1. The petitioner, a member of the US Air Force stationed at Clark Air Base, was found guilty of illegal dismissal by the labor arbiter for terminating employees without cause. However, the petitioner argued that the labor arbiter did not have jurisdiction because she was not properly served summons as required by the military bases agreement.
2. The Supreme Court agreed and ruled the labor arbiter's decision void, as summonses for US military personnel on bases must be served with permission of the base commander, which did not occur.
3. Proper service of summons is needed to acquire jurisdiction over a respondent; the petitioner's participation in NLRC oral arguments did not waive the lack of
1. The petitioner, a member of the US Air Force stationed at Clark Air Base, was found guilty of illegal dismissal by the labor arbiter for terminating employees without cause. However, the petitioner argued that the labor arbiter did not have jurisdiction because she was not properly served summons as required by the military bases agreement.
2. The Supreme Court agreed and ruled the labor arbiter's decision void, as summonses for US military personnel on bases must be served with permission of the base commander, which did not occur.
3. Proper service of summons is needed to acquire jurisdiction over a respondent; the petitioner's participation in NLRC oral arguments did not waive the lack of
1. The petitioner, a member of the US Air Force stationed at Clark Air Base, was found guilty of illegal dismissal by the labor arbiter for terminating employees without cause. However, the petitioner argued that the labor arbiter did not have jurisdiction because she was not properly served summons as required by the military bases agreement.
2. The Supreme Court agreed and ruled the labor arbiter's decision void, as summonses for US military personnel on bases must be served with permission of the base commander, which did not occur.
3. Proper service of summons is needed to acquire jurisdiction over a respondent; the petitioner's participation in NLRC oral arguments did not waive the lack of
LARKINS vs. NLRC G.R. No. 2!"2 F#$%&'%( 2", )5 FACTS* Petitioner was a member of the US Air Force assigned to oversee the dormitories of the Third Aircraft Generation Squadron (3 AGS) at Car! Air "ase# Pam$anga% 3 AGS terminated the contract for the maintenance of the dorms with &e Gu'man Custodia Services% The em$o(ees# incuding $rivate res$ondents# were aowed to continue wor!ing for 3 AGS% )t was eft to the new contractor# the *AC +aintenance Services owned b( *oseito Cunanan# to decide whether it woud retain their services# however# the atter chose to bring in his own wor!ers% Private res$ondents ,ed a com$aint with the -egiona Arbitration "ranch of the ./-C against $etitioner# /t% Co% Fran!hauser# and Cunanan for iega dismissa# under$a(ment of wages# caims for emergenc( cost of iving aowance# thirteenth0month $a(# service incentive eave $a( and hoida( $remiums% Cunanan was dro$$ed as $art( res$ondent% Petitioner and /t% Co% Fran!hauser faied to answer the com$aint and to a$$ear at the hearings% The( aso faied to submit their $osition $a$er# which the /abor Arbiter deemed a waiver on their $art% The case was submitted for decision on the basis of $rivate res$ondents1 $osition $a$er and su$$orting documents% 2n .ovember 34# 4566# the /abor Arbiter granted a the caims of $rivate res$ondents ,nding both Fran!hauser and $etitioner 7guit( of iega dismissa7 and ordered them to reinstate $rivate res$ondents with fu bac! wages# or to $a( their se$aration $a(% Petitioner aeges that she never received nor was served# an( summons or co$ies of the origina and amended com$aints# and therefore the /abor Arbiter had no 8urisdiction over her $erson under Artice 9): of the -%P% ; U%S% +iitar( "ases Agreement% ./-C issued a -esoution a<rming the decision of the /abor Arbiter# whie the Soicitor Genera disagreed% ISSUE* =hether or not the questioned resoutions are nu and void because res$ondent /abor Arbiter did not acquire 8urisdiction to entertain and decide the case% HELD* The /abor Arbiter did not acquire 8urisdiction over the $etitioner% The 7Agreement between the -e$ubic of the Phii$$ines and the United States of America Concerning +iitar( "ases#7 otherwise !nown as the -%P% U%S% +iitar( "ases Agreement# governed the rights# duties# authorit(# and the e>ercise thereof b( Phii$$ine and American nationas inside the U%S% miitar( bases in the countr(% Artice 9): $rovides that .o $rocess# civi or crimina# sha be served within an( base e>ce$t with the $ermission of the commanding o<cer of such base? but shoud the commanding o<cer refuse to grant such $ermission he sha forthwith ta!e the necessar( ste$s to serve such $rocess# and to $rovide the attendance of the server of such $rocess before the a$$ro$riate court in the Phii$$ines or $rocure such server to ma!e the necessar( a<davit or decaration to $rove such service as the case ma( require% Summonses and other $rocesses issued b( Phii$$ine courts and administrative agencies for United States Armed Forces $ersonne within an( U%S% base in the Phii$$ines coud be served therein on( with the $ermission of the "ase Commander% )f he withhods giving his $ermission# he shoud designate another $erson to serve the $rocess# and obtain the server1s a<davit for ,ing with the a$$ro$riate court% The /abor Arbiter did not foow said $rocedure? instead# addressed the summons to /t% Co% Fran!hauser and not the "ase Commander% -es$ondents do not dis$ute $etitioner1s caim that no summons was ever issued and served on her# however# the( sent notices of the hearings to her% .otices of hearing are not summonses% The $rovisions and $revaiing 8uris$rudence in Civi Procedure ma( be a$$ied b( anaog( to ./-C $roceedings (-evised -ues of the ./-C# -ue )# Sec% 3)% )t is basic that the /abor Arbiter cannot acquire 8urisdiction over the $erson of the res$ondent without the atter being served with summons% )n the absence of service of summons or a vaid waiver thereof# the hearings and 8udgment rendered b( the /abor Arbiter are nu and void% Petitioner a$$eaed to the ./-C and $artici$ated in the ora argument before the said bod(# however this does not constitute a waiver of the ac! of summons and a vountar( submission of her $erson to the 8urisdiction of the /abor Arbiter% She ma( have raised grounds other than ac! of 8urisdiction# but these grounds were discussed in reation to and as a resut of the issue of the ac! of 8urisdiction% )n e@ect# $etitioner set forth on( one issue and that is the absence of 8urisdiction over her $erson% )f an a$$earance before the ./-C is $recise( to question the 8urisdiction of the said agenc( over the $erson of the defendant# then this a$$earance is not equivaent to service of summons% UER+,+#-o%.'/ +#0.1'/ C#23#% vs. NLRC G.R. No. ))0!) +'%14 ", )7 FACTS* 2n 4A &ecember 456B -e$ubic Act .o% CCAD too! e@ect which mandated a ten (P4D%DD) $eso increase on the $revaiing dai( minimum wage of PEA%DD% )n a$$(ing said aw# the $etitioners granted saar( increases to their em$o(ees based on the foowing com$utation# to witF 4% To members of the facut( who are non0union members# P3DA%4B $er month? 3% To ran!0and0,e em$o(ees (individua com$ainants who are union members)# P3D5%4B $er month% There was a di@erence of P5E%DD in the saaries of the two casses of em$o(ees% Private res$ondents who are ran! and ,e em$o(ees demanded $a(ment of the di@erence% "efore the $arties coud sette their dis$ute# -e$ubic Act .o% CB3B too! e@ect on 4 *u( 4565 which again increased the dai( minimum wage in the $rivate sector (whether agricutura or non0agricutura) b( P3E%DD% )n com$iance# $etitioners $aid their em$o(ees 4 using the foowing com$utation# to witF 4% To members of the facut( who are non0union members# PBCD%A3 a month? and 3% To ran!0and0,e em$o(ees (individua com$ainants who are union members)# PE33%DD a month% Again# there was a di@erence of P33B%A3 $er month between the saaries of union members and non0union members% )n Se$tember 456B# $etitioners increased the hiring rate of the new em$o(ees to P466%DD $er month% Private res$ondents once more demanded from the $etitioners $a(ment of the saar( di@erentia mandated b( -A .o% CB3B and correction of the wage distortion brought about b( the increase in the hiring rate of new em$o(ees% 2n 43 A$ri 4566# Poic( )nstruction .o% EA was issued b( the then Secretar( of /abor Fran!in &rion# the $ertinent $rovision of which readsF % % % the $ersonne in sub8ect hos$itas and cinics are entited to a fu wee!( wage of seven da(s if the( have com$eted the AD0hourGE0da( wor!wee! in an( given wor!wee!% A enforcement and ad8udicator( agencies of this &e$artment sha be guided b( this issuance in the dis$osition of cases invoving the $ersonne of covered hos$itas and cinics% Petitioners chaenged the vaidit( of said Poic( )nstruction and refused to $a( the saaries of the $rivate res$ondents for Saturda(s and Sunda(s% Consequent(# a com$aint was ,ed b( the $rivate res$ondents# re$resented b( the Federation of Free =or!ers (FF=)# caiming saar( di@erentias under -e$ubic Act .os% CCAD and CB3B# correction of the wage distortion and the $a(ment of saaries for Saturda(s and Sunda(s under Poic( )nstruction .o% EA% =ithin the regementar( $eriod for a$$ea# the $etitioners ,ed their .otice and +emorandum of A$$ea with a -ea Hstate "ond consisting of and and various im$rovements therein worth P4D3#3AE#CED%
The $rivate res$ondents moved to dismiss the a$$ea on the ground that Artice 333 of the /abor Code# as amended# requires the $osting of a cash or suret( bond% The ./-C directed $etitioners to $ost a cash or suret( bond of P4B#D63#AA6%EC with a warning that faiure to do so woud cause the dismissa of the a$$ea% The $etitioners ,ed a +otion for -econsideration aeging it is not in a viabe ,nancia condition to $ost a cash bond nor to $a( the annua $remium of PBDD#DDD%DD for a suret( bond% 2n C 2ctober 4553# the ./-C dismissed $etitioners1 a$$ea% The SC rued a ibera inter$retation to this $rovision% )n YBL (Your Bus Line) v% NLRC % % % that whie Artice 333 of the /abor Code# as amended b( -e$ubic Act .o% CB4E# requiring a cash or suret( bond in the amount equivaent to the monetar( award in the 8udgment a$$eaed from for the a$$ea to be $erfected# ma( be considered a 8urisdictiona requirement# nevertheess# adhering to the $rinci$e that substantia 8ustice is better served b( aowing the a$$ea on the merits threshed out b( the ./-C# the Court ,nds and so hods that the foregoing requirement of the aw shoud be given a ibera inter$retation% in Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative, Inc% v% National Labor Relations Commission
The intention of the awma!ers to ma!e the bond an indis$ensabe requisite for the $erfection of an a$$ea b( the em$o(er is underscored b( the $rovision that an a$$ea b( the em$o(er ma( be $erfected 7on( u$on the $osting of a cash or suret( bond%7 The word 7on(7 ma!es it $erfect( cear# that the awma!ers intended the $osting of a cash or suret( bond b( the em$o(er to be the e>cusive means b( which an em$o(er1s a$$ea ma( be $erfected% The requirement is intended to discourage em$o(ers from using an a$$ea to dea(# or even evade# their obigation to satisf( their em$o(ees1 8ust and awfu caims% Considering# however# that the current $oic( is not to strict( foow technica rues but rather to ta!e into account the s$irit and intention of the /abor Code# it woud be $rudent for us to oo! into the merits of the case# es$ecia( since $etitioner dis$utes the aegation that $rivate res$ondent was iega( dismissed% The SC reiterates the $oic( which stresses the im$ortance of deciding cases on the basis of their substantive merit and not on strict technica rues% )n the case at bar# the 8udgment invoved is more than P4B miion and its $reci$itate e>ecution can adverse( a@ect the e>istence of $etitioner medica center% /i!ewise# the issues invoved are not insigni,cant and the( deserve a fu discourse b( our quasi08udicia and 8udicia authorities% =e are aso con,dent that the rea $ro$ert( bond $osted b( the $etitioners su<cient( $rotects the interests of $rivate res$ondents shoud the( ,na( $revai% )t is not dis$uted that the rea $ro$ert( o@ered b( $etitioners is worth P4D3#3AE#CED% The 8udgment in favor of $rivate res$ondent is on( a itte more than P4B miion% P4./3%'21o S#%v.1# E23#%5%.s#s, I21. vs. NLRC G.R. No. )2!)00 A5%./ ), )6 FACTS* .ieva was em$o(ed as a driver b( $etitioner assigned to the /egas$i Cit(0 Pasa( Cit( route% .ieva sideswi$ed an owner0 t($e 8ee$ and a crimina com$aint was ,ed against him% Phitranco $osted a bai bond for .ieva% After having been sus$ended# he was tod to wait unti his case was setted% The case was ,na( setted he was requested to ,e a new a$$ication as he was no onger considered an em$o(ee of Phitranco# aeged( for being absent without eave from 2ctober 45 to .ovember 3D# 4565% .ieva ,ed a com$aint for iega 3 dismissa and demanded for 43 th month $a( with the ./-CIs .ationa Ca$ita -egion Arbitration "ranch in +ania% Phitranco ,ed a motion to dismiss on the ground of im$ro$er venue# stating that the com$aint shoud have been odged with the ./-CIs -egiona Arbitration "ranch in /egas$i Cit(# not on( because .ieva was a resident thereof# but aso because the atter was hired# assigned# and based in /egas$i Cit(% ISSUE* =hether or not ./-CIs .C- Arbitration "ranch in +ania was a $ro$er venue for the ,ing of .ievaIs com$aints for iega dismissa HELD* The ,ing of the com$aint with the .ationa Ca$ita -egion Arbitration "ranch was $ro$er# +ania being considered as $art of .ievaIs wor!$ace b( reason of his $(ing the /egas$i Cit(0Pasa( Cit( route% )n fact# Section 4(a)# -ue ): of the .ew -ues of Procedure of the ./-C is mere( $ermissive% Provisions on venue are intended to assure convenience for the em$o(ee and his witnesses and to $romote the ends of 8ustice $rovided that it is not o$$ressive to the em$o(er% S3. +'%3.2 F&2#%'/ Ho-# vs. NLRC G.R. No. )"0666 S#53#-$#% )6, )6 FACTS* Private res$ondent aeges that he started wor!ing as 2$erations +anager of $etitioner St% +artin Funera Jome on Februar( C# 455E% Petitioner on the other hand caims that $rivate res$ondent was not its em$o(ee but on( the unce of Ameita +aabed# the owner of $etitioner St% +artin1s Funera Jome% =hen the mother of Ameita $assed awa(# the atter then too! over the management of the business and made some changes in the business o$eration and $rivate res$ondent and his wife were no onger aowed to $artici$ate in the management thereof% As a consequence# the atter ,ed a com$aint charging that $etitioner had iega( terminated his em$o(ment%
The abor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of $etitioner decaring that no em$o(er0 em$o(ee reationshi$ e>isted between the $arties and# therefore# his o<ce had no 8urisdiction over the case% 2n *une 43# 455B# the ./-C rendered a resoution setting aside the questioned decision and remanding the case to the abor arbiter for immediate a$$ro$riate $roceedings%
Petitioner then ,ed a motion for reconsideration which was denied b( the ./-C in its resoution dated August 46# 455B for ac! of merit ISSUE* =hether or not the Court has the $ower to review decisions of the ./-C% HELD* =hen the issue was raised in an ear( case on the argument that this Court has no 8urisdiction to review the decisions of the ./-C# and former( of the Secretar( of /abor# since there is no ega $rovision for a$$eate review thereof# the Court nevertheess re8ected that thesis% )t hed that there is an under(ing $ower of the courts to scrutini'e the acts of such agencies on questions of aw and 8urisdiction even though no right of review is given b( statute? that the $ur$ose of 8udicia review is to !ee$ the administrative agenc( within its 8urisdiction and $rotect the substantia rights of the $arties? and that it is that $art of the chec!s and baances which restricts the se$aration of $owers and forestas arbitrar( and un8ust ad8udications% Pursuant to such ruing# and as sanctioned b( subsequent decisions of this Court# the remed( of the aggrieved $art( is to time( ,e a motion for reconsideration as a $recondition for an( further or subsequent remed(# and then seasonab( avai of the s$ecia civi action of certiorari under -ue CE# for which said -ue has now ,>ed the regementar( $eriod of si>t( da(s from notice of the decision% Curious(# athough the 4D0da( $eriod for ,nait( of the decision of the ./-C ma( aread( have a$sed as contem$ated in Section 333 of the /abor Code# it has been hed that this Court ma( sti ta!e cogni'ance of the $etition for certiorari on 8urisdictiona and due $rocess considerations if ,ed within the regementar( $eriod under -ue CE% Sec% 5% Jurisdiction% The Court of A$$eas sha e>erciseF (3) H>cusive a$$eate 8urisdiction over a ,na 8udgments# decisions# resoutions# orders or awards of -egiona Tria Courts and quasi08udicia agencies# instrumentaities# boards or commissions# incuding the Securities and H>change Commission# the Socia Securit( Commission# the Hm$o(ees Com$ensation Commission and the Civi Service Commission# e>ce$t those faing within the a$$eate 8urisdiction of the Su$reme Court in accordance with the Constitution# the /abor Code of the Phii$$ines under Presidentia &ecree .o% AA3# as amended# the $rovisions of this Act# and of sub$aragra$h (4) of the third $aragra$h and sub$aragra$h (A) of the fourth $aragra$h of Section 4B of the *udiciar( Act of 45A6% Under the foregoing $remises# the instant $etition for certiorari is hereb( -H+A.&H&# and a $ertinent records thereof ordered to be F2-=A-&H&# to the Court of A$$eas for a$$ro$riate action and dis$osition consistent with the views and ruing herein set forth# without $ronouncement as to costs% LUDO 7 LUY+ CORPORATION VS SAORNIDO G.R. No. )!060. J'2&'%( 20, 200" FACTS* /U&2 engaged the arrastre services of Cresencio /u Arrastre Services (C/AS) for the oading and unoading of its ,nished $roducts at the wharf% According(# severa arrastre wor!ers were de$o(ed b( C/AS to $erform the services needed b( /U&2% These arrastre wor!ers were subsequent( hired# on di@erent dates# as reguar ran!0and0 ,e em$o(ees of /U&2 ever( time the atter needed additiona man$ower services% Said em$o(ees thereafter 8oined res$ondent union# the /U&2 Hm$o(ees Union (/HU)# which acted as the e>cusive bargaining agent of the ran!0 and0,e em$o(ees% -es$ondent union entered into a coective bargaining agreement with /U&2 which $rovides certain bene,ts to the em$o(ees# the amount of which var( according to the ength of service rendered b( the avaiing em$o(ee% Thereafter# the union 3 requested /U&2 to incude in its members $eriod of service the time during which the( rendered arrastre services to /U&2 through the C/AS so that the( coud get higher bene,ts% /U&2 faied to act on the request% Thus# the matter was submitted for vountar( arbitration% :ountar( Arbitrator rued thatF (4) the res$ondent em$o(ees were engaged in activities necessar( and desirabe to the business of $etitioner# and (3) C/AS is a abor0 on( contractor of $etitioner% The Court of A$$eas a<rmed in toto the decision of the :ountar( Arbitrator% Petitioner contends that the a$$eate court erred when it u$hed the award of bene,ts which were be(ond the terms of submission agreement and that the arbitrator must con,ne its ad8udication to those issues submitted b( the $arties for arbitration# which in this case is the soe issue of the date of reguari'ation of the wor!ers% Jence# the award of bene,ts b( the arbitrator was done in e>cess of 8urisdiction% ISSUE* =hether or not the a$$eate court grave( erred when it u$hed the award of bene,ts which were be(ond the terms of submission agreement% HELD* Genera(# the arbitrator is e>$ected to decide on( those questions e>$ress( deineated b( the submission agreement% .evertheess# the arbitrator can assume that he has the necessar( $ower to ma!e a ,na settement since arbitration is the ,na resort for the ad8udication of dis$utes% 43 The succinct reasoning enunciated b( the CA in su$$ort of its hoding# that the :ountar( Arbitrator in a abor controvers( has 8urisdiction to render the questioned arbitra awards# deserves our concurrence# thusF )n genera# the arbitrator is e>$ected to decide those questions e>$ress( stated and imited in the submission agreement% Jowever# since arbitration is the ,na resort for the ad8udication of dis$utes# the arbitrator can assume that he has the $ower to ma!e a ,na settement% Thus# assuming that the submission em$owers the arbitrator to decide whether an em$o(ee was discharged for 8ust cause# the arbitrator in this instance can reasonabe assume that his $owers e>tended be(ond giving a (es0or0no answer and incuded the $ower to reinstate him with or without bac! $a(% H'28.2 E29.2##%.29 '20 Co2s3%&13.o2 Co. L30. vs. Co&%3 o: A55#'/s G.R. No. )65)0 A5%./ )0, 2006 F'13s* Jan8in is a construction com$an( that had been contracted b( the Phii$$ine Government for the construction of various foreign0,nanced $ro8ects% Jan8in and the Phii$$ine Government entered into contracts for the construction of the +ainao &am at Piar# "oho# with a $ro8ected com$etion $eriod of 4#DED caendar da(s# incuding main cana and atera $ro8ects for BED da(s% From August 455E to August 455C# Jan8in contracted the services of B43 car$enters# masons# truc! drivers# he$ers# aborers# heav( equi$ment o$erators# eadmen# engineers# steemen# mechanics# eectricians and others% )n A$ri 4556# B43 em$o(ees ,ed com$aints for iega dismissa and for $a(ment of bene,ts against $etitioners# before the ./-C% The com$ainants averred that the( were reguar em$o(ees of Jan8in and that the( were se$arated from em$o(ment without an( awfu or 8ust cause% 2n( E34 of the com$ainants a<>ed their signatures in the com$aints% Petitioners aeged that the com$ainants were mere $ro8ect em$o(ees in its "oho )rrigation Pro8ect and that 3 of the wore!ers were charged with quai,ed theft before the -TC% Some of the com$ainants had aread( migrated to USA or had died# whie 44B of them were sti under the em$o( of Jan8in% Petitioner stated that some of the com$ainants had vountari( resigned? 4A were absent without $rior a$$roved eave? 4E had signed a +otion to =ithdraw from the com$aint? and man( of the com$ainants were se$arated on account of the com$etion of the $ro8ect% Jowever# $etitioners faied to a$$end an( document to su$$ort their caim% /abor Arbiter rendered 8udgment in favor of the A36 com$ainants# granting se$aration $a( and attorne(1s fees to each of them stating that the com$ainants were reguar em$o(ees of $etitioner and their caims for under$a(ment# hoida( $a(# $remium $a( for hoida( and rest da(# 43th month $a(# and service incentive eave woud be com$uted after su<cient data were made avaiabe% Petitioners a$$eaed the decision to the ./-C# which a<rmed with modi,cation the /abor Arbiter1s ruing% Petitioners ,ed a +otion for the -econsideration of the decision (with a motion to conduct cari,cator( hearings) Petitioners a$$ended to their motion machine co$ies of some of the com$ainants1 em$o(ment contracts# resignation etters of others who were given monetar( awards in the decision# and 44 foders consisting most( of $a(ros% ./-C $artia( granted $etitioners1 motion% Unsatis,ed# $etitioners ,ed a Petition for Certiorari under -ue CE of the -evised -ues of Court in the CA% CA dismissed the $etition and a<rmed the ./-C1s ruing that the dismissed em$o(ees were reguar em$o(ees% The CA stressed that $etitioners faied to refute the caim of the res$ondents that the( were reguar em$o(ees% Petitioners moved to reconsider the decision# which the CA denied% ISSUE* =hether or not res$ondents are $ro8ect em$o(ees% HELD* =hie res$ondent aeged that 7com$ainants a signed a contract of em$o(ment at the time the( were hired indicating therein the $articuar $ro8ect the( wi be wor!ing on# the $eriod and other conditions $rovided in their contracts which com$ainants fu( !new and understood#7 nowhere in the records can the said contracts be found% +oreover# et it be stressed that under &2 .o% 45# Series of 4553 on $ro8ect em$o(ment# si> (C) indicators are enumerated therein and one of which is thatF 7(T)he termination of his em$o(ment in the $articuar $ro8ectGunderta!ing is re$orted to the &e$artment of /abor and Hm$o(ment (&2/H) -egiona 2<ce having A 8urisdiction over the wor!$ace within 3D da(s foowing the date of his se$aration from wor! > > >%7 )n this $articuar case# the records do not show that a simiar re$ort was ever made b( res$ondent to the &e$artment of /abor and Hm$o(ment% Such faiure of res$ondent em$o(er to re$ort to the nearest em$o(ment o<ce of the &e$artment of /abor# the termination of the wor!ers it caimed as $ro8ect em$o(ees at the time it com$eted the $ro8ect# is $roof that com$ainants were not $ro8ect em$o(ees% The $rinci$a test for determining whether $articuar em$o(ees are $ro$er( characteri'ed as $ro8ect em$o(ees isF whether or not the $ro8ect em$o(ees were assigned to carr( out a s$eci,c $ro8ect or underta!ing# the duration of which were s$eci,ed at the time the em$o(ees were engaged for that $ro8ect% Predetermination of the duration or $eriod of $ro8ect em$o(ment is essentia in resoving whether one is a $ro8ect em$o(ee or not% )n the instant case# the com$etion of the $ro8ect for which the com$ainants were hired was not determined at the start of their em$o(ment# there being no substantia $roof thereof% The fact that com$ainants had rendered more than one (ear of service at the time of their dismissa and there being no substantia evidence to su$$ort that the( were engaged to wor! on a s$eci,c $ro8ect or underta!ing# overturns res$ondentIs aegation that com$ainants were $ro8ect em$o(ees hired for a s$eci,c ,>ed $ro8ect for a imited $eriod of time% Com$ainants herein were# therefore# non0$ro8ect em$o(ees# but reguar em$o(ees% Admitted(# being a du( icensed contractor ,rm in the Phii$$ines# res$ondent is the awardee of severa construction $ro8ects and in man( occasions it has been given the $riorit( in the awarding of subsequent $ro8ects% )n the ight of the above facts and circumstances# the res$ondent1s main defense that com$etion of the $ro8ect wor!ed on b( the com$ainants constitutes a vaid cause of termination is unsustainabe% To re$eat# there is no substantia evidence on record to sustain this contention% The mere aegation of the res$ondents that under their em$o(ment contracts the com$ainants were made to understand that the( were $ro8ect em$o(ees is de,nite( not $ersuasive or unworth( of credence% The best evidence of which woud have been the aeged contracts% These em$o(ees signed du( notari'ed waiversGquitcaims and who did not recant ater% )n the absence of evidence showing the contrar(# said quitcaims were e>ecuted vountari( and without an( force or intimidation% Petitioners submitted to the ./-C dubious machine co$ies of on( some of res$ondents; Contracts# incuding aeged em$o(ment termination re$orts submitted to the &2/H% The ./-C found the contracts barren of $robative weight and utter( insu<cient to buttress the contention of $etitioners that res$ondents were on( $ro8ect em$o(ees% Contrar( to the re$resentation of res$ondent1s counse# the origina co$ies of the re$orts made to &2/H were never $roduced and submitted to this Commission% .either were the( $resented for com$arison with the machine co$ies% These machine co$ies were not aso certi,ed as true co$ies b( the &2/H% The actua continuous em$o(ment of com$ainants b( res$ondent Jan8in since 4554 unti 455E overcomes the $iecemea 7a$$ointments7 covering for $eriods of si> (C) months or ess% From these short term but re$eated 7a$$ointments#7 it is a$$arent that the $eriods have been im$osed to $recude the acquisition of tenuria securit( b( the em$o(ee and which !ind of em$o(ment contracts shoud be disregarded for being contrar( to $ubic $oic(% The a$$eate court# the ./-C and the /abor Arbiter are thus one in ,nding that res$ondents were not $ro8ect em$o(ees# and in sustaining res$ondents1 caim of iega dismissa due to $etitioners; faiure to adduce contrar( evidence% =e0setted is the rue that ,ndings of fact of quasi08udicia agencies# i!e the ./-C# are accorded not on( res$ect but at times even ,nait( if such ,ndings are su$$orted b( substantia evidence% Such ,ndings of facts can on( be set aside u$on showing of grave abuse of discretion# fraud or error of aw# none of which have been shown in this case% P4./. Jo&%2'/.s3.1 I21. vs. NLRC; G.R. No. )66!2), S#53#-$#% 05, 2006 F'13s* )n ./-CIs -esoution
dated +a( 34# 3DD4# $etitioner Phii$$ine *ournaists# )nc% (P*)) was ad8udged iabe in the tota amount of PC#AAB#DD6%EB for iega( dismissing 34 com$ainants0em$o(ees and that there was no basis for the im$ementation of $etitioner1s retrenchment $rogram% Thereafter# the $arties e>ecuted a Com$romise Agreement
dated *u( 5# 3DD4# where P*) undertoo! to reinstate the 34 com$ainant0 em$o(ees e@ective *u( 4# 3DD4 without oss of seniorit( rights and bene,ts? 4B of them who were $revious( retrenched were agreed to be given fu and com$ete $a(ment of their res$ective monetar( caims# whie 4A others woud be $aid their monetar( caims minus what the( received b( wa( of se$aration $a(% The com$romise agreement was submitted to the ./-C for a$$rova% A the em$o(ees mentioned in the agreement and in the ./-C -esoution a<>ed their signatures thereon% The( i!ewise signed the *oint +anifesto and &ecaration of +utua Su$$ort and Coo$eration which had aso been submitted for the consideration of the abor tribuna% The ./-C forthwith issued another -esoution on *u( 3E# 3DD3# which among others decared that !us, t!e compromise a"reement #as approved and NCMB$NCR$N%$&'$&()$&& #as deemed closed and terminated* )n the meantime# however# the Union ,ed another .otice of Stri!e on *u( 4# 3DD3% )n an 2rder
dated Se$tember 4C# 3DD3# the &2/H E Secretar( certi,ed the case to the Commission for com$usor( arbitration% The case was doc!eted as .C+"0.C-0 .S0DB03E40D3% )n its -esoution
dated *u( 34# 3DD3# the ./-C rued that the com$ainants were not iega( dismissed% The +a( 34# 3DD4 -esoution decaring the retrenchment $rogram iega did not attain ,nait( as 7it had been academica( mooted b( the com$romise agreement entered into between both $arties on *u( 5# 3DD4%7 The Union assaied the ruing of the ./-C before the CA via $etition for certiorari under -ue CE% )n its &ecision dated August 4B# 3DDA# the a$$eate court hed that the ./-C grave( abused its discretion in ruing for P*)% The com$romise agreement referred on( to the award given b( the ./-C to the com$ainants in the said case# that is# t!e obli"ation o+ t!e emplo,er to t!e complainants% The CA $ointed out that the ./-C -esoution nevertheess decared that res$ondent faied to $rove the vaidit( of its retrenchment $rogram# which according to it# stands even after the com$romise agreement was e>ecuted? it was the reason wh( the agreement was reached in the ,rst $ace% Iss&#s '20 R&/.29s* I. <4#34#% o% 2o3 34# 5#3.3.o2#%=s 5#3.3.o2 :o% certiorari &20#% R&/# 65 o: 34# R#v.s#0 R&/#s o: C.v./ P%o1#0&%# .s ' 5%o5#% %#-#0( .2 34.s 1's#. At the outset# we note that this case was brought before us via $etition for certiorari under -ue CE of the -evised -ues of Civi Procedure% The $ro$er remed(# however# was to ,e a $etition under -ue AE% )t must be stressed that certiorari under -ue CE is 7a remed( narrow in sco$e and inKe>ibe in character% )t is not a genera utiit( too in the ega wor!sho$%7
+oreover# the s$ecia civi action for certiorari wi ie on( when a court has acted without or in e>cess of 8urisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion% "e that as it ma(# a $etition for certiorari ma( be treated as a $etition for review under -ue AE% Such move is in accordance with the ibera s$irit $ervading the -ues of Court and in the interest of substantia 8ustice% As the instant $etition was ,ed within the $rescribed ,fteen0 da( $eriod# and in view of the substantia issues raised# the Court resoves to give due course to the $etition and treat the same as a $etition for review on certiorari% II. <4#34#% o% 2o3 34# 34# NLRC o: 34# '9%##-#23 :o%9#0 $#3>##2 .3 '20 34# %#s5o20#23 U2.o2 0.0 2o3 %#20#% 34# NLRC %#so/&3.o2 .2#?#13&'/, 2o% %#20#%#0 .3 @-oo3 '20 '1'0#-.1.A Contrar( to the aegation of $etitioners# the e>ecution and subsequent a$$rova b( the ./-C of the agreement forged between it and the res$ondent Union did not render the ./-C resoution ine@ectua# nor rendered it 7moot and academic%7 The agreement becomes $art of the 8udgment of the court or tribuna# and as a ogica consequence# there is an im$icit waiver of the right to a$$ea% )n an( event# the com$romise agreement cannot bind a $art( who did not vountari( ta!e $art in the settement itsef and gave s$eci,c individua consent% )t must be remembered that a com$romise agreement is aso a contract? it requires the consent of the $arties# and it is on( then that the agreement ma( be considered as vountari( entered into% A carefu $erusa of the wordings of the com$romise agreement wi show that the $arties agreed that the on( issue to be resoved was the question of the monetar( caim of severa em$o(ees% The agreement was ater a$$roved b( the ./-C% The case was considered cosed and terminated and the -esoution dated +a( 34# 3DD4 fu( im$emented insofar as the em$o(ees 7mentioned in $aragra$hs 3c and 3d of the com$romise agreement7 were concerned% Jence# the CA was correct in hoding that the com$romise agreement $ertained on( to the 7monetar( obigation7 of the em$o(er to the dismissed em$o(ees# and in no wa( a@ected the -esoution in .C+"0.C-0 .S0D30D6B0DD dated +a( 34# 3DD4 where the ./-C made the $ronouncement that t!ere #as no basis +or t!e implementation o+ petitioners- retrenc!ment pro"ram* To reiterate# the rue is that when 8udgment is rendered based on a com$romise agreement# the 8udgment becomes immediate( e>ecutor(# t!ere bein" an implied #aiver o+ t!e parties- ri"!t to appeal +rom t!e decision* The 8udgment having become ,na# the Court can no onger reverse# much ess modif( it% III. <4#34#% o% 2o3 CA 1'2 %#v.#> 34# :'13&'/ B20.29s o% /#9'/ 1o21/&s.o2s o: 34# /'$o% 3%.$&2'/. Petitioners1 argument that the CA is not a trier of facts is i!ewise erroneous% )n the e>ercise of its $ower to review decisions b( the ./-C# the CA can review the factua ,ndings or ega concusions of the abor tribuna% Thus# the CA is not $roscribed from 7e>amining evidence anew to determine whether the factua ,ndings of the ./-C are su$$orted b( the evidence $resented and the concusions derived therefrom accurate( ascertained%7 C'/'93's +&/3.,P&%5os# Coo5#%'3.v#, I21. vs. Co&%3 o: A55#'/s G.R. No. )5266 O13o$#% 27, 2006 FACTS* "aagtas +uti0Pur$ose Coo$erative# )nc% is a du( organi'ed and e>isting coo$erative under the aws of the Phii$$ines% Sometime in A$ri 4554# "aagtas hired *ose,na G% Ji$oito0Jerrero# as $art time manager in its o<ce% Subsequent(# *ose,na made !nown of her intention to ta!e a eave of C absence% Jer $ro$osa was immediate( a$$roved% Jowever# after the a$se of her eave of absence# *ose,na did not re$ort for wor! an(more% /ater on# she ,ed her resignation% Consequent( *ose,na ,ed a com$aint with the Provincia 2<ce of the &e$artment of /abor in +aoos# "uacan for iega dismissa# and non0$a(ment of 43 th month $a( or Christmas "onus% She aso $ra(ed for reinstatement and $aid bac!wages as we as mora damages% The /abor Arbiter rendered 8udgment in favor of com$ainant and against res$ondents and ordered the atter to $a( the former 43 th month $a(# bac!wages and se$aration $a(% Aggrieved# herein $etitioners a$$eaed the decision to ./-C but faied to $ost either a cash or suret( bond as required b( Artice 333 of the /abor Code% The( ,ed a manifestation and motion instead# stating# that under -e$ubic Act .o% C536# Artice C3(B) of the Coo$erative Code of the Phii$$ines# $etitioners are e>em$t from $utting u$ a bond in an a$$ea from the decision of the inferior court% ./-C ordered res$ondents to $ost a cash or suret( bond in the amount of P346#DDD%DD# within 4D ine>tendibe da(s from recei$t of the 2rder# faiure of which sha constitute a waiver and non0$erfection of the a$$ea% "aagtas a$$eaed to CA# which dismissed the $etition hoding that the e>em$tion from $utting u$ a bond b( a coo$erative a$$ies to cases decided b( inferior courts on(% ISSUES* 4% =hether coo$eratives are e>em$ted from ,ing a cash or suret( bond required to $erfect an em$o(erIs a$$ea under Section 333 of Presidentia &ecree .o% AA3 (the /abor Code)? and# 3% =hether a certi,cation issued b( the Coo$erative &eveo$ment Authorit( constitutes substantia com$iance with the requirement for the $osting of a bond% HELD* 4% .o% Petitioners argue that there are certain bene,ts and $rivieges e>$ress( granted to coo$erative under the Coo$erative Code% )t invo!ed the $rovision on Artice C3 regarding the e>em$tion from $a(ment of an a$$ea bond# to witF ()).ll cooperatives s!all be e/empt +rom puttin" up a bond +or brin"in" an appeal a"ainst t!e decision o+ an in+erior court or +or see0in" to set aside an, t!ird part, claim1 2rovided, !at a certi3cation o+ t!e .ut!orit, s!o#in" t!at t!e net assets o+ t!e cooperative are in e/cess o+ t!e amount o+ t!e bond re4uired b, t!e court in similar cases s!all be accepted b, t!e court as a su5cient bond* Jowever# it is on( one among a number of such $rivieges which a$$ear under the artice entited LTa> and 2ther H>em$tionsM of the code% The $rovision cited b( $etitioners cannot be ta!en in isoation and must be inter$reted in reation to the Coo$erative Code in its entiret(% H>ce$tions are to be strict( but reasonab( construed? the( e>tend on( so far as their anguage warrants# and a doubts shoud be resoved in favor of the genera $rovision rather than the e>ce$tions% 3% .o% Artice 445 of the Coo$erative Code itsef e>$ress( embodies the egisative intention to e>tend the coverage of abor statutes to coo$eratives% For this reason# $etitioners must com$( with the requirement set forth in Artice 333 of the /abor Code in order to $erfect their a$$ea to the ./-C% )t must be $ointed out that the right to a$$ea is not a constitutiona# natura or inherent right% )t is a $riviege of statutor( origin and# therefore# avaiabe on( if granted or $rovided b( statute% The aw ma( vaid( $rovide imitations or quai,cations thereto or reief to the $revaiing $art( in the event an a$$ea is inter$osed b( the osing $art(% )n this case# the obvious and ogica $ur$ose of an a$$ea bond is to insure# during the $eriod of a$$ea# against an( occurrence that woud defeat or diminish recover( b( the em$o(ee under the 8udgment if the atter is subsequent( a<rmed% Therefore# no error can be ascribed to the CA for hoding that the $hrase Linferior courtsM a$$earing in Artice C3 $aragra$h (B) of the Coo$erative Code does not e>tend to Lquasi08udicia agenciesM and that# $etitioners are not e>em$t from $osting the a$$ea bond required under Artice 333 of the /abor Code% S3. +'%3.2 F&2#%'/ Ho-#s vs. N'3.o2'/ L'$o% R#/'3.o2s Co--.ss.o2 G.R. No. )!2"5) Nov#-$#% 22, 2006 FACTS* The owner of $etitioner St% +artin Funera Jomes# )nc% (St% +artin) is Ameita +aabed% Prior to *anuar( 455C# AmeitaIs mother managed the funera $aror% )n 455E# Arica(os was granted ,nancia assistance b( AmeitaIs mother% As a sign of a$$reciation# res$ondent e>tended assistance in managing St% +artin without com$ensation and no written em$o(ment contract between AmeitaIs mother and res$ondent Arica(os? furthermore# res$ondent Arica(os was not even isted as an em$o(ee in the Com$an(Is $a(ro% =hen AmeitaIs mother died in *anuar( 455C# Ameita too! over as manager of St% +artin% +uch to her chagrin# she found out that St% +artin had arrearages in the $a(ment of ")- ta>es and other fees owing to the government# but com$an( records tended to show that $a(ments were made thereon% As a resut# Ameita removed the authorit( from res$ondent Arica(os and his wife from ta!ing $art in managing St% +artinIs o$erations% Aggrieved# res$ondent Arica(os accused St% +artin of his iega dismissa as 2$erations +anager of the com$an(% Je beieved that the cause of his termination was AmeitaIs sus$icion that he $oc!eted PhP 36#DDD%DD which was set aside for $a(ment to the ")- of St% +artinIs vaued added ta>es%2n 2ctober 3E# 455C# the /abor Arbiter rendered a &ecision# in favor of $etitioner decaring that his o<ce had no 8urisdiction over the case% ./-C issued a -esoution annuing the ArbiterIs &ecision and remanded the case to him for a$$ro$riate $roceedings# to determine the factua issue of the e>istence of em$o(er0 em$o(ee reationshi$ between the $arties% =hen its motion for reconsideration was re8ected b( the ./-C# $etitioner ,ed a $etition B for certiorari under -ue CE before this Court# doc!eted as G%-% .o% 43D6CC% 2n Se$tember 4C# 4556# this Court through *ustice *ose :itug# rendered the andmar! &ecision in this case then doc!eted as G%-% .o% 43D6CC# hoding for the ,rst time that a $etitions for certiorari under -ue CE assaiing the decisions of the ./-C shoud henceforth be ,ed with the CA ISSUE* =hether or not a $etitioner can ,e his $etition for certiorari under -ueCE to assai the decision of a ower court i!e ./-C% HELD* A $etition for certiorari under -ueCE must ,rst be ,ed at the Court of A$$eas% Said court has a concurrent 8urisdiction on $etitions for certiorari# mandamus# $rohibitions% This is in consonance with the hierarch( of courts% DOLE PHILIPPINES vs. ESTEVA G.R. No. )6)))5. Nov#-$#% "0, 2006 FACTS* Petitioner is a cor$oration engaged $rinci$a( in the $roduction and $rocessing of $inea$$e for the e>$ort mar!et% -es$ondents are members of the Canner( +uti0Pur$ose Coo$erative (CA+PC2)% CA+PC2 was organi'ed in accordance with -e$ubic Act .o% C536# otherwise !nown as the Coo$erative Code of the Phii$$ines% Pursuant to the Service Contract# CA+PC2 members rendered services to $etitioner% The number of CA+PC2 members that re$ort for wor! and the t($e of service the( $erformed de$ended on the needs of $etitioner at an( given time% Athough the Service Contract s$eci,ca( stated that it sha on( be for a $eriod of si> months# i*e*# from 4 *u( to 34 &ecember 4553# the $arties had a$$arent( e>tended or renewed the same for the succeeding (ears without e>ecuting another written contract% )t was under these circumstances that res$ondents came to wor! for $etitioner% &2/H organi'ed a Tas! Force that conducted an investigation into the aeged abor0on( contracting activities of the coo$eratives% The Tas! Force identi,ed si> coo$eratives that were engaged in abor0on( contracting# one of which was CA+PC2% )n this case# res$ondents aeged that the( started wor!ing for $etitioner at various times in the (ears 4553 and 455A# b( virtue of the Service Contract e>ecuted between CA+PC2 and $etitioner% A of the res$ondents had aread( rendered more than one (ear of service to $etitioner% =hie some of the res$ondents were sti wor!ing for $etitioner# others were $ut on Lsta( home statusM on var(ing dates in the (ears 455A# 455E# and 455C and were no onger furnished with wor! thereafter% Together# res$ondents ,ed a Com$aint with the ./-C for iega dismissa# reguari'ation# wage di@erentias# damages and attorne(Is fees% Petitioner denied that res$ondents were its em$o(ees% )t e>$ained that it found the need to engage e>terna services to augment its reguar wor!force# which was a@ected b( $ea!s in o$eration# wor! bac!ogs# absenteeism# and e>cessive eaves% )t used to engage the services of individua wor!ers for de,nite $eriods s$eci,ed in their em$o(ment contracts and never e>ceeding one (ear% Jowever# such an arrangement became the sub8ect of a abor case# in which $etitioner was accused of $reventing the reguari'ation of such wor!ers% ISSUES* =hether or not the court of a$$eas was correct when it made its own factua ,ndings and disregarded the factua ,ndings of the abor arbiter and the ./-C% =hether or not CA+PC2 was a mere abor0on( contractor% HELD* The Court in the e>ercise of its equit( 8urisdiction ma( oo! into the records of the case and re0e>amine the questioned ,ndings% As a coroar(# this Court is cothed with am$e authorit( to review matters# even if the( are not assigned as errors in their a$$ea# if it ,nds that their consideration is necessar( to arrive at a 8ust decision of the case% The same $rinci$es are now necessari( adhered to and are a$$ied b( the Court of A$$eas in its e>$anded 8urisdiction over abor cases eevated through a $etition for certiorari? thus# we see no error on its $art when it made anew a factua determination of the matters and on that basis reversed the ruing of the ./-C% 2n the second issue# CA+PC2 was a mere abor0on( contractor% 6irst, athough $etitioner touts the muti0miion $esos assets of CA+PC2# it does we to remember that such were amassed in the (ears foowing its estabishment% )n 4553# when CA+PC2 was estabished and the Service Contract between $etitioner and CA+PC2 was entered into# CA+PC2 on( had PC#CDD%DD $aid0u$ ca$ita# which coud hard( be considered substantia% )t on( managed to increase its ca$itai'ation and assets in the succeeding (ears b( continua( and de,ant( engaging in what had been decared b( authori'ed &2/H o<cias as abor0 on( contracting% %econd, CA+PC2 did not carr( out an inde$endent business from $etitioner% )t was $recise( estabished to render services to $etitioner to augment its wor!force during $ea! seasons% Petitioner was its on( cient% Hven as CA+PC2 had its own o<ce and o<ce equi$ment# these were main( used for administrative $ur$oses? the toos# machineries# and equi$ment actua( used b( CA+PC2 members when rendering services to the $etitioner beonged to the atter% !ird, $etitioner e>ercised contro over the CA+PC2 members# incuding res$ondents% Petitioner attem$ts to refute contro b( aeging the $resence of a CA+PC2 su$ervisor in the wor! $remises% Net# the mere $resence within the $remises of a su$ervisor from the coo$erative did not necessari( mean that CA+PC2 had contro over its members% Section 6(4)# -ue :)))# "oo! ))) of the im$ementing rues of the /abor Code# as amended# required for $ermissibe 8ob contracting that the contractor underta!es the contract wor! on his account# under his own res$onsibiit(# according to his own manner and method# free from the contro and direction of his em$o(er or $rinci$a in a matters connected with the $erformance of the wor! e>ce$t as to the resuts thereof% As aeged b( the res$ondents# and unrebutted b( $etitioner# CA+PC2 members# before wor!ing for the $etitioner# had to undergo instructions and $ass the training $rovided b( $etitionerIs $ersonne% )t was $etitioner who determined and $re$ared the wor! assignments of the 6 CA+PC2 members% CA+PC2 members wor!ed within $etitionerIs $antation and $rocessing $ants aongside reguar em$o(ees $erforming identica 8obs# a circumstance recogni'ed as an indicium of a abor0on( contractorshi$% 6ourt!, CA+PC2 was not engaged to $erform a s$eci,c and s$ecia 8ob or service% )n the Service Contract of 4553# CA+PC2 agreed to assist $etitioner in its dai( o$erations# and $erform odd 8obs as ma( be assigned% CA+PC2 com$ied with this venture b( assigning members to $etitioner% A$art from that# no other $articuar 8ob# wor! or service was required from CA+PC2# and it is a$$arent# with such an arrangement# that CA+PC2 mere( acted as a recruitment agenc( for $etitioner% Since the underta!ing of CA+PC2 did not invove the $erformance of a s$eci,c 8ob# but rather the su$$( of man$ower on(# CA+PC2 cear( conducted itsef as a abor0on( contractor% Lastl,, CA+PC2 members# incuding res$ondents# $erformed activities direct( reated to the $rinci$a business of $etitioner% The( wor!ed as can $rocessing attendant# feeder of canned $inea$$e and $inea$$e $rocessing# nata de coco $rocessing attendant# fruit coc!tai $rocessing attendant# and etc%# functions which were# not on( direct( reated# but were ver( vita to $etitionerIs business of $roduction and $rocessing of $inea$$e $roducts for e>$ort% The decaration that CA+PC2 is indeed engaged in the $rohibited activities of abor0 on( contracting# then consequent(# an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ is deemed to e>ist between $etitioner and res$ondents# since CA+PC2 sha be considered as a mere agent or intermediar( of $etitioner% Since res$ondents are now recogni'ed as em$o(ees of $etitioner# this Court is tas!ed to determine the nature of their em$o(ment% )n consideration of a the attendant circumstances in this case# this Court concudes that res$ondents are reguar em$o(ees of $etitioner% As such# the( are entited to securit( of tenure% The( coud on( be removed based on 8ust and authori'ed causes as $rovided for in the /abor Code# as amended# and after the( are accorded $rocedura due $rocess% Therefore# $etitionerIs acts of $acing some of the res$ondents on Lsta( home statusM and not giving them wor! assignments for more than si> months were aread( tantamount to constructive and iega dismissa% INTERCONTINENTAL CROADCASTING CORP vs. PANGANICAN G.R. No. )5)!07, F#$%&'%( 06, 2007 FACTS* )reneo Panganiban (res$ondent) was em$o(ed as Assistant Genera +anager of the )ntercontinenta "roadcasting Cor$oration ($etitioner) from +a( 456C unti his $reventive sus$ension on August 3C# 4566% -es$ondent resigned from his em$o(ment on Se$tember 3# 4566% 2n A$ri 43# 4565# res$ondent ,ed a civi case with the -TC of Oue'on Cit(# "ranch 53 against the members of the "oard of Administrators ("2A) of $etitioner aeging# among others# non0$a(ment of his un$aid commissions% A motion to dismiss was ,ed b( *oseito Santiago# one of the defendants# on the ground of ac! of 8urisdiction# as res$ondent1s caim was a abor mone( caim# but this was denied b( the -TC% Thus# Santiago ,ed a $etition for certiorari with the CA which granted Santiago1s $etition for ac! of 8urisdiction and set aside the -TC1s 2rders% Thereafter# res$ondent was eected b( the "2A as :ice0President for +ar!eting in *u( 4553% Je resigned in A$ri 4553% 2n *u( 3A# 455C# res$ondent ,ed against $etitioner a com$aint for iega dismissa# se$aration $a(# retirement bene,ts# un$aid commissions# and damages% The /abor Arbiter (/A) ordered res$ondent1s reinstatement with fu bac!wages# and the $a(ment of his un$aid commission# damages and attorne(1s fees% Petitioner a$$eaed to the ./-C but due to $etitioner1s faiure to $ost a bond# the a$$ea was dismissed% The decision was deemed ,na and e>ecutor(% ISSUE* =hether or not res$ondent1s caim for un$aid commissions has aread( $rescribed% HELD* Nes% -es$ondent1s caim had aread( $rescribed as of Se$tember 4554% )n addition# the caims of $rivate res$ondent for reinstatement# bac!wages and bene,ts in con8unction with his em$o(ment from 456C to 4566 have $rescribed% The a$$icabe aw in this case is Artice 354 of the /abor Code which $rovides that 7a mone( caims arising from em$o(er0em$o(ee reations accruing during the e@ectivit( of this Code sha be ,ed within three (3) (ears from the time the cause of action accrued? otherwise the( sha be forever barred%7 The term 7mone( caims7 covers a mone( caims arising from an em$o(er0 em$o(ee reation the $rescri$tion of an action is interru$ted b( (a) the ,ing of an action# (b) a written e>tra8udicia demand b( the creditor# and (c) a written ac!nowedgment of the debt b( the debtor% 2n this $oint# the Court rued that athough the commencement of a civi action sto$s the running of the statute of $rescri$tion or imitations# its dismissa or vountar( abandonment b( $ainti@ eaves the $arties in e>act( the same $osition as though no action had been commenced at a% Jence# whie the ,ing of Civi Case coud have interru$ted the running of the three0(ear $rescri$tive $eriod# its consequent dismissa b( the CA due to ac! of 8urisdiction e@ective( canceed the toing of the $rescri$tive $eriod within which to ,e his mone( caim# eaving res$ondent in e>act( the same $osition as though no civi case had been ,ed at a% The running of the three0(ear $rescri$tive $eriod not having been interru$ted b( the ,ing of Civi Case res$ondent1s cause of action had aread( $rescribed on Se$tember 3# 4554# three (ears after his cessation of em$o(ment on Se$tember 3# 4566% Consequent(# when res$ondent ,ed his com$aint for iega dismissa# se$aration $a(# retirement bene,ts# and damages in *u( 3A# 455C# his caim# cear(# had aread( been barred b( $rescri$tion% F'% E's3 A9%.1&/3&%'/ S&55/(, I21. vs. L#$'3.D&# 5 G.R. No. )626)", F#$%&'%( )2, 2007 FACTS* Petitioner Far Hast Agricutura Su$$( hired $rivate res$ondent *imm( /ebatique as truc! driver tas!ed to deiver anima feeds% 2n *anuar( 3A# 3DDD# /ebatique com$ained of non0$a(ment of overtime wor! $articuar( on *anuar( 33# 3DDD# when he was required to ma!e a second deiver( in .ovaiches% That same da( /ebatique was sus$ended a$$arent( for iega use of com$an( vehice% Je re$orted for wor! the ne>t da( but was $rohibited from entering the com$an( $remises% 2n *anuar( 3C# 3DDD# /ebatique sought assistance concerning the non0$a(ment of his overtime $a(% According to him# two da(s ater# he received a teegram from $etitioners requiring him to re$ort for wor!% Je re$orted for wor! on *anuar( 35# 3DDD and was as!ed to e>$ain wh( he was caiming overtime $a(% /ater# /ebatique was terminated and was tod to oo! for another 8ob% 2n +arch 3D# 3DDD# /ebatique ,ed a com$aint for iega dismissa and non0$a(ment of overtime $a(% ISSUE* =hat is the $rescri$tive $eriod for mone( caims; HELD* A mone( caims arising from an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ sha be ,ed within three (ears from the time the cause of action accrued? otherwise# the( sha be forever barred (Artice 354# /C)% )f it is estabished that the bene,ts being caimed have been withhed from the em$o(ee for a $eriod onger than three (ears# the amount $ertaining to the $eriod be(ond the three0(ear $rescri$tive $eriod is therefore barred b( $rescri$tion% The amount that can on( be demanded b( the aggrieved em$o(ee sha be imited to the amount of the bene,ts withhed within three (ears before the ,ing of the com$aint% /ebatique time( ,ed his caim for service incentive eave $a(# considering that in this situation# the $rescri$tive $eriod commences at the time he was terminated% 2n the other hand# his caim regarding non0 $a(ment of overtime $a( since he was hired in +arch 455C is a di@erent matter% )n the case of overtime $a(# he can on( demand for the overtime $a( withhed for the $eriod within three (ears $receding the ,ing of the com$aint on +arch 3D# 3DDD% Jowever# we ,nd insu<cient the seected time records $resented b( $etitioners to com$ute $ro$er( his overtime $a(% The /abor Arbiter shoud have required $etitioners to $resent the dai( time records# $a(ro# or other documents in managementIs contro to determine the correct $a(ment due to him% )t is immateria that /ebatique had ,ed a com$aint for non0$a(ment of overtime $a( the da( he was sus$ended b( managementIs uniatera act% =hat matters is that he ,ed the com$aint for iega dismissa on +arch 3D# 3DDD# after he was tod not to re$ort for wor!# and his ,ing was we within the $rescri$tive $eriod aowed under the aw% L#3%'2 C'/'-$' F'1&/3( 7 E-5/o(##s Asso1.'3.o2 vs. NLRC; G.R. No. )56225; J'2&'%( 2, 2006 F'13s* Three cases were consoidated invoving $etitioner /etran Caamba Facut( and Hm$o(ees Association and Coegio de San *uan de /etran# Caamba# for mone( caims and a $etition to decare the sub8ect stri!e iega ,ed b( res$ondent % 2n Se$tember 36# 4556# the /abor Arbiter (/A) handing the consoidated cases rendered a &ecision with the foowing dis$ositive $ortionF =JH-HF2-H# $remises considered# 8udgment is hereb( rendered# as foowsF 4% The mone( caims cases (-A"0):04D0 AECD0530/ and -A"0):0440AC3A0530/) are hereb( dismissed for ac! of merit? 3% The $etition to decare stri!e iega (./-C Case .o% -A"0):030CEEE05A0/) is hereb( dismissed# but the o<cers of the Union# $articuar( its President# +r% Hdmundo F% +arifosque# Sr%# are hereb( re$rimanded and stern( warned that future conduct simiar to what was dis$a(ed in this case wi warrant a more severe sanction from this 2<ce% "oth $arties a$$eaed to the ./-C% 2n *u( 36# 4555# the ./-C $romugated its &ecision
dismissing both a$$eas% Petitioner ,ed a +otion for -econsideration
but the same was denied b( the ./-C in its -esoution
dated *une 34# 3DDD% Petitioner then ,ed a s$ecia civi action for certiorari with the CA assaiing the above0 mentioned ./-C &ecision and -esoution% 2n +a( 4A# 3DD3# the CA rendered the $resent( assaied 8udgment dismissing the $etition% Petitioner ,ed a +otion for -econsideration but the CA denied it in its -esoution $romugated on .ovember 36# 3DD3% Citing ."ustilo v* Court o+ .ppeals#
$etitioner contends that in a s$ecia civi action for certiorari brought before the CA# the a$$eate court can review the factua ,ndings and the ega concusions of the ./-C% Petitioner avers that the CA# in concuding that the ./-C &ecision was su$$orted b( substantia evidence# faied to s$ecif( what constituted said evidence% Thus# $etitioner asserts that the CA acted arbitrari( in a<rming the &ecision of the ./-C% )n its Comment# res$ondent contends that the ruing in ."ustilo is an e>ce$tion rather than 4D the genera rue? that the genera rue is that in a $etition for certiorari# 8udicia review b( this Court or b( the CA in abor cases does not go so far as to evauate the su<cienc( of the evidence u$on which the $ro$er abor o<cer or o<ce based his or its determination but is imited on( to issues of 8urisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to ac! of 8urisdiction? that before a $art( ma( as! that the CA or this Court review the factua ,ndings of the ./-C# there must ,rst be a convincing argument that the ./-C acted in a ca$ricious# whimsica# arbitrar( or des$otic manner? and that in its $etition for certiorari ,ed with the CA# herein $etitioner faied to $rove that the ./-C acted without or in e>cess of 8urisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion% -es$ondent argues that ."ustilo is not a$$icabe to the $resent case because in the former case# the ,ndings of fact of the /A and the ./-C are at variance with each other? whie in the $resent case# the ,ndings of fact and concusions of aw of the /A and the ./-C are the same% -es$ondent aso avers that in a s$ecia civi action for certiorari# the discretionar( $ower to review factua ,ndings of the ./-C rests u$on the CA? and that absent an( ,ndings b( the CA of the need to resove an( uncear or ambiguous factua ,ndings of the ./-C# the grant of the writ of certiorari is not warranted% Iss&#* =hether or not the Court of A$$eas erred in hoding that the factua ,ndings of the ./-C cannot be reviewed in certiorari $roceedings% H#/0* )n the instant case# the Court ,nds no error in the ruing of the CA that since nowhere in the $etition is there an( acce$tabe demonstration that the /A or the ./-C acted either with grave abuse of discretion or without or in e>cess of its 8urisdiction# the a$$eate court has no reason to oo! into the correctness of the evauation of evidence which su$$orts the abor tribunas1 ,ndings of fact% This Court hed in Odan"o v* National Labor Relations Commission
thatF The a$$eate courtIs 8urisdiction to review a decision of the ./-C in a $etition for certiorari is con,ned to issues of 8urisdiction or grave abuse of discretion% An e>traordinar( remed(# a $etition for certiorari is avaiabe on( and restrictive( in tru( e>ce$tiona cases% The soe o<ce of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of 8urisdiction incuding the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to ac! or e>cess of 8urisdiction% )t does not incude correction of the ./-CIs evauation of the evidence or of its factua ,ndings% Such ,ndings are genera( accorded not on( res$ect but aso ,nait(% A $art( assaiing such ,ndings bears the burden of showing that the tribuna acted ca$ricious( and whimsica( or in tota disregard of evidence materia to the controvers(# in order that the e>traordinar( writ of certiorari wi ie% Setted is the rue that the ,ndings of the /A# when a<rmed b( the ./-C and the CA# are binding on the Su$reme Court# uness $atent( erroneous%
)t is not the function of the Su$reme Court to ana('e or weigh a over again the evidence aread( considered in the $roceedings beow% )n a $etition for review on certiorari# this CourtIs 8urisdiction is imited to reviewing errors of aw in the absence of an( showing that the factua ,ndings com$ained of are devoid of su$$ort in the records or are garing( erroneous% Firm is the doctrine that this Court is not a trier of facts# and this a$$ies with greater force in abor cases% Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi08udicia bodies# which have acquired e>$ertise because their 8urisdiction is con,ned to s$eci,c matters# are genera( accorded not on( great res$ect but even ,nait(% The( are binding u$on this Court uness there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or where it is cear( shown that the( were arrived at arbitrari( or in utter disregard of the evidence on record% =e ,nd none of these e>ce$tions in the $resent case% )n $etitions for review on certiorari i!e the instant case# the Court invariab( sustains the unanimous factua ,ndings of the /A# the ./-C and the CA# s$ecia( when such ,ndings are su$$orted b( substantia evidence and there is no cogent basis to reverse the same# as in this case% +#3%o T%'2s.3 O%9'2.E'3.o2 vs. P.9/'s NF<U,K+U #3 '/.; G.R. No. )75!60; A5%./ )!, 2006 F'13s* Petitioner +etro Transit 2rgani'ation# )nc% (+T2) is a government owned and controed cor$oration which entered into a +anagement and 2$erations Agreement (+2A) with the /ight -ai Transit Authorit( (/-TA) for the o$eration of the /ight -ai Transit (/-T) "acaran0+onumento /ine% Petitioner *ose /% Corte'# *r% was sued in his o<cia ca$acit( as then Undersecretar( of the &e$artment of Trans$ortation and Communications and Chairman of the "oard of &irectors of $etitioner +T2% -es$ondents ,ed with the /abor Arbiter Com$aints
