7/16/2021 G.R. No.
172409
In the case of Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC, 284 SCRA 539, 556 [1998], citing capital Industrial Construction
Group v. NLRC, 221 SCRA 469, 473-474 [1993], it was ruled therein that a project employee may acquire the
status of a regular employee when the following concurs: (1) there is a continuous rehiring of project
employees even after the cessation of a project; and (2) the tasks performed by the alleged "project
employee" are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer. Both factors
are present in the instant case. Thus, even granting that complainant was hired as a project employee, he
eventually became a regular employee as there was a continuous rehiring of this services.
xxx
In the instant case, apart from the fact that complainant was not made to sign any project employment
contract x x x he was successively transferred from one project after another, and he was made to perform
the same kind of work as driver.8
The Labor Arbiter ordered petitioners to pay respondent the aggregate sum of P224,647.17 representing
backwages, separation pay, salary differential, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay.9
Petitioners received a copy of the Labor Arbiter’s decision on 17 December 2003. On 29 December 2003, the last
day of the reglementary period for perfecting an appeal, petitioners filed a Memorandum of Appeal10 before the
NLRC and paid the appeal fee. However, instead of posting the required cash or surety bond within the
reglementary period, petitioners filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Submit/Post Surety Bond.11 Petitioners
stated that they could not post and submit the required surety bond as the signatories to the bond were on leave
during the holiday season, and made a commitment to post and submit the surety bond on or before 6 January
2004. The NLRC did not act on the motion. Thereafter, on 6 January 2004, petitioners filed a surety bond equivalent
to the award of the Labor Arbiter.12
In a Resolution13 dated July 29, 2004, the Second Division of the NLRC dismissed petitioners’ appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. The NLRC stressed that the bond is an indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the
employer and that the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period and in the manner prescribed by law is
mandatory and jurisdictional. In addition, the NLRC restated that its Rules of Procedure proscribes the filing of any
motion for extension of the period within which to perfect an appeal. The NLRC summed up that considering that
petitioners’ appeal had not been perfected, it had no jurisdiction to act on said appeal and the assailed decision, as
a consequence, has become final and executory.14 The NLRC likewise denied petitioners’ Motion for
Reconsideration15 for lack of merit in another Resolution.16 On 11 November 2004, the NLRC issued an entry of
judgment declaring its resolution final and executory as of 9 October 2004. On respondent’s motion, the Labor
Arbiter ordered that the writ of execution be issued to enforce the award. On 26 January 2005, a writ of execution
was issued.17
Petitioners elevated the dismissal of their appeal to the Court of Appeals by way of a special civil action of certiorari.
They argued that the filing of the appeal bond evinced their willingness to comply and was in fact substantial
compliance with the Rules. They likewise maintained that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in failing to
consider the meritorious grounds for their motion for extension of time to file the appeal bond. Lastly, petitioners
contended that the NLRC gravely erred in issuing an entry of judgment as the assailed resolution is still open for
review.18 On 12 January 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the challenged resolution of the NLRC. Hence, the
instant petition.
Before this Court, petitioners reiterate their previous assertions. They insist on the application of Star Angel
Handicraft v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.19where 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,20which
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
The Court denies the petition.
The Court reiterates the settled rule that an appeal from the decision of the Labor Arbiter involving a monetary
award is only deemed perfected upon the posting of a cash or surety bond within ten (10) days from such
decision.22 Article 223 of the Labor Code states:
ART. 223. Appeal.—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. …
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_172409_2008.html 2/5
