Case Digest (G.R. No. 106108)
Facts:
Cabalan Pastulan Negrito Labor Association (CAPANELA) and Jose Alviz, Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission and Fernando Sanchez, G.R. No. 106108, February 23, 1995, Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners CAPANELA and its president Jose Alviz, Sr. sought certiorari to annul two resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated February 28, 1992 and April 30, 1992 which dismissed their appeal from a labor arbiter's decision for failure to file a supersedeas bond and denied their motion for reconsideration; the petition assailed the resolutions as rendered with grave abuse of discretion.On January 3, 1991 private respondent Fernando Sanchez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, back wages and other benefits with the Department of Labor and Employment, Regional Office No. III (docketed NLRC Case No. RAB III-01-1931-91). He amended the complaint (Feb. 22, 1991) to correct the date of alleged dismissal and to seek reinstatement without loss of seniority and moral/exemplary damages. After mandatory pre-conference, position papers, and memoranda, Labor Arbiter Dominador B. Saludares rendered judgment on June 24, 1991 declaring the dismissal illegal, ordering back wages from March 24, 1990 to June 24, 1991 and reinstatement (or separation pay if reinstatement infeasible), but denying moral/exemplary damages.
Sanchez moved for writ of execution (July 15, 1991) and a partial writ issued (Aug. 15, 1991); sheriff's return showed the writ expired without physical reinstatement. CAPANELA, through new counsel, filed a memorandum of appeal but admittedly did not post the supersedeas bond for lack of funds. The NLRC dismissed the appeal (Feb. 28, 1992) for failure to post the bond and denied reconsideration (Apr. 30, 1992). The present recourse is a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court attacking those NLRC resolutions.
The parties disputed whether CAPANELA was Sanchez’s employer or merely an intermediary/labor-only contractor for the U.S. Navy at Subic Bay. CAPANELA maintained it was an association administering employment of its Negrito members who actually worked under Base authorities; Sanchez and the NLRC found an employer-employee relationship with CAPA...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the NLRC correct to dismiss petitioners’ appeal for failure to post a supersedeas bond (i.e., was the appeal perfected despite non-posting)?
- Was private respondent Fernando Sanchez’s dismissal illegal because an employer-employee relationship existed betwee...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)