against $etitioners and the /-TA for the foowingF (4) iega dismissa? (3) unfair abor $ractice for union busting? (3) mora and e>em$ar( damages? and (A) attorne(1s fees% 44 2n 43 Se$tember 3DDA# the /abor Arbiter rendered 8udgment in favor of res$ondents% Petitioners a$$eaed to the .ationa /abor -eations Commission (./-C)% )n a -esoution dated 45 +a( 3DDC# the ./-C dismissed $etitioners1 a$$ea for non0$erfection since it faied to $ost the required bond% =ithout ,ing a +otion for -econsideration of the afore0quoted ./-C -esoution# $etitioners ,ed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of A$$eas assaiing the same% 2n 3A August 3DDC# the Court of A$$eas issued a -esoution dismissing the Petition% )t ruedF The $etitioners have ,ed this $etition for certiorari against the resoution of the ./-C dated +a( 45# 3DDC dismissing the a$$ea for non0$erfection% The( have not# however# ,ed a motion for reconsideration of the ruing $rior to ,ing the $etition% This renders the $etition fata( defective% The motion for reconsideration has been hed to be a condition sine qua non for certiorari# the rationae being that the ower court shoud be given the o$$ortunit( to correct its error before recourse to the higher court is made% Iss&#* =hether or not $etitioner can direct( ,e the e>traordinar( remed( of certiorari without ,ing ,rst a motion for reconsideration with the ./-C% H#/0* The Court of A$$eas correct( rued that $etitioners1 faiure to ,e a motion for reconsideration against the assaied -esoution of the ./-C rendered its $etition for certiorari before the a$$eate court as fata( defective% )t must be $rimari( estabished that $etitioners contravened the $rocedura rue for the e>traordinar( remed( of certiorari* The rue is# for the writ to issue# it must be shown that there is no a$$ea# nor an( $ain# s$eed( and adequate remed( in the ordinar( course of aw% The setted rue is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine 4ua non for the ,ing of a $etition for certiorari* )ts $ur$ose is to grant an o$$ortunit( for the court to correct an( actua or $erceived error attributed to it b( the re0e>amination of the ega and factua circumstances of the case% The rationae of the rue rests u$on the $resum$tion that the court or administrative bod( which issued the assaied order or resoution ma( amend the same# if given the chance to correct its mista!e or error% =e have hed that the 7$ain#7 7s$eed(#7 and 7adequate remed(7 referred to in Section 4# -ue CE of the -ues of Court is a motion +or reconsideration of the questioned 2rder or -esoution% As we consistent( hed in numerous cases# a motion for reconsideration is indis$ensabe for it a@ords the ./-C an o$$ortunit( to rectif( errors or mista!es it might have committed before resort to the courts can be had% )n the case at bar# $etitioners direct( went to the Court of A$$eas on certiorari without ,ing a motion for reconsideration with the ./-C% The motion for reconsideration woud have a$t( furnished a $ain# s$eed(# and adequate remed(% As a rue# the Court of A$$eas# in the e>ercise of its origina 8urisdiction# wi not ta!e cogni'ance of a $etition for certiorari under -ue CE# uness the ower court has been given the o$$ortunit( to correct the error im$uted to it% The Court of A$$eas correct( rued that $etitioners1 faiure to ,e a motion for reconsideration against the assaied -esoution of the ./-C rendered its $etition for certiorari before the a$$eate court as fata( defective% =e agree in the Court of A$$eas1 ,nding that $etitioners1 case does not fa under an( of the recogni'ed e>ce$tions to the ,ing of a motion for reconsideration# to witF (4) when the issue raised is $ure( of aw? (3) when $ubic interest is invoved? (3) in case of urgenc(? or when the questions raised are the same as those that have aread( been square( argued and e>haustive( $assed u$on b( the ower court% As the Court of A$$eas reasoned# the issue before the ./-C is both factua and ega at the same time# invoving as it does the requirements of the $ro$ert( bond for the $erfection of the a$$ea# as we as the ,nding that $etitioners faied to $erfect the same% Hvident(# the burden is on $etitioners see!ing e>ce$tion to the rue to show su<cient 8usti,cation for dis$ensing with the requirement% Certiorari cannot be resorted to as a shied from the adverse consequences of $etitioners1 own omission of the ,ing of the required motion for reconsideration% .onetheess# even if we are to disregard the $etitioners1 $rocedura +au/ pas with the Court of A$$eas# and $roceed to review the $ro$riet( of the 45 +a( 3DDC ./-C -esoution# we sti arrive at the concusion that the ./-C did not err in den(ing $etitioners1 a$$ea for its faiure to ,e a bond in accordance with the -ues of Procedure of the ./-C% )n cases invoving a monetar( award# an em$o(er see!ing to a$$ea the decision of the /abor Arbiter to the ./-C is unconditiona( required b( Artice 333 of the /abor Code to $ost a cash or suret( bond equivaent to the amount of the monetar( award ad8udged% )t shoud be stressed that the intention of awma!ers to ma!e the bond an indis$ensabe requisite for the $erfection of an a$$ea b( the em$o(er is underscored b( the $rovision that an a$$ea b( the em$o(er ma( be $erfected on( u$on the $osting of a cash or suret( bond% The word 7on(7 ma!es it $erfect( cear that the awma!ers intended the $osting of a cash or suret( bond b( the em$o(er to be the e>cusive means b( which an em$o(er1s 43 a$$ea ma( be $erfected% +oreover# it bears stressing that the $erfection of an a$$ea in the manner and within the $eriod $rescribed b( aw is not on( mandator( but 8urisdictiona# and faiure to conform to the rues wi render the 8udgment sought to be reviewed ,na and una$$easabe% )t cannot be overem$hasi'ed that the ./-C -ues# a!in to the -ues of Court# $romugated b( authorit( of aw# have the force and e@ect of aw% As borne b( the records# $etitioners ,ed a $ro$ert( bond which was conditiona( acce$ted b( the ./-C sub8ect to the foowing conditions s$eci,ed in its 3A Februar( 3DDC 2rderF The conditiona acce$tance of $etitioner1s $ro$ert( bond was sub8ect to the submission of the foowingF 4) Certi,ed co$( of "oard -esoution or a Certi,cate from the Cor$orate Secretar( of /ight -ai Transit Authorit( stating that the Cor$oration President is authori'ed b( a "oard -esoution to submit tite as guarantee of 8udgment award? 3) Certi,ed Co$( of the Tites issued b( the -egistr( of &eeds of Pasa( Cit(? 3) Certi,ed Co$( of the current ta> decarations of Tites? A) Ta> cearance from the Cit( Treasurer of Pasa( Cit(? E) A$$raisa re$ort of an accredited a$$raisa com$an( attesting to the fair mar!et vaue of $ro$ert( within ten (4D) da(s from recei$t of this 2rder% Faiure to com$( therewith wi resut in the dismissa of the a$$ea for non0$erfection thereof% )n the same 2rder# the ./-C warned that faiure of the $etitioners to com$( with the conditions woud resut in the dismissa of the a$$ea for non0$erfection thereof% Petitioners were directed to com$( with its given conditions within 4D da(s from recei$t of the 2rder with a caveat that their faiure wi resut in the dismissa of the a$$ea% Subsequent(# in its 45 +a( 3DDC -esoution# the ./-C ,na( made a factua ,nding that $etitioners faied to com$( with the conditions attached to their $osting of the $ro$ert( bond% Thus# the ./-C dismissed $etitioners1 a$$ea for non0$erfection thereof% Hssentia(# the faiure of $etitioners to com$( with the conditions for the $osting of the $ro$ert( bond is tantamount to a faiure to $ost the bond as required b( aw% =hat is even more saient is the fact that the ./-C had stressed that $etitioners had# for more than a month from recei$t of its 3A Februar( 3DDC 2rder# to com$( with the conditions set forth therein for the $osting of the $ro$ert( bond% )t cannot be gainsaid that the ./-C had given $etitioners a $eriod of 4D da(s from recei$t of the 2rder with a warning that non0com$iance woud resut in the dismissa of their a$$ea for faiure to $erfect the same% Petitioners therefore disregarded the rudiments of the aw in the $erfection of their a$$ea% =e are without recourse but to ta!e $etitioners1 faiure against their interest% J. K. +#%1'0o 7 So2s A9%.1&/3&%'/ E23#%5%.s#s, I21., vs. S3o. To-'s, G.R. No. )5606!, A&9&s3 2, 2006 F'13s* 2n &ecember 3# 4553# the -egiona Tri$artite =ages and Productivit( "oard# -egion 9)# issued =age 2rder .o% -T=P"09)0D3# granting a Cost of /iving Aowance (C2/A) to covered wor!ers% 2n *anuar( 36# 455A# $etitioner ,ed an a$$ication for e>em$tion from the coverage of the aforesaid wage order% Thus# however# was denied b( the regiona wage board for ac! of merit and ordered the $etitioner to $a( its covered wor!ers the aowance $rescribed under said =age 2rder% .otwithstanding the said order# $rivate res$ondents were not given the bene,ts due them% Thus# $rivate res$ondents ,ed an 7r"ent Motion +or 8rit o+ E/ecution, and 8rit o+ 9arnis!ment see!ing the enforcement of sub8ect wage order against severa entities incuding herein $etitioner% The 2)C0-egiona &irector# -egion 9)# issued a 8rit o+ E/ecution for the enforcement of the 2rder dated A$ri 44# 455A of the -egiona Tri$artite =ages and Productivit( "oard% 2n .ovember 4B# 4556 and .ovember 33# 4556# res$ective(# $etitioner ,ed a Motion to :uas! t!e 8rit o+ E/ecution and a %upplemental Motion to t!e Motion to :uas!* Petitioner argued that herein $rivate res$ondents1 right had aread( $rescribed due to their faiure to move for the e>ecution of the A$ri 44# 455A 2rder within the $eriod $rovided under Artice 354 of the /abor Code# as amended# or within three (3) (ears from the ,nait( of the said order% -egiona &irector denied the motion# thus the $etitioner ,ed a notice of a$$ea which was thereafter denied for ac! of merit% Jence a $etition was ,ed in SC% Iss&#s* =hether or not the Artice 354 of the /abor Code is not a$$icabe to recover( of bene,ts under the sub8ect =age 2rder# which entited res$ondents to a cost of iving aowance (C2/A); =hether or not the caim of the $rivate res$ondents for cost of iving aowance (C2/A) $ursuant to the =age 2rder has aread( $rescribed because of the faiure of the res$ondents to ma!e the a$$ro$riate caim within the three (3) (ear $rescri$tive $eriod $rovided b( Artice 354 of the /abor Code# as amended% R&/.29* Art% 354 of the /abor Code a$$ies to mone( caims in genera and $rovides for a 30(ear $rescri$tive $eriod to ,e them% 2n the other hand# res$ondent em$o(ees1 mone( caims in this case had been reduced to a 8udgment# in the form of a =age 2rder# which has become ,na and e>ecutor(% The $rescri$tion a$$icabe# therefore# is not the genera one that a$$ies to mone( caims# but 43 the s$eci,c one a$$(ing to 8udgments% Thus# the right to enforce the 8udgment# having been e>ercised within ,ve (ears# has not (et $rescribed% Stated otherwise# a caimant has three (ears to $ress a mone( caim% 2nce 8udgment is rendered in her favor# she has ,ve (ears to as! for e>ecution of the 8udgment# counted from its ,nait(% This is consistent with the rue on statutor( construction that a genera $rovision shoud (ied to a s$eci,c one and with the mandate of socia 8ustice that doubts shoud be resoved in favor of abor% <HEREFORE# the $etition is DENIED% J,PHIL +ARINE, INC. '20Fo% JESUS CANDAVA '20 NOR+AN SHIPPING SERVICES vs. NATIONAL LACOR RELATIONS CO++ISSION '20 <ARLITO E. DU+ALAOG G.R. No. )75"66 A&9&s3 )), 2006 FACTS* The herein res$ondent# was a coo! aboard vesses $(ing overseas# ,ed before the .ationa /abor -eations Commission (./-C) a $ro0forma com$aint against $etitioners for un$aid mone( caims# mora and e>em$ar( damages# and attorne(Is fees and thereafter ,ed two amended $ro forma com$aints $ra(ing for the award of overtime $a(# vacation eave $a(# sic! eave $a(# and disabiit(Gmedica bene,ts# he having# b( his caim# contracted enargement of the heart and severe th(roid enargement in the discharge of his duties as coo! which rendered him disabed% /abor Arbiter Fe Su$eriaso0Cean dismissed res$ondentIs com$aint for ac! of merit but the ./-C reversed the /abor ArbiterIs decision and awarded USPED#DDD%DD disabiit( bene,t to res$ondent% The Court of A$$eas dismissed $etitionersI $etition for# inter aia# faiure to attach to the $etition a materia documents# and for defective veri,cation and certi,cation% PetitionersI +otion for -econsideration of the a$$eate courtIs -esoution was denied? hence# the( ,ed the $resent Petition for -eview on Certiorari% &uring the $endenc( of the case# against the advice of his counse# entered into a com$romise agreement with $etitioners% Je thereu$on signed a Ouitcaim and -eease subscribed and sworn to before the /abor Arbiter% Petitioners ,ed before this Court a +anifestation dated +a( B# 3DDB informing that# inter aia# the( and res$ondent had forged an amicabe settement% -es$ondentIs counse aso ,ed before this Court# $ur$orted( on behaf of res$ondent# a Comment on the $resent $etition% The $arties having forged a com$romise agreement as res$ondent in fact has e>ecuted a Ouitcaim and -eease# the Court dismisses the $etition% ISSUE* =2. the com$romise agreementGdeed of quit caim entered b( the $arties is vaid; R&/.29* Artice 33B of the /abor Code $rovidesF An( com$romise settement# incuding those invoving abor standard aws# vo/&23'%./( '9%##0 u$on b( the $arties with the assistance of the &e$artment of /abor# sha be B2'/ '20 $.20.29 &5o2 34# 5'%3.#s. The N'3.o2'/ L'$o% R#/'3.o2s Co--.ss.o2 or an( court sha not assume 8urisdiction over issues invoved therein e>ce$t in case of non0 com$iance thereof or if there is $rima facie evidence that the settement was obtained through fraud# misre$resentation# or coercion% In Olaybar v. NLRC # the Court# recogni'ing the concusiveness of com$romise settements as a means to end abor dis$utes# hed that A%3.1/# 20"7 of the Civi Code# which $rovides that LQaR 1o-5%o-.s# 4's &5o2 34# 5'%3.#s 34# #?#13 '20 '&34o%.3( o: %#s 8&0.1'3',A '55/.#s s&55/#3o%./( 3o /'$o% 1's#s #v#2 .: 34# 1o-5%o-.s# .s 2o3 8&0.1.'//( '55%ov#0. That %#s5o20#23 >'s 2o3 'ss.s3#0 $( 4.s 1o&2s#/ >4#2 4# #23#%#0 .23o 34# 1o-5%o-.s# 0o#s 2o3 %#20#% .3 2&// '20 vo.0. Hurotech Jair S(stems# )nc% v% Go so #2/.943#2s* A 1o-5%o-.s# '9%##-#23 .s v'/.0 's /o29 's 34# 1o2s.0#%'3.o2 .s %#'so2'$/# '20 34# #-5/o(## s.92#0 34# >'.v#% vo/&23'%./(, >.34 ' :&// &20#%s3'20.29 o: >4'3 4# >'s #23#%.29 .23o. A that is %#D&.%#0 for the com$romise to be deemed vountari( entered into is 5#%so2'/ '20 s5#1.B1 .20.v.0&'/ 1o2s#23. Thus# contrar( to res$ondentIs contention# the em$o(eeIs counse need not be $resent at the time of the signing of the com$romise agreement% )t bears noting that# as reKected earier# 34# G&.31/'.- '20 <'.v#% >'s s&$s1%.$#0 '20 s>o%2 3o $#:o%# 34# L'$o% A%$.3#%. Petition &)S+)SSH& SY vs ALC I20&s3%.#s, GR No. )66"" O13o$#% )0, 2006 FACTS* Petitioner was hired b( res$ondent cor$oration A/C)) as a su$ervisor in its $urchasing o<ce% She was thereafter assigned to A/C))1s construction $ro8ect in &avao Cit( as business manager and su$ervisor of the Administrative &ivision% Jer &avao assignment was from +a( 455B to A$ri 4E# 4555% Petitioner aeged that res$ondents refused to $a( her saar( beginning August 4556 and aowances beginning *une 4556# des$ite her amost wee!( verba foow0u$% Petitioner ,ed a com$aint before the abor 4A arbiter for un$aid saaries and aowances% &es$ite severa notices and warnings# res$ondents did not ,e a $osition $a$er to controvert $etitioner1s caims% The case was submitted for resoution based soe( on $etitioner1s aegations and evidence% )n his *une 3D# 3DDD decision# the abor arbiter ordered A/C)) andGor &e>ter Ceriaes to $a( $etitioner P363#ECD re$resenting her un$aid saar( and aowance% -es$ondents ,ed an a$$ea with motion for reduction of bond in the .ationa /abor -eations Commission (./-C) without $osting an( cash or suret( bond% )n a resoution dated Se$tember C# 3DD4# the ./-C dismissed res$ondents1 a$$ea% )t rued that res$ondents faied to adduce substantia evidence to su$$ort their arguments of non0iabiit(% +oreover# it found no 8usti,abe reason to grant a reduction in the required bond% -es$ondents were abe to ,e a motion for reconsideration on time# accom$anied b( a 8oint underta!ingGdecaration in ieu of the cash or suret( bond% .evertheess# res$ondents1 motion for reconsideration was denied% 2n August 3# 3DD3# res$ondents ,ed a motion for cari,cation but this was i!ewise denied% -es$ondents questioned the ./-C1s denia of their motion for cari,cation and reconsideration in the CA via a $etition for certiorari and $rohibition% )n its +arch 3D# 3DDE decision# the CA set aside the resoutions of the ./-C and the decision of the abor arbiter and dismissed $etitioner1s com$aint% Iss&#* =2. the decision of the /abor Arbiter has become ,na and e>ecutor(% R&/.29* Artice 333% APPHA/% 0 D#1.s.o2s, '>'%0s, o% o%0#%s o: 34# L'$o% A%$.3#% '%# B2'/ '20 #H#1&3o%( &2/#ss '55#'/#0 3o 34# Co--.ss.o2 $( '2( o% $o34 5'%3.#s >.34.2 3#2 1'/#20'% 0'(s :%o- %#1#.53 o: s&14 0#1.s.o2s, '>'%0s, o% o%0#%s. HHH. )n case of a 8udgment invoving a monetar( award# an a$$ea b( the em$o(er ma( be $erfected on( u$on the $osting of a cash or suret( bond issued b( a re$utabe bonding com$an( du( accredited b( the Commission in the amount equivaent to the monetar( award in the 8udgment a$$eaed from% (em$hasis su$$ied) Section 4# -ue :) of the -ues of Procedure of the ./-C# as amended# i!ewise $rovides that the a$$ea must be ,ed within ten da(s from recei$t of the decision# resoution or order of the abor arbiter% +oreover# Section C of the same rues $rovides that an a$$ea b( the em$o(er ma( be $erfected on( u$on the $osting of a cash or suret( bond% As the right to a$$ea is mere( a statutor( $riviege# it must be e>ercised on( in the manner and in accordance with the $rovisions of the aw% 2therwise# the right to a$$ea is ost% )n a ong ine of cases# we have rued that the $a(ment of the a$$ea bond is a 8urisdictiona requisite for the $erfection of an a$$ea to the ./-C% The awma!ers intended to ma!e the $osting of a cash or suret( bond b( the em$o(er the e>cusive means b( which an em$o(er1s a$$ea ma( be $erfected% The rationae for this rue isF The requirement that the em$o(er $ost a cash or suret( bond to $erfect itsGhis a$$ea is a$$arent( intended to assure the wor!ers that if the( $revai in the case# the( wi receive the mone( 8udgment in their favor u$on the dismissa of the em$o(ers1 a$$ea% )t was intended to discourage em$o(ers from using an a$$ea to dea(# or even evade# their obigation to satisf( their em$o(ee1s 8ust and awfu caims% The e>$anation advanced b( res$ondents for their faiure to $a( the a$$ea bond beies their caim% The ./-C found that res$ondents did not $a( the a$$ea bond on the mista!en notion that the( were not iabe for the monetar( award and had aread( ceased o$erations due to ban!ru$tc(% -es$ondents beated( ,ed a bond with their motion for reconsideration of the ./-C1s dismissa of their a$$ea% =e cannot countenance such Kagrant disregard of estabished rues of $rocedure on a$$eas% +oreover# the ,ing of a 8oint underta!ingGdecaration# ,ed wa( be(ond the ten0da( regementar( $eriod for $erfecting an a$$ea and as a substitute for the cash or suret( bond# did not o$erate to vaidate the ost a$$ea% The decision of the abor arbiter therefore became ,na and e>ecutor( for faiure of res$ondents to $erfect their a$$ea within the regementar( $eriod% Cear(# the CA no onger had 8urisdiction to entertain res$ondents1 a$$ea from the abor arbiter1s decision% -es$ondents $oint out that we have occasiona( aowed e>ce$tions to mandator( and 8urisdictiona requirements in the $erfection of a$$eas# such as disregarding &2.23#20#0 /'5s#s on the basis of strong and com$eing reasons% This is true% Jowever# the obvious motive behind res$ondents1 $ea for iberait( is to thwart $etitioner1s caims% This we cannot aow% -es$ondents1 a$ses were far from unintentiona% The( were deiberate attem$ts to circumvent estabished rues% -es$ondents1 other contention that the( were de$rived of due $rocess is i!ewise devoid of merit% &ue $rocess is satis,ed when the $arties are a@orded fair and reasonabe o$$ortunit( to e>$ain their res$ective sides of the controvers(%4B )n Mariveles %!ip,ard Corp* v* C., we hedF T4# %#D&.%#-#23s o: 0&# 5%o1#ss .2 /'$o% 1's#s $#:o%# ' L'$o% A%$.3#% .s s'3.sB#0 >4#2 34# 5'%3.#s '%# 9.v#2 34# o55o%3&2.3( 3o s&$-.3 4E 34#.% 5os.3.o2 5'5#%s to which the( are su$$osed to attach a the su$$orting documents or documentar( evidence that woud $rove their res$ective caims# in the event that the /abor Arbiter determines that no forma hearing woud be conducted or that such hearing was not necessar(% (em$hasis su$$ied)% =e rued in imes ransportation Compan,, Inc* v* %oteloF To e>tend the $eriod of a$$ea is to $roong the resoution of the case# a circumstance which woud give the em$o(er the o$$ortunit( to wear out the energ( and meager resources of the wor!ers to the $oint that the( woud be constrained to give u$ for ess than what the( deserve in aw% PCI T%'v#/ Co%5o%'3.o2 vs. NLRC GR No. )5!"7. O13o$#% "), 2006 FactsF A com$aint for unfair abor $ractice was ,ed against $etitioner b( res$ondent .U"H0 A+H9PHAGPC) Trave Hm$o(ees Union with the atter caiming that the former had been ,ing u$ $ositions eft b( reguar ran!0and0,e with contractua em$o(ees# but were $erforming wor! which were usua( necessar( and desirabe in the usua business or trade of the $etitioner% Petitioner moved to dismiss the com$aint on the ground that the Union was not the rea $art(0in0interest and then the( manifested their readiness to $rove that said em$o(ees were $rovided b( inde$endent egitimate contractors and that it was not engaged in abor0on( contracting in $osition $a$er (et to be submitted# but the motion to dismiss is to be resoved ,rst% Jowever# the /abor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the res$ondent ruing that a motion to dismiss was a $rohibited $eading% The same was a<rmed b( the ./-C but with modi,cation deeting the awards of damages% "efore the CA# the $etition was dismissed for faiure to attach co$ies of $eadings and documents reevant and $ertinent to the same and the because of the absence of $roof that Hi'abeth /egarda ($etitionerIs $resident) was du( authori'ed to sign the veri,cation and certi,cation of non0forum sho$$ing% )ssue(s)F 4% =hether the President of a cor$oration is authori'ed to sign the veri,cation and certi,cation against non0forum sho$$ing without need of a board resoution% 3% =hether or not the a$$eate court has erred in dismissing the $etition on a singe technicait(% -uingF =hie it must be borne in mind that under the Cor$oration Code# an individua cor$orate o<cer cannot soe( e>ercise an( cor$orate $ower $ertaining to the cor$oration without the authorit( from the board of directors# the Su$reme Court however had rued otherwise in a ong ine of cases before it% Summing it u$# the foowing o<cias or em$o(ees of the com$an( can sign the veri,cation and certi,cation without need of a board resoutionF (4) Chair$erson of the "2&# (3) President# (3) Genera +anager or Acting G+# (A) Personne 2<cer and (E) an Hm$o(ment S$eciaist in a abor case% Thus# that the President of the cor$oration can sign the veri,cation and certi,cation without need of a board resoution# there thus e>ists a com$eing reason for the reinstatement of the $etition before the CA% A $erusa of the $etition for certiorari woud revea that $etitioner intended to show the grave abuse of discretion committed b( the abor tribunas in not aowing the $etitioner the am$e o$$ortunit( to submit its $osition $a$er on the aeged vioation of the C"A% The /abor Arbiter and the ./-C viewed it as a waiver on its $art and hastened to rue that Lsince the com$ainantIs aegations remain unrebutted# the( are deemed correct and vaid%M &ue $rocess dictates that a $erson shoud be given the o$$ortunit( to be heard% Unfortunate(# this was not accorded to the $etitioner and such right was even forecosed when the a$$eate court dismissed the $etition before it on technica grounds% The $oic( of our 8udicia s(stem is to encourage fu ad8udication of the merits of an a$$ea% Hnds of 8ustice are better served when both $arties are heard and the controvers( decided on its merits% Thus# in the e>ercise of its equit( 8urisdiction# the Court wi not hesitate to reverse the dismissa of a$$eas that are grounded mere( on technicaities% SSS-emanded to the CA for resoution based on the merits% LOPEI VS. G. C. SPORTS CLUC GR No. )6!0"2 J'2&'%( ), 200 FACTS* Caiming that it is a registered inde$endent abor organi'ation and the incumbent coective bargaining agent of Oue'on Cit( S$orts Cub (OCSC)# the Tasa$iang +anggagawa sa Oue'on Cit( S$orts Cub (union) ,ed a com$aint for unfair abor $ractice against OCSC on 43 .ovember 455B% The Union averred that it was ordered to submit a new information sheet% )t immediate( wrote a etter addressed to the genera manager# Ange Sadang# to inquire about the information sheet# on( to be insuted b( the atter% The members of the union were not $aid their saaries on 3D *une 455B% A board member# 4C Antonio Chua aeged( harassed one of the em$o(ees and tod him not to 8oin the stri!e and even $romised a $romotion% 2n A *u( 455B# the union wrote a etter to the management for the reease of the membersI saaries for the $eriod 4C03D *une 455B# im$ementation of =age 2rder .o% E# and granting of wage increases mandated b( the Coective "argaining Agreement (C"A)% =hen its etter went unanswered# the union ,ed a notice of stri!e on 4D *u( 455B for vioation of Artice 3A6 (a)(c)(e) of the /abor Code# non$a(ment of overtime $a(# refusa to hear its grievances# and maicious refusa to com$( with the economic $rovisions of the C"A% After conducting a stri!e vote# it staged a stri!e on 43 August 455B% 2n 4C August 455B# the OCSC $aced some of its em$o(ees under tem$orar( a(0o@ status due to redundanc(% )t a$$ears that on 33 &ecember 455B# OCSC aso ,ed a $etition for canceation of registration against the union% The /abor Arbiter (/ustria) found OCSC guit( of unfair abor $ractice% OCSC a$$eaed from the abor arbiterIs decision% )t aso ,ed a motion for reduction of the a$$ea bond to PA#DDD#DDD%DD% The ./-C ordered the $osting of an additiona PC#DDD#DDD%DD) %OCSC ,ed a su$$ement to its a$$ea# citing a decision (&ino$o decision) dated 5 2ctober 4556 of /abor Arbiter Hrnesto &ino$o decaring the stri!e of the union iega% The dis$ositive $ortion readsF <HEREFORE# in view of the UnionIs having vioated the no0stri!e0no0oc!out $rovision of the Coective "argaining Agreement# the stri!e it staged on August 43# 4556 is hereb( decared iega and consequent(# $ursuant to Artice 3CA of the /abor Code# the individua res$ondents# name(F RONILO C. LEE, EDUARDO V. SANTIA, CECILLE C. PANGAN, RO+EO +. +ORGA, GENARO C. CANDO AND ALEJ J. SANTIAGO, who admitted in $aragra$h 4 of their $osition $a$er that the( are o<cersGmembers of the com$aining Union are hereb( decared to have ost their em$o(ment status% +eanwhie# the .ationa /abor -eations Commission (./-C) rendered a decision granting the a$$ea and reversing the Lustria decision% )t ratiocinatedF "e that as it ma(# =e are of the view that the &ecision in ./-C CASH .2% DD0D50DCC305B must $erforce $revai over the a$$eaed &ecision and the atter to (ied to it% )t must remain undisturbed foowing the estabished doctrine on $rimac( and ,nait( of decision% )t bears stressing at this 8uncture# at the ris! of being re$etitious# that in ./-C Case .o% DD0D50DCC30 5B the em$o(ment status of herein individua com$ainants was aread( decared ost or forfeited as of August 43# 4556# the da( the iega stri!e was staged% From then on# the( ceased to be em$o(ees of res$ondent S$orts Cub% The forfeiture of their em$o(ment status carries with it the e>tinction of their right to demand for and be entited to the economic bene,ts accorded them b( aw and the e>isting C"A% For# such right is $remised on the fact of em$o(ment% The other com$ainants ($etitioners) meanwhie ,ed a motion for reconsideration which was denied b( the ./-C% The( ,ed a $etition for certiorari under -ue CE before the Court of A$$eas but was denied% ISSUES* 4% &o the simutaneous ,ing of the motion to reduce the a$$ea bond and $osting of the reduced amount of bond within the regementar( $eriod for a$$ea constitute substantia com$iance with Artice 333 of the /abor Code; 3% =hether the ./-C erred in decaring them to have ost their em$o(ment contrar( to the ;inopol decision which on( a@ected a few of the em$o(ees who were union members% RULING* First issueF Under the -ues# a$$eas invoving monetar( awards are $erfected on( u$on com$iance with the foowing mandator( requisites# name(F (4) $a(ment of the a$$ea fees? (3) ,ing of the memorandum of a$$ea? and (3) $a(ment of the required cash or suret( bond% Thus# the $osting of a bond is indis$ensabe to the $erfection of an a$$ea in cases invoving monetar( awards from the decision of the abor arbiter% The ,ing of the bond is not on( mandator( but aso a 8urisdictiona requirement that must be com$ied with in order to confer 8urisdiction u$on the ./-C% .on0com$iance with the requirement renders the decision of the abor arbiter ,na and e>ecutor(% This requirement is intended to assure the wor!ers that if the( $revai in the case# the( wi receive the mone( 8udgment in their favor u$on the dismissa of the 4B em$o(er1s a$$ea% )t is intended to discourage em$o(ers from using an a$$ea to dea( or evade their obigation to satisf( their em$o(ees1 8ust and awfu caims% Jowever# Section C of the .ew -ues of Procedure of the ./-C aso mandates# among others# that no motion to reduce bond sha be entertained e>ce$t on meritorious grounds and u$on the $osting of a bond in a reasonabe amount in reation to the monetar( award% Jence# the ./-C has the fu discretion to grant or den( the motion to reduce the amount of the a$$ea bond% )n the case of Nicol v* 6oot<o, Industrial Corporation rued that the bond requirement on a$$eas invoving monetar( awards had been and coud be rea>ed in meritorious cases such asF (4) there was substantia com$iance with the -ues? (3) the surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce the bond? (3) a ibera inter$retation of the requirement of an a$$ea bond woud serve the desired ob8ective of resoving controversies on the merits? or (A) the a$$eants# at the ver( east# e>hibited their wiingness andGor good faith b( $osting a $artia bond during the regementar( $eriod% A$$(ing these 8uris$rudentia guideines# we ,nd and hod that the ./-C did not err in reducing the amount of the a$$ea bond and considering the a$$ea as having been ,ed within the regementar( $eriod% The $osting of the amount of PA#DDD#DDD%DD simutaneous( with the ,ing of the motion to reduce the bond to that amount# as we as the ,ing of the memorandum of a$$ea# a within the regementar( $eriod# atogether constitute substantia com$iance with the -ues% Second issueF =e rue in favor of $etitioners% The assaied ;inopol decision invoves a com$aint for iega stri!e ,ed b( OCSC on the ground of a 7no0stri!e no oc!out7 $rovision in the C"A% The chaenged decision was rendered in accordance with aw and is su$$orted b( factua evidence on record% )n the notice of stri!e# the union did not state in $articuar the acts which aeged( constitute unfair abor $ractice% +oreover# b( virtue of the 7no0 stri!e no oc!out7 $rovision in the C"A# the union was $rohibited from staging an economic stri!e# i*e*# to force wage or other concessions from the em$o(er which he is not required b( aw to grant% Jowever# it shoud be noted that whie the stri!e decared b( the union was hed iega# on( the union o<cers were decared as having ost their em$o(ment status% )n e@ect# there was a ruing on( with res$ect to some union members whie the status of a others had remained dis$uted% There is no conKict between the ;inopol and the Lustria decisions% =hie both ruings invove the same $arties and same issues# there is a distinction between the remedies sought b( the $arties in these two cases% )n the ;inopol decision# it was OCSC which ,ed a $etition to decare the iegait( of the 43 August 455B stri!e b( the union% The consequence of the decaration of an iega stri!e is termination from em$o(ment# which the /abor Arbiter did so rue in said case% Jowever# not a union members were terminated% )n fact# on( a few union o<cers were vaid( dismissed in accordance with Artice 3CA of the /abor Code% Coroari(# the other union members who had mere( $artici$ated in the stri!e but had not committed an( iega acts were not dismissed from em$o(ment% Jence# the ./-C erred in decaring the em$o(ment status of a em$o(ees as having been ost or forfeited b( virtue of the ;inopol decision% 2n the other hand# the Lustria decision invoved the unfair abor $ractices aeged b( the union with $articuarit(% )n said case# /abor Arbiter /ustria sided with the Union and found OCSC guit( of such $ractices% As a consequence# the a@ected em$o(ees were granted bac!wages and se$aration $a(% The grant of bac!wages and se$aration $a( however was not $remised on the decaration of the iegait( of the stri!e but on the ,nding that these a@ected em$o(ees were constructive( dismissed from wor!# as evidenced b( the a(o@s e@ected b( the com$an(% Therefore# with res$ect to $etitioners and union o<cers Ae> *% Santiago# +a% Ceciia Pangan# -onio H% /ee# and Genaro "ando# who a$$arent( had been substituted b( $resent $etitioner Teresita "ando# the &ino$o decision decaring them as having ost their em$o(ment status sti stands% To reca$ituate# the ./-C erred in setting aside the Lustria decision# as we as in deeting the award of bac!wages and se$aration $a(# des$ite the ,nding that the a@ected em$o(ees had been constructive( dismissed% "ased on the foregoing# the Lustria decision shoud be u$hed and therefore reinstated e>ce$t as regards the four $etitioners% OTHER I+PORTANT LACOR PROVISIONS A. CONTRACTING ARRANGE+ENT 46 P4./.55.2# C'2K o: Co--&2.1'3.o2s vs. N'3.o2'/ L'$o% R#/'3.o2s Co--.ss.o2 GR No. L,6656 D#1#-$#% ), )66 FACTS* Petitioner Phii$$ine "an! of Communications and the Cor$orate H>ecutive Search# )nc% (CHS)) entered into an agreement under which CHS) woud $rovide LTem$orar( ServicesM to $etitioner consisting of eeven (44) messengers# one of them was 2r$iada% The contract $eriod was described as Lfrom *anuar( 45BC U athough it a$$eared that 2r$iada had been assigned to the ban! since *une 45BE% Je rendered messengeria services to the ban!# within its $romises# together with other the others doing a simiar 8ob% )n or about 2ctober 45BC# the ban! requested CHS) to withdraw 2r$iadaIs assignment because 2r$iadaIs services Lwere no onger needed%M 2r$iada ,ed a com$aint against the ban! for iega dismissa and faiure to $a( the 43 th 0 month $a(% The ban! im$eaded CHS) as an additiona res$ondent% The /abor Arbiter rued in favor of 2r$iada% Jence# this $etition for certiorari ,ed b( the ban!% ISSUE* =hether or not an em$o(er0 em$o(ee reationshi$ e>isted between the ban! and $rivate res$ondent 2r$iada% HELD* Nes% There is an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ that e>isted between the ban! and 2r$iada% The fact that 2r$iada wor!ed or rendered services to the ban! for a $eriod of about si>teen (4C) months made him an em$o(ee of the ban!% Under the /abor Code# an( em$o(ee who has rendered at east one (4) (ear of service# whether such service is continuous or not# sha be considered a reguar em$o(ee% Thus# 2r$iadaIs services ma( not be terminated b( the ban! e>ce$t for a 8ust cause or when authori'ed under the /abor Code% CHS) was engaged in abor0on( contracting% Therefore# the $etitioner ban! is iabe to 2r$iada as if 2r$iada had been direct( em$o(ed# not on( b( CHS) but aso b( the ban!% N#%. vs. N'3.o2'/ L'$o% R#/'3.o2s Co--.ss.o2 G.R. Nos. 7006,0 J&/( 2", )" FACTS* Petitioners instituted com$aints against FH"TC and "CC to com$e the ban! to acce$t them as reguar em$o(ees and for it to $a( the di@erentia between the wages being $aid them b( "CC and those received b( FH"TC em$o(ees with simiar ength of service% The( contended that "CC in engaged in abor0on( contracting because it faied to adduce evidence $ur$orting to show that it invested in the form of toos# equi$ment# machineries# wor! $remises and other materias which are necessar( in the conduct of its business% +oreover# $etitioners argue that the( $erform duties which are direct( reated to the $rinci$a business or o$eration of FH"TC% )t is we0setted that there is abor0on( contracting whereF (a) the $erson su$$(ing wor!ers to an em$o(er does not have substantia ca$ita or investment in the form of toos# equi$ment# machineries# wor! $remises# among others? and# (b) the wor!ers recruited and $aced b( such $erson are $erforming activities which are direct( reated to the $rinci$a business of the em$o(er% R&/.29* The Su$reme Court rued that res$ondent "CC need not $rove that it made investments in the form of toos# equi$ment# machineries# wor! $remises# among others# because it has estabished that it has su<cient ca$itai'ation% This fact was both determined b( the /abor Arbiter and the ./-C as "CC had a ca$ita stoc! of P4 miion fu( subscribed and $aid for% "CC is therefore a high( ca$itai'ed venture and cannot be deemed engaged in abor0on( contracting% =hie there ma( be no evidence that it has investment in the form of toos# equi$ment# machineries# wor! $remises# among others# it is enough that it has substantia ca$ita# as was estabished before the /abor Arbiter as we as the ./-C% The aw does not require both substantia ca$ita and investment in the form of toos# equi$ment# machineries# etc% This is cear from the use of the con8unction 7or7 instead of 7and7% Javing estabished that it has substantia ca$ita# it was no onger necessar( for "CC to further adduce evidence to $rove that it does not fa within the $urview of 7abor0 on(7 contracting% There is even no need for it to refute $etitioners1 contention that the activities the( $erform are direct( reated to the $rinci$a business of res$ondent ban!% 2n the other hand# the Court has aread( ta!en 8udicia notice of the genera $ractice ado$ted in severa government and $rivate institutions and industries of hiring inde$endent contractors to $erform s$ecia services% These services range from 8anitoria# securit( and even technica or other s$eci,c services such as those $erformed b( $etitioners .eri and Cabein% =hie these services ma( be considered direct( reated to the $rinci$a business of the em$o(er# nevertheess# the( are not necessar( in the conduct of the $rinci$a business of the em$o(er% Petition dismissed% FILIPINAS SYNTHETIC FICER CORPORATION vs NLRC G.R. No. ))""!7 J&2# )!, )6 FACTS* 2n A A$ri 4554 F)/SN.# a domestic cor$oration engaged in the manufacture of $o(ester ,ber# contracted with &e /ima Trading and Genera Services (&H /)+A) for the $erformance of s$eci,c 8anitoria services
Pursuant to the agreement Fei$e /oterte# among others# was de$o(ed at F)/SN. to ta!e care of the $ants and maintain genera ceaniness around the $remises% 2n 3A Februar( 4553 /oterte sued F)/SN. and &H /)+A as aternative defendants for iega dismissa# under$a(ment of wages# non0$a(ment of ega hoida( $a(# service incentive eave $a( and 43th month $a( aeging that he was ,rst assigned to $erform 8anitoria wor! at F)/SN. in 4564 b( the /a Saga Genera Services? that the /a Saga was changed to &H /)+A on August 4554? that when a movement to demand increased wages and 43th month $a( arose among the wor!ers on &ecember 4554 he was accused b( a certain 45 &odie /a Fores of having $osted in the buetin board at F)/SN. an artice attributing to management a secret understanding to boc! the demand? and# for den(ing res$onsibiit(# his gate $ass was unceremonious( canceed on C Februar( 4553 and he was subsequent( dismissed% /oterte was cassi,ed b( the /abor Arbiter as a reguar em$o(ee on the ground that he $erformed tas!s usua( necessar( or desirabe in the main business of F)/SN. for more than ten (4D) (ears or since 4564% F)/SN. was decared to be the rea em$o(er of /oterte and &H /)+A as a mere abor contractor%
Jence# F)/SN. was ad8udged iabe for /oterte1s reinstatement# $a(ment of saar( di@erentias and bac! wages and other bene,ts% Jence# this $etition for certiorari b( F)/SN.% ISSUE* =hether or not there e>ists an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ between F)/SN. and $rivate res$ondent Fei$e /oterte%
HELD* &H /)+A is an inde$endent 8ob contractor# therefore no direct em$o(er0 em$o(ee reationshi$ e>ists between $etitioner F)/SN. and $rivate res$ondent Fei$e /oterte% The reationshi$ between $etitioner Fii$inas S(nthetic Fiber Cor$oration (F)/SN.) and $rivate res$ondent &e /ima Trading and Genera Services (&H /)+A) is one of 8ob contractorshi$% Under the /abor Code# two (3) eements must e>ist for a ,nding of abor0on( contractingF (a) the $erson su$$(ing wor!ers to an em$o(er does not have substantia ca$ita or investment in the form of toos# equi$ment# machineries# wor! $remises# among others# and (b) the wor!ers recruited and $aced b( such $ersons are $erforming activities direct( reated to the $rinci$a business of such em$o(er% These two (3) eements do not e>ist in the instant case% As $ointed out b( $etitioner# $rivate res$ondent &H /)+A is a going concern du( registered with the Securities and H>change Commission with substantia ca$itai'ation of P4#CDD#DDD%DD# PADD#DDD%DD of which is actua( subscribed% Jence# it cannot be considered as engaged in abor0on( contracting being a high( ca$itai'ed venture% +oreover# whie the 8anitoria services $erformed b( Fei$e /oterte $ursuant to the agreement between F)/SN. and &H /)+A ma( be considered direct( reated to the $rinci$a business of F)/SN. which is the manufacture of $o(ester ,ber# nevertheess# the( are not necessar( in its o$eration% 2n the contrar(# the( are mere( incidenta thereto# as o$$osed to being integra# without which $roduction and com$an( saes wi not su@er% *udicia notice has aread( been ta!en of the genera $ractice in $rivate as we as in government institutions and industries of hiring 8anitoria services on an inde$endent contractor basis% -es$ondent &e /ima Trading and Genera Services (&H /)+A) are ordered to reinstate $rivate res$ondent FH/)PH /2TH-TH to his former $osition or its equivaent without oss of seniorit( rights% And $rivate res$ondent &e /ima Trading and Genera Services (&H /)+A) is ordered 8oint( and severa( with $etitioner Fii$inas S(nthetic Fiber Cor$oration (F)/SN.) to $a( $rivate res$ondent FH/)PH /2TH-TH hi saar( di@erentias# 43th month $a(# service incentive eave $a(# and bac!wages without $re8udice to F)/SN. see!ing reimbursement from &H /)+A for whatever amount the former ma( $a( or have $aid the atter% +ARAGUINOT vs. NLRC G.R. No. )206 J'2&'%( 22, )6 FACTS* Petitioner +araguinot# *r% maintains that he was em$o(ed b( $rivate res$ondents as $art of the ,ming crew% Je was designated Assistant Hectrician and was $romoted to the ran! of Hectrician% Petitioner Pauino Hnero# on his $art# caims that $rivate res$ondents em$o(ed him as a member of the shooting crew% PetitionersI tas!s consisted of oading# unoading and arranging movie equi$ment in the shooting area as instructed b( the cameraman# returning the equi$ment to :iva FimsI warehouse# assisting in the L,>ingM of the ighting s(stem# and $erforming other tas!s that the cameraman andGor director ma( assign% Petitioners sought the assistance of their su$ervisor# +rs% Cesario# to faciitate their request that $rivate res$ondents ad8ust their saar( in accordance with the minimum wage aw% +rs% Cesario informed $etitioners that +r% de -osario woud agree to increase their saar( on( if the( signed a ban! em$o(ment contract% As $etitioners refused to sign# $rivate res$ondents forced Hnero to go on eave then refused to ta!e him bac! when he re$orted for wor!% +eanwhie# +araguinot was dro$$ed from the com$an( $a(ro but was returned on *une 4553% Je was again as!ed to sign a ban! em$o(ment contract# and when he sti refused# $rivate res$ondents terminated his services on% Petitioners thus sued for iega dismissa before the /abor Arbiter% 2n the other hand# $rivate res$ondents caim that :):A is $rimari( engaged in the distribution and e>hibition of movies 00 but not in the business of ma!ing movies? in the same vein# $rivate res$ondent :ic de -osario is mere( an e>ecutive $roducer# i*e*# the ,nancier who invests a certain sum of mone( for the $roduction of movies distributed and e>hibited b( :):A% Private res$ondents assert that the( contract $ersons caed L$roducersM 00 aso referred to as Lassociate $roducersM 00 to L$roduceM or ma!e movies for $rivate res$ondents? and contend that $etitioners are $ro8ect em$o(ees of the associate $roducers who# in turn# act as inde$endent contractors% As such# there is no em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ between $etitioners and $rivate res$ondents% Private res$ondents further contend that it was the associate $roducer of the ,m LMa!irap Ma"in" 2o"i#M who hired $etitioner +araguinot% The movie shot from 3 *u( u$ to 33 *u( 4553# and it was on( then that +araguinot was reeased u$on $a(ment of his ast saar(# as his services were no onger needed% Anent $etitioner Hnero# he was hired for the movie entited L%i"a# n" 2uso#GNarito an" 2uso%M Je went on vacation and when he re$orted bac! for wor! on 3D *u( 4553# shooting for the movie had aread( been com$eted% 3D ISSUES* =hether or not $etitioners are $ro8ect em$o(ees of associate $roducers who# in turn# act as inde$endent contractors% =hether or not $etitioners were iega( dismissed% HELD* )t is setted that the contracting out of abor is aowed on( in case of 8ob contracting% Sec% 6% *ob contracting% 00 There is 8ob contracting $ermissibe under the Code if the foowing conditions are metF (4) The contractor carries on an inde$endent business and underta!es the contract wor! on his own account under his own res$onsibiit( according to his own manner and method# free from the contro and direction of his em$o(er or $rinci$a in a matters connected with the $erformance of the wor! e>ce$t as to the resuts thereof? and (3) The contractor has substantia ca$ita or investment in the form of toos# equi$ment# machineries# wor! $remises# and other materias which are necessar( in the conduct of his business% Assuming that the associate $roducers are 8ob contractors# the( must then be engaged in the business of ma!ing motion $ictures% As such# and to be a 8ob contractor under the $receding descri$tion# associate $roducers must have toos# equi$ment# machiner(# wor! $remises# and other materias necessar( to ma!e motion $ictures% Jowever# the associate $roducers here have none of these% Private res$ondentsI evidence reveas that the movie0ma!ing equi$ment are su$$ied to the $roducers and owned b( :):A% These incude generators# cabes and wooden $atforms# cameras and Lshooting equi$ment?M in fact# :):A i!ewise owns the truc!s used to trans$ort the equi$ment% )t is thus cear that the associate $roducer mere( eases the equi$ment from :):A% Private res$ondents further narrated that :):AIs generators bro!e down during $etitionersI ast movie $ro8ect# which forced the associate $roducer concerned to rent generators# equi$ment and crew from another com$an(% This on( shows that the associate $roducer did not have substantia ca$ita nor investment in the form of toos# equi$ment and other materias necessar( for ma!ing a movie% Private res$ondents in e@ect admit that their $roducers# es$ecia( $etitionersI ast $roducer# are not engaged in $ermissibe 8ob contracting% )f $rivate res$ondents insist that their associate $roducers are abor contractors# then these $roducers can on( be Labor0on(M contractors# de,ned b( the /abor Code% Sec% 5% /abor0on( contracting% (a) An( $erson who underta!es to su$$( wor!ers to an em$o(er sha be deemed to be engaged in abor0on( contracting where such $ersonF (4) &oes not have substantia ca$ita or investment in the form of toos# equi$ment# machineries# wor! $remises and other materias? and (3) The wor!ers recruited and $aced b( such $erson are $erforming activities which are direct( reated to the $rinci$a business or o$erations of the em$o(er in which wor!ers are habitua( em$o(ed% (b) /abor0on( contracting as de,ned herein is hereb( $rohibited and the $erson acting as contractor sha be considered mere( as an agent or intermediar( of the em$o(er who sha be res$onsibe to the wor!ers in the same manner and e>tent as if the atter were direct( em$o(ed b( him% (c) For cases not faing under this Artice# the Secretar( of /abor sha determine through a$$ro$riate orders whether or not the contracting out of abor is $ermissibe in the ight of the circumstances of each case and after considering the o$erating needs of the em$o(er and the rights of the wor!ers invoved% )n such case# he ma( $rescribe conditions and restrictions to insure the $rotection and wefare of the wor!ers% As abor0on( contracting is $rohibited# the aw considers the $erson or entit( engaged in the same a mere agent or intermediar( of the direct em$o(er% "ut even b( the $receding standards# the associate $roducers of :):A cannot be considered abor0on( contractors as the( did not su$$(# recruit nor hire the wor!ers% )n the instant case# it was *uanita Cesario# Shooting Unit Su$ervisor and an em$o(ee of :):A# who recruited crew members from an Lavaiabe grou$ of free0ance wor!ers which incudes the com$ainants +araguinot and Hnero%M And in their +emorandum# $rivate res$ondents decared that the associate $roducer Lhires the services of%%% C) camera crew which incudes (a) cameraman? (b) the utiit( crew? (c) the technica sta@? (d) generator man and eectrician? (e) ca$$er? etc%%%%M This cear( showed that the associate $roducers did not su$$( the wor!ers required b( the movie $ro8ect% The reationshi$ between :):A and its $roducers or associate $roducers seems to be that of agenc(# as the atter ma!e movies on behaf of :):A# whose business is to Lma!eM movies% As such# the em$o(ment reationshi$ between $etitioners and $roducers is actua( one between $etitioners and :):A# with the atter being the direct em$o(er% .otab(# nowhere in the a$$ointment si$ does it a$$ear that it was the $roducer or associate $roducer who hired the crew members? moreover# it is :):AIs cor$orate name which a$$ears on the heading of the a$$ointment si$% =hat i!ewise tes against :):A is that it $aid $etitionersI saaries as evidenced b( vouchers# containing :):AIs etterhead# for that $ur$ose% A $ro8ect em$o(ee or a member of a wor! $oo ma( acquire the status of a reguar em$o(ee when the foowing concurF 4) There is a continuous rehiring of $ro8ect em$o(ees even after cessation of a $ro8ect? and 3) The tas!s $erformed b( the aeged L$ro8ect em$o(eeM are vita# necessar( and indis$ensabe to the usua business or trade of the em$o(er% Jowever# the ength of time during which the em$o(ee was continuous( re0hired is not controing# but mere( serves as a badge of reguar em$o(ment% )n the instant case# the evidence on record shows that $etitioner Hnero was em$o(ed for a tota of 3 (ears and engaged in at east 46 $ro8ects# whie $etitioner +araguinot was em$o(ed for some 3 (ears and wor!ed on at east 33 $ro8ects% +oreover# as $etitionersI tas!s invoved# among other chores# the oading# unoading and arranging of movie equi$ment in the shooting area as instructed b( the cameramen# returning the equi$ment to the :iva FimsI warehouse# and assisting in the L,>ingM of the ighting s(stem# it ma( not be gainsaid that these tas!s were vita# necessar( and indis$ensabe to the usua business or trade of the em$o(er% As regards the underscored $hrase# it has been 34 hed that this is ascertained b( considering the nature of the wor! $erformed and its reation to the scheme of the $articuar business or trade in its entiret(% )n cosing then# as $etitioners had aread( gained the status of reguar em$o(ees# their dismissa was unwarranted# for the cause invo!ed b( $rivate res$ondents for $etitionersI dismissa# vi=%# com$etion of $ro8ect# was not# as to them# a vaid cause for dismissa under Artice 363 of the /abor Code% As such# $etitioners are now entited to bac! wages and reinstatement# without oss of seniorit( rights and other bene,ts that ma( have accrued% .evertheess# foowing the $rinci$es of Lsus$ension of wor!M and Lno $a(M between the end of one $ro8ect and the start of a new one# in com$uting $etitionersI bac! wages# the amounts corres$onding to what coud have been earned during the $eriods from the date $etitioners were dismissed unti their reinstatement when $etitionersI res$ective Shooting Units were not underta!ing an( movie $ro8ects# shoud be deducted% U%$'2#s, J%., vs. T4# Ho2o%'$/# S#1%#3'%( O: L'$o% A20 E-5/o(-#23 G.R. No. )227) F#$%&'%( ), 200" FACTS* Petitioner Pacido 2% Urbanes# *r%# doing business under the name and st(e of Cataina Securit( Agenc(# entered into an agreement to $rovide securit( services to res$ondent Socia Securit( S(stem (SSS)% &uring the e@ectivit( of the agreement# $etitioner# b( etter of +a( 4C# 455A# requested the SSS for the u$ward ad8ustment of their contract rate in view of =age 2rder .o% .C-0D3 which was issued b( the -egiona Tri$artite =ages and Productivit( "oard0.C-% Petitioner sent severa etters dated *une B and *une 6# 455A# reiterating the request% 2n *une 3A# 455A# $etitioner $ued out his agenc(Is services from the $remises of the SSS% Petitioner# on *une 35# 455A# ,ed a com$aint with the &2/H0.C- against the SSS see!ing the im$ementation of =age 2rder .o% .C-0D3% )n its $osition $a$er# the SSS $ra(ed for the dismissa of the com$aint on the ground that $etitioner is not the rea $art( in interest and has no ega ca$acit( to ,e the same% )n an( event# it argued that if it had an( obigation# it was to the securit( guards% +orever# it contended that the securit( guards assigned to the SSS do not have an( ega basis to ,e a com$aint against it for ac! of contractua $rivit(% Finding for $etitioner# the -egiona &irector of the &2/H0.C- ordered res$ondent SSS to $a( com$ainant the sum of P 4#CDD#6E6%AC re$resenting the wage di@erentias under =age 2rder .o% .C-0D3 of the 4C6 Securit( Guards of Cataina Securit( Agenc( covering the $eriod from &ecember 4C# 4553 to *une 3A# 455A% The SSS moved to reconsider the Se$tember 4C# 455A 2rder of the -egiona &irector# $ra(ing that the com$utation be revised% "( 2rder of &ecember 5# 455A# the -egiona &irector modi,ed his Se$tember 4C# 455A 2rder b( reducing the amount $a(abe b( the SSS to $etitioner% The amount was reduced to P 4#33B#BAD%DD% The SSS a$$eaed to the Secretar( of /abor u$on severa assigned errors% Thereafter# the Secretar( of /abor# b( 2rder of *une 33# 455E# set aside the order of the -egiona &irector and remanded the records of the case 7for recom$utation of the wage di@erentias using P E#364%DD as the basis of the wage ad8ustment%7 And the Secretar( hed $etitionerIs securit( agenc( 7*oint( and severa( iabe for wage di@erentias# the amount of which shoud be $aid direct( to the securit( guards concerned%7 ISSUES* 4% =hether or not the Secretar( of /abor has 8urisdiction to review a$$eas from decisions of the -egiona &irectors% 3% =hether or not SSS is iabe to $a( $etitioner for wage di@erentias% Co23#23.o2s* Petitioner asserts that the Secretar( of /abor does not have 8urisdiction to review a$$eas from decisions of the -egiona &irectors in com$aints ,ed under Artice 435 of the /abor Code which $rovidesF .R* >?@* RECOAERY O6 8.9E%, %IM2LE MONEY CL.IM% .N; OBER BENE6I%* U$on com$aint of an( interested $art(# the regiona director of the &e$artment of /abor and Hm$o(ment or an( du( authori'ed hearing o<cers of the &e$artment is em$owered# through summar( $roceeding and after due notice# to hear and decide an( matter invoving the recover( of wages and other monetar( caims and bene,ts# incuding ega interest# owing to an em$o(ee or $erson em$o(ed in domestic or househod service or househe$er under this Code# arising from em$o(er0em$o(ee reationsF Provided# That such com$aint does not incude a caim for reinstatement? Provided# further# That the aggregate mone( caim of each em$o(ee or househe$er does not e>ceed Five Thousand $esos (PE#DDD%DD)% The regiona director or hearing o<cer sha decide or resove the com$aint within thirt( (3D) caendar da(s from the date of the ,ing of the same% An( sum thus recovered on behaf of an( em$o(ee or househe$er $ursuant to this Artice sha be hed in a s$ecia de$osit account b(# and sha be $aid on order of# the Secretar( of /abor and Hm$o(ment or the regiona director direct( to the em$o(ee or househe$er concerned% An( such sum not $aid to the em$o(ee or househe$er# because he cannot be ocated after diigent and reasonabe e@ort to ocate him within a $eriod of three (3) (ears# sha be hed as a s$ecia fund of the &e$artment of /abor and Hm$o(ment to be used e>cusive( for the ameioration and bene,t of wor!ers% An( decision or resoution of the regiona director or o<cer $ursuant 33 to this $rovision ma( be a$$eaed on the same grounds $rovided in Artice 333 of this Code# within ,ve (E) caendar da(s from recei$t of a co$( of said decision or resoution# to the .ationa /abor -eations Commission which sha resove the a$$ea within ten (4D) caendar da(s from submission of the ast $eading required or aowed under its rues% > > > Petitioner thus contends that as the a$$ea of SSS was ,ed with the wrong forum# it shoud have been dismissed% The SSS# on the other hand# contends that Artice 436# not Artice 435# is a$$icabe to the case% Artice 436 $rovidesF .R* >?(* AI%IORI.L .N; EN6ORCEMEN 2O8ER% > > > (b) .otwithstanding the $rovisions of Artice 435 and 34B of this Code to the contrar(# and in cases where the reationshi$ of em$o(er0em$o(ee sti e>ists# the Secretar( of /abor and Hm$o(ment or his du( authori'ed re$resentatives sha have the $ower to issue com$iance orders to give e@ect to abor egisation based on the ,ndings of abor em$o(ment and enforcement o<cers or industria safet( engineers made in the course of ins$ection% > > > An order issued b( the du( authori'ed re$resentative of the Secretar( of /abor and Hm$o(ment under this artice ma( be a$$eaed to the atter% > > >% HELD* .either the $etitionerIs contention nor the SSSIs is im$ressed with merit% /a$anda( Agricutura &eveo$ment Cor$oration v% Court of A$$eas instructs so% )n that case# the securit( agenc( ,ed a com$aint before the -TC against the $rinci$a or cient /a$anda( for the u$ward ad8ustment of the contract rate in accordance with =age 2rder .os% E and C% /a$anda( argued that it is the .ationa /abor -eations Commission# not the civi courts# which has 8urisdiction to resove the issue in the case# it invoving the enforcement of wage ad8ustment and other bene,ts due the agenc(Is securit( guards as mandated b( severa wage orders% Joding that the -TC has 8urisdiction over the controvers(# this Court ruedF =e agree with the res$ondent that the -TC has 8urisdiction over the sub8ect matter of the $resent case% )t is we setted in aw and 8uris$rudence that where no em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ e>ists between the $arties and no issue is invoved which ma( be resoved b( reference to the /abor Code# other abor statutes or an( coective bargaining agreement# it is the -egiona Tria Court that has 8urisdiction% )n its com$aint# $rivate res$ondent is not see!ing an( reief under the /abor Code but see!s $a(ment of a sum of mone( and damages on account of $etitioner1s aeged breach of its obigation under their Guard Service Contract% The action is within the ream of civi aw hence 8urisdiction over the case beongs to the reguar courts% =hie the resoution of the issue invoves the a$$ication of abor aws# reference to the abor code was on( for the determination of the soidar( iabiit( of the $etitioner to the res$ondent where no em$o(er0 em$o(ee reation e>ists% )n the case at bar# even if $etitioner ,ed the com$aint on his and aso on behaf of the securit( guards# the reief sought has to do with the enforcement of the contract between him and the SSS which was deemed amended b( virtue of =age 2rder .o% .C-0D3% The controvers( sub8ect of the case at bar is thus a civi dis$ute# the $ro$er forum for the resoution of which is the civi courts% "ut even assuming arguendo that $etitionerIs com$aint were ,ed with the $ro$er forum# for ac! of cause of action it must be dismissed% Artices 4DC# 4DB and 4D5 of the /abor Code $rovideF .R* >&C* CONR.COR OR %7BCONR.COR* =henever an em$o(er enters into contract with another $erson for the $erformance of the formerIs wor!# the em$o(ees of the contractor and of the atterIs subcontractor# if an(# sha be $aid in accordance with the $rovisions of this Code% )n the event that the contractor or subcontractor fais to $a( the wage of his em$o(ees in accordance with this Code# the em$o(er sha be 8oint( and severa( iabe with his contractor or subcontractor to such em$o(ees to the e>tent of the wor! $erformed under the contract# in the same manner and e>tent that he is iabe to em$o(ees direct( em$o(ed b( him% >>> .R* >&) IN;IREC EM2LOYER* The $rovisions of the immediate( $receding Artice sha i!ewise a$$( to an( $erson# $artnershi$# association or cor$oration which# not being an em$o(er# contracts with an inde$endent contractor for the $erformance of an( wor!# tas!# 8ob or $ro8ect% .R* >&@* %OLI;.RY LI.BILY* The $rovisions of e>isting aws to the contrar( notwithstanding# ever( em$o(er or indirect em$o(er sha be hed res$onsibe with his contractor or subcontractor for an( vioation of an( $rovision of this Code% For $ur$oses of determining the e>tent of their civi iabiit( under 33 this Cha$ter# the( sha be considered as direct em$o(ers% As to the second issue# the iabiit( of the SSS to reimburse $etitioner arises on( if and when $etitioner $a(s his em$o(ee0securit( guards 7the increases7 mandated b( =age 2rder .o% .C-0D3% The records do not show that $etitioner has $aid the mandated increases to the securit( guards% The securit( guards in fact have ,ed a com$aint with the ./-C against $etitioner reative to# among other things# under$a(ment of wages% S'2 +.9&#/ Co%5o%'3.o2 vs. +'#%1 I23#9%'3#0, I21. G.R. No. )!!672 J&/( )0, 200" FACTS* "rought before this court is a $etition see!ing for a review of the Court of A$$eas1 8udgment% The facts are as foows% 354 wor!ers ,ed com$aints against San +igue Cor$oration and +aerc )ntegrated Services# )nc% for iega dismissa# under$a(ment of wages# non0$a(ment of service incentive eave $a(s and other abor standards bene,ts# and for se$aration $a(s from 3E *une to 3A 2ctober 4554% The com$ainants aeged that the( were hired b( S+C through its agent or intermediar( +aerc% The( were $aid on a $er $iece or pa0iao basis e>ce$t for a few who wor!ed as chec!ers and were $aid on dai( wage basis% S+C denied iabiit( for the caims and averred that the com$ainants were not its em$o(ees but of +AH-C% =hen the service contract was terminated# com$ainants caimed that S+C sto$$ed them from $erforming their 8obs? that this was tantamount to their being iega( dismissed b( S+C who was their rea em$o(er? and# that +AH-C was mere( made a too or a shied b( S+C to avoid its iabiit( under the /abor Code% 2n 34 *anuar( 455E the /abor Arbiter rendered a decision hoding that +AH-C was an inde$endent contractor%
