G.R. No. 170099 - COLBY CONTSRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND/OR JAIME B. LO, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ANTONIO R. MACAM AND WILLY C. OLAGUER.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, ordering [petitioners] to reinstate [Olaguer] to his former or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights, and to pay him full backwages from date of dismissal to actual reinstatement, hereunder computed as follows: I. FULL BACKWAGES: Backwages: From March 1996 to July 22, 1999 = 3 yrs. 4 mos. & 22 days or 40.73 mos. P250.00 x 40.73 = P264,745.00 13th Month Pay: From March to Dec. 31, 1996 = 9 mos. & 31 days or 10 mos. P250.00 x 26 x 10 12 = P5,416.67 From Jan. to Dec. 31, 1997 = 12 mos. P250.00 x 26 x 12 12 = P6,500.00 From Jan. to Dec. 31, 1998 = 12 mos. P250.00 x 26 x 12 12 = P6,500.00 From Jan. to July 22, 1999 = 6 mos. & 22 days or 6.73 mos. P250.00 x 26 x 73 12 = P2,916.33 21,333.00 Service Incentive Leave: 1996 = P250.00 x 5 days = P1,250.00 1997 = P250.00 x 5 days = 1,250.00 1998 = P250.00 x 5 days = 1,250.00 3,730.00 TOTAL FULL BACKWAGES P289,828.00 Should reinstatement be not feasible, separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) month per year of service should be given instead under the following computation, to wit: From July 1991 to July 22, 1999 = 8 years & 22 days or 8 yrs. P250.00 x 26 x 8 2 P26,000.00 Aggrieved, petitioners appealed the foregoing decision before the NLRC. They primarily argued that when Olaguer ventured into a sub-contracting business with Colby Construction, his job as a construction foreman was effectively terminated, and an employer-employee relationship was therefore wanting in the instant case. [9] Petitioners asserted that it was because of their lawyers negligence that they were not able to controvert Olaguers allegation before the Labor Arbiter. Controversy arose as to the timely perfection of the petitioners appeal with the NLRC. As borne by the records, petitioners received a copy of the 22 July 1999 Labor Arbiter Decision on 13 August 1999. [10] Their Appeal Memorandum [11] was filed on 23 August 1999, but without their posting the necessary appeal bond set by the NLRC in the sum of P315,828,000.00. Instead, petitioners filed a Motion to Reduce Bond, [12] since there was a strong possibility of the reversal of the adverse Labor Arbiter Decision on appeal. Pending the resolution of petitioners Motion to Reduce Bond, the reglementary period for perfecting an appeal lapsed on 23 August 1999. Nevertheless, petitioners posted an appeal bond in the sum of P100,000.00 on 27 August 1999. [13] In a Resolution [14] dated 10 November 1999, the NLRC denied petitioners Motion for Reduction of Bond and dismissed their appeal on the ground of non-perfection. The NLRC observed: [Petitioners] claimed that they received a copy of the Labor Arbiters decision on 13 August 1999. Thus, [petitioners] had only until August 23, 1999 to file and perfect their appeal. Records show that [petitioners], thru counsel, filed their Appeal Memorandum on August 23, 1999. Instead of posting a cash or surety bond, [petitioners] filed a Motion to Reduce Bond on th