Lab Rev Cases 2

5/21/2018 Lab Rev Cases 2

1/90

G.R. No. 192998 April 2, 2014

BERNARD A. TENAZAS, JAIME M. FRANCISCO a!ISIDRO G. ENDRACA,Petitioners,vs.R. "I##EGAS TA$I TRANS%ORT a! ROM&A#DO"I##EGAS,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

RE'ES, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari1filed under Rule ! ofthe Rules of Court, assailin" the Decision#dated $arch 11,#%1% and Resolution&dated 'une #(, #%1% of the Court of

)ppeals *C)+ in C)-.R. SP No. 1111!%, which affired withodification the Decisiondated 'une #&, #%%/ of the National0aor Relations Coission *N0RC+ in N0RC 0)C Case No.%2%%#3(%(.

The )ntecedent 4acts

On 'ul5 , #%%2, 6ernard ). Tena7as *Tena7as+ and 'aie $.

4rancisco *4rancisco+ filed a coplaint for ille"al disissala"ainst R. 8ille"as Ta9i Transport and:or Roualdo 8ille"as*Roualdo+ and )nd5 8ille"as *)nd5+ *respondents+. )t thattie, a siilar case had alread5 een filed 5 Isidro -.Endraca *Endraca+ a"ainst the sae respondents. The two *#+cases were suse;uentl5 consolidated.!

In their position paper,3Tena7as, 4rancisco and Endraca*petitioners+ alle"ed that the5 were hired and disissed 5 therespondents on the followin" datespon reportin" the incident to thecopan5, he was scolded 5 respondents Roualdo and )nd5

and was told to leave the "ara"e for he is alread5 fired. =e waseven threatened with ph5sical har should he ever e seen inthe copan5?s preises a"ain. Despite the warnin", Tena7asreported for wor@ on the followin" da5 ut was told that he canno lon"er drive an5 of the copan5?s units as he is alread5fired.(

4rancisco, on the other hand, averred that his disissal wasrou"ht aout 5 the copan5?s unfounded suspicion that hewas or"ani7in" a laor union. =e was instantaneousl5terinated, without the enefit of procedural due process, on'une , #%%2./

Endraca, for his part, alle"ed that his disissal was insti"ated

5 an occasion when he fell short of the re;uired oundar5 forhis ta9i unit. =e related that efore he was disissed, herou"ht his ta9i unit to an auto shop for an ur"ent repair. =ewas char"ed the aount of P2%%.%% for the repair services andthe replaceent parts. )s a result, he was not ale to eet hisoundar5 for the da5. >pon returnin" to the copan5 "ara"eand inforin" the ana"eent of the incident, his driver?slicense was confiscated and was told to settle the deficienc5 inhis oundar5 first efore his license will e returned to hi. =ewas no lon"er allowed to drive a ta9i unit despite his persistentpleas.1%

4or their part, the respondents aditted that Tena7as andEndraca were eplo5ees of the copan5, the forer ein" are"ular driver and the latter a spare driver. The respondents,however, denied that 4rancisco was an eplo5ee of thecopan5 or that he was ale to drive one of the copan5?sunits at an5 point in tie.11

The respondents further alle"ed that Tena7as was neverterinated 5 the copan5. The5 claied that on 'ul5 &, #%%2,Tena7as went to the copan5 "ara"e to "et his ta9i unit ut

was infored that it is due for overhaul ecause of soeechanical defects reported 5 the other driver who ta@esturns with hi in usin" the sae. =e was thus advised to waitfor further notice fro the copan5 if his unit has alread5 eenfi9ed. On 'ul5 (, #%%2, however, upon ein" infored that hisunit is read5 for release, Tena7as failed to report ac@ to wor@for no apparent reason.1#

)s re"ards Endraca, the respondents alle"ed that the5 hiredhi as a spare driver in 4eruar5 #%%1. The5 allow hi to drivea ta9i unit whenever their re"ular driver will not e ale toreport for wor@. In 'ul5 #%%&, however, Endraca stoppedreportin" for wor@ without inforin" the copan5 of his reason.Suse;uentl5, the respondents learned that a coplaint forille"al disissal was filed 5 Endraca a"ainst the. The5stron"l5 aintained, however, that the5 could never haveterinated Endraca in $arch #%%3 since he alread5 stoppedreportin" for wor@ as earl5 as 'ul5 #%%&. Even then, the5e9pressed willin"ness to accoodate Endraca should hewish to wor@ as a spare driver for the copan5 a"ain since hewas never reall5 disissed fro eplo5ent an5wa5.1&

On $a5 #/, #%%(, the petitioners, 5 re"istered ail, filed a$otion to )dit )dditional Evidence.1The5 alle"ed that afterdili"ent efforts, the5 were ale to discover new pieces ofevidence that will sustantiate the alle"ations in their positionpaper. )ttached with the otion are the followin"< *a+ 'oint

)ffidavit of the petitionersA1!*#+ )ffidavit of -ood 4aith of)lone5 Rivera, a codriverA13*&+ pictures of the petitioners

wearin" copan5 shirtsA12

and *+ Tena7as?Certification:Record of Social Securit5 S5ste *SSS+contriutions.1(

The Rulin" of the 0aor )riter

On $a5 &%, #%%(, the 0aor )riter *0)+ rendered aDecision,1/which pertinentl5 states, thusnfortunatel5, the 0) found that4rancisco failed to present sufficient evidence to prove re"ular

eplo5ent such as copan5 ID, SSS eership,withholdin" ta9 certificates or siilar articles. Thus, he was notconsidered an eplo5ee of the copan5. Even then, the 0)held that Tena7as and Endraca could not have een ille"all5disissed since there was no overt act of disissal coitted5 the respondents.#2

On appeal, the N0RC reversed the rulin" of the 0) and ruledthat the petitioners were all eplo5ees of the copan5. TheN0RC preised its conclusion on the additional pieces ofevidence elatedl5 suitted 5 the petitioners, which itsupposed, have een overloo@ed 5 the 0) owin" to the tiewhen it was received 5 the said office. It opined that the saidpieces of evidence are sufficient to estalish the circustances

of their ille"al terination. In particular, it noted that in theaffidavit of the petitioners, there were alle"ations aout thecopan5?s practice of not issuin" eplo5ent records and thiswas not reutted 5 the respondents. It underscored that in asituation where dout e9ists etween evidence presented 5the eplo5er and the eplo5ee, the scales of Fustice ust etilted in favor of the eplo5ee. It awarded the petitioners withi/:

e also do not a"ree that our assailed Resolution

has the effect of fosterin" an ine;uitale or unFust situation.The records show that the petitioner was ver5 apl5 paid forhis services as an insurance a"ent, who also shared in thecoissions of the other a"ents under his "uidance. In 1//2,his incoe was P#,(##,3#%A in 1//(, P,(%!,133.&A in1///, P3,2/2,(1.%!A in #%%1, P3,#1,2&2.11A and in#%%#, P(,%%&,1(%.&(. )ll these he earned as an insurancea"ent, as he failed to ever prove that he earned these sus asan eplo5ee. In technical ters, he could not have earned all

these as an eplo5ee ecause he failed to provide thesustantial evidence re;uired in adinistrative cases tosupport the findin" that he was a $anulife eplo5ee. Noine;uit5 results under this le"al situationA what would e unFustis an award of ac@wa"es and separation pa5 K aounts thatare not due hi ecause he was never an eplo5ee.

The Dissent?s discussion on this aspect of the case

e"ins with the wide disparit5 in the status of the parties K that$anulife is a i" Canadian insurance copan5 while Ton"@o isut a sin"le a"ent of $anulife. The Dissent then went on tosa5 that LBif is ut Fust, it is ut ri"ht, that the Court interpretsthe relationship etween Ton"@o and $anulife as one ofeplo5ent under laor laws and to uphold his constitutionall5protected ri"ht, as an eplo5ee, to securit5 of tenure and

entitleent to onetar5 award should such ri"ht einfrin"ed.MB1! e cannot sipl5 invo@e the a"ical forula 5creatin" an eplo5ent relationship even when there is noneecause of the unavoidale and inherentl5 wea@ position of anindividual over a "iant corporation.

The Dissent li@ewise alluded to an ai"uit5 in thetrue relationship of the parties after Ton"@o?s successiveappointents. e alread5 pointed out that the le"alsi"nificance of these appointents had not een sufficientl5e9plained and that it did not help that Ton"@o never othered topresent evidence on this point. The Dissent reco"ni7ed thisut tried to e9cuse Ton"@o fro this failure in the suse;uentdiscussion, as followsnder the control test, aneplo5ereplo5ee relationship e9ists where the person forwho the services are perfored reserves the ri"ht to controlnot onl5 the end to e achieved, ut also the anner andeans to e used in reachin" that end.B

The fact that petitioner issued eoranda to privaterespondents and to other division sales ana"ers did notprove that petitioner had actual control over the. The

different eoranda were erel5 "uidelines on copan5policies which the sales ana"ers follow and ipose on theirrespective a"ents. It should e noted that in petitioner?susiness of sellin" enc5clopedias and oo@s, the ar@etin" ofthese products was done throu"h dealership a"reeents. Thesales operations were priaril5 conducted 5 independentauthori7ed a"ents who did not receive re"ular copensationsut onl5 coissions ased on the sales of theproducts. These independent a"ents hired their own salesrepresentatives, financed their own office e9penses, andaintained their own staff. Thus, there was a need for thepetitioner to issue eoranda to private respondent so thatthe latter would e apprised of the copan5 policies andprocedures. Nevertheless, private respondent 0iFoco and theother a"ents were free to conduct and proote their salesoperations. The periodic reports to the petitioner 5 the a"entswere ut necessar5 to update the copan5 of the latter?sperforance and usiness incoe.

