Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 55 views

    ROOS INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Remuel Torres
    1) Jose Martillos filed a complaint against Roos Industrial Construction for illegal dismissal and unpaid wages. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Martillos, ordering payment of over P224,000. 2) Roos appealed but did not post an appeal bond as required by law. Roos argued this was substantial compliance. 3) The Supreme Court denied the petition, reiterating that an appeal involving monetary awards requires a cash or surety bond within 10 days to perfect the appeal and give the NLRC jurisdiction. Failing to post the bond is not substantial compliance and renders the lower decision final.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    ROOS INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Remuel Torres
    55 views18 pages
    1) Jose Martillos filed a complaint against Roos Industrial Construction for illegal dismissal and unpaid wages. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Martillos, ordering payment of over P224,000. 2) Roos appealed but did not post an appeal bond as required by law. Roos argued this was substantial compliance. 3) The Supreme Court denied the petition, reiterating that an appeal involving monetary awards requires a cash or surety bond within 10 days to perfect the appeal and give the NLRC jurisdiction. Failing to post the bond is not substantial compliance and renders the lower decision final.

    Original Description:

    Powerpoint for Roos Industrial Construction v NLRC case

    Original Title

    ROOS INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION v NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Jose Martillos filed a complaint against Roos Industrial Construction for illegal dismissal and unpaid wages. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Martillos, ordering payment of over P224,000. 2) Roos appealed but did not post an appeal bond as required by law. Roos argued this was substantial compliance. 3) The Supreme Court denied the petition, reiterating that an appeal involving monetary awards requires a cash or surety bond within 10 days to perfect the appeal and give the NLRC jurisdiction. Failing to post the bond is not substantial compliance and renders the lower decision final.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    55 views18 pages

    ROOS INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Remuel Torres
    1) Jose Martillos filed a complaint against Roos Industrial Construction for illegal dismissal and unpaid wages. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Martillos, ordering payment of over P224,000. 2) Roos appealed but did not post an appeal bond as required by law. Roos argued this was substantial compliance. 3) The Supreme Court denied the petition, reiterating that an appeal involving monetary awards requires a cash or surety bond within 10 days to perfect the appeal and give the NLRC jurisdiction. Failing to post the bond is not substantial compliance and renders the lower decision final.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 18

    ROOS INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION

    VS NLRC (2008)
    G.R. No. 172409
    Justice Dante O. Tinga

    1
    FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

    2
    FACTS

    Private respondent, Jose


    Martillos, filed a complaint
    against Roos for illegal dismissal
    and money claims before the
    National Capital Arbitration
    Branch of the National Labor
    Relations Commission (NLRC).

    3
    FACTS

    Respondent stated that he was hired as


    a driver-mechanic sometime in 1988
    but was not made to sign any
    employment contract by petitioners,
    worked daily from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00
    p.m. at the rate of P200.00 a day,
    required to work during legal holidays
    but was only paid an additional 30%
    holiday pay, had not been paid service
    incentive leave and 13th month pay
    during the entire course of his
    employment, and was allegedly
    terminated without due process in
    2002.

    4
    FACTS

    Petitioners denied respondent's


    allegations, contending that
    private respondent was hired as
    project employee and that his
    employment was coterminous
    with the duration of the projects,
    that he was fully aware of this
    arrangement, and that given his
    employment status, he was not
    entitled to separation pay and
    other monetary claims.

    5
    FACTS

    Labor Arbiter ruled that respondent,


    indeed, had been illegally dismissed
    considering that private respondent has
    already acquired the status of a regular
    employee as he was hired with little
    interruption from one project to
    another, for a task necessary for his
    employer (Roos).

    Labor Arbiter ordered petitioners to pay


    respondent the aggregate sum of
    P224,647.17

    6
    ISSUE OF THE CASE

    7
    ISSUE

    Whether or not
    the filing of the
    appeal bond is
    substantial
    compliance with
    the NLRC rules

    8
    RULING

    9
    RULING

    The Court reiterates the


    settled ruled that an appeal
    from the decision of the
    Labor Arbiter involving a
    monetary award is only
    deemed perfected upon a
    posting of a cash or surety
    bond within ten (10) days
    from such decision.
    (Art. 223 of the Labor Code).

    10
    RULING

    • 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.

    11
    RULING

    • The appeal bond is not merely procedural but jurisdictional, and without
    such, NLRC does not acquire jurisdiction over the appeal. Non-compliance
    with such legal requirements is fatal and has the effect of rendering the
    judgment final and executory.

    • The case of Roos v NLRC did not provide any exceptional circumstances
    that would warrant a relaxation of the bond requirement as a condition for
    perfecting the appeal.

    12
    RULING

    • Also, in Senarillos v. Hermosisima, the judicial interpretation of a statute


    constitutes part of the law as of the date it was originally passed, since the
    Court’s construction merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative
    intent that the interpreted law carried into effect.
    • Such judicial doctrine does not amount to the passage of a new law but
    consists merely of a construction or interpretation of a pre-existing one, as
    is the situation in this case..

    13
    STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
    PRINCIPLE/DOCTRINE

    14
    PRINCIPLE/ DOCTRINE

    • In statutory construction, the word only means exclusive.


    [Language of the law: Conjunctive and disjunctive words]
    • The intention of the lawmakers to make the bond an indispensable
    requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer is underscored
    by the provision that an appeal may be perfected “only upon the posting
    of a cash or surety bond.

    15
    FALLO

    16
    FALLO

    The Court denied the


    petition.

    17

    You might also like