LABOR 2 CASES.docx

8/13/2019 LABOR 2 CASES.docx

1/151

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

FIRST DIVISIONG.R. No. 119500 August 28, 1998

PAGUIO TRANSPORT CORPORATION, petitioner,vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION an !IL"RE#O MELC$OR, respondents.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

In dismissing the petition, this Court reiterates the following doctrines: (1) the "boundary system" used intai (and !eepney) operations presupposes an employeremployee relation# ($) the employer must prove

!ust (or authori%ed) cause and due process to !ustify dismissal of an employee# (&) strained relations mustbe demonstrated as a fact# and (') bac wages and reinstatement are necessary conseuences of illegaldismissal.

The Case*efore us is a petition for certiorariand prohibition with preliminary in!unction, assailing the +ecember 1,1--' +ecision of the ational /abor 0elations Commission 1in /0C C0 Case o. $12'-'entitled "3ilfredo 4elchor vs. 5aguio 6ransport Corporation78erafin 5aguio." 6he dispositive portion ofthe challenged +ecision reads:

390;?I< 60=85


2/151

after he refused to articulate his stand on the investigation being conducted on him. 0espondents then harped on thesupposed three occasions when complainant figured in a vehicular accident involving the tai unit he was driving, viz:


3/151

5etitioner also asserts that private respondentBs involvement in three vehicular accidents within a span ofseveral months constitutes !ust cause for his dismissal. It alleges that, according to the police reportconcerning the most recent and serious vehicular mishap, it was private respondent who was at fault andthat the "city prosecutor of Gue%on City recommended that an Information for recless imprudenceresulting in damage to property be filed against him." 1%

5etitioner, however, did not submit any proof to support these allegations. 3ellsettled is the rule that the

employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal of an employee is for a !ust cause. 6he failure ofthe employer to discharge this burden means that the dismissal is not !ustified and that the employee isentitled to reinstatement and bacwages. 1&In this case, petitioner failed to prove any !ust or authori%edcause for his dismissal. 5rivate respondent, therefore, must be deemed illegally dismissed. 15

5etitioner contends that he "submitted and presented material and competent documentary evidenceconsisting of police reports of vehicular accidents of taicab units owned by petitioner and driven byprivate respondent, the repairs and epenses suffered by the petitioner as a result thereof and theresolution of the EcFity EpFrosecutor of Gue%on City finding private respondent at fault for the ovember ',1--& vehicular accident caused by the latter." 1'=dding that the submission of these documents only onappeal does not diminish their probative value, petitioner cites =rticle $$1 of the /abor Code which reads:

=rt. $$1. Technical rules not #in%ing an% prior resort to amica#le settlement. H In any proceeding before theCommission or any of the /abor =rbiters, the rules of procedure prevailing in courts of law and euity shall not be

controlling and it is the spirit and intention of the Code that the Commission and its members and the /abor =rbitersshall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and ob!ectively without regard totechnicalities of law and procedure, all in the interest of due process. In any proceeding before the Commission or any

/abor =rbiter, the parties may be represented by legal counsel but it shall be the duty of the Chairman, any 5residingCommissioner or Commissioner or any /abor =rbiter to eercise complete control of the proceedings at all stages.

=ny provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the /abor =rbiter shall eert all efforts towards EtFhe amicablesettlement of a labor dispute within his !urisdiction on or before the first hearing. 6he same rule shall apply to theCommission in the eercise of its original !urisdiction.

9owever, a careful eamination of both the original Complaint and the 5etitionerBs 4emorandum of=ppeal from the labor arbiterBs +ecision reveals that said pieces of documentary evidence were notmentioned or included therein, 1(but were submitted by petitioner only when he filed his present petitionwith this Court. 6hese pieces of evidence were attached and referred to as =nnees ">", "9", "I", "A", ""and "/" of the said petition. 8uch factual issues cannot be resolved in a petition for certiorarilie thepresent case, because the CourtBs review of /0C decisions is limited to uestions of !urisdiction andgrave abuse of discretion. In "I Colleges v. NLRC, 18the Court held:

6his Court is definitely not the proper venue to consider this matter for it is not a trier of facts. . . . Certiorariis a remedynarrow in its scope and infleible in character. It is not a general utility tool in the legal worshop. ;actual issues are nota proper sub!ect for certiorari, as the power of the 8upreme Court to review labor cases is limited to the issue of!urisdiction and grave abuse of discretion. . . . .


4/151

Thir% Issue:No Due rocess

5etitioner insists that private respondent was accorded due process, because he was allowed to eplainhis side and to show cause why he should still be allowed to act as one of petitionerBs drivers.

6his does not persuade. 6he Court has consistently held that in the dismissal of employees, the twinreuirements of notice and hearing are essential elements of due process. 6he employer must furnish the

worer two written notices: (1) one to apprise him of the particular acts or omissions for which hisdismissal is sought and ($) the other to inform him of his employerBs decision to dismiss him. =s to thereuirement of a hearing, the essence of due process lies simply in an opportunity to be heard, and notalways and indispensably in an actual hearing. 20

In the present case, petitioner failed to present proof, other than its bare allegations, that it had compliedwith these reuirements. 213e reiterate: the burden of proof rests on the employer. 5rivate respondent, infact, was not given notice that he was being dismissed. 3hen ordered to eplain the vehicular accidentthat happened on ovember ', 1--&, he was not informed that petitioner was contemplating his dismissaland that his involvement in said vehicular accident was the cause thereof. 5rivate respondent was merelyased to eplain the vehicular accidentper se, not his defense against a charge of dismissal arising fromthe vehicular accident. 9e became aware of his employerBs intention to dismiss him only when he wasactually told not to report for wor anymore.

Fourth Issue:

$traine% Relationsotwithstanding its failure to prove !ust cause and due process in the dismissal of private respondent,petitioner sees to bar his reinstatement by invoing the doctrine of strained relations. It contends that asa result of private respondentBs "recless and incompetent manner of driving . . ., compounded by thedamages suffered by petitioner in terms of repairs, related epenses, and the institution of the instantcase, the relationship between the parties are so strained as to preclude a harmonious woringatmosphere to the pre!udice of the petitioner as well as private respondent." 22

3e are not persuaded. 8trained relations must be demonstrated as a fact. 5etitioner failed to do so. Itsallegation that private respondent was incompetent and recless in his manner of driving, which led to thehis involvement in three vehicular accidents, is not supported by the records. =s earlier noted, noevidence was properly submitted by petitioner to prove or give credence to his assertions. 6hus,0espondent /0C ruled:

+espite allegation on the matter, not an iota of proof was presented to establish the claim. 6his observation euallyapplies to the allegation that complainants, in three (&) occasions had figured in EaF vehicular accident due to his

recless driving . . . . 2%

*ecause the claim of petitioner has no factual basis, the doctrine on strained relations cannot be appliedin this case. 4oreover, the filing of the Complaint for illegal dismissal does not by itself !ustify theinvocation of this doctrine. =s the Court held in Capili vs. NLRC: 2&

. . . E6Fhe doctrine on "strained relations" cannot be applied indiscriminately since every labor dispute almost invariablyresults in "strained relations"# otherwise, reinstatement can never be possible simply because some hostility isengendered between the parties as a result of their disagreement. 6hat is human nature.

Fifth Issue:Reinstatement an% )ac* Wages

*ecause he was illegally dismissed, private respondent is entitled to reinstatement and bac wagespursuant to 8ection $D- of the /abor Code, which reads:

=rt. $D-. 8ecurity of 6enure. H In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an

employee ecept for a !ust cause or when authori%ed by this 6itle. =n employee who is un!ustly dismissed from worshall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to hisfull #ac*+ages, inclusive

of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary euivalent computed from the time his compensation waswithheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

Interpreting this provision, the Court held in )ustamante v. NLRC25that illegally dismissed employees areentitled to full bac wages without conditions or limitations, viz.:

. . . E=F closer adherence to the legislative policy behind 0ep. =ct o. D12 points to "full bacwages" as meaningeactly that, i.e., without deducting from bacwages the earnings derived elsewhere by the concerned employee duringthe period of his illegal dismissal. In other words, the provision calling for "full bacwages" to illegally dismissedemployees is clear, plain and free from ambiguity and, therefore, must be applied without attempted or strainedinterpretation.

6he labor arbiter awarded bac wages in the sum of 5D,$ based on the following computation:117$@7-& 7$@7-' D mos.


5/151

5@. & days ' wees 5,.

5-, D mos. 5D,$.2'

In modifying the foregoing award, the /0C relied on this other formula:117$@7-& 117$@7-' 1$ months

5. & days ' wees 5 D,$.

5D,$ 1$ months 5@,'..2(

=lthough the /0C ad!usted the amount of private respondentBs monthly income and the period duringwhich bac wages may be awarded, neither the petitioner nor the private respondent uestioned the newcomputation. =ccordingly we sustain the award but stress that the bac wages ought to be computed fromthe time of the illegal dismissal to the time of reinstatement, either actual or in the payroll, without anydeduction or ualification.

390; of his ail/ earnin*s.

On 6anuar/ %, %008, an officer of the +an Transportation Office -+TO, ?uaalupe #ranch,Ma9ati "it/, apprehene hi( for obstruction of traffic for $hich his license $as confiscate.


6/151

absence, consierin* that the a(a*e $as sustaine urin* the $ee9 that he i not rive thebus. Mr. Pac@uin nonetheless tol hi( :Magpahinga ka muna at tatawagin ka na lang naminkung kailangan ka na para magmaneho. Magbakasyon ka muna, bata.: Bhen responent as9eho$ lon* he ha to rest, the (ana*er i not *ive a efinite ti(e.

Petitioner enie private responent3s alle*ations an clai(e that private responent, a habitual

absentee, abanone his 4ob. To belie private responent3s alle*ation that his license ha beenconfiscate, petitioner asserte that, ha it been true, he shoul have presente an apprehensionreport an infor(e petitioner of his proble(s $ith the +TO. #ut he i not. Petitioner furtherar*ue that private responent $as not an e(plo/ee because theirs $as a contract of lease annot of e(plo/(ent, $ith petitioner bein* pai on co((ission basis.