Private respondent was not an eplo5ee of the petitionercopan5. hile it was true that the petitioner had fi9ed theprices of the products for reason of uniforit5 and privaterespondent could not alter the, the latter, nevertheless, hadfree rein in the eans and ethods for conductin" thear@etin" operations. =e selected his own personnel and theonl5 reason wh5 he had to notif5 the petitioner aout suchappointents was for purpose of deductin" the eplo5ees?salaries fro his coissions. This he aditted in histestionies, thusnfortunatel5, )to@?srepresentatives, includin" hi, were virtuall5held hosta"e 5 the irate claiants whodeanded on the spot pa5ent of theirclais. =e was ale to convince theclaiants to release the copan5representatives pendin" referral of the issueto hi"her ana"eent.

) case was filed in court forthe liftin" of the arricades and the courtordered the liftin" of the arricade. hile

)to@ was prosecutin" its case with theclaiants, another case erupted involvin" itspartner, 6en"uet Corporation. )fter )to@parted wa5s with 6en"uet Corporation, soeproperties ac;uired 5 the partnership andsoe receivales 5 6en"uet Corporationwas the prole. =e was a"ain entan"ledwith docuentation, conferences, eetin"s,plannin", e9ecution and clerical wor@s. )ftertwo 5ears, the controvers5 was resolved and

)to@ received its share of the properties ofthe partnership, which is aout ! illion

pesos worth of e;uipent and condonationof )to@?s accountailities with 6en"uetCorporation in the aount of P/%%,%%%.%%.

In the eantie, crop

daa"e claiants lost interest in pursuin"their clais a"ainst )to@ and )to@ wasrelieved of the urden of pa5in" 2%% illionpesos. In etween attendin" the proles ofthe crop daa"e issue, he was alsoassi"ned to do liaison wor@s with the SEC,6ureau of $ines, unicipal "overnent ofIto"on, 6en"uet, the Courts and other"overnent offices.

)fter the crop daa"e

clais and the controvers5 were resolved,he was peranentl5 assi"ned 5 )to@ tota@e char"e of soe liaison atters andpulic relationsin 6a"uio and 6en"uetProvince, and toreport re"ularl5 to )to@?s office in $anila toattend eetin"s and so he had to sta5in $anila at least one wee@ a onth.

6ecause of his len"th of

service, he invited the attention of the topofficers of the copan5 that he is alread5
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/169510.htm#_ftn9


15/90

entitled to the enefits due an eplo5eeunder the law, ut ana"eent i"nored hisre;uests. =owever, he continued to avail ofhis representation e9penses andreiurseent of copan5relatede9penses. =e also enFo5ed the privile"e ofsecurin" interest free salar5 loans pa5ale inone 5ear throu"h salar5 deduction.

In the succeedin" 5ears of

his eplo5ent, he was desi"nated asliaison officer, pulic relation officer and le"alassistant, and to assist in the eFection ofille"al occupants in the inin" clais of

)to@.

Since he was "ettin" older,ein" alread5 !3 5ears old, he reiterated hisre;uest to the copan5 to cause hisre"istration with the SSS. =is re;uest wasa"ain i"nored and so he filed a coplaintwith the SSS. )fter filin" his coplaint withthe SSS, respondents terinated hisservices.B2

On Septeer #3, #%%&, after the parties havesuitted their respective pleadin"s, 0aor )riter Rolando D.-aito rendered a DecisionB(rulin" in favor of thepetitioner. 4indin" no eplo5ereplo5ee relationshipetween petitioner and respondent, the 0aor )riterdisissed the coplaint for lac@ of erit.

Respondent then appealed the decision to the N0RC.On 'ul5 &%, #%%, the N0RC, Second Division, issued

a ResolutionB/affirin" the decision of the 0aor)riter. Respondent filed a $otion for Reconsideration, ut itwas denied in the ResolutionB1%dated Septeer &%, #%%.

)""rieved, respondent filed a petition for review under

Rule 3! of the Rules of Court efore the C) ;uestionin" thedecision and resolution of the N0RC, which was later doc@etedas C)-.R. SP No. (2(3. In support of his petition,respondent raised the followin" issues$6IN-, J.,Chairperson, C)RPIO, C)RPIO $OR)0ES, TIN-), and

8E0)SCO, 'R., JJ.CO&RT OF A%%EA#S,ASSOCIATEDBROADCASTINGCOM%AN', JOSE JA"IERAND EDARD TAN, Respondents.

Proul"atedRT O4 )PPE)0S, T=E DECISION O4=IC= IS NOT IN )CCORD IT= 0) ORIT= T=E )PP0IC)60E DECISIONS O4T=E S>PRE$E CO>RTBA

II.

T=E PRO4OR$) T)0ENT CONTR)CTS,)S CORRECT0 4O>ND 6 T=E N0RC K4IRST DI8ISION, )RE LA-!(R3*:AR;A!ST 6E STR>C DON 4OR RE)SONSO4 P>60IC PO0ICBA
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/164652.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/164652.htm#_ftn16


20/90

III.

6 RE)SON O4 T=E CONTIN>O>S )NDS>CCESSI8E RENE)0S O4 T=ET=REE$ONT= T)0ENT CONTR)CTS, )NE$P0OERE$P0OEE RE0)TIONS=IP)S CRE)TED )S PRO8IDED 4OR>NDER )RTIC0E #(% O4 T=E 0)6ORCODEBA

I8.

6 T=E CONSTR>CTI8E DIS$ISS)0 O4=EREIN PETITIONER, )S ) RE->0)RE$P0OEE, T=ERE )S ) DENI)0 O4PETITIONER?S RI-=T TO D>E PROCESST=>S ENTIT0IN- =ER TO T=E $ONEC0)I$S )S ST)TED IN T=E CO$P0)INTB.1

The issues for our disposition are< *1+ whether or notthis Court can review the findin"s of the Court of )ppealsA and*#+ whether or not under Rule ! of the Rules of Court theCourt of )ppeals coitted a reversile error in its Decision.

On the first issue, private respondents contend thatthe issues raised in the instant petition are ainl5 factual andthat there is no showin" that the said issues have eenresolved aritraril5 and without asis. The5 add that thefindin"s of the Court of )ppeals are supported 5overwhelin" wealth of evidence on record as well asprevailin" Furisprudence on the atter.1-

Petitioner however contends that this Court canreview the findin"s of the Court of )ppeals, since the appellatecourt erred in decidin" a ;uestion of sustance in a wa5 whichis not in accord with law or with applicale decisions of thisCourt.18

e a"ree with petitioner. Decisions, final orders orresolutions of the Court of )ppeals in an5 case H re"ardless ofthe nature of the action or proceedin" involved H a5 eappealed to this Court throu"h a petition for review. Thisreed5 is a continuation of the appellate process over theori"inal case,19and considerin" there is no con"ruence in thefindin"s of the N0RC and the Court of )ppeals re"ardin" thestatus of eplo5ent of petitioner, an e9ception to the "eneralrule that this Court is ound 5 the findin"s of facts of theappellate court,20we can review such findin"s.

On the second issue, private respondents contendthat the Court of )ppeals did not err when it upheld the validit5of the talent contracts voluntaril5 entered into 5 petitioner. Itfurther stated that prevailin" Furisprudence has reco"ni7ed andsustained the asence of eplo5ereplo5ee relationshipetween a talent and the edia entit5 which en"a"ed thetalent?s services on a per talent contract asis, citin" the caseof 0on6a v. A40(C4- 4roadcasting Corporation.21

Petitioner avers however that an eplo5ereplo5eerelationship was created when the private respondents startedto erel5 renew the contracts repeatedl5 fifteen ties or forfour consecutive 5ears.22

)"ain, we a"ree with petitioner. The Court of )ppealscoitted reversile error when it held that petitioner was a

fi9edter eplo5ee. Petitioner was a re"ular eplo5ee underconteplation of law. The practice of havin" fi9edter contractsin the industr5 does not autoaticall5 a@e all talent contractsvalid and copliant with laor law. The assertion that a talentcontract e9ists does not necessaril5 prevent a re"ulareplo5ent status.2

4urther, the 0on6a case is not applicale. In 0on6a,the television station did not instruct Son7a how to perfor his

Fo. =ow Son7a delivered his lines, appeared on television,and sounded on radio were outside the television station?scontrol. Son7a had a free hand on what to sa5 or discuss in hisshows provided he did not attac@ the television station or its

interests. Clearl5, the television station did not e9ercise controlover the eans and ethods of the perforance of [email protected] In the case at ar, )6C had control over theperforance of petitioner?s wor@. Noteworth5 too, is thecoparativel5 low P#(,%%% onthl5 pa5 of petitioner2visthe P&%%,%%% a onth salar5 of Son7a,2thatall the ore olsters the conclusion that petitioner was not inthe sae situation as Son7a.

