RAMIREZ V.

CA (December 4, 2009)
FACTS:
 Mario Valcueba filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of wages
against Hilario Ramirez.
o Valcueba claimed that Ramirez hired him as a mechanic. He was not paid
for rest days or holidays, and was not given his complete 13th month pay.
o Valcueba was told by Ramirez’ secretary that he would not be allowed to
returned to work unless he agreed to work on pakyaw basis.
 Ramirez contends that Valcueba intended to abandon his job, and was never
fired.
 LA: ruled in favor of Ramirez.
Ramirez filed an MR with Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond.
o NLRC: Denied. (No Bond.)
 CA: Dismissed for Ramirez’ failure to properly verify his petition and to state
material dates.
ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the NLRC was proper.
HELD: YES.
 The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a
statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by and in
accordance with the provisions of law.
 ART. 223 LC:
o Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory
unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. Such
appeal may be entertained only on any of the following grounds:xxx
o In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the
employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety
bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the
Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the
judgment appealed from.
 Under the Rules, appeals involving monetary awards are perfected only upon
compliance with the following mandatory requisites, namely: (1) payment of the
appeal fees; (2) filing of the memorandum of appeal; and (3) payment of the
required cash or surety bond.
 The posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases
involving monetary awards from the decision of the labor arbiter.
 The word "only" in Articles 223 of the Labor Code makes it unmistakably plain
that the lawmakers intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the
employer to be the essential and exclusive means by which an employer's
appeal may be perfected. The word "may" refers to the perfection of an appeal
as optional on the part of the defeated party, but not to the compulsory posting of
an appeal bond, if he desires to appeal. The meaning and the intention of the
legislature in enacting a statute must be determined from the language
employed; and where there is no ambiguity in the words used, then there is no
room for construction.
  Clearly, the filing of the bond is not only mandatory but also a jurisdictional
requirement that must be complied with in order to confer jurisdiction upon the
NLRC. Non-compliance with the requirement renders the decision of the Labor
Arbiter final and executory.

OLISA V. ESCARIO (September 27, 2010)

FACTS:
 Petitioners were regular employees of the Pinakamasarap Corporation. They
were members of the Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Balanced
Foods.
 All officers and some 200 members of the Union walked out of PINA’s premises
and proceeded to the barangay office to show support for Juanito Cañete, an
officer of the Union charged with oral defamation by Aurora Manor, PINA’s
personnel manager.
o After reaching a settlement, the workers returned.
 PINA put everyone involved under preventive suspension. It then terminated
them after a month.
 PINA filed a complaint for unfair labor practices before the LA.
 LA: walkout was illegal.
 The Union filed a Notice of Strike. After the strike vote, a strike was held.
 PINA charged the Union with unfair labor practices and abandonment of work,
stating that they violated the CBA.
 NLRC issued TRO to enjoin Union from barricading entrance and exit to PINA
premises.
 LA: declared strike illegal.
 NLRC: sustained, but no abandonment.
o Art. 264 LC: the union officers who knowingly participate in the illegal
strike may be declared to have lost their employment status. However,
mere participation of a union member in the illegal strike does not mean
loss of employment status unless he participates in the commission of
illegal acts during the strike.
o There was no showing the Union deliberately refused to return to work.
 CA: affirmed.
ISSUE: WON petitioners were unlawfully dismissed.
HELD: NO.
 Art. 264: Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence
of an unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. Any
union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or
union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a
strike may be declared to have lost his employment status;
 LC authorizes the award of full backwages only when the termination of
employment is a consequence of an unlawful lockout. On the consequences of
an illegal strike, the provision distinguishes between a union officer and a union
member participating in an illegal strike.
o Union members more benignly treated
o Officers were then not illegally dismissed.
PHIL. TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CORP. V. NLRC (March 21, 1990)
FACTS:
 Bobby Toribiano was employed by PT&T as a counter-clerk and long distance
operator. He was then terminated for tampering with the vodex receipt by
changing the amount therein.
 Bobby claims that he tampered with the vodex receipt without malicious interest.
He claims that he was terminated without proper investigation and warning.
 LA: against PT&T, ordered to reinstate Bobby.
 NLRC affirmed.
ISSUE: WON Bobby was illegally dismissed.
HELD: YES.
 LA found that Bobby did commit a mistake in the entry receipt through
negligence, and that he repeatedly brought such to the attention of PT&T but was
ignored.
 Well entrenched is the rule that when the conclusions of the labor arbiter are
sufficiently corroborated by the evidence on record, the same should be
respected by appellate tribunals since he is in a better position to assess and
evaluate the credibility of the contending parties.
 This ruling is only in keeping with the constitutional mandate for the State to
afford full protection to labor such that, when conflicting interests of labor and
capital are to be weighed on the scales of social justice, the heavier influence of
the latter should be counterbalanced by the sympathy and compassion the law
must accord the underprivileged worker.

