GR 94754; (May, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 94754 May 11, 1993
U-SING BUTTON AND BUCKLE INDUSTRY and SY BAN, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER DAISY G. CAUTON-BARCELONA and CECILIA NAYA, respondents.
FACTS
Fortunato Naya was employed as a maintenance worker at U-Sing Button and Buckle Industry in June 1960. On May 30, 1986, he stopped working due to illness and died shortly thereafter. His widow, Cecilia Naya, filed a claim for separation pay and incentive leave pay against the company and its proprietor, Sy Ban. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the claim for underpayment but ordered the respondents to pay separation benefits computed from June 1960 to May 1986 at the rate of one-half month pay for every year of service. The respondents appealed to the NLRC, which dismissed the appeal for their failure to post the required cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award of P18,369.00. Their motion for reconsideration was denied. In their petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, they alleged that: (1) the NLRC had no jurisdiction because the appointments of its commissioners were not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments; (2) the failure to file a surety bond is not a valid ground for dismissing the appeal; and (3) the NLRC erred in not ruling in their favor. The petitioners also presented evidence of alleged debts owed by the deceased, which the widow denied, claiming the signatures were forged.
ISSUE
1. Whether the NLRC had jurisdiction despite the alleged lack of confirmation of its commissioners’ appointments by the Commission on Appointments.
2. Whether the dismissal of the appeal for failure to post the required bond was valid.
3. Whether the NLRC erred in not rendering judgment in favor of the petitioners.
RULING
1. The NLRC had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the Chairman and members of the NLRC are not among the officers whose appointments require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments under the 1987 Constitution . Their acts are valid. Furthermore, the petitioners raised this issue only in their petition after their motion for reconsideration was denied, thus they are estopped from repudiating the NLRC’s jurisdiction which they had already recognized.
2. The dismissal of the appeal was valid. Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended, and Section 7 of the NLRC’s Interim Rules require that an appeal by an employer involving a monetary award may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award. The Supreme Court ruled that an appeal is a purely statutory right, and one must strictly comply with its requisites. The petitioners’ failure to post the bond was a valid ground for dismissing their appeal.
3. The NLRC did not err. The Supreme Court found that Fortunato Naya had worked for 26 years without any derogatory record and the company benefited from his service. Pursuant to the Labor Code, he was entitled to termination pay due to illness. All doubts in the interpretation of labor laws should be resolved in favor of the worker. The factual findings of the NLRC and Labor Arbiter, which were not wildly distorted, would not be reviewed. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.