1.G.R. No.

220617

NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
BENNY A. PUEDAN, JR., JAYFER D. LIMBO, BRODNEY N. AVILA, ARTHUR C. AQUINO, RYAN A.
MIRANDA, RONALD R. ALAVE, JOHNNY A. DIMAYA, MARLON B. DELOS REYES, ANGELITO R.
CORDOVA, EDGAR S. BARRUGA, CAMILO B. CORDOVA, JR., JEFFRY B. LANGUISAN, EDISON U.
VILLAPANDO, JHEIRNEY S. REMOLIN, MARY LUZ A. MACATALAD,* JENALYN M. GAMUROT, DENNIS G.
BAWAG, RAQUEL A. ABELLERA, and RICANDRO G. GUATNO, JR., Respondents.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1are the Decision2 dated March 26, 2015 and the Resolution3 dated
September 17, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 132686, which affirmed the
Decision4 dated May 30, 2013 and the Resolution5 dated August 30, 2013 of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) in LAC No. 02-000699-13/ NCR-03-04761-12, declaring petitioner Nestle Philippines, Inc.
(NPI), jointly and severally liable with Ocho de Septiembre, Inc. (ODSI) to respondents Benny A. Puedan, Jr.,
Jayfer D. Limbo, Brodney N. Avila, Arthur C. Aquino, Ryan A. Miranda, Ronald R. Alave, Johnny A. Dimaya,
Marlon B. Delos Reyes, Angelita R. Cordova, Edgar S. Barruga, Camilo B. Cordova, Jr., Jeffry B. Languisan,
Edison U. Villapando, Jheirney S. Remolin, Mary Luz A. Macatalad, Jenalyn M. Gamurot, Dennis G. Bawag,
Raquel A. Abellera, and Ricandro G. Guatno, Jr. (respondents) for separation pay, nominal damages, and
attorney's fees.

The Facts

The instant case arose from an amended6 complaint7 dated July 6, 2012 for illegal dismissal, damages, and
attorney's fees filed by respondents against, inter alia, ODSI and NPI. Respondents alleged that on various
dates, ODSI and NPI hired them to sell various NPI products in the assigned covered area. After some time,
respondents demanded that they be considered regular employees of NPI, but they were directed to sign
contracts of employment with ODSI instead. When respondents refused to comply with such directives, NPI and
ODSI terminated them from their position. 8 Thus, they were constrained to file the complaint, claiming
that: (a) ODSI is a labor-only contractor and, thus, they should be deemed regular employees of NPI;
and (b) there was no just or authorized cause for their dismissal.9

For its part, ODSI averred that it is a company engaged in the business of buying, selling, distributing, and
marketing of goods and commodities of every kind and it enters into all kinds of contracts for the acquisition
thereof. ODSI admitted that on various dates, it hired respondents as its employees and assigned them to
execute the Distributorship Agreement10 it entered with NPI, 11 the relevant portions of which state:

3.1 DISTRIBUTOR (ODSI) shall assign a sales force in his/her regular employ, dedicated solely to the handling
of NPI Grocery Retail Products under this Agreement, and who shall exclusively cover assigned areas/channels
of distribution.

3.2 DISTRIBUTOR shall service the outlets within the Territory by reselling Products obtained exclusively from
Nestle Philippines, Inc. and not from any other source.

3.3 DISTRIBUTOR shall utilize booking and distribution salesmen to

undertake territory development. Booking done by DISTRIBUTOR shall be delivered by its personnel. Collection
of accounts shall be taken cared (sic) of by DISTRIBUTOR, without prejudice to the provisions of Clause 13
hereof.

3.4 DISTRIBUTOR's route salesmen shall exclusively cover assigned ex-truck areas/channels of distribution.

3.5 DISTRIBUTOR shall also provide training to its staff or personnel where necessary, to improve operations in
servicing the requirements of DISTRIBUTOR's customers. From time to time, NESTLE shall offer to
DISTRIBUTOR suggestions and recommendations to improve sales and to further develop the market.
3.6 DISTRIBUTOR shall meet the sales, reach and distribution targets agreed upon by NESTLE and
DISTRIBUTOR. For purposes of this clause, reach targets refer to the number of stores, dealers and/or outlets
which DISTRIBUTOR should cover or service within a particular period. Distribution targets refer to the number
of stock keeping units and/or product lines covered by this Agreement.

In the event of DISTRIBUTOR's failure to meet NESTLE's sales targets, NESTLE has the sole discretion of
assigning another distributor of the Products and/or reducing the Territory covered by DISTRIBUTOR.

3.7 DISTRIBUTOR agrees to provide at its own cost and expense facilities and other resources necessary for
the distribution and sale of the Products.

3.8 NESTLE's sales personnel may get orders for the Products distributed by DISTRIBUTOR and pass on the
said orders to DISTRIBUTOR.

3.9 NESTLE shall provide the necessary promotional and marketing support for the Products through
promotional materials, product information literature, participation in trade fairs, and other market development
activities.

3.10 Should NESTLE manufacture and/or distribute other products not subject of this Agreement, which, in
NESTLE's opinion, should likewise be extended to DISTRIBUTOR's outlets, such additional products shall be
included among those listed in Annex "A" hereof.

NESTLE shall deliver the Products to DISTRIBUTOR's warehouse(s) at its own expenses. Immediately upon
receipt of the Products, DISTRIBUTOR shall carry out a visual inspection thereof. In the event any quantity of
the Products is found to be defective upon such visual inspection, NESTLE shall replace such quantity of the
Products at no cost to DISTRIBUTOR.

3.11 All costs for transportation and/or shipment of the Products from DISTRIBUTOR's warehouse(s) to its
outlets/customers shall be the account of the DISTRIBUTOR. 12

However, the business relationship between NPI and ODSI turned sour when the former' s sales department
badgered the latter regarding the sales targets. Eventually, NPI downsized its marketing and promotional
support from ODSI which resulted to business reverses and in the latter's filing of a petition for corporate
rehabilitation and, subsequently, the closure of its Nestle unit due to the termination of the Distributorship
Agreement and the failure of rehabilitation. Under the foregoing circumstances, ODSI argued that respondents
were not dismissed but merely put in floating status. 13

On the other hand, NPI did not file any position paper or appear in the scheduled conferences. 14

The Labor Arbiter Ruling

In a Decision15 dated December 28, 2012, the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, but
nevertheless, ordered, inter alia, ODSI and NPI to pay respondents nominal damages in the aggregate amount
of ₱235,728.00 plus attorney's fees amounting to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary awards. 16 The LA
found that: (a) respondents were unable to prove that they were NPI employees; and (b) respondents were not
illegally dismissed as ODSI had indeed closed down its operations due to business losses. 17 As to the issue on
the failure to give respondents a thirty (30)-day notice prior to such closure, the LA concluded that all the
impleaded respondents therein (i.e., including NPI) should be held liable for the payment of nominal damages
plus attorney's fees. 18 Aggrieved, respondents appealed to the NLRC.19

