Facts:
The Redsystems Company, Inc. (TRCI) entered into several delivery and hauling agreements with Coca-Cola FEMSA Philippines (Coca-Cola). Meanwhile, TRCI engaged Macslink-PSV Services, Inc. to provide personnel for assisting TRCI’s employees in loading and unloading products. Macslink, employing Eduardo V. Macalino and others, ceased operations and terminated its workers on May 31, 2017. Consequently, 24 employees filed complaints for reinstatement with back wages and other monetary benefits before the labor arbiter.
On December 28, 2018, a Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of Macslink’s former employees, reasoning that TRCI was engaged in labor-only contracting, making Coca-Cola the true employer. Consequently, their termination, based on Macslink’s closure, was illegal. TRCI contested the decision, filing a partial appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) without posting the required appeal bond, resulting in dismissal of its appeal. After the NLRC denied a motion for reconsideration, TRCI petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for certiorari, which was dismissed, reiterating the need for an appeal bond. TRCI’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA.
TRCI elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that it was not liable for posting an appeal bond as it was not specifically declared an employer by the LA.
Issues:
1. Whether the CA accurately determined that NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing TRCI’s appeal for failure to post an appeal bond.
2. Whether TRCI, deemed a labor-only contractor, was required to post an appeal bond even though not directly declared an employer.
Court’s Decision:
1. The Supreme Court held that the CA did not err, and the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Both faithfully applied the law which clearly mandates the posting of an appeal bond equivalent to the monetary award for appeals involving monetary claims, thus warranting the case dismissal due to TRCI’s non-compliance.
2. TRCI’s argument that it should not post an appeal bond was rejected. The Court emphasized the statutory requirement that a labor-only contractor, declared by the LA as solidarily liable, must post an appeal bond due to its potential liability for monetary awards upon appeal success.
Doctrine:
The court reaffirmed that labor-only contractors declared solidarily liable must post an appeal bond equivalent to the judgment’s monetary award to perfect an appeal. This requirement ensures surety for workers’ claims and discourages frivolous appeals meant to delay the settlement.
Class Notes:
– Labor-Only Contracting: Considered when a contractor lacks capital/investment or performs tasks related to the main business of the employer.
– NLRC Appeals: A monetary award appeal requires an appeal bond equal to the award amount.
– Solidary Liability: A labor-only contractor shares responsibility with the main employer, necessitating an appeal bond for appeal perfection.
Historical Background:
During the 1980s labor reforms, notably Republic Act No. 6715, redefined employer-employee relationships, discouraging anomalous labor practices like labor-only contracting to safeguard workers’ rights. The decision reinforces these regulations by ensuring labor-only contractors, though not named employers, are still accountable under solidary liability regulations for employee benefits.
Leave a Reply