On Februar/ ', %001, labor arbiter Ro*elio Culo renere his ecision in favor of privateresponent. The ispositive portion of the ecision rea=

PR!MIS!S "ONSID!R!D, 4u*(ent is hereb/ renere finin* the is(issal ofRo*elio !4anra to be $ithout 4ust cause an, therefore, ille*al an ORD!RIN? R;Transport to R!INST&T! hi( to his for(er position $ithout loss of seniorit/ an otherbenefits an to pa/ hi( bac9$a*es fro( the ti(e of his is(issal until actual

reinstate(ent.SO ORD!R!D.7

+abor arbiter Culo *ave no $ei*ht to petitioner3s clai( that private responent abanone his$or9. His one;$ee9 absence i not constitute abanon(ent of $or9 consierin* that it too9hi( the $hole $ee9 to reclai( his license. Private responent coul not retrieve it unless anuntil the apprehenin* officer first trans(itte it to their office. His inabilit/ to rive forpetitioner that $hole $ee9 $as therefore not his fault an petitioner coul be hel liable forille*al is(issal. Due process $as not accore to private responent $ho $as never *iven theopportunit/ to contest the char*e of abanon(ent. Moreover, assu(in* actual abanon(ent,petitioner shoul have reporte such fact to the nearest e(plo/(ent office of the Depart(ent of+abor an !(plo/(ent. #ut no such report $as ever (ae.

On Ma/ ), %001, the N+R" renere a ecision affir(in* the ecision of the labor arbiter=BH!R!FOR!, pre(ises consiere, the appeal is hereb/ DISMISS!D an the appealeecision &FFIRM!D in toto.

SO ORD!R!D.8

In isputin* petitioner3s clai( that private responent $as not its e(plo/ee an $as nottherefore entitle to notice an hearin* before ter(ination, the N+R" hel that=

It is ver/ clear that -sic fro( no less than appellants3 a(ission, that co(plainant $asnot affore his ri*ht to ue process prior to the severance of his e(plo/(ent $ithresponents. -First par. p., responents3 &ppeal Me(oranu(, p. 27, Rollo

&ppellants3 efense of en/in* the e5istence of e(plo/er;e(plo/ee relationship $ith the

co(plainant base on the (anner b/ $hich co(plainant $as bein* pai his salar/, cannothol $ater.

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Bhile e(plo/ees pai on piece;rate an co((ission basis are not covere b/ theprovisions of the +abor "oe, as a(ene, on hours of $or9, these e(plo/ees ho$ever,for all intents an purposes, are e(plo/ees of their e(plo/ers.

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 51


7/151

Petitioner file in the "ourt of &ppeals a petition for certiorari on the *roun that the N+R"co((itte *rave abuse of iscretion in affir(in* the ecision of the labor arbiter. On Dece(ber'', '))), the "ourt of &ppeals renere a ecision, the ispositive portion of $hich rea=

BH!R!FOR!, the instant petition is hereb/ D!NI!D for lac9 of (erit.

SO ORD!R!D.A

"ate*oriin* the issues raise b/ petitioner as factual, the appellate court hel that the finin*s offact of the labor arbiter -affir(e b/ the N+R" $ere entitle to *reat respect because the/ $eresupporte b/ substantial evience. The "ourt of &ppeals also rule that petitioner $as barrefro( en/in* the e5istence of an e(plo/er;e(plo/ee relationship because petitioner invo9e itsri*hts uner the la$ an 4urispruence as an employerin is(issin* private responent.

Hence, this appeal base on the follo$in* assi*n(ents of errors=

&

Bith ue respect, the Honorable "ourt of &ppeals, Tenth Division co((itte *rave abuseof iscretion $hen it affir(eEaopte in toto the ecision of the National +aborRelations "o((ission -N+R" base purel/ on a speculation, sur(ise or con4ecture.

#

The finin*s of facts are (ere conclusions $ithout citation or specific evience on $hichthe/ are base.

"

Further, the Honorable "ourt of &ppeals, Tenth Division co((itte *rave abuse ofiscretion a(ountin* to lac9 of 4urisiction in not rulin* that the relationship in la$occurrin* bet$een the petitioner R Transport "orporation an the private responent $asin a nature of :lessor an lessee.:

D

Moreover, there is a nee b/ this Honorable "ourt to *ive a secon loo9 on the recors ofN+R" N"R "ase R No. IV;';10%);R E N+R" N"R "&;)%';8)7;01 to avoi

(iscarria*e of 4ustice an furtherance of the statutor/ re@uire(ents of ue process.!

Finall/, the Honorable "ourt of &ppeals, Tenth Division *ravel/ erre in en/in* thepetition in "&;?.R. SP. No. 7%08' in its ecision pro(ul*ate on Dece(ber '', ')))-&nne5es :?: an :?;%: an in its Resolution ate 6une 2, '))% -&nne5 :#:, hasacte contrar/ to la$ an the Rules of "ourt.0

&ccorin* to the petitioner, the appellate court erre in not finin* that private responentabanone his $or9 that petitioner $as not the lessor of private responent that, as such, theter(ination of the contract of lease of services i not re@uire petitioner to respect privateresponent3s ri*hts to notice an hearin* an, that private responent3s affiavit $as hearsa/ anself;servin*.

Be en/ the appeal.


8/151

In the case at bar, the labor arbiter, the N+R" an the "ourt of &ppeals $ere unani(ous infinin* that private responent $or9e as a river of one of the buses of petitioner an $as paion a %)> co((ission basis. &fter he $as apprehene for a traffic violation, his license $asconfiscate. Bhen he infor(e petitioner3s *eneral (ana*er of such fact, the latter *ave hi((one/ to reee( his license. He $ent to the +TO office ever/a/ but it $as onl/ after a $ee9

that he $as able to *et bac9 his license. Bhen he reporte bac9 to $or9, petitioner3s (ana*ertol hi( to $ait until his services $ere neee a*ain. "onsierin* hi(self is(isse, privateresponent file a co(plaint for ille*al is(issal a*ainst petitioner.

Be have no reason to isturb all these factual finin*s because the/ are a(pl/ supporte b/substantial evience.

Den/in* the e5istence of an e(plo/er;e(plo/ee relationship, petitioner insists that the parties3a*ree(ent $as for a contract of lease of services. Be isa*ree. Petitioner is barre to ne*ate thee5istence of an e(plo/er;e(plo/ee relationship. In its petition file before this "ourt, petitionerinvo9e our rulin*s on the ri*ht of an e(plo/er to is(iss an e(plo/ee for 4ust cause.%'Petitioner (aintaine that private responent $as 4ustifiabl/ is(isse ue to abanon(ent of$or9. #/ aoptin* sai rulin*s, petitioner i(pliel/ a(itte that it $as in fact the e(plo/er of

private responent. &ccorin* to the control test, the po$er to is(iss an e(plo/ee is one of theinications of an e(plo/er;e(plo/ee relationship.%Petitioner3s clai( that private responent$as le*all/ is(isse for abanon(ent $as in fact a ne*ative pre*nant= %2an ac9no$le*e(entthat there $as no (utual ter(ination of the alle*e contract of lease an that private responent$as its e(plo/ee. The fact that petitioner pai private responent on co((ission basis i notrule out the presence of an e(plo/ee;e(plo/er relationship. &rticle 01-f of the +abor "oeclearl/ provies that an e(plo/ee3s $a*es can be in the for( of co((issions.

Be no$ as9 the ne5t @uestion= $as private responent, an e(plo/ee of petitioner, is(isse for4ust causeG Be o not thin9 so.

&ccorin* to petitioner, private responent abanone his 4ob an lie about the confiscation ofhis license. To constitute abanon(ent, t$o ele(ents (ust concur= -% the failure to report for

$or9 or absence $ithout vali or 4ustifiable reason an -' a clear intention to sever thee(plo/er;e(plo/ee relationship. Of the t$o, the secon ele(ent is the (ore eter(inative factoran shoul be (anifeste b/ so(e overt acts. Mere absence is not sufficient. It is the e(plo/er$ho has the buren of proof to sho$ a eliberate an un4ustifie refusal of the e(plo/ee toresu(e his e(plo/(ent $ithout an/ intention of returnin*.%7

In the instant case, petitioner fell short of provin* the re@uisites. To be*in $ith, petitioner3sabsence $as 4ustifie because the +TO, ?uaalupe #ranch, i not release his license until aftera $ee9. This $as the unani(ous factual finin* of the labor tribunals an the "ourt of &ppeals.&s aptl/ hel b/ labor arbiter Culo, the process of reee(in* a confiscate license, base onco((on e5perience, epene on $hen the apprehenin* officer turne over the sa(e. Secon,private responent never intene to sever his e(plo/(ent as he in fact reporte for $or9 as

soon as he *ot his license bac9. Petitioner offere no evience to rebut these establishe facts.Thir, labor arbiter Culo correctl/ observe that, if private responent reall/ abanone his$or9, petitioner shoul have reporte such fact to the nearest Re*ional Office of the Depart(entof +abor an !(plo/(ent in accorance $ith Section 1, Rule III, #oo9 V of Depart(entOrer No. 0, series of %001%8-Rules I(ple(entin* #oo9 V of the +abor "oe. Petitioner (aeno such report.

In aition to the fact that petitioner ha no vali cause to ter(inate private responent fro($or9, it violate the latter3s ri*ht to proceural ue process b/ not *ivin* hi( the re@uire notice


9/151

an hearin*. Section ', Rule III, #oo9 V of Depart(ent Orer No. 0 provies for theproceure for is(issal for 4ust or authorie cause=

S!". '. Stana!" o# $% &!o'%""( !%)$*!%+%nt o# not*'%. In all cases of ter(inationof e(plo/(ent, the follo$in* stanars of ue process shall be substantiall/ observe=

I. For ter(ination of e(plo/(ent base on 4ust causes as efine in &rticle 'A' of

the "oe=-a & $ritten notice serve on the e(plo/ee specif/in* the *roun or*rouns for ter(ination, an *ivin* to sai e(plo/ee reasonableopportunit/ $ithin $hich to e5plain his sie

-b & hearin* or conference urin* $hich the e(plo/ee concerne, $iththe assistance of counsel if the e(plo/ee so esires, is *iven opportunit/to respon to the char*e, present his evience or rebut the eviencepresente a*ainst hi( an

-c & $ritten notice of ter(ination serve on the e(plo/ee inicatin* thatupon ue consieration of all the circu(stances, *rouns have beenestablishe to 4ustif/ his ter(ination. In case of ter(ination, the fore*oin*

notices shall be serve on the e(plo/ee3s last 9no$n aress.II. For ter(ination of e(plo/(ent as base on authorie causes efine in&rticle 'A of the "oe, the re@uire(ents of ue process shall be ee(eco(plie $ith upon service of a $ritten notice to the e(plo/ee an theappropriate Re*ional Office of the Depart(ent at least thirt/ a/s before theeffectivit/ of the ter(ination, specif/in* the *roun or *rouns for ter(ination.

