G.R. No. 196426 - Semblante vs. Loot

Petitioners Marticio Semblante and Dubrick Pilar were hired by respondents Spouses Vicente and Maria Luisa Loot, owners of Gallera de Mandaue cockpit, around 1993.
Semblante served as the official masiador, responsible for calling and taking bets from gamecock owners and other bettors, ordering the start of fights, and distributing winnings deducting the "arriba" or commission to the cockpit.
Pilar served as the official sentenciador, overseeing proper gaffing of fighting cocks, determining the physical condition and capability of the cocks to continue fighting, and declaring fight results.
Semblante received PhP 2,000 per week (PhP 8,000 per month), while Pilar received PhP 3,500 per week (PhP 14,000 per month).
Both worked Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays starting 1:00 p.m. until midnight or early morning, excluding monthly derbies and special holiday cockfights.
They were issued employee identification cards for duty days.
They alleged no violation or infraction against cockpit rules.

On November 14, 2003, petitioners were denied entry to the cockpit and informed their services were terminated effective that day.
Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents.

Respondents denied having an employer-employee relationship with petitioners.
They claimed petitioners were associates of independent contractor Tomas Vega.
Respondents alleged no fixed working time or days; petitioners were free to choose whether to report.
Petitioners allegedly worked other cockpits when few fights occurred at Gallera de Mandaue.
Identification cards were said to be for free entry and distinction from the public, not employment proof.

Labor Arbiter found petitioners to be regular employees performing necessary and indispensable tasks to respondents' business.
Ruled petitioners were illegally dismissed and ordered payment of back wages and separation pay.
Respondents filed an appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) without posting the required appeal bond within 10 days.
Bond was filed belatedly; NLRC initially denied the appeal due to non-perfection but later reversed this decision, accepting the appeal as meritorious with substantial compliance to posting bond.

NLRC found no employer-employee relationship as respondents did not select, engage, or have separate individual contracts with petitioners.
Petitioners possessed unique skillsets and expertise characteristic of cockfight gambling requiring interpretation of nonverbal cues.
Petitioners were akin to independent contractors, had freedom over work conduct, and were not supplied tools by respondents.
Compensation was derived from percentage of bets (arriba), not salary from respondents.
The Court of Appeals affirmed NLRC decision, also justifying relaxation of rules on appeal bond because of meritorious case and to prevent grave injustice.

Whether petitioners Semblante and Pilar were employees of respondents Vicente and Maria Luisa Loot.
Whether the posting of the appeal bond, albeit belated, by respondents amounts to substantial compliance that justifies the acceptance of the NLRC appeal.
Whether the denial of petitioners' illegal dismissal claim was proper.