The NLRC Ruling

In a Decision20 dated May 30, 2013, the NLRC reversed and set aside the LA ruling and, accordingly, ordered
ODSI and NPI to pay each of the respondents: (a) separation pay amounting to Yi month pay for every year of
service reckoned from the time they were employed until the finality of the Decision; and (b) nominal damages in
the amount of ₱30,000.00. The NLRC likewise ordered NPI and ODSI to pay respondents attorney's fees
amounting to ten percent (10%) of the monetary awards.21

Contrary to the LA's findings, the NLRC found that while ODSI indeed shut down its operations, it failed to prove
that such closure was due to serious business losses as it did not present evidence, e.g., financial statements, to
corroborate its claims. As such, it ruled that respondents are entitled to separation pay. In this relation, the NLRC
also found that since ODSI failed to notify respondents of such closure, the latter are likewise entitled to nominal
damages.22

Further, the NLRC found ODSI to be a labor-only contractor of NPI, considering that: (a) ODSI had no
substantial capitalization or investment; (b) respondents performed activities directly related to NPI's principal
business; and (c)the fact that respondents' employment depended on the continuous supply of NPI products
shows that ODSI had not been carrying an independent business according to its own manner and method.23

Consequently, the NLRC deemed NPI to be respondents' true employer, and thus, ordered it jointly and
severally liable with ODSI to pay the monetary claims of respondents. 24

Respondents moved for a partial reconsideration, 25 arguing that since it was only ODSI that closed down
operations and not NPI and, considering the finding that the latter was deemed to be their true employer, NPI
should reinstate them, or if not practicable, to pay them separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every
year of service. NPI also moved for reconsideration,26 contending that: (a) it was deprived of its right to
participate in the proceedings before the LA and the NLRC; and (b) it had no employer-employee relationship
with respondents as ODSI was never its contractor, whether independent or labor-only.27 However, the NLRC
denied both motions in a Resolution28dated August 30, 2013, holding that: (a) respondents' termination was due
to the closure of ODSI's Nestle unit, an authorized cause and, thus, the monetary awards in their favor were
proper; (b) NPI was not deprived of its right to participate in the proceedings as it was duly served with copies of
the parties' respective pleadings, as well as the rulings of both the LA and the
NLRC; (c) assuming arguendo that NPI was indeed deprived of due process, its subsequent filing of a motion for
reconsideration before the NLRC cured the defect as it was able to argue its position in the said motion;
and (d) the circumstances surrounding the Distributorship Agreement between ODSI and NPI showed that the
former is indeed a labor-only contractor of the latter. 29

Dissatisfied, NPI filed a petition for certiorari30before the CA, essentially insisting that: (a) it was deprived of due
process before the tribunals a quo; and (b) there was no employer-employee relationship between NPI and
respondents. 31 Records reveal that no other party elevated the matter before the CA.

The CA Ruling

In a Decision32 dated March 26, 2015, the CA affirmed the NLRC ruling. Anent the issue on due process, the CA
held that NPI was not deprived of its opportunity to be heard as it was able to receive a copy of the complaint
and other pleadings, albeit it failed to respond thereto. 33 As regards the substantive issue, the CA ruled that
despite ODSI and NPI's contract being denominated as a "Distributorship Agreement," it contained provisions
demonstrating a labor-only contracting arrangement between them, as well as NPI' s exercise of control over the
business of ODSI. Moreover, the CA pointed out that: (a) there was nothing in the records which showed that
ODSI had substantial capital to undertake an independent business; and (b) respondents performed tasks
essential to NPI's business.34Undaunted, NPI moved for reconsideration, 35 which was, however, denied in a
Resolution36 dated September 17, 2015; hence, this petition.

The Issues Before the Court

The essential issues for the Court's resolution are whether or not the CA correctly ruled that: (a) NPI was
accorded due process by the tribunals a quo; and (b) ODSI is a labor-only contractor of NPI, and consequently,
NPI is respondents' true employer and, thus, deemed jointly and severally liable with ODSI for respondents'
monetary claims.

The Court's Ruling

To justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, the petitioner must satisfactorily show that the court
or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused the discretion conferred upon it. Grave abuse of discretion connotes a
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, done in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility, the character of which being so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law. 37

In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when, inter alia, its findings and
conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. 38
Guided by the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the CA was correct in ruling that the labor
tribunals a quo gave NPI an opportunity to be heard. However, it erred in not ascribing grave abuse of discretion
on the NLRC's finding that ODSI is a labor-only contractor of NPI and, thus, the latter is the respondents' true
employer, and jointly and severally liable with ODSI for respondents' monetary claims. As will be explained
hereunder, such finding by the NLRC is not supported by substantial evidence.

I.

The observance of fairness in the conduct of any investigation is at the very heart of procedural due process.
The essence of due process is to be heard, and, as applied to administrative proceedings, this means a fair and
reasonable opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. Administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense,
for in the former a formal or trial-type hearing is not always necessary, and technical rules of procedure are not
strictly applied.39 The Court's disquisition in Ledesma v. CA40is instructive on this matter, to wit:

Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding.
Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain
or defend himself. In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the
person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due
process. The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings,
an opportunity to explain ones side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.41(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In this case, NPI essentially claims that it was deprived of its right to due process when it was not notified of the
proceedings before the LA and did not receive copies and issuances from the other parties and the LA,
respectively.42 However, as correctly pointed out by the CA, NPI was furnished via courier of a copy of the
amended complaint filed by the respondents against it as shown by LBC Receipt No. 125158910840.43 It is also
apparent that NPI was also furnished with the respondents' Position Paper, Reply, and Rejoinder.44 Verily, NPI
was indeed accorded due process, but as the LA mentioned, the former chose not to file any position paper or
appear in the scheduled conferences.45

Assuming arguendo that NPI was somehow deprived of due process

by either of the labor tribunals, such defect was cured by: (a) NPI' s filing of its motion for reconsideration before
the NLRC; (b) the NLRC's subsequent issuance of its Resolution dated August 30, 2013 wherein the tribunal
considered all of NPI's arguments as contained in its motion; and (c) NPI's subsequent elevation of the case to
the CA. In Gonzales v. Civil Service Commission, 46 the Court reiterated the rule that "[a]ny seeming defect in
[the] observance [of due process] is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration," and that "denial of due
process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who [was] afforded the opportunity to be heard x x
x."47 Similarly, inAutencio v. Mañara,48it was held that defects in procedural due process may be cured when the
party has been afforded the opportunity to appeal or to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained
of. 49

Evidently, the foregoing shows that NPI was not denied due process of law as it was afforded the fair and
reasonable opportunity to explain its side.

II.

