Indeed, the posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases involving monetary awards from the Decision of the Labor Arbiter.[13] Article 223 of the Labor Code provides:
Article 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. Such appeal may be entertained only on any of the following grounds:
x x x x
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. (Emphasis supplied.)
Time and again, however, this Court, considering the substantial merits of the case, has relaxed this rule on, and excused the late posting of, the appeal bond when there are strong and compelling reasons for the liberality,[14] such as the prevention of miscarriage of justice extant in the case[15] or the special circumstances in the case combined with its legal merits or the amount and the issue involved.[16] After all, technical rules cannot prevent courts from exercising their duties to determine and settle, equitably and completely, the rights and obligations of the parties.[17] This is one case where the exception to the general rule lies.
While respondents had failed to post their bond within the 10-day period provided above, it is evident, on the other hand, that petitioners are NOT employees of respondents, since their relationship fails to pass muster the four-fold test of employment We have repeatedly mentioned in countless decisions: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct, which is the most important element.[18]
As found by both the NLRC and the CA, respondents had no part in petitioners’ selection and management;[19] petitioners’ compensation was paid out of the arriba (which is a percentage deducted from the total bets), not by petitioners;[20] andpetitioners performed their functions as masiador and sentenciador free from the direction and control of respondents.[21]In the conduct of their work, petitioners relied mainly on their “expertise that is characteristic of the cockfight gambling,”[22] and were never given by respondents any tool needed for the performance of their work.[23]
Respondents, not being petitioners’ employers, could never have dismissed, legally or illegally, petitioners, since respondents were without power or prerogative to do so in the first place. The rule on the posting of an appeal bond cannot defeat the substantive rights of respondents to be free from an unwarranted burden of answering for an illegal dismissal for which they were never responsible.
Strict implementation of the rules on appeals must give way to the factual and legal reality that is evident from the records of this case.[24] After all, the primary objective of our laws is to dispense justice and equity, not the contrary.
