#

Home » Case Digest » Wilhelmina Orozco vs Court of Appeals (2005)

BE SOCIAL!
LIKE US ON
FACEBOOK!

UberDi…
12K likes

Like Page

Be the first of your friends

to like this
CASE DIGEST / JURISPRUDENCE / LABOR LAW /
L A B O R S TA N D A R D S / N L R C R U L E S

Wilhelmina Orozco vs Court of

Appeals (2005)
Published September 17, 2010

New Hope for Infertile Couples

UberDigests OPEN
Male infertility research on sperm PLCz protein gives hope to
about 2 months
ago infertile couples Qatar University

An actual life hack...

More memes at
http://www.uberdigest
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.

Read full text

Read 2008 Decision (Digest)

457 scra 700 bond requirement case digest

employer's appeal bond jurisprudence labor law

labor standards nlrc rules orozco vs ca

orozco vs court of appeals

Wilhelmina Orozco vs Court of Appeals

Wilhelmina Orozco vs Court of Appeals (2005)

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

$ !

P ublished Sep tember 14, 2010 Publishe d N o v e m b e r 6 , 2 0 1 0 Pu bl

Standard Chartered People of the Lo

Bank Employees Philippines vs Jose Re
Union (SCBEU- Vera Ph
NUBE) vs Standard
Chartered Bank

$ E L M O N T E D E P I E D A D V S J O R G E V E… " REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS … !

© 2019 Uber Digests – All rights reserved

!
Powered by ! – Designed with the Customizr theme