III. If ter(ination is brou*ht about b/ the co(pletion of the contract or phasethereof, no prior notice is re@uire. If the ter(ination is brou*ht about b/ thefailure of an e(plo/ee to (eet the stanars of the e(plo/er in case ofprobationar/ e(plo/(ent, it shall be sufficient that a $ritten notice is serve thee(plo/ee $ithin a reasonable ti(e fro( the effective ate of ter(ination.

-ERE/ORE, pre(ises consiere, the petition is hereb/ DENIED. "osts a*ainst thepetitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. L)(2'5&)'1 *anua+ 22, 1990

ALIPIO R. RUGA, *OSE PARMA, ELA#IO CAL#ERON, LAURENTE BAUTU, *AIMEBARBIN, NICANOR "RANCISCO, P$ILIP CER-ANTES an ELEUTERIO BARBIN,petitioners,vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION an #E GUMAN "IS$INGENTERPRISES an/o+ ARSENIO #E GUMAN, respondents.

&.C. Espinas /ssociates for petitioners.


10/151

Tomas /. Rees for private respon%ent.

"ERNAN, C.J.:

6he issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether or not the fishermencrewmembers of the trawl fishing vessel D7* 8andyman II are employees of its owner

operator, +e >u%man ;ishing nterprises, and if so, whether or not they were illegallydismissed from their employment.

0ecords show that the petitioners were the fishermencrew members of D7* 8andymanII, one of several fishing vessels owned and operated by private respondent +e>u%man ;ishing nterprises which is primarily engaged in the fishing business with portand office at Camaligan, Camarines 8ur. 5etitioners rendered service aboard saidfishing vessel in various capacities, as follows: =lipio 0uga and Aose 5arma patron7pilot#ladio Calderon, chief engineer# /aurente *autu, second engineer# Aaime *arbin,master fisherman# icanor ;rancisco, second fisherman# 5hilip Cervantes and leuterio*arbin, fishermen.

;or services rendered in the conduct of private respondentBs regular business of "trawl"

fishing, petitioners were paid on percentage commission basis in cash by one 4rs. 5ilarde >u%man, cashier of private respondent. =s agreed upon, they received thirteenpercent (1&J) of the proceeds of the sale of the fishcatch if the total proceedseceeded the cost of crude oil consumed during the fishing trip, otherwise, theyreceived ten percent (1J) of the total proceeds of the sale. 6he patron7pilot, chiefengineer and master fisherman received a minimum income of 5&2. per wee whilethe assistant engineer, second fisherman, and fishermanwinchman received aminimum income of 5$. per wee. 1

u%man, president of private respondent, to proceed to the police station atCamaligan, Camarines 8ur, for investigation on the report that they sold some of their

fishcatch at midsea to the pre!udice of private respondent. 5etitioners denied thecharge claiming that the same was a countermove to their having formed a labor unionand becoming members of +efender of Industrial =gricultural /abor eneral 3orers ?nion (+I=/3?) on 8eptember &, 1-@&.

+uring the investigation, no witnesses were presented to prove the charge againstpetitioners, and no criminal charges were formally filed against them. otwithstanding,private respondent refused to allow petitioners to return to the fishing vessel to resumetheir wor on the same day, 8eptember 11, 1-@&.

u%man, submitted its position paper denying the employeremployee relationshipbetween private respondent and petitioners on the theory that private respondent andpetitioners were engaged in a !oint venture. %


11/151

=fter the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement, the /abor =rbiter scheduled thecase for !oint hearing furnishing the parties with notice and summons. u%man, and its operations manager, Conrado de >u%man# that, ecept for /aurente*autu, they had been employed by private respondent from @ to 12 years in variouscapacities# that private respondent, through its operations manager, supervised andcontrolled the conduct of their fishing operations as to the fiing of the schedule of thefishing trips, the direction of the fishing vessel, the volume or number of tubes of the

fishcatch the time to return to the fishing port, which were communicated to thepatron7pilot by radio (single side band)# that they were not allowed to !oin other outfitseven the other vessels owned by private respondent without the permission of theoperations manager# that they were compensated on percentage commission basis ofthe gross sales of the fishcatch which were delivered to them in cash by privaterespondentBs cashier, 4rs. 5ilar de >u%man# and that they have to follow companypolicies, rules and regulations imposed on them by private respondent.

+isputing the finding of public respondent that a "!oint fishing venture" eists betweenprivate respondent and petitioners, petitioners claim that public respondent eceeded its

!urisdiction and7or abused its discretion when it added facts not contained in the recordswhen it stated that the pilotcrew members do not receive compensation from the boat

owners ecept their share in the catch produced by their own efforts# that publicrespondent ignored the evidence of petitioners that private respondent controlled thefishing operations# that public respondent did not tae into account established

!urisprudence that the relationship between the fishing boat operators and their crew isone of direct employer and employee.

=side from seeing the dismissal of the petition on the ground that the decision of thelabor arbiter is now final and eecutory for failure of petitioners to file their appeal withthe /0C within 1 calendar days from receipt of said decision pursuant to the doctrine


12/151

laid down in ,ir!&en $hipping an% "arine $ervices, Inc. vs. /0C, 112 8C0= &'D(1-@$), the 8olicitor >eneral claims that the ruling of public respondent that a "!ointfishing venture" eists between private respondent and petitioners rests on theresolution of the 8ocial 8ecurity 8ystem (888) in a 1-@ case, Case o. D@ (+e>u%man ;ishing nterprises vs. 888), eempting +e >u%man ;ishing nterprises,

private respondent herein, from compulsory coverage of the 888 on the ground thatthere is no employeremployee relations between the boatowner and the fishermencrew members following the doctrine laid down in a0arillo vs. $$$, 1D 8C0= 11'(1-). In applying to the case at bar the doctrine in a0arillo vs. $$$, supra, that thereis no employeremployee relationship between the boatowner and the pilot and crewmembers when the boatowner supplies the boat and euipment while the pilot andcrew members contribute the corresponding labor and the parties get specific shares inthe catch for their respective contribution to the venture, the 8olicitor >eneral pointedout that the boatowners in the a0arillocase, as in the case at bar, did not control theconduct of the fishing operations and the pilot and crew members shared in the catch.

3e rule in favor of petitioners.

;undamental considerations of substantial !ustice persuade ?s to decide the instantcase on the merits rather than to dismiss it on a mere technicality. In so doing, weeercise the prerogative accorded to this Court enunciated in Firestone FilipinasEmploees /ssociation,et al.vs.Firestone Tire an% Ru##er Co.of the hilippines,Inc.,1 8C0= &' (1-D'), thus "the wellsettled doctrine is that in labor cases before this6ribunal, no undue sympathy is to be accorded to any claim of a procedural misstep, theidea being that its power be eercised according to !ustice and euity and substantialmerits of the controversy."

Circumstances peculiar to some etent to fishermencrew members of a fishing vesselregularly engaged in trawl fishing, as in the case of petitioners herein, who spend one(1) whole wee or more (in the open sea performing their !ob to earn a living to support

their families, convince ?s to adopt a more liberal attitude in applying to petitioners the1calendar day rule in the filing of appeals with the /0C from the decision of the laborarbiter.

0ecords reveal that petitioners were informed of the labor arbiterBs decision of 4arch&1, 1-@' only on Auly &,1-@' by their nonlawyer representative during the arbitrationproceedings, Aose +ialogo who received the decision eight (@) days earlier, or on Aune$2, 1-@'. =s adverted to earlier, the circumstances peculiar to petitionersB occupation asfishermencrew members, who during the pendency of the case understandably have toearn a living by seeing employment elsewhere, impress upon ?s that in the ordinarycourse of events, the information as to the adverse decision against them would notreach them within such time frame as would allow them to faithfully abide by the 1

calendar day appeal period. 6his peculiar circumstance and the fact that theirrepresentative is a nonlawyer provide euitable !ustification to conclude that there issubstantial compliance with the tencalendar day rule of filing of appeals with the /0Cwhen petitioners filed on Auly 1, 1-@', or seven (D) days after receipt of the decision,their appeal with the /0C through registered mail.

3e have consistently ruled that in determining the eistence of an employeremployeerelationship, the elements that are generally considered are the following (a) theselection and engagement of the employee# (b) the payment of wages# (c) the power of


13/151

dismissal# and (d) the employerBs power to control the employee with respect to themeans and methods by which the wor is to be accomplished. 86he employmentrelation arises from contract of hire, epress or implied. 9In the absence of hiring, noactual employeremployee relation could eist.

;rom the four (') elements mentioned, 3e have generally relied on the socalled right

ofcontrol test10

where the person for whom the services are performed reserves a rightto control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reachingsuch end. 6he test calls merely for the eistence of the right to control the manner ofdoing the wor, not the actual eercise of the right. 11

6he case of a0arillo vs. $$$, supra, invoed by the public respondent as authority forthe ruling that a "!oint fishing venture" eisted between private respondent andpetitioners is not applicable in the instant case. 6here is neither light of control noractual eercise of such right on the part of the boatowners in the a0arillocase, wherethe Court found that the pilots therein are not under the order of the boatowners asregards their employment# that they go out to sea not upon directions of the boatowners, but upon their own volition as to when, how long and where to go fishing# that

the boatowners do not in any way control the crewmembers with whom the formerhave no relationship whatsoever# that they simply !oin every trip for which the pilotsallow them, without any reference to the owners of the vessel# and that they only sharein their own catch produced by their own efforts.

6he aforementioned circumstances obtaining in a0arillocase do not eist in the instantcase. 6he conduct of the fishing operations was undisputably shown by the testimony of

=lipio 0uga, the patron7pilot of D7* 8andyman II, to be under the control and supervisionof private respondentBs operations manager. 4atters dealing on the fiing of theschedule of the fishing trip and the time to return to the fishing port were shown to bethe prerogative of private respondent. 123hile performing the fishing operations,petitioners received instructions via a singleside band radio from private respondentBs

operations manager who called the patron7pilot in the morning. 6hey are told to reporttheir activities, their position, and the number of tubes of fishcatch in one day. 1%Clearlythus, the conduct of the fishing operations was monitored by private respondent thru thepatron7pilot of D7* 8andyman II who is responsible for disseminating the instructions tothe crew members.

