[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
92 views2 pages

Wilhelmina Orozco Vs Court of Appeals

1) Wilhelmina Orozco filed a case for illegal dismissal against the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) after her weekly columnist position was terminated. 2) The Labor Arbiter ruled in Orozco's favor, finding an employer-employee relationship and awarding back wages, reinstatement, and 13th month pay. 3) PDI appealed but the appeal was denied by the National Labor Relations Commission for failing to post the required bond under the Labor Code. 4) The Court of Appeals reversed, relaxing the bond requirement in this case as the Labor Arbiter did not provide a computation for the back wage award. The case was remanded for computation.

Uploaded by

Abdulateef Sahibuddin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
92 views2 pages

Wilhelmina Orozco Vs Court of Appeals

1) Wilhelmina Orozco filed a case for illegal dismissal against the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) after her weekly columnist position was terminated. 2) The Labor Arbiter ruled in Orozco's favor, finding an employer-employee relationship and awarding back wages, reinstatement, and 13th month pay. 3) PDI appealed but the appeal was denied by the National Labor Relations Commission for failing to post the required bond under the Labor Code. 4) The Court of Appeals reversed, relaxing the bond requirement in this case as the Labor Arbiter did not provide a computation for the back wage award. The case was remanded for computation.

Uploaded by

Abdulateef Sahibuddin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Wilhelmina Orozco vs Court of

Appeals (2005)
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.
Orozco’s 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 PDI’s 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 employer’s 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.

You might also like