Je dismissed the com$aints for iega dismissa but hed that +AH-C and S+C were 8oint( and severa( iabe to $a( com$ainants their wage di@erentias% The .ationa /abor -eations Commission (./-C) rued in its B *anuar( 455B decision that +AH-C was a abor0on( contractor and that com$ainants were em$o(ees of S+C but sti hed S+C to be 8oint( and severa( iabe with +AH-C for com$ainants1 se$aration bene,ts% 2n 36 A$ri 3DDD the Court of A$$eas denied the $etition and a<rmed the decision of the ./-C% ISSUE* =hether or not the com$ainants are em$o(ees of $etitioner S+C or of res$ondent +AH-C% HELD* Hvidence discoses that $etitioner $a(ed a arge and indis$ensabe $art in the hiring of +AH-C1s wor!ers% )t aso a$$ears that ma8orit( of the com$ainants had aread( been wor!ing for S+C ong before the signing of the service contract between S+C and +AH-C in 4566% )n abor0on( contracting# the statute creates an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ for a com$rehensive $ur$oseF to $revent a circumvention of abor aws% The contractor is considered mere( an agent of the $rinci$a em$o(er and the atter is res$onsibe to the em$o(ees of the abor0on( contractor as if such em$o(ees had been direct( em$o(ed b( the $rinci$a em$o(er% The $rinci$a em$o(er therefore becomes soidari( iabe with the abor0on( contractor for a the rightfu caims of the em$o(ees% This distinction between 8ob contractor and abor0on( contractor# however# wi not discharge S+C from $a(ing the se$aration bene,ts of the wor!ers# inasmuch as +AH-C was shown to be a abor0on( contractor? in which case# $etitioner1s iabiit( is that of a direct em$o(er and thus soidari( iabe with +AH-C% -es$ondent +aerc )ntegrated Services# )nc% is decared to be a abor0on( contractor% According(# both $etitioner San +igue Cor$oration and res$ondent +aerc )ntegrated Services# )nc%# are ordered to 8oint( and severa( $a( com$ainants ($rivate res$ondents herein) se$aration bene,ts and wage di@erentias as ma( be ,na( recom$uted b( the /abor Arbiter as herein directed# $us attorne(1s fees to be com$uted on the basis of ten $ercent (4DV) of the amounts which com$ainants ma( recover $ursuant to Art% 444 of the /abor Code# as we as an indemnit( fee of P3#DDD%DD to each com$ainant% +'%.v#/#s S4.5('%0 vs. Co&%3 o: A55#'/s G.R. No. )!!)"! Nov#-$#% )), 200" FACTS* Sometime in 2ctober 4553# $etitioner +arivees Shi$(ard Cor$% engaged the services of /ongest Force )nvestigation and Securit( Agenc(# )nc% to render securit( services at its $remises% Petitioner reigious( com$ied with the terms of the contract# $rom$t( $a(ing its bis and the contract rates% Jowever# it found the services unsatisfactor( and inadequate causing it to terminate its contract with /ongest Force% /ongest force in turn terminated the em$o(ment of the securit( guards de$o(ed to $etitioner% 2n Se$tember 3# 455C $rivate res$ondents ,ed a case of iega dismissa# under$a(ment of wages $ursuant to the P.PS2S)A0PA&PA2 rates# non$a(ment of overtime $a(# $remium $a( for hoida( and rest da(# service incentive eave $a(# 43 th month $a( and attorne(Is fees against $etitioner and /ongest Force% /abor Arbiter and ./-C rued in favor of $rivate res$ondents and decared /ongest Force and $etitioner 8oint( and severa( iabe to $a( the mone( caims of com$ainants% ISSUE* =hether or not $etitioner is 8oint( and severa( iabe with /ongest Force% HELD* PetitionerIs iabiit( is 8oint and severa with /ongest Force $ursuant to Art 4DC# 4DB and 4D5 of the /abor Code% =hen $etitioner contracted for securit( services with /ongest 3A Force as the securit( agenc( that hired $rivate res$ondents to wor! as guards for the shi$(ard cor$oration# $etitioner became indirect em$o(er of $rivate res$ondents $ursuant to Art 4DB% Foowing Art 4DC# when the agenc( as contractor faied to $a( the guards# the cor$oration as $rinci$a becomes 8oint( and severa( iabe for the guardIs wages% Petitioner cannot evade its iabiit( b( caiming that it had reigious( $aid the com$ensation of the guards as sti$uated under the contract% /abor Standards are enacted b( the egisature to aeviate the $ight of wor!ers whose wages bare( meet the costs of their basic needs% Jowever# $etitioner has the right of reimbursement from his co0debtor% NE< GOLDEN CITY CUILDERS 7 DEV=T CORP vs COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. )5!7)5 D#1#-$#% )), 200" FACTS* 2n A$ri A# 455E# $etitioner .ew Goden Cit( "uiders and &eveo$ment Cor$oration# a cor$oration engaged in the construction business# entered into a construction contract with Prince &avid &eveo$ment Cor$oration for the construction of a 4B0store( o<ce and residentia condominium buiding% Petitioner engaged the services of .io /a(no "uiders to do the s$eciai'ed 7concrete wor!s# form wor!s and stee rebars wor!s7% Pursuant to the contract# .io /a(no "uiders hired $rivate res$ondents to $erform wor! at the $ro8ect% After the com$etion of the $hase for which .io /a(no "uiders was contracted sometime in 455C# $rivate res$ondents ,ed a com$aint case against $etitioner and its $resident# +anue S(# with the Arbitration "ranch of the ./-C for 7unfair abor $ractice# non0$a(ment of 43th month $a(# non0$a(ment of E da(s service incentive eave# iega dismissa and severance $a( in ieu of reinstatement%7 The /abor Arbiter rendered a decision ,nding that .io /a(no "uiders was a abor0on(0contractor? thus# $rivate res$ondents were deemed em$o(ees of the $etitioner% ISSUES* =hether .io /a(no "uiders was an 7inde$endent contractor7 or a 7abor0on(7 contractor% =hether or not there e>isted an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ between the $etitioner and the res$ondent% HELD* Section 6# -ue :)))# "oo! )))# of the 2mnibus -ues )m$ementing the /abor Code# an inde$endent contractor is one who underta!es 78ob contracting#7 i%e%# a $erson whoF (a) carries on an inde$endent business and underta!es the contract wor! on his own account under his own res$onsibiit( according to his own manner and method# free from the contro and direction of his em$o(er or $rinci$a in a matters connected with the $erformance of the wor! e>ce$t as to the resuts thereof? and (b) has substantia ca$ita or investment in the form of toos# equi$ments# machineries# wor! $remises# and other materias which are necessar( in the conduct of the business%
.io /a(no "uiders is underta!ing $ermissibe abor or 8ob contracting% .io /a(no "uiders is a du( icensed abor contractor carr(ing on an inde$endent business for a s$eciai'ed wor! that invoves the use of some $articuar# unusua and $ecuiar s!is and e>$ertise# i!e concrete wor!s# form wor!s and stee rebars wor!s% As a icensed abor contractor# it com$ied with the conditions set forth in Section E# -ue :))0A# "oo! )))# -ues to )m$ement the /abor Code# among others# $roof of ,nancia ca$abiit( and ist of equi$ment# toos# machineries and im$ements to be used in the business% Further# it entered into a written contract with the $etitioner# a requirement under Section 3# -ue :))0A# "oo! )))# -ues to )m$ement the /abor Code to assure the em$o(ees of the minimum abor standards and bene,ts $rovided b( e>isting aws% The test to determine the e>istence of inde$endent contractorshi$ is whether one caiming to be an inde$endent contractor has contracted to do the wor! according to his own methods and without being sub8ect to the contro of the em$o(er# e>ce$t on( to the resuts of the wor!% This is e>act( the situation obtaining in the case at bar% .io /a(no "uiders hired its own em$o(ees# the $rivate res$ondents# to do s$eciai'ed wor! in the Prince &avid Pro8ect of the $etitioner% The means and methods ado$ted b( the $rivate res$ondents were directed b( .io /a(no "uiders e>ce$t that# from time to time# the engineers of the $etitioner visited the site to chec! whether the wor! was in accord with the $ans and s$eci,cations of the $rinci$a%
Second issue# we hod that there e>isted an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ between $etitioner and $rivate res$ondents abeit for a imited $ur$ose% In le"itimate <ob contractin", t!e la# creates an emplo,er$emplo,ee relations!ip +or a limited purpose, i*e*, to ensure t!at t!e emplo,ees are paid t!eir #a"es* The $rinci$a em$o(er becomes 8oint( and severa( iabe with the 8ob contractor on( for the $a(ment of the em$o(ees1 wages whenever the contractor fais to $a( the same% 2ther than that# the $rinci$a em$o(er is not res$onsibe for an( caim made b( the em$o(ees% From the foregoing disquisition# the $etitioner did not# as it coud not# iega( dismiss the $rivate com$ainants% Jence# it coud not be hed iabe for bac!wages and se$aration $a(% .evertheess# it is 8oint( and severa( iabe with .io /a(no "uiders for the $rivate com$ainants1 wages# in the same manner and e>tent that it is iabe to its direct em$o(ees% The $ertinent $rovisions of the /abor Code readF A-T% 4DC% Contractor or subcontractor% U =henever an em$o(er enters into a contract with another $erson for the $erformance of the former1s wor!# the em$o(ees of the contractor and of the atter1s subcontractor# if an(# sha be $aid in accordance with the $rovisions of this Code% )n the event that the contractor or subcontractor fais to $a( the wages of his em$o(ees in accordance with this Code# the em$o(er sha be 8oint( and 3E severa( iabe with his contractor or subcontractor to such em$o(ees to the e>tent of the wor! $erformed under the contract# in the same manner and e>tent that he is iabe to em$o(ees direct( em$o(ed b( him% A-T% 4DB% )ndirect em$o(er% U The $rovisions of the immediate( $receding Artice sha i!ewise a$$( to an( $erson# $artnershi$# association or cor$oration which# not being an em$o(er# contracts with an inde$endent contractor for the $erformance of an( wor!# tas!# 8ob or $ro8ect% N'3.o2'/ Foo0 A&34o%.3( vs. +'s'0' S#1&%.3( A9#21(, I21. G.R. No. )6"!!6 +'%14 6, 2005 FACTS* 2n Se$tember 4B# 455C res$ondent +asada Securit( Agenc(# )nc% entered into a one (ear contract to $rovide securit( services to the o<ces# warehouses and instaations of .FA within -eg% )% U$on the e>$iration of the contract# the $arties e>tended the e@ectivit( thereon on a month( basis under the same terms and conditions% -T=P" issued severa wage orders mandating increases in the dai( wage rates% According(# res$ondent requested .FA for a corres$onding u$ward ad8ustment in the month( contract rate consisting of the increases in the dai( minimum wage of the securit( guards incuding the corres$onding raise in their overtime $a(# hoida( $a(# 43 th month $a(# hoida( and rest da( $a(% )t aso caimed increases in SSS and Pag0ibig $remiums incuding administrative cost and margin% .FA granted the request on( with res$ect to the dai( wage and denied with res$ect to the ad8ustments in the other bene,ts and remunerations% -egiona &irector and &2/H Secretar( sustained the caim of defendant% -TC and CA aso rued in favor of defendant% ISSUE* =hether or not the iabiit( of $rinci$as in service contracts under Sec C of -ACB3B and wage orders issued b( the -T=P" is imited on( to the increment in minimum wage% HELD* Nes# the $rinci$aIs iabiit( is imited on( to the $a(ment of the increment in the statutor( minimum wage rate# that is# the rate for a reguar 60hour wor! da(% The term LwageM as used in Sec C of -ACB3B $ertains to no other than the Lstatutor( minimum wageM which is de,ned in the im$ementing rues as the owest wage rate ,>ed b( aw that an em$o(er can $a( his wor!er% The basis under Sec B is the norma wor!ing hours which sha not e>ceed 6 hours a da(% =here a statute# b( its terms# is e>$ress( imited to certain matters# it ma( not# b( inter$retation and construction# be e>tended to others% The $rinci$as in service contracts cannot be made to $a( the corres$onding wage increase in the overtime $a(# night shift di@erentia# hoida( and rest da( $a(# $remium $a( and other bene,ts granted to wor!ers% =hie the basis of said remuneration and bene,ts is the statutor( minimum wage# the aw cannot be undu( e>$anded as to incude those not stated in the sub8ect $rovision% The $arties ma( enter into sti$uations increasing the iabiit( of the $rinci$a# but as ong as the minimum obigation is com$ied with# there is no vioation of the =age -ationai'ation Act% ACELLA V. PLDT G.R. No. )5!6 J&2# 6, 2005 FACTS* -es$ondent PS) entered into an agreement with P/&T to $rovide the atter with securit( guards% Under the agreement# it was e>$ress( $rovided that there sha be no em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ between P/&T and the securit( guards# which ma( be su$$ied b( PS)# and that the atter sha have e>cusive authori'ed to seect# engage# and discharge its securit( guards# with fu contro over their wages# saaries or com$ensation% Consequent(# res$ondent PS) de$o(ed securit( guards to the P/&T% 2n *une E# 455E# CE securit( guards su$$ied b( PS) ,ed a com$aint for reguari'ation against P/&T with the /abor Arbiter% The( aeged that the( have been em$o(ed b( the com$an( for more than 4 (ear and that the( were under the contro and su$ervision of P/&T through its Securit( &e$artment# therefore the( shoud be considered as reguar em$o(ees% HELD* )n determining which between P/&T and PS) is the em$o(er of the securit( guards# the e>istence of the foowing factors shoud be consideredF (4) seection and engagement of the em$o(ee? (3) $a(ment of wages? (3) $ower to dismiss? and (A) $ower to contro em$o(eeIs conduct% The Su$reme Court ado$ted the consistent ,ndings based on the evidence adduced that it was PS) which e>ercised the abovementioned criteria% Furthermore# the court added PS) was# in fact# a egitimate 8ob contractor% )t is a registered cor$oration du( icensed b( the P.P to engage in securit( business% )t has substantia ca$ita and investment in the form of guns# ammunitions# equi$ments# vehices# etc%# and abase a# it is servicing other cients i!e PC) "an! and Crown Trium$h# among others% )ndeed# said securit( guards are aread( the em$o(eeIs of PS) $rior to their assignment to P/&T% S'2 +.9&#/ Co%5o%'3.o2 vs. A$'//' G.R. No. )!0)) J&2# 26, 2005 FACTS* Petitioner San +igue Cor$oration (S+C) and SunKower +uti0Pur$ose Coo$erative (SunKower) entered into a one0(ear Contract of Services commencing on *anuar( 4# 4553# to be renewed on a month to month basis unti terminated b( either $art(% Pursuant to the contract# SunKower engaged $rivate res$ondents to# as the( did# render services at S+CIs "acood Shrim$ Processing Pant at Sta% Fe# "acood Cit(% The contract was deemed renewed b( the $arties ever( month after its e>$iration on *anuar( 4# 3C 455A and $rivate res$ondents continued to $erform their tas!s unti Se$tember 44# 455E% )n *u( 455E# $rivate res$ondents ,ed a com$aint before the ./-C# $ra(ing to be decared as reguar em$o(ees of S+C# with caims for recover( of a bene,ts and $rivieges en8o(ed b( S+C ran! and ,e em$o(ees% Private res$ondents subsequent( ,ed on Se$tember 3E# 455E an Amended Com$aint to incude iega dismissa as additiona cause of action foowing S+CIs cosure of its "acood Shrim$ Processing Pant on Se$tember 4E# 455E which resuted in the termination of their services% S+C ,ed a +otion for /eave to Fie Attached Third Part( Com$aint dated .ovember 3B# 455E to im$ead SunKower as Third Part( &efendant which was granted b( the /abor Arbiter% S+C insists that $rivate res$ondents are the em$o(ees of SunKower# an inde$endent contractor% 2n the other hand# $rivate res$ondents assert that SunKower is a abor0on( contractor% ISSUE* =hether or not res$ondents are em$o(ees of S+C% HELD* There is Labor0on(M contracting where the $erson su$$(ing wor!ers to an em$o(er does not have substantia ca$ita or investment in the form of toos# equi$ment# machineries# wor! $remises# among others# and the wor!ers recruited and $aced b( such $erson are $erforming activities which are direct( reated to the $rinci$a business of such em$o(er% )n such cases# the $erson or intermediar( sha be considered mere( as an agent of the em$o(er who sha be res$onsibe to the wor!ers in the same manner and e>tent as if the atter were direct( em$o(ed b( him% The test to determine the e>istence of inde$endent contractorshi$ is whether one caiming to be an inde$endent contractor has contracted to do the wor! according to his own methods and without being sub8ect to the contro of the em$o(er# e>ce$t on( as to the resuts of the wor!% The Contract of Services between S+C and SunKower shows that the $arties cear( disavowed the e>istence of an em$o(er0 em$o(ee reationshi$ between S+C and $rivate res$ondents% The anguage of a contract is not# however# determinative of the $artiesI reationshi$? rather it is the totait( of the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case% =hat a$$ears is that SunKower does not have substantia ca$itai'ation or investment in the form of toos# equi$ment# machineries# wor! $remises and other materias to quaif( it as an inde$endent contractor% 2n the other hand# it is gathered that the ot# buiding# machineries and a other wor!ing toos utii'ed b( $rivate res$ondents in carr(ing out their tas!s were owned and $rovided b( S+C% And from the 8ob descri$tion $rovided b( S+C itsef# the wor! assigned to $rivate res$ondents was direct( reated to the aquacuture o$erations of S+C% Undoubted(# the nature of the wor! $erformed b( $rivate res$ondents in shrim$ harvesting# receiving and $ac!ing formed an integra $art of the shrim$ $rocessing o$erations of S+C% Furthermore# SunKower did not carr( on an inde$endent business or underta!e the $erformance of its service contract according to its own manner and method# free from the contro and su$ervision of its $rinci$a# S+C# its a$$arent roe having been mere( to recruit $ersons to wor! for S+C% SunKower did not cater to cients other than S+C# and with the cosure of S+CIs "acood Shrim$ Processing Pant# SunKower i!ewise ceased to e>ist% Since $rivate res$ondents who were engaged in shrim$ $rocessing $erformed tas!s usua( necessar( or desirabe in the aquacuture business of S+C# the( shoud be deemed reguar em$o(ees of the atter and as such are entited to a the bene,ts and rights a$$urtenant to reguar em$o(ment% Those $erforming 8anitoria and messengeria services however acquired reguar status on( after rendering one0(ear service $ursuant to Artice 36D of the /abor Code% Athough 8anitoria and messengeria services are considered direct( reated to the aquacuture business of S+C# the( are deemed unnecessar( in the conduct of its $rinci$a business% +ANILA ELECTRIC CO+PANY VS. ROGELIO CENA+IRA, ET. AL JULY )!, 2005 FACTS* The individua res$ondents are icensed securit( guards former( em$o(ed b( Peo$eIs Securit(# )nc% and de$o(ed as such at +H-A/C2Is head o<ce in 2rtigas Avenue# Pasig# +etro +ania% 2n .ov% 3D# 455D# the securit( service agreement between PS) and +H-A/C2 was terminated% )mmediate( thereafter# EC of PS)Is securit( guards# incuding herein eight individua res$ondents# ,ed a com$aint for un$aid monetar( bene,ts against PS) and +H-A/C2% +eanwhie# the securit( service agreement between res$ondent Armed Securit( W &etective Agenc(# )nc%# (AS&A)) and +H-A/C2 too! e@ect on &ec% 4# 455D% Subsequent(# the individua res$ondents were absorbed b( AS&A) and retained at +H-A/C2Is head o<ce% 2n *une 35# 4553# the abor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the former PS) securit( guards# incuding the individua res$ondents% /ess than a month ater# the individua res$ondents ,ed another com$aint for un$aid monetar( bene,ts# this time against AS&A) and +H-A/C2% 2n *u( 3E# 4553# the securit( service agreement between res$ondent Advance Forces Securit( W )nvestigation Services# )nc% (AFS)S)) and +H-A/C2 too! e@ect# terminating the $revious securit( service agreement with AS&A)% H>ce$t as to the number of securit( guards# the amount to be $aid the agenc(# and the e@ectivit( of the agreement# the terms and conditions were substantia( identica with the securit( service agreement with AS&A)% The individua res$ondents amended their com$aint to im$ead AFS)S) as $art( res$ondent% The( then again amended their com$aint to aege that AFS)S) terminated their services on August C# 4553 without notice and 3B 8ust cause and therefore guit( of iega dismissa% The individua res$ondents aeged thatF +H-A/C2 and AS&A) never $aid their overtime $a(# service incentive eave $a(# $remium $a( for Sunda(s and Joida(s# PED%DD month( uniform aowance and under$aid their 43 th month $a(? on *u( 3A# 4553# when the securit( service agreement of AS&A) was terminated and AFS)S) too! over the securit( functions of the former on *u( 3E# 4553# res$ondent securit( guard "enamira was no onger given an( wor! assignment when AFS)S) earned that the former has a $ending case against PS)# in e@ect# dismissing him from the service without 8ust cause? and# the rest of the individua res$ondents were absorbed b( AFS)S) but were not given an( assignments# thereb( dismissing them from the service without 8ust cause% AS&A) denied in genera terms an( iabiit( for the caims of the individua res$ondents# caiming that there is nothing due them in connection with their services% 2n the other hand# +H-A/C2 denied iabiit( on the ground of ac! of em$o(er0 em$o(ee reationshi$ with individua res$ondents% )t averred that the individua res$ondents are the em$o(ees of the securit( agencies it contracted for securit( services? and that it has no e>isting iabiit( for the individua res$ondentsI caims since said securit( agencies have been fu( $aid for their services $er their res$ective securit( service agreement% For its $art# AFS)S) asserted thatF it is not iabe for iega dismissa since it did not absorb or hire the individua res$ondents# the atter were mere( hod0over guards from AS&A)? it is not obiged to em$o( or absorb the securit( guards of the agenc( it re$aced since there is no $rovision in its securit( service agreement with +H-A/C2 or in aw requiring it to absorb and hire the guards of AS&A) as it has its own guards du( trained to service its various cients% 2n *anuar( 3# 455A# after the submission of their res$ective evidence and $osition $a$ers# the abor arbiter rendered a &ecision hoding AS&A) and +H-A/C2 8oint( and soidari( iabe to the monetar( caims of individua res$ondents and dismissing the com$aint against AFS)S)% A the $arties# e>ce$t AFS)S)# a$$eaed to the ./-C% ./-C a<rmed in toto the decision of the /abor Arbiter%
The individua res$ondents ,ed a motion for $artia reconsideration but it was denied b( the ./-C% The individua res$ondents ,ed a $etition for certiorari before the SC% The( insisted that the( were absorbed b( AFS)S) and the atter e@ected their termination without notice and 8ust cause% After the submission of the res$onsive $eadings and memoranda# SC referred the $etition to the CA which# modi,ed the decision of the ./-C b( decaring +H-A/C2 as the direct em$o(er of the individua res$ondents% The CA hed thatF +H-A/C2 changed the securit( agenc( manning its $remises three times whie engaging the services of the same $eo$e# the individua res$ondents? +H-A/C2 em$o(ed a scheme of hiring guards through an agenc( and $eriodica( entering into service contract with one agenc( after another in order to evade the securit( of tenure of individua res$ondents? individua res$ondents are reguar em$o(ees of +H-A/C2 since their services as securit( guards are usua( necessar( or desirabe in the usua business or trade of +H-A/C2 and the( have been in the service of +H-A/C2 for no ess than si> (ears? an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ e>ists between +H-A/C2 and the individua res$ondents becauseF (a) +H-A/C2 had the ,na sa( in the seection and hiring of the guards# as when its advice was $roved to have carried weight in AFS)S)Is decision not to absorb the individua res$ondents into its wor!force? (b) +H-A/C2 $aid the wages of individua res$ondents through AS&A) and AFS)S)? (c) +H-A/C2Is discretion on matters of dismissa of guards was given great weight and even ,nait( since the record shows that the individua res$ondents were re$aced u$on the advice of +H-A/C2? and# (d) +H-A/C2 has the right# at an( time# to ins$ect the guards# to require without e>$anation the re$acement of an( guard whose behavior# conduct or a$$earance is not satisfactor( and AS&A) and AFS)S) cannot $u out an( securit( guard from +H-A/C2 without the atterIs consent? and# a abor0on( contract e>isted between AS&A) and AFS)S) and +H-A/C2# such that +H-A/C2 is guit( of iega dismissa without 8ust cause and iabe for reinstatement of individua res$ondents to its wor!force% HELD* At the outset# we note that the individua res$ondents never aeged in their com$aint in the /abor Arbiter# in their a$$ea in the ./-C and even in their $etition for certiorari in the CA that +H-A/C2 was their em$o(er% The( have awa(s advanced the theor( that AFS)S) is their em$o(er% A $erusa of the records shows it was on( in their +emorandum in the CA that this thesis was $resented and discussed for the ,rst time% =e cannot ignore the fact that this $osition of individua res$ondents runs contrar( to their earier submission in their $eadings ,ed in the /abor Arbiter# ./-C and even in the $etition for certiorari in the CA that AFS)S) is their em$o(er and iabe for their termination% As the ob8ect of the $eadings is to draw the ines of batte# so to s$ea!# between the itigants and to indicate fair( the nature of the caims or defenses of both $arties# a $art( cannot subsequent( ta!e a $osition contrar( to# or inconsistent# with his $eadings% +oreover# it is a fundamenta rue of $rocedure that higher courts are $recuded from entertaining matters neither aeged in the $eadings nor raised during the $roceedings beow# but ventiated for the ,rst time on( in a motion for reconsideration or on a$$ea%
The individua res$ondents are bound b( their submissions that AFS)S) is their em$o(er and the( shoud not be $ermitted to change their theor(% Such a change of theor( cannot be toerated on a$$ea# not due to the strict a$$ication of $rocedura rues but as a matter of fairness% A change of theor( on a$$ea is ob8ectionabe because it is contrar( to the rues of fair $a(# 8ustice and due $rocess% Thus# the CA shoud not have considered the new theor( o@ered b( the individua res$ondents in their memorandum% 36 )n this case# the terms and conditions embodied in the securit( service agreement between +H-A/C2 and AS&A) e>$ress( recogni'ed AS&A) as the em$o(er of individua res$ondents% Under the securit( service agreement# it was AS&A) which (a) seected# engaged or hired and discharged the securit( guards? (b) assigned them to +H-A/C2 according to the number agreed u$on? (c) $rovided the uniform# ,rearms and ammunition# nightstic!s# Kashights# raincoats and other $ara$hernaia of the securit( guards? (d) $aid them saaries or wages? and# (e) disci$ined and su$ervised them or $rinci$a( controed their conduct% The agreement even e>$icit( $rovided that LQnRothing herein contained sha be understood to ma!e the securit( guards under this Agreement# em$o(ees of the C2+PA.N# it being cear( understood that such securit( guards sha be considered as the( are# em$o(ees of the AGH.CN aone%M Cear(# the individua res$ondents are the em$o(ees of AS&A)% As to the $rovision in the agreement that +H-A/C2 reserved the right to see! re$acement of an( guard whose behavior# conduct or a$$earance is not satisfactor(# such mere( con,rms that the $ower to disci$ine ies with the agenc(% )t is a standard sti$uation in securit( service agreements that the cient ma( request the re$acement of the guards to it% Service0oriented enter$rises# such as the business of $roviding securit( services# genera( adhere to the business adage that Lthe customer or cient is awa(s rightM and# thus# must satisf( the interests# conform to the needs# and cater to the reasonabe im$ositions of its cients% .either is the sti$uation that the agenc( cannot $u out an( securit( guard from +H-A/C2 without its consent an indication of contro% )t is sim$( a securit( cause designed to $revent the agenc( from uniatera( removing its securit( guards from their assigned $osts at +H-A/C2Is $remises to the atterIs detriment% The cause that +H-A/C2 has the right at a times to ins$ect the guards of the agenc( detaied in its $remises is i!ewise not indicative of contro as it is not a uniatera right% The agreement $rovides that the agenc( is $rinci$a( mandated to conduct ins$ections# without $re8udice to +H-A/C2Is right to conduct its own ins$ections% .eedess to stress# for the $ower of contro to be $resent# the $erson for whom the services are rendered must reserve the right to direct not on( the end to be achieved but aso the means for reaching such end%
.ot a rues im$osed b( the hiring $art( on the hired $art( indicate that the atter is an em$o(ee of the former%
-ues which serve as genera guideines towards the achievement of the mutua( desired resut are not indicative of the $ower of contro% The securit( service agreements in the $resent case $rovided that a s$eci,c instructions b( +H-A/C2 reating to the discharge b( the securit( guards of their duties sha be directed to the agenc( and not direct( to the individua res$ondents% The individua res$ondents faied to show that the rues of +H-A/C2 controed their $erformance% +oreover# AS&A) and AFS)S) are not Labor0on(M contractors% There is Labor on(M contract when the $erson acting as contractor is considered mere( as an agent or intermediar( of the $rinci$a who is res$onsibe to the wor!ers in the same manner and to the same e>tent as if the( had been direct( em$o(ed b( him% 2n the other hand# L8ob (inde$endent) contractingM is $resent if the foowing conditions are metF (a) the contractor carries on an inde$endent business and underta!es the contract wor! on his own account under his own res$onsibiit( according to his own manner and method# free from the contro and direction of his em$o(er or $rinci$a in a matters connected with the $erformance of the wor! e>ce$t to the resut thereof? and (b) the contractor has substantia ca$ita or investments in the form of toos# equi$ment# machineries# wor! $remises and other materias which are necessar( in the conduct of his business% Given the above distinction and the $rovisions of the securit( service agreements entered into b( $etitioner with AS&A) and AFS)S)# we are convinced that AS&A) and AFS)S) were engaged in 8ob contracting% The individua res$ondents cannot be considered as reguar em$o(ees of the +H-A/C2 for# athough securit( services are necessar( and desirabe to the business of +H-A/C2# it is not direct( reated to its $rinci$a business and ma( even be considered unnecessar( in the conduct of +H-A/C2Is $rinci$a business# which is the distribution of eectricit(% Furthermore# the fact that the individua res$ondents ,ed their caim for un$aid monetar( bene,ts against AS&A) is a cear indication that the individua res$ondents ac!nowedge that AS&A) is their em$o(er% =e cannot give credence to individua res$ondentsI insistence that the( were absorbed b( AFS)S) when +H-A/C2Is securit( service agreement with AS&A) was terminated% The individua res$ondents faied to $resent an( evidence to con,rm that AFS)S) absorbed them into its wor!force% Thus# res$ondent "enamira was not retained in his $ost at +H-A/C2 since *u( 3E# 4553 due to the termination of the securit( service agreement of +H-A/C2 with AS&A)% As for the rest of the individua res$ondents# the( retained their $ost on( as Lhod0overM guards unti the securit( guards of AFS)S) too! over their $ost on August C# 4553% )n the $resent case# res$ondent "enamira has been Lo@0detaiM for seventeen da(s whie the rest of the individua res$ondents have on( been Lo@0 detaiM for ,ve da(s when the( amended their com$aint on August 44# 4553 to incude the charge of iega dismissa% The incusion of the charge of iega dismissa then was $remature% .onetheess# bearing in mind that AS&A) sim$( sto$$ed giving the individua res$ondents an( assignment and their inactivit( cear( $ersisted be(ond the si>0month $eriod aowed b( Artice 36C of the /abor Code# the individua res$ondents were# in e@ect# constructive( dismissed b( AS&A) from em$o(ment# hence# the( shoud be reinstated% The fact that there is no actua and direct em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ between 35 +H-A/C2 and the individua res$ondents does not e>onerate +H-A/C2 from iabiit( as to the monetar( caims of the individua res$ondents% =hen +H-A/C2 contracted for securit( services with AS&A) as the securit( agenc( that hired individua res$ondents to wor! as guards for it# +H-A/C2 became an indirect em$o(er of individua res$ondents $ursuant to Artice 4DB of the /abor Code# which readsF A-T% 4DB% Indirect emplo,er $ The $rovisions of the immediate( $receding Artice sha i!ewise a$$( to an( $erson# $artnershi$# association or cor$oration which# not being an em$o(er# contracts with an inde$endent contractor for the $erformance of an( wor!# tas!# 8ob or $ro8ect% =hen AS&A) as contractor faied to $a( the individua res$ondents# +H-A/C2 as $rinci$a becomes 8oint( and severa( iabe for the individua res$ondentsI wages# under Artices 4DC and 4D5 of the /abor Code# which $rovideF A-T% 4DC% Contractor or subcontractor* $ =henever an em$o(er enters into a contract with another $erson for the $erformance of the formerQXsR wor!# the em$o(ees of the contractor and of the atterQXsR subcontractor# if an(# sha be $aid in accordance with the $rovisions of this Code% )n the event that the contractor or subcontractor fais to $a( the wages of his em$o(ees in accordance with this Code# the em$o(er sha be 8oint( and severa( iabe with his contractor or subcontractor to such em$o(ees to the e>tent of the wor! $erformed under the contract# in the same manner and e>tent that he is iabe to em$o(ees direct( em$o(ed b( him% 9>> A-T% 4D5% %olidar, liabilit, $ The $rovisions of e>isting aws to the contrar( notwithstanding# ever( em$o(er or indirect em$o(er sha be hed res$onsibe with his contractor or subcontractor for an( vioation of an( $rovision of this Code% For $ur$ose of determining the e>tent of their civi iabiit( under this Cha$ter# the( sha be considered as direct em$o(ers% AS&A) is hed iabe b( virtue of its status as direct em$o(er# whie +H-A/C2 is deemed the indirect em$o(er of the individua res$ondents for the $ur$ose of $a(ing their wages in the event of faiure of AS&A) to $a( them% This statutor( scheme gives the wor!ers the am$e $rotection consonant with abor and socia 8ustice $rovisions of the 456B Constitution% Jowever# as hed in Mariveles %!ip,ard Corp* vs* Court o+ .ppeals, the soidar( iabiit( of +H-A/C2 with that of AS&A) does not $recude the a$$ication of Artice 434B of the Civi Code on the right of reimbursement from his co0debtor b( the one who $aid# which $rovidesF A-T% 434B% Pa(ment made b( one of the soidar( debtors e>tinguishes the obigation% )f two or more soidar( debtors o@er to $a(# the creditor ma( choose which o@er to acce$t% Je who made the $a(ment ma( caim from his co0debtors on( the share which corres$onds to each# with the interest for the $a(ment aread( made% )f the $a(ment is made before the debt is due# no interest for the intervening $eriod ma( be demanded% =hen one of the soidar( debtors cannot# because of his insovenc(# reimburse his share to the debtor $a(ing the obigation# such share sha be borne b( a his co0debtors# in $ro$ortion to the debt of each% AS&A) ma( not see! e>cu$ation b( caiming that +H-A/C2Is $a(ments to it were inadequate for the individua res$ondentsI awfu com$ensation% As an em$o(er# AS&A) is charged with !nowedge of abor aws and the adequac( of the com$ensation that it demands for contractua services is its $rinci$a concern and not an( otherIs% GRANSPAN DEVELOP+ENT CORPORATION VS. CERNARDO G.R. No. )!)!6!. S#53#-$#% 2), 2005 FACTS* A com$aint for iega dismissa and non0$a(ment of bene,ts was ,ed with the /abor Arbiter b( res$ondents# against Grands$an &eveo$ment Cor$oration% -es$ondents aeged that the( were em$o(ed as truc! scae monitors b( $etitioner% Hventua(# the( were assigned at its Truc! Scae Section of the =arehouseG+aterias &e$artment% The( were issued identi,cation cards signed b( "onifacio Semo# $etitionerIs $ersonne manager% 2n 2ctober 36# 4553# $etitioner sent them a notice terminating their services e@ective 2ctober 35# 4553 for using $rofane or o@ensive anguage# in vioation of Artice :) (3) (a) of the com$an(Is -ues and -eguations% Petitioner denied the aegations of res$ondents in their com$aint# caiming that the( are em$o(ees of *% .arag Construction% Sometime in the third quarter of 4553# Canad *a$an Co%# /td% engaged $etitionerIs services for fabrication wor!s of severa round and rectanguar stee tan!s needed for the JC+G or Sogo $ro8ect due for com$etion in Se$tember# 4553% As a consequence# $etitioner subcontracted the services of *% .arag Construction which# in turn# assigned its 3 he$ers (herein res$ondents) to wor! for $etitionerIs $ro8ect% /abor Arbiter rendered a &ecision dismissing res$ondentsI com$aint% .ationa /abor -eations Commission# however# issued a -esoution remanding the case to the /abor Arbiter% The A$$eate Court rendered a &ecision setting aside the ./-CIs -esoutions and ordering $etitioner (4) to reinstate res$ondents "ernardo and CeYido'a to their former $ositions and $a(# 8oint( and severa( with *% .arag Construction# their bac!wages and other bene,ts# and (3) to $a( res$ondent &e Prado his se$aration $a(% The Court of A$$eas found that res$ondents are em$o(ees of $etitioner? that the( were non0$ro8ect wor!ers? and that the( were denied due $rocess% ISSUE* =hether or not the Court of A$$eas erred in hoding that res$ondents are 3D em$o(ees of $etitioner% HELD* 2n the basis of the records# we have no reason to deviate from the A$$eate CourtIs ,nding that *% .arag Construction is indeed a abor0on( contractor% The Court of A$$eas found that *% .arag Construction assigned res$ondents to $erform activities direct( reated to the main business of $etitioner% The( wor!ed in $etitionerIs $remises# using its equi$ment# materias and su$$ies% *% .arag ConstructionIs $a(ro wor!sheets covering the $eriod from &ecember 34# 455D to *u( 34# 4554 show that the $a(ment of their saaries was a$$roved b( $etitioner% The manager and su$ervisor of $etitionerIs =arehouse &e$artment su$ervised the manner and resuts of their wor!% )t was $etitioner who terminated their services after ,nding them guit( of using $rofane or o@ensive anguage in vioation of Artice :) (3) (a) of the com$an(Is -ues and -eguations% The A$$eate Court then concuded that these circumstances con,rm the e>istence of an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ between $etitioner and res$ondents% These are the reasonsF (4) it is not registered as a buiding contractor with the SHC? (3) it has no contract with $etitioner? and (3) there is no $roof of its ,nancia ca$abiit( and has no ist of equi$ment# toos# machineries and im$ements used in the business% Cear(# *% .arag Construction coud not be res$ondentsI em$o(er% /i!ewise# as correct( observed b( the Court of A$$eas# $etitioner faied to $resent an( re$ort terminating the services of res$ondents when its $ro8ects were actua( ,nished% Section 3%3 (e) of the /abor &e$artment 2rder .o% 45 e>$ress( $rovides that the re$ort of termination is one of the indications of $ro8ect em$o(ment% =e# therefore# u$hod the ,nding of the Court of A$$eas that res$ondents are $etitionerIs reguar em$o(ees% As such# the( are entited to securit( of tenure and can on( be dismissed for a 8ust or authori'ed cause# as $rovided b( Artice 3B5 of the /abor Code% A%2&/:o C. A1#v#0o vs. A0v'23s'% Co-5'2( I21. G.R. No. )57656. Nov#-$#% )), 2005 FACTS* The Advanstar Com$an( )nc% (AC)) was engaged in the distribution and sae of various brands of iquor and acohoic s$irits# incuding the Tandua( "rand% Fei$e /oi was em$o(ed as its manager% To e@ective( aunch its vigorous mar!eting o$erations# AC) hired severa saesmen# one of whom was Ton( *aa$adan% 2n Se$tember 4# 455A# AC) e>ecuted an Agreement for the Sae of +erchandise with *aa$adan for a $eriod of one (ear# renewabe for another (ear under the same terms and conditions% Under the agreement# the $arties agreed# inter aia# that *aa$adan woud $romote and se $roducts of AC)# soicit from customers and outets within his designated territor(# coect $a(ments from such customers and account the same to AC) and was aso authori'ed to em$o( and discharge a driver and other assistants as he deemed necessar(% )t was sti$uated# however# that the hired hands woud be considered his em$o(ees# and that he aone woud be iabe for their com$ensation and actua e>$enses# incuding meas whie on dut(% 2n August E# 455B# *aa$adan hired Arnufo Acevedo as the driver of the truc! assigned to him b( AC)% 2n 2ctober B# 4556# Acevedo faied to re$ort for wor!% The ne>t da(# *aa$adan inquired wh( he faied to chec! and wash the truc!% *aa$adan berated Acevedo and ordered him to get his $ersona beongings and eave% Acevedo did as he was tod% /ater# *aa$adan urged Acevedo to go bac! to wor!# stating that the( were Lone big fami(#M but Acevedo refused% Je then signed a /etter dated 2ctober 4D# 4556# informing *aa$adan that he was resigning e@ective that date% Jowever# on 2ctober 3C# 4556# Acevedo ,ed a com$aint against *aa$adan# AC) and its genera manager# Fei$e /oi# for iega dismissa and for the recover( of bac!wages and other monetar( bene,ts% ISSUES* =hether or not the res$ondent AC) was the em$o(er of res$ondent# *aa$adan; =hether or not the $etitioner is the em$o(ee of res$ondent AC); =hether or not the $etitioner resigned from his em$o(ment; HELD* 2n the ,rst and second issues# the $etitioner avers that res$ondent *aa$adan was a abor0on( contractor# not an inde$endent contractor# hence# mere( an agent of res$ondent AC)% Consequent(# the atter is res$onsibe to the em$o(ees hired b( res$ondent *aa$adan as if such em$o(ees had been direct( em$o(ed b( it# and# as such# the res$ondents are soidari( iabe for their vaid caims% The $etitioner is correct% The $ertinent $rovision of the /abor Code on abor0on( contracting is $aragra$h A of Artice 4DC# which $rovidesF There is Labor0 on(M contracting where the $erson su$$(ing wor!ers to an em$o(er does not have substantia ca$ita or investment in the form of toos# equi$ment# machineries# wor! $remises# among others# and the wor!ers recruited and $aced b( such $ersons are $erforming activities which are direct( reated to the $rinci$a business of such em$o(er% )n such cases# the $erson or intermediar( sha be considered mere( as an agent of the em$o(er who sha be res$onsibe to the wor!ers in the same manner and e>tent as if the atter were direct( em$o(ed b( him% -ue :)))0A# "oo! )))# Section A(f) of the 2mnibus -ues )m$ementing the /abor Code further de,nes Labor0on(M contracting as an arrangement where the contractor or subcontractor mere( recruits# su$$ies or $aces wor!ers to $erform a 8ob# wor! or service for a $rinci$a% )n abor0on( contracting# the foowing eements are $resentF (a) The contractor or subcontractor does not have substantia ca$ita or investment to actua( $erform the 8ob# wor! or service under its own account and res$onsibiit(? (b) The em$o(ees recruited# su$$ied or $aced b( such contractor or subcontractor# are $erforming activities 34 which are direct( reated to the main business of the $rinci$a% )n such case# the aw creates an em$o(ee0em$o(er reationshi$ so that abor aws ma( not be circumvented% The $rinci$a em$o(er becomes soidari( iabe with the abor0on( contractor for a the rightfu caims of the em$o(ees% The abor0on( contractor is considered mere( as an agent of the em$o(er# the em$o(er having been made# b( aw# res$onsibe to the em$o(ees of the abor0on( contractor as if such em$o(ees had been direct( em$o(ed b( it% 2n the other hand# $ermissibe 8ob contracting or subcontracting refers to an arrangement whereb( a $rinci$a agrees to $ut out or farm out with the contractor or subcontractor the $erformance or com$etion of a s$eci,c 8ob# wor! or service within a de,nite or $redetermined $eriod regardess of whether such 8ob# wor! or service is to be $erformed or com$eted within or outside the $remises of the $rinci$a% The test to determine the e>istence of an inde$endent contractorshi$ is whether one who caims to be an inde$endent contractor has contracted to do the wor! according to his own methods and without being sub8ect to the em$o(erIs contro e>ce$t on( as to the resuts% Hach case must be determined b( its own facts and a the features of the reationshi$ are to be considered% )n the case of :ino(a v% ./-C# the Court decared that it is not enough to show substantia ca$itai'ation or investment in the form of toos# equi$ment# etc% to determine whether one is an inde$endent contractor% 2ther factors that ma( be considered incude the foowingF whether or not the contractor is carr(ing on an inde$endent business? the nature and e>tent of the wor!? the s!i required? the term and duration of the reationshi$? the right to assign the $erformance of s$eci,ed $ieces of wor!? the contro and su$ervision of the wor! to another? the em$o(erIs $ower with res$ect to the hiring# ,ring and $a(ment of the contractorIs wor!ers? the contro of the $remises? the dut( to su$$( $remises# toos# a$$iances# materias and abor? and the mode and manner or terms of $a(ment% )n the $resent case# the res$ondents faied to $rove that res$ondent *aa$adan was an inde$endent contractor% )ndeed# the substantia evidence on record shows that he was mere( a abor0on( contractor based on the foowing factsF 4%) The res$ondents faied to adduce a scintia of evidence that res$ondent *aa$adan had an( substantia ca$ita or investment# such as toos and equi$ment# to $erform the wor! contracted for% There is even no evidence that res$ondent *aa$adan had an( assets# or that he maintained an o<ce# sta@ or a termina for the truc! entrusted to him b( res$ondent AC)% 3%) -es$ondent *aa$adan bound and obiged himsef to wor! e>cusive( for res$ondent AC) during the terms of the agreement% 3%) Under the agreement# res$ondent AC) had the right to contro not on( the end to be attained but aso the manner and means to be used in accom$ishing that end or $ur$ose% Aside from *aa$adanIs dutiesGobigations as saesman# res$ondent AC) coud require him to $erform other duties and obigations% A%) -es$ondent *aa$adan was obiged to $a( the $etitionerIs month( wage of P3#CA6%DD# as we as that of his he$er# another PA#DDD%DD a month# totaing PB#CA6%DD# e>cusive of other e>$enses such as meas# gasoine# and the u$!ee$ of the vehice% 2n the other hand# res$ondent *aa$adan received from res$ondent AC) on( P3#E5D%DD a month as com$ensation% Je had no other means of income because he was obiged# under the agreement# to devote a his time for res$ondent AC)% Considering a these# the Court concudes that the $etitionerIs wages must have been $aid for b( res$ondent AC) through res$ondent *aa$adan# its abor0on( contractor% 2n the third issue# the Su$reme Court agrees with the ruings of the ./-C and the CA that the $etitioner was not dismissed from em$o(ment% .evertheess# assuming that com$ainant was a reguar em$o(ee of Advanstar# this Commission ,nds his caim that he was iega( dismissed to be nebuous% The on( incident from which com$ainant drew the concusion that he was dismissed from wor! is when he was aeged( tod to disembar! from the vehice% .othing on record shows that he was terminated from wor!%The Court ,nds# however# that contrar( to the ruings of the ./-C and the CA# the $etitioner did not resign from his em$o(ment% -eiance on the handwritten etter of resignation signed and thumbmar!ed b( the $etitioner is mis$aced% The handwritten etter of resignation signed b( the $etitioner is inconsistent with the res$ondentsI caim that res$ondent *aa$adan was the $etitionerIs em$o(er% This is so because the said etter is addressed to Tandua( Cor$oration# and not to res$ondent *aa$adan% .either the $etitioner nor the res$ondents e>$ained wh( the etter was addressed to Tandua( Cor$oration% Signi,cant(# res$ondent *aa$adan did not den( the $etitionerIs caim that the etter was handwritten b( him (*aa$adan)% )f such caim were true# there is neither rh(me nor reason wh( Tandua( Cor$oration was its addressee% +oreover# it a$$ears that the etter was coursed through res$ondent *aa$adan as saesman of the said cor$oration# which is antithetica to the res$ondentsI caim that he was the $etitionerIs em$o(er and an inde$endent contractor of res$ondent AC)% C.9 AA vs. A23o2.o GR No. )60650! +'%14 ", 2006 FACTS* Petitioner is a soe $ro$rietorshi$ registered in the name of its $ro$rietor# Hnrico H% Ae8o# with o<ce address at 344 "arrio Santo# "aagtas# "uacan% 2n *anuar( 43# 3DDD# herein res$ondents Hutiquio Antonio# *a( Antonio# Feicisimo Antonio# /eonardo Antonio# 33 Sr% and -oberto Fabian ,ed a com$aint for iega a(0o@ and iega deductions before the ./-C1s -egiona Arbitration "ranch .o% )))% The( caimed that the( were dismissed on *anuar( 44# 3DDD and sought se$aration $a( from $etitioner% )n res$ondents1 $osition $a$er# the( aeged that as reguar em$o(ees# the( wor!ed from 6FDD a%m% to EFDD $%m% at $etitioner1s $remises using $etitioner1s toos and equi$ment and the( received P3ED $er da(% According to res$ondents# the( were dismissed without 8ust cause and due $rocess? hence# their $ra(er for reinstatement and fu bac!wages% 2n the other hand# in its $osition $a$er# $etitioner "ig AA +anufacturer# a<rmed it is a soe $ro$rietorshi$ registered in the name of Hnrico Ae8o and engaged in manufacturing o<ce furniture# but it denied that res$ondents were its reguar em$o(ees% )nstead# $etitioner caimed that Hutiquio Antonio was one of its inde$endent contractors who used the services of the other res$ondents% According to $etitioner# its inde$endent contractors were $aid b( resuts and were res$onsibe for the saaries of their own wor!ers% Aeged(# there was no em$o(er0 em$o(ee reationshi$ between $etitioner and res$ondents% Jowever# $etitioner stated it aowed res$ondents to use its faciities to meet 8ob orders% Petitioner aso denied that res$ondents were aid0o@ b( "ig AA +anufacturer# since the( were $ro8ect em$o(ees on(% ISSUES* Are res$ondents reguar em$o(ees of $etitioner; &id the( abandon their wor!; =ere the( iega( dismissed b( $etitioner; )f so# what bene,ts# if an(# are due them; HELD* Petitioner contends that em$o(ment for more than one (ear and 7$erforming car$entr( wor!s that were necessar( and desirabe7 in $etitioner1s usua trade and business are 7not controing7 factors in determining whether res$ondents are reguar em$o(ees% Petitioner argues that Artice 36D of the /abor Code and the 7circumstances which attended the reationshi$ between7 the $arties must be considered% The circumstances of the case# according to $etitioner# show that res$ondents were not its reguar em$o(ees% S$eci,ca(# $etitioner Hutiquio was an inde$endent businessman and was contracted to render $articuar 8ob orders using his own methods and st(e% Further# Hutiquio hired his own wor!ers and used his own house as his factor( and wor! $remises where he !e$t his own toos# equi$ment and materias% At the outset# it shoud be stressed that whether res$ondents are reguar em$o(ees or $ro8ect em$o(ees or inde$endent contractors is a question of fact% The unanimous ,nding of the /abor Arbiter# ./-C# and Court of A$$eas that res$ondents were $etitioner1s reguar em$o(ees# not inde$endent contractors# binds this Court% Under -ue AE of the -ues of Court# our 8urisdiction is imited to questions of aw% .otab(# $etitioner not on( urges us to re0 e>amine the evidence $resented beow but to consider evidence not $resented before the /abor Arbiter% This $ractice of submitting evidence ate is $ro$er( re8ected as it defeats the s$eed( administration of 8ustice invoving $oor wor!ers% )t is aso unfair% Considering the submission of the $arties# we are constrained to agree with the unanimous ruing of the Court of A$$eas# ./-C and /abor Arbiter that res$ondents are $etitioner1s reguar em$o(ees% -es$ondents were em$o(ed for more than one (ear and their wor! as car$enters was necessar( or desirabe in $etitioner1s usua trade or business of manufacturing o<ce furniture% Under Artice 36D of the /abor Code# the a$$icabe test to determine whether an em$o(ment shoud be considered reguar or non0reguar is the reasonabe connection between the $articuar activit( $erformed b( the em$o(ee in reation to the usua business or trade of the em$o(er% True# certain forms of em$o(ment require the $erformance of usua or desirabe functions and e>ceed one (ear but do not necessari( resut to reguar em$o(ment under Artice 36D of the /abor Code% Some s$eci,c e>ce$tions incude $ro8ect or seasona em$o(ment% Net# in this case# res$ondents cannot be considered $ro8ect em$o(ees% Petitioner had neither shown that res$ondents were hired for a s$eci,c $ro8ect the duration of which was determined at the time of their hiring nor identi,ed the s$eci,c $ro8ect or $hase thereof for which res$ondents were hired% =e aso agree that Hutiquio was not an inde$endent contractor for he does not carr( a distinct and inde$endent business# and he does not $ossess substantia ca$ita or investment in toos# equi$ment# machiner( or wor! $remises% Je wor!s within $etitioner1s $remises using the atter1s toos and materias# as admitted b( $etitioner% Hutiquio is aso under $etitioner1s contro and su$ervision% Attesting to this is $etitioner1s admission that it aowed res$ondents to use its faciities for the 7$ro$er im$ementation7 of 8ob orders% +oreover# the )m$ementing Guideines reguating attendance# overtime# deadines# $enaties? $roviding $etitioner1s right to ,re em$o(ees or 7contractors7? requiring the car$entr( division to 8oin $etitioner1s e>ercise $rogram? and $roviding rues on machine maintenance# a reKect contro and su$ervision over res$ondents% Javing rued that res$ondents are reguar em$o(ees# we sha $roceed to determine whether res$ondents have# as $etitioner contends# abandoned their wor!# or the( have been iega( dismissed% For accusing res$ondents of abandonment# $etitioner must $resent evidence (4) not on( of res$ondents1 faiure to re$ort for wor! or absence without vaid reason# but (3) aso of res$ondents1 cear intention to sever em$o(er0 em$o(ee reations as manifested b( some overt acts% The second eement is the more determinative factor Jere# $etitioner1s argument in su$$ort of its abandonment charge was that res$ondents ma( have resented its issuance of the )m$ementing Guideines% This# in our view# fais to estabish res$ondents1 intention to abandon their 8obs% 2n the contrar(# b( ,ing the com$aint for iega dismissa within two da(s of their dismissa on *anuar( 44# 3DDD and b( see!ing reinstatement in their $osition $a$er# res$ondents manifested their intention against severing their em$o(ment reationshi$ with $etitioner and abandoning their 8obs% )t is setted that an em$o(ee who forthwith $rotests his a(o@ cannot be said to have 33 abandoned his wor!% Fina(# Artice 3B5 of the /abor Code# $rovides that a reguar em$o(ee who is un8ust( dismissed from wor! is entited to reinstatement without oss of seniorit( rights and other $rivieges and to his fu bac!wages# incusive of aowances# and to his other bene,ts or their monetar( equivaent com$uted from the time his com$ensation was withhed from him u$ to the time of his actua reinstatement% )f reinstatement is no onger feasibe# se$aration $a( equivaent to one month saar( for ever( (ear of service shoud be awarded as an aternative% This has been our consistent ruing in the award of se$aration $a( to iega( dismissed em$o(ees in ieu of reinstatement% Jence# the four res$ondents# Hutiquio# Feicisimo# *a( and /eonardo# Sr%# a surnamed Antonio# are entited to bac!wages and se$aration $a( in case their reinstatement is no onger $ossibe% The $etition is &H.)H& for ac! of merit% Petitioner thru its soe $ro$rietor# Hnrico Ae8o# is ordered (4) to reinstate the four res$ondents to their former $ositions without oss of seniorit( rights and other $rivieges or to $a( them se$aration $a( in case reinstatement is no onger $ossibe and (3) to $a( them fu bac!wages# in either case# com$uted from the time their com$ensation was withhed from them u$ to the time of their actua reinstatement or u$ to the time it is determined that reinstatement is no onger $ossibe% The ./-C is aso ordered to -HC2+PUTH res$ondents1 bac!wages and se$aration $a(# as aforementioned# and e>ecute the $a(ments to res$ondents% Costs against the $etitioner% DOLE PHILIPPINES vs. ESTEVA G.R. No. )6)))5. Nov#-$#% "0, 2006 FACTS* Petitioner is a cor$oration engaged $rinci$a( in the $roduction and $rocessing of $inea$$e for the e>$ort mar!et% -es$ondents are members of the Canner( +uti0Pur$ose Coo$erative (CA+PC2)% CA+PC2 was organi'ed in accordance with -e$ubic Act .o% C536# otherwise !nown as the Coo$erative Code of the Phii$$ines% Pursuant to the Service Contract# CA+PC2 members rendered services to $etitioner% The number of CA+PC2 members that re$ort for wor! and the t($e of service the( $erformed de$ended on the needs of $etitioner at an( given time% Athough the Service Contract s$eci,ca( stated that it sha on( be for a $eriod of si> months# i*e*# from 4 *u( to 34 &ecember 4553# the $arties had a$$arent( e>tended or renewed the same for the succeeding (ears without e>ecuting another written contract% )t was under these circumstances that res$ondents came to wor! for $etitioner% &2/H organi'ed a Tas! Force that conducted an investigation into the aeged abor0on( contracting activities of the coo$eratives% The Tas! Force identi,ed si> coo$eratives that were engaged in abor0on( contracting# one of which was CA+PC2% )n this case# res$ondents aeged that the( started wor!ing for $etitioner at various times in the (ears 4553 and 455A# b( virtue of the Service Contract e>ecuted between CA+PC2 and $etitioner% A of the res$ondents had aread( rendered more than one (ear of service to $etitioner% =hie some of the res$ondents were sti wor!ing for $etitioner# others were $ut on Lsta( home statusM on var(ing dates in the (ears 455A# 455E# and 455C and were no onger furnished with wor! thereafter% Together# res$ondents ,ed a Com$aint with the ./-C for iega dismissa# reguari'ation# wage di@erentias# damages and attorne(Is fees% Petitioner denied that res$ondents were its em$o(ees% )t e>$ained that it found the need to engage e>terna services to augment its reguar wor!force# which was a@ected b( $ea!s in o$eration# wor! bac!ogs# absenteeism# and e>cessive eaves% )t used to engage the services of individua wor!ers for de,nite $eriods s$eci,ed in their em$o(ment contracts and never e>ceeding one (ear% Jowever# such an arrangement became the sub8ect of a abor case# in which $etitioner was accused of $reventing the reguari'ation of such wor!ers% ISSUES* =hether or not the court of a$$eas was correct when it made its own factua ,ndings and disregarded the factua ,ndings of the abor arbiter and the ./-C% =hether or not CA+PC2 was a mere abor0on( contractor% HELD* The Court in the e>ercise of its equit( 8urisdiction ma( oo! into the records of the case and re0e>amine the questioned ,ndings% As a coroar(# this Court is cothed with am$e authorit( to review matters# even if the( are not assigned as errors in their a$$ea# if it ,nds that their consideration is necessar( to arrive at a 8ust decision of the case% The same $rinci$es are now necessari( adhered to and are a$$ied b( the Court of A$$eas in its e>$anded 8urisdiction over abor cases eevated through a $etition for certiorari? thus# we see no error on its $art when it made anew a factua determination of the matters and on that basis reversed the ruing of the ./-C% 2n the second issue# CA+PC2 was a mere abor0on( contractor% 6irst, athough $etitioner touts the muti0miion $esos assets of CA+PC2# it does we to remember that such were amassed in the (ears foowing its estabishment% )n 4553# when CA+PC2 was estabished and the Service Contract between $etitioner and CA+PC2 was entered into# CA+PC2 on( had PC#CDD%DD $aid0u$ ca$ita# which coud hard( be considered substantia% )t on( managed to increase its ca$itai'ation and assets in the succeeding (ears b( continua( and de,ant( engaging in what had been decared b( authori'ed &2/H o<cias as abor0 on( contracting% %econd, CA+PC2 did not carr( out an inde$endent business from $etitioner% )t was $recise( estabished to render services to $etitioner to augment its wor!force during $ea! seasons% Petitioner was its on( cient% Hven as CA+PC2 had its own o<ce and o<ce equi$ment# these were main( used for administrative $ur$oses? the toos# machineries# and equi$ment actua( used b( CA+PC2 members when rendering services to the $etitioner beonged to the atter% !ird, $etitioner e>ercised contro over the CA+PC2 members# incuding res$ondents% Petitioner attem$ts to refute contro b( aeging the $resence of a CA+PC2 su$ervisor in the wor! $remises% Net# the mere $resence within the $remises of a su$ervisor from the coo$erative did not necessari( mean that CA+PC2 had 3A contro over its members% Section 6(4)# -ue :)))# "oo! ))) of the im$ementing rues of the /abor Code# as amended# required for $ermissibe 8ob contracting that the contractor underta!es the contract wor! on his account# under his own res$onsibiit(# according to his own manner and method# free from the contro and direction of his em$o(er or $rinci$a in a matters connected with the $erformance of the wor! e>ce$t as to the resuts thereof% As aeged b( the res$ondents# and unrebutted b( $etitioner# CA+PC2 members# before wor!ing for the $etitioner# had to undergo instructions and $ass the training $rovided b( $etitionerIs $ersonne% )t was $etitioner who determined and $re$ared the wor! assignments of the CA+PC2 members% CA+PC2 members wor!ed within $etitionerIs $antation and $rocessing $ants aongside reguar em$o(ees $erforming identica 8obs# a circumstance recogni'ed as an indicium of a abor0on( contractorshi$% 6ourt!, CA+PC2 was not engaged to $erform a s$eci,c and s$ecia 8ob or service% )n the Service Contract of 4553# CA+PC2 agreed to assist $etitioner in its dai( o$erations# and $erform odd 8obs as ma( be assigned% CA+PC2 com$ied with this venture b( assigning members to $etitioner% A$art from that# no other $articuar 8ob# wor! or service was required from CA+PC2# and it is a$$arent# with such an arrangement# that CA+PC2 mere( acted as a recruitment agenc( for $etitioner% Since the underta!ing of CA+PC2 did not invove the $erformance of a s$eci,c 8ob# but rather the su$$( of man$ower on(# CA+PC2 cear( conducted itsef as a abor0on( contractor% Lastl,, CA+PC2 members# incuding res$ondents# $erformed activities direct( reated to the $rinci$a business of $etitioner% The( wor!ed as can $rocessing attendant# feeder of canned $inea$$e and $inea$$e $rocessing# nata de coco $rocessing attendant# fruit coc!tai $rocessing attendant# and etc%# functions which were# not on( direct( reated# but were ver( vita to $etitionerIs business of $roduction and $rocessing of $inea$$e $roducts for e>$ort% The decaration that CA+PC2 is indeed engaged in the $rohibited activities of abor0 on( contracting# then consequent(# an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ is deemed to e>ist between $etitioner and res$ondents# since CA+PC2 sha be considered as a mere agent or intermediar( of $etitioner% Since res$ondents are now recogni'ed as em$o(ees of $etitioner# this Court is tas!ed to determine the nature of their em$o(ment% )n consideration of a the attendant circumstances in this case# this Court concudes that res$ondents are reguar em$o(ees of $etitioner% As such# the( are entited to securit( of tenure% The( coud on( be removed based on 8ust and authori'ed causes as $rovided for in the /abor Code# as amended# and after the( are accorded $rocedura due $rocess% Therefore# $etitionerIs acts of $acing some of the res$ondents on Lsta( home statusM and not giving them wor! assignments for more than si> months were aread( tantamount to constructive and iega dismissa% S'2 +.9&#/ Co%5. vs. NLRC 7 +'/.Ks. G.R. No. )!7566, D#1#-$#% 6, 2006 FACTS* 2n 4C 2ctober 455D# -afae +% +ai!si ,ed a com$aint against the San +igue Cor$oration0+agnoia &ivision# herein referred to as S+C and Phii$$ine Software Services and Hducation Center (PJ)/SSHC) to com$e the said res$ondents to recogni'e him as a reguar em$o(ee% /ater this was amended to incude the charge of iega dismissa because his services were terminated on 34 2ctober 455D% The com$ainantIs em$o(ment record indicates that he rendered service with /i$ercon Services from 4 A$ri 4564 to Februar( 4563 as budget head assigned to S+C0"eer &ivision# then from *u( 4563 to A$ri 456E with S!i$ower# )nc%# as accounting cer! assigned to S+C0+agnoia &ivision# then from 2ctober 4566 to 4565 aso with S!i$ower# )nc% as acting cer! assigned to S+C0+agnoia Finance# and from 2ctober 4565 to 34 2ctober 455D with PJ)/SSHC assigned to +agnoia Finance as accounting cer!