In holding NPI jointly and severally liable with ODSI for the monetary awards in favor of respondents, both the
NLRC and the CA held that based on the provisions of the Distributorship Agreement between them, ODSI is
merely a labor-only contractor of NPI. 50 In this regard, the CA opined that the following stipulations of the said
Agreement evinces that NPI had control over the business of ODSI, namely, that: (a) NPI shall offer to ODSI
suggestions and recommendations to improve sales and to further develop the market; (b) NPI prohibits ODSI
from exporting its products (the No-Export provision); (c) NPI provided standard requirements to ODSI for the
warehousing and inventory management of the sold goods; and (d) prohibition imposed on ODSI to sell any
other products that directly compete with those of NPI.51

However, a closer examination of the Distributorship Agreement reveals that the relationship of NPI and ODSI is
not that of a principal and a contractor (regardless of whether labor-only or independent), but that of a seller and
a buyer/re-seller. As stipulated in the Distributorship Agreement, NPI agreed to sell its products to ODSI at
discounted prices,52 which in turn will be re-sold to identified customers, ensuring in the process the integrity and
quality of the said products based on the standards agreed upon by the parties. 53 As aptly explained by NPI, the
goods it manufactures are distributed to the market through various distributors, e.g., ODSI, that in turn, re-sell
the same to designated outlets through its own employees such as the respondents. Therefore, the reselling
activities allegedly performed by the respondents properly pertain to ODSI, whose principal business consists of
the "buying, selling, distributing, and marketing goods and commodities of every kind" and "[entering] into all
kinds of contracts for the acquisition of such goods [and commodities]."54

Thus, contrary to the CA's findings, the aforementioned stipulations in the Distributorship Agreement hardly
demonstrate control on the part of NPI over the means and methods by which ODSI performs its business, nor
were they intended to dictate how ODSI shall conduct its business as a distributor. Otherwise stated, the
stipulations in the Distributorship Agreement do not operate to control or fix the methodology on how ODSI
should do its business as a distributor of NPI products, but merely provide rules of conduct or guidelines towards
the achievement of a mutually desired result55 - which in this case is the sale of NPI products to the end
consumer. In Steelcase, Inc. v. Design International Selections, Inc., 56 the Court held that the imposition of
minimum standards concerning sales, marketing, finance and operations are nothing more than an exercise of
sound business practice to increase sales and maximize profits, to wit:

Finally, both the CA and DISI rely heavily on the Dealer Performance Expectation required by Steelcase of its
distributors to prove that DISI was not functioning independently from Steelcase because the same imposed
certain conditions pertaining to business planning, organizational structure, operational effectiveness and
efficiency, and financial stability. It is actually logical to expect that Steelcase, being one of the major
manufacturers of office systems furniture, would require its dealers to meet several conditions for the grant and
continuation of a distributorship agreement. The imposition of minimum standards concerning sales,
marketing, finance and operations is nothing more than an exercise of sound business practice to
increase sales and maximize profits for the benefit of both Steelcase and its distributors. For as long as
these requirements do not impinge on a distributor's independence, then there is nothing wrong with
placing reasonable expectations on them. 57 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Verily, it was only reasonable for NPI - it being a local arm of one of the largest manufacturers of foods and
grocery products worldwide - to require its distributors, such as ODSI, to meet various conditions for the grant
and continuation of a distributorship agreement for as long as these conditions do not control the means and
methods on how ODSI does its distributorship business, as shown in this case. This is to ensure the integrity
1âwphi1

and quality of the products which will ultimately fall into the hands of the end consumer.

Thus, the foregoing circumstances show that ODSI was not a labor-only contractor of NPI; hence, the latter
cannot be deemed the true employer of respondents. As a consequence, NPI cannot be held jointly and
severally liable to ODSI's monetary obligations towards respondents.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 26, 2015 and the Resolution dated
September 17, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 132686 are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, the Decision dated May 30, 2013 and the Resolution dated August 30, 2013 of the National
Labor Relations Commission in LAC No. 02-000699-13/ NCR-03-04761-12
are MODIFIED, DELETING petitioner Nestle Philippines, Inc.'s solidary liability with Ocho de Septiembre, Inc.
(ODSI) for the latter's monetary obligations to respondents Benny A. Puedan, Jr., Jayfer D. Limbo, Brodney N.
Avila, Arthur C. Aquino, Ryan A. Miranda, Ronald R. Alave, Johnny A. Dimaya, Marlon B. Delos Reyes, Angelito
R. Cordova, Edgar S. Barruga, Camilo B. Cordova, Jr., Jeffry B. Languisan, Edison U. Villapando, Jheimey S.
Remolin, Mary Luz A. Macatalad, Jenalyn M. Gamurot, Dennis G. Bawag, Raquel A. Abellera, and Ricandro G.
Guatno, Jr.

SO ORDERED.
2. G.R. No. 206390

JACK C. VALENCIA, Petitioner,

vs.
CLASSIQUE VINYL PRODUCTS CORPORATION, JOHNNY CHANG (Owner) and/or CANTINGAS
MANPOWER SERVICES, Respondents.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the December 5, 2012 Decision1 and March 18, 2013 Resolution2 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 120999, which respectively denied the Petition for Certiorari filed
therewith by petitioner Jack C. Valencia (Valencia) and the motion for reconsideration thereto.

Factual Antecedents

On March 24, 2010, Valencia filed with the Labor Arbiter a Complaint3 for Underpayment of Salary and Overtime
Pay; Non-Payment of Holiday Pay, Service Incentive Leave Pay, 13th Month Pay; Regularization; Moral and
Exemplary Damages; and, Attorney's Fees against respondents Classique Vinyl Products Corporation
(Classique Vinyl) and its owner Johnny Chang (Chang) and/or respondent Cantingas Manpower Services
(CMS). When Valencia, however, asked permission from Chang to attend the hearing in connection the said
complaint on April 17, 2010, the latter allegedly scolded him and told him not to report for work anymore. Hence,
Valencia amended his complaint to include illegal dismissal.4

In his Sinumpaang Salaysay, 5 Valencia alleged that he applied for work with Classique Vinyl but was told by the
latter's personnel office to proceed to CMS, a local manpower agency, and therein submit the requirements for
employment. Upon submission thereof, CMS made him sign a contract of employment6 but no copy of the same
was given to him. He then proceeded to Classique Vinyl for interview and thereafter started working for the
company in June 2005 as felitizer operator. Valencia claimed that he worked 12 hours a day from Monday to
Saturday and was receiving ₱187.52 for the first eight hours and an overtime pay of ₱117.20 for the next four
hours, or beyond the then minimum wage mandated by law. Five months later, he was made to serve as
extruder operator but without the corresponding increase in sa1aiy. He was neither paid his holiday pay, service
incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay. Worse, premiums for Philhealth and Pag-IBIG Fund were not paid and
his monthly deductions for Social Security System (SSS) premiums were not properly remitted. He was also
being deducted the amounts of ₱100.00 and ₱60.00 a week for Cash Bond and Agency Fee, respectively.
Valencia averred that his salary was paid on a weekly basis but his pay slips neither bore the name of Classique
Vinyl nor of CMS; that all the machineries that he was using/operating in connection with his work were all
owned by Classique Vinyl; and that his work was regularly supervised by Classique Vinyl. He further averred
that he worked for Classique Vinyl for four years until his dismissal. Hence, by operation of law, he had already
attained the status of a regular employee of his true employer, Classique Vinyl, since according to him, CMS is a
mere labor-only contractor. Valencia, therefore, argued that Classique Vinyl should be held guilty of illegal
dismissal for failing to comply with the twin-notice requirement when it dismissed him from the service and be
made to pay for his monetary claims.