The contract of eplo5ent of petitioner with )6Chad the followin" stipulationsnion. San$i" suits, inparticular, that respondent Court is vested with Furisdiction and

Fudicial copetence to enFoin the specific t5pe of stri@e sta"ed5 petitioner union and its officers herein coplained of, forthe reasons thatnion eership, forthe purpose of collective ar"ainin". San$i", for its part,resists that >nion deand on the "round that there is noeplo5ereplo5ee relationship etween it and those wor@ersand ecause the deand violates the ters of their C6).Ovious then is that representation and association, for the

purpose of ne"otiatin" the conditions of eplo5ent are alsoinvolved. In fact, the inFunction sou"ht 5 San$i" was precisel5also to prevent such representation. )"ain, the atter ofrepresentation falls within the scope of a laor dispute. Neithercan it e denied that the controvers5 elow is directl5connected with the laor dispute alread5 ta@en co"ni7ance of5 the NC$6DO0E *NC$6NCR NS%1 %#1(/A NC$6NCR NS%1%/&(&+.

hether or not the >nion deands are validA whether or notSan$i"s contracts with 0ipercon and DRite constitute laoronl5 contractin" and, therefore, a re"ular eplo5ereplo5eerelationship a5, in fact, e said to e9istA whether or not the>nion can lawfull5 represent the wor@ers of 0ipercon and

DRite in their deands a"ainst San$i" in the li"ht of thee9istin" C6)A whether or not the notice of stri@e was valid andthe stri@e itself le"al when it was alle"edl5 insti"ated to copelthe eplo5er to hire stran"ers outside the wor@in" unitA Hthose are issues the resolution of which call for the applicationof laor laws, and San$i"s causes of action in the Courtelow are ine9trical5 lin@ed with those issues.

The precedent in ano vs. de la Cru6 *-.R. No. 0#/3&3, &%)pril 1/3!, 1& SCR) 2&(+ relied upon 5 San$i" is notcontrollin" as in that case there was no controvers5 overters, tenure or conditions, of eplo5ent or therepresentation of eplo5ees that called for the application oflaor laws. In that case, what the petitionin" union deandedwas not a chan"e in wor@in" ters and conditions, or the

representation of the eplo5ees, ut that its eers e hiredas stevedores in the place of the eers of a rival union,which petitioners wanted dischar"ed notwithstandin" thee9istin" contract of the arrastre copan5 with the latter union.=ence, the rulin" therein, on the asis of those facts uni;ue tothat case, that such a deand could hardl5 e considered alaor dispute.

)s the case is indisputal5 lin@ed with a laor dispute,Furisdiction elon"s to the laor triunals. )s e9plicitl5 providedfor in )rticle #12 of the 0aor Code, prior to its aendent 5R.). No. 321! on #1 $arch 1/(/, since the suit elow wasinstituted on 3 $arch 1/(/, 0aor )riters have ori"inal ande9clusive Furisdiction to hear and decide the followin" cases

involvin" all wor@ers includin" 1. unfair laor practice casesA #.those that wor@ers a5 file involvin" wa"es, hours of wor@ andother ters and conditions of eplo5entA ... and !. casesarisin" fro an5 violation of )rticle #3! of this Code, includin";uestions involvin" the le"alit5 of stri@er and loc@outs. ...

)rticle #12 la5s down the plain coand of the law.

The clai of San$i" that the action elow is for daa"esunder )rticles 1/, #% and #1 of the Civil Code would not sufficeto @eep the case within the Furisdictional oundaries of re"ularCourts. That clai for daa"es is interwoven with a laordispute e9istin" etween the parties and would have to eventilated efore the adinistrative achiner5 estalished for

the e9peditious settleent of those disputes. To allow theaction filed elow to prosper would rin" aout split

Furisdiction which is ono9ious to the orderl5 adinistration ofFustice *Philippine Counications, Electronics and Electricit5or@ers 4ederation vs. =on. Nolasco, 0#/(, #/ 'ul5 1/3(,# SCR) +.

e reco"ni7e the proprietar5 ri"ht of San$i" to e9ercise aninherent ana"eent prero"ative and its est usiness

Fud"ent to deterine whether it should contract out the

perforance of soe of its wor@ to independent contractors.=owever, the ri"hts of all wor@ers to selfor"ani7ation,collective ar"ainin" and ne"otiations, and peaceful concertedactivities, includin" the ri"ht to stri@e in accordance with law*Section &, )rticle VIII, 1/(2 Constitution+ e;uall5 call forreco"nition and protection. Those contendin" interests ust eplaced in proper perspective and e;uiliriu.

=ERE4ORE, the rit of certiorari

is -R)NTED and theOrders of respondent 'ud"e of #! $arch 1/(/ and #/ $arch1/(/ are SET )SIDE. The rit of Prohiition is -R)NTED andrespondent 'ud"e is enFoined fro ta@in" an5 further action inCivil Case No. !2%!! e9cept for the purpose of disissin" it.The status /uo ante declaration of stri@e ordered 5 the Courton # $a5 1/(/ shall e oserved pendin" the proceedin"s inthe National Conciliation $ediation 6oardDepartent of 0aorand Eplo5ent, doc@eted as NC$6NCRNS%1%#1(/ andNC$6NCRNS%1%/&(&. No costs.

SO ORDERED.


29/90

RA G. #OCSIN a! G.R. No. 1821EDDIE B. TOMAH&IN, Petitioners, Present00ED and SET

)SIDE. Private respondents? coplainta"ainst Philippine 0on" Distance TelephoneCopan5 is DIS$ISSED.

SO ORDERED.

The C) applied the fourfold test in order to deterinethe e9istence of an eplo5ereplo5ee relationship etweenthe parties ut did not find such relationship. It deterined thatSSCP was not a laoronl5 contractor and was an independent
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/185251.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/185251.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/185251.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/185251.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/185251.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/185251.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/185251.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/185251.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/185251.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/185251.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/185251.htm#_ftn5


30/90

contractor havin" sustantial capital to operate and conduct itsown usiness. The C) further olstered its decision 5 citin"the )"reeent where5 it was stipulated that there shall e noeplo5ereplo5ee relationship etween the securit5 "uardsand P0DT.

)nent the pa5 slips that were presented 5

petitioners, the C) noted that those were issued 5 SSCP andnot P0DTA hence, SSCP continued to pa5 the salaries ofpetitioners after the )"reeent. This fact alle"edl5 proved thatpetitioners continued to e eplo5ees of SSCP aleit perforin" their wor@ at P0DT?s preises.

4ro such assailed decision, petitioners filed a

otion for reconsideration which was denied in the assailedresolution.

=ence, we have this petition.

T3 I1. hether or notA coplainants e9tended

services to the respondent for one *1+5ear fro Octoer 1, #%%1, theeffectivit5 of the terination of the

contract of coplainants a"enc5 SSCP,up toSepteer &%, #%%#, without arenewed contract, constitutes aneplo5ereplo5ee relationshipetween respondent and thecoplainants.

#. hether or notA in accordance to theprovision of the )rticle #(% of the 0aorCode, coplainants e9tended servicesto the respondent for another one *1+5ear without a contract e considered ascontractual eplo5ent.

&. hether or notA in accordance to the

provision of the )rticle #(% of the 0aorCode, does coplainants thirteen *1&+5ears of service to the respondent withanifestation to the respondent thirteen*1&+ 5ears renewal of its securit5contract with the coplainant a"enc5SSCP, can e considered onl5 asLseasonal in natureM or fi9ed as BspecificproFects or underta@in"s and itscopletion or terination can edictated as Bcontrolled 5 therespondent an5tie the5 wanted to.

. hether or notA coplainants fro

ein" an alle"ed contractual eplo5ees

of the respondent for thirteen *1&+ 5earsas the5 were then covered 5 acontract, ecoes re"ular eplo5ees ofthe respondent as the one *1+ 5eare9tended services of the coplainantswere not covered 5 a contract, and cane considered as direct eplo5entpursuant to the provision of the )rticle#(% of the 0aor Code.

!. hether or notA the Court of )ppeals

coitted "rave ause of discretionwhen it set aside and Bannulled thelaor Bariter?s decision and of theN0RC?s resolution declarin" thedisissal of the coplainant as ille"al.B3

T3 Cor/? Rli=

This petition is here5 "ranted.A E7plo:rE7plo:Rla/io3ip Ei/! B/; /3 %ar/i

It is e5ond cavil that there was no eplo5er

eplo5ee relationship etween the parties fro the tie of

petitioners? first assi"nent to respondent 5 SSCP in 1/((until the alle"ed terination of the )"reeent etweenrespondent and SSCP. In fact, this was the conclusion that wasreached 5 this Court inAbella v. +hilippine ong 7istance!elephone Compan,B2where we ruled that petitioners therein,includin" herein petitioners, cannot e considered aseplo5ees of P0DT. It ears pointin" out that petitioners wereaon" those declared to e eplo5ees of their respectivesecurit5 a"encies and not of P0DT.

The onl5 issue in this case is whether petitioners

ecae eplo5ees of respondent after the )"reeentetween SSCP and respondent was terinated.

This ust e answered in the affirative.Notal5, respondent does not den5 the fact that

petitioners reained in the preises of their offices even afterthe )"reeent was terinated. )nd it is this fact that ust ee9plained.

To recapitulate, the C), in renderin" a decision in

favor of respondent, found that< *1+ petitioners failed to provethat SSCP was a laoronl5 contractorA and *#+ petitioners areeplo5ees of SSCP and not of P0DT.