BAGUIO V. NLRC (October 4, 1991)

FACTS:
 Feliciano Lupo, a building contractor, entered into a contract with GMC for the
construction of an annex building inside the latter's plant in Cebu City.
 Lupo hired the petitioners as carpenters, masons, or laborers.
 Subsequently, Lupo terminated the petitioners’ services.
 Petitioners filed a complaint against Lupo and GMC for unpaid wages.
 LA: Lupo and GMC jointly and severally liable.
 NLRC: absolved Lupo and GMC.
ISSUE: WON respondents are solidarily liable to pay petitioners.
HELD: YES.
 Petitioner argues that under Art. 106 LC holds the employer jointly and severally
liable with his contractor for unpaid wages of employees of the latter.
 Art. 106 cannot be the basis for recovery since it treats “labor-only” contracts.
o A person is deemed to be engaged in "labor only" contracting where (1)
the person supplying workers to an employer does not have substantial
capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work
premises, among others; and (2) the workers recruited and placed by such
person are performing activities which are directly related to the principal
business of such employer.
 o Since the construction of an annex building inside the company plant has
no relation whatsoever with the employer's business of flour and feeds
manufacturing, "labor-only" contracting does not exist. Article 106 is thus
inapplicable.
 Art. 107 applies.
o Art. 107.Indirect Employer. — The provisions of the immediately
preceding Article shall likewise apply to any person, partnership,
association or corporation which, not being an employer, contracts with an
independent contractor for the performance of any work, task, job or
project.
 There is "job contracting" where (1) the contractor carries on an independent
business and undertakes the contract work on his own account under his own
responsibility according to his own manner and method, free from the control and
direction of his employer or principal in all matters connected with the
performance of the work except as to the results thereof; and (2) the contractor
has substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment,
machineries, work premises, and other materials which are necessary in the
conduct of his business.
 GMC is an indirect employer, and is solidarily liable with Lupo for the wages.

DBP V. NLRC (June 17, 1994)

FACTS:
 Private respondents were hired as security guards by CISCOR. They were
assigned to secure the premises of CISCOR’s clients, which included DBP.
 DBP assigned respondents to secure one of its assets, the Riverside Mills
Corporation.
 Private respondents resigned from CISCOR. They then claimed for the return of
the cash bond and payment for their 13th month pay and leave pay.
 Since CISCOR failed to pay, respondents filed a case for recovery.
 LA: ordered CISCOR to pay.
 NLRC: affirmed. Held DBP and CISCOR jointly and severally liable.
ISSUE: WON CISCOR and DBP are solidarily liable.
HELD: YES.
 Petitioner contends that Art. 106 cannot be applied since there was no failure on
the part of CISCOR and Medina, as direct employer, to pay the claims of private
respondents, but only a failure on the part of the latter to present the proper
clearance to pave the way for the payment of the claims.
o Nothing in said Article 106 indicates that insolvency or unwillingness to
pay by the contractor or direct employer is a prerequisite for the joint and
several liability of the principal or indirect employer. In fact, the rule is that
in job contracting, the principal is jointly and severally liable with the
contractor.