This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| At the onset, it is the Court's considered view that the existence of employer- employee relationship could have been easily resolved, or at least prima facie determined by the labor inspector, during the inspection by looking at the records of petitioner which can be found in the work premises. Nevertheless, even if the labor inspector had noted petitioner's manifestation and documents in the Notice of Inspection Results, it is clear that he did not give much credence to said evidence, as he did not find the need to investigate the matter further. Considering that the documents shown by petitioner, namely: cash vouchers, checks and statements of account, summary billings evidencing payment to the alleged real employer of respondent, letter-contracts denominated as "Employment for a Specific Undertaking," prima facie negate the existence of employer-employee relationship, the labor inspector could have exerted a bit more effort and looked into petitioner's payroll, for example, or its roll of employees, or interviewed other employees in the premises. After all, the labor inspector, as a labor regulation officer is given "access to employer's records and premises at any time of day or night whenever work is being undertaken therein, and the right to copy therefrom, to question any employee and investigate any fact, condition or matter which may be necessary to determine violations or which may aid in the enforcement of this Code and of any labor law, wage order or rules and regulations pursuant thereto."[22] Despite these far-reaching powers of labor regulation officers, records reveal that no additional efforts were exerted in the course of the inspection. | |||||
|
2008-02-04 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Before this Court, petitioners reiterate their previous assertions. They insist on the application of Star Angel Handicraft v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.[19] where it was held that a motion for reduction of bond may be filed in lieu of the bond during the period for appeal. They aver that Borja Estate v. Ballad,[20] which underscored the importance of the filing of a cash or surety bond in the perfection of appeals in labor cases, had not been promulgated yet in 2003 when they filed their appeal. As such, the doctrine in Borja could not be given retroactive effect for to do so would prejudice and impair petitioners' right to appeal. Moreover, they point out that judicial decisions have no retroactive effect.[21] | |||||
|
2008-02-04 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Lastly, the Court does not agree that the Borja doctrine should only be applied prospectively. In the first place, Borja is not a ground-breaking precedent as it is a reiteration, emphatic though, of long standing jurisprudence.[33] It is well to recall too our pronouncement in Senarillos v. Hermosisima, et al.[34] that the judicial interpretation of a statute constitutes part of the law as of the date it was originally passed, since the Court's construction merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that the interpreted law carried into effect. Such judicial doctrine does not amount to the passage of a new law but consists merely of a construction or interpretation of a pre-existing one, as is the situation in this case.[35] | |||||
|
2007-11-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The word "may" refers to the perfection of an appeal as optional on the part of the defeated party, but not to the posting of an appeal bond, if he desires to appeal." Rules on perfection of an appeal, particularly in labor cases, must be strictly construed because to extend the period of the appeal is to delay the case, a circumstance which would give the employer the chance to wear out the efforts and meager resources of the worker to the point that the latter is constrained to give up for less than what is due him.[24] As ratiocinated in Coral Point Development Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission[25]:This is to assure the workers that if they finally prevail in the case the monetary award will be given to them upon dismissal of the employer's appeal. It is further meant to discourage employers from using the appeal to delay or evade payment of their obligations to the employees. It is undisputed that, in the case at bar, petitioners posted a sparse bond beyond the ten-day reglementary period. Petitioners received a copy of the Labor Arbiter Decision on 13 August 1999, and had only until 23 August 1999 to perfect their appeal. Although petitioners' Appeal Memorandum was timely filed on 23 August 1999, their appeal bond was filed four days late on 27 August 1999. Hence, no appeal was perfected. Resultantly, the Labor Arbiter Decision dated 22 July 1999 already became final and executory on 23 August 1999. | |||||