G.R. Nos. 180478-79 - THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RUFINO C. RAÑON II, AND ISMAEL C. VILLA. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly ordered petitioner to reinstate them and pay them backwages, unpaid service charges, and attorney's fees. In compliance with the Labor Arbiter's decision, petitioner reinstated respondents. In the meantime, it appealed on June 22, 1999 to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) [5] and filed on June 28, 1999 a Motion for Reduction of Appeal Bond. [6] By Resolution [7] of September 30, 1999, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for petitioner's failure to post a cash or surety bond. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration having been denied, [8] it filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 56218 . [9] Respondent Rañon later manifested before the Labor Arbiter that he was not reinstated to his former position in the Casino Gaming Area food and beverage section, but to the hotel's Riviera Restaurant which to him entailed a diminution of his benefits. [10] He thus moved to be restored to his former position. By Order [11] of September 10, 2001, the Labor Arbiter ordered petitioner to immediately reinstate Rañon to his former position. Petitioner appealed this Order to the NLRC [12] which denied the same [13] as it did petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, [14] prompting petitioner to file a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. [15] The petition was docketed as CA G.R. No. 73836 which petition was consolidated with CA-G.R. No. 56218 . By Consolidated Decision [16] of March 5, 2007, the Court of Appeals dismissed both petitions, drawing petitioner to file the present petition for review on certiorari [17] which faults the appellate court in upholding the NLRC dismissal of the appeal for failure to post a cash or surety bond in CA-G.R. No. 56218, and in affirming the rulings of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC directing it to reinstate Rañon to his former position. Petitioner contends that it timely filed before the NLRC its appeal of the Labor Arbiter's Decision subject of CA-G.R. SP No. 56218, and that it later filed a Motion for Reduction of Bond as it was "suffering from the effects of financial recessions ( sic )" and was in fact questioning the computation of the monetary award upon which the amount of the bond was based. It thus posits that the NLRC should have just resolved said motion, instead of summarily dismissing its appeal, and it was thus error for the appellate court to have affirmed the dismissal. Respecting the issue of Rañon's reinstatement to his former position, petitioner faults both the NLRC and the appellate court in holding that he and his co-respondent Villa were entitled to reinstatement and the other benefits claimed. It maintains that no employer-employee relationship existed between it and the two, insisting that they were employees of Thai Training as shown by the documentary evidence it submitted to the labor tribunal. The petition is bereft of merit. Section 6, Rule VI of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commis