Classique Vinyl, for its part, denied having hired Valencia and instead pointed to CMS as the one who actually
selected, engaged, and contracted out Valencia's services. It averred that CMS would only deploy Valencia to
Classique Vinyl whenever there was an urgent specific task or temporary work and these occasions took place
sometime in the years 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2010. It stressed that Valencia's deployment to Classique Vinyl
was intermittent and limited to three to four months only in each specific year. Classique Vinyl further contended
that Valencia's performance was exclusively and directly supervised by CMS and that his wages and other
benefits were also paid by the said agency. It likewise denied dismissing Valencia from work and instead
averred that on April 16, 2010, while deployed with Classique Vinyl, Valencia went on a prolonged absence from
work for reasons only known to him. In sum, Classique Vinyl asserted that there was no employer-employee
relationship between it and Valencia, hence, it could not have illegally dismissed the latter nor can it be held
liable for Valencia's monetary claims. Even assuming that Valencia is entitled to monetary benefits, Classique
Vinyl averred that it cannot be made to pay the same since it is an establishment regularly employing less than
10 workers. As such, it is exempted from paying the prescribed wage orders in its area and other benefits under
the Labor Code. At any rate, Classique Vinyl insisted that Valencia's true employer was CMS, the latter being an
independent contractor as shown by the fact that it was duly incorporated and registered not only with the
Securities and Exhange Commission but also with the Department of Labor and Employment; and, that it has
substantial capital or investment in connection with the work performed and services rendered by its employees
to clients.

CMS, on the other hand, denied any employer-employee relationship between it and Valencia. It contended that
after it deployed Valencia to Classique Vinyl, it was already the latter which exercised full control and supervision
over him. Also, Valencia's wages were paid by Classique Vinyl only that it was CMS which physically handed the
same to Valencia.

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

On September 13, 2010, the Labor Arbiter issued a Decision,7 the pertinent portions of which read:

Is [Valencia] a regular employee of respondent (Classique Vinyl]?

The Certificate of Business Name Registration issued by the Department of Trade and Industry dated 17 August
2007 and the Renewal of PRP A License No. M-08-03-269 for the period 29 August 2008 to 28 August 2010
issued by the Regional Director of the National Capital Region of the Department of Labor and Employment [on
the] 1st day of September 2008 are pieces of evidence to prove that respondent [CMS] is a legitimate Private
Recruitment and Placement Agency.

Pursuant to its business objective, respondent CMS entered into several Employment Contracts with
complainant Valencia as Contractual Employee for deployment to respondent [Classique Vinyl], the last of which
was signed by [Valencia] on 06 February 2010.

The foregoing Employment Contract for a definite period supports respondent [Classique Vinyl's] assertion that
[Valencia] was not hired continuously but intermittently ranging from 3 months to 4 months for the years 2005,
2007, 2009 and 2010. Notably, no controverting evidence was offered to dispute respondent [Classique Vinyl's]
assertion.

Obviously, [Valencia] was deployed by CMS to [Classique Vinyl] for a fixed period.

In Pangilinan v. General Milling Corporation, G.R. No. 149329, July 12, 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that it
does not necessarily follow that where the duties of the employee consist of activities usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business of the employer, the parties are forbidden from agreeing on a period of time for
the performance of such activities. There is thus nothing essentially contradictory between a definite period of
employment and the nature of the employee's duties.

Thus, even if respondent [Classique Vinyl] exercises full control and supervision over the activities perfom1ed by
[Valencia], the latter's employment cannot be considered as regular.

Likewise, even if [Valencia] is considered the regular employee of respondent CMS, the complaint for illegal
dismissal cannot prosper as [the] employment was not terminated by respondent CMS.

On the other hand, there is no substantial evidence to support

[Valencia's] view that he was actually dismissed from his employment by respondent [Classique Vinyl]. After all,
it is elementary that he who makes an affirmative allegation has the burden of proof. On this score, [Valencia]
failed to establish that he was actually dismissed from his job by respondent [Classique Vinyl], aside from his
bare allegation.

With regard to underpayment of salary, respondent CMS admitted that it received from respondent [Classique
Vinyl] the salary for [Valencia's] deployment. Respondent CMS never contested that the amount received was
sufficient for the payment of [Valencia's] salary.

Furthermore, respondent [Classique Vinyl] cannot be obliged to pay [Valencia's] overtime pay, holiday pay,
service incentive leave and 13th month pay as well as the alleged illegal deduction on the following grounds:

a) [Valencia] is not a rank-and-file employee of [Classique Vinyl];

b) No proof was offered to establish that [Valencia] actually rendered overtime services;
c) [Valencia had] not [worked] continuously or even intermittently for [one whole] (1) year[-]period during the
specific year of his deployment with respondent [Classique Vinyl] to be entitled to service incentive leave pay.

d) [Valencia] failed to offer substantial evidence to prove that respondent [Classique Vinyl] illegally deducted
from his sala.7 the alleged agency and cash bond.

Moreover, as against respondent CMS[,] the record is bereft of factual basis for the exact computation of
[Valencia's] money claims as it has remained uncontroverted that [Valencia] was not deployed continuously
neither with respondent [Classique Vinyl] and/or to such other clientele.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered [d]ismissing the above-entitled case for lack
of merit and/or factual basis

SO ORDERED,8

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission

Valencia promptly appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Applying the four-fold test, the
NLRC, however, declared CMS as Valencia's employer in its Resolution9 dated April 14, 2011, viz.:

In Order to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the following yardstick had been
consistently applied: (l) the selection and engagement; (2) payment of wages; (3) power of dismissal and; (4) the
power to control the employee[']s conduct.

In this case, [Valencia] admitted that he applied for work with respondent [CMS] x x x. Upon the acceptance of
his application, he was made to sign an employment contract x x x. [Valencia] also admitted that he received his
wages from respondent [CMS] x x x. As a matter of fact, respondent [CMS] argued that [Valencia] was given a
non-cash wage in the approximate amount of Php3,000.00 x x x.

Notably, it is explicitly stated in the employment contract of [Valencia] that he is required to observe all the rules
and regulations of the company as well as [the] lawful instructions of the management during his employment.
That failure to do so would cause the termination of his employment contract. The pertinent provision of the
contract reads:

2. The employee shall observe all the rules and regulations of the company during the period of employment and
[the] lawful instructions of the management or its representatives. Failure to do so or if performance is below
company standards, management [has] the right to immediatelycancel this contract. x x x

The fact that [Vale1icia] was subjected to such restriction is an evident exercise of the power of control over
[Valencia].

The power of control of respondent [CMS] over Valencia was further bolstered by the declaration of the former
that they will not take against [Valencia] his numerous tardiness and absences at work and[;] his nonobservance
of the company rules,· The statement of [CMS] reads:

Needless to say that [Valencia] in the course of his employment has incurred many infractions like tardiness and
absences, non-observance of company rules, but respondent [CMS], in reiteration will not take this
up as leverage against [Valencia]. x x x

Though [Valencia] worked in the premises of Classique Vinyl x x x and that the [equipment] he used in the
performance of his work was provided by the between [Valencia] and Classique Vinyl x x x in view of the
foregoing circumstances earlier reflected. Besides, as articulated by jurisprudence, the power of control does not
require actual exercise of the power but the power to wield that power x x x.