6he conclusion of public respondent that there had been no change in the situation ofthe parties since 1-@ when +e >u%man ;ishing nterprises, private respondentherein, obtained a favorable !udgment in Case o. D@ eempting it from compulsorycoverage of the 888 law is not supported by evidence on record. It was erroneous forpublic respondent to apply the factual situation of the parties in the 1-@ case to theinstant case in the light of the changes in the conditions of employment agreed upon by

the private respondent and petitioners as discussed earlier.0ecords show that in the instant case, as distinguished from the a0arillocase wherethe crew members are under no obligation to remain in the outfit for any definite periodas one can be the crew member of an outfit for one day and be the member of the crewof another vessel the net day, the herein petitioners, on the other hand, were directlyhired by private respondent, through its general manager, =rsenio de >u%man, and itsoperations manager, Conrado de >u%man and have been under the employ of privaterespondent for a period of @12 years in various capacities, ecept for /aurente *autu


14/151

who was hired on =ugust &, 1-@& as assistant engineer. 5etitioner =lipio 0uga washired on 8eptember $-, 1-D' as patron7captain of the fishing vessel# ladio Calderonstarted as a mechanic on =pril 1, 1-@ until he was promoted as chief engineer of thefishing vessel# Aose 5arma was employed on 8eptember $-, 1-D' as assistantengineer# Aaime *arbin started as a pilot of the motor boat until he was transferred as a

master fisherman to the fishing vessel D7* 8andyman II# 5hilip Cervantes was hired aswinchman on =ugust 1, 1-D$ while leuterio *arbin was hired as winchman on =pril 12,1-D.

3hile tenure or length of employment is not considered as the test of employment,nevertheless the hiring of petitioners to perform wor which is necessary or desirable inthe usual business or trade of private respondent for a period of @12 years since 1-@ualify them as regular employees within the meaning of =rticle $@1 of the /abor Codeas they were indeed engaged to perform activities usually necessary or desirable in theusual fishing business or occupation of private respondent. 1&

=side from performing activities usually necessary and desirable in the business ofprivate respondent, it must be noted that petitioners received compensation on a

percentage commission based on the gross sale of the fishcatch i.e. 1&J of theproceeds of the sale if the total proceeds eceeded the cost of the crude oil consumedduring the fishing trip, otherwise only 1J of the proceeds of the sale. 8uchcompensation falls within the scope and meaning of the term "wage" as defined under

=rticle -D(f) of the /abor Code, thus:(f) "3age" paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration or earnings, howeverdesignated, capable of being epressed in terms of money, whether fied or ascertainedon a time, tas, piece or commission basis, or other method of calculating the same,which is payable by an employer to an employee under a written or unwritten contract ofemployment for wor done or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered, andincluded the fair and reasonable value, as determined by the 8ecretary of /abor, ofboard, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the employee. .. .

6he claim of private respondent, which was given credence by public respondent, thatpetitioners get paid in the form of share in the fishcatch which the patron7pilot as headof the team distributes to his crew members in accordance with their own understanding15is not supported by recorded evidence. cept that such claim appears as anallegation in private respondentBs position paper, there is nothing in the records showingsuch a sharing scheme as preferred by private respondent.

;urthermore, the fact that on mere suspicion based on the reports that petitionersallegedly sold their fishcatch at midsea without the nowledge and consent of privaterespondent, petitioners were un!ustifiably not allowed to board the fishing vessel on8eptember 11, 1-@& to resume their activities without giving them the opportunity to air

their side on the accusation against them unmistaably reveals the disciplinary powereercised by private respondent over them and the corresponding sanction imposed incase of violation of any of its rules and regulations. 6he virtual dismissal of petitionersfrom their employment was characteri%ed by undue haste when less etreme measuresconsistent with the reuirements of due process should have been first ehausted. Inthat sense, the dismissal of petitioners was tainted with illegality.

ven on the assumption that petitioners indeed sold the fishcatch at midsea the act ofprivate respondent virtually resulting in their dismissal evidently contradicts private


15/151

respondentBs theory of "!oint fishing venture" between the parties herein. = !oint venture,including partnership, presupposes generally aparit of stan%ingbetween the !oint coventurers or partners, in which each party has an eual proprietary interest in the capitalor property contributed 1'and where each party eercises eual lights in the conduct ofthe business. 1(It would be inconsistent with the principle of parity of standing between

the !oint coventurers as regards the conduct of business, if private respondent wouldoutrightly eclude petitioners from the conduct of the business without first resorting toother measures consistent with the nature of a !oint venture undertaing, Instead ofarbitrary unilateral action, private respondent should have discussed with an open mindthe advantages and disadvantages of petitionersB action with its !oint coventurers ifindeed there is a "!oint fishing venture" between the parties. *ut this was not done in theinstant case. 5etitioners were arbitrarily dismissed notwithstanding that no criminalcomplaints were filed against them. 6he lame ecuse of private respondent that thenonfiling of the criminal complaints against petitioners was for humanitarian reasonswill not help its cause either.

3e have eamined the !urisprudence on the matter and find the same to be supportive

of petitionersB stand. In Negre vs. WCC1&2 8C0= 2& (1-@2), we held that fishermencrew members who were recruited by one master fisherman locally nown as "maestro"in charge of recruiting others to complete the crew members are considered employees,not industrial partners, of the boatowners. In an earlier case of/#ong vs. WCC, 2'8C0= &D- (1-D&) where petitioner therein, +r. =gustin =bong, owner of the fishing boat,claimed that he was not the employer of the fishermen crew members because of analleged partnership agreement between him, as financier, and 8implicio 5anganiban, ashis team leader in charge of recruiting said fishermen to wor for him, we affirmed thefinding of the 3CC that there eisted an employeremployee relationship between theboatowner and the fishermen crew members not only because they wored for and inthe interest of the business of the boatowner but also because they were sub!ect to the

control, supervision and dismissal of the boatowner, thru its agent, 8implicio5anganiban, the alleged "partner" of +r. =bong# that while these fishermen crewmembers were paid in ind, or by "paiao basis" still that fact did not alter the characterof their relationship with +r. =bong as employees of the latter.

In hilippine Fishing )oat 1fficers an% Engineers 2nion vs. Court of In%ustrialRelations, 11$ 8C0= 12- (1-@$), we held that the employeremployee relationshipbetween the crew members and the owners of the fishing vessels engaged in deep seafishing is merely suspended during the time the vessels are drydoced or undergoingrepairs or being loaded with the necessary provisions for the net fishing trip. 6he saidruling is premised on the principle that all these activities i.e., drydoc, repairs, loadingof necessary provisions, form part of the regular operation of the company fishing

business.390;0=6+. 6he uestionedresolution of the ational /abor 0elations Commission dated 4ay &,1-@2 is hereby0K08+ and 86 =8I+. 5rivate respondent is ordered to reinstate petitioners totheir former positions or any euivalent positions with &year bacwages and othermonetary benefits under the law. o pronouncement as to costs.

8<


16/151

Feliciano( &.( concurs in the result.


Manila

S!"OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 8((00 *un 1%, 1990

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOEES UNION)PTG!O, #ANIEL S.L.BORBON II, $ERMINIA REES, MARCELA PURI"ICACION, ET AL., petitioners,vs.$ON. *ESUS G. BERSAMIRA, IN $IS CAPACIT AS PRESI#ING *U#GE O"BRANC$ 1'', RTC, PASIG, an SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, respondents.

Romeo C. Lagman for petitioners.

&ar%eleza( $o#revinas( Diaz( "au%ini )o%egon for respon%ents.

MELENCIO)$ERRERA, J.:

0espondent Audge of the 0egional 6rial Court of 5asig, *ranch 1, is taen to tas bypetitioners in this special civil action for certiorari and 5rohibition for having issued thechallenged 3rit of 5reliminary In!unction on $- 4arch 1-@- in Civil Case o. 2D22 ofhis Court entitled "$an "iguel Corporation vs. $"CE2!T3W1( et als."

5etitionersB plea is that said 3rit was issued without or in ecess of !urisdiction and withgrave abuse of discretion, a labor dispute being involved. 5rivate respondent 8an

4iguel Corporation (8an4ig. for short), for its part, defends the 3rit on the ground ofabsence of any employeremployee relationship between it and the contractual worersemployed by the companies /ipercon 8ervices, Inc. (/ipercon) and +B0ite 8ervicenterprises (+B0ite), besides the fact that the ?nion is bereft of personality to representsaid worers for purposes of collective bargaining. 6he 8olicitor >eneral agrees with theposition of 8an4ig.

6he antecedents of the controversy reveal that:

8ometime in 1-@& and 1-@', 8an4ig entered into contracts for merchandising serviceswith /ipercon and +B0ite (=nnees and I, 8an4igBs Comment, respectively). 6hesecompanies are independent contractors duly licensed by the +epartment of /abor andmployment (+< (the ?nion, for brevity) isthe duly authori%ed representative of the monthly paid ranandfile employees of


17/151

8an4ig with whom the latter eecuted a Collective *argaining =greement (C*=)effective 1 Auly 1-@ to & Aune 1-@- (=nne =, 8an4igBs Comment). 8ection 1 of theirC*= specifically provides that "temporary, probationary, or contract employees andworers are ecluded from the bargaining unit and, therefore, outside the scope of this

=greement."

In a letter, dated $ ovember 1-@@ (=nne C, 5etition), the ?nion advised 8an4ig thatsome /ipercon and +B0ite worers had signed up for union membership and sought theregulari%ation of their employment with 84C. 6he ?nion alleged that this group ofemployees, while appearing to be contractual worers supposedly independentcontractors, have been continuously woring for 8an4ig for a period ranging from si() months to fifteen (12) years and that their wor is neither casual nor seasonal asthey are performing wor or activities necessary or desirable in the usual business ortrade of 8an4ig. 6hus, it was contended that there eists a "laboronly" contractingsituation. It was then demanded that the employment status of these worers beregulari%ed.


18/151

h. preventing and7or disrupting the peaceful and normal operation of plaintiff at the worplaces within the bargaining unit referred to in the C*=, =nne BCB hereof, to compelplaintiff to hire the employees or worers of /I50C


19/151

"without pre!udice to the outcome of >.0. o. @DD (this case) and Civil Case o.2D22 (the case below), the laidoff individuals ... shall be recalled effective @ 4ay 1-@-to their former !obs or euivalent positions under the same terms and conditions prior to"layoff" (=nne 12, 8an4ig Comment). In turn, the ?nion would immediately lift thepicets and return to wor.