In arrivin" at such conclusions, the C) relied on theprovisions of the )"reeent, wherein SSCP undertoo@ tosuppl5 P0DT with the re;uired securit5 "uards, while furnishin"P0DT with a perforance ond in the aount of PhP 2%2,%%%.$oreover, the C) "ave wei"ht to the provision in the

)"reeent that SSCP warranted that it Lcarr5 on anindependent usiness and has sustantial capital orinvestent in the for of e;uipent, wor@ preises, and otheraterials which are necessar5 in the conduct of its usiness.M

4urther, in deterinin" that no eplo5ereplo5ee

relationship e9isted etween the parties, the C) ;uoted thee9press provision of the )"reeent, statin" that no eplo5ereplo5ee relationship e9isted etween the parties herein. The

C) disre"arded the pa5 slips of 0ocsin considerin" that the5were in fact issued 5 SSCP and not 5 P0DT.4ro the fore"oin" e9planation of the C), the fact

reains that petitioners reained at their post after theterination of the )"reeent. Notal5, in its Coentdated$arch 1%, #%%/,B(respondent never denied thatpetitioners reained at their post until Septeer &%, #%%#.hile respondent denies the alle"ed circustances stated 5petitioners, that the5 were told to reain at their post 5respondent?s Securit5 Departent and that the5 were infored5 SSCP Operations Officer Eduardo 'uliano that their salarieswould e coursed throu"h SSCP as per arran"eent withP0DT, it does not state wh5 the5 were not ade to vacate theirposts. Respondent said that it did not @now wh5 petitionersreained at their posts.

Rule 1&1, Section &*5+ of the Rules of Court providesnder this approach, theCourt e9aines the intended function of the triunal anddecides whether a particular provision falls within or outsidethat function, rather than a@in" the provision itself the

deterinin" centerpiece of the anal5sis. B1/ et even under thisore e9pansive approach, the dissent fails.

) readin" of )rt. 1#( of the 0aor Code reveals thatthe Secretar5 of 0aor or his authori7ed representatives was"ranted visitorial and enforceent powers for the purposeof deterinin" violations of, and enforcin", the 0aor Codeand an5 laor law, wa"e order, or rules and re"ulations issuedpursuant thereto. Necessaril5, the actual e9istence of aneplo5ereplo5ee relationship affects the cople9ion of theputative findin"s that the Secretar5 of 0aor a5 deterine,since eplo5ees are entitled to a different set of ri"hts underthe 0aor Code fro the eplo5er as opposed to noneplo5ees. )on" these differentiated ri"hts are thoseaccorded 5 the Llaor standardsM provisions of the 0aorCode, which the Secretar5 of 0aor is andated toenforce. If there is no eplo5ereplo5ee relationship in thefirst place, the dut5 of the eplo5er to adhere to those laorstandards with respect to the noneplo5ees is ;uestionale.

This decision should not e considered as placin" an

undue urden on the Secretar5 of 0aor in the e9ercise ofvisitorial and enforceent powers, nor seen as anunprecedented diinution of the sae, ut rather areco"nition of the statutor5 liitations thereon. ) ereassertion of asence of eplo5ereplo5ee relationship doesnot deprive the DO0E of Furisdiction over the clai under

)rticle 1#( of the 0aor Code. )t least aprima facie showin"of such asence of relationship, as in this case, is needed topreclude the DO0E fro the e9ercise of its power. TheSecretar5 of 0aor would not have een precluded froe9ercisin" the powers under )rticle 1#( *+ over petitioner ifanother person with etter"rounded clai of eplo5ent than that which respondent had. Respondent,especiall5 if he were an eplo5ee, could have ver5 wellenFoined other eplo5ees to coplain with the DO0E, and, at

the sae tie, petitioner could illafford to disclai aneplo5ent relationship with all of the people under its ae"is.

ithout a dout, petitioner, since the inception of thiscase had een consistent in aintainin" that respondent is notits eplo5ee. Certainl5, a preliinar5 deterination, ased onthe evidence offered, and noted 5 the 0aor Inspector durin"the inspection as well as suitted durin" the proceedin"sefore the Re"ional Director puts in "enuine dout thee9istence of eplo5ereplo5ee relationship. 4ro that pointon, the prudent recourse on the part of the DO0E should haveeen to refer respondent to the N0RC for the properdispensation of his clais. 4urtherore, as discussed earlier,

even the evidence relied on 5 the Re"ional Director in hisorder are ere selfservin" declarations of respondent, andhence cannot e relied upon as proof of eplo5ereplo5eerelationship.

III.

)side fro lac@ of Furisdiction, there is another co"entreason to to set aside the Re"ional Director?s #2 4eruar5
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn21


37/90

#%% Order. ) careful stud5 of the case reveals that the saidOrder, which found respondent as an eplo5ee of petitionerand directed the pa5ent of respondent?s one5 clais, isnot supported 5 sustantial evidence, and was even ade indisre"ard of the evidence on record.

It is not enou"h that the evidence e sipl5considered. The standard is sustantial evidence as in allother ;uasiFudicial a"encies. The standard eplo5ed in the

last sentence of )rticle 1#(*+ of the 0aor Code that thedocuentar5 proofs e Lconsidered in the course of inspectionMdoes not appl5. It applies onl5 to issues other than thefundaental issue of e9istence of eplo5ereplo5eerelationship. ) contrar5 rule would lead to controversies on thepart of laor officials in resolvin" the issue of eplo5ereplo5ee relationship. The onset of aritrariness is the adventof denial of sustantive due process.

)s a "eneral rule, the Supree Court is not a trier offacts. This applies with "reater force in cases efore ;uasi

Fudicial a"encies whose findin"s of fact are accorded "reatrespect and even finalit5. To e sure, the sae findin"sshould e supported 5 sustantial evidence fro which thesaid triunals can a@e its own independent evaluation of thefacts. 0i@ewise, it ust not e rendered with "rave ause ofdiscretionA otherwise, this Court will not uphold the triunals?conclusion.B#% In the sae anner, this Court will not hesitateto set aside the laor triunal?s findin"s of fact when it is clearl5shown that the5 were arrived at aritraril5 or in disre"ard of theevidence on record or when there is showin" of fraud or errorof law.B#1

)t the onset, it is the Court?s considered view that thee9istence of eplo5er eplo5ee relationship could have een

easil5 resolved, or at leastprima faciedeterined 5 the laorinspector, durin" the inspection 5 loo@in" at the records ofpetitioner which can e found in the wor@ preises.Nevertheless, even if the laor inspector had noted petitioner?sanifestation and docuents in the -otice of nspectionResults, it is clear that he did not "ive uch credence to saidevidence, as he did not find the need to investi"ate the atterfurther. Considerin" that the docuents shown 5 petitioner,nael5< cash vouchers, chec@s and stateents of account,suar5 illin"s evidencin" pa5ent to the alle"ed realeplo5er of respondent, lettercontracts denoinated asLEplo5ent for a Specific >nderta@in",Mprima faciene"atethe e9istence of eplo5ereplo5ee relationship, the laorinspector could have e9erted a it ore effort and loo@ed intopetitioner?s pa5roll, for e9aple, or its roll of eplo5ees, or

interviewed other eplo5ees in the preises. )fter all, thelaor inspector, as a laor re"ulation officer is "iven Laccess toeplo5er?s records and preises at an5 tie of da5 or ni"htwhenever wor@ is ein" underta@en therein, and the ri"ht tocop5 therefro, to ;uestion an5 eplo5ee and investi"ate an5fact, condition or atter which a5 e necessar5 to deterineviolations or which a5 aid in the enforceent of this Codeand of an5 laor law, wa"e order or rules and re"ulationspursuant thereto.MB## Despite these farreachin" powers oflaor re"ulation officers, records reveal that no additionalefforts were e9erted in the course of the inspection.

The Court further e9ained the records and

discovered to its disa5 that even the Re"ional Director turneda lind e5e to the evidence presented 5 petitioner and reliedinstead on the selfservin" clais of respondent.

In his position paper, respondent claied that he washired 5 petitioner in Septeer 1//3 as a radio talent:spinner,wor@in" fro (


38/90

even those presented durin" the inspection were not "iven aniota of crediilit5. Instead, full reco"nition and acceptance wasaccorded to the clais of respondentHfro the hours of wor@to his onthl5 salar5, to his alle"ed actual duties, as well as tohis alle"ed Levidence.M In fact, the findin"s are anchoredalost verati on the selfservin" alle"ations of respondent.