% The com$ainant considered himsef as an em$o(ee of S+C0+agnoia% /i$ercon Services# S!i$ower# )nc% and PJ)/SSHC are abor0on( contractors and an( one of which had never been his em$o(er% Jis dismissa# according to him# was in retaiation for his ,ing of the com$aint for reguari'ation in service% Jis dismissa was iega there being no 8ust cause for the action% Je was not accorded due $rocess neither was his dismissa re$orted to the &e$artment of /abor and Hm$o(ment% PJ)/SSHC discaimed iabiit(% As an entit( catering to com$uter s(stems and $rograms for business enter$rises# it has contracted with S+C0+agnoia to com$uteri'e the atterIs manua accounting re$orting s(stems of its $rovincia saes% Com$ainant +ai!si was one of those em$o(ed b( PJ)/SSHC whose $rinci$a function was the manua contro of data needed during the com$uteri'ation% /i!e a assigned to the $ro8ect# the com$ainantIs wor! was controed b( PJ)/SSHC su$ervisors# his saar( $aid b( the agenc( and he re$orted direct( to PJ)/SSHC% The com$uteri'ation $ro8ect was com$eted on 34 2ctober 455D# and so# the com$ainant was terminated on the said date% ISSUE* =hether or not +ai!si was a reguar em$o(ee of San +igue Cor$% HELD* )n a# it a$$ears that# whie under the em$o( of either /i$ercon or S!i$ower# +ai!si has undis$uted( rendered service with S+C for '3 /#'s3 34%## (#'%s '20 s#v#2 -o234s% )ndeed# having served S+C for an aggregate $eriod of more than three (3) (ears through em$o(ment contracts with these two abor contractors# +ai!si shoud be considered as S+CIs reguar em$o(ee% The hard fact is that he was hired and re0hired b( S+C to $erform administrative and cerica wor! that was necessar( to S+CIs business on a dai( basis% =e understand +ai!siIs des$eration in ma!ing his $oint cear to S+C# which undu( refuses to ac!nowedge his status as a reguar em$o(ee% )nstead# he was 8ugged from one em$o(ment contract to another in a continuous bid to circumvent abor aws% The act of hiring and re0hiring wor!ers over a $eriod of time without considering them as reguar em$o(ees evidences bad faith on the $art of the em$o(er% =here# from the circumstances# 3E it is a$$arent that $eriods have been im$osed to $recude the acquisition of tenuria securit( b( the em$o(ee# the $oic(# agreement or $ractice shoud be struc! down as contrar( to $ubic $oic(# moras# good customs or $ubic order% )n $oint of aw# an( $erson who wifu( causes oss or in8ur( to another in a manner that is contrar( to moras# good customs or $ubic $oic( sha be iabe for the damage% )n %an Mi"uel Corporation v* M.ERC Inte"rated %ervices, Inc*, we too! note of the $ractice of hiring em$o(ees through abor contractors that catered e>cusive( to the em$o(ment needs of S+C or its divisions or other s$eci,c business interests# such that after the s$eci,c S+C business or division ceases to do business# the abor contractor i!ewise ceases its o$erations% Considering# however# the su$ervening event that S+CIs +agnoia &ivision has been acquired b( another entit(# it a$$ears that $rivate res$ondentIs reinstatement is no onger feasibe% )nstead# he shoud be awarded se$aration $a( as an aternative% /i!ewise# owing to $etitionerIs bad faith# it shoud be hed iabe to $a( damages for causing undue in8ur( and inconvenience to the $rivate res$ondent in its contractua hiring0,ring0rehiring scheme% E5'%>' S#1&%.3( '20 8'2.3o%.'/ S#%v.1#s, I21. vs. L.1#o 0# C'9'('2 U2.v#%s.3( G.R. No. )50!02 Nov#-$#% 26, 2006 FACTS* H$arwa and /&CU# through their re$resentatives# entered into a Contract for Securit( Services% Subsequent( 44 securit( guards whom H$arwa assigned to /&CU ,ed a com$aint before the ./-C0-A" against both H$arwa and /&CU for under$a(ment of saar(# ega hoida( $a(# 43th month $a(# rest da(# service incentive eave# night shift di@erentia# overtime $a(# and $a(ment for attorne(1s fees% /&CU made a cross0caim and $ra(ed that H$arwa shoud reimburse /&CU for an( $a(ment to the securit( guards% The /A found that the securit( guards are entited to wage di@erentias and $remium for hoida( and rest da( wor!% The /A hed H$arwa and /&CU soidari( iabe $ursuant to Artice 4D5 of the /abor Code and i!ewise orderd H$arwa to reimburse /&CU for whatever amount the atter ma( be required to $a( the securit( guards% 2n a$$ea to the ./-C# H$arwa and /&CU was hed soidari( iabe for the wage di@erentias and $remium for hoida( and rest da( wor!# but the ./-C did not require H$arwa to reimburse /&CU for its $a(ments to the securit( guards% U$on motion for reconsideration# ./-C decared that athough H$arwa and /&CU are soidari( iabe to the securit( guards for the monetar( award# /&CU aone is utimate( iabe ordering it to reimburse H$arwa for $a(ments made to the contractua em$o(ees% U$on a$$ea to the CA# the a$$eate court aowed /&CU to caim reimbursement from H$arwa% H$arwa then ,ed an action for certiorari before the SC% ISSUE* =hether or not /&CU aone is utimate( iabe to the securit( guards for the wage di@erentias and $remium for hoida( and rest da( $a( without an( right of reimbursement from H$arwa% HELD* This 8oint and severa iabiit( of the contractor and the $rinci$a is mandated b( the /abor Code to assure com$iance of the $rovisions therein incuding the statutor( minimum wage% The contractor is made iabe b( virtue of his status as direct em$o(er% The $rinci$a# on the other hand# is made the indirect em$o(er of the contractor1s em$o(ees for $ur$oses of $a(ing the em$o(ees their wages shoud the contractor be unabe to $a( them% This 8oint and severa iabiit( faciitates# if not guarantees# $a(ment of the wor!ers1 $erformance of an( wor!# tas!# 8ob or $ro8ect# thus giving the wor!ers am$e $rotection as mandated b( the 456B Constitution% For the securit( guards# the actua source of the $a(ment of their wage di@erentias and $remium for hoida( and rest da( wor! does not matter as ong as the( are $aid% This is the im$ort of H$arwa and /&CU1s soidar( iabiit(% Creditors# such as the securit( guards# ma( coect from an(one of the soidar( debtors% Soidar( iabiit( does not mean that# as between themseves# two soidar( debtors are iabe for on( haf of the $a(ment% /&CU1s utimate iabiit( comes into $a( because of the e>$iration of the Contract for Securit( Services% There is no $rivit( of contract between the securit( guards and /&CU# but /&CU1s iabiit( to the securit( guards remains because of Artices 4DC# 4DB and 4D5 of the /abor Code% H$arwa is aread( $recuded from as!ing /&CU for an ad8ustment in the contract $rice because of the e>$iration of the contract# but H$arwa1s iabiit( to the securit( guards remains because of their em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$% )n ieu of an ad8ustment in the contract $rice# H$arwa ma( caim reimbursement from /&CU for an( $a(ment it ma( ma!e to the securit( guards% Jowever# /&CU cannot caim an( reimbursement from H$arwa for an( $a(ment it ma( ma!e to the securit( guards% LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL DEVT. CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. ))2)". J'2&'%( "), 2000 FACTS* Private res$ondent Commando Securit( Service Agenc(# )nc% and $etitioner /a$anda( Agricutura &eveo$ment Cor$oration entered into a Guard Service Contract% 2n *une 4C# 456A# =age 2rder .o% E was $romugated directing an increase of P3%DD $er da( on the minimum wage of wor!ers in the $rivate sector and a PE%DD increase on the HC2/A% This was foowed on .ovember 4# 456A b( =age 2rder .o% C which further increased said minimum wage b( P3%DD on the HC2/A% "oth =age 2rders contain the foowing $rovisionF L)n the case of contract for construction $ro8ects and for securit(# 8anitoria and simiar services# the increase in the minimum wage and aowances rates of the wor!ers sha be borne b( the $rinci$a or cient of the constructionGservice contractor and the contracts sha be deemed amended according(# sub8ect to the $rovisions of Sec% 3 (b) of this order7 (Sec% C and Sec% 5# =age 2rders .o% E and C# res$ective()%M Private res$ondent demanded that its Guard Service Contract with defendant be u$graded in com$iance with =age 2rder .os% E and C% 3C &efendant refused% Their Contract e>$ired on *une C# 456C without the rate ad8ustment caed for =age 2rder .os% E and C being im$emented% A com$aint was ,ed b( $rivate res$ondent which was o$$osed b( the $etitioner contending among others that the rate ad8ustment is the obigation of the $rivate res$ondent as em$o(er of the securit( guards% /abor Arbiter .ewton -% Sancho hed both $etitioner and $rivate res$ondent 8oint( and soidari( iabe to the securit( guards% ISSUE* =hether or not $etitioner is iabe to the $rivate res$ondent for the wage ad8ustment $rovided under =age 2rder .os% E and C% HELD* .o% The Contract of Securit( Services e>$ress( sti$uated that the securit( guards are em$o(ees of the Agenc( and not of the $etitioner% Artices 4DC and 4DB of the /abor Code $rovides the rue governing the $a(ment of wages of em$o(ees in the event that the contractor fais to $a( such wages as foowsF L=henever an em$o(er enters into a contract with another $erson for the $erformance of the formerIs wor!# the em$o(ees of the contractor and of the atterIs subcontractor# if an(# sha be $aid in accordance with the $rovisions of this Code% )n the event that the contractor or subcontractor fais to $a( the wages of his em$o(ees in accordance with this Code# the em$o(er sha be 8oint( and severa( iabe with his contractor or subcontractor to such em$o(ees to the e>tent of the wor! $erformed under the contract# in the same manner and e>tent that he is iabe to em$o(ees direct( em$o(ed b( him%M )t wi be seen from the above $rovisions that the $rinci$a ($etitioner) and the contractor (res$ondent) are 8oint( and severa( iabe to the em$o(ees for their wages% The iabiit( of the $etitioner to reimburse the res$ondent on( arises if and when res$ondent actua( $a(s its em$o(ees the increases granted b( =age 2rder .os% E and C% )n the instant case# it is not dis$uted that the $rivate res$ondent has not actua( $aid the securit( guards the wage increases granted under the =age 2rders in question% .either is it aeged that there is an e>tant caim for such wage ad8ustments from the securit( guards concerned# whose services have aread( been terminated b( the contractor% According(# $rivate res$ondent has no cause of action against $etitioner to recover the wage increases% Es1'%.o vs. N'3.o2'/ L'$o% R#/'3.o2s Co--.ss.o2 G.R. No. )2!055 J&2# 6, 2000 FACTS* Private res$ondents Caifornia +ar!eting Co%# )nc% is a domestic cor$oration $rinci$a( engaged in the manufacturing of food $roducts and distribution of such $roducts to whoesaers and retaiers% Private res$ondent &onna /ouis Advertising and +ar!eting Associates# )nc% is a du( registered $romotiona ,rm% Petitioners aeged that the( were em$o(ed b( C+C as merchandisers% The( aeged that the hiring# contro and su$ervision of wor!ers and the $a(ment of the saaries were a covered b( C+C through its agent &%/ Admar! in order C+C to avoid its iabiit( under the aw% Petitioners ,ed a case against C+C before the abor arbiter for reguari'ation of their em$o(ment status% &uring the $endenc( of the case# &%/ Admar! terminated the services of the $etitioners% The com$aint was amended to incude aeged dismissa% C+C ,ed a motion to im$ead as $art(0defendant &%/ Admar!# the atter ,ed a motion to intervene% "oth motions were granted% C+C denied being $etitioners em$o(er whie &%/ Admar! asserted it is the em$o(er of the $etitioners% The abor arbiter found $etitioners as em$o(ees of C+C as the( were engaged in activities that are necessar( and desirabe in the usua businessGtrade of C+C% 2n a$$ea# the ./-C set aside the abor arbiters decision% "ut ordered the reinstatement of the $etitioners in &%/ Admar! $etitioners ,ed a motion for consideration before the ./-C which was denied for ac! of merit% Jence the $etition% ISSUE* =hether or not &%/ Admar! is a abor0on( contractor or as inde$endent contractor% HELD* The Su$reme Court denied the $etition% There is abor0on( contracting when the contractor or subcontractor mere( recruits# su$$ies or $aces wor!ers to $erform a 8ob# wor! or service for a $rinci$a% )n abor on( contracting# the foowing eements are $resentF a%) The $erson su$$(ing wor!ers to an em$o(er does not have substantia ca$ita or investment in the form of toos# equi$ments# machineries# wo! $remise# among other toos% b%) The wor!ers recruited and $aced b( such $erson $erforming activities which are direct( reated to the $rinci$a business of the em$o(er% )n contract# there is $ermissibe 8ob contracting when a $rinci$a agrees to $ut out or farm out with a contractor or a subcontractor the $erformance G com$etion of a s$eci,c 8ob# wor! or services within a de,nite or $redetermined $eriod# regardess of whether such 8obG services is to be $erformed or com$eted within or outside the $remises of the $rinci$a% )n this arrangement# the foowing conditions must concurF a%) The contractor carries on a distinct and inde$endent business and underta!es the contract wor! on his account under the res$onsibiit( according to his own manua and methods# free from the contro and direction of his em$o(er or $rinci$a in a matters connected with the $erformance of his em$o(er wor! e>ce$t as to the resuts thereof? and b%) The contractor has substantia ca$ita G investment which are necessar( in the conduct of his business% The court reiterated that it is not enough to show substantia ca$itai'ation on investment% )n addition the foowing factors need be consideredF whether the contractor is carr(ing on an inde$endent business? the 3B nature and e>tent of the wor!? the s!i required? the term and duration of the reationshi$? the right to assign the $erformance of s$eci,ed $ieces of wor!? the contro and su$ervision of the wor!ers? the $ower of the em$o(er with res$ect to the hiring# ,ring and $a(ment of wor!ers of the contractor? the contro of the $remises? the dut( to su$$( $remises# toos# a$$iances# materias and abor? mode# manner and terms of $a(ment% "ased on the foregoing criteria# the court found that &%/ Admar! is a egitimate inde$endent contractor% A$$(ing the four0fod test# &%/ Admar! was found to be the em$o(er of the $etitioners% The Su$reme Court a<rmed the ./-CIs ruing% A$o.3.E H'&/#%s, I21o%5o%'3#0 vs. D.-'5'3o. G. R. No. )!66) S#53#-$#% ), 2006 FACTS* Petitioner Aboiti' Jauers# )nc% is a domestic cor$oration $rinci$a( engaged in the nationwide and overseas forwarding and distribution of cargoes% Private res$ondents +onaorai &ima$atoi# Ceciia Agawin# -au +amate# Hmmanue Guerrero and Gemeniano "igaw wor!ed as chec!ers in the +ega =arehouse# which is owned b( the $etitioner# ocated at the Tabacaera Com$ound# United .ations Avenue# +ania The $arties rendered conKicting recita of facts% Petitioner caims that res$ondents are not its em$o(ees# rather the( are the em$o(ees of Grigio Securit( Agenc( and Genera Services (Grigio)# a man$ower agenc( that su$$ies securit( guards# chec!ers and stu@ers% )t aeged( entered into a =ritten Contract of Service with Grigio on 4 +arch 455A% "( virtue of the aforementioned =ritten Contract of Service# Grigio su$$ied $etitioner with securit( guards# chec!ers and stu@ers for $etitionerIs +ega =arehouse% The res$ondents were among the chec!ers that were assigned to the $etitionerIs warehouse% Petitioner em$hasi'es that Grigio retained contro over the res$ondents b( $roviding their own su$ervisors to oversee GrigioIs $ersonne# as we as time cards to monitor the attendance of its $ersonne% Petitioner aso aeges that on 5 +a( 455C# the res$ondents eft the warehouse and did not re$ort to wor! thereafter% As a resut of the res$ondentsI sudden abandonment of their wor!# there was no order( and $ro$er turnover of $a$ers and other com$an( $ro$ert( in connection with the termination of the =ritten Contract for Services% -es$ondents# on the other hand# caim that most of them wor!ed as chec!ers in $etitionerIs warehouse even before 4 +arch 455A% -es$ondents maintain that during their em$o(ment with the $etitioner# the( were not $aid their reguar hoida( $a(# night shift di@erentia# E0da( service incentive eave# and overtime $remium% The( aso averred that iega deductions were being made on their wages# $articuar( the contributions for a +utua Assistance Fund# a Cash "ond# and caims for damaged and misrouted cargoes incurred b( $etitioner% -es$ondents aege that on 4E +a( 455C# $etitioner dismissed them on the $rete>t that the =ritten Contract of Service between Grigio and the $etitioner had been terminated% To controvert the aegations of the $etitioner that res$ondents did not re$ort for wor! starting 5 +a( 455C# the res$ondents $resented a co$( of the $ertinent $ages of the ogboo! which served as their dai( time record% -es$ondents aso $resented a Certi,cation issued b( $etitionerIs =arehouse Su$ervisor in favor of res$ondent +onaorai &ima$atoi a<rming that she wor!ed with the Petitioner as a =arehouse Chec!er and &ocument Cer! unti 4E +a( 455C% 2n 4B +a( 455C# res$ondent -au +amate ,ed a com$aint before the &e$artment of /abor and Hm$o(ment (&2/H) for non$a(ment of wages and other bene,ts# as we as iega deductions% The other res$ondents ,ed their own com$aints% Since the caims of the res$ondents e>ceeded Five Thousand Pesos (PE#DDD%DD)# the case was referred to the ./-C% Thereafter# res$ondents ,ed their com$aint for iega dismissa and other mone( caims before the Arbitration "ranch of the ./-C% ISSUE* =hether or not the $etitioner and its contractor engaged in a Xabor on( contractingI arrangement%
HELD* Petitioner and its contractor Grigio committed a Labor0on?(M contracting arrangement% The aegation of the $etitioner that Grigio is an inde$endent 8ob contractor# and# therefore# this case is one of $ermissibe 8ob contracting# is without basis% )n this case# the res$ondentsI wor!# as warehouse chec!ers# is direct( reated to the $rinci$a business of the $etitioner% Petitioner aso e>ercises the right to contro and determines not on( the end to be achieved# but aso the manner and means to be used in reaching that end% /ast(# $etitioner faied to su<cient( $rove that Grigio had Lsubstantia ca$ita or investment%M The res$ondents# as chec!ers# were em$o(ed to chec! and ins$ect these cargoes# a tas! which is cear( necessar( for the $etitionerIs business of forwarding and distributing of cargoes% The $etitioner did not dis$ute the fact that the res$ondents were hired as chec!ers as ear( as 4553% The fact that the( were em$o(ed before the =ritten Contract of Services too! e@ect on 3A Februar( 455A# and continued with their 8obs unti 455C# after the said contract had aread( e>$ired on 3A Februar( 455E indicates that the res$ondentsI wor! was indeed necessar( for the $etitionerIs business% )n addition# Grigio did not underta!e the $erformance of its service contract according to its own manner and method# free from the contro and su$ervision of its $rinci$a% The wor! activities# wor! shifts# and schedues of the res$ondents# incuding the time aowed for LrecessM were set under the =ritten Contract of Services% This cear( indicates that these matters# which consist of the means and methods b( which the wor! is to be accom$ished# were not within the absoute contro of Grigio% "( sti$uating these matters in a contract# Grigio is constrained to 36 foow these $rovisions and woud no onger be abe to e>ercise the freedom to ater these wor! shifts and schedues at its own convenience% Such being the case# Grigio cannot be considered as an inde$endent 8ob contractor% PetitionerIs aegation that Grigio retained contro over the res$ondents b( $roviding su$ervisors to monitor the $erformance of the res$ondents cannot be given much weight% )nstead of e>ercising their own discretion or referring the matter to the o<cers of Grigio# GrigioIs su$ervisors were obigated to refer to $etitionerIs su$ervisors an( discre$anc( in the $erformance of the res$ondents with their s$eci,ed duties% GSIS vs. NLRC; G.R. No. )576!7; O13o$#% )5, 2007. F'13s* Tomas /anting# doing business under the name and st(e of /anting Securit( and =atchman Agenc( (/S=A) entered into a Securit( Service Contract to $rovide securit( guards to the $ro$erties of the Government Service )nsurance S(stem (GS)S) at the contract rate of P3#DDD%DD $er guard $er month% &uring the e@ectivit( of the contract# /S=A requested the GS)S for an u$ward ad8ustment of the contract rate in view of Section B of =age 2rder .o% 4 and Section 3 of =age 2rder .o% 3# which were issued b( the -egiona Tri$artite =ages and Productivit( "oard0.C- $ursuant to -e$ubic Act .o% CB3B# otherwise !nown as the =age -ationai'ation Act% Acting on the request of /S=A# the GS)S# through its "oard of Trustees and under "oard -esoution .o% 3DB# dated +a( 3A# 4554# a$$roved the u$ward ad8ustments of the contract $rice from P3#DDD%DD to P3#B4C%DB $er guard# $er month e@ective .ovember 4# 455D to *anuar( B# 4554# and PA#3DD%DD e@ective *anuar( 6# 4554 to +a( 34# 4554% /S=A assigned securit( guards &anie Fania# Jector +oreno# )sauro Ferrer# -ubin =ifredo# *esus &eima *r%# +aria /egas$i# Santiago .oto *r%# and :irgiio Soriano (hereafter com$ainants) to guard one of GS)S1s $ro$erties% 2n +arch 4E# 4553# GS)S terminated the Securit( Service Contract with /S=A% A the com$ainants# e>ce$t :irgiio Soriano# were absorbed b( the incoming securit( agenc(% 2n +arch B# 455A# com$ainants ,ed se$arate com$aints against /S=A for under$a(ment of wages and non0$a(ment of abor standard bene,ts from +arch 4554 to +arch 4E# 4553% :irgiio Soriano aso com$ained of iega dismissa% )n its Position Pa$er# /S=A aeged that com$ainants were esto$$ed from caiming that the( were under$aid because the( were informed that the $a( and bene,ts given to them were based on the contract rate of P4D3%DD $er eight hours of wor! or about P3#4DD%DD $er month% 2n August 5# 455A# /S=A ,ed a Third0Part( Com$aint against GS)S for under$a(ment of com$ainants1 wages% )n its Position Pa$er# GS)S aeged that the Third0Part( Com$aint states no cause of action against it? that /S=A obigated itsef in the Securit( Service Contract to be soe( iabe for the enforcement of and com$iance with a e>isting abor aws# rues and reguations? that the GS)S "oard of Trustees a$$roved the u$ward ad8ustment on a month0to0month basis# at PA#3DD $er guard $er month# e@ective *anuar( 6# 4554 to +a( 34# 4554# under "oard -esoution .o% 3DB dated +a( 3A# 4554# which was incor$orated in the Securit( Service Contract? that GS)S fu( $aid the services of the securit( guards as agreed u$on in the Securit( Service Contract% Iss&#s* =hether GS)S is soidari( iabe for $a(ment of com$ainants0res$ondnents1 saar( di@erentias% H#/0* Nes% Artices 4DC and 4DB of the /abor Code $rovideF A-T% 4DC% Contractor or subcontractor% Z =henever an em$o(er enters into contract with another $erson for the $erformance of the former1s wor!# the em$o(ees of the contractor and of the atter1s subcontractor# if an(# sha be $aid in accordance with the $rovisions of this Code% )n the event that the contractor or subcontractor fais to $a( the wage of his em$o(ees in accordance with this Code# the em$o(er sha be 8oint( and severa( iabe with his contractor or subcontractor to such em$o(ees to the e>tent of the wor! $erformed under the contract# in the same manner and e>tent that he is iabe to em$o(ees direct( em$o(ed b( him% A-T% 4DB )ndirect em$o(er% Z The $rovisions of the immediate( $receding Artice sha i!ewise a$$( to an( $erson# $artnershi$# association or cor$oration which# not being 35 an em$o(er# contracts with an inde$endent contractor for the $erformance of an( wor!# tas!# 8ob or $ro8ect% )n this case# the GS)S cannot evade iabiit( b( caiming that it had fu( $aid com$ainants1 saaries b( incor$orating in the Securit( Service Contract the saar( rate increases mandated b( =age 2rder .os% 4 and 3 b( increasing the contract $rice from P3#DDD%DD to P3#4BC%DB $er guard $er month e@ective .ovember 4# 455D to *anuar( B# 4554# and PA#3DD%DD e@ective *anuar( 6# 4554 to +a( 34# 4554% )n -osewood Processing# )nc% v% .ationa /abor -eations Commission# 3E the Court e>$ained the rationae for the 8oint and severa iabiit( of the em$o(er# thusF The 8oint and severa iabiit( of the em$o(er or $rinci$a was enacted to ensure com$iance with the $rovisions of the Code# $rinci$a( those on statutor( minimum wage% The contractor or subcontractor is made iabe b( virtue of his or her status as a direct em$o(er# and the $rinci$a as the indirect em$o(er of the contractor1s em$o(ees% This iabiit( faciitates# if not guarantees# $a(ment of the wor!ers1 com$ensation# thus# giving the wor!ers am$e $rotection as mandated b( the 456B Constitution% This is not undu( burdensome to the em$o(er% Shoud the indirect em$o(er be constrained to $a( the wor!ers# it can recover whatever amount it had $aid in accordance with the terms of the service contract between itsef and the contractor% Thus# the Court does not agree with the GS)S1s caim that a doube burden woud be im$osed u$on the atter because it woud be $a(ing twice for com$ainants1 services% Such fears are unfounded% Under Artice 434B of the Civi Code# if the GS)S shoud $a( the mone( caims of com$ainants# it has the right to recover from /S=A whatever amount it has $aid in accordance with the terms of the service contract between the /S=A and the GS)S% *oint and soidar( iabiit( is sim$( meant to assure aggrieved wor!ers of immediate and su<cient $a(ment of what is due them% This is in ine with the $oic( of the State to $rotect and aeviate the $ight of the wor!ing cass% R#5&$/.1 o: 34# P4./s., %#5%#s#23#0 $( So1.'/ S#1&%.3( Co--.ss.o2 '20 So1.'/ S#1&%.3( S(s3#- vs. ASIAPRO Coo5#%'3.v#, G.R. No. )72)0), Nov#-$#% 2", 2007 F'13s* "efore this Court is a Petition for -eview on Certiorari under -ue AE see!ing to annu and set aside the &ecision and -esoution of the Court of A$$eas which annued and set aside the 2rders of the Socia Securit( Commission (SSC) thereb( dismissing the $etition0com$aint ,ed b( herein $etitioner Socia Securit( S(stem (SSS) against herein res$ondent% -es$ondent Asia$ro# a coo$erative# is com$osed of owners0members% )ts $rimar( ob8ectives are to $rovide savings and credit faciities and to deveo$ other iveihood services for its owners0members% )n the discharge of the aforesaid $rimar( ob8ectives# res$ondent coo$erative entered into severa Service Contracts with Stan,co% The owners0 members do not receive com$ensation or wages from the res$ondent coo$erative% )nstead# the( receive a share in the service sur$us which the res$ondent coo$erative earns from di@erent areas of trade it engages in# such as the income derived from the said Service Contracts with Stan,co% The owners0 members get their income from the service sur$us generated b( the quait( and amount of services the( rendered# which is determined b( the "oard of &irectors of the res$ondent coo$erative% 2wners0members of the res$ondent coo$erative# who were assigned to Stan,co requested the services of the atter to register them with $etitioner SSS as sef0em$o(ed and to remit their contributions as such% To com$( with Section 450A of -e$ubic Act .o% 44C4# as amended b( -e$ubic Act .o% 6363# the SSS contributions of the said owners0members were equa to the share of both the em$o(er and the em$o(ee% Petitioner SSS sent a etter to the res$ondent coo$erative informing the atter that based on the Service Contracts it e>ecuted with Stan,co# res$ondent coo$erative is actua( a man$ower contractor su$$(ing em$o(ees to Stan,co and for that reason# it is an em$o(er of its owners0members wor!ing with Stan,co% Thus# res$ondent coo$erative shoud register itsef with $etitioner SSS as an em$o(er and ma!e the corres$onding re$ort and remittance of $remium contributions in accordance with the Socia Securit( /aw of 455B% -es$ondent coo$erative sent an answer to $etitioner asserting that it is not an em$o(er because its owners0members are the coo$erative itsef? hence# it cannot be its own em$o(er% Again# on 34 2ctober 3DD3# SSS sent a etter to res$ondent coo$erative ordering the atter to register as an em$o(er and re$ort its owners0members as em$o(ees for com$usor( coverage with the $etitioner SSS% -es$ondent coo$erative continuous( ignored the demand of $etitioner SSS% According(# $etitioner SSS# on 43 *une 3DD3# ,ed a Petition before $etitioner SSC against the res$ondent coo$erative and Stan,co $ra(ing that the res$ondent coo$erative or# in the aternative# Stan,co be directed to register as an em$o(er and to re$ort res$ondent coo$eratives owners0 members as covered em$o(ees under the com$usor( coverage of SSS and to remit the necessar( contributions in accordance with the Socia Securit( /aw of 455B% 2n 4B Februar( 3DDA# $etitioner SSC issued an 2rder den(ing the +otion to &ismiss ,ed b( the res$ondent coo$erative% The res$ondent coo$erative AD moved for the reconsideration of the said 2rder# but it was i!ewise denied% -es$ondent coo$erative ,ed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of A$$eas wherein its $etition was granted% SSS motion for reconsideration having been denied now goes to the Su$reme Court% Iss&#F =hether or not an em$o(ee0em$o(er reationshi$ e>ists between res$ondent coo$erative and its owner0member; R&/.29* A$$(ing the four0fod test# SC hedF 6irst% )t is e>$ress( $rovided in the Service Contracts that it is the res$ondent coo$erative which has the #H1/&s.v# 0.s1%#3.o2 .2 34# s#/#13.o2 '20 #29'9#-#23 o: 34# o>2#%s,-#-$#%s 's >#// 's .3s 3#'- /#'0#%s >4o >.// $# 'ss.92#0 '3 S3'2B/1o% %econd% <'9#s '%# 0#B2#0 's %#-&2#%'3.o2 o% #'%2.29s, 4o>#v#% 0#s.92'3#0# ca$abe of being e>$ressed in terms of mone(# whether ,>ed or ascertained# on a time# tas!# $iece or commission basis# or other method of cacuating the same# which is 5'('$/# $( '2 #-5/o(#% 3o '2 #-5/o(## &20#% ' >%.33#2 o% &2>%.33#2 1o23%'13 o: #-5/o(-#23 :o% >o%K 0o2# o% 3o $# 0o2#, o% :o% s#%v.1# %#20#%#0 o% 3o $# %#20#%#0%)n this case# the >##K/( sti$ends or the so0caed shares in the service sur$us given b( the res$ondent coo$erative to its owners0members were in reait( wages# as the same were equivaent to an amount not ower than that $rescribed b( e>isting abor aws# rues and reguations# incuding the wage order a$$icabe to the area and industr(? or the same sha not be ower than the $revaiing rates of wages%)t cannot be doubted then that those sti$ends or shares in the service sur$us are indeed wages# because these are given to the owners0members as com$ensation in rendering services to res$ondent coo$eratives cient# Stan,co% !ird% )t is aso stated in the above0 mentioned Service Contracts that it is the res$ondent coo$erative which has the 5o>#% 3o .2v#s3.9'3#, 0.s1.5/.2# '20 %#-ov# 34# o>2#%s,-#-$#%s '20 .3s 3#'- /#'0#%s who were rendering services at Stan,co% 6ourt!% As earier o$ined# of the four eements of the em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$# the contro test is the most im$ortant%)n the case at bar# it is the %#s5o20#23 1oo5#%'3.v# >4.14 4's 34# so/# 1o23%o/ ov#% 34# -'22#% '20 -#'2s o: 5#%:o%-.29 34# s#%v.1#s &20#% 34# S#%v.1# Co23%'13s >.34 S3'2B/1o 's >#// 's 34# -#'2s '20 -#34o0s o: >o%K%Aso# the res$ondent coo$erative is soe( and entire( res$onsibe for its owners0members# team eaders and other re$resentatives at Stan,co%A these cear( $rove that# indeed# there is an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ between the res$ondent coo$erative and its owners0members% )t is true that the Service Contracts e>ecuted between the res$ondent coo$erative and Stan,co e>$ress( $rovide that there sha be no em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ between the res$ondent coo$erative and its owners0 members% This Court# however# cannot give the said $rovision force and e@ect% As $revious( $ointed out b( this Court# an em$o(ee0em$o(er reationshi$ actua( e>ists between the res$ondent coo$erative and its owners0members% The four eements in the four0fod test for the e>istence of an em$o(ment reationshi$ have been com$ied with% The res$ondent coo$erative must not be aowed to den( its em$o(ment reationshi$ with its owners0members b( invo!ing the questionabe Service Contracts $rovision# when in actuait(# it does e>ist% T4# #H.s3#21# o: '2 #-5/o(#%,#-5/o(## %#/'3.o2s4.5 1'22o3 $# 2#9'3#0 $( #H5%#ss/( %#5&0.'3.29 .3 .2 ' 1o23%'13, >4#2 34# 3#%-s '20 s&%%o&20.29 1.%1&-s3'21#s s4o> o34#%>.s#. T4# #-5/o(-#23 s3'3&s o: ' 5#%so2 .s 0#B2#0 '20 5%#s1%.$#0 $( /'> '20 2o3 $( >4'3 34# 5'%3.#s s'( .3 s4o&/0 $#% )t is setted that the contracting $arties ma( estabish such sti$uations# causes# terms and conditions as the( want# and their agreement woud have the force of aw between them%Jowever# 34# '9%##0 3#%-s '20 1o20.3.o2s -&s3 2o3 $# 1o23%'%( 3o /'>, -o%'/s, 1&s3o-s, 5&$/.1 5o/.1( o% 5&$/.1 o%0#%%The Service Contract $rovision in question must be struc! down for being contrar( to aw and $ubic $oic( since it is a$$arent( being used b( the res$ondent coo$erative mere( to circumvent the com$usor( coverage of its em$o(ees# who are aso its owners0members# b( the Socia Securit( /aw% )t bears stressing# too# that a coo$erative acquires 8uridica $ersonait( u$on its registration with the Coo$erative &eveo$ment Authorit(% )t has its "oard of &irectors# which directs and su$ervises its business? meaning# its "oard of &irectors is the one in charge in the conduct and management of its a@airs% =ith that# a coo$erative can be i!ened to a cor$oration with a $ersonait( se$arate and distinct from its owners0members% Consequent(# an owner0member of a coo$erative can be an em$o(ee of the atter and an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ can e>ist between them% )n the $resent case# it is not dis$uted that the res$ondent coo$erative had registered itsef with the Coo$erative &eveo$ment Authorit(# as evidenced b( its Certi,cate of -egistration .o% D0C3303ACD%)n its b(0aws# its "oard of &irectors directs# contros# and su$ervises the business and manages the $ro$ert( of the res$ondent coo$erative% Cear( then# the management of the a@airs of the res$ondent coo$erative is vested in its "oard of &irectors and not in its owners0 members as a whoe% Therefore# it is com$ete( ogica that the res$ondent coo$erative# as a 8uridica $erson re$resented A4 b( its "oard of &irectors# can enter into an em$o(ment with its owners0members% Javing decared that there is an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ between the res$ondent coo$erative and its owners0 member# we concude that the $etitioner SSC has 8urisdiction over the $etition0com$aint ,ed before it b( the $etitioner SSS% <HEREFORE# $remises considered# the instant Petition is hereb( GRANTED% A/-#0' vs. As'4. G/'ss P4./.55.2#s,I21. FactsF -es$ondent Asahi Gass Phi%# )nc# a domestic cor$oration engaged in gass manufacturing business and San Sebastian Aied Services# )nc (SSAS)) entered into a service contract on E +arch 3DD3 whereb( the atter undertoo! to $rovide the former with the necessar( man$ower% Petitioners Ameda et% a as gass cutters and gass quait( controer were hired $ursuant to such contract and assigned for res$ondent% Petitioners wor!ed for res$ondent for $eriods ranging from three to 44 (ears% 2n 4 &ecember 3DD3# res$ondent terminated its service contract with SSAS)# which in turn# terminated the em$o(ment of $etitioners on the same date% So# $etitioners ,ed a com$aint of iega dismissa asserting that the( shoud be considered reguar em$o(ees where their wor! has been desirabe to the business of res$ondent wor!ing for three to 44 (ears and that SSAS) is a abor0on( contractor% Petitioners asserted it is res$ondent who asserted contro submitting a co$( of their wor! schedue containing the time and manner of $erforming their 8obs dictated b( res$ondent? and that the( wor!ed in res$ondentIs $remises on(% -es$ondent on one hand# averred that $etitioners are not its em$o(ees but of SSAS)? and that $etitioners were hired for intermittent services on( $ursuant to an Accreditation Agreement# dated E +arch 3DD3% A certi,cate of registration issued b( &2/H on 3 *anuar( 3DD3 was $resented $ur$orting that SSAS) is a egitimate 8ob contractor% Co$( of o$inions of &2/H dated46 Februar( 3DD3 were aso shown authori'ing res$ondent to contract out certain activities not necessar( or desirabe to the business of the com$an(% The /abor Arbiter in view of the Loverwheming documentar( evidenceM of res$ondents refuting the bare aegations of the $etitioners# dismissed the com$aint% ./-C reversed the /AIs decision stating that SSAS) was engaged in abor0on( contracting 00since it did not have substantia ca$ita and investment in the form of toos# equi$ment and machineries U ma!ing $etitioners em$o(ees of res$ondent% 2n a$$ea# CA reversed ./-CIs ,ndings% .ow on $etition for review on certiorari be+ore %C )ssuesF =hether $etitioners are em$o(ees of res$ondent Jinged on the issueF =hether or not it is estabished that SSAS) was a abor0on( contractor -uingF )n abor0on( contracting# the statutes create an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ for a com$rehensive $ur$oseF to $revent circumvention of abor aws% The contractor is considered as mere( the agent of the $rinci$a em$o(er and the atter is res$onsibe to the em$o(ees of the abor0on( contractor as if such em$o(ees are direct( em$o(ed b( the $rinci$a em$o(er% SSAS) is a abor0on( contractor# thus res$ondent sha be considered as the em$o(er of $etitioners who must bear the iabiit( for the dismissa of the atter# if an(% The foowing reasonsGcircumstances materia to the case eading to such concusion areF a% -es$ondent faied to $rove that SSAS) $ossessed substantia ca$ita or investment when res$ondent began contractua reations with it more than a decade before 3DD3% .o singe ,nancia statement or record to attest to the economic status and ,nancia ca$acit( of SSAS) to venture into and sustain its own business inde$endent from $etitioner% b% Petitioners were $erforming 8obs that were direct( reated to res$ondentIs main ine of business% -es$ondent being engaged in gass manufacturing whie $etitioners wor!ed as quait( controer and gass cutters cear( indicate a direct reation between res$ondentIs business and $etitionerIs wor!% -es$ondentIs argument that $etitioners were required on( when there was an increase in the mar!etIs demand with which res$ondent coud not co$e# on( $rove even more that the services rendered b( $etitioners were indeed $art of the main business of res$ondent% -es$indentIs argument that $etitionerIs were hired on( intermittent( de$ending on the mar!et is negated b( ength and continuit( of their $erformance# asting for $eriods ranging from three to 44 (ears% Thus# $etitionerIs services are indis$ensabe% c% The crucia eement of contro over $etitioners rested in res$ondent% The $ower of contro refers to the authorit( of the em$o(er to contro the em$o(ee not on( with regard to the resut of wor! to be done# but aso to the means and methods b( which the wor! is to be accom$ished% )t shoud be borne in mind that the $ower of contro refers mere( to the e>istence of the $ower and not to the actua e>ercise thereof% )t is not essentia for the em$o(er to actua( su$ervise the $erformance of duties of the em$o(ee? it is enough that the former has a right to wied the $ower% Petitioners wor!ed at the res$ondentIs $remises# and nowhere ese% Petitioners foowed the wor! schedue $re$ared b( res$ondent% The( were required to observe a rues and reguations of the res$ondent $ertaining to# among other things# the quait( A3 of 8ob $erformance# reguarit( of 8ob out$ut# and the manner and method of accom$ishing the 8obs% Hvidence is ac!ing that SSAS) e>ercised contro over them or their wor!% The fact that it was SSAS) which dismissed $etitioners from em$o(ment is irreevant% )t is hard( $roof of contro# since it was demonstrated on( at the end of $etitionersI em$o(mentZa mere consequence of termination of contractua reations of SSAS) and res$ondent% d% The Certi,cate of -egistration $resented to boster the $osition that SSAS) is a du( registered 8ob contractor was issued on( on 3 *anuar( 3DD3% There is no further $roof that $rior to said date# SSAS) had aread( registered with and had been recogni'ed b( the &2/H as a 8ob contractor% The timing of SSAS)Is beated registration is high( sus$icious considering that SSAS) was aread( $roviding res$ondent with wor!ers# incuding $etitioners wor!ing for res$ondent for 44 (ears# ong before SSAS) was registered with the &2/H as a 8ob contractor% Petitioners were aso dismissed from service on( a month $rior to the issuance of the Certi,cate of -egistration of SSAS)% The surrounding circumstances indicate that the certi,cate of registration was mere( secured in order to ban!et the $revious reations between SSAS) and res$ondent with egait(% The Certi,cate of -egistration issued b( the &2/H recogni'ed that SSAS) was a egitimate 8ob contractor on( as of the date of its issuance# 3 *anuar( 3DD3% The Certi,cate can on( be used as reference b( $ersons who woud consider the services o@ered b( SSAS) subsequent to its issuance% -es$ondent# who entered into contractua reations with SSAS) wa( before the said Certi,cate# cannot caim that it reied thereon% e% The Accreditation Agreement sti$uating that $etitioners were to remain em$o(ees of SSAS) and sha not become reguar em$o(ees of the res$ondent does not govern the status of $etitioners% A $art( cannot dictate# b( the mere e>$edient of a uniatera decaration in a contract# the character of its business# i*e*, whether as abor0on( contractor or as 8ob contractor# it being crucia that its character be measured in terms of and determined b( the criteria set b( statute% ROLANDO SASAN, SR. #3.'/. VS. NLRC !TH DIVISION, EGUITACLE,PCI CANK AND HELP+ATE, INC. G.R. No. )762!0, O13o$#% )7, 2006 FactsF -es$ondent H0PC)"an! entered into a Contract for Services with J)# a domestic cor$oration $rimari( engaged in the business of $roviding 8anitoria and messengeria services% Pursuant to their contract# J) sha hire and assign wor!ers to H0PC)"an! to $erform 8anitoriaGmessengeria and maintenance services% The contract was im$ied( renewed (ear after (ear% Petitioners -oando Sasan# Sr# /eonio &a(da(# +odesto Aguirre# Ae8andro Ardimer# Heuterio Saci# =ifredo *uegos# Petronio Carcedo# and Cesar Peciencia were among those em$o(ed and assigned to H0 PC)"an! at its branch at /ahug# Cebu Cit(% 2n 33 *u( 3DD4# $etitioners ,ed with the Arbitration "ranch of the ./-C in Cebu Cit( se$arate com$aintsQ4AR against H0PC)"an! and J) for iega dismissa# with caims for se$aration $a(# service incentive eave $a(# aowances# damages# attorne(1s fees and costs% )n its amended com$aint# it incuded caims for 43th month $a(% Severa conciiation hearings were schedued b( /abor Arbiter Gutierre' but the $arties sti faied to arrive at a mutua( bene,cia settement? hence# /abor Arbiter ordered that the( submit their res$ective $osition $a$ers% Petitioners caimed that the( had become reguar em$o(ees of H0PC)"an! with res$ect to the activities for which the( were em$o(ed# having continuous( rendered 8anitoria and messengeria services to the ban! for more than one (ear? that H0PC)"an! had direct contro and su$ervision over the means and methods b( which the( were to $erform their 8obs? and that their dismissa b( J) was nu and void because the atter had no $ower to do so since the( had become reguar em$o(ees of H0 PC)"an!% For its $art# H0PC)"an! averred that it entered into a Contract for Services with J)# an inde$endent 8ob contractor which hired and assigned $etitioners to the ban! to $erform 8anitoria and messengeria services thereat% )t was J) that $aid $etitioners1 wages# monitored $etitioners1 dai( time records (&T-) and uniforms# and e>ercised direct contro and su$ervision over the $etitioners and that therefore J) has ever( right to terminate their services ega(% H0PC)"an! coud not be hed iabe for whatever misdeed J) had committed against its em$o(ees% J)# on the other hand# asserted that it was an inde$endent 8ob contractor engaged in the business of $roviding 8anitoria and reated services to business estabishments# and H0 PC)"an! was one of its cients% Petitioners were its em$o(ees# $art of its $oo of 8anitorsGmessengers assigned to H0PC)"an!% The Contract for Services between J) and H0 PC)"an! e>$ired on 4E *u( 3DDD% H0PC)"an! no onger renewed said contract with J) and# instead# bidded out its 8anitoria requirements to two other 8ob contractors# Abe Services and Puritan% J) designated $etitioners to new wor! assignments# but the atter refused to com$( with the same% Petitioners were not dismissed b( J)# whether actua( or constructive(# thus# $etitioners1 com$aints before the ./-C were without basis% /abor Arbiter rendered a &ecision ,nding that J) was not a egitimate 8ob contractor on the ground that it did not $ossess the required substantia ca$ita or investment to actua( $erform the 8ob# wor!# or service under its own A3 account and res$onsibiit( as required under the /abor Code% J) is therefore a abor0on( contractor and the rea em$o(er of $etitioners is H0PC)"an! which is hed iabe to $etitioners% *udgment was rendered directing the res$ondents Hquitabe PC) "an! and Je$mate# )nc% to $a( 8oint( and soidari( the com$ainants% H0PC)"an! and J) a$$eaed the same to the ./-C% The ./-C too! into consideration the documentar( evidence $resented b( J) for the ,rst time on a$$ea and# on the basis thereof# decared J) as a high( ca$itai'ed venture with su<cient ca$itai'ation# which cannot be considered engaged in 7abor0on( contracting% The ./-C deeted /abor ArbiterIs award of bac!wages and se$aration $a(# but a<rmed his award for 43th month $a( and attorne(1s fees% Court of A$$eas a<rmed the ,ndings of the ./-C that J) was a egitimate 8ob contractor and that it did not iega( dismiss $etitioners% )SSUHF =hether or not ./-C erred in considering new evidence $resented ,rst time on a$$ea% =2. J) is egitimate contractor% =2. the $etitioners are iega( dismissed% -U/).GF 2ur 8uris$rudence is aread( re$ete with cases aowing the ./-C to admit evidence# not $resented before the /abor Arbiter# and submitted to the ./-C for the ,rst time on a$$ea% Technica rues of evidence are not binding in abor cases% /abor o<cias shoud use ever( reasonabe means to ascertain the facts in each case s$eedi( and ob8ective(# without regard to technicaities of aw or $rocedure# a in the interest of due $rocess% )n the case at bar# we ,nd substantia evidence to su$$ort the ,nding of the ./-C# a<rmed b( the Court of A$$eas# that J) is a egitimate 8ob contractor% =e ta!e note that J) has been issued b( the &e$artment of /abor and Hm$o(ment (&2/H) Certi,cate of -egistrationQAAR .umbered :))0 6E50435B0DA6% Javing been issued b( a $ubic o<cer# this certi,cation carries with it the $resum$tion that it was issued in the reguar $erformance of o<cia dut(%QACR )n the absence of $roof# $etitioner1s bare assertion cannot $revai over this $resum$tion% The evidence on record aso shows that J) is carr(ing on a distinct and inde$endent business from H0PC)"an!% The em$o(ees of J) are assigned to cients to $erform 8anitoria and messengeria services# cear( distinguishabe from the ban!ing services in which H0PC)"an! is engaged% 7Substantia ca$ita or investment7 refers to ca$ita stoc!s and subscribed ca$itai'ation in the case of cor$orations# toos# equi$ments# im$ements# machineries and wor! $remises# actua( and direct( used b( the contractor or subcontractor in the $erformance or com$etion of the 8ob# wor! or service contracted out%QABR An inde$endent contractor must have either substantia ca$ita or investment in the form of toos# equi$ment# machineries# wor! $remises# among others% The aw does not require both substantia ca$ita and investment in the form of toos# equi$ment# machineries# etc%QA6R )t is enough that it has substantia ca$ita% )n the case of J)# it has $roven both% The services rendered b( the $etitioners as 8anitors# messengers and drivers are considered not necessar( in the conduct of its (H0PC)"A.T1s) $rinci$a business%QEDR Htched in an unending stream of cases are four standards in determining the e>istence of an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$# name(F (a) the manner of seection and engagement of the $utative em$o(ee? (b) the mode of $a(ment of wages? (c) the $resence or absence of $ower of dismissa? and# (d) the $resence or absence of contro of the $utative em$o(ee1s conduct% +ost determinative among these factors is the so0caed 7contro test%7 2n the $ower to contro the em$o(ee1s conduct# and the fourth requisite regarding the $ower of dismissa# again H0PC)"an! did not have the $ower to contro $etitioners with res$ect to the means and methods b( which their wor! was to be accom$ished% )t i!ewise had no $ower of dismissa over the $etitioners% A that H0PC)"an! coud do was to re$ort to J) an( untoward act# negigence# misconduct or mafeasance of an( em$o(ee assigned to the $remises% )n view of the $receding concusions# $etitioners wi never become reguar em$o(ees of H0PC)"an! regardess of how ong the( were wor!ing for the atter% =e further rue that $etitioners were not iega( dismissed b( J)% U$on the termination of the Contract of Service between J) and H0 PC)"an!# $etitioners cannot insist to continue to wor! for the atter% Their $u0out from H0 PC)"an! did not constitute iega dismissa since# ,rst# $etitioners were not em$o(ees of H0PC)"an!? and second# the( were $ued out from said assignment due to the non0renewa of the Contract of Service between J) and H0 PC)"an!% At the time the( ,ed their com$aints with the /abor Arbiter# $etitioners were not even dismissed b( J)? the( were on( 7o@0detai7 $ending their re0assignment b( J) to another cient% And when the( were actua( given new assignments b( J) with other cients# $etitioners even refused the same% As the ./-C $ronounced# $etitioners1 com$aint for iega dismissa is a$$arent( $remature% Petition is &H.)H& for ac! of merit% CA decision a<rmed% AA PUREFOODS CORPORATION VS NLRC G.R. No. )722!) Nov#-$#% 20, 2006 FACTS* .eri ,ed a caim for non$a(ment of additiona wage increase# reguari'ation# non$a(ment of service incentive eave# under$a(ment of 43th month $a(# and non$a(ment of $remium $a( for hoida( and hoida( $a( against Purefoods Cor$oration (Purefoods)% .eri was thereafter dismissed from her wor! as a &ei0Attendant% Subsequent(# .eri ,ed an amended com$aint charging Purefoods with iega dismissa% The /abor Arbiter then decared .eri as Purefoods1 reguar em$o(ee? and .eri as having been iega( dismissed and entited to reinstatement with $a(ment of bac!wages% Purefoods ,ed a $artia a$$ea# $ra(ing that the case be remanded for forma hearing on the merits and to im$ead &%/% Admar! as a $art(0res$ondent% The ./-C granted the a$$ea and remanded the case for further hearings on the factua issues% The case was remanded to a /abor Arbiter# who# after ,nding that .eri is not an em$o(ee of $etitioner# but rather of &%/% Admar!# an inde$endent abor contractor# dismissed the com$aint% .eri a$$eaed to the ./-C# which rued in com$ainants1 favor and reversed and set aside the abor arbiter1s decision% Jence# Purefoods recourse to the CA% The CA hed that &%/% Admar! is a egitimate inde$endent contractor% Jowever# it rued that com$ainants are reguar em$o(ees of Purefoods% Citing Art% 36D of the /abor Code# the a$$eate court found that com$ainants were engaged to $erform activities which are usua( necessar( or desirabe in the usua business or trade of Purefoods# and that the( were under the contro and su$ervision of Purefoods1 su$ervisors# and not of &%/% Admar!1s% )t noted that in the Promotions Agreements between &%/% Admar! and Purefoods# there was no mention of the ist of &%/% Admar! em$o(ees who wi hande $articuar $romotions for $etitioner# and that com$ainants1 $eriods of em$o(ment are not fu( covered b( the Promotions Agreements% Thus# this $etition% )n the $resent $etition for review# Purefoods maintains that .eri is not an em$o(ee of Purefoods# but of &%/% Admar!# an inde$endent 8ob contractor% Thus# it cannot be hed iabe for iega dismissa% Fina(# it caims that Artice 36D of the /abor Code is not a$$icabe in a triatera reationshi$ invoving a $rinci$a# an inde$endent 8ob contractor# and the atter1s em$o(ees% ISSUE* =hether or not .eri is an em$o(ee of Purefoods HELD* .ot an em$o(ee% The Court agrees with Purefoods1 argument that Art% 36D of the /abor Code ,nds no a$$ication in a triatera reationshi$ invoving a $rinci$a# an inde$endent 8ob contractor# and the atter1s em$o(ees% )ndeed# the Court has rued that said $rovision is not the (ardstic! for determining the e>istence of an em$o(ment reationshi$ because it mere( distinguishes between two !inds of em$o(ees# i%e%# reguar em$o(ees and casua em$o(ees# for $ur$oses of determining the right of an em$o(ee to certain bene,ts# to 8oin or form a union# or to securit( of tenure? it does not a$$( where the e>istence of an em$o(ment reationshi$ is in dis$ute% )t is therefore erroneous on the $art of the Court of A$$eas to re( on Art% 36D in determining whether an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ e>ists between res$ondent .eri and Purefoods% Permissibe 8ob contracting or subcontracting refers to an arrangement whereb( a $rinci$a agrees to $ut out or farm out with the contractor or subcontractor the $erformance or com$etion of a s$eci,c 8ob# wor! or service within a de,nite or $redetermined $eriod regardess of whether such 8ob# wor! or service is to be $erformed or com$eted within or outside the $remises of the $rinci$a% )n this arrangement# the foowing conditions must be metF (a) the contractor carries on a distinct and inde$endent business and underta!es the contract wor! on his account under his own res$onsibiit( according to his own manner and method# free from the contro and direction of his em$o(er or $rinci$a in a matters connected with the $erformance of his wor! e>ce$t as to the resuts thereof? (b) the contractor has substantia ca$ita or investment? and (c) the agreement between the $rinci$a and contractor or subcontractor assures the contractua em$o(ees1 entitement to a abor and occu$ationa safet( and heath standards# free e>ercise of the right to sef0 organi'ation# securit( of tenure# and socia wefare bene,ts% )n the ,rst $ace# &%/% Admar!1s status as a egitimate inde$endent contractor has aread( been estabished in Hscario v% ./-C% )n the said case# com$ainants# through &%/% Admar!# wor!ed as merchandisers for Caifornia +anufacturing Cor$oration (C+C)% The( ,ed a case before the abor arbiter for the reguari'ation of their em$o(ment status with C+C# and whie the case was $ending# &%/% Admar! sent termination etters to com$ainants% The com$ainants thereafter amended their com$aint to incude iega dismissa% The Court considered the foowing circumstances as tending to estabish &%/% Admar!1s status as a egitimate 8ob contractorF 4) The SHC registration certi,cate of &%/% Admar! states that it is a ,rm engaged in $romotiona# advertising# mar!eting and merchandising activities% 3) The service contract between C+C and &%/% Admar! cear( $rovides that the agreement is for the su$$( of saes $romoting merchandising services rather than one of man$ower $acement% 3) &%/% Admar! was actua( engaged in severa activities# such as advertising# $ubication# $romotions# mar!eting and merchandising% )t had severa merchandising contracts with com$anies i!e Purefoods# Corona Su$$(# .abisco "iscuits# and /icron% )t was i!ewise AE engaged in the $ubication business as evidenced b( its maga'ine the 7Phenomenon%7 A) )t had its own ca$ita assets to carr( out its $romotion business% )t then had current assets amounting to PC miion and is therefore a high( ca$itai'ed venture% )t had an authori'ed ca$ita stoc! of PEDD#DDD%DD% )t owned severa motor vehices and other toos# materias and equi$ment to service its cients% )t $aid rentas of P3D#D3D for the o<ce s$ace it occu$ied% +oreover# a$$(ing the four0fod test used in determining em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$# the Court found thatF the em$o(ees therein were seected and hired b( &%/% Admar!? &%/% Admar! $aid their saaries# as evidenced b( the $a(ro $re$ared b( &%/% Admar! and sam$e contribution forms? &%/% Admar! had the $ower of dismissa as it admitted that it was the one who terminated the em$o(ment of the em$o(ees? and ,na(# it was &%/% Admar! who e>ercised contro and su$ervision over the em$o(ees% Furthermore# it is evident from the Promotions Agreements entered into b( Purefoods that &%/% Admar! is a egitimate abor contractor% The agreements con,rm that &%/% Admar! is an inde$endent contractor which Purefoods had engaged to su$$( genera $romotion services# and not mere man$ower services# to it% The $rovisions e>$ress( $ermit &%/% Admar! to hande and im$ement Purefoods1 $ro8ect# and categorica( state that there sha be no em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ between &%/% Admar!1s em$o(ees and Purefoods% =hie it ma( be true that com$ainants were required to submit reguar re$orts and were introduced as Purefoods merchandisers# these are not enough to estabish Purefoods1 contro over them% Hven if the re$ort requirements are somehow considered as contro measures# the( were im$osed on( to ensure the e@ectiveness of the $romotion services rendered b( &%/% Admar!% )t woud be a rare contract of service that gives untrammeed freedom to the $art( hired and eschews an( intervention whatsoever in his $erformance of the engagement% )ndeed# it woud be foohard( for an( com$an( to com$ete( give the reins and tota( ignore the o$erations it has contracted out% =e aso note that .eri hersef admitted in her Sinum$aang Saa(sa( and in the hearings that she a$$ied with &%/% Admar! and that she wor!ed for Purefoods through &%/% Admar!% .eri was aware from the start that &%/% Admar! was her em$o(er and not Purefoods% She had !e$t her contract with &%/% Admar!# and inquired about her em$o(ment status with &%/% Admar!% )t was &%/% Admar!# as her em$o(er# which had the ,na sa( in# and which actua( e@ected# her termination% +'%'2'> Ho3#/s '20 R#so%3 vs Co&%3 o: A55#/'s, #3 '/., GR No. )!660, 8'2. 20, 200 FACTSF The $resent $roceedings emanate from a com$aint for reguari'ation# subsequent( converted into one for iega dismissa# ,ed before /abor Arbiter +ad8a(ran J% A8an b( $rivate res$ondent Sher( 2abe% )t a$$ears that $rivate res$ondent 2abe was initia( hired b( $etitioner as an e>tra beverage attendant on A$ri 3A# 455E% This asted unti Februar( B# 455B% -es$ondent wor!ed in Centur( Par! Jote# an estabishment owned b( the $etitioner% 2n Se$tember 4C# 455C# $etitioner contracted with +ania -esource &eveo$ment Cor$oration% Subsequent(# $rivate res$ondent 2abe was transferred to +A.-H&# with the atter de$orting itsef as her em$o(er% +A.-H& has intervened at a stages of these $roceedings and has consistent( caimed to be the em$o(er of $rivate res$ondent 2abe% Private res$ondent ,ed before the /abor Arbiter a $etition for reguari'ation of em$o(ment against the $etitioner% 2n August 4# 4556# however# $rivate res$ondent 2abe was dismissed from em$o(ment% -es$ondent converted her $etition for reguari'ation into a com$aint for iega dismissa% /A"2- A-")TH-Is decisionF dismissing the com$aint against the $etitioner% ./-CIs decisionF )t reversed the ruing of the /abor Arbiter and hed thatF (4) +A.-H& is a abor0on( contractor# and (3) $rivate res$ondent was iega( dismissed% 2f the ,rst hoding# the ./-C observed that under the ver( terms of the service contract# +A.