar from any liability, without addressing the timeliness of their appeal. 3. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, raising two issues: (1) whether the NLRC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction by entertaining the appeal despite the surety bond being filed 13 days after the ten-day appeal period expired, and (2) whether ESAPSA and Ms. Alviar could be held jointly and severally liable with RAPSA. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, which required a bond, were not yet effective at the time of the appeal. The Court also affirmed the NLRC's factual findings regarding the non-liability of ESAPSA and Ms. Alviar, stating these findings were supported by evidence and not correctible by certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction when it entertained private respondents' appeal although the surety bond required under Sec. 223 of the Labor Code was filed 13 days after the ten-day appeal period had expired. Whether private respondents ESAPSA and Alviar may be held jointly and severally liable with their co-defendant RAPSA for petitioners' monetary claim.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion nor excess of jurisdiction in the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the timeliness of the appeal and the surety bond: The Court held that the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, which implemented R.A. 6715 and required a surety bond for appeals, were promulgated on August 31, 1990, and became effective on October 9, 1990. Since the appeal memorandum was due in April 1990, prior to the effectivity of the New Rules, the filing of a surety bond was not yet a requirement for the perfection of an appeal to the NLRC. Therefore, the NLRC correctly refrained from dismissing the respondents' appeal on that ground. The Court emphasized that the rules in effect at the time the appeal was filed govern the perfection of the appeal. The belated posting of the bond did not cure the defect if the bond was indeed required at that time, but since it was not, the NLRC's action was justified. On the issue of the liability of ESAPSA and Alviar: The Court affirmed the factual findings of the NLRC, which are not correctible by certiorari absent a showing that they are without support in the evidence. The NLRC, in its decision, carefully reviewed the letter cited by the Labor Arbiter and concluded that ESAPSA was merely offering to provide the same security personnel to a prospective client (China Banking Corporation) and was not assuming RAPSA's obligations to its employees. The NLRC found that the phrase "The latter agency will in turn take over all obligations and responsibilities of RAPSA" referred to RAPSA's obligations to the bank, not to its security guards. The Court deferred to these factual findings, stating that they were binding on the Supreme Court.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a surety bond was not required for the perfection of an appeal to the NLRC prior to the effectivity of the New Rules of Procedure, which took effect on October 9, 1990. Therefore, an appeal filed before this date, even without a bond, could still be entertained.