With the foregoing chain of events, it is evident that [Valencia] is an employee of respondent [CMS].

x x x x10

Accordingly, the NLRC held that there is no basis for Valencia to hold Classique Vinyl liable for his alleged illegal
dismissal as well as for his money claims. Hence, the NLRC dismissed Valencia's appeal and affirmed the
decision of the Labor Arbiter.
Valencia's motion for reconsideration thereto was likewise denied for lack of merit in the Resolution 11 dated June
8, 2011.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

When Valencia sought recourse from the CA, the said court rendered a Decision12 dated December 5, 2012
denying his Petition for Certiorari and affirming the ruling of the NLRC.

Valencia's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in a Resolution 13 dated March 18, 2013.

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari imputing upon the CA the following errors:

WITH DUE RESPECT, IT IS A SERIOUS ERROR WHICH CONSTITUTE[S] GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION ON THE PART OF THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS TO HAVE RULED THAT PETITIONER IS AN EMPLOYEE OF CMS AND FURTHER RULED
THAT HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO HIS MONETARY CLAIMS.

WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS['] DECISION AND RESOLUTION ARE
CONTRARY TO LAW AND WELL-SETTLED RULE.14

Valencia points out that the CA, in ruling that he was an employee of CMS, relied heavily on the employment
contract which the latter caused him to sign. He argues, however, that the said contract deserves scant
consideration since aside from being improperly filled up (there were many portions without entries), the same
was not notarized. Valencia likewise stresses that ti.11e burden of proving that CMS is a legitimate job
contractor lies with respondents. Here, neither Classique Vinyl nor CMS was able to present proof that the latter
has substantial capital to do business as to be considered a legitimate independent contractor. Hence, CMS is
presumed to be a mere labor-only contractor and Classique Vinyl, as CMS' principal, was Valencia's true
employer. As to his alleged dismissal, Valencia argues that respondents failed to establish just or authorized
cause, thus, his dismissal was illegal. Anent his monetary claims, Valencia invokes the principle that he who
pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Since respondents failed to present even a single piece of
evidence that he has been paid his labor standards benefits, he believes that he is entitled to recover them from
respondents who must be held jointly and severally liable for the same. Further, Valencia contends that
respondents should be assessed moral and exemplary damages for circumventing pertinent labor laws by
preventing him from attaining regular employment status. Lastly, for having been compelled to engage the
services of counsel, Valencia claims that he is likewise entitled to attorney's fees.

For their part, respondents Classique Vinyl and Chang point out that the issues raised by Valencia involve
questions of fact which are not within the ambit of a petition for review on certiorari. Besides, findings of facts of
the labor tribunals when affirmed by the CA are generally binding on this Court. At any rate, the said
respondents reiterate the argun1ents they raised before the labor tribunals and the CA.

With respect to respondent CMS, the Court dispensed with the filing of its comment15 when the resolution
requiring it to file one was returned to the Court unserved 16 and after Valencia informed the Court that per
Certification 17 of the Office of the Treasurer of Valenzuela City where CMS's office was located, the latter had
already closed down its business on March 21, 2012.

Our Ruling

There is no merit in the Petition.

The core issue here is whether there exists an employer-employee relationship between Classique Vinyl and
Valencia. Needless to state, it is from the said detennination that the other issues raised, i.e., whether Valencia
was illegally dismissed by Classique Vinyl and whether the latter is liable for his monetary claims, hinge.
However, as correctly pointed out by Classique Vinyl, "[t]he issue of whether or not an employer-employee
relationship existed between [Valencia] and [Classique Vinyl] is essentially a question of fact." 18 "The Court is
not a trier of facts and will not review the factual findings of the lower tribunals as these are generally binding
and conclusive."'19 While there are recognized exceptions,20 none of them applies in this case.

Even if otherwise, the Court is not inclined to depart from the uniform findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC
and the CA.
"It is an oft-repeated rule that in labor cases, as in other administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, 'the
quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence, or such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.’ ‘The burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts
the affirmative of an issue’."21 Since it is Valencia here who is claiming to be an employee of Classique Vinyl, it is
thus incumbent upon him to proffer evidence to prove the existence of employer-employee relationship between
them. He "needs to show by substantial evidence that he was indeed an employee of the company against
which he claims illegal dismissal."22 Corollary, the burden to prove the elements of an employer-employee
relationship, viz.: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of
dismissal; and (4) the power of control, lies upon Valencia.

Indeed, there is no hard and fast rule designed to establish the aforementioned elements of employer-employee
relationship.23 "Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted."24 In this case,
however, Valencia failed to present competent evidence, documentary or otherwise, to support his claimed
employer-employee relationship between him and Classique Vinyl. All he advanced were mere factual
assertions unsupported by proof.

In fact, most of Valencia's allegations even militate against his claim that Classique Vinyl was his true employer.
For one, Valencia stated in his Sinumpaang Salaysay that his application was actually received and processed
by CMS which required him to submit the necessary requirements for employment. Upon submission thereof, it
was CMS that caused him to sign an employment contract, which upon perusal, is actually a contract between
him and CMS. It was only after he was engaged as a contractual employee of CMS that he was deployed to
Classique Vinyl. Clearly, Valencia's selection and engagement was undertaken by CMS and conversely, this
negates the existence of such element insofar as Classique Vinyl is concerned. It bears to state, in addition, that
as opposed to Valencia's argument, the lack of notarization of the said employment contract did not adversely
affect its veracity and effectiveness since significantly, Valencia does not deny having signed the same.25 The
CA, therefore, did not err in relying on the said employment contract in its determination of the merits of this
case. For another, Valencia himself acknowledged that the pay slips26 he submitted do not bear the name of
Classique Vinyl. While the Court in Vinoya v. National Labor Relations Commission27took judicial notice of the
practice of employer to course through the purported contractor the act of paying wages to evade liabilities under
the Labor Code, hence, the non-appearance of employer's name in the pay slip, the Court is not inclined to rule
that such is the case here. This is conside1ing that although CMS claimed in its supplemental Position
Paper/Comment that the money it used to pay Valencia's wages came from Classique Vinyl,28 the same is a
mere allegation without proof Moreover, such allegation is inconsistent with CMS's earlier assertion in its
Position Paper29 that Valencia received from it non-cash wages in an approximate amount of ₱3,000.00. A clear
showing of the element of payment of wages by Classique Vinyl is therefore absent.

Aside from the afore-mentioned inconsistent allegations of Valencia, his claim that his work was supervised by
Classique Vinyl does not hold water. Again, the Court finds the same as a self-serving assertion unworthy of
credence. On the other hand, the employment contract which Valencia signed with CMS categorically states that
the latter possessed not only the power of control but also of dismissal over him, viz.:

xxxx

2. That the employee shall observe all rules and regulations of the company during the period of employment
and [the] lawful instructions of the management or its representatives. Failure to do so or if performance is below
company standards, management [has] the right to immediately cancel this contract.

x x x x30

Clearly, therefore, no error can be attributed on the part of the labor tribunals and the CA in ruling out the
existence of employer-employee relationship between Valencia and Classique Vinyl.