=fter an echange of pleadings, this Court, on 1$


20/151

provided the controversy concerns, among others, the terms and conditions ofemployment or a "change" or "arrangement" thereof (i#i%). 5ut differently, and asdefined by law, the eistence of a labor dispute is not negative by the fact that theplaintiffs and defendants do not stand in the proimate relation of employer andemployee.

6hat a labor dispute, as defined by the law, does eist herein is evident. =t bottom, whatthe ?nion sees is to regulari%e the status of the employees contracted by /ipercon and+B0ite in effect, that they be absorbed into the woring unit of 8an4ig. 6his matterdefinitely dwells on the woring relationship between said employees visavis 8an4ig.6erms, tenure and conditions of their employment and the arrangement of those termsare thus involved bringing the matter within the purview of a labor dispute. ;urther, the?nion also sees to represent those worers, who have signed up for ?nionmembership, for the purpose of collective bargaining. 8an4ig, for its part, resists that?nion demand on the ground that there is no employeremployee relationship betweenit and those worers and because the demand violates the terms of their C*=.


21/151

conditions of employment# ... and 2. cases arising from any violation of =rticle $2 ofthis Code, including uestions involving the legality of strier and locouts. ..." =rticle$1D lays down the plain command of the law.

6he claim of 8an4ig that the action below is for damages under =rticles 1-, $ and $1of the Civil Code would not suffice to eep the case within the !urisdictional boundaries

of regular Courts. 6hat claim for damages is interwoven with a labor dispute eistingbetween the parties and would have to be ventilated before the administrativemachinery established for the epeditious settlement of those disputes. 6o allow theaction filed below to prosper would bring about "split !urisdiction" which is obnoious tothe orderly administration of !ustice (5hilippine Communications, lectronics andlectricity 3orers ;ederation vs. 9on. olasco, /$'-@', $- Auly 1-@, $' 8C0= &$1).

3e recogni%e the proprietary right of 8an4ig to eercise an inherent managementprerogative and its best business !udgment to determine whether it should contract outthe performance of some of its wor to independent contractors. 9owever, the rights ofall worers to selforgani%ation, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peacefulconcerted activities, including the right to strie in accordance with law (8ection &,

=rticle LIII, 1-@D Constitution) eually call for recognition and protection. 6hosecontending interests must be placed in proper perspective and euilibrium.

390;0=6+ and the 0=6+ and respondent Audge is en!oined from taing any further action in CivilCase o. 2D22 ecept for the purpose of dismissing it. 6he status 5uo ante declarationof strie ordered by the Court on $' 4ay 1-@- shall be observed pending theproceedings in the ational Conciliation 4ediation *oard+epartment of /abor andmployment, doceted as C4*C081$1@- and C4*C081-&@&.o costs.

8<


22/151

ALERIE ANNE . OLLERO,

Responent.

Pro(ul*ate=

October %, '))A

5 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; 5

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES,J.:

Petitioner


23/151

#efore responent left for the


24/151

report for $or9 $ithout prior notice that on Dece(ber ', %008, responentJs

superior #ill Malfitano -Malfitano hancarrie to her resience a (e(oranu(

re@uirin* her to e5plain in $ritin* her unauthorie absences, $ith a $arnin* that

failure to respon $ithin '2 hours fro( receipt thereof $oul be consiere a

$aiver of her ri*ht to *ive her e5planation that responent, ho$ever, faile an

refuse to sub(it an/ e5planation, constrainin*


25/151

Dece(ber %008, she heae the cleanin* personnel in cleanin* the prouction

plant in Sucat, Paraa@ue $hich laste up to (ini*ht for three a/s.

Responent $ho $as (ae to unerstan that she $as the contact person of


26/151

Dece(ber %A an %0, %008. She reiterate her e5planation *iven to Malfitano,

apolo*iin* for the inconvenience her absence cause the office.

On the sa(e a/ that she reporte for $or9 on Dece(ber ', %008,

Malfitano avise her that he $as reco((enin* the ter(ination of her services

an as9e her to, as she i, turn over her files an office 9e/s. &n he avise

her not to report for $or9 until further notice. She co(plie8KAL an i not

receive an/ $or fro(


27/151

'. Orerin* sai responent Valerie &nne H. Hollero to pa/ co(plainant


28/151

&ll other clai(s for a(a*es are is(isse for insufficienc/ of evience. 14

K%2L -


29/151

I

5 5 5 IN HO+DIN? TH&T P!TITION!RS F&I+!D TO !ST+ISH & V&+ID"&

5 5 5 IN R


30/151

attestin* to these *rouns coul have reail/ been presente to support the

alle*ations but none $as.

On the other han, copies of responentJs Pa/ &vice Slips for Septe(ber;

Dece(ber %008 sho$ no euctions for absences or tariness, e5cept in the Pa/

&vice Slip for October %;%7, %008 $hich euctions correspon to a ul/

approve leave of absence $ithout pa/ fro( Septe(ber ';'2, %008 -sub4ect of

petitioner3s application file on Septe(ber '%, %008.26K'8L

& receipt ac9no$le*in* the turnover of 9e/s on Dece(ber ', %00827

K'1L

sub(itte b/ responent substantiates her account of the (eetin* that too9 place

$hen she reporte bac9 for $or9 on that a/, $hich ocu(ent belies petitioners3

clai( that she abanone her $or9 an that KoLn the evenin* of Dece(ber ',

%001, Mr. #ill Malfitano, one of responentJs superiors, $ent

out of his $a/ to eliver to the responent a letter re@uestin* for a $ritten

e5planation as to her errant acts.28K'AL

Malfitano3s (e(oranu( to responent ate Dece(ber %', %008, or close

to t$o $ee9s before she $as as9e on Dece(ber ', %008 to turn over the 9e/s,

statin* that her leaership role in this i(ple(entation is critical to our success in

(eetin* our custo(ers3 nees29K'0L an she ha been introuce as the FMI

26

27

28

29


31/151

(ana*er responsible for our pro*ra( i(ple(entation to the site coorinator at

each of the


32/151

&ssu(in* arguendo that responentJs four;a/ absence $as not 4ustifie,

absences (ust be habitual to be a *roun for is(issal. 34K2L &t all events,

*rantin* that petitioners3 follo$in* contention is in orer, viz=

In this a/ $here over;the;counter (eicines aboun for co((on ail(entssuch as loose bo$el (ove(ent, HolleroJs stor/ of unabate +#M to cause her tobe absent for 2 consecutive a/s startin* Dece(ber %A to Dece(ber '%, %008 issi(pl/ increible. BorsKeL, in this a/ an a*e of hi*h technolo*/ an (oernteleco((unication facilities in Metro Manila, HolleroJs pitiful stor/ that she hano other (eans of co((unicatin* $ith petitioner


33/151

Further, petitioners ta9e responentJs failure to pra/ for reinstate(ent as an

a(ission that her is(issal $as vali.39K0L Such position *losses over

responent3s e5planation that reinstate(ent $oul not be feasible ue to the

straine relations bet$een her an petitioners.40K2)L #esies, the (erits of a

co(plaint for ille*al is(issal o not epen on its pra/er but on $hether the

e(plo/er ischar*es its buren of provin* that the is(issal is vali.

In another vein, the "ourt fins that petitioners faile to co(pl/ $ith the

proceural re@uire(ents for a vali is(issal. Responent bein* a (ana*er i

not e5cuse the( fro( observin* such proceural re@uire(ents.

Thus a first notice infor(in* an bearin* on the char*e (ust be sent to the

e(plo/ee. The Dece(ber ', %008 (e(oranu( of Malfitano $hich he

hancarrie to responentJs resience on even ate (erel/ reas=

I a( re@uestin* that /ou sen (e a $ritten e5planation $hichsatisfactoril/ aresses the t$o a/s /ou abanone /our (ana*e(ent position$ithout a call or an/ contact $ith the ServiceM&ST!R tea( or an/one $ithin the


34/151

The notice oes not infor( outri*ht the e(plo/ee that an investi*ation $ill

be conucte on the char*es particularie therein $hich, if proven, $ill result to

her is(issal. It oes not contain a plain state(ent of the char*es of (alfeasance

or (isfeasance nor cate*oricall/ state the effect on her e(plo/(ent if the char*es

are proven to be true.42K2'L It oes not apprise responent of possible is(issal

shoul her e5planation prove unsatisfactor/. #esies, the petitioners i not even

establish that responent receive the (e(oranu(.

Neither i petitioners sho$ that the/ conucte a hearin* or conferenceurin* $hich responent, $ith the assistance of counsel if she so esire, ha

opportunit/ to respon to the char*e, present her evience, or rebut the evience

presente a*ainst her.43K2L The (eetin* $ith responent on Dece(ber ', %008

i not satisf/ the hearin* re@uire(ent, for responent $as not *iven the

opportunit/ to avail herself of counsel.

&rticle '11-b of the +abor "oe (anates that an e(plo/er $ho see9s to

is(iss an e(plo/ee (ust affor the latter a(ple opportunit/ to be hear an to

efen hi(self $ith the assistance of his representative if he so esires.

!5pounin* on this provision, this "ourt hel that JKaL(ple opportunit/J connotes

41

42

43


35/151

ever/ 9in of assistance that (ana*e(ent (ust accor the e(plo/ee to enable hi(

to prepare ae@uatel/ for his efense incluin* le*al representation.44K22L

Bith re*ar to


36/151

bar*ainin* a*ree(ent.48K2AL


37/151

DELTA MILLING

INDUSTRIES, INC., Pro(ul*ate=

Responents. &pril '', '))A

5 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; 5

D E C I S I O N

AUSTRIAMARTINE=,J.!

&ssaile in the present Petition for Revie$ on Certiorariis the "ourt of &ppeals -"&

Decision49K%L ate October '%, '))' an Resolution50K'Late Februar/ %, '))2, is(issin* thepetition file b/ 6a*uar Securit/ an Investi*ation &*enc/ -petitioner an affir(in* the National +aborRelations "o((ission -N+R" Resolutions ate Septe(ber %0, '))) an Nove(ber 0, '))%.

The facts of the case, as narrate b/ the "&, are unispute=

Petitioner 6a*uar Securit/ an Investi*ation &*enc/ -6a*uar is a private corporation en*a*e inthe business of proviin* securit/ services to its clients, one of $ho( is Delta Millin* Inustries, Inc.-Delta.