-H& sha $rovide the $etitioner not s$eci,c 8obs or services but $ersonne and that +A.-H& had insu<cient ca$itai'ation and was not su<cient( equi$$ed to $rovide s$eci,c 8obs% The ./-C i!ewise observed that the activities $erformed b( the $rivate res$ondent were direct( reated to and usua( necessar( or desirabe in the business of the $etitioner% =ith res$ect to the termination of $rivate res$ondentIs em$o(ment# the ./-C hed that it was not e@ected for a vaid or 8ust cause and was therefore iega% CAIs decisionF The a$$eate court dismissed the $etition on account of the faiure of the $etitioner to a$$end the board resoution authori'ing the counse for $etitioner to ,e the $etition before the Court of A$$eas% )SSUHSF 4% =hether there is a need of certi,cation of non forum sho$$ing which must be signed b( du( authori'ed o<cers of a cor$oration% 3% =hether there is em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ between $etitioner and $rivate res$ondent# 2abe% SC -U/).GF 2n the ,rst issue =e0setted is the rue that the certi,cate of non0forum sho$$ing is a mandator( requirement% Substantia com$iance a$$ies on( with res$ect to the contents of the certi,cate but not as to its $resence in the $eading wherein it is required% PetitionerIs contention that the ,ing of a motion for reconsideration with an a$$ended certi,cate of non forum0sho$$ing su<ces to cure the defect in the $eading is absoute( s$ecious% )t negates the ver( $ur$ose for which the certi,cation against forum sho$$ing is requiredF to inform the Court of the $endenc( of an( other case which ma( $resent simiar issues and invove simiar $arties as the one AC before it% The requirement a$$ies to both natura and 8uridica $ersons% Petitioner reies u$on this CourtIs ruing in &igita +icrowave Cor$% v% Court of A$$eas to show that its Personne &irector has been du( authori'ed to sign $eadings for and in behaf of the $etitioner% Petitioner# however# has ta!en the ruing in &igita +icrowave out of conte>t% The $ortion of the ruing [ 3A in &igita +icrowave u$on which $etitioner reies was in res$onse to the issue of im$ossibiit( of com$iance b( 8uridica $ersons with the requirements of Circuar 36054% The CourtIs identi,cation of du( authori'ed o<cers or directors as the $ro$er signatories of a certi,cate of non forum0sho$$ing was in res$onse to that issue% The ruing does not# however# i$so facto cothe a cor$orate o<cer or director with authorit( to e>ecute a certi,cate of non0forum sho$$ing b( virtue of the formerIs $osition aone% An( doubt on the matter has been resoved b( the CourtIs ruing in "P) /easing Cor$% v% Court of A$$eas where this Court em$hasi'ed that the aw(er acting for the cor$oration must be s$eci,ca( authori'ed to sign $eadings for the cor$oration% S$eci,c authori'ation# the Court hed# coud on( come in the form of a board resoution issued b( the "oard of &irectors that s$eci,ca( authori'es the counse to institute the $etition and e>ecute the certi,cation# to ma!e his actions binding on his $rinci$a# i%e%# the cor$oration% This Court has not wavered in stressing the need for strict adherence to $rocedura requirements% The rues of $rocedure e>ist to ensure the order( administration of 8ustice% The( are not to be triKed with ight(% 2n the second issue Petitioner $osits that it has entered into a service agreement with intervenor +A.-H&% The atter# in turn# maintains that $rivate res$ondent 2abe is its em$o(ee and subsequent( hods itsef out as the em$o(er and o@ers the reinstatement of $rivate res$ondent% .otab(# $rivate res$ondentIs $ur$orted em$o(ment with +A.-H& commenced on( in 455C# wa( after she was hired b( the $etitioner as e>tra beverage attendant on A$ri 3A# 455E% There is thus much credence in the $rivate res$ondentIs caim that the service agreement e>ecuted between the $etitioner and +A.-H& is a mere $o( to circumvent the aw on em$o(ment# in $articuar that which $ertains on reguari'ation% )n this regard# it has not esca$ed the notice of the Court that the o$erations of the hote itsef do not cease with the end of each event or function and that there is an ever $resent need for individuas to $erform certain tas!s necessar( in the $etitionerIs business% Thus# athough the tas!s themseves ma( var(# the need for su<cient man$ower to carr( them out does not% )n an( event# as borne out b( the ,ndings of the ./-C# the $etitioner determines the nature of the tas!s to be $erformed b( the $rivate res$ondent# in the $rocess e>ercising contro% This being so# the Court ,nds no di<cut( in sustaining the ,nding of the ./-C that +A.-H& is a abor0on( contractor% Concordant(# the rea em$o(er of $rivate res$ondent 2abe is the $etitioner% )t a$$ears further that $rivate res$ondent has aread( rendered more than one (ear of service to the $etitioner# for the $eriod 455E04556# for which she must aread( be considered a reguar em$o(ee# $ursuant to Artice 36D of the /abor CodeF Art% 36D% -eguar and casua em$o(ment% The $rovisions of written agreement to the contrar( notwithstanding and regardess of the ora agreement of the $arties# an em$o(ment sha be deemed to be reguar where the em$o(ee has been engaged to $erform activities which are usua( necessar( or desirabe in the usua business or trade of the em$o(er# e>ce$t where the em$o(ment has been ,>ed for a s$eci,c $ro8ect or underta!ing the com$etion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the em$o(ee or where the wor! or service to be $erformed is seasona in nature and the em$o(ment is for the duration of the season% An em$o(ment sha be deemed to be casua if it is not covered b( the $receding $aragra$hF Provided# That an( em$o(ee who has rendered at east one (ear of service# whether such service is continuous or bro!en# sha be considered a reguar em$o(ee with res$ect to the activit( in which he is em$o(ed and his em$o(ment sha continue whie such activit( e>ists% Petition denied% COCA,COLA COTTLERS PHILS., INC. vs. ALAN +. AGITO, #3 '/ GR No. )75!6, F#$%&'%( )", 200 FACTSF Petitioner (Co!e) is a domestic cor$oration engaged in manufacturing# botting and distributing soft drin! beverages and other aied $roducts% -es$ondents were saesmen assigned at Co!e /agro Saes 2<ce for (ears but were not reguari'ed% Co!e averred that res$ondents were em$o(ees of )nterserve who were tas!ed to $erform contracted services in accordance with the $rovisions of the Contract of Services e>ecuted between Co!e and )nterserve on 33 +arch 3DD3% Said Contract constituted egitimate 8ob contracting# given that the atter was a bona ,de inde$endent contractor with substantia ca$ita or investment in the form of toos# equi$ment# and machiner( necessar( in the conduct of its business% To $rove the status of )nterserve as an inde$endent contractor# $etitioner $resented the foowing $ieces of evidenceF (4) the Artices of )ncor$oration of )nterserve? (3) the Certi,cate of -egistration of )nterserve with the "ureau of )nterna -evenue? (3) the )ncome Ta> -eturn# with Audited Financia Statements# of )nterserve for 3DD4? and (A) the Certi,cate of -egistration of )nterserve as an inde$endent 8ob contractor# issued b( the &e$artment of /abor and Hm$o(ment (&2/H)% As a resut# $etitioner asserted that res$ondents were em$o(ees of )nterserve# since it was the atter which hired them# $aid their wages# and su$ervised their wor!# as AB $roven b(F (4) res$ondentsI Persona &ata Fies in the records of )nterserve? (3) res$ondentsI Contract of Tem$orar( Hm$o(ment with )nterserve? and (3) the $a(ro records of )nterserve% )SSUHSF 4% =hether or not )nteserve is a abor0 on( contractor? 3% =hether or not an em$o(er0 em$o(ee reationshi$ e>ists between $etitioner Coca0Coa "otters Phis% )nc% and res$ondents% -U/).GF At the outset# the Court cari,es that athough )nterserve has an authori'ed ca$ita stoc! amounting to P3#DDD#DDD%DD# on( PC3E#DDD%DD thereof was $aid u$ as of 34 &ecember 3DD4% The Court does not set an absoute ,gure for what it considers substantia ca$ita for an inde$endent 8ob contractor# but it measures the same against the t($e of wor! which the contractor is obigated to $erform for the $rinci$a% Jowever# this is rendered im$ossibe in this case since the Contract between $etitioner and )nterserve does not even s$ecif( the wor! or the $ro8ect that needs to be $erformed or com$eted b( the atterIs em$o(ees# and uses the dubious $hrase Ltas!s and activities that are considered contractibe under e>isting aws and reguations%M Hven in its $eadings# $etitioner carefu( sideste$s identif(ing or describing the e>act nature of the services that )nterserve was obigated to render to $etitioner% The im$ortance of identif(ing with $articuarit( the wor! or tas! which )nterserve was su$$osed to accom$ish for $etitioner becomes even more evident# considering that the Artices of )ncor$oration of )nterserve states that its $rimar( $ur$ose is to o$erate# conduct# and maintain the business of 8anitoria and aied services% "ut res$ondents were hired as saesmen and eadman for $etitioner% The Court cannot# under such ambiguous circumstances# ma!e a reasonabe determination if )nterserve had substantia ca$ita or investment to underta!e the 8ob it was contracting with $etitioner% Q)nR :ino(a v% ./-C# we cari,ed that it was not enough to show substantia ca$itai'ation or investment in the form of toos# equi$ment# machiner( and wor! $remises# etc%# to be considered an inde$endent contractor% )n fact# 8uris$rudentia hodings were to the e@ect that in determining the e>istence of an inde$endent contractor reationshi$# severa factors ma( be considered# such as# but not necessari( con,ned to# whether the contractor was carr(ing on an inde$endent business? the nature and e>tent of the wor!? the s!i required? the term and duration of the reationshi$? the right to assign the $erformance of s$eci,ed $ieces of wor!? the contro and su$ervision of the wor!ers? the $ower of the em$o(er with res$ect to the hiring# ,ring and $a(ment of the wor!ers of the contractor? the contro of the $remises? the dut( to su$$( $remises# toos# a$$iances# materias and abor? and the mode# manner and terms of $a(ment% )n sum# )nterserve did not have substantia ca$ita or investment in the form of toos# equi$ment# machineries# and wor! $remises? and res$ondents# its su$$osed em$o(ees# $erformed wor! which was direct( reated to the $rinci$a business of $etitioner% )t is# thus# evident that )nterserve fas under the de,nition of a Labor0on(M contractor# under Artice 4DC of the /abor Code? as we as Section E(i) of the -ues )m$ementing Artices 4DC04D5 of the /abor Code# as amended% )t is aso a$$arent that )nterserve is a abor0on( contractor under Section E(ii) of the -ues )m$ementing Artices 4DC04D5 of the /abor Code# as amended# since it did not e>ercise the right to contro the $erformance of the wor! of res$ondents% The ac! of contro of )nterserve over the res$ondents can be geaned from the Contract of Services between )nterserve (as the C2.T-ACT2-) and $etitioner (as the C/)H.T)% The Contract of Services between )nterserve and $etitioner did not identif( the wor! needed to be $erformed and the ,na resut required to be accom$ished% )nstead# the Contract s$eci,ed the t($e of wor!ers )nterserve must $rovide $etitioner (L-oute Je$ers# Saesmen# &rivers# Cericas# Hncoders W P&M) and their quai,cations (technicaGvocationa course graduates# $h(sica( ,t# of good mora character# and have not been convicted of an( crime)% The Contract aso states that# Lto carr( out the underta!ings s$eci,ed in the immediate( $receding $aragra$h# the C2.T-ACT2- sha em$o( the necessar( $ersonne#M thus# ac!nowedging that )nterserve did not (et have in its em$o( the $ersonne needed b( $etitioner and woud sti $ic! out such $ersonne based on the criteria $rovided b( $etitioner% )n other words# )nterserve did not obigate itsef to $erform an identi,abe 8ob# wor!# or service for $etitioner# but mere( bound itsef to $rovide the atter with s$eci,c t($es of em$o(ees% These contractua $rovisions strong( indicated that )nterserve was mere( a recruiting and man$ower agenc( $roviding $etitioner with wor!ers $erforming tas!s direct( reated to the atterIs $rinci$a business% The certi,cation issued b( the &2/H stating that )nterserve is an inde$endent 8ob contractor does not swa( this Court to ta!e it at face vaue# since the $rimar( $ur$ose stated in the Artices of )ncor$oration of )nterserve is miseading% According to its Artices of )ncor$oration# the $rinci$a business of )nterserve is to $rovide 8anitoria and aied services% The deiver( and distribution of Coca0 Coa $roducts# the wor! for which res$ondents were em$o(ed and assigned to $etitioner# were in no wa( aied to 8anitoria services% =hie the &2/H ma( have found that the ca$ita andGor investments in toos and equi$ment of )nterserve were su<cient for an inde$endent contractor for 8anitoria services# this does not mean that such ca$ita andGor investments were i!ewise su<cient to maintain an inde$endent contracting business A6 for the deiver( and distribution of Coca0Coa $roducts% =ith the ,nding that )nterserve was engaged in $rohibited abor0on( contracting# $etitioner sha be deemed the true em$o(er of res$ondents% As reguar em$o(ees of $etitioner# res$ondents cannot be dismissed e>ce$t for 8ust or authori'ed causes# none of which were aeged or $roven to e>ist in this case# the on( defense of $etitioner against the charge of iega dismissa being that res$ondents were not its em$o(ees% -ecords aso faied to show that $etitioner a@orded res$ondents the twin requirements of $rocedura due $rocess# i%e%# notice and hearing# $rior to their dismissa% -es$ondents were not served notices informing them of the $articuar acts for which their dismissa was sought% .or were the( required to give their side regarding the charges made against them% Certain(# the res$ondentsI dismissa was not carried out in accordance with aw and# therefore# iega% SOUTH DAVAO DEVELOP+ENT CO. VS. GA+O ET AL. G.R. No. )7)6)!, +'( 6, 200 FACTS* South &avao &eveo$ment Com$an( (LS&&CM) is the o$erator of a coconut and mango farm in &avao 2rienta and &avao de Sur% )n 45C3# S&&C hired Sergio Gamo (LGamoM) as a foreman% Sometime in 456B# S&&C a$$ointed Gamo as a co$ra ma!er contractor% Some of the co$ra wor!ers of S&&C were ater transferred b( S&&C to Gamo as his copraceros% From 456B to 4555# Gamo and S&&C entered into a $ro,t0sharing agreement wherein BDV of the net $roceeds of the sae of co$ra went to S&&C and 3DV to Gamo% )n this arrangement# the co$ra wor!ers were $aid b( Gamo from his 3DV share% Subsequent(# S&&C wanted to standardi'e $a(ments to its LcontractorsM in its coconut farms% Jowever# S&&C and Gamo were not abe to agree on a new $a(ment scheme% &es$ite this# Gamo and his copraceros started to do harvesting wor!% S&&C# u$on notice# tod them to sto$% Hventua(# Gamo and S&&C agreed that Gamo ma( continue with the harvest $rovided that it woud be his ast LcontractM with S&&C% Gamo suggested to S&&C to oo! for a new LcontractorM since he was not amenabe to the new $a(ment scheme that it $ro$osed% Since S&&C did not renew the LcontractM of Gamo# the atter and his co$ra wor!ers aeged that the( were iega( dismissed% The abor arbiter dismissed the com$aint ruing that there was no em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ between S&&C and Gamo et al* The ./-C shared the $osition with the abor arbiter and rued that the nature of the 8ob of Gamo et al* coud not resut in an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$% 2n the other hand# the Court of A$$eas rued that an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ e>isted%
SS&CIs aeges that the current business $ractice 4 in the coconut industr( treats copraceros as inde$endent contractors% ISSUES* (4) =hether or not the Court of A$$eas faied to ta!e 8udicia notice of the acce$ted $ractice of inde$endent contractors in the coconut industr(% (3) =hether or not Gamo is an inde$endent contractor% (3) =hether or not there is an em$o(er0 em$o(ee reationshi$ between S&&C and Gamo et al* HELD* (4) .2% According to E/pertravel vs* C.# 3 matters of 8udicia notice have three materia requisitesF (i) the matter must be one of common and genera !nowedge? (ii) it must be we and authoritative( setted and not doubtfu or uncertain? and (iii) it must be !nown to be within the imits of the 8urisdiction of the court% An invocation that the Court ta!e 8udicia notice of certain facts shoud satisf( the requisites# a mere $ra(er for its a$$ication sha not su<ce% )n this case# the Court cannot ta!e 8udicia notice of the aeged business $ractices in the co$ra industr(% The record is bereft of an( indication that the matter is of common !nowedge to the $ubic and that it has the characteristic of notoriet(% (3) .2% )n Escario v* NLRC# 3 it was hed that to estabish the e>istence of an inde$endent contractor# the foowing conditions must e>istF (i) the contractor carries on an inde$endent business and underta!es the contract wor! on his own account under his own res$onsibiit( according to his own manner and method# free from the contro and direction of his em$o(er or $rinci$a in a matters connected with the $erformance of the wor! e>ce$t to the resut thereof? and (ii) the contractor has substantia ca$ita or investments in the form of toos# equi$ment# machineries# wor! $remises and other materias which are necessar( in the conduct of his business% The )m$ementing -ues of the /abor Code de,nes investment as toos# equi$ment# im$ements# machineries and wor! $remises# actua( and direct( used b( the contractor or subcontractor in the $erformance or com$etion of the 8ob# wor!# or service contracted out% The investment must be su<cient to carr( out the 8ob at hand% Gamo and the co$ra wor!ers did not e>ercise inde$endent 8udgment in the $erformance of their tas!s% The toos used b( Gamo and his co$ra wor!ers i!e the 0arit# bolo# pan"bunot# pan"lu"it and pan"tapo0 are not su<cient to enabe them to com$ete the 8ob% -eiance on these $rimitive toos is not enough% )n fact# the accom$ishment of their tas! required more e>$ensive machineries and equi$ment# i!e the truc!s to hau the harvests and the dr(ing faciit(# which S&&C owns% 4 3 3 A5 (3) NHS% )n order to determine the e>istence of an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$# the Court has frequent( a$$ied the four0fod testF (i) the seection and engagement of the em$o(ee? (ii) the $a(ment of wages? (iii) the $ower of dismissa? and (iv) the $ower to contro the em$o(eeIs conduct# or the so caed Lcontro test#M which is considered the most im$ortant eement% From the time the copraceros were hired b( S&&C u$ to the time that the( were reassigned to wor! under GamoIs su$ervision# their status as S&&CIs em$o(ees did not cease% /i!ewise# $a(ment of their wages was mere( coursed through Gamo% As to the $ower of contro# it is su<cient that the $ower to contro the manner of doing the wor! e>ists# it does not require the actua e>ercise of such $ower% )n this case# S&&C was e>ercising its $ower of contro when it transferred the co$ra wor!ers from their $revious assignments to wor! as GamoIs copraceros% )t was aso in the e>ercise of the same $ower that S&&C $ut Gamo in charge of the co$ra wor!ers athough under a di@erent $a(ment scheme% Thus# it is cear that an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ has e>isted between S&&C and Gamo et al* since the beginning and such reationshi$ did not cease des$ite their reassignments and the change of $a(ment scheme% OLDARICO S. TRAVELO vs. COCONGON CANANA GRO<ERS +ULTI, PURPOSECOOPERATIVE GR No. )6!205, S#53. ", 200
FACTSF Petitioner 2darico TraveYo and his 4C co0 $etitioners wor!ed at a banana $antation at "obongan Santo Tomas# &avao de .orte% Sometime in 3DDD# the( ,ed three se$arate com$aints for iega dismissa# individua( and coective(# with the ./-C against said res$ondents incuding res$ondent &oe Asia Phii$$ines as it then su$$osed( owned TAC2-# for un$aid saaries# overtime $a(# 43th month $a(# service incentive eave $a(# damages# and attorne(Is fees% &F) answered for itsef and TAC2- denied that the( hired $etitioners? That it had an arrangement with severa andowners for them to e>tend ,nancia and technica assistance to them for the deveo$ment of their ands into a banana $antation on the condition that the bananas $roduced therein woud be sod e>cusive( to TAC2- and it was the andowners who wor!ed on their own farms and hired aborers to assist them and that the andowners themseves decided to form a coo$erative in order to better attain their business ob8ectives? The Coo$erative faied to ,e a $osition $a$er des$ite due notice# $rom$ting the /abor Arbiter to consider it to have waived its right to adduce evidence in its defense% .othing was heard from res$ondent &oe Asia Phii$$ines% /A"2- A-")TH-F Coo$erative is guit( of iega dismissa based on severa 2rders b( the &2/H in an earier case decaring the Coo$erative as the em$o(er of the 3A4 wor!ers in the farms of its severa members% )t dro$$ed the com$aints against &F)# TAC2- and &oe Asia Phii$$ines% ./-CF Sustained the /abor ArbiterIs ruing that the em$o(er of $etitioners is the Coo$erative% )t $artia( granted $etitioners\ a$$ea# however# b( ordering the Coo$erative to $a( them their un$aid wages# wage di@erentias# service incentive eave $a(# and 43th month $a(% )t thus remanded the case to the /abor Arbiter for com$utation of those awards% CAF &ismissed $etitionerIs $etition for certiorari on the ground that the accom$an(ing veri,cation and certi,cation against forum sho$$ing was defective# it having been signed b( on( 45 of the 33 therein named $etitioners% )SSUHSF (4)=2. the $etition shoud be dismissed because of the non0signing of the $etitioners? JH/&F .2% For the guidance of the bench and bar# the Court restates in ca$sue form the 8uris$rudentia $ronouncements aread( reKected in Atres v Hm$eo above res$ecting non0com$iance with the requirements on# or submission of defective# veri,cation and certi,cation against forum sho$$ingF 4) A distinction must be made between non0com$iance with the requirement on or submission of defective veri,cation# and non0 com$iance with the requirement on or submission of defective certi,cation against forum sho$$ing% 3) As to veri,cation# non0com$iance therewith or a defect therein does not necessari( render the $eading fata( defective% The court ma( order its submission or correction or act on the $eading if the attending circumstances are such that strict com$iance with the -ue ma( be dis$ensed with in order that the ends of 8ustice ma( be served thereb(% 3) :eri,cation is deemed substantia( com$ied with when one who has am$e !nowedge to swear to the truth of the aegations in the com$aint or $etition signs the veri,cation# and when matters aeged in the $etition have been made in good faith or are true and correct% A) As to certi,cation against forum sho$$ing# non0com$iance therewith or a defect therein# uni!e in veri,cation# is genera( not curabe b( its subsequent submission or correction thereof# uness there is a need to rea> the -ue on the ground of 7substantia com$iance7 or $resence of 7s$ecia circumstances or com$eing reasons%7 E) The certi,cation against forum sho$$ing must be signed b( a the $ainti@s or $etitioners in a case? otherwise# those who did not sign wi be dro$$ed as $arties to the case% Under reasonabe or 8usti,abe circumstances# however# as when a the $ainti@s or $etitioners share a common interest and invo!e a common cause of action or defense# the signature of on( one of them in the certi,cation against forum sho$$ing substantia( com$ies with the -ue% ED C) Fina(# the certi,cation against forum sho$$ing must be e>ecuted b( the $art(0 $eader# not b( his counse% )f# however# for reasonabe or 8usti,abe reasons# the $art(0 $eader is unabe to sign# he must e>ecute a S$ecia Power of Attorne( designating his counse of record to sign on his behaf% (Hm$hasis and underscoring su$$ied)The foregoing restated $ronouncements were ost in the chaenged -esoutions of the a$$eate court% PetitionersI contention that the a$$eate court shoud have dismissed the $etition on( as to the non0signing $etitioners or mere( dro$$ed them as $arties to the case is thus in order% )nstead of remanding the case to the a$$eate court# however# the Court deems it more $ractica to decide the substantive issue raised in this $etition so as not to further dea( the dis$osition of this case% )SSUHF (3) won &F) and &P) shoud be hed soidari( iabe with Coo$erative for $etitionerIs iega dismissa and mone( caims% JH/&F .o the( are not soidari( iabe% Petition is dismissed% There is no H-0HH reationshi$ between $etitioners and Coo$erativeIs co0 res$ondents% &F) did not farm out to the Coo$erative the $erformance of a s$eci,c 8ob# wor!# or service% )nstead# it entered into a "anana Production and Purchase Agreement (Contract) with the Coo$erative# under which the Coo$erative woud hande and fund the $roduction of bananas and o$eration of the $antation covering ands owned b( its members in consideration of &F)Is commitment to $rovide ,nancia and technica assistance as needed# incuding the su$$( of information and equi$ment in growing# $ac!ing# and shi$$ing bananas% The Coo$erative woud hire its own wor!ers and $a( their wages and bene,ts# and se e>cusive( to &F) a e>$ort quait( bananas $roduced that meet the s$eci,cations agreed u$on% To the Court# the Contract between the Coo$erative and &F)# far from being a 8ob contracting arrangement# is in essence a business $artnershi$ that $arta!es of the nature of a 8oint venture%
The rues on 8ob contracting are# therefore# ina$$osite% Further# $etitioners\ caim of em$o(ment reationshi$ with the Coo$erative\s herein co0res$ondents must be assessed on the basis of four standards# vi'F (a) the manner of their seection and engagement (.o em$o(ment contract was? (b) the mode of $a(ment of their wages? (c) the $resence or absence of the $ower of dismissa? and (d) the $resence or absence of contro over their conduct% +ost determinative among these factors is the so0caed 7contro test%7
There is nothing in the records which indicates the $resence of an( of the foregoing eements of an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$% =hie the Court commiserates with $etitioners on their oss of em$o(ment# es$ecia( now that the Coo$erative is no onger a going concern since it has been dissoved# it cannot sim$(# b( defaut# hod the Coo$erativeIs co0res$ondents iabe for their caims without an( factua and ega 8usti,cation therefor% The socia 8ustice $oic( of abor aws and the Constitution is not meant to be o$$ressive of ca$ita% Hn $assant# $etitioners are not $recuded from $ursuing an( avaiabe remedies against the former members of the defunct Coo$erative as their individua circumstances ma( warrant% Lo1s.2 #3 '/., vs PLDT, GR No. )6525), O13. 2, 200 FactsF 2n .ovember 4# 455D# res$ondent Phii$$ine /ong &istance Tee$hone Com$an( (P/&T) and the Securit( and Safet( Cor$oration of the Phii$$ines (SSCP) entered into a Securit( Services Agreement (Agreement) whereb( SSCP woud $rovide armed securit( guards to P/&T to be assigned to its various o<ces% Pursuant to such agreement# $etitioners -au /ocsin and Hddie Tomaquin# among other securit( guards# were $osted at a P/&T o<ce% 2n August 3D# 3DD4# res$ondent issued a /etter dated August 3D# 3DD4 terminating the Agreement e@ective 2ctober 4# 3DD4% &es$ite the termination of the Agreement# however# $etitioners continued to secure the $remises of their assigned o<ce% The( were aeged( directed to remain at their $ost b( re$resentatives of res$ondent% )n su$$ort of their contention# $etitioners $rovided the /abor Arbiter with co$ies of $etitioner /ocsinIs $a( si$s for the $eriod of *anuar( to Se$tember 3DD3% Then# on Se$tember 3D# 3DD3# $etitionersI services were terminated% Thus# $etitioners ,ed a com$aint before the /abor Arbiter for iega dismissa and recover( of mone( caims such as overtime $a(# hoida( $a(# $remium $a( for hoida( and rest da(# service incentive eave $a(# Hmergenc( Cost of /iving Aowance# and mora and e>em$ar( damages against P/&T% The /abor Arbiter rendered a &ecision ,nding P/&T iabe for iega dismissa% )t was e>$ained in the &ecision that $etitioners were found to be em$o(ees of P/&T and not of SSCP% Such concusion was arrived at with the factua ,nding that $etitioners continued to serve as guards of P/&TIs o<ces% As such em$o(ees# $etitioners were entited to substantive and $rocedura due $rocess before termination of em$o(ment% )ssueF )s there em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$; -uingF Nes% From the foregoing circumstances# reason dictates that we concude that $etitioners remained at their $ost under the instructions of res$ondent% =e can further concude that res$ondent dictated u$on $etitioners that the atter $erform their reguar duties to secure the $remises during o$erating hours% This# to our mind and under the circumstances# is su<cient to estabish the e>istence of an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$% E4 To reiterate# whie res$ondent and SSCP no onger had an( ega reationshi$ with the termination of the Agreement# $etitioners remained at their $ost securing the $remises of res$ondent whie receiving their saaries# aeged( from SSCP% Cear(# such a situation ma!es no sense# and the denias $ro@ered b( res$ondent do not shed an( ight to the situation% )t is but reasonabe to concude that# with the behest and# $resumab(# directive of res$ondent# $etitioners continued with their services% Hvident(# such are indicia of contro that res$ondent e>ercised over $etitioners% Hvident(# res$ondent having the $ower of contro over $etitioners must be considered as $etitionersI em$o(erUUfrom the termination of the Agreement onwardsUUas this was the on( time that an( evidence of contro was e>hibited b( res$ondent over $etitioners and in ight of our ruing in Abea% Thus# as a$t( decared b( the ./-C# $etitioners were entited to the rights and bene,ts of em$o(ees of res$ondent# incuding due $rocess requirements in the termination of their services% "oth the /abor Arbiter and ./-C found that res$ondent did not observe such due $rocess requirements% Javing faied to do so# res$ondent is guit( of iega dismissa% Jo#$ A/.v.'0o, #3 '/. vs. P%o13#% 7 G'-$/# P4./.55.2#s, I21., #3 '/. G.R. No. )60506, +'%14 , 20)0 FactsF Petitioners wor!ed as merchandisers of PWG% The( a individua( signed em$o(ment contracts with either Promm0Gem or SAPS for $eriods of more or ess ,ve months at a time%The( were assigned at di@erent outets# su$ermar!ets and stores where the( handed a the $roducts of PWG% The( received their wages from Promm0Gem or SAPS% Subsequent(# $etitioners ,ed a com$aintagainst PWG for reguari'ation# service incentive eave $a( and other bene,ts with damages% The com$aint was ater amendedto incude the matter of their subsequent dismissa% The /abor Arbiter dismissed the com$aint for ac! of merit and rued that there was no em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ between $etitioners and PWG% Je found that the seection and engagement of the $etitioners# the $a(ment of their wages# the $ower of dismissa and contro with res$ect to the means and methods b( which their wor! was accom$ished# were a done and e>ercised b( Promm0GemGSAPS% Je further found that Promm0Gem and SAPS were egitimate inde$endent 8ob contractors% 2n a$$ea to the ./-C# the .-C a<rmed the decision of the abor arbiter% Petitioners then ,ed a $etition for certiorari with the CA# aeging grave abuse of discretion amounting to ac! or e>cess of 8urisdiction on the $art of the /abor Arbiter and the ./-C% Jowever# said $etition was aso denied b( the CA% )ssuesF 4%) )s PWG the em$o(er of $etitioners; 3%) =ere $etitioners iega( dismissed; -uingF Ouaif(% )n order to determine whether PWG is the em$o(er of $etitioners# it is necessar( to ,rst determine whether Promm0 Gem and SAPS are abor0on( contractors or egitimate 8ob contractors% There is 7abor0on(7 contracting where the $erson su$$(ing wor!ers to an em$o(er does not have substantia ca$ita or investment in the form of toos# equi$ment# machineries# wor! $remises# among others# and the wor!ers recruited and $aced b( such $erson are $erforming activities which are direct( reated to the $rinci$a business of such em$o(er% )n such cases# the $erson or intermediar( sha be considered mere( as an agent of the em$o(er who sha be res$onsibe to the wor!ers in the same manner and e>tent as if the atter were direct( em$o(ed b( him% The Court hed that Promm0Gem cannot be regarded as abor0on( contractor but a egitimate inde$endent contractor because the ,nancia statement of Promm0Gem shows that it has authori'ed ca$ita stoc! of P4 miion and a $aid0in ca$ita# or ca$ita avaiabe for o$erations# of PEDD#DDD%DD as of 455D% )t aso has ong term assets worth PA33# 65E%36 and current assets of PB45# DA3%33% Promm0Gem has aso $roven that it maintained its own warehouse and o<ce s$ace with a Koor area of 6BD square meters% )t aso had under its name three registered vehices which were used for its $romotionaGmerchandising business% Promm0Gem aso has other cients aside from PWG% 2n the other hand# the Artices of )ncor$oration of SAPS shows that it has a $aid0 in ca$ita of on( P34# 3ED%DD% There is no other evidence $resented to show how much its wor!ing ca$ita and assets are% Furthermore# there is no showing of substantia investment in toos# equi$ment or other assets% Considering that SAPS has no substantia ca$ita or investment and the wor!ers it recruited are $erforming activities which are direct( reated to the $rinci$a business of PWG# the court hed that SAPS is engaged in 7abor0on( contracting7% The contractor is considered mere( an agent of the $rinci$a em$o(er and the atter is res$onsibe to the em$o(ees of the abor0on( contractor as if such em$o(ees had been direct( em$o(ed b( the $rinci$a em$o(er% =ith regard to the termination etters given b( Promm0Gem to its em$o(ees uniform( s$eci,ed the cause of dismissa as grave misconduct and breach of trust% The court hed that there were no vaid causes for the dismissa of $etitioners0em$o(ees of Promm0Gem% +isconduct to be vaid 8ust cause for dismissa# such misconduct (a) must be serious? (b) must reate to the $erformance of the em$o(eeIs duties? and (c) must show that the em$o(ee has become un,t to continue wor!ing for the em$o(er% )n the case# $etitioners0em$o(ees of Promm0Gem ma( have committed an error of 8udgment in caiming to be em$o(ees of PWG# but it cannot be said that the( were motivated b( an( wrongfu intent in doing so% As such# the( are guit( of on( sim$e misconduct for assaiing the integrit( of Promm0Gem as a egitimate and inde$endent $romotion ,rm% A misconduct E3 which is not serious or grave# as that e>isting in the instant case# cannot be a vaid basis for dismissing an em$o(ee% +eanwhie# oss of trust and con,dence# as a ground for dismissa# must be based on the wifu breach of the trust re$osed in the em$o(ee b( his em$o(er% 2rdinar( breach wi not su<ce% /oss of trust and con,dence# as a cause for termination of em$o(ment# is $remised on the fact that the em$o(ee concerned hods a $osition of res$onsibiit( or of trust and con,dence% And# in order to constitute a 8ust cause for dismissa# the act com$ained of must be wor!0reated and must show that the em$o(ee is un,t to continue to wor! for the em$o(er% )n the case at bar# )n the instant case# the $etitioners0em$o(ees of Promm0Gem have not been shown to be occu$(ing $ositions of res$onsibiit( or of trust and con,dence% .either is there an( evidence to show that the( are un,t to continue to wor! as merchandisers for Promm0Gem% Jence# no vaid cause for dismissa b( Promm0Gem against $etitioner0em$o(ees% =ith regard to the $etitioners $aced with PWG b( SAPS# the( were given no written notice of dismissa% The records show that u$on recei$t b( SAPS of PWGIs etter terminating their 7+erchandising Services Contact7# the( in turn verba( informed the concerned $etitioners not to re$ort for wor! an(more% )t must be em$hasi'ed that the onus $robandi to $rove the awfuness of the dismissa rests with the em$o(er% )n termination cases# the burden of $roof rests u$on the em$o(er to show that the dismissa is for 8ust and vaid cause% )n the instant case# PWG faied to discharge the burden of $roving the egait( and vaidit( of the dismissas of those $etitioners who are considered its em$o(ees% Jence# the dismissas necessari( were not 8usti,ed and are therefore iega% S'2 +.9&#/ Co%5. vs S#-.//'2o #3 '/., GR No. )6!257, J&/( 5, 20)0 M Test to &etermine )nde$endent Contractorshi$ Petitioner cannot re( either on A+PC2Is Certi,cate of -egistration as an )nde$endent Contractor issued b( the $ro$er -egiona 2<ce of the &2/H to $rove its caim% )t is not concusive evidence of such status% The fact of registration sim$( $revents the ega $resum$tion of being a mere abor0on( contractor from arising% )n distinguishing between $ermissibe 8ob contracting and $rohibited abor0on( contracting# the totait( of the facts and the surrounding circumstances of the case are to be considered% ] Soidar( /iabiit( Thus# $etitioner S+C# as $rinci$a em$o(er# is soidari( iabe with A+PC2# the abor0on( contractor# for a the rightfu caims of res$ondent% Under this set0u$# A+PC2# as the Labor0on(M contractor# is deemed an agent of the $rinci$a (S+C)% The aw ma!es the $rinci$a res$onsibe over the em$o(ees of the Labor0on(M contractor as if the $rinci$a itsef direct( hired the em$o(ees% +'2./' <'3#% Co. vs D'/&-5.2#s, GR No. )7550), O13. !, 20)0 )t shoud be remembered that the contro test mere( cas for the e>istence of the right to contro# and not necessari( the e>ercise thereof% )t is not essentia that the em$o(er actua( su$ervises the $erformance of duties of the em$o(ee% )t is enough that the former has a right to wied the $ower% The $rimar( standard of determining reguar em$o(ment is the reasonabe connection between the $articuar activit( $erformed b( the em$o(ee in reation to the usua business or trade of the em$o(er% )n this case# the connection is obvious when we consider the nature of the wor! $erformed and its reation to the scheme of the $articuar business or trade in its entiret(% Fina(# the re$eated and continuing need for the $erformance of the 8ob is su<cient evidence of the necessit(# if not indis$ensabiit( of the activit( to the business% 2- Hm$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$? test% The eements to determine the e>istence of an em$o(ment reationshi$ areF (a) the seection and engagement of the em$o(ee? (b) the $a(ment of wages? (c) the $ower of dismissa? and (d) the em$o(erIs $ower to contro the em$o(eeIs conduct% The most im$ortant of these eements is the em$o(erIs contro of the em$o(eeIs conduct# not on( as to the resut of the wor! to be done# but aso as to the means and methods to accom$ish it% )t shoud be remembered that the contro test mere( cas for the e>istence of the right to contro# and not necessari( the e>ercise thereof% "ased on this four0fod test# +ania =ater emerges as the em$o(er of res$ondent coectors% -es$ondent bi coectors were individua( hired b( the contractor# but were under the direct contro and su$ervision of +ania =ater% This contro is manifested in the fact that res$ondent bi coectors re$orted dai( to the branch o<ces of +ania =ater to remit their coections with the s$eci,ed month( targets and com$( with the coection re$orting $rocedures $rescribed b( the atter% According(# res$ondent bi coectors are em$o(ees of $etitioner +ania =ater% *ob contracting? conditions% *ob contracting is $ermissibe on( if the foowing conditions are metF 4) the contractor carries on an inde$endent business and underta!es the contract wor! on his own account under his own res$onsibiit( according to his own manner and method# free from the contro and direction of his em$o(er or $rinci$a in a matters connected with the $erformance of the wor! e>ce$t as to the resuts thereof? and 3) the contractor has substantia ca$ita or investment in the form of toos# equi$ment# machineries# wor! $remises# and other materias which are necessar( in the conduct of the business% LSubstantia ca$ita or investmentM refers to ca$ita stoc!s and subscribed ca$itai'ation in the case of cor$orations# toos# equi$ment# im$ements# machineries# and wor! $remises# actua( and direct( used b( the contractor or subcontractor in the $erformance or com$etion of the 8ob# wor!# or service contracted out% The Lright to controM refers to the right reserved to the $erson for whom the services of the contractua wor!ers are $erformed# to determine not on( the end to be achieved# but E3 aso the manner and means to be used in reaching that end% T#29 vs P'4'9'1, GR No. )670!, Nov#-$#% )7, 20)0 )ega &ismissa The res$ondent wor!erIs aegation that Teng summari( dismissed them on sus$icion that the( were not re$orting to him the correct voume of the ,sh caught in each ,shing vo(age was never denied b( Teng% Unsubstantiated sus$icion is not a 8ust cause to terminate oneIs em$o(ment under Artice 363 of the /abor Code% To aow an em$o(er to dismiss an em$o(ee based on mere aegations and generaities woud $ace the em$o(ee at the merc( of his em$o(er# and woud emascuate the right to securit( of tenure% For his faiure to com$( with the /abor CodeIs substantive requirement on termination of em$o(ment# we decare that Teng iega( dismissed the res$ondent wor!ers% )n the $resent case# the maestros did not have an( substantia ca$ita or investment% Teng admitted that he soe( $rovided the ca$ita and equi$ment# whie the maestros su$$ied the wor!ers% The $ower of contro over the res$ondent wor!ers was odged not with the maestros but with Teng% As chec!ers# the res$ondent wor!ersI main tas!s were to count and cassif( the ,sh caught and re$ort them to Teng% The( $erformed tas!s that were necessar( and desirabe in TengIs ,shing business% Ta!en together# these incidents con,rm the e>istence of a abor0on( contracting which is $rohibited in our 8urisdiction# as it is considered to be the em$o(erIs attem$t to evade obigations a@orded b( aw to em$o(ees% 2- Hm$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$% Genera(# in a business estabishment# )&s are issued to identif( the hoder as a bona ,de em$o(ee of the issuing entit(% =hie $etitioner Teng aeged that it was the maestros who hired the res$ondent wor!ers# it was his com$an( that issued to the res$ondent wor!ers )&s bearing their names as em$o(ees and TengIs signature as the em$o(er% For the 43 (ears that the res$ondent wor!ers wor!ed for Teng# the( received wages on a reguar basis# in addition to their shares in the ,sh caught% +ore im$ortant(# the eement of contro U which we have rued in a number of cases to be a strong indicator of the e>istence of an em$o(er0 em$o(ee reationshi$ U is $resent in this case% Teng not on( owned the toos and equi$ment# he directed how the res$ondent wor!ers were to $erform their 8ob as chec!ers% )ega dismissa? ac! of substantive due $rocess% The dismissa of an em$o(ee# which the em$o(er must vaidate# has a two0fod requirementF one is substantive# the other is $rocedura% .ot on( must the dismissa be for a 8ust or an authori'ed cause# as $rovided b( aw? the rudimentar( requirements of due $rocess U the o$$ortunit( to be heard and to defend onesef U must be observed as we% The em$o(er has the burden of $roving that the dismissa was for a 8ust cause? faiure to show this# as in the $resent case# woud necessari( mean that the dismissa was un8usti,ed and# therefore# iega% The res$ondent wor!erIs aegation that Teng summari( dismissed them on sus$icion that the( were not re$orting to him the correct voume of the ,sh caught in each ,shing vo(age was never denied b( Teng% Unsubstantiated sus$icion is not a 8ust cause to terminate oneIs em$o(ment under Artice 363 of the /abor Code% /abor0on( contracting% Section E of the &2 .o% 460D3# which im$ements Artice 4DC of the /abor Code# $rovides that# M^ abor0on( contracting sha refer to an arrangement where the contractor or subcontractor mere( recruits# su$$ies or $aces wor!ers to $erform a 8ob# wor! or service for a $rinci$a# and an( of the foowing eements are $resentF (i)The contractor or subcontractor does not have substantia ca$ita or investment which reates to the 8ob# wor! or service to be $erformed and the em$o(ees recruited# su$$ied or $aced b( such contractor or subcontractor are $erforming activities which are direct( reated to the main business of the $rinci$a? or (ii)The contractor does not e>ercise the right to contro over the $erformance of the wor! of the contractua em$o(ee% )n the $resent case# Teng admitted that he soe( $rovided the ca$ita and equi$ment# whie the maestros su$$ied the wor!ers% Aso# the $ower of contro over the res$ondent wor!ers was odged not with the maestros but with Teng% +oreover# the( $erformed tas!s that were necessar( and desirabe in TengIs ,shing business% Ta!en together# these incidents con,rm the e>istence of a abor0on( contracting which is $rohibited in our 8urisdiction% According(# a ,nding that the maestros are abor0on( contractors is equivaent to a ,nding that an em$o(er0 em$o(ee reationshi$ e>ists between Teng and the res$ondent wor!ers% +otion for reconsideration% As amended# Artice 3C3 is now Artice 3C30A in which the word Luna$$eaabeM from Artice 3C3 has been deeted% Thus# athough Art% 3C30A ma!es the vountar( arbitration award ,na and e>ecutor( after ten caendar da(s from recei$t of the co$( of the award or decision b( the $arties# the decision ma( sti be reconsidered b( the :ountar( Arbitrator on the basis of a motion for reconsideration du( ,ed during that $eriod% The absence of a categorica anguage in Artice 3C30A does not $recude the ,ing of a motion for reconsideration of the :AIs decision within the 4D0da( $eriod% Therefore# $etitionersI aegation that the :AIs decision had become ,na and e>ecutor( b( the time the res$ondent wor!ers ,ed an a$$ea with the CA fais% )t is consequent( rued that the res$ondent wor!ers seasonab( ,ed a motion for reconsideration of the :AIs 8udgment# and the :A erred in den(ing the motion% GSIS vs NLRC #3 '/., GR No. )600!5, Nov#-$#% )7, 20)0 )n an( case# even if the a$$ea was ,ed one da( ate# the same shoud have been entertained b( the ./-C% )ndeed# the a$$ea must be $erfected within the statutor( or regementar( $eriod% This is not on( mandator(# but aso 8urisdictiona% Faiure to $erfect the a$$ea on time renders the assaied EA decision ,na and e>ecutor( and de$rives the a$$eate court or bod( of the ega authorit( to ater the ,na 8udgment# much ess entertain the a$$ea% Jowever# this Court has# time and again# rued that# in e>ce$tiona cases# a beated a$$ea ma( be given due course if greater in8ustice wi be visited u$on the $art( shoud the a$$ea be denied% The Court has aowed this e>traordinar( measure even at the e>$ense of sacri,cing order and e<cienc( if on( to serve the greater $rinci$es of substantia 8ustice and equit(% Thus# the date of ,ing is determinabe from two sourcesF from the $ost o<ce stam$ on the enveo$e or from the registr( recei$t# either of which ma( su<ce to $rove the timeiness of the ,ing of the $eadings% )f the date stam$ed on one is earier than the other# the former ma( be acce$ted as the date of ,ing% This $resu$$oses# however# that the enveo$e or registr( recei$t and the dates a$$earing thereon are du( authenticated before the tribuna where the( are $resented% ] /iabiit( of GS)S as )ndirect Hm$o(er /ast(# we do not agree with $etitioner that the enforcement of the decision is im$ossibe because its charter unequivoca( e>em$ts it from e>ecution% As hed in Government Service )nsurance S(stem v% -egiona Tria Court of Pasig Cit(# "ranch B4# citing -ubia v% GS)SF The $rocessua e>em$tion of the GS)S funds and $ro$erties under Section 35 of the GS)S Charter# in our view# shoud be read consistent( with its avowed $rinci$a $ur$oseF to maintain actuaria sovenc( of the GS)S in the $rotection of assets which are to be used to ,nance the retirement# disabiit( and ife insurance bene,ts of its members% Cear(# the e>em$tion shoud be imited to the $ur$oses and ob8ects covered% An( inter$retation that woud give it an e>$ansive construction to e>em$t a GS)S assets from ega $rocesses absoute( woud be unwarranted% Furthermore# the decared $oic( of the State in Section 35 of the GS)S Charter granting GS)S an e>em$tion from ta># ien# attachment# ev(# e>ecution# and other ega $rocesses shoud be read together with the grant of $ower to the GS)S to invest its Le>cess fundsM under Section 3C of the same Act% Under Section 3C# the GS)S is granted the anciar( $ower to invest in business and other ventures for the bene,t of the em$o(ees# b( using its e>cess funds for investment $ur$oses% )n the e>ercise of such function and $ower# the GS)S is aowed to assume a character simiar to a $rivate cor$oration% Thus# it ma( sue and be sued# as aso# e>$icit( granted b( its charter > > >% To be sure# $etitionerIs charter shoud not be used to evade its iabiities to its em$o(ees# even to its indirect em$o(ees# as mandated b( the /abor Code% ] /iabiit( of )ndirect Hm$o(er PetitionerIs iabiit( covers the $a(ment of res$ondentsI saar( di@erentia and 43th month $a( during the time the( wor!ed for $etitioner% )n addition# $etitioner is soidari( iabe with &./ Securit( for res$ondentsI un$aid wages from Februar( 4553 unti A$ri 3D# 4553% =hie it is true that res$ondents continued wor!ing for $etitioner after the e>$iration of their contract# based on the instruction of &./ Securit(# $etitioner did not ob8ect to such assignment and aowed res$ondents to render service% Thus# $etitioner im$ied( a$$roved the e>tension of res$ondentsI services% According(# $etitioner is bound b( the $rovisions of the /abor Code on indirect em$o(ment% Petitioner cannot be aowed to den( its obigation to res$ondents after it had bene,ted from their services% So ong as the wor!# tas!# 8ob# or $ro8ect has been $erformed for $etitionerIs bene,t or on its behaf# the iabiit( accrues for such services% The $rinci$a is made iabe to its indirect em$o(ees because# after a# it can $rotect itsef from irres$onsibe contractors b( withhoding $a(ment of such sums that are due the em$o(ees and b( $a(ing the em$o(ees direct(# or b( requiring a bond from the contractor or subcontractor for this $ur$ose% PetitionerIs iabiit(# however# cannot e>tend to the $a(ment of se$aration $a(% An order to $a( se$aration $a( is invested with a $unitive character# such that an indirect em$o(er shoud not be made iabe without a ,nding that it had cons$ired in the iega dismissa of the em$o(ees% C. <ORKER=S PREFERENCE DEVELOP+ENT CANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NLRC G.R. No. )060") +'%14 ), )5 FACTS* - /eonor Ang is the Personne 2<cer of Tro$ica Phii$$ines =ood )ndustries )nc# a cor$oration engaged in the manufacture of and sae of veneer# $(wood and sawdust $ane board% - &"P as mortgagee of TP=)) forecosed its $ant faciities and equi$ment thus forcing the atter to cease its o$eration% As a consequence Ang was terminated b( her service% - Ang seasona( ,ed a $etition before the /abor Arbiter a com$aint for se$aration $ar# 43 th month $a(# vacation and sic! eave $a(# saaries and aowances against TP=)) and herein $etitioner% - The /abor Arbiter# as ater a<rmed b( the ./-C# hed herein $etitioner &"P subsidiar( iabe with TP=)) rationai'ing that the right of an em$o(ee to be $aid bene,ts due him from the $ro$erties of his em$o(er is su$erior to the right of &"Ps mortgage% ISSUE* )s decaration of ban!ru$tc( or 8udicia iquidation required before the wor!erIs $reference ma( be invo!ed under Art 44D of the /abor Code; HELD* 4) Artice 44D shoud be a$$ied in con8unction with the $ertinent $rovisions of the Civi Code and the )nsovenc( /aw to the e>tent that the $iece0mea distribution of the assets of the debtor is avoided% EE 3) A decaration of ban!ru$tc( if a 8udicia iquidation must be $resent before the wor!erIs $reference ma( be enforced% 3) To hod that Art 44D to be a$$icabe aso to e>tra08udicia $roceeding woud be $utting the wor!er in a better $osition than the State which coud on( assert its own $rior $reference in case of a 8udicia $roceeding% A) )n the event of ban!ru$tc( if iquidation of an em$o(erIs business# his wor!ers sha en8o( ,rst $reference as regards their un$aid wages and other monetar( caims# an( $rovision of aw to the contrar( notwithstanding% Such un$aid wages and monetar( caims sha be $aid in fu before the caims of the Government and other creditors ma( be $aid% E) 2rigina $osition that the right to $reference given to wor!ers under Art44D cannot e>ist an( e@ective wa( $rior to the time of its $resentation in distribution is sti given great weight% STRONG DISSENT PENNED CY JUSTICE PADILLA* 4) The ma8orit( reads into the aforesaid aw and im$ementing rue a OUA/)F)CAT)2. TJAT )S .2T TJH-H% .o where is it stated in the P-HSH.T aw and its .H= im$ementing rue that a $rior decaration of ban!ru$tc( or 8udicia iquidation is sine qua non to the o$eration of Artice 44D% )n fact such requirement has been deeted in the new im$ementing rue% 3) The $resent aw is unconditiona and unquai,ed grant of $riorit( to wor!ers monetar( caims as against a the assets of an em$o(er inca$abe of fu( $a(ing his obigation% CATONG CUHAY GOLD +INES, INC., vs% DELA SERNA G.R. No. 666" A&9&s3 6, ) FACTS* )n a abor case# the em$o(ees were awarded to receive un$aid wages and bene,ts from "atong "uha( God +ines# )nc# their em$o(er% =hen the $etitioners moved for the e>ecution of the 8udgment# the -egiona &irector as! res$ondent to $ost a bond% =hen he faied to do so# Sheri@ $roceeded against his $ro$erties and sod them at $ubic auction% These $ro$erties have been transferred and entrusted to the Asset Privati'ation Trust (APT) b( virtue of Procamation .o% ED% and a the said assets of ""G+) are covered b( rea and chatte mortgages e>ecuted in favor of the some ban!s% Hventua( "atong "uha( $osed a su$ersedeas bond and a$$eaing to the Secretar( of /abor# the auction saes were decared nu and void because the $ro$erties were e>em$ted from e>ecution% +otions for )ntervention were ,ed b( +FT Cor$oration and Sater Jodings# whose tite were traced from the highest bidder in the auction sae% Private res$ondents contend that even if sub8ect $ro$erties were mortgaged to &"P the aw grants $reference to mone( caims of wor!ers over and above a credits of the $etitioner% ISSUE* =hether the auction saes were vaid with reference to Art 44D of the /abor Code# des$ite mortgage over the $ro$erties; HELD* The auction saes were not vaid% Su$reme Court hed that the wor!ers $reference regarding wages and other monetar( caims under Artice 44D of the /abor Code# as amended# contem$ates ban!ru$tc( or iquidation $roceedings of the em$o(er1s business% =hat is more# it does not disregard the $referentia ien of mortgagees considered as $referred credits under the $rovisions of the .ew Civi Code on the cassi,cation# concurrence and $reference of credits% A$&20.o C'%'(o9' vs. Ass#3 P%.v'3.E'3.o2 T%&s3 G.R. No. )6007" O13o$#% 2!, 2005 FACTS* 2n &ecember 6# 456D# -es$ondent Asset Privati'ation Trust (APT) was created under Procamation .o% ED and was mandated to ta!e tite# $ossession of# conserve# manage and dis$ose of non0$erforming assets of the Phii$$ine government identi,ed for $rivati'ation and dis$osition% Pres% Aquino issued Administrative 2rder .o% 4A identif(ing certain assets of the government institutions to be transferred to the nationa government% Among these assets was the ,nancia caim of P." against "icoandia Sugar &eveo$ment Cor$% (")SU&HC2)# a $antation mi% This caim was in the form of a secured oan% So b( virtue of a Trust Agreement between the nationa government and APT dated Februar( 3B# 456B# the atter became trustee over ")SU&HC2Is account with P."% "ecause of the continued faiure of ")SU&HC2 to $a( its oans with P."# its mortgaged $ro$erties were forecosed and sod at $ubic auction where APT was the soe bidder% +eanwhie# ")SU&HC2 contracted the services of Phii$$ine Sugar Cor$% (Phisucor) to ta!e over the management of the sugar $antation and miing o$erations unti August 34# 4553% 2n 2ctober 3D# 4553# "ico0Agro0 )ndustria Coo$erative ("APC)) $urchased ")SU&HC2Is forecosed assets from APT and too! over o$erations under the name Penafrancia Sugar +i (Pensumi)% 2n +arch 3# 4553# the union ,ed an amended com$aint im$eading Phisucor# APT# and Pensumi for unfair abor $ractices# iega dismissa# iega deduction and under$a(ment of wages and other abor standard bene,ts $us damages% ")SU&HC2# Pensumi# and APTIs defense was ac! of em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$% /abor Arbiter and ./-C a<rmed APTIs iabiit( for the mone( caims stating that even when there was no em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$# the assets of ")SU&HC2 had been transferred to the nationa government through APT# and APT shoud have treated the union membersI caims as a ien on the assets of ")SU&HC2% CA rued that APT shoud not be hed iabe for the caims since APT was not the em$o(er of the $etitioners but was im$eaded on( for $ossessing ")SU&HC2Is forecosed $ro$erties% ISSUE* =hether or not res$ondent APT is iabe for $etitionerIs mone( caims% EC HELD* .o# APT is not iabe% The duties and iabiities of ")SU&HC2# incuding its monetar( iabiities to its em$o(ees were not automatica( assumed b( APT as $urchaser of the forecosed $ro$erties% An( assum$tion of iabiit( must be s$eci,ca( and categorica( agreed u$on% )n Sundowner &eveo$ment Cor$% vs% &rion# the Court rued that uness e>$ress( assumed# abor contracts i!e coective bargaining agreements are not enforceabe against the transferee of an enter$rise% /abor contract are in $ersonam and thus binding on( between the $arties% .o succession of em$o(ment rights and obigations have ta!en $ace% There is no $rivit( of contract between ")SU&HC2Is em$o(ees and APT ma!ing the atter a substitute em$o(er% The iabiit( of the $revious owner to its em$o(ees are not enforceabe against the bu(er or transferee uness (4) the atter unequivoca( assumes them? or (3) the sae or transfer was made in bad faith% Furthermore# under Art 33A4 and 33A3 of the Civi Code# a mortgage credit is a s$ecia $referred credit that en8o(s $reference with res$ect to s$eci,c or determinate $ro$ert( of the debtor% 2n the other hand# the wor!erIs $reference under Art 44D of the /abor Code is an ordinar( $referred credit% The wor!erIs mone( caim has no $reference over s$ecia $referred credits% "eing a mortgage credit# APTIs ien on ")SU&HC2Is mortgaged assets is a s$ecia $referred ien that must be satis,ed ,rst before the caims of the wor!ers% P4./.55.2# A.%/.2#s, I21o%5o%'3#0 vs. I'-o%' G. R. No. )666 F#$%&'%( 06, 2007 FACTS* -es$ondent _amora had been in the em$o( of $etitioner PA/ since 5 Februar( 4564 when the former was hired as a Cargo -e$resentative at $etitioner PA/Is )m$ort 2$erations &ivision% 2n 43 .ovember 455E# res$ondent _amora was dismissed from service for having been found b( $etitioner PA/Is management to be iabe for insubordination# negect of customer# disres$ect for authorit( and absence without o<cia eave% 2n 43 +arch 455C# res$ondent _amora ,ed a com$aint against $etitioners PA/ and Francisco 9% Nngente ): before the ./-C for iega dismissa# unfair abor $ractice# non0 $a(ment of wages# damages and attorne(Is fees% ./-C found that the dismissa was iega and ordered to immediate( reinstate com$ainant "ernardin *% _amora to his former $osition as Cargo -e$resentative at the )m$ort 2$erations &ivision of res$ondent PA/ without oss of seniorit( rights and other $rivieges and to $a( him bac! saaries and bac!wages beginning &ecember 4E# 455E unti his actua reinstatement# incusive of aowances and other bene,ts and increases thereto% Caiming that the 3C *u( 4555 &ecision of the ./-C res$ecting his reinstatement and the $a(ment of his bac!wages and other monetar( bene,ts have become ,na and e>ecutor(# res$ondent _amora# through counse# wrote $etitioner PA/ demanding the e>ecution thereof% PA/ now $ra(ed for the reversa of said 2rder as we as for the sus$ension of the $roceedings in the sub8ect case considering that $etitioner PA/# was# at that time# undergoing rehabiitation of the Securities and H>change Commission (SHC) a$$ointing a $ermanent rehabiitation receiver for $etitioner PA/ in SHC Case entited L)n the +atter of the Petition for the A$$rova of -ehabiitation Pan and for A$$ointment of a -ehabiitation -eceiver%M ISSUE* =hether or not the $roceedings in the instant case shoud have sus$ended on account of the a$$ointment of its $ermanent rehabiitation receiver% Co23#23.o2s* Petitioners PA/# et a% are of the view that the $roceedings in the instant case shoud have been sus$ended on account of the a$$ointment of its $ermanent rehabiitation receiver% The( $osit that the sus$ension automatica( a$$ies on a stages of the $roceedings incuding enforcement of ,na and e>ecutor( 8udgments% The $roceedings sha remain sus$ended unti the receivershi$ sha have been ordered ifted b( the Securities and H>change Commission% To date# PA/ is sti under $ermanent -ehabiitation -eceiver% -es$ondent _amora# in his +emorandum# o$ines that Lcontrar( to the nobe $ur$ose of a receivershi$# that is# $reservation of the distressed com$an(Is assets for utimate distribution to a creditors and a@ected $arties# $etitionerIs Amended and -estated -ehabiitation Pan (citation omitted) is actua( for the restructuring and $a(ment of $etitionerIs debts to certain creditors# e>cuding res$ondent and other em$o(ee0caimants%M HELD* Nes% The reevant aw deaing with the sus$ension of actions for caims against cor$orations is Presidentia &ecree .o% 5D30A# as amended% Particuar(# Section C(c) which readsF %ECION C* )n order to e@ective( e>ercise such 8urisdiction# the Commission sha $ossess the foowingF c) To a$$oint one or more receivers of the $ro$ert(# rea or $ersona# which is the sub8ect of the action $ending before the Commission in accordance with the $ertinent $rovisions of the -ues of Court in such other cases whenever necessar( in order to $reserve the rights of the $arties0itigants and Gor $rotect the interest of the investing $ubic and creditorsF > > > P%ov.0#0, B2'//(, T4'3 &5o2 '55o.23-#23 o: ' -'2'9#-#23 1o--.33##, 34# %#4'$./.3'3.o2 %#1#.v#%, $o'%0 o% $o0(, 5&%s&'23 3o 34.s D#1%##, '// '13.o2s :o% 1/'.