Further, the Court finds untenable Valencia's argument that neither Classique Vinyl nor CMS was able to present
proof that the latter is a legitimate independent contractor and therefore, unable to rebut the presumption that a
contractor is presumed to be a labor-only contractor. "Genera1ly, the presumption is that the contractor is a
labor-only [contractor] unless such contractor overcomes the burden of proving that it has the substantial capital,
investment, tools and the lik.e."31 Here, to prove that CMS was a legitimate contractor, Classique Vinyl presented
the former's Certificate of Registration32 with the Department of Trade and Industry and, License33 as private
recruitment and placement agency from the Department of Labor and Employment. Indeed, these documents
are not conclusive evidence of the status of CMS as a contractor. However, such fact of registration of CMS
prevented the legal presumption of it being a mere labor-only contractor from arising.34 In any event, it must be
stressed that "in labor-only contracting, the statute creates an employer-employee relationship for a
comprehensive purpose: to prevent a circumvention of labor laws. The contractor is considered merely an agent
of the principal employer and the latter is responsible to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if such
employees had been directly employed by the principal employer. The principal employer therefore becomes
solidarily liable with the labor-only contractor for all the rightful claims of the employees."35 The facts of this case,
however, failed to establish that there is any circumvention of labor laws as to call for the creation by the statute
of an employer-employee relationship between Classique Vinyl and Valencia. In fact, even as against CMS,
Valencia's money claims has been debunked by the labor tribunals and the CA. Again, the Court is not inclined
to disturb the same.

In view of the above disquisition, the Court finds no necessity to dwell on the issue of whether Valencia was
illegally dismissed by Classique Vinyl and whether the latter is liable for Valencia's money claims.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. 'The assailed December 5, 2012 Decision and
March 18, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 120999 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

3.G.R. No. 197899

JOAQUIN LU, Petitioner

vs
TIRSO ENOPIA, ROBERTO ABANES, ALEJANDRE BAGAS, SALVADOR BERNAL, SAMUEL CAHAYAG,
ALEJANDRO CAMPUGAN, RUPERTO CERNA, JR., REYNALDO CERNA, PETER CERVANTES,
LEONARDO CO ND ES TABLE, ROLANDO ESLOPOR, ROLLY FERNANDEZ, EDDIE FLORES, ROLANDO
FLORES, JUDITO FUDOLIN, LEO GRAPANI, FELIX HUBAHIB, JERRY JUAGPAO, MARCIANO LANUTAN,
JOVENTINO MATOBATO, ALFREDO MONIVA, VICTORIANO ORTIZ, JR., RENALDO PIALAN, ALFREDO
PRUCIA, PONCIANO REANDO, HERMENIO REMEGIO, DEMETRIO RUAYA, EDGARDO RUSIANA,
NESTOR SALILI, VICENTE SASTRELLAS, ROMEO SUMAYANG, and DESIDERIO TABAY, Respondents

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Joaquin Lu which seeks to reverse and set aside the
Decision1dated October 22, 2010 and the Resolution2 dated May 12, 2011, respectively, of the Court of Appeals
issued in CA-G.R. SP No. 55486-MIN.

The facts of the case, as stated by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:

Petitioners (now herein respondents) were hired from January 20, 1994 to March 20, 1996 as crew members of
the fishing mother boat F/B MG-28 owned by respondent Joaquin "Jake" Lu (herein petitioner Lu) who is the
sole proprietor of Mommy Gina Tuna Resources [MGTR] based in General Santos City. Petitioners and Lu had
an income-sharing arrangement wherein 55% goes to Lu, 45% to the crew members, with an additional 4% as
"backing incentive." They also equally share the expenses for the maintenance and repair of the mother boat,
and for the purchase of nets, ropes and payaos.

Sometime in August 1997, Lu proposed the signing of a Joint Venture Fishing Agreement between them, but
petitioners refused to sign the same as they opposed the one-year term provided in the agreement. According to
petitioners, during their dialogue on August 18, 1997, Lu terminated their services right there and then because
of their refusal to sign the agreement. On the other hand, Lu alleged that the master fisherman (piado) Ruben
Salili informed him that petitioners still refused to sign the agreement and have decided to return the
vessel F/B MG-28.

On August 25, 1997, petitioners filed their complaint for illegal dismissal, monetary claims and damages. Despite
serious efforts made by Labor Arbiter (LA) Arturo P. Aponesto, the case was not amicably settled, except for the
following matters: (1) Balansi 8 and 9; (2) 10% piado share; (3) sud-anon refund; and (4) refund of payment of
motorcycle in the amount of ₱15,000.00. LA Aponesto further inhibited himself from the case out of "delicadeza,"
and the case was raffled to LA Amado M. Solamo.

In their Position Paper, petitioners alleged that their refusal to sign the Joint Venture Fishing Agreement is not a
just cause for their termination. Petitioners also asked for a refund of the amount of ₱8,700,407.70 that was
taken out of their 50% income share for the repair and maintenance of boat as well as the purchase of fishing
materials, as Lu should not benefit from such deduction.

On the other hand, Lu denied having dismissed petitioners, claiming that their relationship was one of joint
venture where he provided the vessel and other fishing paraphernalia, while petitioners, as industrial partners,
provided labor by fishing in the high seas. Lu alleged that there was no employer-employee relationship as its
elements were not present, viz.: it was the piado who hired petitioners; they were not paid wages but shares in
the catch, which they themselves determine; they were not subject to his discipline; and respondent had no
control over the day-to-day fishing operations, although they stayed in contact through respondent's radio
operator or checker. Lu also claimed that petitioners should not be reimbursed for their share in the expenses
since it was their joint venture that shouldered these expenses.3

On June 30, 1998, the LA rendered a Decision4 dismissing the case for lack of merit finding that there was no
employer-employee relationship existing between petitioner and the respondents but a joint venture.

In so ruling, the LA found that: (1) respondents were not hired by petitioner as the hiring was done by
the piado or master fisherman; (2) the earnings of the fishermen from the labor were in the form of wages they
earned based on their respective shares; (3) they were never disciplined nor sanctioned by the petitioner; and,
(4) the income-sharing and expense-splitting was no doubt a working set up in the nature of an industrial
partnership. While petitioner issued memos, orders and directions, however, those who were related more on
the aspect of management and supervision of activities after the actual work was already done for purposes of
order in hauling and sorting of fishes, and thus, not in the nature of control as to the means and method by which
the actual fishing operations were conducted as the same was left to the hands of the master fisherman.

The LA also ruled that the checker and the use of radio were for the purpose of monitoring and supplying the
logistics requirements of the fishermen while in the sea; and that the checkers were also tasked to monitor the
recording of catches and ensure that the proper sharing system was implemented; thus, all these did not mean
supervision on how, when and where to fish.

Respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the LA Decision in
its Resolution5 dated March 12, 1999. Respondents' motion for reconsideration was denied in a
Resolution6 dated July 9, 1999.

Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the CA which dismissed7 the same for having been filed beyond
the 60-day reglementary period as provided under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and that the sworn certification
of non-forum shopping was signed only by two (2) of the respondents who had not shown any authority to sign in
behalf of the other respondents. As their motion for reconsideration was denied, they went to Us via a petition
for certiorariassailing the dismissal which We granted in a Resolution8 dated July 31, 2006 and remanded the
case to the CA for further proceedings.

Petitioner filed its Comment to the petition. The parties submitted their respective memoranda as required by the
CA.

On October 22, 2010, the CA rendered its assailed Decision reversing the NLRC, the decretal portion of which
reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed March 12, 1999 Resolution of public respondent National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Fifth Division, Cagayan de Oro City, is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE, and a new one is entered.

Thus, private respondent Mommy Gina Tuna Resources (MGTR) thru its sole proprietor/general manager,
Joaquin T. Lu (Lu), is hereby ORDERED to pay each of the petitioners, namely, TIRSO ENOPIA, ROBERTO
ABANES, ALEJANDRE BAGAS, SALVADOR BERNAL,

SAMUEL CAHAYAG, ALEJANDRO CAMPUNGAN, RUPERTO CERNA, JR., REYNALDO CERNA, PETER
CERVANTES, LEONARDO CONDESTABLE, ROLANDO ESLOPOR, ROLLY FERNANDEZ, EDDIE FLORES,
ROLANDO FLORES, JUDITO FUDOLIN, LEO GRAPANI, FELIX HUBAHIB, JERRY JUAGPAO, MARCIANO
LANUTAN, JOVENTINO MATOBATO, ALFREDO MONIVA, VICTORIANO ORTIZ, JR., RENALDO PIALAN,
SEVERO PIALAN, ALFREDO PRUCIA, POCIANO REANDO, HERMENIO REMEGIO, DEMETRIO RUAYA,
EDGARDO RUSIANA, NESTOR SALILI, RICHARD SALILI, SAMUEL SALILI, VICENTE SASTRELLAS,
ROMEO SUMAYANG and DESIDERIO TABAY the following:

(1) SEPARATION PAY (in lieu of the supposed reinstatement) equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of
service reckoned from the very moment each petitioner was hired as fishermen-crew member of FIB MG-28 by
MGTR until the finality of this judgment. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (l) whole
year. Any fraction below six months shall be paid pro rata;

(2) FULL BACKWAGES (inclusive of all allowances and other benefits required by law or their monetary
equivalent) computed from the time they were dismissed from employment on August 18, 1997 until finality of
this Judgment;

(3) EXEMPLARY DAMAGES in the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00);

(4) ATTORNEY'S FEES equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award.

Considering that a person's income or earning is his "lifeblood," so to speak, i.e., equivalent to life itself, this
Decision is deemed immediately executory pending appeal should MGTR decide to elevate this case to the
Supreme Court.

Let this case be referred back to the Office of the Labor Arbiter for proper computation of the awards.9

The CA found that petitioner exercised control over respondents based on the following: (1) respondents were
the fishermen crew members of petitioner's fishing vessel, thus, their services to the latter were so indispensable
and necessary that without them, petitioner's deep-sea fishing industry would not have come to existence much
less fruition; (2) he had control over the entire fishing operations undertaken by the respondents through the
master fisherman (piado) and the assistant master fisherman (assistant piado) employed by him; (3)
respondents were paid based on a percentage share of the fish catch did not in any way affect their regular
employment status; and (4) petitioner had already invested millions of pesos in its deep-sea fishing industry,
hence, it is highly improbable that he had no control over respondents' fishing operations.

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated May 12, 2011.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari citing the following as reasons for granting
the same, to wit:

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS RENDERED THE ASSAILED DECISION CONTRARY TO LAW AND
LOGIC BY CITING THE ABSENCE OF PROOF OF REQUISITES OF A VALID DISMISSAL AS BASIS FOR
CONCLUDING THAT THE NLRC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION.

II

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION BY TREATING RESPONDENTS'

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 AS AN ORDINARY APPEAL, AND BY INSISTING ON ITS
OWN EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE.

III

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS RENDERED THE DECISION DATED 22 OCTOBER 2010
CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD.

IV

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DEPARTED FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE
OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS BY MAKING ITS ASSAILED DECISION IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY
PENDING APPEAL IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT RESPONDENTS DID NOT ASK FOR IMMEDIATE
PAYMENT OF SEPARATION PAY AND OTHER CLAIMS, AND DESPITE THE CLAIM OF RESPONDENTS
THAT MOST OF THEM ARE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED IN OTHER DEEP-SEA FISHING COMPANIES.10

Petitioner contends that no grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the NLRC's finding affirming that of the
LA that the arrangement between petitioner and respondents was a joint venture partnership; and that the CA, in
assuming the role of an appellate body, had re-examined the facts and re-evaluated the evidence thereby
treating the case as an appeal instead of an original action for certiorari under Rule 65.

We are not persuaded.

In Prince Transport, Inc. v. Garcia,11 We held:

The power of the CA to review NLRC decisions via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
has been settled as early as this Court's decision in St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC. In said case, the Court
held that the proper vehicle for such review is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the said Rules,
and that the case should be filed with the CA in strict observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
Moreover, it is already settled that under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act
No. 7902, the CA, pursuant to the exercise of its original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, is specifically
given the power to pass upon the evidence, if and when necessary, to resolve factual issues. Section 9 clearly
states:

xxxx

The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any
and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate
jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings.x x x.

However, equally settled is the rule that factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired
expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality by the
courts when supported by substantial evidence, i.e., the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. But these findings are not infallible. When there is a showing
that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record, they may be examined by the
courts. The CA can grant the petition for certiorari if it finds that the NLRC, in its assailed decision or resolution,
made a factual finding not supported by substantial evidence. It is within the jurisdiction of the CA, whose
jurisdiction over labor cases has been expanded to review the findings of the NLRC.12

Here, the LA's factual findings was affirmed by the NLRC, however, the CA found that the latter's resolution did
not critically examine the facts and rationally assess the evidence on hand, and thus found that the NLRC
gravely abused its discretion when it sustained the LA's decision dismissing respondents' complaint for illegal
dismissal on the ground of lack of merit.

The judicial function of the CA in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction over the NLRC extends to the careful
review of the NLRC's evaluation of the evidence because the factual findings of the NLRC are accorded great
respect and finality only when they rest on substantial evidence.13 Accordingly, the CA is not to be restrained
from revising or correcting such factual findings whenever warranted by the circumstances simply because the
NLRC is not infallible. Indeed, to deny to the CA this power is to diminish its corrective jurisdiction through the
writ ofcertiorari.14

The main issue for resolution is whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner
and respondents.

At the outset, We reiterate the doctrine that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is ultimately a
question of fact. Generally, We do not review errors that raise factual questions. However, when there is a
conflict among the factual findings of the antecedent deciding bodies like the LA, the NLRC and the CA, it is
proper, in the exercise of Our equity jurisdiction, to review and re-evaluate the factual issues and to look into the
records of the case and re-examine the questioned findings. In dealing with factual issues in labor cases,
substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion is sufficient.15
In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the following elements are considered: (1)
the selection and engagement of the workers; (2) the power to control the worker's conduct; (3) the payment of
wages by whatever means; and (4) the power of dismissal.16 We find all these elements present in this case.