4urtherore, respondent?s pieces of evidenceHthe identification card and the certification issued 5

petitioner?s -rean SolanteH are not even deterinative ofan eplo5ereplo5ee relationship. The certification, issuedupon the re;uest of respondent, specificall5 stated that L$R.')NDE0EON '>EJ)N is a pro"ra eplo5ee of PEOP0E?S6RO)DC)STIN- SER8ICES, INC. *D$4 6oo Rad5oCeu+,M it is not therefore Lcr5stal clear that coplainant is astation eplo5ee rather than a pro"ra eplo5ee henceentitled to all the enefits appurtenant thereto,M B#3as found 5the DO0E Re"ional Director. Respondent should e ound 5his own evidence. $oreover, the classification as to whetherone is a Lstation eplo5eeM and Lpro"ra eplo5ee,M as liftedfro Polic5 Instruction No. %,B#2dividin" the wor@ers in theroadcast industr5 into onl5 two "roups is not indin" on thisCourt, especiall5 when the classification has no asis either inlaw or in fact.B#(

Even the identification card purportedl5 issued 5petitioner is not proof of eplo5ereplo5ee relationship sinceit onl5 identified respondent as an L)uthori7ed Representativeof 6oo Rad5oW,M and not as an eplo5ee. The phrase"ains si"nificance when copared vis a visthe followin"notation in the saple identification cards presented 5petitioner in its otion for reconsideration$)N RESO>RCEDEP)R$ENT

*Si"ned+

'EN)0IN D.P)0ER

=RD =E)D

Respondent tried to address the discrepanc5 etweenhis identification card and the standard identification cardsissued 5 petitioner to its eplo5ees 5 ar"uin" that what heanne9ed to his position paper was the old identification cardissued to hi 5 petitioner. =e then presented a photocop5 ofanother LoldM identification card, this tie purportedl5 issued toone of the eplo5ees who was issued the new identificationcard presented 5 petitioner.B#/Respondent?s ar"uent doesnot convince. If it were true that he is an eplo5ee ofpetitioner, he would have een issued a new identification cardsiilar to the ones presented 5 petitioner, and he should have

presented a cop5 of such new identification card. =is failure toshow a new identification card erel5 deonstrates that whathe has is onl5 his L$ediaM ID, which does not constitute proofof his eplo5ent with petitioner.

It has lon" een estalished that in adinistrative and;uasiFudicial proceedin"s, sustantial evidence is sufficient asa asis for Fud"ent on the e9istence of eplo5ereplo5eerelationship. Sustantial evidence, which is the ;uantu of

proof re;uired in laor cases, is Lthat aount of relevantevidence which a reasonale ind i"ht accept as ade;uateto Fustif5 a conclusion.MB&% No particular for of evidence isre;uired to prove the e9istence of such eplo5ereplo5eerelationship. )n5 copetent and relevant evidence to provethe relationship a5 e aditted.B&1 =ence, while no particularfor of evidence is re;uired, a findin" that such relationshipe9ists ust still rest on soe sustantial evidence. $oreover,the sustantialit5 of the evidence depends on its ;uantitativeas well as its /ualitativeaspects.B

In the instant case, save for respondent?s selfservin"alle"ations and selfdefeatin" evidence, there is no sustantialasis to warrant the Re"ional Director?s findin" that respondentis an eplo5ee of petitioner. Interestin"l5, the Order of theSecretar5 of 0aor den5in" petitioner?s appeal dated #2'anuar5 #%%!, as well as the decision of the Court of )ppealsdisissin" the petition for certiorari, are silent on the issue ofthe e9istence of an eplo5ereplo5ee relationship, whichfurther su""ests that no real and proper deterination thee9istence of such relationship was ever ade 5 thesetriunals. Even the dissent s@irted awa5 fro the issue of thee9istence of eplo5ereplo5ee relationship and convenientl5i"nored the dearth of evidence presented 5 respondent.

)lthou"h sustantial evidence is not a function of;uantit5 ut rather of ;ualit5, the peculiar environentalcircustances of the instant case deand that soethin"ore should have een proffered.B&&=ad there een otherproofs of eplo5ent, such as respondent?s inclusion inpetitioner?s pa5roll, or a clear e9ercise of control, the Courtwould have affired the findin" of eplo5ereplo5eerelationship. The Re"ional Director, therefore, coitted"rievous error in orderin" petitioner to answer for respondent?sclais. $oreover, with the conclusion that no eplo5ereplo5ee relationship has ever e9isted etween petitioner andrespondent, it is cr5stalclear that the DO0E Re"ional Directorhad no Furisdiction over respondent?s coplaint. Thus, theiprovident e9ercise of power 5 the Secretar5 of 0aor andthe Re"ional Director ehooves the court to suFect their

actions for review and to invalidate all the suse;uent ordersthe5 issued.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179652.htm#_ftn35


39/90

I8.

The records show that petitioner?s appeal was deniedecause it had alle"edl5 failed to post a cash or suret5ond. hat it attached instead to its appeal was the etter

AgreementB&e9ecuted 5 petitioner and its an@, the cashvoucher,B&!and the 7eed of Assignment of 4an5 7eposits.B&3)ccordin" to the DO0E, these docuents do notconstitute the cash or suret5 ond conteplated 5 lawA thus,it is as if no cash or suret5 ond was posted when it filed itsappeal.

The Court does not a"ree.

The provision on appeals fro the DO0E Re"ionalOffices to the DO0E Secretar5 is in the last para"raph of )rt.1#( *+ of the 0aor Code, which readsial//o /3 7o/ar: a;ar! i /3 or!rappal! 6ro7. *ephasis supplied+

hile the re;uireents for perfectin" an appeal uste strictl5 followed as the5 are considered indispensaleinterdictions a"ainst needless dela5s and for orderl5 dischar"eof Fudicial usiness, the law does adit e9ceptions whenwarranted 5 the circustances. Technicalit5 should not eallowed to stand in the wa5 of e;uital5 and copletel5resolvin" the ri"hts and oli"ations of the parties.B&2 Thus, insoe cases, the ond re;uireent on appeals involvin"

onetar5 awards had een rela9ed, such as when *i+ therewas sustantial copliance with the RulesA *ii+ the surroundin"facts and circustances constitute eritorious "round toreduce the ondA *iii+ a lieral interpretation of the re;uireentof an appeal ond would serve the desired oFective ofresolvin" controversies on the eritsA or *iv+ the appellants, atthe ver5 least e9hiited their willin"ness and:or "ood faith 5postin" a partial ond durin" the re"leentar5 period. B&(

) review of the docuents suitted 5 petitioner iscalled for to deterine whether the5 should have eenaditted as or in lieu of the suret5 or cash ond to sustain theappeal and serve the ends of sustantial Fustice.

The Deed of )ssi"nent readsNDRED TENT SIV PESOSQ &%:1%% ON0 *P#%&,2#3.&%+ Phil.Currenc5, as C)S= 6OND ->)R)NTEEfor the onetar5 award in favor to thePlaintiff in the 0aor Case doc@eted as0SED Case No. R%2%%#%%&%/CI%/,now pendin" appeal.

That Respondent)ppellant dohere5 underta@e to "uarantee availaleand sufficient funds covered 5 PlatinuSavin"s Deposit *PSD+ No. %1%(%%%&(of PEOP0E?S 6RO)DC)STIN-SER8ICES, INC. in the aount ofPESOS< TO =>NDRED T=REET=O>S)ND SE8EN =>NDRED TENTSIV PESOS Q &%:1%% ON0*P#%&,2#3.&%+ pa5ale to Plaintiff

)ppellee:Departent of 0aor andEplo5ent Re"ional Office 8II at ueenCit5 Developent 6an@, Ceu 6ranch,Sancian"@o St. Ceu Cit5.

It is understood that the said an@has the full control of Platinu Savin"sDeposit *PSD+ No. %1%(%%%&( froand after this date and that said sucannot e withdrawn 5 the Plaintiff

)ppellee: Departent of 0aor andEplo5ent Re"ional Office 8II until suchtie that a rit of E9ecution shall eordered 5 the )ppellate Office.

4>RT=ER, this Deed of )ssi"nent is liited to the principal

aount of PESOS< TO =>NDREDT=REE T=O>S)ND SE8EN =>NDREDTENT SIV PESOS Q &%:1%% ON0*P#%&,2#3.&%+ Phil. Currenc5, therefore,an5 interest to e earned fro the saidDeposit will e for the account holder.

IN ITNESS =EREO4, I havehereunto affi9ed 5 si"nature this 1( thda5if 'une, #%%, in the Cit5 of Ceu,Philippines.

PEOP0E?S6RO)DC)STIN- SER8ICES, INC.

656'ECT < )S ST)TED

D)TE < 1 SEPT. 1//(

Please e reinded that 5our services asdraa talent had alread5 een autoaticall5terinated when 5ou ran for a local"overnent position last election.

The $ana"eent however "ave 5ou orethan enou"h tie to end 5our draaparticipation and other involveent with thedraa departent.

It has een decided therefore that all 5ourdraa participation shall e terinatedeffective iediatel5. =owever, 5ourinvolveent as draa spinner:narrator of thedraa LN)-6)B6)-)N- 0)N-ITMcontinues until its writer:director $r. 0eandro

Patalin"hu" wraps it up one wee@ uponreceipt of a separate eo issued to hi. -

on" in contrast contended that after the e9piration ofhis leave of asence, he reported ac@ to wor@ as a re"ulartalent and in fact continued to receive hissalar5. OnSepteer 1, 1//(, he received a eorandustatin" that his services are ein" terinated iediatel5,uch to his surprise. Thus, he filed an ille"al disissalcoplaint8a"ainst )6SC6N, 0u7on and D)6 Station$ana"er 8eneranda S5. =e ar"ued that the "round cited 5

)6SC6N for his disissal was not aon" those enuerated

in the0aor Code, as aended. )nd even "rantin" withoutadittin" the e9istence of the copan5 polic5 supposed tohave een violated, on" averred that it was necessar5 thatthe copan5 polic5 eet certain re;uireents efore willfuldisoedience of the polic5 a5 constitute a Fust cause forterination. on" further ar"ued that the copan5 polic5violates his constitutional ri"ht to suffra"e.9

Patalin"hu" li@ewise filed an ille"al disissalcoplaint10a"ainst )6SC6N.