-s '9'.2s3 1o%5o%'3.o2s, 5'%32#%s4.5s o% 'sso1.'3.o2s &20#% -'2'9#-#23 o% %#1#.v#%s4.5 5#20.29 $#:o%# '2( 1o&%3, 3%.$&2'/, $o'%0 o% $o0( s4'// $# s&s5#20#0 '11o%0.29/(. The term Lcaim#M as contem$ated in Sec% C (c) of Presidentia &ecree .o% 5D30A# refers Lto debts or demands of a $ecuniar( nature% )t means Xthe assertion of a right to have mone( $aid%IM The reason for sus$ending actions for caims against the cor$oration is to enabe the management committee or rehabiitation receiver to e@ective( e>ercise EB itsGhis $owers free from an( 8udicia or e>tra0 8udicia interference that might undu( hinder or $revent the LrescueM of the debtor com$an(% To aow such other action to continue woud on( add to the burden of the management committee or rehabiitation receiver# whose time# e@ort and resources woud be wasted in defending caims against the cor$oration instead of being directed toward its restructuring and rehabiitation% The aw is cearF u$on the creation of a management committee or the a$$ointment of a rehabiitation receiver# a caims for actions Lsha be sus$ended according(%M .o e>ce$tion in favor of abor caims is mentioned in the aw% Since the aw ma!es no distinction or e>em$tions# neither shoud this Court% Ubi e> non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos% )n -ubberword (Phis%)# )nc% v% ./-C# we hed that wor!erIs caims before the ./-C and abor arbiters are incuded among the actions sus$ended u$on the $acing under receivershi$ of the em$o(er0cor$orations% 2therwise stated# no other action ma( be ta!en in# incuding the rendition of 8udgment during the state of sus$ension U what are automatica( sta(ed or sus$ended are the $roceedings of an action or suit and not 8ust the $a(ment of caims during the e>ecution stage after the case had become ,na and e>ecutor(% The sus$ension of action for caims against a cor$oration under rehabiitation receiver or management committee embraces a $hases of the suit# be it before the tria court or an( tribuna or before this Court% Furthermore# the actions that are sus$ended cover a caims against a distressed cor$oration whether for damages founded on a breach of contract of carriage# abor cases# coection suits or an( other caims of a $ecuniar( nature% 54./. '.%/.2#s vs 54./. '.%/.2#s #-5/o(##s 'sso1.'3.o2 525 s1%' 2 N2007O 1.3.29 R&$$#% <o%/0 vs NLRC, "05 s1%' 72) N)O PJ)/)PP).H A)-/).HS vs% PJ)/)PP).H A)-/).HS H+P/2NHHS ASS2C)AT)2. QE3E SC-A 35 *une 45# 3DDBR FactsF The $resent $etition arose from a abor com$aint ,ed b( res$ondent PA/HA against $etitioners PA/ and one +ar( Anne de -osario# &irector of Personne of $etitioner PA/# on 4 +arch 4565% The abor com$aint charged both $etitioners with unfair abor $ractice for the aeged non0$a(ment of the 43th month $a( of $etitioner PA/Is em$o(ees who had not been reguari'ed as of the 3D of A$ri 4566# aeged( in contravention of the Coective "argaining Agreement (C"A) entered into b( $etitioner PA/ and res$ondent PA/HA% 2n C Februar( 456B# $etitioner PA/ and res$ondent PA/HA entered into a C"A covering the $eriod of 456C04565% -es$ondent PA/HA assaied the im$ementation of the guideine on the ground that a em$o(ees of PA/# reguar or non0reguar# must be $aid their 43th month $a(% )n fact# in a etter dated 4C &ecember 4566# res$ondent PA/HA# through Jerbert C% "adovino informed $etitioner PA/ that there were severa em$o(ees who faied to receive their 43th +onth Pa( as of the date of the corres$ondence% )n res$onse thereto# $etitioner PA/ informed res$ondent PA/HA that ran! and ,e em$o(ees who were reguari'ed after 3D A$ri 4566 were not entited to the 43th month $a( as the( were aread( given their Christmas bonuses on 5 &ecember 4566 $er the )m$ementing -ues of Presidentia &ecree .o% 6E4% &isagreeing with $etitioner PA/# res$ondent PA/HA ,ed a abor com$aint for unfair abor $ractice against $etitioner PA/ before the ./-C on 4 +arch 4565% The com$aint inter$osed that Lthe cut0o@ $eriod for reguari'ation shoud not be used as the $arameter for granting 43th month $a( considering that the aw does not distinguish the status of em$o(ment instead the aw covers a em$o(ees%M )n its Position Pa$er submitted before the /abor Arbiter# $etitioner PA/ countered that those ran! and ,e em$o(ees who were not reguari'ed b( 3D A$ri of a $articuar (ear are# in $rinci$e# not denied their 43th month $a( considering the( receive said mandator( bonus in the form of the Christmas "onus? that the Christmas "onus given to a its em$o(ees is deemed a com$iance with Presidentia &ecree .o% 6E4 and the atterIs im$ementing rues? and that the foregoing has been the $ractice forma( ado$ted in $revious C"AsI as ear( as 45BD% )ssueF =hether or not the Court of A$$eas committed reversibe error in a<rming the order of the ./-C for the $a(ment of the 43th month $a( or mid0(ear bonus to its em$o(ees reguari'ed after 3D A$ri 4566% SC -uingF )n a -esoution dated 45 *une 3DDB# =e resoved to sus$end the $roceedings of the case at bar in view of the on0going rehabiitation of $etitioner PA/ as mandated b( the Securities and H>change Commission% 2n 36 Se$tember 3DDB# however# the SHC issued an 2rder granting $etitioner PA/Is request to e>it from rehabiitation after successfu( stabii'ing its ,nancia o$erations% Jence# the sus$ension earier issued b( this Court is hereb( ifted# ma!ing the $resent Petition ri$e for resoution% A cursor( reading of the 456C04565 C"A of the $arties herein wi instant( revea that Art% )# Sec% 3 of said agreement made its $rovision a$$icabe to a em$o(ees in the bargaining unit% The $articuar section s$eci,ca( de,ned the sco$e of a$$ication of the C"A# thusF Section 3 U A$$ication% A the terms and conditions of em$o(ment of em$o(ees within the bargaining unit are embodied in this Agreement# and the same sha govern the reationshi$ between the Com$an( and such em$o(ees% 2n the other hand# a such bene,ts andGor $rivieges as are not e>$ress( $rovided for in this Agreement but which are now being accorded in accordance with the PA/ Personne Poicies and Procedures +anua# sha be deemed aso $art and $arce of the terms and conditions of em$o(ment# or of this Agreement% =ithout distinguishing between reguar and non0reguar em$o(ees% As succinct( $ut b( res$ondent PA/HA in its +emorandumF A E6 em$o(ees in PA/ are entited to the same bene,t as the( are within the same coective bargaining unit and the entitement to such bene,t s$is over to even non0union members% )t is a we0setted doctrine that the bene,ts of a C"A e>tend to the aborers and em$o(ees in the coective bargaining unit# incuding those who do not beong to the chosen bargaining abor organi'ation% 2therwise# it woud be a cear case of discrimination% Jence# to be entited to the bene,ts under the C"A# the em$o(ees must be members of the bargaining unit# but not necessari( of the abor organi'ation designated as the bargaining agent% A Lbargaining unitM has been de,ned as a grou$ of em$o(ees of a given em$o(er# com$rised of a or ess than a of the entire bod( of em$o(ees# which the coective interest of a the em$o(ees# consistent with equit( to the em$o(er# indicates to be the best suited to serve the reci$roca rights and duties of the $arties under the coective bargaining $rovisions of the aw% There is no showing that the non0reguar status of the concerned em$o(ees b( said cut0o@ date su<cient( distinguishes their interests from those of the reguar em$o(ees so as to e>cude them from the coective bargaining unit and the bene,ts of the C"A% Javing rued that the bene,ts $rovided b( the sub8ect C"A are a$$icabe even to non0reguar em$o(ees who beong to the bargaining unit concerned# the ne>t and crucia quer( to be addressed is whether the 43th month $a( or mid0 (ear bonus can be equated to the Christmas bonus% As far as non0reguar em$o(ees are concerned# $etitioner PA/ aeges that their 43th month $a( sha be the same as their Christmas bonus and wi be $aid according to the terms governing the atter% =e do not agree% From the facts of the $resent Petition# it is cr(sta cear that $etitioner PA/ is caiming an e>em$tion from $a(ment of the 43th month $a( or mid0(ear bonus $rovided in the C"A under the guise of $a(ing the Christmas bonus which it caims to be the equivaent of the 43th month $a( under Presidentia &ecree .o% 6E4% Presidentia &ecree .o% 6E4 mandates that a em$o(ers must $a( a their em$o(ees receiving a basic saar( of not more than P4#DDD%DD a month# regardess of the nature of the em$o(ment# a 43th month $a( not ater than 3A &ecember of ever( (ear% =hie em$o(ers aread( $a(ing their em$o(ees a 43th month $a( or more in a caendar (ear or its equivaent at the time of the issuance of Presidentia &ecree .o% 6E4 are aread( e>em$ted from the mandator( coverage of said aw# $etitioner PA/ cannot esca$e iabiit( in this case b( virtue thereof% )t must be stressed that in the 456C04565 C"A# $etitioner PA/ agreed to $a( its em$o(ees 4) the 43th month $a( or the mid0(ear bonus# and 3) the Christmas bonus% The 43th month $a(# guaranteed b( Presidentia &ecree .o% 6E4# is e>$icit( covered or $rovided for as the mid0 (ear bonus in the C"A# whie the Christmas bonus is evident( and distinct( a se$arate bene,t% Petitioner PA/ ma( not be aowed to brush o@ said distinction# and uniatera( and arbitrari( decare that for non0reguar em$o(ees# their Christmas bonus is the same as or equivaent to the 43th month $a(% Presidentia &ecree .o% 6E4 mandates the $a(ment of the 43th month $a( to uniform( $rovide the ow0$aid em$o(ees with additiona income% )t but sets a minimum requirement that em$o(ers must com$( with% )t does not intend# however# to $recude the em$o(ers from vountari( granting additiona bonuses that wi bene,t their em$o(ees% A bonus is an amount granted and $aid to an em$o(ee for his industr( and o(at( which contributed to the success of the em$o(er1s business and made $ossibe the reai'ation of $ro,ts% )t is an act of generosit( of the em$o(er for which the em$o(ee ought to be than!fu and gratefu% )t is aso granted b( an enightened em$o(er to s$ur the em$o(ee to greater e@orts for the success of the business and reai'ation of bigger $ro,ts% =e deem that the Christmas bonus in this case is of this nature# athough# b( virtue of its incor$oration into the C"A# it has become more than 8ust an act of generosit( on the $art of $etitioner PA/# but a contractua obigation it has underta!en% The incusion of a $rovision for the continued $a(ment of the Christmas bonus in the 456C0 4565 C"A between res$ondent PA/HA and $etitioner PA/ contradicts the com$an(Is caim that the grant of such bene,t was intended to be credited as com$iance with the statutor( mandate to give the 43th month $a(% +emorandum 2rder .o% 36# e>tending Presidentia &ecree .o% 6E4 to a em$o(ees regardess of the amount of their month( saaries# was issued on 43 August 456C% As ear( as said date# therefore# $etitioner PA/ was aread( fu( aware that it was awfu( com$eed to accord a its em$o(ees a 43th month $a(% According(# if $etitioner PA/ tru( intended that the Christmas bonus be treated as the LequivaentM of the 43th month $a( required b( aw# then said intention shoud have been e>$ress( decared in their 456C0 4565 C"A# or the se$arate $rovision therein on the Christmas bonus shoud have been removed because it woud on( be su$erKuous% )n the case under consideration# the $rovision for the $a(ment of the Christmas bonus# a$art from the 43th month $a(# was incor$orated into the 456C04565 C"A between res$ondent PA/HA and $etitioner PA/ without an( condition% The Christmas bonus# $a(abe in &ecember of ever( (ear# is distinguished from the 43th month $a(# due (ear( in +a(# for which reason it was denominated as the mid0(ear bonus% Such being the case# the on( ogica inference that coud be derived therefrom is that $etitioner PA/ intended to give the members of the bargaining unit# re$resented b( res$ondent PA/HA# a Christmas bonus over and above its ega( mandated obigation to grant the 43th month $a(% The non0reguar ran! and ,e em$o(ees of $etitioner PA/ as of 3D A$ri 4566# are not actua( see!ing more bene,ts than what the other member0em$o(ees of the same bargaining unit are aread( en8o(ing% The( are on( requesting that a members of the bargaining unit be treated equa( and a@orded the same $rivieges and bene,ts as agreed u$on between res$ondent PA/HA and $etitioner PA/ in the C"A% E5 A coective bargaining agreement refers to a negotiated contract between a egitimate abor organi'ation and the em$o(er concerning wages# hours of wor! and a other terms and conditions of em$o(ment in a bargaining unit% As in a other contracts# the $arties to a C"A ma( estabish such sti$uations# causes# terms and conditions as the( ma( deem convenient# $rovided these are not contrar( to aw# moras# good customs# $ubic order or $ubic $oic(% Thus# where the C"A is cear and unambiguous# it becomes the aw between the $arties# and com$iance therewith is mandated b( the e>$ress $oic( of the aw% Garcia vs Phil. Airlines GR No. 164856, January 20, 2009 Facts: Philippine Airlines filed a case against its employees herein petitioners for allegedly caught in the act of sniffing shabu when a team of company security personnel and law enforcers raided the PAL Technical Centers Toolroom Section After due notice! PAL dismissed petitioner for transgressing companys Code of "iscipline prompting them to file a Complaint for illegal dismissal which the Labor Arbiter #LA$ in its decision ruled on their fa%or ordering PAL to immediately comply with the reinstatement aspect of the decision Prior to the &udgment! S'C placed PAL under (nterim )ehabilitation )ecei%er who subse*uently replaced by Permanent )ehabilitation )ecei%er +n appeal! ,L)C re%ersed said decision and dismissed petitioners complaint for lac- of merit Subse*uently! LA issued a .rit of '/ecution respecting the reinstatement aspect of his decision )espondent filed an 0rgent Petition for (n&unction with the ,L)C The ,L)C affirmed the %alidity of the .rit and the ,otice issued by LA but suspended and referred the action to the )ehabilitation )ecei%er for appropriate action +n appeal! the appellate court partially granted the petition and effecti%ely reinstated the ,L)C resolution insofar as it suspended the proceedings 1y manifestation! respondent informed the Court that S'C issued an +rder granting its re*uest to e/it from rehabilitation proceedings (ssue: .hether or not petitioner may collect their wages during the period between the LAs +rder of reinstatement pending appeal and the ,L)C decision o%erturning that of the LA! now that PAL has e/ited from rehabilitation proceedings )uling: A dismissed employee whose case was fa%orably decided by the LA is entitled to recei%e wages pending appeal upon reinstatement! which is immediately e/ecutory 0nless there is a restraining order! it is ministerial upon the LA to implement the order of reinstatement and it is mandatory on the employer to comply therewith The Court reaffirms the pre%ailing principle that e%en if the order of reinstatement of the LA is re%ersed on appeal! it is obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until re%ersal by the higher court (t settles the %iew that the LAs order of reinstatement is immediately e/ecutory and the employer has to either re2admit them to wor- under the same terms and conditions pre%ailing prior to their dismissal! or to reinstate them in the payroll! and that filing to e/ercise the options in the alternati%e! employer must pay the employees salaries .hen reinstatement pending appeal aims to a%ert the continuing threat or danger to the sur%i%al or e%en the life of the dismissed employee and his family! it does not contemplate the period when the employer2 corporation itself is similarly in a &udicially monitored state of being resuscitated in order to sur%i%e ATTORNEY=S FEES AND APPEARANCE OF LA<YERS CPI E+PLOYEES UNION,ALU vs NLRC G.R. No. L,67!6,!7 +'%14 "), )6 FACTS* )n the course of their negotiations with the "an! of the Phii$$ine )sands for a new C"A to re$ace the one e>$iring on +arch 34# 4563# serious di@erences arose between the "P) Hm$o(ees Union0+etro +ania and its mother federation# the Associated /abor Unions% This $rom$ted the former to manifest that it woud henceforth negotiate aone with "P) inde$endent( of A/U# which in turn# sus$ended a the eective o<cers of "P)HU0+etro +ania ed b( its $resident# Carito -e(es# who was re$aced b( -oando :ade' as acting $resident% )n retaiation# -e(es and his foowers# caiming to be the ega and soe re$resentatives of "P)HU0 +etro +ania# forma( disa<iated from A/U on .ovember 4C# 4563% As no agreement coud be reached on a wide variet( of economic issues# the dis$ute between "P) and its em$o(ees was certi,ed b( the +inister of /abor for com$usor( arbitration and doc!eted in the .ationa /abor -eations Commission as Certi,ed Cases .os% D3B5 and D364% These cases were ater consoidated with the +anifestation and +otion for )nter$eader and to Consign Union &ues# which was ,ed b( "P) in view of the conKicting caims of the -e(es and :ade' grou$s for the said dues% 2n +arch 33# 4563# the ./-C resoved the bargaining deadoc! b( ,>ing the wage increases and other economic bene,ts and ordering them to be embodied in a new coective bargaining agreement to be concuded b( "P)HU0+etro +ania and A/U with "P)% )t did not decide the intra0union dis$ute# however# hoding that this was under the origina 8urisdiction of the med0arbiter and the e>cusive a$$eate 8urisdiction of the "ureau of /abor -eations% Caiming to be the abor union referred to in the decision# the -e(es grou$ ,ed a $etition with the "ureau of /abor -eations for direct certi,cation on the ground of its disa<iation from A/U% This $etition was denied in a decision dated *une 43# 4563# where "/- &irector Cresenciano Tra8ano hed that the disa<iation was invaid because it was done be(ond the freedom $eriod% The -e(es grou$ then came to this Court in a $etition for certiorari# with a $ra(er for a tem$orar( restraining order# which we issued on *u( 44# 4563# to $revent the "/- and the "P) from enforcing the above0cited decision% =e eventua( dismissed the $etition for ac! of merit and ifted the tem$orar( restraining order on Februar( 4C# 456E# ater CD den(ing the motion for reconsideration on +arch 3B# 456E% HELD* The Court has studied the arguments of the $arties and is unabe to acce$t the $etitioner1s contention% 2ur ,nding is that athough the tem$orar( restraining order was strict( s$ea!ing addressed on( to "P) and A/U# it was entire( $ro$er for the ./-C itsef to abide b( it# and not on( out of res$ect for this Court% The decision sought to be enforced caed for the concusion of a coective bargaining agreement between "P) and the members of "P)HU0A/U% The question $recise( before the Court then was which as between the -e(es and :ade' grou$s shoud be recogni'ed as the egitimate re$resentative of the em$o(ees in genera to negotiate with "P) ./-C had no 8urisdiction to resove that question% 2bvious(# its own decision of +arch 33# 4563# coud not be enforced unti that question was ,rst ceared% Second )ssue As a resut of its merger with the Commercia "an! and Trust Com$an( in 4564# the "P) found it necessar( to cose the C2+T-UST branch in &avao Cit( and transfer it to Genera Santos Cit(% Pursuant to an earier understanding# seven of the em$o(ees of the said branch who were absorbed b( "P) were transferred to the Genera Santos Cit( branch% Jowever# three of them# name( Genna# 2ng!i!o# Arturo .a$aes# and Gregorio Gito# refused to move% After e@orts to $ersuade them faied# "P) dismissed them% This triggered a stri!e b( the &avao Cha$ter of the "P)HU0A/U which was foowed b( s(m$ath( stri!es b( other oca cha$ters% 2n 2ctober 45# 4563# the +inister of /abor sustained the transfer of the three em$o(ees b( the "P) and issued a return0to0 wor! order% This was ignored b( the stri!ing wor!ers# who continued to question the transfer% Another return0to0wor! order was issued# this time b( the ./-C# which was obe(ed b( the stri!ers u$on admission b( the "P) of the three recacitrant em$o(ees to their origina stations in &avao Cit(% This was done $ending the o$ening of the Genera Santos Cit( branch% U$on the inauguration of the said branch# "P) ,ed a motion to transfer the said em$o(ees thereto as sanctioned earier b( the +inister of /abor% The situation was com$icated when another em$o(ee# /ennie Aninon who had earier agreed to transfer# now insisted on remaining in the &avao Cit( branch% She too was incuded in the motion# which was granted b( the ./-C in its decision dated &ecember E# 456A% .a$aes and Gito agreed to move to Genera Santos Cit(# but the two ad( em$o(ees# to wit 2ng!i!o and Aninon remained adamant% The $etitioners contend that the decision of the ./-C of &ecember E# 456A# directing the transfer of the four em$o(ees is aso tainted with grave abuse of discretion and shoud be set aside% This matter need not detain us too ong for the issue is hard( debatabe% )ndeed# the right of the em$o(er to transfer the em$o(ees in the interest of the e<cient and economic o$eration of its business cannot be serious( chaenged% That is its $rerogative% The on( imitation on the discretion of management in this regard is its maa ,des% The on( time the em$o(er cannot e>ercise this right is where it is vitiated b( im$ro$er motive and is mere( a disguised attem$t to remove or $unish the em$o(ee sought to be transferred% Such im$ro$er motive has not been shown in the case at bar% 2n the contrar(# it has been estabished that the transfer was necessitated b( the fact that the C2+"A.T branch in &avao Cit( had to be cosed because it was 8ust across the street from the "P) branch% There was certain( no 8usti,cation to maintain the two branches as the( both beonged now to the "P)% +oreover# it is not dis$uted that the atera transfer of the em$o(ees invoved no demotion in their ran! or saar( or other bene,ts% )t is not dis$uted that Genera Santos Cit( is in the Southern +indanao area% G%-% .os% BC6A30AA Foowing the dismissa of its $etition against the "/- the -e(es grou$# on A$ri 3C# 456E# ,ed a motion with the ./-C for the reease to it of the union dues consigned b( "P)% 4C This motion was o$$osed b( the :ade' grou$# which subsequent( ,ed its own $etition for the $a(ment to it of the said dues# on the ground that it was the egitimate "P)HU recogni'ed b( the "/-% 4B )n its decision dated Se$tember 3C# 456C% The $etitioner is obvious( in error% As the disa<iation of the -e(es grou$ was disaowed b( the "/- because it was done be(ond the freedom $eriod# the -e(es grou$ coud not have caimed an )dentit( distinct from that of the origina "P)HU0+etro +ania% For the same reason# the :ade' grou$ coud not e>cude the -e(es grou$ from the same "P)HU0 +etro +ania because both of them were sti $art of that origina oca union% )n other words# "P)HU0+etro +ania then consisted of the members of the two contending grou$s whose a<iation with A/U# as the mother federation# remained intact% )n an( event# this issue of dues0sharing has aso become moot and academic now because the -e(es grou$ has ,na( succeeded in disa<iating from A/U and is now a se$arate and inde$endent union% As such# it does not have to share with A/U whatever union dues it ma( now coect from its members% "ut at the time this $etition was ,ed# the issue was ver( much aive and had to be resoved to determine who were entited to the union dues and in what $ro$ortion% The ./-C therefore did not commit an( grave abuse of discretion in rendering the chaenged decision as we have here inter$reted it% G%-% .os% BC54C04B 2n A$ri B# 4563# the /abor Arbiter issued an order directing the res$ondent ban! to chec! o@ the amount of E V of the tota economic bene,ts due its em$o(ees under the new coective bargaining agreement between the ban! and the union corres$onding to the ,rst (ear of e@ectivit( thereof and to deiver the amount coected to Att(% /acsina or to his du( authori'ed re$resentative% "P) deducted the amount of P 3DD%DD from each of the em$o(ees who had signed the authori'ation% C4 U$on earning about this# the $etitioners chaenged the said order# on the ground that it was not authori'ed under the /abor Code% 2n A$ri 4E# 4563# the ./-C issued a resoution setting aside the order and requiring "P) to safe!ee$ the amounts sought to be deducted 7unti the rights thereto of the interested $arties sha have been determined in a$$ro$riate $roceedings% Subsequent(# the ./-C issued an en banc resoution dated Se$tember 3B# 4563# ordering the reease to /acsina of the amounts deducted 7e>ce$t with res$ect to an( $ortion thereof as to which no individua signed authori'ation has been given b( the members concerned or where such authori'ation has been withdrawn% Art% 333% A$$earances and Fees%0 % % % (b) .o attorne(1s fees# negotiation fees or simiar charges of an( !ind arising from an( coective bargaining negotiations or concusions of the coective agreement sha be im$osed on an( individua member of the contracting unionF Provided# however# that attorne(1s fees ma( be charged against union funds in an amount to be agreed u$on b( the $arties% An( contract# agreement or arrangement of an( sort to the contrar( sha be nu and void% The case of Paci,c "an!ing Cor$oration v% Cave where the aw(er1s fee was ta!en not from the tota economic bene,ts received b( the wor!ers but from the funds of their abor union% The Court reads the afore0cited $rovision as $rohibiting the $a(ment of attorne(1s fees on( when it is e@ected through forced contributions from the wor!ers from their own funds as distinguished from the union funds% The $ur$ose of the $rovision is to $revent im$osition on the wor!ers of the dut( to individua( contribute their res$ective shares in the fee to be $aid the attorne( for his services on behaf of the union in its negotiations with the management% The obigation to $a( the attorne(1s fees beongs to the union and cannot be shunted to the wor!ers as their direct res$onsibiit(% .either the aw(er nor the union itsef ma( require the individua wor!ers to assume the obigation to $a( the attorne(1s fees from their own $oc!ets% So categorica is this intent that the aw aso ma!es it cear that an( agreement to the contrar( sha be nu and void ab initio% The cour t sees no such im$osition in the case at bar% A reading of the above0cited resoution wi cear( show that the signatories thereof have not been in an( manner com$eed to underta!e the obigation the( have there assumed% 2n the contrar( it is $ain that the( were vountari( authori'ing the chec!0o@ of the attorne(1s fees from their $a(ment of bene,ts and the turnover to /acsina of the amounts deducted# conformab( to their agreement with him% There is no com$usion here% And signi,cant(# the authori'ed deductions a@ected on( the wor!ers who ado$ted and signed the resoution and who were the on( ones from whose bene,ts the deductions were made b( "P)% .o simiar deductions were ta!en from the other wor!ers who did not sign the resoution and so were not bound b( it% That on( those who signed the resoution coud be sub8ected to the authori'ed deductions was recogni'ed and made cear b( the order itsef of the ./-C% )t was there categorica( decared that the chec!0o@ coud not be made where 7no individua signed authori'ation has been given b( the members concerned or where such authori'ation has been withdrawn%7 The Paci,c "an!ing Cor$oration case is not a$$icabe to the $resent case because there was there no simiar agreement as that entered into between /acsina and the signatories of the resoution in question% Absent such an agreement# there was no question that the basic $roscri$tion in Artice 333 woud have to o$erate% +oreover# the case is covered square( b( the mandator( and e>$icit $rescri$tion of Art% 333 which is another guarantee intended to $rotect the em$o(ee against unwarranted $ractices that woud diminish his com$ensation without his !nowedge and consent% A simiar recognition was made in Gavadores v% Tra8ano# where the $a(ment of the attorne(1s fees from the wages of the em$o(ees was not aowed becauseF 7.o chec!0o@s from an( amount due to em$o(ees ma( be e@ected without individua written authorities du( signed b( the em$o(ees s$eci,ca( stating the amount# $ur$ose and bene,ciar( of the deduction% The required individua authori'ations in this case are wanting%7 Fina(# the court hod that the agreement in question is in ever( res$ect a vaid contract as it satis,es a the eements thereof and does not contravene aw# moras# good customs# $ubic order# or $ubic $oic(% 2n the contrar(# it enabes the wor!ers to avai themseves of the services of the aw(er of their choice and con,dence under terms mutua( acce$tabe to the $arties and# ho$efu(# aso for their mutua bene,t% The $etitions in G%-% .os% C5BAC0AB# BC6A30AA# and BC54C04B are &)S+)SSH&% TRADERS ROYAL CANK E+PLOYEES UNION,INDEPENDENT vs. NLRC G.R. No. )2052. +'%14 )!, )7 FACTS* Petitioner Traders -o(a "an! Hm$o(ees Union and $rivate res$ondent Att(% Hmmanue .oe A% Cru'# head of H%.%A% Cru' and Associates aw ,rm# entered into a retainer agreement whereb( the former obigated itsef to $a( the atter a month( retainer fee of P3#DDD%DD in consideration of the aw ,rmIs underta!ing to render the services enumerated in their contract% &uring the e>istence of that agreement# $etitioner union referred to $rivate res$ondent the caims of its members for hoida(# mid U (ear and (ear U end bonuses against their em$o(er# Traders -o(a "an!% The ./-C rendered a decision in favor of the em$o(ees# awarding them the said di@erentias% Jowever# $ending the hearing of the a$$ication for the writ of e>ecution# T-C chaenged the decision of the ./-C before the Su$reme Court% The Court modi,ed the decision of the ./-C b( deeting the award of hoida( $a( di@erentias% After $rivate res$ondent received decision# he noti,ed the C3 $etitioner union# the T-" management and the ./-C of his right to e>ercise and enforce the attorne(Is ien over the award of hoida( $a( di@erentia% Je ,ed a motion before the /abor Arbiter for the determination of the attorne(Is fees# $ra(ing that 4DV of the tota award be decared as his attorne(s fees% The /abor Arbiter granted the motion of the $rivate res$ondent% The ./-C a<rmed the order% Petitioner maintains that the ./-C committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to ac! of 8urisdiction in u$hoding the award of attorne(Is fees% )t contends that the award for attorne(Is fees shoud have been incor$orated in the main case and not after the Su$reme Court had aread( reviewed and $assed u$on the decision of the ./-C% A attorne(Is fees due to $rivate res$ondent were covered b( the retainer fee of P3#DDD%DD which it has been reguar( $a(ing to $rivate res$ondent under their retainer agreement% Private res$ondent maintains that his motion to determine attorne(Is fees was 8ust an incident of the main case where $etitioner was awarded its mone( caims% The grant of attorne(Is fees was the consequence of his e>ercise of his attorne(Is ien% Private res$ondent contends that a retainer fee is not the attorne(Is fees contem$ated for and commensurate to the services he rendered to $etitioner% Jence# the $etition at bar% ISSUES* =hether or notF 4% Private res$ondent is entited to attorne(Is fees even if no caim for such was ,ed before the ./-C% 3% Private res$ondent is entited to an additiona remuneration under the retainer agreement entered into b( him and $etitioner% HELD* 4%Nes% Private res$ondent is entited to attorne(Is fees% There are two common( acce$ted conce$ts of attorne(Is fee# the so U caed ordinar( and e>traordinar(% )n its ordinar( conce$t# an attorne(Is fee is the reasonabe com$ensation $aid to a aw(er b( his cient for the ega services he has rendered to the atter% The basis of this com$ensation is the fact of his em$o(ment b( and his agreement with his cient% )n its e>traordinar( conce$t# an attorne(Is fee is an indemnit( for damages ordered b( the court to be $aid b( the osing $art( in itigation% The basis of this is an( of the cases $rovided b( aw where such award can be made# such as those authori'ed under Artice 33D6# Civi Code# and is $a(abe not to the aw(er but to the cient# uness the( have agreed that the award sha $ertain to the aw(er as additiona com$ensation or as $art thereof% A caim for attorne(Is fees ma( be asserted either in the ver( action in which the services of a aw(er had been rendered or in se$arate action% Private res$ondent was we within his rights when he made his caim and waited for the ,nait( of the 8udgment for hoida( $a( di@erentia# instead of ,ing it ahead of the awardIs com$ete resoution% To decare that a aw(er ma( ,e a caim for fees in the same action on( before the 8udgment is reviewed b( a higher tribuna woud de$rive him of his o$tions and render ine@ective the $ronouncements of the Court% 3% Nes# Private res$ondent is entited to an additiona remuneration% There are two !inds of retainer fees a cient ma( $a( his aw(er% These are a genera retainer# or a retaining fee# and a s$ecia retainer% A genera retainer# or retaining fee# is the fee $aid to a aw(er to secure his future services as genera counse for an( ordinar( ega $robem that ma( arise in the routinar( business of the cient and referred to him for ega action% The future services of the aw(er are secured and committed to the retaining cient% For this# the cient $a(s the aw(er a ,>ed retainer fee which coud be month( or otherwise# de$ending u$on their arrangement% The reason for the remuneration is that the aw(er is that the aw(er is de$rived of the o$$ortunit( of rendering services for a fee to the o$$osing $art( or other $arties% )n ,ne# it is a com$ensation for ost o$$ortunities% A s$ecia retainer is a fee for a s$eci,c case handed or s$ecia service rendered b( the aw(er for a cient% A cient ma( have severa cases demanding s$ecia or individua attention% )f for ever( case there is a se$arate and inde$endent contract for attorne(Is fees# each fee is considered a s$ecia retainer% The P3%DDD%DD which $etitioner $a(s month( to $rivate res$ondent does not cover the services the atter actua( rendered before the abor arbiter and the ./-C in behaf of the former% The P3#DDD%DD month( fee $rovided in the retainer agreement between the union and the aw ,rm refers to a genera retainer# or a retaining fee# as said month( fee covers on( the aw ,rmIs $edge# or as e>$ress( stated therein# its Lcommitment to render the ega services enumerated%M The fee is not $a(ment for $rivate res$ondentIs e>ecution or $erformance of the services isted in the contract# sub8ect to some $articuar quai,cations or $ermutations stated there% )t is inde$endent and di@erent from the com$ensation which $rivate res$ondent shoud receive in $a(ment for his services% )t is not necessar( that the $arties agree on a de,nite fee for the s$ecia services rendered b( $rivate res$ondent in order that $etitioner ma( be obigated to $a( com$ensation to the former% Hquit( and fair $a( dictate that $etitioner shoud $a( the same after it acce$ted# avaied itsef of# and bene,ted from $rivate res$ondentIs services% =hether there is an agreement or not# the courts can ,> a reasonabe com$ensation which aw(ers shoud receive for their $rofessiona services% The measure of com$ensation for $rivate res$ondent1s services as against his cient shoud $ro$er( be addressed b( the rue of 4uantum meruit ong ado$ted in this 8urisdiction% :uantum meruit# meaning 7as much as he deserves#7 is used as the basis for determining the aw(er1s $rofessiona fees in the absence of a contract# but recoverabe b( him from his cient% The doctrine of 4uantum meruit is a device to $revent undue enrichment based on the equitabe $ostuate that it is un8ust for a $erson to retain bene,t without $a(ing for it% C3 C%'4- I20&s3%.#s, I21. vs. NLRC G.R. No. ))665" O13o$#% )6, )7 FACTS* -es$ondents ,ed a case for iega sus$ension# iega dismissa# iega a(o@# iega deductions# non0$a(ment of service incentive eave# 43 th month $a( and actua#ora and e>em$ar( damages against $etitioner before the /A% Petitioner aeged that res$ondents were never em$o(ed on a reguar basis as the atter had their own customers who required them to render home device% The /A rued in favor of res$ondents thus the order for reinstatement and $a(ment of bac!wages in their favor% U$on a$$ea b( $etitioner# the ./-C a<rmed the /AIs decision but modi,ed it with res$ect to attorne(Is fees# hence its reduction to EV of the tota monetar( award ($revious( 4DV)% Jence# this $etition% ISSUE* =hether or not $etitioners were entited to attorne(Is fees% HELD* The SC hed that des$ite the fact that the matter on attorne(Is fees was touched on( once in the dis$ositive $ortion of the /AIs decision and that no discussion or reason was stated thereof# $etitioners shoud be awarded the same% )n the /AIs decision# it invo!ed Art% 33D6 of the Civi Code which aows attorne(Is fees to be awarded b( a court where its caimant is com$eed to itigate with third $ersons b( reason of un8usti,ed act or omission of the $art( for whom its is sought% The SC further rued that nothing $recudes the a$$eate courts from reducing the award of attorne(Is fees where it is found to be unconscionabe or e>cessive under the circumstances% )n this case# the ./-C reduced to EV the ad8udged reief# it a$$earing that the substantia $ortion of H#.%s o: R#(2'/0o A2.$'2 vs. N'3.o2'/ L'$o% R#/'3.o2s Co--.ss.o2 G.R. No. ))6"5!. D#1#-$#% !, )7 FACTS* -e(nado Aniban was em$o(ed b( the Phii$$ine Transmarine Carriers# )nc% (T-A.S+A-).H) acting in behaf of its foreign $rinci$a .orwegian Shi$ +anagement AGS (.2-=HG)A.) as radio o$erator (-G2) on board the vesse 7Tasse7 for a contract $eriod of 5 to 44 months% &uring the $eriod of his em$o(ment# Aniban died due to m(ocardia infarction% Je was survived b( a $regnant wife and 3 minor chidren who $ra(ed for death bene,ts $rovided under the P2HA Standard Hm$o(ment Contract% A caim was aso made for additiona death bene,ts under the Coective "argaining Agreement e>ecuted between Associated +arine 2<cers and Seamen1s Union of the Phii$$ines and .2-=HG)A. re$resented b( T-A.S+A-).H which $rovided for additiona com$ensation of USP3D#DDD%DD $us USP6#DDD%DD to each chid under the age of 46 (ears# ma>imum USP3A#DDD%DD (not e>ceeding 3 chidren) in the event of death of an o<cer due to an occu$ationa in8ur( or disease whie serving on board# whie traveing to and from the vesse on Com$an(1s business or due to marine $eri% The caim under the C"A was re8ected on the ground that m(ocardia infarction of which -G2 Aniban died was not an occu$ationa disease as to entite his heirs to the additiona death bene,ts $rovided therein% Consequent(# "rigida Aniban and her chidren ,ed a forma com$aint for non0$a(ment of death com$ensation bene,ts under the C"A% ISSUESF Two issues are raised before the SCF (a) whether the P2HA has 8urisdiction to determine the caim of $etitioners for death bene,ts# and (b) whether m(ocardia infarction is an occu$ationa disease as to entite $etitioners to the death bene,ts $rovided under the C"A% HELD* The aw a$$icabe at the time the com$aint was ,ed on 43 .ovember 4553 was Art% 3D of the /abor Code as amended which cear( $rovided that 7origina and e>cusive 8urisdiction over a matters or cases incuding mone( caims# invoving em$o(er0em$o(ee reations# arising out of or b( virtue of an( aw or contract invoving Fii$ino seamen for overseas em$o(ment is vested with the P2HA% 2n the other hand# the 8urisdiction of the Hm$o(ment Com$ensation Commission comes into $a( on( when the iabiit( of the State )nsurance Fund is in issue# as correct( suggested b( the Soicitor Genera% The HCC was created under Tite ))# "!% ):# of the /abor Code with the heading of Hm$o(ees Com$ensation and State )nsurance Fund% )n addition to its $owers and duties enumerated in Art% 4BB# Art% 46D e>$icit( $rovides that the Commission e>ercises a$$eate 8urisdiction on( over decisions rendered b( either the GS)S or SSS in the e>ercise of their res$ective origina and e>cusive 8urisdictions% Jence# the HCC ma( not be considered as having 8urisdiction over mone( caims# abeit death com$ensation bene,ts# of overseas contract wor!ers% +(ocardia infarction is an occu$ationa disease% Athough it ma( be conceded in the instant case that the $h(sica e>ertion invoved in carr(ing out the functions of a radio o$erator ma( have been quite minima# we cannot discount the $ressure and strain that went with the $osition of radio o$erator% As radio o$erator# -e(nado Aniban had to $ace his fu attention in hearing the e>act messages received b( the vesse and to rea( those that needed to be transmitted to the mainand or to other vesses% =e have aread( recogni'ed that an( !ind of wor! or abor $roduces stress and strain norma( resuting in the wear and tear of the human bod(% )t is not required that the occu$ation be the on( cause of the disease as it is enough that the em$o(ment contributed even in a sma degree to its deveo$ment% )t must be stressed that the strict rues of evidence are not a$$icabe in caims for com$ensation considering that $robabiit( and not the utimate degree of certaint( is the test of $roof in com$ensation $roceedings% VIRGILIO SAPIO vs. UNDALOC CONSTRUCTION PG.R. No. )550"!. +'( 22, 2006Q F'13s* The controvers( started with a com$aint ,ed b( $etitioner against Undaoc Construction andGor Hngineer Cirio Undaoc for CA iega dismissa# under$a(ment of wages and non$a(ment of statutor( bene,ts% -es$ondent Undaoc Construction# a singe $ro$rietorshi$ owned b( Cirio Undaoc# is engaged in road construction business in Cebu Cit(% Petitioner had been em$o(ed as watchman from 4 +a( 455E to 3D +a( 4556 when he was terminated on the ground that the $ro8ect he was assigned to was aread( ,nished# he being aeged( a $ro8ect em$o(ee% "ut $etitioner asserted that he was a reguar em$o(ee having been engaged to $erform wor!s which are 7usua( necessar( or desirabe7 in res$ondents1 business% Iss&#* (4) =hether or not the $etitioner is a $ro8ect em$o(ee and (3) whether or not he is entited to saar( di@erentia a$art from attorne(Is fees% SC R&/.29* That $etitioner was a $ro8ect em$o(ee became a non0issue beginning with the decision of the /abor Arbiter% Contested sti is his entitement to saar( di@erentia# a$art from attorne(1s fees% =ith regards to this issue# the court said that the concusion of the /abor Arbiter that entries in the &ecember 455E $a(ro sheet coud have been atered is utter( baseess% The caim that the &ecember 455E $a(ro sheet was written in $enci and was thus rendered it $rone to aterations or erasures is cear( non se4uitur% The same is true with res$ect to the t($ewritten $a(ro sheets% )n fact# neither the /abor Arbiter nor the ./-C found an( ateration or erasure or traces thereat# whether on the $enci0written or t($ewritten $a(ro sheets% )ndeed# the most minute e>amination wi not revea an( tam$ering% Furthermore# if there is an( adverse concusion as regards the &ecember 455E $a(ro sheet# it must be con,ned on( to it and cannot be a$$ied to the t($ewritten $a(ro sheets% +oreover# absent an( evidence to the contrar(# good faith must be $resumed in this case% Hntries in the $a(ro# being entries in the course of business# en8o( the $resum$tion of reguarit( under -ue 43D# Section A3 of the -ues of Court% Jence# whie as a genera rue# the burden of $roving $a(ment of monetar( caims rests on the em$o(er# when fraud is aeged in the $re$aration of the $a(ro# the burden of evidence shifts to the em$o(ee and it is incumbent u$on him to adduce cear and convincing evidence in su$$ort of his caim% Unfortunate(# $etitioner1s bare assertions of fraud do not su<ce to overcome the dis$utabe $resum$tion of reguarit(% =hie we adhere to the $osition of the a$$eate court that the 7tendenc(7 to ater the entries in the $a(ros was not substantiated# we cannot however subscribe to the tota deetion of the award of saar( di@erentia and attorne(1s fees# as it so rued% The award of attorne(1s fees is warranted under the circumstances of this case% Thus# the $etition is $artia( granted% Petitioner is awarded the saar( di@erentia in the reduced amount of P43#4EC%DD and res$ondents are directed to $a( the same# as we as ten $ercent (4DV) of the award as attorne(1s fees% JOSE +AJ S. ORTII vs. SAN +IGUEL CORPORATION PG.R. Nos. )5)6",6! J&/( "), 2006Q FACTSF The $etitioner in this case# *ose +a> S% 2rti'# is a member of the Phii$$ine "arwho re$resented the com$ainants in ./-C Cases .o% :0D3EE05A (hereinafter referred to as the Aguirre Cases) and .o% :0DDC605E (hereinafter referred to as the Toquero Case) instituted against herein $rivate res$ondent San +igue Cor$oration sometime in 4553 and 4553% The com$ainants in ./-C Cases# Aguirre Cases and Toquero Case were em$o(ees at $rivate res$ondent1s Saes 2<ces in the Province of .egros 2ccidenta% The com$ainants of Cases# Aguire and Toquero got a favorabe decision in ./-C regarding their mone( caims against San +igue Cor$oration% )n e@ect# San +igue Cor$oration ,ed a Petitions for Certiorari% =hie this res$ondentIs $etitions were $ending before the Court of A$$eas# a but one of the remaining com$ainants in Aguirre and Toquero Cases on various dates before two /abor Arbiters and in the $resence of two witnesses# signed se$arate &eeds of -eease# =aiver and Ouitcaim in favor of $rivate res$ondent% "ased on the &eeds the( e>ecuted# com$ainants agreed to sette their caims against $rivate res$ondent for amounts ess than what the ./-C actua( awarded% Private res$ondent withhed 4DV of the tota amount agreed u$on b( the $arties in the said &eeds as attorne(1s fees and handed it over to $etitioner% Private res$ondent then attached the &eeds to its +anifestation and +otion ,ed before the a$$eate court% Then the Court of a$$eas rendered a decision a<rming the ./-C decisions# on( in so far as it concerned com$ainant Afredo Gadian# *r% (com$ainant Gadian)# the on( com$ainant who did not e>ecute a &eed of -eease# =aiver and Ouitcaim% =ith res$ect to the other com$ainants in the Aguirre and Toquero Cases# their com$aints were dismissed on account of their du( e>ecuted &eeds of -eease# =aiver and Ouitcaim% )n a -esoution dated 5 *anuar( 3DD3# the a$$eate court denied the motion of com$ainant Gadian and his counse# herein $etitioner # that the award of attorne(1s fees of 4DV shoud be based on the monetar( awards ad8udged b( the ./-C% Thus# this $etition ,ed before the Court $ra(ing to a<rm the award of attorne(1s fees equivaent to 4DV of the monetar( award ad8udged b( the ./-C in its &ecisions dated 34 *u( 455E and 3E *u( 455E in Toquero Case and Aguirre Cases res$ective(% [ E5 )SSUHF =hether he is entited to the amount of attorne(1s fees as ad8udged b( the ./-C in its &ecisions in the Aguirre and Toquero Cases or on( to the 4DV of the amounts actua( $aid to his cients# the com$ainants who signed the &eeds of -eease# =aiver and Ouitcaim% SC -U/).GF The aforesaid issue evident( invoves a question of aw% =hat it needs to do is ascertain and a$$( the reevant aw and 8uris$rudence on the award of attorne(1s fees to the $revaiing $arties in abor cases Artice 444 of the /abor Code# as amended# s$eci,ca( $rovidesF A-T% 444% ATT2-.HN1S FHHS% Z (a) )n cases of CE unawfu withhoding of wages the cu$abe $art( ma( be assessed attorne(1s fees equivaent to ten $ercent of the amount of wages recovered% b) )t sha be unawfu for an( $erson to demand or acce$t# in an( 8udicia or administrative $roceedings for the recover( of the wages# attorne(1s fees which e>ceed ten $ercent of the amount of wages recovered% )n PC/ Shi$$ing Phii$$ines# )nc% v% .ationa /abor -eations Commission citing &r% -e(es v% Court of A$$eas# this Court enunciated that there are two common( acce$ted conce$ts of attorne(1s fees# the so0caed ordinar( and e>traordinar(% )n its ordinar( conce$t# an attorne(1s fee is the reasonabe com$ensation $aid to a aw(er b( his cient for the ega services the former has rendered to the atter% The basis of this com$ensation is the fact of the attorne(1s em$o(ment b( and his agreement with the cient% )n its e>traordinar( conce$t# attorne(1s fees are deemed indemnit( for damages ordered b( the court to be $aid b( the osing $art( in a itigation% The instances in which these ma( be awarded are those enumerated in Artice 33D6 of the Civi Code# s$eci,ca( $aragra$h B thereof# which $ertains to actions for recover( of wages# and is $a(abe not to the aw(er but to the cient# uness the( have agreed that the award sha $ertain to the aw(er as additiona com$ensation or as $art thereof% Artice 444 of the /abor Code# as amended# contem$ates the e>traordinar( conce$t of attorne(1s fees% "ased on the foregoing# the attorne(1s fees awarded b( the ./-C in its &ecisions in the Aguirre and Toquero Cases $ertain to the com$ainants# $etitioner1s cients# as indemnit( for damages? and not to $etitioner as com$ensation for his ega services% -ecords show that the $etitioner neither aeged nor $roved that his cients# the com$ainants# wiing( agreed that the award of attorne(1s fees woud accrue to him as an additiona com$ensation or $art thereof% =hat the com$ainants e>$icit( agreed to in their individua &eeds of -eease# =aiver# and Ouitcaim was that the 4DV attorne(1s fees of the $etitioner sha be deducted from the amount of the gross settement% Thus# this Court has no recourse but to inter$ret the award of attorne(1s fees b( the ./-C in its e>traordinar( conce$t% And since the attorne(1s fees $ertained to the com$ainants as indemnit( for damages# it was tota( within the com$ainants1 right to waive the amount of said attorne(1s fees and sette for a esser amount thereof in e>change for the immediate end to itigation% Petitioner cannot $revent com$ainants from com$romising andGor withdrawing their com$aints at an( stage of the $roceedings 8ust to $rotect his antici$ated attorne(1s fees% Hven assuming arguendo that the com$ainants in the Aguirre and Toquero Cases did indeed agree that the attorne(1s fees awarded b( the ./-C shoud be considered in their ordinar( conce$t# i%e%# as com$ensation for $etitioner1s services# we refer bac! to Artice 444 of the /abor Code# as amended# which $rovides that the attorne(1s fees shoud be equivaent to 4DV of the amount of wages recovered% Since the com$ainants decided to sette their com$aints against the $rivate res$ondent# the amounts actua( received b( them $ursuant to the &eeds of -eease# =aiver and Ouitcaim are the amounts 7recovered7 and the $ro$er basis for determining the 4DV attorne(1s fees% )n the case at bar# it is be(ond cavi that the $etitioner is not the rea $art( in interest? hence# he cannot ,e this Petition to recover the attorne(1s fees as ad8udged b( the ./-C in its &ecisions dated 34 *u( 455E and 3E *u( 455E in the Aguirre and Toquero Cases# res$ective(% To reiterate# the award of attorne(1s fees $ertain to the $revaiing $arties in the ./-C cases# name(# the com$ainants# a but one of whom no onger $ursued their com$aints against $rivate res$ondent after e>ecuting &eeds of -eease# =aiver and Ouitcaim% .ot being the $art( to whom the ./-C awarded the attorne(1s fees# neither is the $etitioner the $ro$er $art( to question the non0awarding of the same b( the a$$eate court% This woud show that $etitioner has been com$ensated for the services he rendered the com$ainants% )t ma( do we for $etitioner to remember that as a aw(er# he is a member of an honorabe $rofession# the $rimar( vision of which is 8ustice% The $ractice of aw is a decent $rofession and not a mone(0ma!ing trade% Com$ensation shoud be but a mere incident% )f $etitioner earnest( beieves that the amounts he aread( received are gross( de,cient# $etitioner1s remed( is not against the $rivate res$ondent# but against his own cients# the com$ainants% Je shoud ,e a se$arate action for coection of sum of mone( against com$ainants to recover 8ust com$ensation for his ega services# and not the $resent Petition for -eview to caim from $rivate res$ondent the attorne(1s fees which were ad8udged b( the ./-C in favor of com$ainants as the $revaiing $arties in the Aguirre and Toquero Cases% =JH-HF2-H# the instant Petition is hereb( &H.)H&% EVANGELINA +AS+UD N's s&$s3.3&3# 1o-5/'.2'23 :o% ALEJANDER J. +AS+UDO vs. NATIONAL LACOR RELATIONS CO++ISSION NF.%s3 D.v.s.o2O '20 ATTY. ROLANDO C. GO, JR. PG.R. No. )6""65 F#$%&'%( )", 200Q FACTSF The ate Ae>ander *% +asmud (Ae>ander)# the husband of Hvangeina +asmudn (Hvangeina) ,ed a com$aint against First :ictor( Shi$$ing Services and Angea!os (Jeas) S%A% on *u( 5# 3DD3 for non0$a(ment of $ermanent disabiit( bene,ts# medica e>$enses# sic!ness aowance# mora and e>em$ar( damages# and attorne(1s fees% Ae>ander engaged the services of Att(% -oando "% Go# *r% (Att(% Go) as his counse% )n consideration of Att(% Go1s ega services# Ae>ander agreed to $a( attorne(1s fees on a contingent basis# as foowsF twent( $ercent (3DV) of tota monetar( caims as setted or $aid and an additiona ten $ercent (4DV) in case of a$$ea% 2n .ovember 34# 3DD3# the /abor Arbiter (/A) rendered a &ecision granting the monetar( caims of Ae>ander% Ae>ander1s em$o(er ,ed an a$$ea before the .ationa /abor -eations Commission (./-C)% &uring the $endenc( of the $roceedings before the ./-C# Ae>ander died% After e>$aining the terms of the aw(er1s CC fees to Hvangeina# Att(% Go caused her substitution as com$ainant% 2n A$ri 3D# 3DDA# the ./-C rendered a &ecision dismissing the a$$ea of Ae>ander1s em$o(er% 2n a$$ea before the CA# the decision of the /A was a<rmed with modi,cation% Thereafter# Ae>anderIs em$o(er a$$eaed to the Su$reme Court% 2n Februar( C# 3DDC# the Court issued a -esoution dismissing the case for ac! of merit% 2n *anuar( 4D# 3DDE# the /A directed the ./-C Cashier to reease the amount of P3#AEA#DB5%3D to Hvangeina% 2ut of the said amount# Hvangeina $aid Att(% Go the sum of PC6D#DDD%DD% &issatis,ed# Att(% Go ,ed a motion to record and enforce the attorne(1s ien aeging that Hvangeina reneged on their contingent fee agreement% Hvangeina $aid on( the amount of PC6D#DDD%DD# equivaent to 3DV of the award as attorne(1s fees# thus# eaving a baance of 4DV# $us the award $ertaining to the counse as attorne(1s fees% )n her comment# Hvangeina manifested that Att(% Go1s caim for attorne(1s fees of ADV of the tota monetar( award was nu and void based on Artice 444 of the /abor Code% The /abor Arbiter issued an 2rder granting Att(% Go1s motion% Then# Hvangeina questioned the decision of the /abor Arbiter before the ./-C% Jowever# the ./-C dismissed her a$$ea% Then# she eevated the case to the Court of A$$eas% The CA $artia( gramted the $etition with some modi,cation decaring that Att(% Go is fu( com$ensated b( the amount of P4#3AB#5ED%44 that he has aread( received% &issatis,ed# Angeina ,ed this $etition% )SSUHF =hether or not the ega com$ensation of a aw(er in a abor $roceeding shoud be based on Artice 444 of the /abor Code% SC -U/).GF There are two conce$ts of attorne(1s fees% )n the ordinar( sense# attorne(1s fees re$resent the reasonabe com$ensation $aid to a aw(er b( his cient for the ega services rendered to the atter% 2n the other hand# in its e>traordinar( conce$t# attorne(1s fees ma( be awarded b( the court as indemnit( for damages to be $aid b( the osing $art( to the $revaiing $art(# such that# in an( of the cases $rovided b( aw where such award can be made# e%g%# those authori'ed in Artice 33D6 of the Civi Code# the amount is $a(abe not to the aw(er but to the cient# uness the( have agreed that the award sha $ertain to the aw(er as additiona com$ensation or as $art thereof% Jere# we a$$( the ordinar( conce$t of attorne(1s fees# or the com$ensation that Att(% Go is entited to receive for re$resenting Hvangeina# in substitution of her husband# before the abor tribunas and before the court% The retainer contract between Att(% Go and Hvangeina $rovides for a contingent fee% The contract sha contro in the determination of the amount to be $aid# uness found b( the court to be unconscionabe or unreasonabe% Attorne(1s fees are unconscionabe if the( a@ront one1s sense of 8ustice# decenc( or reasonabeness% The decree of unconscionabiit( or unreasonabeness of a sti$uated amount in a contingent fee contract wi not $recude recover(% )t mere( 8usti,es the ,>ing b( the court of a reasonabe com$ensation for the aw(er1s services% Contingent fee contracts are sub8ect to the su$ervision and cose scrutin( of the court in order that cients ma( be $rotected from un8ust charges% The amount of contingent fees agreed u$on b( the $arties is sub8ect to the sti$uation that counse wi be $aid for his ega services on( if the suit or itigation $ros$ers% A much higher com$ensation is aowed as contingent fees because of the ris! that the aw(er ma( get nothing if the suit fais% The Court ,nds nothing iega in the contingent fee contract between Att(% Go and Hvangeina1s husband% The CA committed no error of aw when it awarded the attorne(1s fees of Att(% Go and aowed him to receive an equivaent of 35V of the monetar( award% Considering that Att(% Go successfu( re$resented his cient# it is on( $ro$er that he shoud receive adequate com$ensation for his e@orts% =ith his ca$ita consisting of his brains and with his s!i acquired at tremendous cost not on( in mone( but in e>$enditure of time and energ(# he is entited to the $rotection [ C4 of an( 8udicia tribuna against an( attem$t on the $art of his cient to esca$e $a(ment of his 8ust com$ensation% )t woud be ironic if after $utting forth the best in him to secure 8ustice for his cient# he himsef woud not get his due% SPECIAL TYPES OF <ORKERS +ARITES CERNARDO vs. NLRC G.R. No. )22)7 J&/( )2, ) FACTS* Com$ainants numbering A3 are deaf0mutes who were hired on various $eriods from 4566 to 4553 b( res$ondent Far Hast "an! and Trust Co% as +one( Sorters and Counters through a uniform( worded agreement caed 7Hm$o(ment Contract for Jandica$$ed =or!ers7% )n 4566# two (3) deaf0mutes were hired under this Agreement? in 4565 another two (3)? in 455D# nineteen (45)? in 4554 si> (C)? in 4553# si> (C) and in 4553# twent(0one (34)% Their em$o(mentQsR were renewed ever( si> months such that b( the time this case arose# there were ,ft(0si> (EC) deaf0mutes who were em$o(ed b( res$ondent under the said em$o(ment agreement% The ast one was Thema +aindo( who was em$o(ed in 4553 and whose contract e>$ired on *u( 4553% &iscaiming that com$ainants were reguar em$o(ees# res$ondent Far Hast "an! and Trust Co maintained that com$ainants who are s$ecia cass of wor!ers? the hearing im$aired em$o(ees were hired tem$orari( under QaR s$ecia em$o(ment arrangement which was a resut of overtures made b( some civic and $oitica $ersonaities to the res$ondent "an!? that com$ainants were hired due to 7$a!iusa$7 which must be considered in the ight of the conte>t career and wor!ing environment which is to maintain and strengthen a cor$s of $rofessionas trained and quai,ed o<cers and reguar em$o(ees who are baccaaureate degree hoders from e>ceent schoos which is an unbending $oic( in the hiring of reguar em$o(ees? that in addition to this# training continues so that the reguar em$o(ee grows in the cor$orate adder? that the idea of hiring handica$$ed wor!ers was acce$tabe to them on( on a CB s$ecia arrangement basis? that it was ado$ted the s$ecia $rogram to he$ tide over a grou$ of wor!ers such as deaf0mutes i!e the com$ainants who coud do manua wor! for the res$ondent "an!? that the tas! of counting and sorting of bis which was being $erformed b( teers coud be assigned to deaf0mutes that the counting and sorting of mone( are teering wor!s which were awa(s ogica( and natura( $art and $arce of the teers1 norma functions? that from the beginning there have been no se$arate items in the res$ondent "an! $antia for sortes or counters? that the teers themseves aread( did the sorting and counting chore as a reguar feature and integra $art of their duties? that through the 7$a!iusa$7 of Arturo "or8a# the teers were reieved of this tas! of counting and sorting bis in favor of deaf0mutes without creating new $ositions as there is no $osition either in the res$ondent or in an( other ban! in the Phii$$ines which deas with $ure( counting and sorting of bis in ban!ing o$erations% Petitioners s$eci,ed when each of them was hired and dimissed# As earier noted# the /A and ./-C rued against herein $etitioners% ISSUES* =hether $etitioners have become reguar em$o(ees% HELD* The $etition is meritorious% Jowever# on( the em$o(ees# who wor!ed for more than si> months and whose contracts were renewed are deemed reguar% Jence# their dismissa from em$o(ement was iega% Petitioners maintain that the( shoud be considered reguar em$o(ees# because their tas! as mone( sorters and counters was necessar( and desirabe to the business of res$ondent ban!% The( further aege that their contracts served mere( to $recude the a$$ication of Artice36D and to bar them from becoming reguar em$o(ees% Private res$ondent# on the other hand# submits that $etitioners were hired on( as 7s$ecia wor!ers and shoud not in an( wa( be considered as $art of the reguar com$ement of the "an!%7 -es$ondent ban! entered into the aforesaid contract with a tota of EC handica$$ed wor!ers and renewed the contracts of 3B of them% )n fact# two of them wor!ed from 4566 to 4553% :eri(# the renewa of the contracts of the handica$$ed wor!ers and the hiring of others ead to the concusion that their tas!s were bene,cia and necessar( to the ban!