It is settled that no particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of an employer-employee
relationship. Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted.17

In this case, petitioner contends that it was the piado who hired respondents, however, it was shown by the
latter's evidence that the employer stated in their Social Security System (SSS) online inquiry system printouts
was MGTR, which is owned by petitioner. We have gone over these printouts and found that the date of the SSS
remitted contributions coincided with the date of respondents' employment with petitioner. Petitioner failed to
rebut such evidence. Thus, the fact that petitioner had registered the respondents with SSS is proof that they
were indeed his employees. The coverage of the Social Security Law is predicated on the existence of an
employer-employee relationship.18

Moreover, the records show that the 4% backing incentive fee which was divided among the fishermen engaged
in the fishing operations approved by petitioner was paid to respondents after deducting the latter's
respective vale or cash advance.19 Notably, even the piado's name was written in the backing incentive fee sheet
with the corresponding vale which was deducted from his incentive fee. If indeed a joint venture was agreed
upon between petitioner and respondents, why would these fishermen obtain vale or cash advance from
petitioner and not from thepiado who allegedly hired and had control over them.

It was established that petitioner exercised control over respondents. It should be remembered that the control
test merely calls for the existence of the right to control, and not necessarily the exercise thereof. It is not
essential that the employer actually supervises the performance of duties by the employee. It is enough that the
former has a right to wield the power.20

Petitioner admitted in his pleadings that he had contact with respondents at sea via the former's radio operator
and their checker. He claimed that the use of the radio was only for the purpose of receiving requisitions for the
needs of the fishermen in the high seas and to receive reports of fish catch so that they can then send service
boats to haul the same. However, such communication would establish that he was constantly monitoring or
checking the progress of respondents' fishing operations throughout the duration thereof, which showed their
control and supervision over respondents' activities. Consequently, We give more credence to respondents'
allegations in their petition filed with the CA on how such control was exercised, to wit:

The private respondent (petitioner) controls the entire fishing operations. For each mother fishing boat, private
respondent assigned a master fisherman (pi ado) and assistant master fisherman (assistant pi ado), who every
now and then supervise the fishing operations. Private respondent also assigned a checker and assistant
checker based on the office to monitor and contact every now and then the crew at sea through radio. The
checker and assistant checker advised then the private respondent of the condition. Based on the report of the
checker, the private respondent, through radio, will then instruct the "piado" how to conduct the fishing
operations.21

Such allegations are more in consonance with the fact that, as the CA found, MGTR had already invested
millions of pesos in its deep-sea fishing industry.

The payment of respondents' wages based on the percentage share of the fish catch would not be sufficient to
negate the employer-employee relationship existing between them. As held in Ruga v. NLRC:22

x x x [I]t must be noted that petitioners received compensation on a percentage commission based on the gross
sale of the fish-catch, i.e., 13% of the proceeds of the sale if the total proceeds exceeded the cost of the crude
oil consumed during the fishing trip, otherwise, only 10% of the proceeds of the sale. Such compensation falls
within the scope and meaning of the term "wage" as defined under Article 97(f) of the Labor Code, thus:

(f) "Wage" paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration or earnings, however designated, capable of
being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece or commission basis, or
other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an employee under a written or
unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered, and
included the fair and reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, of board, lodging, or other
facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the employee. x x x23
Petitioner wielded the power of dismissal over respondents when he dismissed them after they refused to sign
the joint fishing venture agreement.

The primary standard for determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular
activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer.24 Respondents'
jobs as fishermen-crew members of FIB MG 28 were directly related and necessary to petitioner's deep-sea
fishing business and they had been performing their job for more than one year. We quote with approval what
the CA said, to wit:

Indeed, it is not difficult to see the direct linkage or causal connection between the nature of petitioners' (now
respondents) work visa- vis MGTR's line of business. In fact, MGTR's line of business could not possibly exist,
let alone flourish without people like the fishermen crew members of its fishing vessels who actually undertook
the fishing activities in the high seas. Petitioners' services to MGTR are so indispensable and necessary that
1âwphi 1

without them MGTR's deep-sea fishing industry would not have come to existence, much less fruition. Thus, We
do not see any reason why the ruling of the Supreme Court in Ruga v. National Labor Relations
Commission should not apply squarely to the instant case,viz.:

x x x The hiring of petitioners to perform work which is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
private respondent x x x [qualifies] them as regular employees within the meaning of Article 28025 of the Labor
Code as they were indeed engaged to perform activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual fishing
business or occupation of private respondent.26

As respondents were petitioner's regular employees, they are entitled to security of tenure under Section
3,27 Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution. It is also provided under Article 279 of the Labor Code, that the right to
security of tenure guarantees the right of employees to continue in their employment absent a just or authorized
cause for termination. Considering that respondents were petitioner's regular employees, the latter's act of
asking them to sign the joint fishing venture agreement which provides that the venture shall be for a period of
one year from the date of the agreement, subject to renewal upon mutual agreement of the parties, and may be
pre-terminated by any of the parties before the expiration of the one-year period, is violative of the former's
security of tenure. And respondents' termination based on their refusal to sign the same, not being shown to be
one of those just causes for termination under Article 282,28 is, therefore, illegal.

An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority
rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their
monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his
actual reinstatement.29

Respondents who were unjustly dismissed from work are entitled to reinstatement and backwages, among
others. However, We agree with the CA that since most (if not all) of the respondents are already employed in
different deep-sea fishing companies, and considering the strained relations between MGTR and the
respondents, reinstatement is no longer viable. Thus, the CA correctly ordered the payment to each respondent
his separation pay equivalent to one month for every year of service reckoned from the time he was hired as
fishermen-crew member of FIB MG-28 by MGTR until the finality of this judgment.

The CA correctly found that respondents are entitled to the payment of backwages from the time they were
dismissed until the finality of this decision.

The CA's award of exemplary damages to each respondent is likewise affirmed. Exemplary damages are
granted by way of example or correction for the public good if the employer acted in a wanton, fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive or malevolent manners.30

We also agree with the CA that respondents are entitled to attorney's fees in the amount of 10% of the total
monetary award. It is settled that where an employee was forced to litigate and, thus, incur expenses to protect
1âw phi 1

his rights and interest, the award of attorney's fees is legally and morally justifiable.31

The legal interest shall be imposed on the monetary awards herein granted at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum from the finality of this judgment until fully paid.32

Petitioner's contention that there is no justification to incorporate in the CA decision the immediate execution
pending appeal of its decision is not persuasive. The petition for certiorari filed with the CA contained a general
prayer for such other relief and remedies just and equitable under the premises. And this general prayer is broad
enough to justify extension of a remedy different from or together with the specific remedy sought.33 Indeed, a
court may grant relief to a party, even if the party awarded did not pray for it in his pleadings.34

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated October 22, 2010 and the
Resolution dated May 12, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 55486-MIN are
hereby AFFIRMED. The monetary awards which are herein granted shall earn legal interest at the rate of six
percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

4.