)6SC6N pra5ed for the disissal of the coplaintsar"uin" that there is no eplo5ereplo5ee relationshipetween the copan5 and on" and Patalin"hu". )6SC6N contended that the5 are not eplo5ees ut talents asevidenced 5 their talent contracts. =owever, notwithstandin"their status, )6SC6N has a standin" polic5 on personsconnected with the copan5 whenever the5 will run for pulicoffice.11

On 'ul5 1, 1///, the 0aor )riter rendered adecision12findin" the disissal of on" and Patalin"hu"ille"al, thusRISDICTION O8ER T=EC)SE IN T=E )6SENCE O4

E$P0O$ENT RE0)TIONS 6ETEENT=E P)RTIES.

II.

RESPONDENT N0RC CO$$ITTED )-R)8E )6>SE O4 DISCRETION INDEC0)RIN- RESPONDENT $6ON- TO6E ) RE->0)R E$P0OEE O4

PETITIONER )S TO CRE)TE )CONTR)CT>)0 E$P0O$ENT RE0)TION6ETEEN T=E$ =EN NONE EVISTSOR =)D 6EEN )-REED >PON OROT=ERISE INTENDED 6 T=EP)RTIES.

III.

E8EN )SS>$IN- T=E )00E-EDE$P0O$ENT RE0)TION TO EVIST 4ORT=E S)E O4 )R->$ENT, RESPONDENTN0RC IN )N C)SE CO$$ITTED )-R)8E )6>SE O4 DISCRETION IN NOTSI$I0)R0 >P=O0DIN- )ND )PP0IN-CO$P)N PO0IC NO. =RER%13 IN T=EC)SE O4 RESPONDENT $6ON- )NDDEE$IN- =I$ )S RESI-NED )NDDIS>)0I4IED 4RO$ 4>RT=EREN-)-E$ENT )S ) R)DIO T)0ENT IN

)6SC6N CE6> )S ) CONSE>ENCE O4=IS C)NDID)C IN T=E 1//(E0ECTIONS, )S RESPONDENT N0RC=)D DONE IN T=E C)SE O4P)T)0IN-=>-.

I8.

RESPONDENT N0RC CO$$ITTED )-R)8E )6>SE O4 DISCRETION )NDDENIED D>E PROCESS TO PETITIONERIN RE4>SIN- TO CONSIDER ITSS>PP0E$ENT)0 )PPE)0, D)TEDOCTO6ER 1(, 1///, L4OR 6EIN- 4I0EDO>T O4 TI$EM CONSIDERIN- T=)T T=E4I0IN- O4 S>C= ) P0E)DIN- IS NOT IN

)N C)SE PROSCRI6ED )NDRESPONDENT N0RC IS )>T=ORIJED TOCONSIDER )DDITION)0 E8IDENCE ON

)PPE)0A $OREO8ER, TEC=NIC)0

R>0ES O4 E8IDENCE DO NOT )PP0 IN0)6OR C)SES.

8.

RESPONDENT N0RC CO$$ITTED )-R)8E )6>SE O4 DISCRETION IN-R)NTIN- T=E RE0IE4 O4REINST)TE$ENT )ND 6)C)-ES TORESPONDENT $6ON- SINCE =ENE8ER OCC>PIED )N LRE->0)RMPOSITION IN PETITIONER 4RO$ =IC==E CO>0D =)8E 6EEN LI00E-)00

DIS$ISSED,M NOR )RE )N O4 T=ER)DIO PROD>CTIONS IN =IC= =E =)DDONE T)0ENT OR 4OR PETITIONERSTI00 EVISTIN-. INDEED, T=ERE IS NO6)SIS =)TSOE8ER 4OR T=E ))RDO4 6)C)-ES TO RESPONDENT$6ON- IN T=E )$O>NT O4P#%%,%%%.%% CONSIDERIN- T=)T, )SS=ON 6 T=E >NCONTRO8ERTEDE8IDENCE, =E )S NOT E)RNIN- )$ONT=0 LS)0)RM O4 LP#%,%%%.%%,M )S=E 4)0SE0 C0)I$S, 6>T )S P)IDT)0ENT 4EES ON ) LPER
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/184885.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/184885.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/184885.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/184885.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/184885.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/184885.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/184885.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/184885.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/184885.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/184885.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/184885.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/184885.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/184885.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/184885.htm#_ftn21


45/90

PROD>CTION:PER SCRIPTM 6)SIS=IC= )8ER)-ED 0ESS T=)NP1%,%%%.%% PER $ONT= IN T)0ENT 4EES

)00 IN )00.21

On )u"ust ##, #%%2, the C) rendered the assaileddecision reversin" and settin" aside the $arch (,#%% Decision and 'une #1, #%% Resolution of theN0RC. The C) declared on" resi"ned fro eplo5entand not to have een ille"all5 disissed. The award of full

ac@ wa"es in his favor was deleted accordin"l5.

The C) ruled that )6SC6N is estopped fro claiin"that on" was not its eplo5ee after appl5in" theprovisions of Polic5 No. =RER%13 to hi. It noted that saidpolic5 is entitled LPolic5 on Eplo5ees See@in" Pulic OfficeMand the "uidelines contained therein specificall5 pertain toeplo5ees and did not even ention talents or independentcontractors. It held that it is a coplete turnaround on )6SC6N?s part to later ar"ue that on" is onl5 a radio talent orindependent contractor and not its eplo5ee. 65 appl5in" thesuFect copan5 polic5 on on", )6SC6N had e9plicitl5reco"ni7ed hi to e an eplo5ee and not erel5 anindependent contractor.

The C) li@ewise held that the suFect copan5 polic5 isthe controllin" "uideline and therefore, on" should econsidered resi"ned fro )6SC6N. hile 0u7on has polic5a@in" power as assistant radio ana"er, he had no authorit5to issue a eorandu that had the effect of repealin" orsupersedin" a susistin" polic5. Contrar5 to the findin"s of the0aor )riter, the suFect copan5 polic5 was effective at thattie and continues to e valid and susistin" up to thepresent. The C) cited Patalin"hu"?s resi"nation letter touttress this conclusion, notin" that Patalin"hu" openl5aditted in his letter that his resi"nation was in line with thesaid copan5 polic5. Since )6SC6N applied Polic5 No. =RER%13 to Patalin"hu", there is no reason not to appl5 the

sae re"ulation to on" who was on a siilar situation asthe forer. Thus, the C) found that the N0RC overstepped itsarea of discretion to a point of "rave ause in declarin"on" to have een ille"all5 terinated. The C) concludedthat there is no ille"al disissal to spea@ of in the instant caseas on" is considered resi"ned when he ran for an electivepost pursuant to the suFect copan5 polic5.

=ence, this petition.

Petitioner ar"ues that the C) "ravel5 erred< *1+ inupholdin" Polic5 No. =RER%13A *#+ in upholdin" the validit5of the terination of on"?s servicesA and *&+ when it

reversed the decision of the N0RC

th

Division of Ceu Cit5which affired the decision of 0aor )riter Nicasio C. )nion.22

on" ar"ues that the suFect copan5 polic5 is aclear interference and a "ross violation of an eplo5ee?s ri"htto suffra"e. =e is surprised wh5 it was eas5 for the C) to rulethat 0u7on?s eorandu ran counter to an e9istin" polic5while on the other end, it did not see that it was in conflict withthe constitutional ri"ht to suffra"e. =e also points out that theissuance of the $arch #!, 1//( $eorandu was precisel5an e9ercise of the ana"eent power to which an eplo5eeli@e hi ust respectA otherwise, he will e sanctioned fordisoedience or worse, even terinated. =e was not in a

position to @now which etween the two issuances was correctand as far as he is concerned, the $arch #!, 1//($eorandu superseded the suFect copan5polic5. $oreover, )6SC6N cannot disown acts of its officersost especiall5 since it preFudiced his propert5 ri"hts. 2

)s to the validit5 of his disissal, on" contends thatthe "round relied upon 5 )6SC6N is not aon" the Fust andauthori7ed causes provided in the 0aor Code, asaended. )nd even assuin" the suFect copan5 polic5passes the test of validit5 under the prete9t of the ri"ht of theana"eent to discipline and terinate its eplo5ees, thee9ercise of such ri"ht is not without ounds. on" avers

that his autoatic terination was a latant disre"ard of hisri"ht to due process. =e was never as@ed to e9plain wh5 hedid not tender his resi"nation efore he ran for pulic office asandated 5 the suFect copan5 polic5.24

on" li@ewise asseverates that oth the 0aor )riterand the N0RC were consistent in their findin"s that he wasille"all5 disissed. It is settled that factual findin"s of laoradinistrative officials, if supported 5 sustantial evidence,are accorded not onl5 "reat respect ut even finalit5.2

