Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1993 > May 1993 Decisions > G.R. No. 101641 May 31, 1991

VENANCIO DIOLA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 101641. May 31, 1991.]

VENANCIO DIOLA, AMADO SAMOY, REMIGIO CANDARI, DELFIN SINUTO, JOSE MADDALORA, REYNALDO FANG, JOVITO CABALLERO, DIOSDADO MULACRUZ, IGMANILBER NALUPANO and IRENEO JAMIN, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), ESA PROTECTIVE AND SECURITY AGENCY AND MRS. MALOU ALVIAR, Respondents.

Emmanuel O. Sales, for Petitioners.

Pedro S. Eugenio for Private Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


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:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘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:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

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 (155,052.94), 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:red:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘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:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

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.chanrobles law library

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." (Emphasis 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:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Labor Arbiter . . . 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:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘. . . . The latter agency will in turn take over all obligations and responsibilities of RAPSA, . . . . 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:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘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.’ (Emphasis 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. v. 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.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

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, Bellosillo and Quiason, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1993 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 88167 May 3, 1993 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. TEODORO P. REGINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98442 May 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO FEROLINO

  • G.R. No. 103313 May 5, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO VERGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104404 May 6, 1993 - SPOUSES TIU PECK, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97169 May 10, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO KEMPIS

  • G.R. No. 101798 May 10, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 94469 May 11, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN VILLA

  • G.R. No. 94569 May 11, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE P. TANILON

  • G.R. No. 94754 May 11, 1993 - U-SING BUTTON AND BUCKLE INDUSTRY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96251 May 11, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL C. NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. 96795 May 11, 1993 - ANTONIO M. CORRAL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97189 May 11, 1993 - JISSCOR INDEPENDENT UNION v. RUBEN TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97788 May 11, 1993 - TEOFILA DE LUNA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 100225-26 May 11, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL N. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100480 May 11, 1993 - BLANCA CONSUELO ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95125 May 12, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO PAGSANJAN

  • G.R. No. 95890 May 12, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO PRECIOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97239 May 12, 1993 - INTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97838 May 12, 1993 - LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98242 May 12, 1993 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILS., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101315 May 12, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL L. DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 85867 May 13, 1993 - E. RAZON. INC. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. No. 98709 May 13, 1993 - MAGDALENA LLENARES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102970 May 13, 1993 - LUZAN SIA v. COURT OF APPEAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104405 May 13, 1993 - LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 94994-95 May 14, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LILIBETH P. CACO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95756 May 14, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISOLOGO EMPACIS

  • G.R. Nos. 102361-62 May 14, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY FRONDA

  • A.M. No. CA-91-3-P May 17, 1993 - ANSBERTO P. PAREDES v. FRANCISCO S. PADUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79021 May 17, 1993 - ROMEO S. CHUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85434 May 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO CRISOSTOMO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93199 May 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS AGUARINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94761 May 17, 1993 - MAERSK LINE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94977 May 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERTO YUMANG

  • G.R. No. 97218 May 17, 1993 - PROVIDENT SAVINGS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98382 May 17, 1993 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101124 May 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARMELINA C. TABAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101426 May 17, 1993 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102539 May 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ARGUELLES

  • G.R. No. 103125 May 17, 1993 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103805 May 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO KYAMKO

  • G.R. No. 73875 May 18, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSELITO AGBULOS

  • G.R. No. 73907 May 18, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUENAVENTURA ARUTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75906 May 18, 1993 - AMERICAN EXPRESS PHIL. LOCAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79089 May 18, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO BONDOY

  • G.R. No. 80078 May 18, 1993 - ATOK FINANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92504 May 18, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WELLI QUIÑONES

  • G.R. No. 95755 May 18, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE A. COLOMA

  • G.R. No. 97175 May 18, 1993 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98318 May 18, 1993 - HALILI INN, INCORPORATED v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100311 May 18, 1993 - JUANITO LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103219 May 18, 1993 - PETER PAUL PHILIPPINES CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-710-RTJ May 21, 1993 - FILOMENO R. NEGADO v. MANUEL E. AUTAJAY

  • A.M. No. 92-1-030-RTC May 21, 1993 - LOLITA HERNANDEZ LOY v. WILLIAM BADEN

  • G.R. No. L-46717 May 21, 1993 - ANTONIO BANZAGALES, ET AL. v. SPS. HERMINIA GALMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87667 May 21, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO S. QUETUA

  • G.R. No. 90257 May 21, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR CERVANTES

  • G.R. No. 92847 May 21, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CATALINO L. QUIMING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93947 May 21, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN ABIERA

  • G.R. No. 97028 May 21, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALICIA B. GAOAT

  • G.R. Nos. 98425-26 May 21, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO AGUILAR

  • G.R. No. 101831 May 21, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO A. BALIDIATA

  • G.R. Nos. 103442-45 May 21, 1993 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104285-86 May 21, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR R. ANGELES

  • G.R. No. 89252 May 24, 1993 - RAUL SESBREÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91436 May 24, 1993 - METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. QUILTS & ALL, INC.

  • G.R. No. 95775 May 24, 1993 - DANILO RABINO, ET AL. v. ADORA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97141-42 May 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCILO M. BERNARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97427 May 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO P. CRISOSTOMO

  • G.R. No. 100232 May 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO ALIB

  • G.R. No. 105907 May 24, 1993 - FELICIANO V. AGBANLOG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76951 May 25, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO MAESTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100525 May 25, 1993 - SOCORRO ABELLA SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 101804-07 May 25, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIMON RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105360 May 25, 1993 - PEDRO P. PECSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74189 May 26, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO V. ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97203 May 26, 1993 - ISIDRO CARIÑO, ET AL. v. IGNACIO M. CAPULONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98043 May 26, 1993 - BAGUIO COLLEGES FOUNDATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102314 May 26, 1993 - LEA O. CAMUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90342 May 27, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARIO C. MACASLING, JR.

  • G.R. No. 99327 May 27, 1993 - ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY, ET AL. v. IGNACIO M. CAPULONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 101189-90 May 27, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT S. SAN ANDRES

  • G.R. No. 101847 May 27, 1993 - LOURDES NAVARRO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104754 May 27, 1993 - GERMAN P. ZAGADA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 52080 May 28, 1993 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93722 May 28, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO M. GONZALES

  • G.R. No. 99054-56 May 28, 1993 - ERLINDA O. MEDINA, ET AL. v. CONSOLIDATED BROADCASTING SYSTEM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100771 May 28, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO PAMINTUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101310 May 28, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO A. BAY

  • G.R. No. 101522 May 28, 1993 - LEONARDO MARIANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102949-51 May 28, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS LAGNAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102996 May 28, 1993 - TOP MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103554 May 28, 1993 - TEODORO CANEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61154 May 31, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDINO "GODING" JOTOY

  • G.R. No. 94703 May 31, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO OLIQUINO

  • G.R. No. 96497 May 31, 1993 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100682 May 31, 1993 - GIL TAPALLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100947 May 31, 1993 - PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101005 May 31, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO G. CORPUZ

  • G.R. No. 101641 May 31, 1991

    VENANCIO DIOLA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105756 May 31, 1993 - SPS. LORETO CLARAVALL, ET AL. v. FLORENIO E. TIERRA, ET AL.