G.R. No. 101641. May 31, 1993
VENANCIO DIOLA, AMADO SAMOY, REMIGIO CANDARI, DELFIN SINUTO, JOSE MADDALORA, REYNALDO FANG, JOVITO CABALLERO, DIOSDADO MULACRUZ, IGMANILBER NALUPANO AND IRENEO JAMIN, PETITIONE…
GRIÑO–AQUINO, J.:
The issue for resolution is whether or not public respondent
National Labor Relations Commission 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.
The antecedent facts as summarized by the Solicitor General are:
“The petitioners were former regular security guards of the
Retired Army Protective and Security Agency Inc. (RAPSA) when they filed on
September 24, 1986 complaints against RAPSA and its President and Director,
Herminia Crisologo, and Ms. Malou Alviar for illegal deduction, underpayment
of wages, overtime pay, legal holiday pay, premium pay for rest day, unpaid
differential and allowances pursuant to Wage Orders Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6, shoe
allowances and separation pay. In their
Position Paper filed on December 16, 1986, petitioners impleaded private
respondent ESA Protective and Security Agency (ESAPSA).
“Private respondent ESAPSA’s principal contention was that
petitioners were not its employees, ESAPSA allegedly being a corporation
separate and distinct from RAPSA. Ms.
Malou Alviar insisted that she was neither a Director nor an employee of
RAPSA, but only of ESAPSA.
“On February 26, 1990, Labor Arbiter Ricardo C. Nora, applying
the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity, and finding that RAPSA
and ESAPSA were indeed one and the same, declared that justice and equity
dictate that RAPSA, ESAPSA, Ms. Herminia A. Crisologo and Ms. Malou Alviar were
jointly and severally liable to petitioners’ monetary claims. Hence, it disposed:
“‘WHEREFORE, respondent RAPSA, ESAPSA, Ms. Herminia A.
Crisologo and Ms. Malou Alviar are hereby ordered to pay the following
complainants the monetary award opposite their names jointly and severally, to
wit:
VENANCIO
DIOLA P20,136.00
REMEGIO
CANDARI 16,832.29
AMADO
SAMOY 15,930.86
DELFIN
SINUTO 15,928.95
JOSE
MADALLORA 19,395.50
REYNALDO
FANG 17,136.29
JOVITO
CABALLERO 13,275.85
DIOSDADO
MULACRUZ 5,497.00
IGMANILBER
NALUPANO 16,499.20
IRENEO
JAMIN 14,421.00
TOTAL 155,052.94
within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision.’
“Private respondents ESAPSA and Ms. Malou Alviar were notified
of the Decision on April 3, 1990. On
April 10, 1990, private respondents filed their Memorandum on Appeal, without,
however, posting the requisite bond for the monetary judgment of P155,052.94.
“On April 18, 1990, petitioners moved for execution of the
Labor Arbiter’s Decision. On April 20,
1990, petitioners filed their Opposition to the Memorandum on Appeal, principally
raising the issue that the appeal of private respondents had not been perfected
for failure to post the requisite bond within the reglementary period, hence,
the judgment appealed from had become final and executory.
“On April 26, 1990, private respondents belatedly posted their
bond in the amount of one hundred fifty five thousand fifty two pesos and
94/100 (P155,052.94), allegedly in compliance with R.A. No. 6715.
“Subsequently, on November 2, 1990, petitioners filed a
‘Motion to Dismiss Appeal and to Remand Records for Execution,’ raising the
same issue of non-perfection of the appeal. No action was made on the same.
“On August 2, 1991, without touching on the issue regarding
the timeliness of the appeal, public respondent issued the questioned
Resolution modifying the Labor Arbiter’s Decision and disposed:
“‘WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from
is hereby affirmed with modification in that ESAPSA and Malou Alviar are
absolved from any liability anent the money awards due herein
complainants.'” (pp. 98-101, Rollo.)
Hence, this petition.
The issues raised and to be resolved in this instance are:
1. whether or not public
respondent 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;
2. whether or not private
respondents ESAPSA and Alviar may be held jointly and severally liable with
their co-defendant RAPSA for petitioners’ monetary claim.
The petition must fail.
The New Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations
Commission, which among others implemented the provisions of R.A. 6715, were
adopted and promulgated only on August 31, 1990 in Cebu City, Philippines.
The effectivity clause of the New Rules provide that “These
New Rules shall take effect fifteen (15) days after
their publication in two (2) newspapers
of general circulation.” (Underlining supplied.) The
New Rules were published in The Manila Bulletin on September 24, 1990. Thus, the New Rules of Procedure became
effective only on October 9, 1990.
When respondents-appellants’ appeal memorandum became due in
April, 1990, the New Rules of Procedure were not yet in
effect. Prior to the effectivity
of those Rules, the filing of a surety bond was not required for the perfection
of an appeal to the NLRC. The NLRC correctly refrained from dismissing the respondents’
appeal on that score.
On the issue regarding the liability of ESAPSA for the petitioners’
money claims against RAPSA, the NLRC in its decision, held:
“The Labor Arbiter x x x erroneously conjured that something
binds RAPSA and ESAPSA, based on the phrases contained in the letter, dated 4
August, 1986, sent by respondent Malou Alviar to China Banking Corporation, to
wit:
“‘x x x. The latter
agency will in turn take over all obligations and responsibilities of RAPSA, x
x x. We propose that we merely
substitute the name of ESAPSA for that of RAPSA in our new contract. The RAPSA officers and guards who are
presently assigned to your bank will all be absorbed by ESAPSA.’
“Without the omitted portions, the letter reads as follows:
“‘All our corporate and administrative
officials have had extensive and long
experience in operating and managing security
agencies. May we, therefore,
propose and request that your present
security contract with RAPSA be transferred
to our agency ESAPSA. The latter agency will in turn take over all obligations and
responsibilities of RAPSA. ESAPSA
is willing that the terms and conditions
of present security contract with RAPSA
will be the same as the contract
we will sign and execute with you
including the present contract rate. We propose that we merely substitute the
name ESAPSA for that of RAPSA in our new contract. The RAPSA officers and guards who are presently assigned to your
bank will be absorbed by ESAPSA.’ (Underscoring supplied).
“A careful review of the whole text of the letter, without the
expressly omitted portions, which are underlined would indicate that ESAPSA was
merely more than willing to give China Banking Corporation the same composition
of security guards, if the Bank was satisfied with services of the present
complement. The obligations and
responsibilities spoken of clearly refer to the obligation of RAPSA to the bank
and was never meant to assume the obligation of RAPSA to the security guards,
since the purpose was to solicit a client, not to recruit the security
guards. The letter was not to appease
the security guards, but to assure a prospective client of worthwhile
services.” (pp. 60-61, Rollo.)
These factual findings of the NLRC are not correctible by certiorari
(Manila Hotel Corp. vs. NLRC, 141 SCRA 169). In fact they are binding on this Court in the absence of any showing
that they are completely without any support in the evidence on record.
WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion nor excess
of jurisdiction in the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission,
the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, (Chairman), Bellosillo, and
Quiason, JJ., concur.