)6SC6N, for its part, counters that the validit5 ofpolicies such as Polic5 No. =RER%13 has lon" een upheld5 this Court which has ruled that a edia copan5 has a ri"htto ipose a polic5 providin" that eplo5ees who file theircertificates of candidac5 in an5 election shall e consideredresi"ned.2 $oreover, case law has upheld the validit5 of thee9ercise of ana"eent prero"atives even if the5 appear toliit the ri"hts of eplo5ees as lon" as there is no showin"that ana"eent prero"atives were e9ercised in a annercontrar5 to law.2-)6SC6N contends that ein" the lar"estedia and entertainent copan5 in the countr5, its reputationstes not onl5 fro its ailit5 to deliver ;ualit5 entertainentpro"ras ut also ecause of neutralit5 and ipartialit5 in

deliverin" news.28

)6SC6N further ar"ues that nothin" in the copan5polic5 prohiits its eplo5ees fro either acceptin" a pulicappointive position or fro runnin" for pulic office. Thus, itcannot e considered as violative of the constitutional ri"ht ofsuffra"e. $oreover, the Supree Court has reco"ni7ed theeplo5er?s ri"ht to enforce occupational ;ualifications as lon"as the eplo5er is ale to show the e9istence of a reasonaleusiness necessit5 in iposin" the ;uestioned polic5. =ere,Polic5 No. =RER%13 itself states that it was issued Lto protectthe copan5 fro an5 pulic isconceptionsM and LBtopreserve its oFectivit5, neutralit5 and crediilit5.M Thus, itcannot e denied that it is reasonale under the

circustances.29

)6SC6N li@ewise opposes on"?s clai that he wasterinated. )6SC6N ar"ues that on the contrar5, on"?sunilateral act of filin" his certificate of candidac5 is an overt acttantaount to voluntar5 resi"nation on his part 5 virtue of theclear andate found in Polic5 No. =RER%13. on",however, failed to file his resi"nation and in fact isled hissuperiors 5 a@in" the elieve that he was "oin" on leaveto capai"n for the adinistration candidates ut in fact, heactuall5 ran for councilor. =e also clais to have full5apprised 0u7on throu"h a letter of his intention to run for pulicoffice, ut he failed to adduce a cop5 of the sae.0

)s to on"?s ar"uent that the C) should not havereversed the findin"s of the 0aor )riter and the N0RC, )6SC6N asseverates that the C) is not precluded fro a@in" itsown findin"s ost especiall5 if upon its own review of the case,it has een revealed that the N0RC, in affirin" the findin"s ofthe 0aor )riter, coitted "rave ause of discretionaountin" to lac@ or e9cess of Furisdiction when it failed toappl5 the suFect copan5 polic5 in on"?s case when itreadil5 applied the sae to Patalin"hu".1

Essentiall5, the issues to e resolved in the instantpetition are< *1+ whether Polic5 No. =RER%13 is validA *#+whether the $arch #!, 1//( $eorandu issued

5 0u7onsuperseded Polic5 No. =RER%13A and *&+ whetheron", 5 see@in" an elective post, is deeed to haveresi"ned and not disissed 5 )6SC6N.

Policy o. !"#$"#%1& is valid.

This is not the first tie that this Court has dealt with apolic5 siilar to Polic5 No. =RER%13. In the case of Manila4roadcasting Compan v. -RC,2this Court ruled


46/90

hat is involved in this case is anunwritten copan5 polic5 considerin" an5eplo5ee who files a certificate of candidac5for an5 elective or local office as resi"nedfro the copan5. )lthou"h \11*+ of R.).No. 333 does not re;uire ass ediacoentators and announcers such asprivate respondent to resi"n fro their radioor T8 stations ut onl5 to "o on leave for theduration of the capai"n period, we thin@that the copan5 a5 nevertheless validl5re;uire the to resi"n as a atter ofpolic5. In this case, the polic5 is Fustified onthe followin" "roundsnlessrenewed in writin" 5 the eplo5er, the contract shallautoaticall5 e9pire at the end of the ter.

)ccordin" to private respondent, the eplo5entcontracts were prepared in accordance with )rticle (% of the

0aor Code, which providesnited States, thetouchstone of econoic realit5 in anal57in" possileeplo5ent relationships for purposes of the 4ederal 0aorStandards )ct is dependenc5. #!65 analo"5, the enchar@ ofeconoic realit5 in anal57in" possile eplo5entrelationships for purposes of the 0aor Code ou"ht to e theeconoic dependence of the wor@er on his eplo5er.

65 appl5in" the control test, there is no dout that petitioner isan eplo5ee of asei Corporation ecause she was under thedirect control and supervision of SeiFi aura, thecorporation?s Technical Consultant. She reported for wor@re"ularl5 and served in various capacities as )ccountant,0iaison Officer, Technical Consultant, )ctin" $ana"er and

Corporate Secretar5, with sustantiall5 the sae Fo functions,that is, renderin" accountin" and ta9 services to the copan5and perforin" functions necessar5 and desirale for theproper operation of the corporation such as securin" usinessperits and other licenses over an indefinite period ofen"a"eent.

>nder the roader econoic realit5 test, the petitioner canli@ewise e said to e an eplo5ee of respondent corporationecause she had served the copan5 for si9 5ears efore herdisissal, receivin" chec@ vouchers indicatin" hersalaries:wa"es, enefits, 1&th onth pa5, onuses andallowances, as well as deductions and Social Securit5
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt25


59/90

contriutions fro )u"ust 1, 1/// to Deceer 1(,#%%%. #3hen petitioner was desi"nated -eneral $ana"er,respondent corporation ade a report to the SSS si"ned 5Irene 6allesteros. Petitioner?s eership in the SSS asanifested 5 a cop5 of the SSS specien si"nature cardwhich was si"ned 5 the President of asei Corporation andthe inclusion of her nae in the online in;uir5 s5ste of theSSS evinces the e9istence of an eplo5ereplo5eerelationship etween petitioner and respondent corporation. #2

It is therefore apparent that petitioner is econoicall5dependent on respondent corporation for her continuedeplo5ent in the latter?s line of usiness.

In 7omasig v. -ational abor Relations Commission, #(we heldthat in a usiness estalishent, an identification card isprovided not onl5 as a securit5 easure ut ainl5 to identif5the holder thereof as a ona fide eplo5ee of the fir thatissues it. To"ether with the cash vouchers coverin" petitioner?ssalaries for the onths stated therein, these atters constitutesustantial evidence ade;uate to support a conclusion thatpetitioner was an eplo5ee of private respondent.

e li@ewise ruled in lores v. -uestro#/that a corporation who

re"isters its wor@ers with the SSS is proof that the latter werethe forer?s eplo5ees. The covera"e of Social Securit5 0awis predicated on the e9istence of an eplo5ereplo5eerelationship.

4urtherore, the affidavit of SeiFi aura dated Deceer !,#%%1 has clearl5 estalished that petitioner never acted asCorporate Secretar5 and that her desi"nation as such was onl5for convenience. The actual nature of petitioner?s Fo was asaura?s direct assistant with the dut5 of actin" as 0iaisonOfficer in representin" the copan5 to secure constructionperits, license to operate and other re;uireents iposed 5"overnent a"encies. Petitioner was never entrusted withcorporate docuents of the copan5, nor re;uired to attendthe eetin" of the corporation. She was never priv5 to the

preparation of an5 docuent for the corporation, althou"h oncein a while she was re;uired to si"n prepared docuentation forthe copan5. &%

The second affidavit of aura dated $arch 2, #%%# whichrepudiated the Deceer !, #%%1 affidavit has een alle"edl5withdrawn 5 aura hiself fro the records of thecase. &1Re"ardless of this fact, we are convinced that thealle"ations in the first affidavit are sufficient to estalish thatpetitioner is an eplo5ee of asei Corporation.

-rantin" arguendo, that the second affidavit validl5 repudiatedthe first one, courts do not "enerall5 loo@ with favor on an5retraction or recanted testion5, for it could have een secured

5 considerations other than to tell the truth and would a@esolen trials a oc@er5 and place the investi"ation of the truthat the erc5 of unscrupulous witnesses.) recantation doesnot necessaril5 cancel an earlier declaration, ut li@e an5 othertestion5 the sae is suFect to the test of crediilit5 andshould e received with caution. &&

6ased on the fore"oin", there can e no other conclusion thatpetitioner is an eplo5ee of respondent asei Corporation.She was selected and en"a"ed 5 the copan5 forcopensation, and is econoicall5 dependent uponrespondent for her continued eplo5ent in that line ofusiness. =er ain Fo function involved accountin" and ta9services rendered to respondent corporation on a re"ular asis

over an indefinite period of en"a"eent. Respondentcorporation hired and en"a"ed petitioner for copensation,with the power to disiss her for cause. $ore iportantl5,respondent corporation had the power to control petitioner withthe eans and ethods 5 which the wor@ is to eaccoplished.

The corporation constructivel5 disissed petitioner when itreduced her salar5 5 P#,!%% a onth fro 'anuar5 toSepteer #%%1. This aounts to an ille"al terination ofeplo5ent, where the petitioner is entitled to full ac@wa"es.Since the position of petitioner as accountant is one of trustand confidence, and under the principle of strained relations,

petitioner is further entitled to separation pa5, in lieu ofreinstateent.&

) diinution of pa5 is preFudicial to the eplo5ee and aountsto constructive disissal. Constructive disissal is aninvoluntar5 resi"nation resultin" in cessation of wor@ resortedto when continued eplo5ent ecoes ipossile,unreasonale or unli@el5A when there is a deotion in ran@ or adiinution in pa5A or when a clear discriination, insensiilit5or disdain 5 an eplo5er ecoes unearale to an

eplo5ee.&!

In *lobe !elecom, nc. v. lorendo(lores,&3

weruled that where an eplo5ee ceases to wor@ due to adeotion of ran@ or a diinution of pa5, an unreasonalesituation arises which creates an adverse wor@in" environentrenderin" it ipossile for such eplo5ee to continue wor@in"for her eplo5er. =ence, her severance fro the copan5 wasnot of her own a@in" and therefore aounted to an ille"alterination of eplo5ent.