Private responents Roolfo Sales, Melvin Ta(a/o, Dionisio "aran/a*an, 6esus Silva, 6r., 6ai(e

Moron an Daneth Fetalvero $ere hire as securit/ *uars b/ 6a*uar. The/ $ere assi*ne at the pre(isesof Delta in +ibis, ueon "it/. "aran/a*an an Ta(a/o $ere ter(inate b/ 6a*uar on Ma/ '8, %00A an&u*ust '%, %00A, respectivel/. &lle*el/ their is(issals $ere arbitrar/ an ille*al. Sales, Moron, Fetalveroan Silva re(aine $ith 6a*uar. &ll the *uar;e(plo/ees, clai( for (onetar/ benefits such asunerpa/(ent, overti(e pa/, rest a/ an holia/ pre(iu( pa/, unerpai % th(onth pa/, ni*ht shiftifferential, five a/s service an incentive leave pa/. In aition to these (one/ clai(s, "aran/a*an anTa(a/o ar*ue that the/ $ere entitle to separation pa/ an bac9 $a*es, for the ti(e the/ $ere ille*all/is(isse until finalit/ of the ecision. Further(ore, all responents clai( for (oral an e5e(plar/a(a*es.

On Septe(ber %A, %00A, responent securit/ *uars institute the instant labor case before the labor

arbiter.

5 5 5 5

49

50


38/151

On Ma/ '7, %000, the labor arbiter renere a ecision in favor of private responents Sales, et al.,the ispositive portion of $hich provies=

BH!R!FOR!, 4u*(ent is hereb/ renere is(issin* the char*es of

ille*al is(issal on the part of the co(plainants M!+VIN R. T&M&CO anDIONISIO ". "&R&NC&?&N for lac9 of (erit but orerin* responents6&?


39/151

Petitioner file a petition for certiorari$ith the "&, $hich, in the herein assaile Decision ate

October '%, '))'52K2Lan Resolution ate Februar/ %, '))2,53K7Lis(isse the petition for lac9 of(erit.

In the present petition, the follo$in* error is set forth as a *roun for the (oification of the assaile

Decision an Resolution=

BITH &++ D

thus *ivin* the $or9ers a(ple protection as (anate b/ the %0A1 "onstitution.56

KAL

Ho$ever, in the event that petitioner pa/s his obli*ation to the *uar e(plo/ees pursuant to theDecision of the +abor &rbiter, as affir(e b/ the N+R" an "&, petitioner has the ri*ht of rei(burse(entfro( Delta Millin* uner &rticle %'%1 of the "ivil "oe, $hich provies=

&rt. %'%1. Pa/(ent (ae b/ one of the soliar/ ebtors e5tin*uishes the obli*ation. Ift$o or (ore soliar/ ebtors offer to pa/, the creitor (a/ choose $hich offer to accept.

52

53

54

55

56


40/151

He $ho (ae the pa/(ent (a/ clai( fro( his co;ebtors onl/ the share $hichcorrespons to each, $ith the interest for the pa/(ent alrea/ (ae. If the pa/(ent is (ae before the ebtis ue, no interest for the intervenin* perio (a/ be e(ane.

5 5 5 5

The @uestion that no$ arises is $hether petitioner (a/ clai( rei(burse(ent fro( Delta Millin*throu*h a cross;clai( file $ith the labor court.

This @uestion has alrea/ been ecisivel/ resolve in'apanday $gricultural )evelopment

Corporation v. Court of $ppeals,57K0Lto $it=

Be resolve first the issue of 4urisiction. Be a*ree $ith the responent that the RT" has 4urisictionover the sub4ect (atter of the present case. It is $ell;settle in la$ an 4urispruence that $here noe(plo/er;e(plo/ee relationship e5ists bet$een the parties an no issue is involve $hich (a/ be resolve

b/ reference to the +abor "oe, other labor statutes or an/ collective bar*ainin* a*ree(ent, it is theRe*ional Trial "ourt that has 4urisiction. In its co(plaint, private responent is not see9in* an/ relief unerthe +abor "oe but see9s pa/(ent of a su( of (one/ an a(a*es on account of petitioner3s alle*ebreach of its obli*ation uner their ?uar Service "ontract.T% a't*on *" 7*t*n t% !%a+ o# '** a7%n'% >$!*"*'t*on o%! t% 'a"% 9%on;" to t% !%;$a! 'o$!t". -*% t% !%"o$t*on o# t% *""$%*no%" t% a&&*'at*on o# a9o! a7", !%#%!%n'% to t% a9o! 'o% 7a" ony #o! t% %t%!+*nat*on o#t% "o*a!y *a9**ty o# t% &%t*t*on%! to t% !%"&on%nt 7%!% no %+&oy%!%+&oy%% !%at*on %?*"t" .&rticle '%1 of the +abor "oe as a(ene vests upon the labor arbiters e5clusive ori*inal 4urisiction onl/over the follo$in*=

%.


41/151

The 4urisiction of labor courts e5tens onl/ to cases $here an e(plo/er;e(plo/ee relationship e5ists.

In the present case, there e5ists no e(plo/er;e(plo/ee relationship bet$een petitioner an DeltaMillin*. In its cross;clai(, petitioner is not see9in* an/ relief uner the +abor "oe but (erel/

rei(burse(ent of the (onetar/ benefits clai(s a$are an to be pai to the *uar e(plo/ees. There is nolabor ispute involve in the cross;clai( a*ainst Delta Millin*. Rather, the cross;clai( involves a civilispute bet$een petitioner an Delta Millin*. PetitionerJs cross;clai( is $ithin the real( of civil la$, an4urisiction over it belon*s to the re*ular courts.

Moreover, the liabilit/ of Delta Millin* to rei(burse petitioner $ill onl/ arise if an $hen petitioner

actuall/ pa/s its e(plo/ees the a4u*e liabilities.59K%%L Pa/(ent, $hich (eans not onl/ the eliver/ of(one/ but also the perfor(ance, in an/ other (anner, of the obli*ation, is the operative fact $hich $illentitle either of the soliar/ ebtors to see9 rei(burse(ent for the share $hich correspons to each of the

ebtors.60K%'L In this case, it appears that petitioner has /et to pa/ the *uar e(plo/ees. &s state in'apanday!

Ho$ever, it is not ispute that the private responent has not actuall/ pai the securit/ *uars the $a*eincreases *rante uner the Ba*e Orers in @uestion. Neither is it alle*e that there is an e5tant clai( forsuch $a*e a4ust(ents fro( the securit/ *uars concerne, $hose services have alrea/ been ter(inateb/ the contractor. &ccorin*l/, private responent has no cause of action a*ainst petitioner to recover the$a*e increases. Neeless to stress, the increases in $a*es are intene for the benefit of the laborers an thecontractor (a/ not assert a clai( a*ainst the principal for salar/ $a*e a4ust(ents that it has not actuall/pai. Other$ise, as correctl/ put b/ the responent, the contractor $oul be unul/ enrichin* itself b/recoverin* $a*e increases, for its o$n benefit.61K%L

"onse@uentl/, the "& i not co((it an/ error in is(issin* the petition an in affir(in* theN+R" Resolutions ate Septe(ber %0, '))) an Nove(ber 0, '))%.

-ERE/ORE, the petition is DENIED.

Double costs a*ainst petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

59

60

61


42/151


Manila

SECOND DIISIONG.R. No. 16241@ J$y 10, 200

PAUL . SANTIAGO,petitioner,vs.C/ SARP CRE- MANAGEMENT, INC.,responent.

D E C I S I O NTINGA,J.:&t the heart of this case involvin* a contract bet$een a seafarer, on one han, an the (annin*a*ent an the forei*n principal, on the other, is this erst$hile unsettle le*al @uanar/= $hetherthe seafarer, $ho $as prevente fro( leavin* the port of Manila an refuse eplo/(ent $ithoutvali reason but $hose PO!&;approve e(plo/(ent contract provies that the e(plo/er;e(plo/ee relationship shall co((ence onl/ upon the seafarer3s actual eparture fro( the port inthe point of hire, is entitle to reliefG

This treats of the petition for revie$ file b/ Paul V. Santia*o -petitioner assailin* the Decisionan Resolution of the "ourt of &ppeals ate %8 October ')) an %0 Februar/ '))2,respectivel/, in "&;?.R. SP No. 8A2)2.%

Petitioner ha been $or9in* as a seafarer for S(ith #ell Mana*e(ent, Inc. -responent forabout five -7 /ears.'On Februar/ %00A, petitioner si*ne a ne$ contract of e(plo/(ent $ithresponent, $ith the uration of nine -0 (onths. He $as assure of a (onthl/ salar/ of


43/151

Petitioner file a co(plaint for ille*al is(issal, a(a*es, an attorne/Js fees a*ainst responentan its forei*n principal, "able an Bireless -Marine +t.7The case $as raffle to +abor &rbiterTeresita "astillon;+ora, $ho rule that the e(plo/(ent contract re(aine vali but ha notco((ence since petitioner $as not eplo/e. &ccorin* to her, responent violate the rulesan re*ulations *overnin* overseas e(plo/(ent $hen it i not eplo/ petitioner, causin*

petitioner to suffer actual a(a*es representin* lost salar/ inco(e for nine -0 (onths an fi5eoverti(e fee, all a(ountin* to


44/151

!(plo/(ent of Filipino Seafarers On;#oar Ocean;?oin* Vessels -$hich is ee(eincorporate uner the petitioner3s PO!& approve !(plo/(ent "ontract that theclai(s or isputes of the Overseas Filipino Bor9er b/ virtue of a contract fall $ithin the4urisiction of the +abor &rbiter of the N+R".

#. The Honorable "ourt of &ppeals co((itte a serious error $hen it isre*are the

re@uire @uantu( of proof in labor cases, $hich is substantial evience, thus a totaleparture fro( establishe 4urispruence on the (atter.%1

Petitioner (aintains that responent violate the Mi*rant Bor9ers &ct an the PO!& Rules $henit faile to eplo/ hi( $ithin thirt/ -) calenar a/s $ithout a vali reason. In oin* so, it haunilaterall/ an arbitraril/ prevente the consu((ation of the PO!&; approve contract. Sinceit prevente his eplo/(ent $ithout vali basis, sai eplo/(ent bein* a conition to theconsu((ation of the PO!& contract, the contract is ee(e consu((ate, an therefore heshoul be a$are actual a(a*es, consistin* of the stipulate salar/ an fi5e overti(e pa/.%APetitioner as that since the contract is ee(e consu((ate, he shoul be consiere ane(plo/ee for all intents an purposes, an thus the labor arbiter anEor the N+R" has4urisiction to ta9e co*niance of his clai(s.%0

Petitioner aitionall/ clai(s that he shoul be consiere a re*ular e(plo/ee, havin* $or9efor five -7 /ears on boar the sa(e vessel o$ne b/ the sa(e principal an (anne b/ the sa(elocal a*ent. He ar*ues that responent3s act of not eplo/in* hi( $as a sche(e esi*ne toprevent hi( fro( attainin* the status of a re*ular e(plo/ee.')

