CABALAN PASTULAN NEGRITO LABOR ASSOCIATION (CAPANELA) and JOSE ALVIZ, SR.

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and FERNANDO SANCHEZ
G.R. No. 106108 February 23, 1995
By Richard Troy A. Colmenares
USA College of Law
Start: 6/28/14 6:05:45 PM
Finish: 6/28/14 7:17:18 PM
Nature of the Case
A petition for certiorari seeking to assail the decision of NLRC in upholding the Labor Arbiters order that petitioners failed to file supersedeas
bond.

Facts
Sanchez alleged he was an employee [foreman] of CAPANELA with a monthly salary rate for the period March 1977 27 March 1990.
Thereafter, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of back wages and other benefits, and reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and payment of full back wages and moral and exemplary damages. CAPANELA argues that the Negrito workers and Alviz,
Sr. worked inside the American Naval base in Subic Bay (Base), so that Sanchez and Alviz, Sr. were employed by the US government. No
amicable settlement ensued and thereafter, the Labor Arbiter declared Sanchez to have been illegally dismissed and the petitioners to be
jointly and severally liable for: (1) backwages of Sanchez [between 24 March 1991 24June 1991]; (2) reinstatement of Sanchez. The
Labor Arbiter dismissed the claim for moral and exemplary damages. The appeal by petitioner was denied for failure to file a supersedeas
bond. Petitioner, having failed to pose bond due to insolvency, avers they will be denied their constitutional right to access courts, whereas
respondent contends that violation of procedural requirements is fatal to the appeal [and not in the least their problem].


Issue(s)
(1). Was Sanchez ilegally dismissed?
(2). Does failure to file a supersedeas bond bar an appeal?

Held
(1). No, for two reasons.

CAPANELA IS NOT THE EMPLOYER
True that associations, labor organizations and unions can at times be the employer, but this case is different for the nature of
CAPANELAs role is merely that of an administrator. The facts disclose that Alviz, Sr. was not under the control of CAPANELA
which could only intervene in behalf of its members facing charges through a recommendatory action request for favorable
consideration to the US government authorities in the Base, thus living CAPENALA with no authority to terminate its members
without approval of the Base. On the other hand, the order of NLRC to reinstate Sanchez, in as far as CAPENALA is authorized,
could only be recommended to one of the key officers in the Base. Thus, it is clear that CAPANELA could neither hire nor fire
workers, and so cannot be considered as the employer of Sanchez. The question of illegal dismissal could therefore not ensue, and
even granting that Sanchez was illegally dismissed, the same complaint should be directed against the US Government.
Henceforth, CAPANELA could not be held liable.

CAPENELA IS NOT QUALIFIED AS INDEPENDENT CONTRATOR
CAPANELA lacks the two requisites in order to be classified as a contractor: (1) It is merely tasked to organize the workers so as to
facilitate work made available in the base and everything needed to perform the work needed therein relies on the resources [work
equipements] not of CAPANELA but that of the Base; and (2) absent such resources from CAPANELA, it has no capital outlay in
the business or in the maintenance thereof.

(2). No.

There have been instances when the Court has relaxed the procedural requirements in posting a bond for appeal, if only to bring
about the immediate and appropriate resolution of controversies without regard to technical rules of law and procedure, mindful of
the spirit of the Labor Code to render due process. What the Solicitor General (SG) realistically considered is the resolution of the
issue whether there is employment relationship between Sanchez and CAPANELA so as to render the judgment of the Labor
Arbiter effective, or to reverse the same. The Court opts to reverse the labor arbiters decision, and in view of its broad review
powers not to remand the case back to NLRC in pursuit of justice.