G.R. No. 116476 -84 May 21, 1998
ROSEWOOD PROCESSING, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NAPOLEON C. MAMON, ARSENIO GAZZINGAN, ROMEO C. VELASCO, ARMANDO L. BALLON, VICTOR E. ALDEZA, JOSE L. CABRERA, VETERANS PHILIPPINE SCOUT SECURITY AGENCY, and/or ENGR. SERGIO JAMILA IV, respondents.

FACTS

The complainants (Napoleon Mamon, Arsenio Gazzingan, Rodolfo Velasco, Armando Ballon, Victor Aldeza, and Jose L. Cabrera) were employed as security guards by the Veterans Philippine Scout Security Agency (security agency). They were assigned to various clients, including petitioner Rosewood Processing, Inc. The complainants filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and nonpayment of various monetary benefits against the security agency. The security agency later impleaded Rosewood Processing, Inc. as a third-party respondent. The Labor Arbiter rendered a consolidated Decision ordering the security agency, Sergio Jamila IV, and Rosewood Processing, Inc. to pay jointly and severally the complainants their monetary benefits totaling P789,154.39. Rosewood Processing, Inc. appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC dismissed the appeal for failure of the petitioner to file the required appeal bond within the reglementary period. The NLRC denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal for failure to perfect the appeal by not filing the required appeal bond within the reglementary period. A substantive issue regarding the extent of the petitioner’s (the client company’s) liability for the claims of the security guards is also addressed.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. The NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal. The records showed that the petitioner received the Labor Arbiter’s decision on April 6, 1993, and filed its Notice of Appeal, Memorandum on Appeal, Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond, and a surety bond on April 16, 1993, which was within the reglementary period. The NLRC’s finding that the bond was filed late was based on a mistaken date of receipt (April 2, 1993). The Court ruled that the NLRC should have resolved the Motion to Reduce Bond first. The failure to file the correct bond amount due to a pending motion to reduce it is excusable. On the substantive issue, the Court ruled that under the Labor Code, an employer is solidarily liable with the security agency for the monetary claims (wages, overtime, etc.) of security guards for the period they were assigned to it. However, for illegal dismissal, the client employer is not solidarily liable for back wages and separation pay if it did not commit, conspire, or participate in the dismissal. The case was remanded to the NLRC for proper proceedings on the appeal.