457 SCRA 700 Labor Law Labor Standards Bond Requirement When Employer Appeals in

a Labor Case
Wilhelmina Orozco was hired as a writer by the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) in 1990. She
was the columnist of Feminist Reflections under the Lifestyle section of the publication. She
writes on a weekly basis and on a per article basis (P250-300/article).
In 1991, Magsanoc as the editor-in-chief sought to improve the Lifestyle section of the paper.
She said there were too many Lifestyle writers and that it was time to reduce the number of
writers. Orozcos column was eventually dropped.
Orozco filed for a case for Illegal Dismissal against PDI and Magsanoc. Orozco won in the
Labor Arbiter. The LA ruled that there exists an employer-employee relationship between PDI
and Orozco hence Orozco is entitled to receive backwages, reinstatement, and 13th month pay.
PDI appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. The NLRC denied the appeal
because of the failure of PDI to post a surety bond as required by Article 223 of the Labor Code.
The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC.
ISSUE: Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship between PDI and
Orozco. Whether or not PDIs appeal will prosper.
HELD: Under Article 223 of the Labor Code:
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.
In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected
only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly
accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment
appealed from.
The requirement that the employer post a cash or surety bond to perfect its/his appeal is
apparently intended to assure the workers that if they prevail in the case, they will receive the
money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the employers appeal. It was intended to
discourage employers from using an appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy
their employees just and lawful claims.
But in this case, this principle is relaxed by the Supreme Court considering the fact that the
Labor Arbiter, in ruling that the Orozco is entitled to backwages, did not provide any
computation.
The case is then remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the computation. This necessarily pended the
resolution of the other issue of whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship
between PDI and Orozco.