GARDEN OF MEMORIES PARK and LIFE PLAN, INC. and PAULINA T. REQUIÑO, vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION, LABOR ARBITER FELIPE T. GARDUQUE
II and HILARIA CRUZ
G.R. 160278, February 8, 2012.

TOPIC: A petition for review under Rule 45 of the ROC seeking nullification on the resolution of the CA affirming the
decision of NLRC in finding the petitioner as the employer of the respondent and ordered liable for the money claims
of respondent Cruz.

FACTS: Petitioner is engaged in business of operating a memorial park in Pateros, MM, and selling memorial plan
and services, Respondent, likewise, is a worker in Garden of Memories Park from 1991 up to Feb. 1998.

On March 13, 1998 Respondent filed a complaint of illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-inclusion of SSS
and so on against the petitioner before the DOLE. Petitioner denied the employment of respondent, but likewise,
impleaded Paulina T. Requino as it was the service contractor and employer of Cruz.

It was due to misunderstanding with a co-worker why he was dismissed without due process and valid cause. Both
petitioner denied the fact that Cruz was their employee either, and argued that respondent has abandoned his work.
Upon judgement of the LA, it was declared that both petitioners are held jointly and severally liable for the monetary
claims of Cruz and order payment.

Petitioners both appealed at NLRC but was denied even on the MR due to lack of merit. They then elevated the
appeal at the CA but was also affirmed the decision made by NLRC, hence this petition for certiorari due to GAOD
and Acted in Excess of Jurisdiction for the following issues, to wit:

ISSUES:

1. WON Petitioner Requino was engaged in Labor-only contracting;

2. WON there exists an employee-employer relationship between Gardens and respondent Cruz; and
3. WON respondent Cruz has abandon his work at the Gardens.

RULING/HELD:

First Issue: Sec. 5 of Rule VIII-A of the Omnibus Rule implementing the Labor Codes, provides that labor
contracting shall refer to an arrangement where the contractor or subcontractor merely recruits, supplies or places
workers to perform a job, work or service for a principal and the elements of determinating this are present, 1)
capitalization requirements and 2) the power of control over to his employee which Requino are wanting. The Courts
find this absent in Requino’s favor, hence, he’s only doing as a mere agent of the Garden of Memories and not as an
employer of respondent Cruz, which was supported by Service Contract Agreement between both the petitioners.

Second Issue: Consequently, due to the findings made by the court upon declaring that Requino was only doing as
agent of the Gardens. As such, Gardens is the principal employer of the respondent Cruz, he was hired as a Utility
Worker tasked to clean, sweep and water the lawn of the memorial park. She performed activities which were
necessary or desirable to its principal trade or business. Thus, she was a regular employee of Gardens of Memories
and cannot be dismissed except for just and authorized causes when respondent Cruz did not abandon her work but
was illegally dismissed as described on the Third Issue. Therefore, the petition is denied and the assailed
decision/resolutions of the CA were affirmed by the Supreme Court.