% +ore im$ortant# these facts show that the( were quai,ed to $erform the res$onsibiities of their $ositions% )n other words# their disabiit( did not render them unquai,ed or un,t for the tas!s assigned to them% )n this ight# the +agna Carta for &isabed Persons mandates that a quai,ed disabed em$o(ee shoud be given the same terms and conditions of em$o(ment as a quai,ed abe0bodied $erson% Section E of the +agna Carta $rovidesF Sec% E% Hqua 2$$ortunit( for Hm$o(ment? .o disabed $erson sha be denied access to o$$ortunities for suitabe em$o(ment% A quai,ed disabed em$o(ee sha be sub8ect to the same terms and conditions of em$o(ment and the same com$ensation# $rivieges# bene,ts# fringe bene,ts# incentives or aowances as a quai,ed abe bodied $erson% The fact that the em$o(ees were quai,ed disabed $ersons necessari( removes the em$o(ment contracts from the ambit of Artice 6D% Since the +agna Carta accords them the rights of quai,ed abe0bodied $ersons# the( are thus covered b( Artice 36D of the /C%# which $rovidesF Art% 36D% -eguar and Casua Hm$o(ment? The $rovisions of writtenagreement to the contrar( notwithstanding and regardess of the ora agreement of the $arties# an em$o(ment sha be deemed to be reguar where the em$o(ee has been engaged to $erform activities which are usua( necessar( or desirabe in the usua business or trade of the em$o(er# e>ce$t where the em$o(ment has been ,>ed for a s$eci,c $ro8ect or underta!ing the com$etion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the em$o(ee or where the wor! or services to be $erformed is seasona in nature and the em$o(ment is for the duration of the season% An em$o(ment sha be deemed to be casua if it is not covered b( the $receding $aragra$hF Provided# That# an( em$o(ee who has rendered at east one (ear of service# whether such service is continuous or bro!en# sha be considered as reguar em$o(ee with res$ect to the activit( in which he is em$o(ed and his em$o(ment sha continue whie such activit( e>ists% The test of whether an em$o(ee is reguar was aid down in &e /eon v% ./-C# in which this Court hedF LThe $rimar( standard# therefore# of determining reguar em$o(ment is the reasonabe connection between the $articuar activit( $erformed b( the em$o(ee in reation to the usua trade or business of the em$o(er% The test is whether the former is usua( necessar( or desirabe in the usua business or trade of the em$o(er% The connection can be determined b( considering the nature of the wor! $erformed and its reation to the scheme of the $articuar business or trade in its entiret(% Aso if the em$o(ee has been $erforming the 8ob for at east one (ear# even if the $erformance is not continuous and mere( intermittent# the aw deems re$eated and continuing need for its $erformance as su<cient evidence of the necessit( if not indis$ensibiit( of that activit( to the business% Jence# the em$o(ment is considered reguar# but on( with res$ect to such activit(# and whie such activit( e>ist% =ithout a doubt# the tas! of counting and sorting bis is necessar( and desirabe to the business of res$ondent ban!% =ith the e>ce$tion of si>teen of them# $etitioners $erformed these tas!s for more than si> months% Thus# the foowing twent(0 seven $etitioners shoud be deemed reguar em$o(ees% As hed b( the Court# 7Artices 36D and 364 of the /abor Code $ut an end to the $ernicious $ractice of ma!ing $ermanent casuas of our ow( em$o(ees b( the sim$e e>$edient of e>tending to them $robationar( a$$ointments# ad in,nitum%7 The contract signed b( $etitioners is a!in to a $robationar( em$o(ment# during C6 which the ban! determined the em$o(ees1 ,tness for the 8ob% =hen the ban! renewed the contract after the a$se of the si>0month $robationar( $eriod# the em$o(ees thereb( became reguar em$o(ees% .o em$o(er is aowed to determine inde,nite( the ,tness of its em$o(ees% As reguar em$o(ees# the 3B $etitioners are entited to securit( of tenure? that is# their services ma( be terminated on( for a 8ust or authori'ed cause% "ecause res$ondent faied to show such cause# these 3B $etitioners are deemed iega( dismissed and therefore entited to bac! wages and reinstatement without oss of seniorit( rights and other $rivieges% Considering the aegation of res$ondent that the 8ob of mone( sorting is no onger avaiabe because it has been assigned bac! to the teers to whom it origina( beonged# $etitioners are hereb( awarded se$aration $a( in ieu of reinstatement% "ecause the other 4C wor!ed on( for si> months# the( are not deemed reguar em$o(ees and hence not entited to the same bene,ts% The award referred to res$ondentsI bac!wages and not to withhed saaries to which the Court a<rmed% Petition was dismissed% E. E+PLOY+ENT OF <O+EN P4./.55.2# T#/#9%'54 '20 T#/#54o2# Co-5'2( vs. N'3.o2'/ L'$o% R#/'3.o2s Co--.ss.o2 G.R. No. ))676 +'( 2", )7 FACTS* Grace de Gu'man was initia( hired b( $etitioner as a reiever# for a ,>ed $eriod to substitute one C%F% Tenorio who went on maternit( eave% Jer services as reiever were again engaged b( $etitioner# this time in re$acement of another $erson% After August 6# 4554# and $ursuant to their -eiever Agreement# her services were terminated% She was once more as!ed to 8oin the com$an( as a $robationar( em$o(ee# the $robationar( $eriod to cover 4ED da(s% )n the 8ob a$$ication form that was furnished her to be ,ed u$ for the $ur$ose# she indicated in the $ortion for civi status therein that she was singe athough she had contracted marriage a few months earier% =hen $etitioner su$$osed( earned about the same ater# its branch su$ervisor in "aguio Cit(# &eia +% 2<cia# sent to $rivate res$ondent a memorandum dated *anuar( 4E# 4553 requiring her to e>$ain the discre$anc(% )n that memorandum# she was reminded about the com$an(1s $oic( of not acce$ting married women for em$o(ment% She stated that she was not aware of PTWT1s $oic( regarding married women at the time# and that a aong she had not deiberate( hidden her true civi status% Petitioner nonetheess remained unconvinced b( her e>$anations% Private res$ondent was dismissed from the com$an(% She ,ed a com$aint for iega dismissa# cou$ed with a caim for non0$a(ment of cost of iving aowances% ISSUE* =hether or not the com$an( $oic( tantamount to un8ust and unawfu discrimination against married women% HELD* Petitioner1s $oic( of not acce$ting or considering as disquai,ed from wor! an( woman wor!er who contracts marriage runs afou of the test of# and the right against# discrimination# a@orded a women wor!ers b( our abor aws and b( no ess than the Constitution% Contrar( to $etitioner1s assertion that it dismissed $rivate res$ondent from em$o(ment on account of her dishonest(# the record discoses cear( that her ties with the com$an( were dissoved $rinci$a( because of the com$an(1s $oic( that married women are not quai,ed for em$o(ment in the said com$an(# and not mere( because of her su$$osed acts of dishonest(% Petitioner1s $oic( is not on( in derogation of the $rovisions of Artice 43C of the /abor Code on the right of a woman to be free from an( !ind of sti$uation against marriage in connection with her em$o(ment# but it i!ewise assauts good moras and $ubic $oic(# tending as it does to de$rive a woman of the freedom to choose her status# a $riviege that b( a accounts inheres in the individua as an intangibe and inaienabe right% Jence# whie it is true that the $arties to a contract ma( estabish an( agreements# terms# and conditions that the( ma( deem convenient# the same shoud not be contrar( to aw# moras# good customs# $ubic order# or $ubic $oic(% Carried to its ogica consequences# it ma( even be said that $etitioner1s $oic( against egitimate marita bonds woud encourage iicit or common0aw reations and subvert the sacrament of marriage% D#/ +o23# P4./.55.2#s, I21. vs. Lo/.3' V#/'s1o G.R. No. )5"!77 +'%14 6, 2007 FACTS* /oita +% :easco started wor!ing with &e +onte Phii$$ines on 2ctober 34# 45BC as a seasona em$o(ee and was reguari'ed on +a( 4# 45BB% Jer atest assignment was as Fied /aborer% 2n *une 4C# 456B# res$ondent was warned in writing due to her absences% 2n +a( A# 4554# res$ondent# thru a etter# was again warned in writing b( $etitioner about her absences without $ermission and a forfeiture of her vacation eave entitement for the (ear 455D04554 was im$osed against her% 2n Se$tember 4A# 4553# another warning etter was sent to res$ondent regarding her absences without $ermission during the (ear 455404553% Jer vacation entitement for the said em$o(ment (ear a@ected was consequent( forfeited% )n view of the said aeged absences without $ermission# on Se$tember 4B# 455A# a notice of hearing was sent to res$ondent notif(ing her of the charges ,ed against her for vioating the Absence =ithout 2<cia /eave rueF that is for e>cessive absence without $ermission on August 4E046# 35034 and Se$tember 404D# 455A% The hearing was set on Se$tember 33# 455A% -es$ondent having faied to a$$ear on Se$tember 33# 455A hearing# another notice of hearing was sent to her resetting the investigation on Se$tember 3D# 455A% )t was again reset to 2ctober E# 455A% 2n *anuar( 4D# 455E# after hearing# the $etitioner terminated the services of res$ondent e@ective *anuar( 4C# C5 455A due to e>cessive absences without $ermission% Feeing aggrieved# res$ondent ,ed a case for iega dismissa against $etitioner asserting that her dismissa was iega because she was on the fami( wa( su@ering from urinar( tract infection# a $regnanc(0borne# at the time she committed the aeged absences% She e>$ained that for her absence from wor! on August 4E# 4C# 4B W 46# 455A she had sent an a$$ication for eave to her su$ervisor# Prima NbaYe'% Thereafter# she went to the com$an( hos$ita for chec!0u$ and was advised according( to rest in quarters for four (A) da(s or on August 3B to 3D# 455A% Sti not feeing we# she faied to wor! on Se$tember 4# 455A and was again advised two da(s of rest in quarters on Se$tember 303# 455A% Unabe to recover# she went to see an outside doctor# &r% +ari(n Casino# and the atter ordered her to rest for another ,ve (E) consecutive da(s# or from Se$tember E to 5# 455A% She decared she did not ,e the adequate eave of absence because a medica certi,cate was aread( su<cient $er com$an( $oic(% 2n Se$tember 4D# 455A she faied to re$ort to wor! but sent an a$$ication for eave of absence to her su$ervisor# Prima NbaYe'# which was not an(more acce$ted% ISSUE* =hether the em$o(ment of res$ondent had been vaid( terminated on the ground of e>cessive absences without $ermission% Coroar( to this is the question of whether the $etitioner discharged the res$ondent on account of $regnanc(# a $rohibited act% HELD* Court u$hods and ado$ts the ,nding of the ./-C# thusF )n this 8urisdiction tardiness and absenteeism# i!e abandonment# are recogni'ed forms of negect of duties# the e>istence of which 8ustif( the dismissa of the erring em$o(ee% -es$ondentIs rue $enai'ing with discharge an( em$o(ee who has incurred si> (C) or more absences without $ermission or subsequent 8usti,cation is admitted( within the $urview of the foregoing standard% Jowever# whie it is not dis$uted that com$ainant incurred absences e>ceeding si> (C) da(s as she actua( faied to re$ort for wor! from August 4E046# 3303C# 35034# Se$tember 40 3# E04D# 4304B# 3403A# 3C03D# and 2ctober 403# 455A# her being $regnant at the time these absences were incurred is not questioned and is even admitted b( res$ondent* )t thus $u''es us wh( res$ondent asserts com$ainant faied to e>$ain satisfactori( her absences on August 4E046# 35034# Se$tember 403 and E04D# 455A# (et reconsidered the rest of her absences for being covered with Lrest0in0quartersM (-)O) advice from its hos$ita $ersonne when this advice was unquestionab( issued in consideration of the $h(sioogica and emotiona changes com$ainant# a conceiving mother# natura( deveo$ed% +edica and heath re$orts abundant( discose that during the ,rst trimester of $regnanc(# e>$ectant mothers are $agued with morning sic!ness# frequent urination# vomiting and fatigue a of which com$ainant was simiar( $agued with% Union o<cia )"" /esnaIs observation on com$ainant being a$$arent( not feeing we during the investigation conducted b( res$ondent on 2ctober E# 455A even remains in the records of said $roceedings% For res$ondent to isoate the absences of com$ainant in August and mid0Se$tember# 455A from the absences she incurred ater in said month without submitting an( evidence that these were due to causes not in manner associated with her condition renders its 8usti,cation of com$ainantIs dismissa cear( not convincing under the circumstances% &es$ite contrar( decaration# the records bear the admission of res$ondentIs PGA .orth Su$ervisor# P" Nbane'# of her recei$t of the hos$ita record showing com$ainantIs -)O advice for August 4503D# 455A which coud aread( serve as res$ondentIs reference in resoving the atterIs absences on August 4E to 46# 455A% -es$ondent further admitted com$ainant was under -)O advice on Se$tember 303# 455A# (et# insisted in incuding these dates among her 4C $ur$orted une>$ained absences 8ustif(ing termination of her em$o(ment*The Court agrees with the CA in concuding that res$ondentIs sic!ness was $regnanc(0reated and# therefore# the $etitioner cannot terminate res$ondentIs services because in doing so# $etitioner wi# in e@ect# be vioating the /abor Code which $rohibits an em$o(er to discharge an em$o(ee on account of the atterIs $regnanc(% Art% 43B% P ro!ibited acts* U )t sha be unawfu for an( em$o(erF (3) To discharge such woman on account of her $regnanc(# whie on eave or in con,nement due to her $regnanc(? %econd* The $etitioner stresses that man( women go through $regnanc( and (et manage to submit $rior notices to their em$o(er# es$ecia( if Lthere is no evidence on record indicating a condition of such gravit( as to $recude e@orts at notif(ing $etitioner of her absence from wor! in series%M "ut it must be em$hasi'ed that under $etitionerIs com$an( rues# absences ma( be subsequent( 8usti,ed% The Court ,nds no cogent reason to disturb the ,ndings of the ./-C and the CA that the res$ondent was abe to subsequent( 8ustif( her absences in accordance with com$an( rues and $oic(? that the res$ondent was $regnant at the time she incurred the absences? that this fact of $regnanc( and its reated inesses had been du( $roven through substantia evidence? that the res$ondent attem$ted to ,e eaves of absence but the $etitionerIs su$ervisor refused to receive them? that she coud not have ,ed $rior eaves due to her continuing condition? and that the $etitioner# in the ast ana(sis# dismissed the res$ondent on account of her $regnanc(# a $rohibited act% The Court is convinced that the $etitioner terminated the services of res$ondent on account of her $regnanc( which 8usti,ed her absences and# thus# committed a $rohibited act rendering the dismissa iega% F. E+PLOY+ENT OF CHILDREN G. E+PLOY+ENT OF HOUSEHELPER ULTRA VILLA FOOD HAUS vs. GENISTON GR. No. )20!7", J&2# 2", ) FACTS* -enato Geniston#$rivate res$ondent herein ,ed a com$aint for iega dismissa againtsthe Utra :ires Food Jaus BD restaurant andGor its aeged owner -osie Tio% Private res$ondent aeged that he was em$o(ed as a 7do it a gu(#7 acting as waiter# driver# and maintenance man# in said restaurant% Jis em$o(ment therein s$anned from +arch 4# 4565 unti he was dismissed on +a( 43# 4553% For his services# $rivate res$ondent was $aid PCD%DD in 4565# PBD%DD in 455D# P6D%DD in 4554 and P5D%DD when he was dismissed in 4553% Petitioner -osie Tio# on the other hand# maintained that $rivate res$ondent was her $ersona driver# not an em$o(ee of the Utra :ia Food Jaus% As $etitioner1s $ersona driver# $rivate res$ondent was required to re$ort for wor! at BFDD a%m% to drive $etitioner to +andaue Cit( where $etitioner wor!ed as the +anager of the CFC Cor$oration% Private res$ondent was i!ewise given free meas as we as 43th month $a( at the end of the (ear% Petitioner denied dismissing $rivate res$ondent whom she caimed abandoned his 8ob% &uring the eections of +a( 44# 4553# $rivate res$ondent acted as a Po =atcher for the .ationa Union of Christian &emocrats% Though we aware that +a( 43# 4553 was a hoida(# $etitioner caed u$ $rivate res$ondent that da( to as! him to re$ort for wor! as she had some im$ortant matters to attend to% Private res$ondent1s wife# however# cod( tod $etitioner that $rivate res$ondent was he$ing in the counting of baots% Petitioner was thus forced to hire another driver to re$ace $rivate res$ondent% Private res$ondent came bac! a wee! after but on( to coect his saar(% The /abor Arbiter concuded that $rivate res$ondent# being a $ersona driver# was not entited to overtime $a(# $remium $a(# service incentive eave $a( and 43th month $a(% The /abor Arbiter noted Private res$ondent1s admission that he was $etitioner1s driver contained in the mandator( conference order issued b( the /abor Arbiter on *anuar( 4D# 455AThe ./-C rued that $rivate res$ondent was an em$o(ee of the Utra :ia Food Jaus% ISSUES* (4) =hether $rivate res$ondent was an em$o(ee of the Utra :ia Food Jaus or the $ersona driver of $etitioner (3) =hether $rivate res$ondent was iega( dismissed from em$o(ment% HELD* (4) The Su$reme Court ,nd that $rivate res$ondent was indeed the $ersona driver of $etitioner# and not an em$o(ee of the Utra :ia Food Jaus% There is substantia evidence to su$$ort such concusion# such as Private res$ondent1s admission during the mandator( conference that he was $etitioner1s $ersona driver# Co$ies of the Utra :ia Food Jaus $a(ro which do not contain $rivate res$ondent1s name and other $ertinent documents% Thus# Artice 4A4 of the /abor Code a$$ies# which $rovidesF Art% 4A4% Coverage% 0 This Cha$ter sha a$$( to a $ersons rendering services in househods for com$ensation% 7&omestic or househod service7 sha mean services in the em$o(ers home which is usua( necessar( or desirabe for the maintenance and en8o(ment thereof and incudes ministering to the $ersona comfort and convenience of the members of the em$o(ers househod# incuding services of fami( drivers% The /abor Code is sient on the grant of overtime $a(# hoida( $a(# $remium $a( and service incentive eave to those engaged in the domestic or househod service% +oreover# the s$eci,c $rovisions of /C and Artice 63# which de,nes the sco$e of the a$$ication of these $rovisions# e>$ress( e>cudes domestic he$ers from its coverageF Art% 63% Coverage% 0 The $rovision of this tite sha a$$( to em$o(ees in a estabishments and underta!ings whether for $ro,t or not# but not to government em$o(ees# manageria em$o(ees# ,ed $ersonne# members of the fami( of the em$o(er who are de$endent on him for su$$ort# domestic he$ers# $ersons in the $ersona service of another# and wor!ers who are $aid b( resuts as determined b( Secretar( of /abor in a$$ro$riate reguations% Cear( then# $etitioner is not obiged b( aw to grant $rivate res$ondent an( of these bene,ts% Hm$o(ing the same ine of ana(sis# it woud seem that $rivate res$ondent is not entited to43 month $a(% .evertheess# we deem it 8ust to award $rivate res$ondent 43th month $a( in view of $etitioner1s $ractice of according $rivate res$ondent such bene,t% )ndeed# $etitioner admitted that she gave $rivate res$ondent 43th month $a( ever( &ecember (3) .o% The Su$reme Court disagrees with Petitioner which submits that $rivate res$ondent abandoned his 8ob# $referring to wor! as an eection watcher instead% To constitute abandonment# two requisites must concurF (4) the faiure to re$ort to wor! or absence without vaid or 8usti,abe reason? and (3) a cear intention to sever the em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ as manifested b( some overt acts# with the second requisite as the more determinative factor% The burden of $roving abandonment as a 8ust cause for dismissa is on the em$o(er% Petitioner faied to discharge this burden% )t is quite unbeievabe that $rivate res$ondent woud eave a stabe and reative( we $a(ing 8ob as $etitioner1s fami( driver to wor! as an eection watcher% Consequent(# we do not ,nd $rivate res$ondent to have abandoned his 8ob% Jis dismissa from $etitioner1s em$o( being un8ust# $etitioner is entited to an indemnit( under Artice 4A5 of the /abor CodeF Art% 4A5% )ndemnit( for un8ust termination of services% )f the $eriod of househod service is ,>ed# neither the em$o(er nor the househe$er ma( terminate the contract before the e>$iration of the term# e>ce$t for a 8ust cause% )f the househe$er is un8ust( dismissed# he or she sha be $aid the com$ensation aread( earned $us that for ,fteen (4E) da(s b( wa( of indemnit(% )f the househe$er eaves without 8usti,abe reason he or she sha forfeit an( un$aid saar( due him or her not e>ceeding ,fteen (4E) da(s% R#-.293o2 I20&s3%.'/ S'/#s Co%5o%'3.o2 vs. E%/.20' C's3'2#0' GR Nos. )625,6 Nov#-$#% 20, 2006 FACTS* Hrinda aeged that she started wor!ing in August 4563 as com$an( coo! with a saar( of Ph$ A#DDD%DD for -emington# a cor$oration engaged in the trading business? She averred that she re$orted for wor! at the new site in Caoocan Cit( on *anuar( B4 4E# 4556# on( to be informed that -emington no onger needed her services% Hrinda beieved that her dismissa was iega because she was not given the notices required b( aw? hence# she ,ed her com$aint for reinstatement without oss of seniorit( rights# saar( di@erentias# service incentive eave $a(# 43 th month $a( and 4DV attorne(Is fees% -emington denied that it dismissed Hrinda iega(% )t $osited that Hrinda was a domestic he$er# not a reguar em$o(ee? Hrinda wor!ed as a coo! and this 8ob had nothing to do with -emingtonIs business of trading in construction or hardware materias# stee $ates and wire ro$e $roducts% ISSUE* =hether or not res$ondent is considered to be a reguar em$o(ee or a mere domestic he$er% =hether or not burden of $roof rests u$on the em$o(er to show that the dismissa is for a 8ust cause% HELD* )n this case# there was no aegation b( res$ondent that com$ainant had ever wor!ed in the residence of +r% Tan% =hat is cear from the facts narrated b( the $arties is that com$ainant continuous( did her 8ob as a coo! in the o<ce of res$ondent serving the needed food for unch and merienda of the em$o(ees% Thus# her wor! as coo! inured not for the bene,t of the fami( members of +r% Tan but soe( for the individua em$o(ees of res$ondent% Com$ainant as an em$o(ee of res$ondent com$an( is even bostered b( no ess than the certi,cation dated +a( 33# 455B issued b( the cor$orate secretar( of the com$an( certif(ing that com$ainant is their bona,de em$o(ee% This is a soid evidence which the /abor Arbiter sim$( brushed aside% "ut# such error woud not be committed here as it woud be at the height of in8ustice if we are to decare that com$ainant is a domestic he$er% The $etitioner itsef admits in its $osition $a$er
that res$ondent wor!ed at the com$an( $remises and her dut( was to coo! and $re$are its em$o(eesI unch and merienda% Cear(# the nature of res$ondentIs wor! as a coo!# who caters not on( to the needs of +r% Tan and his fami( but aso to that of the $etitionerIs em$o(ees# ma!es her fa square( within the de,nition of a reguar em$o(ee% )n termination cases# the burden of $roof rests u$on the em$o(er to show that the dismissa is for a 8ust and vaid cause? faiure to do so woud necessari( mean that the dismissa was iega% )f doubt e>ists between the evidence $resented b( the em$o(er and the em$o(ee# the scaes of 8ustice must be tited in favor of the atter% The $etition is &H.)H& for ac! of merit +EDICAL, DENTAL AND OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY ). To/os' vs. NLRC GR No. )!576. A5%./ )0, 200" FACTS* Hve(n Toosa was the widow of Ca$tain :irgiio Toosa who was hired b( Owana0Taiun# through its manning agent# Asia "u! Trans$ort Phis% )nc%# to be the master of the :esse named +G: /ad( &ona% The contract o<cia( began when he assumed command of the vesse in No!ohama# *a$an% The vesse de$arted for /ong "each Caifornia# $assing b( Jawaii in the midde of the vo(age% At the time of embar!ation# he was aeged( shown to be in good heath% &uring Xchanneing activitiesI u$on the vesseIs de$arture from No!ohama Ca$t% Toosa was drenched with rainwater% The foowing da(# he had sight fever and in the succeeding tweve da(s# his heath ra$id( deteriorated resuting in his death on .ovember 46# 4553% "ecause of his death# his wife ,ed a Com$aintGPosition Pa$er against Owana0Taiun# thru its resident0agent# +r% Fumio .a!agawa# Asia "u!# Pedro Garate and +ario Asis# as res$ondents% Petitioner argues that her cause of action is based on the faiure of $rivate res$ondents# as em$o(ers of her husband# to $rovide him time(# adequate and com$etent medica services under Art% 4C4 of the /abor Code% /i!ewise# she contends that Artice 34B (a) (A) of the /abor Code vests abor arbiters and the ./-C with 8urisdiction to award a !inds of damages in cases arising from em$o(er0em$o(ee reations% She aso insisted that the Lreasonabe causa connectionM rue shoud be a$$ied in her favor% ISSUES* 4%) =hether or not the abor arbiter and the ./-C had 8urisdiction over $etitionerIs action 3%) =hether or not caim can be anchored on Art% 4C4 of the /abor Code HELD* (4) The ./-C and the /A had no 8urisdiction over $etitionerIs caim for damages% Time and time again# we have hed that the aegations in the com$aint determine the nature of the action and# consequent(# the 8urisdiction of the courts% After carefu( e>amining $etitionerIs com$aintG$osition $a$er# we are convinced that the aegations therein are in the nature of an action based on a quasi deict or tort% )t is evident that she sued Pedro Garate and +ario Asis for gross negigence% PetitionerIs com$aintG$osition $a$er refers to and e>tensive( discusses the negigent acts of shi$mates Garate and Asis# who had no em$o(er0em$o(ee reation with Ca$tain Toosa% The /A himsef cassi,ed $etitionerIs case as La com$aint for damages# bac!isting and watchisting for gross negigence resuting in the death of com$ainantIs husband# Ca$t% :irgiio Toosa%M The case does not invove the ad8udication of a abor dis$ute# but the recover( of damages based on a quasi deict% The 8urisdiction of abor tribunas is imited to dis$utes arising from em$o(er0em$o(ee reations# as we rued in Georg Grot8ahn G+"J W Co% v% )snaniF B3 L.ot ever( dis$ute between an em$o(er and em$o(ee invoves matters that on( /As and the ./-C can resove in the e>ercise of their ad8udicator( or quasi08udicia $owers% The 8urisdiction of /As and the ./-C under Artice 34B of the /abor Code is imited to dis$utes arising from an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ which can on( be resoved b( reference to the /abor Code# other abor statutes# or their coective bargaining agreement%M The $ivota question is whether the /abor Code has an( reevance to the reief sought b( $etitioner% From her $a$er# it is evident that the $rimar( reiefs she see!s are as foowsF (a) oss of earning ca$acit( denominated therein as Lactua damagesM or Lost incomeM and (b) bac!isting% The oss she caims does not refer to the actua earnings of the deceased# but to his earning ca$acit( based on a ife e>$ectanc( of CE (ears% This amount is recoverabe if the action is based on a quasi deict as $rovided for in Artice 33DC of the Civi Code# but not in the /abor Code% =hie it is true that abor arbiters and the ./-C have 8urisdiction to award not on( reiefs $rovided b( abor aws# but aso damages governed b( the Civi Code# these reiefs must sti be based on an action that has a reasonabe causa connection with the /abor Code# other abor statutes# or coective bargaining agreements% The centra issue is determined essentia( from the reief sought in the com$aint% =here such $rinci$a reief is to be granted under abor egisation or a C"A# the case shoud fa within the 8urisdiction of the /abor Arbiter and the ./-C# even though a caim for damages might be asserted as an incident to such caim% )t must be noted that a wor!erIs oss of earning ca$acit( and bac!isting are not to be equated with wages# overtime com$ensation or se$aration $a(# and other abor bene,ts that are genera( cogni'ed in abor dis$utes% The oss of earning ca$acit( is a reief or caim resuting from a quasi deict or a simiar cause within the ream of civi aw% LCaims for damages under $aragra$h A of Artice 34B must have a reasonabe causa connection with an( of the caims $rovided for in the artice in order to be cogni'abe b( the abor arbiter% 2n( if there is such a connection with the other caims can the caim for damages be considered as arising from em$o(er0em$o(ee reations%M )n the $resent case# $etitionerIs caim for damages is not reated to an( other caim under Artice 34B# other abor statutes# or coective bargaining agreements% (3) Petitioner cannot anchor her caim for damages to Artice 4C4 of the /abor Code# which does not grant or s$ecif( a caim or reief% This $rovision is on( a safet( and heath standard the enforcement of which rests with the abor secretar(% Thus# caims for an em$o(erIs vioation thereof are be(ond the 8urisdiction of the abor arbiter% )n other words# $etitioner cannot enforce the abor standard $rovided for in Artice 4C4 b( suing for damages before the abor arbiter% )t is not the ./-C but the reguar courts that have 8urisdiction over actions for damages# in which the em$o(er0em$o(ee reation is mere( incidenta# and in which the cause of action $roceeds from a di@erent source of obigation such as a tort%
Since $etitionerIs caim for damages is $redicated on a quasi deict or tort that has no reasonabe causa connection with an( of the caims $rovided for in Artice 34B# other abor statutes# or coective bargaining agreements# 8urisdiction over the action ies with the reguar courts 00 not with the ./-C or the abor arbiters% NOTES* SConditions for the a$$ication of Lreasonabe causa connectionM rue (Caims for damages under $aragra$h A of Artice 34B must have a reasonabe causa connection with an( of the caims $rovided for in the artice in order to be cogni'abe b( the abor arbiter%) 4) the dis$ute arose from an em$o(er0 em$o(ee reation 3) the dis$ute can be resoved b( reference to the /abor Code SA wor!erIs oss of earning ca$acit( and bac!isting are not to be equated with wages# overtime com$ensation or se$aration $a(# and other abor bene,ts that are genera( cogni'ed in abor dis$utes% The oss of earning ca$acit( is a reief or caim resuting from a quasi deict or a simiar cause within the ream of civi aw% DOCTRINE* As a rue# abor arbiters and the .ationa /abor -eations Commission have no $ower or authorit( to grant reiefs from caims that do not arise from em$o(er0em$o(ee reations% The( have no 8urisdiction over torts that have no reasonabe causa connection to an( of the caims $rovided for in the /abor Code# other abor statutes# or coective bargaining agreements% U,$.H 1o%5 vs $'20.o/' 525 s1%' 566 N2007O F'13s* Sometime in A$ri 455E# "andioa was em$o(ed b( U0")9 to insta furniture for its customers% 2n 43 A$ri 455B# "andioa and two other U0")9 em$o(ees were invoved in a vehicuar accident on their wa( to "aguio# where the( were assigned b( U0")9 to insta furniture for an e>hibit% As a resut of the accident# "andioa sustained a fracture on his eft eg% "andioa and his co0em$o(ees were initia( brought to the -osario &istrict Jos$ita% The ne>t da(# 4A A$ri 455B# the( were transferred to the Phii$$ine 2rtho$edic Jos$ita (2rtho$edic)% After his bro!en eg was cemented# "andioa was advised to go bac! for further medica treatment% U0")9 $aid for the medica e>$enses incurred in both hos$itas% "andioa caims that he as!ed U0")9 for ,nancia assistance but that the atter refused% Je attached the recei$ts# issued b( +edica Center ParaYaque (+CP) and &r% Ceestino +usngi# for medica e>$enses with a tota amount of PB#BA3%ED% Je aso attached a co$( of the -oentgenoogica -e$ort b( a -adioogist in +CP%
"andioa added that he $aid for other medica e>$enses for which no recei$ts were issued% B3 2n Se$tember 4556# "andioa ,ed a Com$aint before the /abor Arbiter# where he aeged under$a(ment of saar(? non0$a(ment of overtime $a(? $remium $a( for wor! $erformed on hoida(s and rest da(s? se$aration $a(? service incentive eave $a(? 43th month $a(? and the $a(ment of actua# mora and e>em$ar( damages% The /abor Arbiter ordered in its &ecision that res$ondent $a( the com$ainantF Saar( &i@erentia# Service incentive and 43 th +onth $a( whie dismissing a other caims% "andioa ,ed an a$$ea before the ./-C% The ./-C amended the &ecision rendered b( the /abor Arbiter% )t rued that U0 ")9 shoud reimburse "andioa the amount of P43#BA3%ED for the medica e>$enses he incurred in connection with his fractured eg% )t further rued that U0")9 is iabe to $a( "andioa P3E#DDD%DD in mora damages and P3E#DDD%DD in e>em$ar( damages for refusing to reimburse "andioa for the medica e>$enses he incurred after it faied to re$ort to the Socia Securit( S(stem (SSS) the in8uries sustained b( "andioa% Thereafter# U0")9 ,ed a +otion for -econsideration# which was denied b( the ./-C% 2n a$$ea# the Court of A$$eas modi,ed the ./-C -esoution% )t a<rmed "andioa1s entitement to reimbursement of his medica e>$enses# but reduced the amount to PB#BA3%ED# the amount of actua damages he was abe to $rove% )t aso a<rmed without modi,cation the award of mora and e>em$ar( damages# and the monetar( award granted b( the /abor Arbiter% Iss&#* =hether or not the Jonorabe Court of A$$eas erred in ordering $etitioner U0"i> to reimburse res$ondent "andioa for the aeged medica e>$enses when there was no evidence submitted b( res$ondent in su$$ort thereof% SC R&/.29* The $etition is without merit% Contrar( to the arguments $ut forward b( U0")9# it is iabe to reimburse "andioa the amount of PB#BA3%ED for medica e>$enses because its faiure to com$( with its dut( to record and re$ort "andioa1s in8ur( to the SSS $recuded "andioa from ma!ing an( caims% +oreover# U0")9# b( its own admission# reimbursed its other em$o(ees who were invoved in the same accident for their medica e>$enses% Cear(# the reimbursement of medica e>$enses for in8uries incurred in the course of em$o(ment is $art of the bene,ts en8o(ed b( U0")91s em$o(ees% The on( 8usti,cation for its refusa to reimburse "andioa was that he intended to defraud the com$an( b( $resenting s$urious recei$ts amounting to PB#BA3%ED that were aeged( issued four months before their $resentation% A-T% 3DE -HC2-& 2F &HATJ 2- &)SA")/)TN (a) A em$o(ers sha !ee$ a ogboo! to record chronoogica( the sic!ness# in8ur( or death of their em$o(ees# setting forth therein their names# dates and $aces of the contingenc(# nature of the contingenc( and absences% Hntries in the ogboo! sha be made within ,ve da(s from notice or !nowedge of the occurrence of contingenc(% =ithin ,ve da(s after entr( in the ogboo!# the em$o(er sha re$ort to the S(stem on( those contingencies he deems to be wor!0 connected% (b) A entries in the em$o(ers ogboo! sha be made b( the em$o(er or an( of his authori'ed o<cia after veri,cation of the contingencies or the em$o(ees absences for a $eriod of a da( or more% U$on request b( the S(stem# the em$o(er sha furnish the necessar( certi,cate regarding information about an( contingenc( a$$earing in the ogboo!# citing the entr( number# $age number and date% Such ogboo! sha be made avaiabe for ins$ection to the du( authori'ed re$resentatives of the S(stem% A-T 3DC% .2T)CH 2F S)CT.HSS# ).*U-N 2- &HATJ .otice of sic!ness# in8ur( or death sha be given to the em$o(er b( the em$o(ee or b( his de$endents or an(bod( on his behaf within ,ve da(s from the occurrence of the contingenc(% .o notice to the em$o(er sha be required if the contingenc( is !nown to the em$o(er or his agents or re$resentatives% As a genera rue# the in8ured em$o(ee must notif( his em$o(er# who is obigated to enter the notice in a ogboo! within ,ve da(s after noti,cation% =ithin ,ve da(s after ma!ing the entr(# the em$o(er of a $rivate com$an( re$orts the wor!0reated sic!ness or in8ur( to the SSS% The caim is forwarded to the SSS# which decides on the vaidit( of the caim% =hen the SSS denies the caim# the denia ma( be a$$eaed to the Hm$o(ees1 Com$ensation Commission (HCC) within 3D da(s% Jowever# the aw $rovides an e>ce$tion to the rue requiring an em$o(ee to notif( his or her em$o(er of his in8uries% Under Section " of HCC "oard -esoution .o% 343B# issued on E August 4563# notice of in8ur(# sic!ness or death of the em$o(ee need not be given to the em$o(er in an( of the foowing situationsF (4) =hen the em$o(ee su@ers the contingenc( within the em$o(er1s $remises? (3) =hen the em$o(ee o<cia( ,es an a$$ication for eave of absence b( reason of the contingenc( from which he su@ers? (3) =hen the em$o(er $rovides medica services andGor medica su$$ies to the em$o(ee who su@ers from the contingenc(? and (A) =hen the em$o(er can be reasonab( $resumed to have had !nowedge of the em$o(ee1s contingenc(# in view of the foowing circumstancesF (A%4) The em$o(ee was $erforming an o<cia function for the em$o(er when the contingenc( occurred? (A%3) The em$o(ee1s contingenc( has been $ubici'ed through mass media outets? or (A%3) The s$eci,c circumstances of the occurrence of the contingenc( have been such that the em$o(er can be reasonab( $resumed to have readi( !nown it soon thereafter? or (A%A) An( other circumstances that ma( give rise to a reasonabe $resum$tion that the em$o(er has been aware of the contingenc(% BA )n the $resent case# there is no dis$ute that "andioa1s eg in8ur( was sustained in the course of his em$o(ment with U0")9% At the time of the accident# "andioa was on the wa( to "aguio# where he was ordered b( U0")9 to insta furniture for an e>hibit% +oreover# U0")9 was aware that "andioa# as we as his other co0em$o(ees# were in8ured during the accident% U0")9 admitted to $roviding "andioa and his co0em$o(ees with medica assistance and it even sent its re$resentative# -e( -e(nes# to -osario &istrict Jos$ita# where the( were con,ned# and had them transferred to the 2rtho$edic% U0")9 was aso aware that the 2rtho$edic instructed "andioa to return for further medica treatment% )t is im$icit that "andioa needed further treatment for his bro!en eg and was# thus# inca$acitated to wor!% Given the foregoing circumstances# U0 ")9 had the ega obigation to record $ertinent information in connection with the in8uries sustained b( "andioa in its ogboo! within ,ve da(s after it had !nown about the in8uries? and to re$ort the same to the SSS within ,ve da(s after it was recorded in the ogboo!# in accordance with Artices 3DE and 3DC of the /abor Code% Jad U0")9 $erformed its awfu duties# the SSS# or the HCC on a$$ea# coud have $ro$er( considered whether or not "andioa was entited to reimbursement for his medica e>$enses# as we as disabiit( bene,ts whie he was unabe to wor!% Jowever# U0")9 did not $resent an( evidence showing that it had com$ied with these ega requirements% )t had not even re$ied to "andioa1s aegations in his Position Pa$er# dated 43 A$ri 4556# that its em$o(ees were not even members of the SSS% "( faiing to re$ort "andioa1s in8ur( to the SSS# U0")9 disregarded the aw and its $ur$ose? that is# to $rovide a $ro$er and $rom$t settement of his caims% )nstead# U0")9 arrogated u$on itsef the dut( of determining which medica e>$enses are $ro$er for reimbursement% )n doing so# it coud unnecessari( dea( and un8usti,ab( refuse to reimburse "andioa for medica e>$enses even if the( were adequate( su$$orted b( recei$ts# as was done in this instance% The e>$ense and dea( undergone b( "andioa since 455B in obtaining reimbursement for his medica e>$enses of PB#BA3%ED ver( cear( defeat the $ur$ose of the aw% The instant Petition is denied% o1#'2 $&./0#%s 1o2s3%&13.o2 vs s5s. 1&$'1&$ GR. )5066, A5%./ )", 20)) 2n A$ri 43# 3D44# the Su$reme Court issued its ruing in the case of 2cean "uiders Construction Cor$% andGor &ennis Jao vs% S$ouses Antonio and Anicia Cubacub% *ustice Conchita Car$io0+oraes $enned the ma8orit( decision% Athough the decision was rendered b( the Su$reme Court from the coo comforts of its "aguio Cit( summer sanctuar(# *ustice /ucas "ersamin o$ted to turn u$ the heat as soe dissenter% 2cean "uiders# of which $etitioner &ennis Jao was genera manager# em$o(ed "adimir Cubacub as a maintenance man% 2n A$ri 5# 455E# "adimir fe i to chic!en $o> as a resut of which Jao advised him to rest for three da(s# which "adimir $rom$t( did at the com$an(Is barrac!s% Three da(s ater# according to the $onente# "adimir $roceeded with his usua chores of manning the gate of the com$an( $remises and even ceaned com$an( vehices% A$$arent( sti not feeing we# he as!ed a co0wor!er to accom$an( him to his house in the $rovince of Tarac% U$on being informed of this request# Jao gave "adimir P4#DDD%DD and instructed "adimirIs co0wor!er to instead bring "adimir to the nearest hos$ita% Thus# on A$ri 43# 455E# "adimir was ta!en to the Ca(biga Communit( Jos$ita# a $rimar(0care hos$ita around one !iometer awa( from the o<ce of the com$an(# and in which "adimir was con,ned% At the request and suggestion of the attending $h(sician# "adimirIs $arents# res$ondent s$ouses Antonio and Anicia Cubacub# together with a friend# &r% Jermes Frias# arrived at the hos$ita the foowing da( and transferred "adimir to the Oue'on Cit( Genera Jos$ita (OCGJ) where he was $aced in the intensive care unit% "adimir died the foowing da(# A$ri 4A# 455E% The death certi,cate issued b( the OCGJ recorded "adimirIs immediate cause of death as cardio0res$irator( arrest and the antecedent cause as $neumonia% 2n the other hand# the death certi,cate issued b( &r% Frias recorded the causes of death as cardiac arrest# muti$e organ s(stem faiure# se$ticaemia and chic!en $o>% Around four months after "adimirIs death# his $arents ,ed a tort action for damages before the -egiona Tria Court of Tarac aeging that Jao was guit( of negigence which resuted in the deterioration of "adimirIs condition eading to eventua his death% The Tarac -TC dismissed the com$aint# hoding that Jao was not under an( obigation to bring "adimir to better tertiar( hos$itas and assuming that "adimir died of chic!en $o> aggravated b( $neumonia or some other com$ications due to ac! of adequate faciities at the hos$ita# the same cannot be attributed to Jao% 2n a$$ea# the Court of A$$eas# reversed the tria courtIs decision# hoding that Jao vioated Artice 4C4 of the /abor Code b( faiing to bring "adimir to a better0equi$$ed hos$ita% The Court of A$$eas further rued that Jao shoud have foreseen that "adimir# an adut# coud su@er com$ications from chic!en $o> and# had he been brought to hos$itas i!e St% /u!eIs# Ca$ito +edica Center# Phii$$ine Genera Jos$ita and the i!e# "adimir coud have been saved% See!ing reief from the Su$reme Court# 2cean "uiders and Jao asserted that Jao e>ercised the diigence more than the degree of BE diigence the aw requires and thus are not iabe for damages% S$ea!ing for the ma8orit(# *ustice Car$io0+oraes noted that to successfu( $rosecute an action anchored on torts# the foowing eements must be $resentF (4) dut( (3) breach (3) in8ur( and $ro>imate causation% =hie the Su$reme Court noted that the Court of A$$eas hed that it was the dut( of $etitioners to $rovide adequate medica assistance to the em$o(ees under Artice 4C4 of the /abor CodeF A-T% 4C4% Assistance of em$o(er% U )t sha be the dut( of an( em$o(er to $rovide a the necessar( assistance to ensure the adequate and immediate medica and denta attendance and treatment to an in8ured or sic! em$o(ee in case of emergenc(% the )m$ementing -ues of the /abor Code do not enighten what the $hrase Ladequate and immediateM medica attendance means in reation to an Lemergenc(%M According(# *ustice Car$io0+oraes stated that Lit woud thus a$$ear that the determination of what it means is eft to the em$o(er# e>ce$t when a fu0time registered nurse or $h(sician are avaiabe on0site as required# aso under Section 4EB of the /abor Code%M )n the view of the Jigh Court# JaoIs advice for "adimir to# as he did# ta!e a three0 da( rest and to ater have him brought to the nearest hos$ita constituted Ladequate and immediate medicaM attendance that he is mandated# under Artice 4C4# to $rovide to a sic! em$o(ee in an emergenc(% *ustice Car$io0+oraes adds# LQcRhic!en $o> is sef0imiting% Jao does not a$$ear to have a medica bac!ground% Je ma( not be thus e>$ected to have !nown that "adimir needed to be brought to a hos$ita with better faciities than the Ca(biga Jos$ita# contrar( to a$$eate courtIs ruing%M )n an( case# the ma8orit( hed that Jao cannot be considered as the $ro>imate cause of the death of "adimir% LPro>imate cause is that which# in natura and continuous sequence# unbro!en b( an e<cient intervening cause# $roduces in8ur(# and without which# the resut woud not have occurred% An in8ur( or damage is $ro>imate( caused b( an act or faiure to act# whenever it a$$ears from the evidence in the case that the act or omission $a(ed a substantia $art in bringing about or actua( causing the in8ur( or damage# and that the in8ur( or damage was either a direct resut or a reasonab( $robabe consequence of the act or omission%M Therefore# based on the reevant facts# the Su$reme Court found 2cean "uiders and Jao not to have been negigent and thus reversed the Court of A$$eas% )n his 0.ss#23.29 o5.2.o2# *ustice /ucas "ersamin ta!es the view that the $etitioners shoud be hed iabe for damages# as the Court of A$$eas rued# essentia( because "adimir Ldied from the com$ications of chic!en $o> after his em$o(ers forced him to continue on the 8ob des$ite his a`iction that# in the ,rst $ace# he had contracted in the wor!$ace from a co0em$o(ee% To Q*ustice "ersaminR# his death was wrongfu b( reason of the em$o(ersI faiureF (a) to isoate the co0 wor!er to $revent the s$read of chic!en $o>? (b) to $rovide to him the ega( mandated ,rst aid treatment? and (c) to e>tend adequate medica and other assistance for his a`iction with chic!en $o> and the e>$ected com$ications of the a`iction (i!e etting him o@ from wor! in order to have com$ete rest)%M The dissenter cites the factua records of the case as convincing( estabishing that Jao had faied to e>ercise the degree of care and vigiance required under the circumstances% For one thing# *ustice "ersamin notes that the $etitioners had vioated Artice 4EB of the /abor Code for not having the required medica $ersonne or faciities% Q2n this $oint# the ma8orit( o$inion stated that there is no aegation on the number of em$o(ees or state of the com$an(Is $remises on which to reach a determination as to that a$$icabiit( of Artice 4EB to the $etitioners%R As such# "adimir received no ,rst aid treatment from the time he contracted chic!en $o> unti the da( he was rushed to the communit( hos$ita% +oreover# "adimir was not aowed to have bed rest# considering that Jao instead required him to continue on the 8ob des$ite his a`iction% The dissent aso $oints out that "adimir was not aowed to rest in his $arentsI home in Tarac because Jao was due to eave for Jong!ong for the Jo( =ee! brea!% )n addition# the em$o(ee barrac!s were unsuitabe for em$o(ees with inesses% Concuded *ustice "ersamin# LJaoIs utter ac! of concern and soicitude for the wefare of "adimir not on( contravened the etter and s$irit of the /abor Code but aso manifested a caous disregard of "adimirIs wea!ened condition%M +IGRANT <ORKER=S ACT AND OVERSEAS FILIPINO ACT OF )5 7 RECRUIT+ENT AND PLACE+ENT JSS I20o14.2' Co%5o%'3.o2 vs. G#%'%0o R. F#%%#%, #3 '/. Q G%-% .o% 4EC364 2ctober 4A# 3DDER F'13s* Petitioner hired the res$ondents as construction wor!ers for its Taiwan0based $rinci$a em$o(er Sr Formosa Pastics Cor$% (FPC)% Pursuant to the $artiesI contracts of em$o(ment# each res$ondent woud receive month( saar( of .TP4E#3CD% Their em$o(ment covered a $eriod of 4 (ear of from +a( 4# 455B to +a( 4# 4556% As schedued# res$ondents# aong with other Fii$ino contract wor!ers# were de$o(ed to Taiwan% "ut u$on their arriva# on( 3D wor!ers# e>cuding res$ondents# were em$o(ed as construction wor!ers at FPC% Aggrieved# the( were assisted b( the o<cias of +ania Hconomic Cutura 2<ce who directed BC them to sign a<davits aeging that the( were assigned# not as construction wor!ers for FPC# but as cabe tra( ) $i$e tracts wor!ers at Shin Twan Hnter$rises Co%# /td% The( were then re$atriated to the Phii$$ines% Thus# res$ondents ,ed a com$aint for iega dismissed# $a(ment of saaries# refund of $acement fee# damages and attorne(Is fees with the 2<ce of the /abor Arbiter against *SS )ndochina Cor$% SC R&/.29* The decision to resign from their em$o(ment were made b( force of circumstances not attributabe to their own faut# and it was not their faut that the( were eft out from among those wor!ers who were considered for em$o(ment b( the foreign em$o(er% Hvident(# $etitioner is guit( for breach of contract because u$on arriva of res$ondents at the 8obsite# there was no em$o(er on hand# which then made res$ondents to decide to go home to the Phii$$ines% Therefore# the termination of res$ondentIs services is# undoubted(# without 8ust or vaid cause% Consequent(# the res$ondents are entited to an amount re$resenting their 3 months saaries considering that their em$o(ment contract has a term of e>act( 4 (ear# $us a fu refused of their $acement fee with interest at 43V $er annum% Such award is in accordance to Section 4D of -A 6DA3# otherwise !nown as the +igrant =or!ers and 2verseas Fii$inos Act# which $rovidesF LSHCT)2. 4D% +one( caims%0>>> >>> )n case of termination of overseas em$o(ment without 8ust# vaid or authori'ed cause as de,ned b( aw or contract# the wor!er sha be entited to the fu reimbursement of his $acement fee with 43V interest $er annum# $us his saaries for the une>$ired $ortion of his em$o(ment contract or for 3 months for ever( (ear of the une>$ired term# whichever is ess% P#o5/# o: 34# P4./.55.2#s vs. C'53. F/o%#21.o O. G's'1'o QG%-% .o% 4C6AAE .ovember 44# 3DDER F'13s* A$$eant was the Crewing +anager of Great Hastern Shi$$ing Agenc( )nc%# a icensed oca manning agenc(# whie his ne$hew and co0accused# *ose Gasacao# was the President% As the crewing manager# Ca$t% Gasacao1s duties incuded receiving 8ob a$$ications# interviewing the a$$icants and informing them of the agenc(1s requirement of $a(ment of $erformance or cash bond $rior to de$o(ment% 2n August A# 3DDD# Ca$t% Gasacao and *ose Gasacao were charged with /arge Scae )ega -ecruitment de,ned under Section C# $aragra$hs (a)# () and (m) of -e$ubic Act (-A) .o% 6DA3 or the +igrant =or!ers and 2verseas Fii$inos Act of 455E# and $enai'ed under Section B(b) of the same aw# before the -TC of Oue'on Cit(% 2n( Ca$t% Gasacao was arrested whie *ose Gasacao remained at arge% =hen arraigned# a$$eant $eaded not guit( to the o@ense charged% Thereafter# tria on the merits ensued% 2n +arch E# 3DD4# the -TC of Oue'on Cit(# rendered its *oint &ecision convicting a$$eant of /arge Scae )ega -ecruitment% Iss&#* =hether or not Ca$t% Gasacao was guit( be(ond reasonabe doubt of the crime of arge scae iega recruitment SC R&/.29* -A .o% 6DA3 de,nes iega recruitment as foowsF ))% )//HGA/ -HC-U)T+H.T Sec% C% &HF).)T)2.S% U For $ur$oses of this Act# iega recruitment sha mean an( act of canvassing# enisting# contracting# trans$orting# utii'ing# hiring# $rocuring wor!ers and incudes referring# contract services# $romising or advertising for em$o(ment abroad# whether for $ro,t or not# when underta!en b( a non0 icensee or non0hoder of authorit( contem$ated under Artice 43(f) of Pd AA3# as amendedF Provided# that such non0icensee or non0hoder who# in an( manner# o@ers or $romises for a fee em$o(ment abroad to two or more $ersons sha be deemed so engaged% )t sha i!ewise incude the foowing acts# whether committed b( an( $ersons# whether a non0icensee# non0hoder# icensee or hoder of authorit(% (a) To charge or acce$t direct( or indirect( an( amount greater than the s$eci,ed in the schedue of aowabe fees $rescribed b( the Secretar( of /abor and Hm$o(ment# or to ma!e a wor!er $a( an( amount greater than that actua( received b( him as a oan or advance? >>> >>> >>> () Faiure to actua( de$o( without vaid reason as determined b( the &e$artment of /abor and Hm$o(ment? and (m) Faiure to reimburse e>$enses incurred b( the wor!ers in connection with his documentation and $rocessing for $ur$oses of de$o(ment# in cases where the de$o(ment does not actua( ta!e $ace without the wor!er1s faut% )ega recruitment when committed b( a s(ndicate or in arge scae sha be considered as o@ense invoving economic sabotage% )ega recruitment is deemed committed b( a s(ndicate carried out b( a grou$ of 3 or more $ersons cons$iring or confederating with one another% )t is deemed committed in arge scae if committed against 3 or more $ersons individua( or as a grou$% A icense is a document issued b( the &2/H authori'ing a $erson or entit( to o$erate a $rivate em$o(ment agenc(# whie an authorit( is a document issued b( the &2/H authori'ing a $erson or association to engage in recruitment and $acement activities as a $rivate recruitment entit(% Jowever# it a$$ears that even icensees or hoders of authorit( can be hed iabe for iega recruitment shoud the( commit an( of the above0enumerated acts% Thus# it is inconsequentia that a$$eant committed arge scae iega BB recruitment whie Great Hastern Shi$$ing Agenc(# )nc% was hoding a vaid authorit(% =e thus ,nd that the court beow committed no reversibe error in not a$$reciating that the manning agenc( was a hoder of a vaid authorit( when a$$eant recruited the $rivate com$ainants% There is no merit in a$$eant1s contention that he coud not be hed iabe for iega recruitment since he was a mere em$o(ee of the manning agenc(# $ursuant to Section C of -A .o% 6DA3 which $rovidesF The $ersons crimina( iabe for the above o@enses are the $rinci$as# accom$ices and accessories% )n case of 8uridica $ersons# the o<cers having contro# management or direction of their business sha be iabe% Contrar( to Ca$t% Gasacao1s caim# he is not a mere em$o(ee of the manning agenc( but the crewing manager% As such# he receives 8ob a$$ications# interviews a$$icants and informs them of the agenc(1s requirement of $a(ment of $erformance or cash bond $rior to the a$$icant1s de$o(ment% As the crewing manager# he was at the forefront of the com$an(1s recruitment activities% The foregoing testimonies of the $rivate com$ainantscear( estabished that Gasacao is not a mere em$o(ee of Great Hastern Shi$$ing Agenc( )nc% As the crewing manager# it was a$$eant who made re$resentations with the $rivate com$ainants that he can secure overseas em$o(ment for them u$on $a(ment of the cash bond% )t is we setted that to $rove iega recruitment# it must be shown that a$$eant gave com$ainants the distinct im$ression that he had the $ower or abiit( to send com$ainants abroad for wor! such that the atter were convinced to $art with their mone( in order to be em$o(ed% A$$eant1s act of $romising the $rivate com$ainants that the( wi be de$o(ed abroad within three months after the( have $aid the cash bond cear( shows that he is engaged in iega recruitment% Hven assuming that Ca$t% Gasacao was a mere em$o(ee# such fact is not a shied against his conviction for arge scae iega recruitment% Cear(# the acts of Ca$t% Gasacao vis0a0vis the $rivate com$ainants# either as the crewing manager of Great Hastern Shi$$ing Agenc( )nc% or as a mere em$o(ee of the same# constitute acts of arge scae iega recruitment which shoud not be countenanced% Athough he informed them that it is o$tiona# he coected cash bonds and $romised their de$o(ment notwithstanding the $roscri$tion against its coection under Section CD of the 2mnibus -ues and -eguations )m$ementing -%A% .o% 6DA3 which state thatF SHC% CD% Prohibition on "onds and &e$osits% U )n no case sha an em$o(ment agenc( require an( bond or cash de$osit from the wor!er to guarantee $erformance under the contract or hisGher re$atriation% )ega recruitment is deemed committed in arge scae if committed against three or more $ersons individua( or as a grou$% )n this case# ,ve com$ainants testi,ed against a$$eant1s acts of iegarecruitment# thereb( rendering his acts tantamount to economic sabotage% +#%1#0.3' A1&R', #3 '/. vs. CA '20 Jo.2 I23#%2'3.o2'/ Co%5. '20Fo% E/.E'$#34 A/'Ro2 QG%-% .o% 4E5633 +a( DE# 3DDCR F'13s* Petitioners are Fii$ino overseas wor!ers de$o(ed b( $rivate res$ondent *oin )nternationa Cor$oration (*)C)# a icensed recruitment agenc(# to its $rinci$a# 3& Pre0 Coor Pastic# )nc%# (3&) in Taiwan# -e$ubic of China# under a uniform(0worded em$o(ment contract for a $eriod of two (ears% Jerein $rivate res$ondent Hi'abeth AaYon is the $resident of *oin )nternationa Cor$oration% After their $a$ers were $rocessed# $etitioners caimed the( signed a uniform(0worded em$o(ment contract with $rivate res$ondents which sti$uated that the( were to wor! as machine o$erators with a month( saar( of .TP4E#6AD%DD# e>cusive of overtime# for a $eriod of two (ears% 2n &ecember 5# 4555# with 46 other contract wor!ers the( eft for Taiwan% U$on arriving at the 8ob site# a factor( owned b( 3&# the( were made to sign another contract which stated that their saar( was on( .TP44#6AD%DD% The( were i!ewise informed that the dormitor( which woud serve as their iving quarters was sti under construction% The( were requested to tem$orari( bear with the inconvenience but were assured that their dormitor( woud be com$eted in a short time The $etitioners averred that on &ecember 4C# 4555# due to unbearabe wor!ing conditions# the( were constrained to inform management that the( were eaving% The( boo!ed a Kight home# at their own e>$ense% "efore the( eft# the( were made to sign a written waiver% )n addition# $etitioners were not $aid an( saar( for wor! rendered on &ecember 4404E# 4555% Iss&#* =hether $etitioners were iega( dismissed under -e$% Act .o% 6DA3# thus entiting them to bene,ts $us damages% SC R&/.29* As we have hed $revious(# constructive dismissa covers the invountar( resignation resorted to when continued em$o(ment becomes im$ossibe# unreasonabe or uni!e(? when there is a demotion in ran! or a diminution in $a(? or when a cear discrimination# insensibiit( or disdain b( an em$o(er becomes unbearabe to an em$o(ee% )n this case# the a$$eate court found that $etitioners did not den( that the accommodations were not as home( as e>$ected% )n the $etitionersI memorandum# the( admitted that the( were tod b( the $rinci$a# u$on their arriva# that the dormitor( was sti under construction and were requested to bear with the tem$orar( inconvenience and the dormitor( woud soon be ,nished% =e i!ewise note that $etitioners did not refute $rivate res$ondentsI assertion that the( had de$o(ed a$$ro>imate( si>t( other wor!ers to their $rinci$a# and to the best of their !nowedge# no other wor!er assigned to the same $rinci$a has resigned# much ess# ,ed a case for iega dismissa% B6 To our mind these cited circumstances do not reKect maice b( $rivate res$ondents nor do the( show the $rinci$aIs intention to sub8ect $etitioners to unheath( accommodations% Under these facts# we cannot rue that there was constructive dismissa% As.'2 I23#%2'3.o2'/ +'25o>#% S#%v.1#s, I21. NAI+SO vs. CA '20 A2.1#3' L'1#%2' Q G%-% .o% 4C5CE3 2ctober D5# 3DDCR F'13s* Private res$ondent /acerna aeges the facts of the case beingF That she was hired b( Pro>( +aid Services Centre (hereinafter referred to as Pro>() thru $etitioner A)+S# a recruitment entit( in the Phii$$ines? That on Februar( 4D# 3DDD# she signed an em$o(ment contract as a domestic he$er of /ow See Ting# who ater on canceed the same sometime in +arch 3DDD? That subsequent to the canceation of the contract# /acerna# with the assurance of a new em$o(er from A)+S# $roceeded to Jong!ong# and that u$on her arriva# she was fetched b( Tan Tmin Shwe /in Charmain# her new em$o(er? That on +a( 3# 3DDD# she was dismissed b( Charmain on the ground of Ldi<cut( in communicationM? That on +a( 3D# 3DDD# she was transferred b( Pro>( to Tam Ching0(ee# &onna# who ater on dismissed her without stating the reason(s) thereof? Pro>( neither gave her an e>$anation regarding this? That on *u( 4# 3DDD# she agreed to ta!e a three0da( tria $eriod with another em$o(er# &ais( /ee? that before she coud sign her contract with &ais( /ee# she was denied of her request for change of em$o(er b( the Jong!ong government and was advised instead to submit a fresh a$$ication with her countr( of domicie% That u$on her return to the Phii$$ines# she was informed b( A)+S that &ais( /ee was no onger interested in hiring her? and# That u$on !nowing this# she demanded the return of her $acement fee but was denied? Jence# this instant case of iega dismissa% Petitioner A)+S on the other hand# aeges the facts to beF That /acerna resigned after wor!ing for E da(s as a domestic wor!er for /ow See Ting# as evidenced b( her resignation etter? That Pro>( $aid her wages and return tic!et to the Phii$$ines# but res$ondent refused to be re$atriated? That thereafter# Pro>( assisted her to be em$o(ed b( Charmain# who subsequent( dismissed her for di<cut( in communication? and# That the Jong!ong government $ermitted her an e>tension of her sta( in Jong!ong# but that this was her ast chance% -es$ondent argued that her ,rst em$o(er was Chairman# and not /ow See Ting# as she never got the chance to wor! for the atter% She aso contend that the signature on the resignation and on the recei$t of $a(ment was not hers# nor was the handwriting% 2n *une 36# 3DD4# the /abor Arbiter rued in favor of $etitioner A)+S# stating that /acerna was not iega( dismissed as shown b( her resignation etter% Jowever# this decision was ater on reversed b( the Court of A$$eas due to the ac! of 8ust or authori'ed cause to 8ustif( /acernaIs dismissa% The court aso rued that A)+S is soidari( iabe with Pro>(# as $rovided b( Sec% 4D of -A 6DA3# stating that the iabiit( of the $rinci$a em$o(er and the recruitment agenc( sha not be a@ected b( an( substitution# amendment or modi,cation of the contract of em$o(ment% Iss&#* =as /acerna iega( dismissed; )f (es# ma( A)+S be hed iabe for the monetar( caims of /acerna; SC R&/.29* The Jigh Court rues in the a<rmative for both questions% (4) There is no dis$ute that the ast em$o(er of /acerna was &onna and not &ais( /ee because the Jong Tong government directed her re$atriation before she coud sign her contract with the atter% )n dismissing her# &onna gave no reason for her termination% .either did Pro>( e>$ain the ground for her dismissa% And where there is no showing of a cear# vaid# and ega cause for the termination# the aw considers the matter# a case of iega dismissa%5 )n termination cases invoving Fii$ino wor!ers recruited for overseas em$o(ment# the burden of $roving 8ust or authori'ed cause for termination rests with the foreign based em$o(erG$rinci$a and the oca based entit( which recruited the wor!er both being soidari( iabe for iabiities arising from the iega dismissa of the wor!er% )n this case# the Court of A$$eas correct( decared /acernabs termination iega since no reason was given to 8ustif( her termination The em$o(ment contract signed b( /acerna# as a$$roved b( the P2HA# reveas that Pro>( was her designated $rinci$a em$o(er% Since A)+S was the oca agenc( res$onsibe for the recruitment of domestic he$ers# such as /acerna# for Pro>(# it is soidari( iabe with the atter for iabiities arising from her iega dismissa% To absove A)+S from iabiit( woud run in contravention to the avowed $oic( of the state to $rotect the abor sector% The Court sa(s that Lthe 8oint and soidar( iabiit( im$osed b( aw against recruitment agencies and foreign em$o(ers is meant to assure the aggrieved wor!er of immediate and su<cient $a(ment of what is due him%M (3) As for the monetar( caims# the Su$reme Court cited Section 4D of -%A% .o% 6DA3# which $rovides thatF The iabiit( of the $rinci$aGem$o(er and the recruitmentG$acement agenc( for an( and a caims under this section sha be 8oint and severa% This $rovision sha be incor$orated in the contract for overseas em$o(ment and sha be a condition $recedent for its a$$rova% The $erformance bond to be ,ed b( the recruitmentG$acement agenc(# as $rovided b( aw# sha be answerabe for a mone( caims or damages that ma( be awarded to the wor!ers% )f the recruitmentG$acement agenc( is a 8uridica being# the cor$orate o<cers and directors and $artners as the case ma( be# sha themseves be 8oint( and soidari( iabe with the cor$oration or $artnershi$ for the aforesaid caims and damages% Such iabiities sha continue during the entire $eriod or duration of the em$o(ment contract and sha not be a@ected b( an( substitution# amendment or modi,cation made oca( or in a foreign countr( of the said contract% B5 )n case of termination of overseas em$o(ment without 8ust# vaid or authori'ed cause as de,ned b( aw or contract# the wor!er sha be entited to the fu reimbursement of his $acement fee with interest at tweve $ercent (43V) $er annum# $us his saaries for the une>$ired $ortion of the em$o(ment contract or for three (3) months for ever( (ear of the une>$ired term# whichever is ess% As such# /acerna is entited to the fu reimbursement of her $acement fee with interest ate 43V $er annum# $us saaries for the une>$ired $ortion of her em$o(ment contract# or for 3 months for ever( (ear of the une>$ired term# whichever is ess% "ut the award for mora and e>em$ar( damages cannot be credited in as much as /acerna faied to $rove that A)+S and Pro>( are guit( of bad faith% Co%'Eo2 C. S.