Petitioner sub(its that responent ha no vali an sufficient cause to abanon the e(plo/(entcontract, as it (erel/ relie upon alle*e phone calls fro( his $ife an other unna(e callers inarrivin* at the conclusion that he $oul 4u(p ship li9e his brother. He points out that his $ifeha e5ecute an affiavit'%stron*l/ en/in* havin* calle responent, an that the other alle*ecallers i not even isclose their ientities to responent.''Thus, it $as error for the "ourt of&ppeals to aopt the unfoune conclusion of the N+R", as the sa(e $as not base onsubstantial evience.'

On the other han, responent ar*ues that the +abor &rbiter has no 4urisiction to a$arpetitioner3s (onetar/ clai(s. His e(plo/(ent $ith responent i not co((ence because hiseplo/(ent $as $ithhel for a vali reason. "onse@uentl/, the labor arbiter anEor the N+R"cannot entertain a4uication of petitioner3s case (uch less a$ar a(a*es to hi(. Thecontrovers/ involves a breach of contractual obli*ations an as such is co*niable b/ civilcourts.'2On another (atter, responent clai(s that the secon issue pose b/ petitioner involvesa recalibration of facts $hich is outsie the 4urisiction of this "ourt.'7

There is so(e (erit in the petition.

There is no @uestion that the parties entere into an e(plo/(ent contract on Februar/ %00A,$hereb/ petitioner $as contracte b/ responent to rener services on boar :MSV Seasprea:for the consieration of


45/151

co((ence(ent of the e(plo/er;e(plo/ee relationship, as earlier iscusse, $oul have ta9enplace ha petitioner been actuall/ eplo/e fro( the point of hire. Thus, even before the start ofan/ e(plo/er;e(plo/ee relationship, conte(poraneous $ith the perfection of the e(plo/(entcontract $as the birth of certain ri*hts an obli*ations, the breach of $hich (a/ *ive rise to acause of action a*ainst the errin* part/. Thus, if the reverse ha happene, that is the seafarer

faile or refuse to be eplo/e as a*ree upon, he $oul be liable for a(a*es.Moreover, $hile the PO!& Stanar "ontract (ust be reco*nie an respecte, neither the(annin* a*ent nor the e(plo/er can si(pl/ prevent a seafarer fro( bein* eplo/e $ithout avali reason.

Responent3s act of preventin* petitioner fro( epartin* the port of Manila an boarin* :MSVSeasprea: constitutes a breach of contract, *ivin* rise to petitioner3s cause of action.Responent unilaterall/ an unreasonabl/ rene*e on its obli*ation to eplo/ petitioner an (usttherefore ans$er for the actual a(a*es he suffere.

Be ta9e e5ception to the "ourt of &ppeals3 conclusion that a(a*es are not recoverable b/ a$or9er $ho $as not eplo/e b/ his a*enc/. The fact that the PO!& Rules'1are silent as to thepa/(ent of a(a*es to the affecte seafarer oes not (ean that the seafarer is preclue fro(

clai(in* the sa(e. The sanctions provie for non;eplo/(ent o not en $ith the suspension orcancellation of license or fine an the return of all ocu(ents at no cost to the $or9er. The/ onot forfen a seafarer fro( institutin* an action for a(a*es a*ainst the e(plo/er or a*enc/$hich has faile to eplo/ hi(.

The PO!& Rules onl/ provie sanctions $hich the PO!& can i(pose on errin* a*encies. It oesnot provie for a(a*es an (one/ clai(s recoverable b/ a**rieve e(plo/ees because it is notthe PO!&, but the N+R", $hich has 4urisiction over such (atters.

Despite the absence of an e(plo/er;e(plo/ee relationship bet$een petitioner an responent,the "ourt rules that the N+R" has 4urisiction over petitioner3s co(plaint. The 4urisiction oflabor arbiters is not li(ite to clai(s arisin* fro( e(plo/er;e(plo/ee relationships. Section %)of R.&. No. A)2' -Mi*rant Bor9ers &ct, provies that=

Sec. %).Money Claims. Not$ithstanin* an/ provision of la$ to the contrar/, the+abor &rbiters of the National +abor Relations "o((ission -N+R" shall have theori*inal an e5clusive 4urisiction to hear an ecie, $ithin ninet/ -0) calenar a/safter the filin* of the co(plaint, the clai(s arisin* out of an e(plo/er;e(plo/eerelationship or b/ virtue of an/ la$ or contract involvin* Filipino $or9ers for overseaseplo/(ent incluin* clai(s for actual, (oral, e5e(plar/ an other for(s of a(a*es. 55 5 K!(phasis supplieL

Since the present petition involves the e(plo/(ent contract entere into b/ petitioner foroverseas e(plo/(ent, his clai(s are co*niable b/ the labor arbiters of the N+R".

&rticle '%00 of the "ivil "oe provies that one is entitle to an ae@uate co(pensation onl/ forsuch pecuniar/ loss suffere b/ hi( as he has ul/ prove. Responent is thus liable to pa/

petitioner actual a(a*es in the for( of the loss of nine -0 (onths3 $orth of salar/ as proviein the contract. He is not, ho$ever, entitle to overti(e pa/. Bhile the contract inicate a fi5eoverti(e pa/, it is not a *uarantee that he $oul receive sai a(ount re*arless of $hether or nothe renere overti(e $or9. !ven thou*h petitioner $as :prevente $ithout vali reason fro(renerin* re*ular (uch less overti(e service,:'Athe fact re(ains that there is no certaint/ thatpetitioner $ill perfor( overti(e $or9 ha he been allo$e to boar the vessel. The a(ount of


46/151

#ervices +hils., %nc. v. &ational 'abor (elations Commission'0$here $e iscusse the (atterin this li*ht=

The contract provision (eans that the fi5e overti(e pa/ of )> $oul be the basis forco(putin* the overti(e pa/ if an $hen overti(e $or9 $oul be renere. Si(pl/state, the renition of overti(e $or9 an the sub(ission of sufficient proof that sai

$or9 $as actuall/ perfor(e are conitions to be satisfie before a sea(an coul beentitle to overti(e pa/ $hich shoul be co(pute on the basis of )> of the basic(onthl/ salar/. In short, the contract provision *uarantees the ri*ht to overti(e pa/ butthe entitle(ent to such benefit (ust first be establishe. Realisticall/ spea9in*, a sea(an,b/ the ver/ nature of his 4ob, sta/s on boar a ship or vessel be/on the re*ular ei*ht;hour $or9 scheule. For the e(plo/er to *ive hi( overti(e pa/ for the e5tra hours $henhe (i*ht be sleepin* or attenin* to his personal chores or even 4ust lullin* a$a/ his ti(e$oul be e5tre(el/ unfair an unreasonable.)

The "ourt also hols that petitioner is entitle to attorne/3s fees in the concept of a(a*es ane5penses of liti*ation. &ttorne/Js fees are recoverable $hen the efenantJs act or o(ission hasco(pelle the plaintiff to incur e5penses to protect his interest.%Be note that responent3s basis

for not eplo/in* petitioner is the belief that he $ill 4u(p ship 4ust li9e his brother, a (eresuspicion that is base on alle*e phone calls of several persons $hose ientities $ere not evenconfir(e. Ti(e an a*ain, this "ourt has uphel (ana*e(ent prero*atives so lon* as the/ aree5ercise in *oo faith for the avance(ent of the e(plo/er3s interest an not for the purpose ofefeatin* or circu(ventin* the ri*hts of the e(plo/ees uner special la$s or uner valia*ree(ents.'Responent3s failure to eplo/ petitioner is unfoune an unreasonable, forcin*petitioner to institute the suit belo$. The a$ar of attorne/3s fees is thus $arrante.

Ho$ever, (oral a(a*es cannot be a$are in this case. Bhile responent3s failure to eplo/petitioner see(s baseless an unreasonable, $e cannot @ualif/ such action as bein* tainte $ithba faith, or one eliberatel/ to efeat petitioner3s ri*hts, as to 4ustif/ the a$ar of (orala(a*es. &t (ost, responent $as bein* overealous in protectin* its interest $hen it beca(e

too hast/ in (a9in* its conclusion that petitioner $ill 4u(p ship li9e his brother.Be li9e$ise o not see responent3s failure to eplo/ petitioner as an act esi*ne to prevent thelatter fro( attainin* the status of a re*ular e(plo/ee. !ven if petitioner $as able to epart theport of Manila, he still cannot be consiere a re*ular e(plo/ee, re*arless of his previouscontracts of e(plo/(ent $ith responent. InMillares v. &ational 'abor (elations Commission,

the "ourt rule that seafarers are consiere contractual e(plo/ees an cannot be consiere asre*ular e(plo/ees uner the +abor "oe. Their e(plo/(ent is *overne b/ the contracts the/si*n ever/ ti(e the/ are rehire an their e(plo/(ent is ter(inate $hen the contract e5pires.The e5i*encies of their $or9 necessitates that the/ be e(plo/e on a contractual basis.2

BH!R!FOR!, petition is ?R&NT!D IN P&RT. The Decision ate %8 October ')) an theResolution ate %0 Februar/ '))2 of the "ourt of &ppeals are R!V!RS!D an S!T &SID!.

The Decision of +abor &rbiter Teresita D. "astillon;+ora ate '0 6anuar/ %000 isR!INST&T!D $ith the MODIFI"&TION that responent "F Sharp "re$ Mana*e(ent, Inc. isorere to pa/ actual or co(pensator/ a(a*es in the a(ount of of the recoverable a(ount.

SO ORDERED.Carpio, Carpio*Morales, -elasco, Jr., JJ.,concur.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_162419_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_162419_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_162419_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_162419_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_162419_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_162419_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_162419_2007.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_162419_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_162419_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_162419_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_162419_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_162419_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_162419_2007.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_162419_2007.html#fnt34


47/151


Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 1446 Ma!' 21, 2002DIL< DAN< NACPIL,petitioner,vs.INTERNATIONAL ROADCASTING CORPORATION, responent.APUNAN,J.:This is a petition for revie$ on certiorari uner Rule 27, assailin* the Decision of the "ourt of&ppeals ate Nove(ber ', %000 in "&;?.R. SP No. 7'177%an the Resolution ate &u*ust%, '))) en/in* petitioner Dil/ Dan/ NacpilJs (otion for reconsieration. The "ourt of&ppeals reverse the ecisions pro(ul*ate b/ the +abor &rbiter an the National +aborRelations "o((ission -N+R", $hich consistentl/ rule in favor of petitioner.