- vs. NLRC '20 ED&.3'$/# PCI,C'2K Q G%-% .2% 4EB3BC 2ctober D3# 3DDBR F'13s* Cora'on Sim ($etitioner) ,ed a case for iega dismissa with the /abor Arbiter# aeging that she was initia( em$o(ed b( Hquitabe PC)0"an! (res$ondent) in 455D as )taian -emittance +ar!eting Consutant to the Fran!furt -e$resentative 2<ce% Hventua(# she was $romoted to +anager $osition# unti Se$tember 4555# when she received a etter from -emegio &avid 00 the Senior 2<cer# Huro$ean Jead of PC)"an!# and +anaging &irector of PC)"0 Huro$e 00 informing her that she was being dismissed due to oss of trust and con,dence based on aeged mismanagement and misa$$ro$riation of funds% Iss&#* =hether or not the /abor Arbiter has 8urisdiction over the case% SC R&/.29* The rue is that the Court is bound b( the ,ndings of facts of the /abor Arbiter or the ./-C# uness it is shown that grave abuse of discretion or ac! or e>cess of 8urisdiction has been committed b( said quasi08udicia bodies% The Court wi not deviate from said doctrine without an( cear showing that the ,ndings of the /abor Arbiter# as a<rmed b( the ./-C# are bereft of su<cient substantiation% The Court notes $a$abe error in the /abor Arbiter1s dis$osition of the case# which was a<rmed b( the ./-C# with regard to the issue on 8urisdiction% )t was wrong for the /abor Arbiter to rue that Labor reations s(stem in the Phii$$ines has no e>tra0territoria 8urisdiction% Artice 34B of the /abor Code $rovides for the 8urisdiction of the /abor Arbiter and the .ationa /abor -eations Commission# vi=%F A-T% 34B% *urisdiction of /abor Arbiters and the Commission% U (a) H>ce$t as otherwise $rovided under this Code the /abor Arbiters sha have origina and e>cusive 8urisdiction to hear and decide# within thirt( (3D) caendar da(s after the submission of the case b( the $arties for decision without e>tension# even in the absence of stenogra$hic notes# the foowing cases invoving a wor!ers# whether agricutura or non0agricuturaF (4) Unfair abor $ractice cases? (3) Termination dis$utes? (3) )f accom$anied with a caim for reinstatement# those cases that wor!ers ma( ,e invoving wage# rates of $a(# hours of wor! and other terms and conditions of em$o(ment? (A) Caims for actua# mora# e>em$ar( and other forms of damages arising from the em$o(er0em$o(ee reations? (E) Cases arising from an( vioation of Artice 3CA of this Code# incuding questions invoving the egait( of stri!es and oc!outs? and (C) H>ce$t caims for Hm$o(ees Com$ensation# Socia Securit(# +edicare and maternit( bene,ts# a other caims# arising from em$o(er0em$o(ee reations# incuding those of $ersons in domestic or househod service# invoving an amount of e>ceeding ,ve thousand $esos (PE#DDD%DD) regardess of whether accom$anied with a caim for reinstatement% (b) The commission sha have e>cusive a$$eate 8urisdiction over a cases decided b( /abor Arbiters% +oreover# Section 4D of -e$ubic Act (-%A%) .o% 6DA3# or the +igrant =or!ers and 2verseas Fii$inos Act of 455E# $rovidesF SHCT)2. 4D% Mone, Claims* Z .otwithstanding an( $rovision of aw to the contrar(# the /abor Arbiters of the .ationa /abor -eations Commission (./-C) sha have the origina and e>cusive 8urisdiction to hear and decide# within ninet( (5D) caendar da(s after the ,ing of the com$aint# the caims arising out of an em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ or b( virtue of an( aw or contract invoving Fii$ino wor!ers for overseas de$o(ment incuding caims for actua# mora# e>em$ar( and other forms of damages% Aso# Section C3 of the 2mnibus -ues and -eguations )m$ementing -%A% .o% 6DA3 $rovides that the /abor Arbiters of the ./-C sha have the origina and e>cusive 8urisdiction to hear and decide a caims arising out of em$o(er0em$o(ee reationshi$ or b( virtue of an( aw or contract invoving Fii$ino wor!ers for overseas de$o(ment incuding caims for actua# mora# e>em$ar( and other forms of damages# sub8ect to the rues and $rocedures of the ./-C% Under these $rovisions# it is cear that abor arbiters have origina and e>cusive 8urisdiction over caims arising from em$o(er0 em$o(ee reations# incuding termination dis$utes invoving a wor!ers# among whom are overseas Fii$ino wor!ers% )n 2!ilippine 6D National Ban0 v* Cabansa"# the Court $ronouncedF > > > 8!et!er emplo,ed locall, or overseas, all 6ilipino #or0ers en<o, t!e protective mantle o+ 2!ilippine labor and social le"islation, contract stipulations to t!e contrar, not#it!standin"* This $ronouncement is in !ee$ing with the basic $ubic $oic( of the State to a@ord $rotection to abor# $romote fu em$o(ment# ensure equa wor! o$$ortunities regardess of se># race or creed# and reguate the reations between wor!ers and em$o(ers% For the State assures the basic rights of a wor!ers to sef0organi'ation# coective bargaining# securit( of tenure# and 8ust and humane conditions of wor! QArtice 3 of the /abor Code of the Phii$$ines? %ee also Section 46# Artice )) and Section 3# Artice 9)))# 456B ConstitutionR% This ruing is i!ewise rendered im$erative b( Artice 4B of the Civi Code which states that aws Lwhich have for their ob8ect $ubic order# $ubic $oic( and good customs sha not be rendered ine@ective b( aws or 8udgments $romugated# or b( determination or conventions agreed u$on in a foreign countr(%M C'4.' S4.55.29 S#%v.1#s, I21. vs. R#(2'/0o C4&' QG%-% .o% 4C345E A$ri D6# 3DD6R F'13s* Private res$ondent -e(nado Chua was hired b( the $etitioner shi$$ing com$an(# "ahia Shi$$ing Services# )nc%# as a restaurant waiter on board a u>ur( cruise shi$ iner +GS "ac! =atch $ursuant to a Phii$$ine 2verseas Hm$o(ment Administration (P2HA) a$$roved em$o(ment contract dated 2ctober 5# 455C for a $eriod of nine (5) months from 2ctober 46# 455C to *u( 4B# 455B% 2n 2ctober 46# 455C# the $rivate res$ondent eft +ania for Jeathrow# Hngand to board the said sea vesse where he wi be assigned to wor!% 2n Februar( 4E# 455B# the $rivate res$ondent re$orted for his wor!ing station one and one0haf hours ate% 2n Februar( 4B# 455B# the master of the vesse served to the $rivate res$ondent an o<cia warning0termination form $ertaining to the said incident% 2n +arch 6# 455B# the vesse1s master# shi$ ca$tain Thor Feten conducted an inquisitoria hearing to investigate the said incident% Thereafter# on +arch 5# 455B# $rivate res$ondent was dismissed from the service on the strength of an unsigned and undated notice of dismissa% An aeged record or minutes of the said investigation was attached to the said dismissa notice% 2n +arch 3A# 455B# the $rivate res$ondent ,ed a com$aint for iega dismissa and other monetar( caims# which case was assigned to /abor Arbiter +anue +% +anansaa% Iss&#s* 4% =hether or not res$ondent is entited to overtime $a( which was incor$orated in his award for the une>$ired $ortion of the contract des$ite the fact that he did not render overtime wor!? and 3% =hether or not it is $ro$er for the ./-C to award mone( caims des$ite the fact that the ./-C decision# and a<rmed b( the Court of A$$eas# did not state cear( the facts and the evidence u$on which such concusions are based% SC R&/.29* )t being setted that the dismissa of res$ondent was iega# it foows that the atter is entited to $a(ment of his saar( for the une>$ired $ortion of his contract# as $rovided under -e$ubic Act (-%A%) .o% 6DA3# considering that his em$o(ment was $re0terminated on +arch 5# 455B or four months $rior to the e>$iration of his em$o(ment contract on *u( 4B# 455B% Jowever# the /A imited the award to an amount equivaent to res$ondent1s saar( for three months% The ./-C a<rmed said award but deducted therefrom his saar( for one da( as $enat( for the tardiness incurred% The CA a<rmed the one0da( saar( deduction im$osed b( the ./-C but removed the three months 0 saar( ca$ im$osed b( the /A% )n e@ect# as this $articuar monetar( award now stands# it is to be com$uted based on the saar( of res$ondent covering the $eriod +arch 5# 455B to *u( 4B# 455B# ess his saar( for one da(% Petitioner questions the CA for ifting the three0month saar( ca$# $ointing out that the /A and ./-C decisions which im$osed the ca$ can no onger be atered as said decisions were not questioned b( res$ondent% )ndeed# a $art( who has faied to a$$ea from a 8udgment is deemed to have acquiesced to it and can no onger obtain from the a$$eate court an( a<rmative reief other that what was aread( granted under said 8udgment% Jowever# when strict adherence to such technica rue wi im$air a substantive right# such as that of an iega( dismissed em$o(ee to monetar( com$ensation as $rovided b( aw# then equit( dictates that the Court set aside the rue to $ave the wa( for a fu and 8ust ad8udication of the case% The Court has consistent( a$$ied the foregoing e>ce$tion to the genera rue% )t does so (et again in the $resent case% Section 4D of -%A% .o% 6DA3# entites an overseas wor!er who has been iega( dismissed to 7his saaries for the une>$ired $ortion of the em$o(ment contract or for three (3) months for ever( (ear of the une>$ired term# whichever is ess%7 The CA correct( a$$ied the inter$retation of the Court in Marsaman Mannin" ."enc,, Inc* v* National Labor Relations Commission that the second o$tion which im$oses a three months b saar( ca$ a$$ies on( when the term of the overseas contract is ,>ed at one (ear or onger? otherwise# the ,rst o$tion a$$ies in that the overseas wor!er sha be entited $a(ment of a his saaries for the entire une>$ired $eriod of his contract% )n %0ippers 2aci3c, Inc* v* Mira#wherein the overseas contract invoved was on( for si> months# the Court hed that it is the ,rst o$tion $rovided under Section 4D of -%A% .o% 6DA3 which is a$$icabe in that the overseas wor!er who was iega( dismissed is entited to $a(ment of a his saaries covering the entire une>$ired $eriod of his contract% The CA committed no error in adhering to the $revaiing inter$retation of Section 4D of -%A% .o% 6DA3% Fina(# the Court comes to the ast issue on whether in the com$utation of the foregoing award# res$ondent1s 7guaranteed overtime7 64 $a( amounting to USP45B%DD $er month shoud be incuded as $art of his saar(% Petitioner contends that there is no factua or ega basis for the incusion of said amount because# after res$ondent1s re$atriation# he coud not have rendered an( overtime wor!% This time# $etitioner1s contention is we0 ta!en% The Court had occasion to rue on a simiar issue in %tolt$Nielsen Marine %ervices (2!ils*), Inc* v* National Labor Relations Commission#
where the ./-C was questioned for awarding to an iega( dismissed overseas wor!er ,>ed overtime $a( equivaent to the une>$ired $ortion of the atter1s contract% )n resoving the question# the Court# citing Ca"ampan v* National Labor Relations Commission#
hed that athough an overseas em$o(ment contract ma( guarantee the right to overtime $a(# entitement to such bene,t must ,rst be estabished# otherwise the same cannot be aowed% Jence# it being im$robabe that res$ondent rendered overtime wor! during the une>$ired term of his contract# the incusion of his 7guaranteed overtime7 $a( into his month( saar( as basis in the com$utation of his saaries for the entire une>$ired $eriod of his contract has no factua or ega basis and the same shoud have been disaowed% +'%1.'2o L. +'s'291'( vs. T%'2s,G/o$'/ +'%.3.-# A9#21(, I21. '20 V#232o% N'v.9'3.o2, I21. QG% -% .o% 4B36DD 2ctober 4B# 3DD6R F'13s* 2n Se$tember 3# 3DD3# +arciano +asangca( was hired b( :entnor (a foreign com$an( based in /iberia and engaged in maritime commerce)# through its manning agent# Trans0Goba (a cor$oration organi'ed and e>isting under Phii$$ine aws)# as an oier on +GT Hastern *ewe# an oi tan!er% Jis em$o(ment was to run for a $eriod of seven (B) months% Je was to receive# inter aia# a basic month( saar( of USPAAE%DD% =hie on board +GT Hastern *ewe# +arciano +asangca( noticed a Lreddish discooration of his urine u$on micturation (urination)% +asangca( was brought to the Fu8airah Jos$ita# Fu8airah# United Arab Hmirates# because of ower abdomina $ain and eft oin $ain of ten (4D) da(s duration with di<cut( in urinating% Je was advised surger( but o$ted to be re$atriated bac! to the Phii$$ines% 2n re$atriation# he was con,ned at +a!ati +edica Center on 2ctober 6# 3DD3 where he underwent HS=/# eft% 2n &ecember 4B033# 3DD3# he was con,ned at .ationa Tidne( )nstitute and he underwent right ureteroithotom( &r% dea Cru' $ronounced +asangca( ,t to resume wor! as a his aborator( e>aminations showed norma resuts% According(# on 3D *anuar( 3DD3# Trans0GobaIs designated $h(sician# &r% "arrientos of the Associated +edica W Cinica Services# )nc%# decared +asangca( ,t to go bac! to wor! after a reguar medica e>amination and $egged the disabiit( $eriod of the atter to be from 3 2ctober 3DD3 unti 3 Februar( 3DD3% Trans0Goba# in behaf of :entnor# $aid +asangca( his fu 43D da(s Sic! /eave $a( of .inet( Five Thousand Five Jundred Si>t( Four and E3G4DD (P5E#ECA%E3) Pesos re$resenting 2ne Thousand Seven Jundred Sevent( .ine &oars and CDG4DD (USP4#BB5%CD) U%S% &oars# as we as a his medica and hos$ita e>$enses# $rofessiona fees of his attending $h(sicians# the tota amount of which reached 2ne Jundred Sevent( Four Thousand Sevent( Five and 4DG4DD (P4BA#DBE%4D) Pesos% +asangca( was as!ed to re$ort bac! to the o<ce of Trans0Goba for de$o(ment ine0 u$% Je was aso as!ed to undergo medica e>amination in view of his im$ending de$o(ment% Je was informed b( the Port Ca$tain that he can no onger be de$o(ed due to negative re$orts about him coming from its $rinci$a# :entnor% +ore than si> months ater# armed with a +edica Certi,cate issued b( one &r% Hfren -% :icado (&r% :icado)# a cardioogist# +asangca( instituted a com$aint against Trans0Goba and :entnor# incuding Trans0GobaIs President# +ichae Hstanie# before the .ationa /abor -eations Commission (./-C) for the $a(ment of disabiit( bene,t# damages and attorne(Is fees% &r% :icado 8usti,ed the ,nding of )m$ediment Grade ))) (B6%3CV) in this wiseF +asangca( is now un,t to resume wor! as seaman in an( ca$acit(% Jis iness is considered wor! aggravated% Je needs reguar monitoring of his rena function for deterioration and $ossibe recurrence of !idne( stones% Jis right !idne( is non0functioning and his eft !idne( has im$aired function% ThereIs a i!eihood that he woud need dia(sis in the future% Je cannot and a gainfu em$o(ment given his medica bac!ground% +asangca( is caiming that his disabiit( was contracted during the term of his Contract of Hm$o(ment # therefore caiming bene,t under Section 3D(b)# $aragra$h E of the Phii$$ine 2verseas Hm$o(ment Administration (P2HA) -evised Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Hm$o(ment of Fii$ino Seafarers on "oard 2cean0Going :esses# as amended b( +emorandum Circuar .o% EE# Series of 455C# which is deemed integrated in ever( contract of em$o(ment of Fii$ino seafarers on ocean0going vesses% Trans0Goba# :entnor# and Hstanie# countered that +asangca( had fu( recovered and was $ronounced ,t for em$o(ment# his caim for disabiit( bene,ts has no basisM ?the right to com$ensation for disabiit( arises on( when it is shown that the seafarer is disabed on account of an iness or in8ur( su@ered whie in the em$o( of his em$o(erM% 4E A$ri 3DDA# /abor Arbiter &ais( G% Cauton0"arceona found +asangca(Is com$aint meritorious and ordered Trans0 Goba# :entnor# and Hstanie to $a( +asangca( the amount of Thirt( .ine Thousand 2ne Jundred Hight( U%S% &oars (USP35#46D%DD) re$resenting the atterIs disabiit( bene,t at )m$ediment Grade ))) (B6%3CV)% /abor arbiter o$ined that the com$ensabiit( of an aiment does not de$end on whether or not the in8ur( or disease was $re0e>isting at the time of em$o(ment# but rather# if the in8ur( or disease was reated to or was aggravated b( +asangca(Is wor!% The abor arbiter gave great weight to the medica o$inion of &r% :icado rather than that of Trans0GobaIs designated $h(sicians considering that 63 Lres$ondentsI accredited doctorsI o$inion has (sic) more than meets the e(e and shoud not be ta!en at face vaue% For most often than not# the( are $a$ab( sef0serving and bias (sic) in favor of the em$o(er and certain( cannot be considered inde$endent%M Trans0Goba and :entnor ,ed an origina action for certiorari before the Court of A$$eas im$uting grave abuse of discretion amounting to ac! or e>cess of 8urisdiction on the ./-C for a<rming the decision of the abor arbiter% 2n 4D Februar( 3DDC# the a$$eate court granted the $etition for certiorari of Trans0Goba and :entnor% )t nui,ed and set aside the chaenged -esoutions of the ./-C for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion amounting to ac! or e>cess of 8urisdiction# considering that the caimant was aread( fu (sic) $aid the bene,ts to which he was awfu( entited to% The Court of A$$eas reasoned in its decision that# the /abor Arbiter# the ./-C arbitrari( set aside the fact that +asangca( was $recuded from an( entitement to disabiit( bene,ts after he was aread( fu( recovered and decared to be ,t for em$o(ment b( the com$an(0designated $h(sician% The right to com$ensation for disabiit( arises on( when the seafarer has been disabed on account of his iness or in8ur( that he su@ered whie in the em$o( of his em$o(er? otherwise# gross in8ustice woud resut to the $etitioners% The ./-C coud not sim$( swee$ awa( the o$inions of &r% "arrientos and &r% Agustin# as we s that of &r% dea Cru'# b( generai'ing that com$an(0designated or com$an(0referred $h(sicians were often biased in favor of the com$an( and that their o$inions were sef0 serving without s$eci,ca( indicating how their s$eci,c ,ndings were biased and wh( such o$inions were sef0serving% The generai'ation was# at the ver( east# most unfair to &r% Agustin and &r% dea Cru'# s$eciaists in uroog( that covered the aiment of +asangca(% The arbitrariness and ca$riciousness became even more batant in the face of the fact that such com$an(0designated or com$an(0referred $h(sicians had themseves $ersona( attended to# e>amined and treated +asangca( in a $rofessiona ca$acit(% Thereb(# their ,ndings and concusions were far from s$ecuation and con8ecture% Iss&#* =hether or not +arciano +asangca( can ega( demand and caim disabiit( bene,ts from Trans0 Goba and :entnor for an iness that became a$$arent during his contract of em$o(ment with the shi$$ing com$an(% SC R&/.29* As set forth in Sec% 3D(b) of the P2HA Standard Hm$o(ment Contract# the em$o(er0 vesse ownerG$rinci$a sha be iabe for disabiit( bene,ts to the seafarer on( in case the atter was decared disabed b( the com$an( designated $h(sician in view of a wor!0reated iness or in8ur( that he su@ered onboard the vesse% Since $etitioner0seafarer was decared F)T T2 =2-T b( the com$an( designated $h(sician# cear( then he is not entited to disabiit( bene,ts under the P2HA Standard Hm$o(ment Contract%M As with a other !inds of wor!er# the terms and conditions of a seafarerIs em$o(ment is governed b( the $rovisions of the contract he signs at the time he is hired% Considering that +asangca( was em$o(ed on 3 Se$tember 3DD3# it is the 3DDD P2HA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Hm$o(ment of Fii$ino Seafarers on "oard 2cean0Going :esses that is considered a$$ended in his contract of em$o(ment and is controing for $ur$oses of resoving the issue at hand and not the 455C P2HA -evised Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Hm$o(ment of Fii$ino Seafarers on "oard 2cean0Going :esses as auded to b( +asangca(% Under Sec% 3D(b)# $aragra$h C# of the 3DDD P2HA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Hm$o(ment of Fii$ino Seafarers on "oard 2cean0Going :esses# vi'F SHCT)2. 3D% C2+PH.SAT)2. A.& "H.HF)TS Seafarer # to be entited to com$ensation and bene,ts under said $rovision# it is not su<cient to estabish that the seafarerIs iness or in8ur( has rendered him $ermanent( or $artia( disabed# but it must aso be shown that there is a causa connection between the seafarerIs iness or in8ur( and the wor! for which he had been contracted for% +asangca( must $rove that he is su@ering from $ermanent tota or $artia disabiit( due to a wor!0reated iness occurring during the term of his contract% Proof that he not on( acquired or contracted his iness during the term of his em$o(ment contract is cear( not enough? must aso $resent evidence that such in,rmit( was wor!0reated# or at the ver( east aggravated b( the conditions of the wor! for which he was contracted for% There is no substantiation that the $rogression of his aiment was brought about arge( b( the conditions of his 8ob as an oier% Jis medica histor( andGor records $rior to his de$o(ment as an oier in +GT Hastern *ewe were neither $resented nor auded to in order to demonstrate that the wor!ing conditions on board said vesse increased the ris! of contracting rena faiure# chronic or otherwise% )t is# therefore# high( im$robabe that +asangca(Is chronic rena faiure deveo$ed in 8ust a monthIs time# the ength of time he was on board +GT Hastern *ewe before the s(m$toms became +oreover# chronic rena faiure# is neither isted as a disabiit( under Sec% 33 of the 3DDD P2HA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Hm$o(ment of Fii$ino Seafarers on "oard 2cean0Going :esses? nor an occu$ationa disease under Sec% 330A thereof# which $rovides for the schedue of disabiit( or im$ediment for in8uries su@ered and diseases incuding occu$ationa diseases or iness% The on( simiarit( between the two cases# Cr(sta Shi$$ing and the $resent $etition# is the fact that the seafarers in both have the same $ersona $h(sician# &r% Hfren -% :icado# a cardioogist# who decared them $ermanent( disabed to return to wor!% The factua circumstances of the Cr(sta Shi$$ing case are $oes a$art from that attendant to the case at bar% The seafarer in said case had been 63 em$o(ed as a Chief +ate of an ocean0going vesse when he com$ained of coughing and hoarseness and was ater diagnosed with th(roid cancer% The com$an(0designated $h(sician and seafarerIs $h(sician were both in agreement that the seafarer had been rendered disabed b( his iness? the( on( di@ered in their assessments of the degree and the im$ediment grade of such disabiit( in accordance with the schedue of disabiit( or im$ediment for in8uries su@ered and diseases incuding occu$ationa diseases or iness contracted under Sec% 33 of the 455C P2HA -evised Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Hm$o(ment of Fii$ino Seafarers on "oard 2cean0Going :esses% )n contrast# Trans0Goba and :entnor are contesting the right of +asangca( to caim disabiit( bene,ts as the com$an(0designated $h(sicians have certi,ed the atter ,t to return to wor!# not to mention the fact that he was not su@ering from a wor!0reated andGor wor!0 aggravated iness% A tod# e>ce$t for the bare assertion that he is no onger ,t to wor! due to the iness that became manifest during his contract of em$o(ment with Trans0Goba and :entnor# +asangca( ma!es no aegation# much ess $resents no $roof# that the iness was caused or aggravated b( his em$o(ment% The evidence on record is tota( bare of essentia facts on how he contracted or deveo$ed such disease and on how and wh( his wor!ing conditions increased the ris! of contracting the same% Consequent(# the abor arbiter and the ./-C had no basis at a to rue that +asangca( is deserving of other disabiit( bene,ts es$oused b( Sec% 3D(b)# $aragra$h C of the 3DDD P2HA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions other than that aread( e>tended to him b( Trans0Goba and :entnor% =JH-HF2-H# $remises considered# the instant $etition is &H.)H& for ac! of merit% The assaied &ecision dated 4D Februar( 3DDC and -esoution dated 3D +a( 3DDC both of the Court of A$$eas in CA0G%-% SP .o% 54353 are hereb( AFF)-+H&% Costs against $etitioner +arciano /% +asangca(% +'9s'(s'( +'%.3.-# Co%5., #3 '/. vs. J'.-# +. V#/'sD&#E Q G%-% .o% 4B56D3 .ovember 4A# 3DD6R FACTS* *aime +% :easque' (res$ondent) was hired b( +agsa(sa( +aritime Cor$oration($etitioner) as second coo! for its foreign $rinci$a# co0$etitioner 2&F *e ASA% The $arties had a considerab( ong em$o(ment histor( covered b( about ten (4D) em$o(ment contracts wherein :easque' engaged res$ondentIs services on board vesses owned b( 2&F *e ASA% 2n *u( 36# 3DD3# on board the vesse +GT "ow Favour# *aime +% :easque' su@ered high fever and was unabe to wor!% "( the fourth da(# his bod( tem$erature reached AD%5cC% Jis e>tremities were swoen and he coud not wa!% Je aso had edema in the abdomina area% -es$ondent was brought to a hos$ita in Singa$ore where he was con,ned from August 43 to 2ctober 43# 3DD3% Thereafter# he was re$atriated to the Phii$$ines% )t is from this $oint onwards that the aegations of the $arties di@er% *aime +% :easque' aeged that u$on his re$atriation# he was not con,ned to St% /u!eIs +edica Center as he e>$ected% Je caimed that he was com$eed to see! medica treatment from an inde$endent doctor% 2n .ovember 43# 3DD3# he consuted a certain &r% Hfren :icado (&r% :icado) who diagnosed him to be su@ering from sta$h(ococca bacteremia# muti$e metastatic abcesses# $eura e@usion and h($ertension and decared his disabiit( as )m$ediment Grade 4 (43DV)% &r% :icado further concuded that res$ondent was Lun,t to resume wor! as seaman in an( ca$acit(%M -es$ondent ,ed a caim for disabiit( bene,ts# iness aowanceG reimbursement of medica e>$enses# damages and attorne(Is fees but $etitioners refused to $a(% Petitioners# on the other hand# maintained that u$on res$ondentIs re$atriation on 2ctober 43# 3DD3# he was immediate( referred to a com$an( designated $h(sician for further medica care and treatment? that the initia im$ression was S(stemic Sta$h(ococca )nfections? -esoving? that he was under the care of said $h(sician for three (3) months during which he underwent e>tensive medications and treatment? that he was admitted and con,ned at St% /u!eIs +edica Center from 2ctober 43# 3DD3 to .ovember 44# 3DD3? that $rogress re$orts on his recover( have been issued? that b( *anuar( E# 3DDA# res$ondent was decared as Lceared to wor! resum$tion as seafarerM? and that $etitioners were the ones who shoudered res$ondentIs hos$itai'ation e>$enses% 2n +arch 35# 3DDE# the /abor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of *aime +% :easque'# ordering +agsa(sa( +aritime Cor$oration andGor Conrado .% &ea Cru' and 2&F *e ASA to $a( com$ainant *aime +% :easque' the amount of S)9TN T=2 TJ2USA.& T=2 JU.&-H& S)9TN US &2//A-S (USPC3#3CD%DD) or its equivaent in Phii$$ine Peso at the $revaiing rate of e>change at the time of actua $a(ment re$resenting his disabiit( bene,ts and sic!ness aowance and 4DV of the tota monetar( award b( wa( of attorne(Is fees% +agsa(sa( +aritime Cor$oration andGor Conrado .% &ea Cru' and 2&F *e ASA ,ed an a$$ea with the ./-C# aeging serious errors in the factua ,ndings of the /abor Arbiter% ./-C made the foowing ,ndingsF "( wa( of a contrar( medica ,nding# assai the diagnosis arrived at b( the com$an( designated $h(sician# &r% .ataio G% Aegre ))% As noted# the ,ndings of &r% Hfren :icado# com$ainantIs $rivate $h(sician# and those of &r% Aegre# bear consistenc( with each other save for his h($ertensive condition% Above a these# com$ainantIs credibiit( su@ered a serious setbac! when he decared that he was seen b( &r% Aegre on( twice and that there was no treatment given to him since re$atriation (-ecords# $$% 66065)% -ecords beie such assertion% Co$ies of the medica re$orts accom$ished b( the com$an( accredited $h(sician woud show that he was e>amined and treated b( the atter for no ess than eight (6) times (-ecords# $$% 436043E)% 6A ISSUE* =hether or not it is the com$an( designated $h(sician or a $rivate $h(sician who shoud determine the disabiit( grading or ,tness of a seafarer% SC RULING* As geaned therefrom# com$ainant was $aced under the care and su$ervision of &r% Aegre for about ninet( (5D) da(s# his admission at St% /u!eIs +edica Center being on 43 2ctober 3DD3 and with his discharge being had on( on 44 .ovember 3DD3% ./-C rendered a decision reversing that of the /abor Arbiter and dismissed res$ondentIs com$aint for ac! of merit% Under the P2HA Standard Hm$o(ment Contract (Artice 44E5# Civi Code of the Phii$$ines)% Court of A$$eas rendered the herein chaenged &ecision setting aside the decision of the ./-C and reinstating that of the abor arbiter% That the com$an(0designated $h(sician did decare that $etitioner is ,t to sea dut( shoud not $re8udice $etitionerIs caim for disabiit( bene,ts% )n the ,rst instance# it is we to note that there is doubt and question as to the accurac( of the decaration of the &r% AegreIs Lceared to wor! resum$tion as seafarer%M Such certi,cation shoud not be ta!en as the on( $rimar( consideration# es$ecia( when there is contra ,nding b( another doctor giving doubt to the ,ndings of the com$an(0designated $h(sician% As hed in the case of =aem +aritime Services# )nc% vs% ./-C# Lo$inions of $etitionerIs doctor to this e@ect shoud not be given evidentiar( weight as the( are $a$ab( sef0 serving and biased in favor of $etitioners# and certain( coud not be considered inde$endent%M Petitioner having substantia( estabished that he coud not abe to $erform the same wor! as he used to before his re$atriation# and was found both b( his inde$endent $h(sician and Geneages Jos$ita in Singa$ore su@ering from severe h($ertension as we as other diagnosed inesses which were contracted as a resut of his e>$osure to the ris!s invoved in the $erformance of his 8ob# we ,nd the ./-C to have acted in grave abuse of discretion in reversing and setting aside the decision of the /abor Arbiter awarding disabiit( caims to $etitioner% The P2HA Contract is cear in its $rovisions when it $rovided who shoud determine the disabiit( grading or ,tness to wor! of seafarers% The P2HA contract recogni'es on( the disabiit( grading $rovided b( the com$an(0designated $h(sicians% Section 3D "%3 of the P2HA contract $rovidesF U$on sign0o@ from the vesse for medica treatment# the seafarer is entited to sic!ness aowance equivaent to his basic wage unti he is decared ,t to wor! or the degree of $ermanent disabiit( has been assessed b( the com$an(0designated $h(sician but in no case sha e>ceed one hundred twent( (43D) da(s% For this $ur$ose the seafarer sha submit himsef to a $ost0em$o(ment medica e>amination b( a com$an( designated $h(sician within three wor!ing da(s u$on his return e>ce$t when he is $h(sica( inca$acitated to do so# in which case# a written notice to the agenc( within the same $eriod is deemed as com$iance% Faiure of the seafarer to com$( with the mandator( re$orting requirement sha resort in his forfeiture of the right to caim the above bene,ts% +oreover# Section 3D (")# no% 3# $aragra$h 3 of the P2HA Contract $rovidesF Jowever# if after the re$atriation the seafarer sti requires medica attention arising from said in8ur( or iness# he sha be so $rovided at cost to the em$o(er unti such time he is decared ,t or the degree of his disabiit( has been estabished b( the com$an(0designated $h(sician% These $rovisions cear( iustrate that res$ondentIs disabiit( can on( be assessed b( the com$an(0designated $h(sician% )f the com$an(0designated $h(sician decares him ,t to wor!# then the seaman is bound b( such decaration% Further# it shoud be noted that the caim for sic!ness and $ermanent disabiit( bene,ts arose from the sti$uations in the standard format contract of em$o(ment $ursuant to a circuar of the P2HA% Such circuar was intended for a $arties invoved in the em$o(ment of Fii$ino seamen on board an( ocean0going vesse%QCR The P2HA Contract# of which the $arties are both signatories# is the aw between them and as such# its $rovisions bind both of them%QBR Thus# the $arties are both bound b( the $rovisions of the P2HA Contract which decares that the degree of disabiit( or ,tness to wor! of a seafarer shoud be assessed b( the com$an(0designated $h(sician% )n German +arine Agencies v% ./-C# Q6R the Court e>$icit( aid that it is the com$an(0 designated $h(sician who shoud determine the degree of disabiit( of the seaman or his ,tness to wor!# thusF )n order to caim disabiit( bene,ts under the Standard Hm$o(ment Contract# it is the Lcom$an(0designatedM $h(sician who must $rocaim that the seaman su@ered a $ermanent disabiit(# whether tota or $artia# due to either in8ur( or iness# during the term of the atterIs em$o(ment% )t is a cardina rue in the inter$retation of contracts that if the terms of a contract are cear and eave no doubt u$on the intention of the contracting $arties# the itera meaning of its sti$uation sha contro% There is no ambiguit( in the wording of the Standard Hm$o(ment Contract U the on( quai,cation $rescribed for the $h(sician entrusted with the tas! of assessing the seamanIs disabiit( is that he be Lcom$an(0designated% Again# in "en8amin /% Sarocam v% )nterorient +aritime Hnt%# )nc%# and &emaco United /td# Q5R the Court rued that the o$inion of the com$an(0designated $h(sician shoud be u$hed over that of the doctors a$$ointed b( the seafarer considering that the basis of the ,ndings of the seafarerIs doctor are the medica ,ndings of the com$an( $h(sician% Undoubted(# 8uris$rudence is re$ete with $ronouncements that it is the com$an(0 designated $h(sicianIs ,ndings which shoud form the basis of an( disabiit( caim of the seafarer% )n this $articuar case# res$ondent refused to acce$t the assessment made b( the com$an(0designated $h(sician that he is ,t to 6E wor!% Under the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Hm$o(ment of Fii$ino Seafarers 2n0"oard 2cean0Going :esse or the P2HA Contract issued $ursuant to &2/H &e$artment 2rder .o% A and P2HA +emorandum Circuar .o% 5# both Series of 3DDD# res$ondent coud not disregard the ,ndings of the com$an(0designated $h(sician% Section 3D0"# $aragra$h 3 of the P2HA Contract $rovides% )t is be(ond cavi that it is the com$an(0 designated $h(sician who is entrusted with the tas! of assessing the seamanIs disabiit(% "ut under the aforecited $rovision# when the seamanIs $rivate $h(sician disagrees with the assessment of the com$an(0designated $h(sician# as here# a third doctorIs o$inion ma( be avaied of in determining his disabiit(% This however was not resorted to b( the $arties% As such# the credibiit( of the ,ndings of their res$ective doctors was $ro$er( evauated b( the ./-C% The Court has a$$ied the /abor Code conce$t of $ermanent tota disabiit( to the case of seafarers% )n a catena of cases#Q4DR the Court decared that disabiit( shoud not be understood more on its medica signi,cance but on the oss of earning ca$acit(% Permanent tota disabiit( means disabement of an em$o(ee to earn wages in the same !ind of wor!# or wor! of simiar nature that he was trained for or accustomed to $erform# or an( !ind of wor! which a $erson of his mentait( and attainment coud do% )n addition# the Court in GS)S v% Cadi'Q44R and )8ares v% CAQ43R hed that $ermanent disabiit( is the inabiit( of a wor!er to $erform his 8ob for more than 43D da(s# regardess of whether or not he oses the use of an( $art of his bod(% The com$an(0designated $h(sician ceared res$ondent for wor! resum$tion u$on ,nding that his infection has subsided after successfu medication% =e agree with the ./-C that the doctor more quai,ed to assess the disabiit( grade of the res$ondent seaman is the doctor who reguar( monitored and treated him% The com$an(0designated $h(sician $ossessed $ersona !nowedge of the actua condition of res$ondent% Since the com$an(0 designated $h(sician in this case deemed the res$ondent as ,t to wor!# then such decaration shoud be given credence# considering the amount of time and e@ort the com$an( doctor gave to monitoring and treating res$ondentIs condition% )t is undis$uted that the recommendation of &r% :icado was based on a singe medica re$ort which outined the aeged ,ndings and medica histor( of res$ondent des$ite the fact that &r% :icado treated or e>amined res$ondent on( once% 2n the other hand# the com$an(0 designated $h(sician outined the $rogress of res$ondentIs successfu treatment over a $eriod of severa months in severa re$orts# as can be geaned from the record% As between the ,ndings of the com$an(0designated $h(sician (&r% Aegre) and the $h(sician a$$ointed b( res$ondent (&r% :icado)# the former deserves to be given greater evidentiar( weight% A tod# the Court ,nds and so rues that the CA committed reversibe error in ignoring the medica assessment of the com$an(0 designated $h(sician that res$ondent was ceared for wor! resum$tion as a seafarer and granting res$ondentIs caim for disabiit( on the basis of a singe medica e>amination re$ort of res$ondentIs a$$ointed $h(sician contrar( to the cear# unambiguous $rovisions regarding disabiit( bene,t caims contained in the P2HA Contract between the $arties% =JH-HF2-H# the instant $etition is G-A.TH&% The assaied decision of the Court of A$$eas in CA0G%-% SP .o% 5BD56 is -H:H-SH& and SHT AS)&H% The decision of the ./-C# 3nd &ivision# is hereb( -H).STATH&% S2 2-&H-H&% A23o2.o +. S#%%'2o vs. G'//'23 +'%.3.-# S#%v.1#s, I21. '20 +'%/o> N'v.9'3.o2 Co., I21. QG- .o% 4CBC4A +arch 3A# 3DD5R F'13s F Saior Antonio Serrano entered into a 430month overseas em$o(ment contract with res$ondents Gaant +aritime Services# )nc% and +arow .avigation Co%# /td%# initia( signing u$ for the $osition of Chief 2<cer% Saior Serrano# however# was $ersuaded to submit to a LdowngradedM contract as Second 2<cer# on the assurance of eventua $romotion to Chief 2<cer b( the end of the foowing month% Javing wandered around res$ondentsI shi$ for more than two months without being granted an( $romotion whatsoever# Lhe refused to sta( on as Second 2<cer and was re$atriated bac! to the Phii$$ines#M with sti nine (5) months and twent(0 three (33) da(s eft unserved% Saior Serrano afterwards ,ed a com$aint with the /abor Arbiter# charging res$ondents with constructive dismissa and demanding that he be $aid the saar( as corres$onds to the remaining term of his contract% The Arbiter rued for him# concuding that there was iega dismissa? however# Saior Serrano was on( awarded with saar( equivaent to 3 months% The Arbiter reied on Section 4D# $arag% E of -%A% 6DA3 (the +igrant =or!ers and 2verseas Fii$ino Act of 455E)# which $uts forth thatZ L)n case of termination of overseas em$o(ment without 8ust# vaid or authori'ed cause as de,ned b( aw or contract# the wor!ers sha be entited to the fu reimbursement of his $acement fee with interest of tweve $ercent (43V) $er annum# $us his saaries for the une>$ired $ortion of his em$o(ment contract or +or t!ree (') mont!s +or ever, ,ear o+ t!e une/pired term, #!ic!ever is lessD% Gritt(# our man now condemns the $rovision as unconstitutiona# waiing how it Lim$airs the terms of their contract# de$rives them of equa $rotection and denies them due $rocess%M SC R&/.29* Though it sco@ed at the argument that the aw undu( im$airs their contractZenacted in 455E# the aw is thus deemed read into the agreement forged between the $arties in 4556 Z the Court# with straitaced hesitation# decared the assaied cause Lfor three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term !hichever is less" &21o2s3.3&3.o2'/# in that it did den( wor!ers in simiar situations 6C ($articuar( 2F=s) the right to equa $rotection and due $rocess% L^the sub8ect cause creates a sub0 a(er of discrimination among 2F=sSS ^those who are iega( dismissed with ess than one (ear eft in their contracts sha be entited to their saaries for the entire une>$ired $ortion thereof# whie those who are iega( dismissed with one (ear or more remaining in their contracts sha be covered b( the sub8ect cause# and their monetar( bene,ts imited to their saaries for three months on(%M Further magnif(ing the causeIs incom$atibiit( with the right to equa $rotection of aws is the fact that it de$rives overseas wor!ers of a bene,t granted without e>ce$tion to domestic wor!ers (the right to recover in cases of iega dismissa the saar( for the entire une>$ired $ortion of the contract)# with the government not being abe to $rove an( com$eing state interest warranting such damaging discrimination% As a matter of fact# before the awIs enactment# both domestic and overseas wor!ers en8o(ed the same right% L%%%the sub8ect cause contains a sus$ect cassi,cation in that# in the com$utation of the monetar( bene,ts of ,>ed0term em$o(ees who are iega( discharged# it im$oses a 30 month ca$ on the caim of 2F=s with an une>$ired $ortion of one (ear or more in their contracts# but none on the caims of other 2F=s or oca wor!ers with ,>ed0term em$o(ment% The sub8ect cause singes out one cassi,cation of 2F=s and burdens it with a $ecuiar disadvantage%M "ravo# saior% C#1-#2 S#%v.1# EH5o%3#% '20 P%o-o3.o2 I21., vs S5o&s#s C&'%#s-', GR Nos. )6276,7 7 )6!26,, '5%./ 7, 200 FACTSF 2n *anuar( C# 455B# *asmin Cuaresma (*asmin) was de$o(ed b( "ecmen Service H>$orter and Promotion# )nc% ("ecmen) to serve as assistant nurse in A0"ir! Jos$ita in the Tingdom of Saudi Arabia (TSA)# for a contract duration of three (ears# with a corres$onding saar( of USP3AB%DD $er month% 2ver a (ear ater# she died aeged( of $oisoning% *essie Fa8ardo# a co0 wor!er of *asmin# narrated that on *une 34# 4556# *asmin was found dead b( a femae ceaner (ing on the Koor inside her dormitor( room with her mouth foaming and smeing of $oison% "ased on the $oice re$ort and the medica re$ort of the e>amining $h(sician of the A0"ir! Jos$ita# who conducted an auto$s( of *asminIs bod(# the i!e( cause of her death was $oisoning% *asminIs bod( was re$atriated to +ania on Se$tember 3# 4556% The foowing da(# the Cit( Jeath 2<cer of Cabanatuan Cit( conducted an auto$s( and the resuting medica re$ort indicated that *asmin died under vioent circumstances# and not $oisoning as origina( found b( the TSA e>amining $h(sician% The to>icoog( re$ort of the .")# however# tested negative for non0voatie# metaic $oison and insecticides% Sim$icio and +ia Cuaresma (the Cuaresmas)# *asminIs $arents and her surviving heirs# received from the 2verseas =or!ers =efare Administration (2==A) the foowing amountsF PED#DDD%DD for death bene,ts? PED#DDD%DD for oss of ife? P3D#DDD%DD for funera e>$enses? and P4D#DDD%DD for medica reimbursement% 2n .ovember 33# 4555# the Cuaresmas ,ed a com$aint against "ecmen and its $rinci$a in the TSA# -a8ab W Sisiah Com$an( (-a8ab)# caiming death and insurance bene,ts# as we as mora and e>em$ar( damages for *asminIs death# *asminIs death was wor!0reated# having occurred at the em$o(erIs $remises? that under *asminIs contract with "ecmen# she is entited to Liqama insuranceM coverage? that *asmin is entited to com$ensator( damages in the amount of USP4D3#BAD%DD# which is the sum tota of her month( saar( of USP3AB%DD $er month under her em$o(ment contract# muti$ied b( 3E (ears (or the remaining (ears of her $roductive ife had death not su$ervened at age 3E# assuming that she ived and woud have retired at age CD)% )n their $osition $a$er# "ecmen and -a8ab insist that *asmin committed suicide# citing a $rior unsuccessfu suicide attem$t sometime in +arch or A$ri 4556 and re(ing on the medica re$ort of the e>amining $h(sician of the A0"ir! Jos$ita% The( i!ewise den( iabiit( because the Cuaresmas aread( recovered death and other bene,ts totaing P43D#DDD%DD from the 2==A% The( insist that the Cuaresmas are not entited to Liqama insuranceM because this refers to the LissuanceM U not insurance U of iqama# or residenc(Gwor! $ermit required in the TSA% 2n the issue of mora and e>em$ar( damages# the( caim that the Cuaresmas are not entited to the same because the( have not acted with fraud# nor have the( been in bad faith in handing *asminIs case% =hie the case was $ending# "ecmen ,ed a manifestation and motion for substitution aeging that -a8ab terminated their agenc( reationshi$ and had a$$ointed =hite Facon Services# )nc% (=hite Facon) as its new recruitment agent in the Phii$$ines% Thus# =hite Facon was im$eaded as res$ondent as we# and it ado$ted and reiterated "ecmenIs arguments in the $osition $a$er it subsequent( ,ed% )SSUHSF (4%) whether the Cuaresmas are entited to monetar( caims# b( wa( of bene,ts and damages# for the death of their daughter *asmin% (3) whether or not *asminIs death be considered as wor!0connected and thus com$ensabe even whie she was not on dut(? JH/&F Artice 45 of the Civi Code $rovides that ever( $erson must# in the e>ercise of his rights and in the $erformance of his duties# act with 8ustice# give ever(one his due# and observe honest( 6B and good faith% Artice 34 of the Code states that an( $erson who wifu( causes oss or in8ur( to another in a manner that is contrar( to moras# good customs or $ubic $oic( sha com$ensate the atter for the damage% And# ast(# Artice 3A requires that in a contractua# $ro$ert( or other reations# when one of the $arties is at a disadvantage on account of his mora de$endence# ignorance# indigence# menta wea!ness# tender age or other handica$# the courts must be vigiant for his $rotection% Cear(# -a8ab# "ecmen and =hite FaconIs acts and omissions are against $ubic $oic( because the( undermine and subvert the interest and genera wefare of our 2F=s abroad# who are entited to fu $rotection under the aw% The( set an awfu e>am$e of how foreign em$o(ers and recruitment agencies shoud treat and act with res$ect to their distressed em$o(ees and wor!ers abroad% Their shabb( and caous treatment of *asminIs case? their uncaring attitude? their un8usti,ed faiure and refusa to assist in the determination of the true circumstances surrounding her m(sterious death# and instead ,nding satisfaction in the unreasonabe insistence that she committed suicide 8ust so the( can convenient( avoid $ecuniar( iabiit(? $acing their own cor$orate interests above of the wefare of their em$o(eeIs U a these are contrar( to moras# good customs and $ubic $oic(# and constitute ta!ing advantage of the $oor em$o(ee and her fami(Is ignorance# he$essness# indigence and ac! of $ower and resources to see! the truth and obtain 8ustice for the death of a oved one% Giving in handi( to the idea that *asmin committed suicide# and adamant( insisting on it 8ust to $rotect -a8ab and "ecmenIs materia interest U des$ite evidence to the contrar( U is against the mora aw and runs contrar( to the good custom of not denouncing oneIs feowmen for aeged grave wrongdoings that undermine their good name and honor% =hether em$o(ed oca( or overseas# a Fii$ino wor!ers en8o( the $rotective mante of Phii$$ine abor and socia egisation# contract sti$uations to the contrar( notwithstanding% This $ronouncement is in !ee$ing with the basic $ubic $oic( of the State to a@ord $rotection to abor# $romote fu em$o(ment# ensure equa wor! o$$ortunities regardess of se># race or creed# and reguate the reations between wor!ers and em$o(ers% This ruing is i!ewise rendered im$erative b( Artice 4B of the Civi Code which states that aws which have for their ob8ect $ubic order# $ubic $oic( and good customs sha not be rendered ine@ective b( aws or 8udgments $romugated# or b( determinations or conventions agreed u$on in a foreign countr(% The reations between ca$ita and abor are so im$ressed with $ubic interest#and neither sha act o$$ressive( against the other# or im$air the interest or convenience of the $ubic% )n case of doubt# a abor egisation and a abor contracts sha be construed in favor of the safet( and decent iving for the aborer% The grant of mora damages to the em$o(ee b( reason of misconduct on the $art of the em$o(er is sanctioned b( Artice 3345 (4D) of the Civi Code# which aows recover( of such damages in actions referred to in Artice 34% Thus# in view of the foregoing# the Court hods that the Cuaresmas are entited to mora damages# which "ecmen and =hite Facon are 8oint( and soidari( iabe to $a(# together with e>em$ar( damages for wanton and o$$ressive behavior# and b( wa( of e>am$e for the $ubic good% 2n the second issueF =hie the Lem$o(erIs $remisesM ma( be de,ned ver( broad( not on( to incude $remises owned b( it# but aso $remises it eases# hires# su$$ies or uses# we are not $re$ared to rue that the dormitor( wherein *asmin sta(ed shoud constitute em$o(erIs $remises as woud aow a ,nding that death or in8ur( therein is considered to have been incurred or sustained in the course of or arose out of her em$o(ment% There are certain( e>ce$tions# but the( do not a$$ear to a$$( here% +oreover# a com$ete determination woud have to de$end on the unique circumstances obtaining and the overa factua environment of the case# which are here ac!ing% =JH-HF2-H# -a8ab W Sisiah Com$an(# =hite Facon Services# )nc%# "ecmen Service H>$orter and Promotion# )nc%# and their cor$orate directors and o<cers are found 8oint( and soidari( iabe and 2-&H-H& to indemnif( the heirs of *asmin Cuaresma# s$ouses Sim$icio and +ia Cuaresma# the foowing amountsF (4) T=2 +)//)2. F):H JU.&-H& TJ2USA.& PHS2S (P3#EDD#DDD%DD) as mora damages? (3) T=2 +)//)2. F):H JU.&-H& TJ2USA.& PHS2S (P3#EDD#DDD%DD) as e>em$ar( damages? (3)Attorne(Is fees equivaent to ten $ercent (4DV) of the tota monetar( award% P#o5/# o: 34# P4./.55.2#s vs. L'%%( SL'&%oA Do-.29o QG- .o% 464ABE A$ri DB# 3DD5 FACTS* /arr( 7/auro7 &omingo was accused of the crime of iega recruitment for recruiting andGor $acing severa wor!ers under oca or overseas em$o(ment des$ite being a non0 icensee or non0hoder of authorit( from the &e$artment of /abor and Hm$o(ment% This o@ense invoved economic sabotage# as it was committed in arge scae% )nformations for 33 counts of Hstafa were aso ,ed# a of which were simiar( worded but var(ing with res$ect to the name of each com$ainant and the amount which each $ur$orted( gave to a$$eant% 2f the 33 com$ainants# on( ,ve testi,ed% 2ne com$ainant ater recanted his testimon(% The substance of their res$ective testimonies state that &omingo deceived the com$ainants b( assuring them of em$o(ment abroad $rovided that the( submit certain documents and $a( the required $acement fee and that com$ainants $aid a$$eant the 66 amount he as!ed on account of a$$eantIs re$resentations which turned out to be fase% "( *oint &ecision dated 2ctober 45# 3DDA# the tria court found a$$eant guit( be(ond reasonabe doubt of )ega -ecruitment (/arge Scae) and of 3 counts of Hstafa The a$$eate court a<rmed the tria courtIs decision hoding that the straightforward and consistent testimonies of the com$aining witnesses su<cient( su$$orted the tria courtIs concusion that a$$eant undertoo! recruitment activities beginning Se$tember u$ to &ecember 4555 in +aoos# "uacan without the icense therefor# and faied to de$o( those he recruited% As for the estafa cases# the a$$eate court hed that the eements constituting the crime were su<cient( estabished% Jence# the $resent a$$ea% SC RULING* The a$$ea is bereft of merit% The term 7recruitment and $acement7 is de,ned under Artice 43(b) of the /abor Code of the Phii$$ines as foowsF (b) 7-ecruitment and $acement7 refers to an( act of canvassing# enisting# contracting# trans$orting# utii'ing# hiring# or $rocuring wor!ers# and incudes referras# contract services# $romising or advertising for em$o(ment# oca( or abroad# whether for $ro,t or not% Provided# That an( $erson or entit( which# in an( manner# o@ers or $romises for a fee em$o(ment to two or more $ersons sha be deemed engaged in recruitment and $acement% (Hm$hasis su$$ied) 2n the other hand# Artice 36# $aragra$h (a) of the /abor Code# as amended# under which the accused stands charged# $rovidesF Art% 36% )ega -ecruitment% 0 (a) An( recruitment activities# incuding the $rohibited $ractices enumerated under Artice 3A of this Code# to be underta!en b( non0icensees or non0hoders of authorit( sha be deemed iega and $unishabe under Artice 35 of this Code% The +inistr( of /abor and Hm$o(ment or an( aw enforcement o<cer ma( initiate com$aints under this Artice% (b) )ega recruitment when committed b( a s(ndicate or in arge scae sha be considered an o@ense invoving economic sabotage and sha be $enai'ed in accordance with Artice 35 hereof% )ega recruitment is deemed committed b( a s(ndicate if carried out b( a grou$ of three (3) or more $ersons cons$iring andGor confederating with one another in carr(ing out an( unawfu or iega transaction# enter$rise or scheme de,ned under the ,rst $aragra$h hereof% )ega recruitment is deemed committed in arge scae if committed against three (3) or more $ersons individua( or as a grou$% (Hm$hasis su$$ied) From the foregoing $rovisions# it is cear that an( recruitment activities to be underta!en b( non0icensee or non0hoder of authorit( sha be deemed iega and $unishabe under Artice 35 of the /abor Code of the Phii$$ines% )ega recruitment is deemed committed in arge scae if committed against three (3) or more $ersons individua( or as a grou$% To $rove iega recruitment in arge scae# the $rosecution must $rove three essentia eements# to witF (4) the $erson charged undertoo! a recruitment activit( under Artice 43(b) or an( $rohibited $ractice under Artice 3A of the /abor Code? (3) heGshe did not have the icense or the authorit( to awfu( engage in the recruitment and $acement of wor!ers? and (3) heGshe committed the $rohibited $ractice against three or more $ersons individua( or as a grou$%B The Court ,nds that the $rosecution ab( discharged its onus of $roving the guit be(ond reasonabe doubt of a$$eant of the crimes charged% That no recei$t or document in which a$$eant ac!nowedged recei$t of mone( for the $romised 8obs was adduced in evidence does not free him of iabiit(% For even if at the time a$$eant was $romising em$o(ment no cash was given to him# he is sti considered as having been engaged in recruitment activities# since Artice 43(b) of the /abor Code states that the act of recruitment ma( be for $ro,t or not% )t su<ces that a$$eant $romised or o@ered em$o(ment for a fee to the com$aining witnesses to warrant his conviction for iega recruitment% That one of the origina com$aining witnesses# Cabigao# ater recanted# via an a<davit and his testimon( in o$en court# does not necessari( cance an earier decaration% /i!e an( other testimon(# the same is sub8ect to the test of credibiit( and shoud be received with caution%6 For a testimon( soemn( given in court shoud not be set aside ight(# east of a b( a mere a<davit e>ecuted after the a$se of considerabe time% )n the case at bar# the A<davit of -ecantation was e>ecuted three (ears after the com$aint was ,ed% )t is thus not unreasonabe to consider his retraction an afterthought to den( its $robative vaue% AT A// H:H.TS# the Court ,nds that the $rosecution evidence consisting of the testimonies of the four com$ainants# whose credibiit( has not been im$aired# has not been overcome% =JH-HF2-H# the $etition is &H.)H&% ATCI Ov#%s#'s Co%5. #3. '/., vs E14.2 GR No. )7655), O13. )), 20)0 Fo%#.92 /'>; $&%0#2 o: 5%oo:; 5%o1#ss&'/ 5%#s&-53.o2. As to $etitionersI contentions that Phii$$ine abor aws on $robationar( em$o(ment are not a$$icabe since it was e>$ress( $rovided in res$ondentIs em$o(ment contract# which she vountari( entered into# that the terms of her engagement sha be governed b( $revaiing Tuwaiti Civi Service /aws and -eguations as in fact P2HA -ues accord res$ect to such rues# customs and $ractices of the host countr(# the same was not substantiated% )ndeed# a contract free( entered into is considered the aw between the $arties who can estabish sti$uations# causes# terms and conditions as the( ma( deem convenient# incuding the aws which the( wish to govern their res$ective obigations# as ong as the( are not contrar( to aw# moras# good customs# $ubic order or $ubic $oic(% )t is hornboo! $rinci$e# however# that the $art( invo!ing the a$$ication of a foreign aw has the burden of $roving the aw# under the doctrine of $rocessua $resum$tion which# in this case# $etitioners faied to 65 discharge% The CourtIs ruing in H&)0 Sta@buiders )ntI%# v% ./-C iuminatesF )n the $resent case# the em$o(ment contract signed b( Gran s$eci,ca( states that Saudi /abor /aws wi govern matters not $rovided for in the contract (e%g% s$eci,c causes for termination# termination $rocedures# etc%)% "eing the aw intended b( the $arties (e> oci intentiones) to a$$( to the contract# Saudi /abor /aws shoud govern a matters reating to the termination of the em$o(ment of Gran% )n internationa aw# the $art( who wants to have a foreign aw a$$ied to a dis$ute or case has the burden of $roving the foreign aw% The foreign aw is treated as a question of fact to be $ro$er( $eaded and $roved as the 8udge or abor arbiter cannot ta!e 8udicia notice of a foreign aw% Je is $resumed to !now on( domestic or forum aw% Unfortunate( for $etitioner# it did not $rove the $ertinent Saudi aws on the matter? thus# the )nternationa /aw doctrine of $resumed0identit( a$$roach or $rocessua $resum$tion comes into $a(% =here a foreign aw is not $eaded or# even if $eaded# is not $roved# the $resum$tion is that foreign aw is the same as ours% Thus# we a$$( Phii$$ine abor aws in determining the issues $resented before us% (em$hasis and underscoring su$$ied) Fo%#.92 /'>; 2o 8&0.1.'/ 2o3.1# o: :o%#.92 /'>. The Phii$$ines does not ta!e 8udicia notice of foreign aws# hence# the( must not on( be aeged? the( must be $roven% To $rove a foreign aw# the $art( invo!ing it must $resent a co$( thereof and com$( with Sections 3A and 3E of -ue 433 of the -evised -ues of Court which readsF SHC% 3A% Proof of o<cia record% Z The record of $ubic documents referred to in $aragra$h (a) of Section 45# when admissibe for an( $ur$ose# ma( be evidenced b( an o<cia $ubication thereof or b( a co$( attested b( the o<cer having the ega custod( of the record# or b( his de$ut(# and accom$anied# if the record is not !e$t in the Phii$$ines# with a certi,cate that such o<cer has the custod(% )f the o<ce in which the record is !e$t is in a foreign countr(# the certi,cate ma( be made b( a secretar( of the embass( or egation# consu genera# consu# vice consu# or consuar agent or b( an( o<cer in the foreign service of the Phii$$ines stationed in the foreign countr( in which the record is !e$t# and authenticated b( the sea of his o<ce% (em$hasis su$$ied) SHC% 3E% =hat attestation of co$( must state% Z =henever a co$( of a document or record is attested for the $ur$ose of the evidence# the attestation must state# in substance# that the co$( is a correct co$( of the origina# or a s$eci,c $art thereof# as the case ma( be% The attestation must be under the o<cia sea of the attesting o<cer# if there be an(# or if he be the cer! of a court having a sea# under the sea of such court% To $rove the Tuwaiti aw# $etitioners submitted the foowingF +2A between res$ondent and the +inistr(# as re$resented b( ATC)# which $rovides that the em$o(ee is sub8ect to a $robationar( $eriod of one (4) (ear and that the host countr(Is Civi Service /aws and -eguations a$$(? a transated co$( (Arabic to Hngish) of the termination etter to res$ondent stating that she did not $ass the $robation terms# without s$ecif(ing the grounds therefor# and a transated co$( of the certi,cate of termination# both of which documents were certi,ed b( +r% +usta$ha Aawi# Jead of the &e$artment of Foreign A@airs02<ce of Consuar A@airs )nsamic Certi,cation and Transation Unit? and res$ondentIs etter of reconsideration to the +inistr(# wherein she noted that in her ,rst eight (6) months of em$o(ment# she was given a rating of LH>ceentM abeit it changed due to changes in her shift of wor! schedue% These documents# whether ta!en sing( or as a whoe# do not su<cient( $rove that res$ondent was vaid( terminated as a $robationar( em$o(ee under Tuwaiti civi service aws% )nstead of submitting a co$( of the $ertinent Tuwaiti abor aws du( authenticated and transated b( Hmbass( o<cias thereat# as required under the -ues# what $etitioners submitted were mere certi,cations attesting on( to the correctness of the transations of the +2A and the termination etter which does not $rove at a that Tuwaiti civi service aws di@er from Phii$$ine aws and that under such Tuwaiti aws# res$ondent was vaid( terminated% Thus the sub8ect certi,cations readF > > > > This is to certif( that the herein attached transationGs from Arabic to HngishGTagaog and or vice versa wasGwere $resented to this 2<ce for review and certi,cation and the same wasGwere found to be in order% This 2<ce# however# assumes no res$onsibiit( as to the contents of the documentGs% This certi,cation is being issued u$on request of the interested $art( for whatever ega $ur$ose it ma( serve% (em$hasis su$$ied) 5D
G.R. No. 197528 September 5, 2012
PERT/CPM MANPOWER EXPONENT CO., INC., Petitioner,
vs.
ARMANDO A. VINUY A, LOUIE M. ORDOVEZ, ARSENIO S. LUMANTA,. JR., ROBELITO S. ANIPAN, VIRGILIO R. ALCANTARA, MARINO M. ERA, SANDY 0. ENJAMBRE and NOEL T. LADEA, Respondents.