Petitioner states that he $as &ssistant ?eneral Mana*er for FinanceE&(inistration an

"o(ptroller of private responent Intercontinental #roacastin* "orporation -I#" fro( %008until &pril %001. &ccorin* to petitioner, $hen !(iliano Te(plo $as appointe to replace I#"Presient To(as ?o(e III so(eti(e in March %001, the for(er tol the #oar of Directors thatas soon as he assu(es the I#" presienc/, he $oul ter(inate the services of petitioner.&pparentl/, Te(plo bla(e petitioner, alon* $ith a certain Mr. #asilio an Mr. ?o(e, for theprior (is(ana*e(ent of I#".


48/151

reinstate $ithin ten -%) a/s fro( receipt of this ecision, he shall be entitle toaitional bac9$a*es until actuall/ reinstate.

'. +i9e$ise, to pa/ co(plainant the follo$in*=

a P ' Million as an for (oral a(a*es

b P7)),))).)) as an for e5e(plar/ a(a*es plus an -sic

c Ten -%)> percent thereof as an for attorne/Js fees.SO ORD!R!D.

I#" appeale to the N+R", but the sa(e $as is(isse in a Resolution ate March ', %000, forits failure to file the re@uire appeal bon in accorance $ith &rticle '' of the +abor "oe.2I#" then file a (otion for reconsieration that $as li9e$ise enie in a Resolution ate &pril'8, %000.7

I#" then file $ith the "ourt of &ppeals a petition for certiorari uner Rule 87, $hich petition$as *rante b/ the appellate court in its Decision ate Nove(ber ', %000. The ispositiveportion of sai ecision states=

BH!R!FOR!, pre(ises consiere, the petition for "ertiorari is ?R&NT!D. Theassaile ecisions of the +abor &rbiter an the N+R" are R!V!RS!D an S!T &SID!an the co(plaint is DISMISS!D $ithout pre4uice.

#1 1()"(").8

Petitioner then file a (otion for reconsieration, $hich $as enie b/ the appellate court in aResolution ate &u*ust %, '))).

Hence, this petition.

Petitioner Nacpil sub(its that=

I.

TH! "O

a Devices or sche(es e(plo/e b/ or an/ acts of the boar of irectors, businessassociates, its officers or partners, a(ountin* to frau an (isrepresentation $hich (a/be etri(ental to the interest of the public anEor of the stoc9holers, partners, (e(bersof associations or or*aniations re*istere $ith the "o((ission


49/151

b "ontroversies arisin* out of intra;corporate or partnership relations, bet$een ana(on* stoc9holers, (e(bers or associates bet$een an/ or all of the( an thecorporation, partnership or association of $hich the/ are stoc9holers, (e(bers orassociates, respectivel/ an bet$een such corporation, partnership or association an theState insofar as it concerns their iniviual franchise or ri*ht to e5ist as such entit/

c Cont!o%!"*%" *n t% %%'t*on o! a&&o*nt+%nt o# *!%'to!", t!$"t%%", o##*'%!", o!+ana;%!" o# "$' 'o!&o!at*on", &a!tn%!"*&" o! a""o'*at*on"( Petitions of corporations, partnerships, or associations to be eclare in the state ofsuspension of pa/(ents in cases $here the corporation, partnership or associationpossesses propert/ to cover all of its ebts but foresees the i(possibilit/ of (eetin* the($hen the/ respectivel/ fall ue or in cases $here the corporation, partnership orassociation has no sufficient assets to cover its liabilities, but is uner the Mana*e(ent"o((ittee create pursuant to this ecree. -!(phasis supplie.

The "ourt has consistentl/ hel that there are t$o ele(ents to be consiere in eter(inin*$hether the S!" has 4urisiction over the controvers/, to $it= -% the status or relationship of theparties an -' the nature of the @uestion that is the sub4ect of their controvers/.A

Petitioner ar*ues that he is not a corporate officer of the I#" but an e(plo/ee thereof since heha not been electe nor appointe as "o(ptroller an &ssistant Mana*er b/ the I#"Js #oar ofDirectors. He points out that he ha actuall/ been appointe as such on 6anuar/ %%, %007 b/ theI#"Js ?eneral Mana*er, "eferino #asilio. In support of his ar*u(ent, petitioner unerscores thefact that the I#"Js #/;+a$s oes not even inclue the position of co(ptroller in its roster ofcorporate officers.0He therefore contens that his is(issal is a controvers/ fallin* $ithin the4urisiction of the labor courts.%)

PetitionerJs ar*u(ent is untenable. !ven assu(in* that he $as in fact appointe b/ the ?eneralMana*er, such appoint(ent $as subse@uentl/ approve b/ the #oar of Directors of the I#".%%That the position of "o(ptroller is not e5pressl/ (entione a(on* the officers of the I#" in the#/;+a$s is of no (o(ent, because the I#"Js #oar of Directors is e(po$ere uner Section '7

of the "orporation "oe%'an uner the corporationJs #/;+a$s to appoint such other officers asit (a/ ee( necessar/. The #/;+a$s of the I#" cate*oricall/ provies=

II. OFFI"!RS

The officers of the corporation shall consist of a Presient, a Vice;Presient, a Secretar/;Treasurer, a ?eneral Mana*er, an "$' ot%! o##*'%!" a" t% oa! o# D*!%'to!" +ay#!o+ t*+% to t*+% o%" #*t to &!o*% #o!. Sa* o##*'%!" "a 9% %%'t% 9y +a>o!*tyot% o# t% oa! o# D*!%'to!"an shall have such po$ers an uties as shall hereinafterprovie -!(phasis supplie.%

The "ourt has hel that in (ost cases the 2b/;la$s (a/ an usuall/ o provie for such otherofficers,:%2an that $here a corporate office is not specificall/ inicate in the roster ofcorporate offices in the b/;la$s of a corporation, the boar of irectors (a/ also be e(po$ere

uner the b/;la$sto create aitional officers as (a/ be necessar/.%7

&n :office: has been efine as a creation of the charter of a corporation, $hile an :officer: as aperson electe b/ the irectors or stoc9holers. On the other han, an :e(plo/ee: occupies nooffice an is *enerall/ e(plo/e not b/ action of the irectors an stoc9holers but b/ the(ana*in* officer of the corporation $ho also eter(ines the co(pensation to be pai to suche(plo/ee.%8


50/151

&s petitionerJs appoint(ent as co(ptroller re@uire the approval an for(al action of the I#"Js#oar of Directors to beco(e vali,%1it is clear therefore hols that petitioner is a corporateofficer $hose is(issal (a/ be the sub4ect of a controvers/ co*niable b/ the S!" unerSection 7-c of P.D. 0)';& $hich inclues controversies involvin* both election ana&&o*nt+%ntof corporate irectors, trustees, officers, an (ana*ers.%AHa petitioner been an

orinar/ e(plo/ee, such boar action $oul not have been [email protected], the "ourt of &ppeals correctl/ hel that=

Since co(plainantJs appoint(ent $as approve unani(ousl/ b/ the #oar of Directors ofthe corporation, he is therefore consiere a corporate officer an his clai( of ille*alis(issal is a controvers/ that falls uner the 4urisiction of the S!" as conte(plate b/Section 7 of P.D. 0)';&. The rule is that is(issal or non;appoint(ent of a corporateofficer is clearl/ an intra;corporate (atter an 4urisiction over the case properl/ belon*sto the S!", not to the N+R".%0

&s to petitionerJs ar*u(ent that the nature of his functions is reco((enator/ thereb/ (a9in*hi( a (ere (ana*erial officer, the "ourt has previousl/ hel that the relationship of a person to acorporation, $hether as officer or a*ent or e(plo/ee is not eter(ine b/ the nature of the

services perfor(e, but instea b/ the incients of the relationship as the/ actuall/ e5ist.')

It is li9e$ise of no conse@uence that petitionerJs co(plaint for ille*al is(issal inclues (one/clai(s, for such clai(s are actuall/ part of the per@uisites of his position in, an therefore lin9e$ith his relations $ith, the corporation. The inclusion of such (one/ clai(s oes not convert theissue into a si(ple labor proble(. "learl/, the issues raise b/ petitioner a*ainst the I#" are(atters that co(e $ithin the area of corporate affairs an (ana*e(ent, an constitute acorporate controvers/ in conte(plation of the "orporation "oe.'%

Petitioner further ar*ues that the I#" faile to perfect its appeal fro( the +abor &rbiterJsDecision for its non;pa/(ent of the appeal bon as re@uire uner &rticle '' of the +abor"oe, since co(pliance $ith the re@uire(ent of postin* of a cash or suret/ bon in an a(ounte@uivalent to the (onetar/ a$ar in the 4u*(ent appeale fro( has been hel to be both

(anator/ an 4urisictional.''Hence, the Decision of the +abor &rbiter ha lon* beco(e finalan e5ecutor/ an thus, the "ourt of &ppeals acte $ith *rave abuse of iscretion a(ountin* tolac9 or e5cess of 4urisiction in *ivin* ue course to the I#"Js petition for certiorari, an ineciin* the case on the (erits.

The I#"Js failure to post an appeal bon $ithin the perio (anate uner &rticle '' of the+abor "oe has been renere i((aterial b/ the fact that the +abor &rbiter i not have4urisiction over the case since as state earlier, the sa(e is in the nature of an intra;corporatecontrovers/. The "ourt has consistentl/ hel that $here there is a finin* that an/ ecision $asrenere $ithout 4urisiction, the action shall be is(isse. Such efense can be interpose atan/ ti(e, urin* appeal or even after final 4u*(ent.'It is a $ell;settle rule that 4urisiction isconferre onl/ b/ the "onstitution or b/ la$. It cannot be fi5e b/ the $ill of the parties it

cannot be ac@uire throu*h, enlar*e or i(inishe b/, an/ act or o(ission of the parties.'2

"onsierin* the fore*oin*, the "ourt hols that no error $as co((itte b/ the "ourt of &ppealsin is(issin* the case file before the +abor &rbiter, $ithout pre4uice to the filin* of anappropriate action in the proper court. /wphi.n0t

It (ust be note that uner Section 7.' of the Securities Re*ulation "oe -Republic &a

Documents

LABOR 2 CASES.docx