In affordin" full protection to laor, this Court ust ensuree;ual wor@ opportunities re"ardless of se9, race or creed.Even as we, in ever5 case, attept to carefull5 alance thefra"ile relationship etween eplo5ees and eplo5ers, we areindful of the fact that the polic5 of the law is to appl5 the0aor Code to a "reater nuer of eplo5ees. This wouldenale eplo5ees to avail of the enefits accorded to the 5law, in line with the constitutional andate "ivin" a9iu aidand protection to laor, prootin" their welfare and reaffirin"it as a priar5 social econoic force in furtherance of social

Fustice and national developent.

)EREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision andResolution of the Court of )ppeals dated Octoer #/, #%% andOctoer 2, #%%!, respectivel5, in C)-.R. SP No. 2(!1!are ANN#EDand SET ASIDE. The Decision of the National0aor Relations Coission dated )pril 1!, #%%& in N0RCNCR C) No. %é%#, isREINSTATED. The caseis REMANDED to the 0aor )riter for the recoputation ofpetitioner )n"elina 4rancisco?s full ac@wa"es fro the tie

she was ille"all5 terinated until the date of finalit5 of thisdecision, and separation pa5 representin" onehalf onth pa5for ever5 5ear of service, where a fraction of at least si9onths shall e considered as one whole 5ear.

SO ORDERED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_170087_2006.html#fnt36


60/90

G.R. No. 1801. J 10, 2004

JOSE '. SONZA,petitioner, vs. ABSCBN BROADCASTINGCOR%ORATION, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CAR%IO, J.@

T3 Ca

6efore this Court is a petition for reviewon certiorariB1assailin" the #3 $arch 1/// DecisionB#of theCourt of )ppeals in C)-.R. SP No. /1/% disissin" thepetition filed 5 'ose . Son7a *LSONJ)M+. The Court of

)ppeals affired the findin"s of the National 0aor RelationsCoission *LN0RCM+, which affired the 0aor )riter?sdisissal of the case for lac@ of Furisdiction.

T3 Fa5/

In $a5 1//, respondent )6SC6N 6roadcastin"Corporation *L)6SC6NM+ si"ned an )"reeent *L)"reeentM+with the $el and 'a5 $ana"eent and DevelopentCorporation *L$'$DCM+. )6SC6N was represented 5 itscorporate officers while $'$DC was represented 5 SONJ),as President and -eneral $ana"er, and Carela Tian"co

*LTI)N-COM+, as E8P and Treasurer. Referred to in the)"reeent as L)-ENT,M $'$DC a"reed to provide SONJ)?sservices e9clusivel5 to )6SC6N as talent for radio andtelevision. The )"reeent listed the services SONJ) wouldrender to )6SC6N, as followsnited States Court of )ppeals, 4irst Circuit,recentl5 held in/lberty#8le9 v. orporacin 6e Puerto"ico Para ;a 6ifusin P5P"?@B#2that a televisionpro"ra host is an independent contractor. e ;uote thefollowin" findin"s of the >.S. courtnderthis polic5, the t5pes of eplo5ees in the roadcast industr5are the station and pro"ra eplo5ees.

Polic5 Instruction No. % is a ere e9ecutive issuancewhich does not have the force and effect of law. There is nole"al presuption that Polic5 Instruction No. % deterines

SONJ)?s status. ) ere e9ecutive issuance cannot e9cludeindependent contractors fro the class of service providers tothe roadcast industr5. The classification of wor@ers in theroadcast industr5 into onl5 two "roups under Polic5Instruction No. % is not indin" on this Court, especiall5 whenthe classification has no asis either in law or in fact.

/ffidavits of /42#4Ds 5itnesses

SONJ) also faults the 0aor )riter for adittin" theaffidavits of Socorro 8idanes and Rolando Cru7 without "ivin"his counsel the opportunit5 to crosse9aine these

witnesses. SONJ) rands these witnesses as incopetent toattest on the prevailin" practice in the radio and televisionindustr5. SONJ) views the affidavits of these witnesses asisleadin" and irrelevant.

hile SONJ) failed to crosse9aine )6SC6N?switnesses, he was never prevented fro den5in" or refutin"the alle"ations in the affidavits. The 0aor )riter has thediscretion whether to conduct a foral *trialt5pe+ hearin" afterthe suission of the position papers of the parties, thusnder this arran"eent,the petitioners earned an avera"e of P%%.%% dail5.Nevertheless, private respondent adittedl5 re"ularl5 deductsfro petitioners, dail5 earnin"s the aount of P&%.%%supposedl5 for the washin" of the ta9i units. 6elievin" that thededuction is ille"al, petitioners decided to for a laor union toprotect their ri"hts and interests.

>pon learnin" aout the plan of petitioners, private respondentrefused to let petitioners drive their ta9icas when the5reported for wor@ on )u"ust 3, 1//1, and on succeedin" da5s.Petitioners suspected that the5 were sin"led out ecause the5were the leaders and active eers of the proposed union.

)""rieved, petitioners filed with the laor ariter a coplaint

a"ainst private respondent for unfair laor practice, ille"aldisissal and ille"al deduction of washin" fees. In adecision&dated )u"ust &1, 1//#, the laor ariter disissedsaid coplaint for lac@ of erit.

On appeal, the N0RC *pulic respondent herein+, in a decisiondated )pril #(, 1//, reversed and set aside the Fud"ent ofthe laor ariter. The laor triunal declared that petitioners areeplo5ees of private respondent, and, as such, their disissalust e for Fust cause and after due process. It disposed of thecase as followsrano $arcos, 'r., and 'oel Ordeni7a, totheir forer positions without loss of seniorit5 andother privile"es appertainin" theretoA to pa5 thecoplainants full ac@wa"es and other enefits, lessearnin"s elsewhere, and to reiurse the drivers the

aount paid as washin" char"esA and

#. Disissin" the char"e of unfair Blaor practice forinsufficienc5 of evidence.

SO ORDERED.

Private respondents first otion for reconsideration wasdenied. Reainin" hopeful, private respondent filed anotherotion for reconsideration. This tie, pulic respondent, in itsdecision!dated Octoer #(, 1//, "ranted aforesaid secondotion for reconsideration. It ruled that it lac@s Furisdiction overthe case as petitioners and private respondent have no

eplo5ereplo5ee relationship. It held that the relationship ofthe parties is leasehold which is covered 5 the Civil Coderather than the 0aor Code, and disposed of the case asfollowsRISDICTION TO RE8ERSE,

)0TER OR $ODI4.

III

IN )N C)SE, EVISTIN- '>RISPR>DENCE ON T=E$)TTER S>PPORTS T=E 8IE T=)T PETITIONERST)VIDRI8ERS )RE E$P0OEES O4 RESPONDENT T)VICO$P)N.2

The petition is ipressed with erit.

The phrase "rave ause of discretion aountin" to lac@ ore9cess of Furisdiction has settled eanin" in the Furisprudenceof procedure. It eans such capricious and whisical e9erciseof Fud"ent 5 the triunal e9ercisin" Fudicial or ;uasiFudicialpower as to aount to lac@ of power.(In laor cases, this Courthas declared in several instances that disre"ardin" rules it isound to oserve constitutes "rave ause of discretion on thepart of laor triunal.

In *arcia vs. -RC,/private respondent therein, after receivin"a cop5 of the laor ariters decision, wrote the laor ariter

who rendered the decision and e9pressed disa5 over theFud"ent. Neither notice of appeal was filed nor cash or suret5ond was posted 5 private respondent. Nevertheless, thelaor triunal too@ co"ni7ance of the letter fro privaterespondent and treated said letter as private respondentsappeal. In a certiorariaction efore this Court, we ruled that thelaor triunal acted with "rave ause of discretion in treatin" aere letter fro private respondent as private respondentsappeal in clear violation of the rules on appeal prescriedunder Section &*a+, Rule 8I of the New Rules of Procedure ofN0RC.


71/90

In +hilippine Airlines nc. vs. -RC,1%we held that the laorariter coitted "rave ause of discretion when he failed toresolve iediatel5 5 written order a otion to disiss on the"round of lac@ of Furisdiction and the suppleental otion todisiss as andated 5 Section 1! of Rule 8 of the NewRules of Procedure of the N0RC.

In :nicane &or5ers :nion(C:+ vs. -RC,11we held that theN0RC "ravel5 aused its discretion 5 allowin" and decidin"an appeal without an appeal ond havin" een filed as

re;uired under )rticle ##& of the 0aor Code.

In Ma@ebo vs. -RC,1#we declared that the laor ariter"ravel5 aused its discretion in disre"ardin" the rule "overnin"position papers. In this case, the parties have alread5 filed theirposition papers and even a"reed to consider the casesuitted for decision, 5et the laor ariter still aditted asuppleental position paper and eorandu, and 5 ta@in"into consideration, as asis for his decision, the alle"ed factsadduced therein and the docuents attached thereto.

In *esulgon vs. -RC,1&we held that pulic respondent"ravel5 aused its discretion in treatin" the otion to set aside

Fud"ent and writ of e9ecution as a petition for relief of

Fud"ent. In doin" so, pulic respondent had, without sufficientasis, e9tended the re"leentar5 period for filin" petition forrelief fro Fud"ent contrar5 to prevailin" rule and case law.

In this case efore us, private respondent e9haustedadinistrative reed5 availale to it 5 see@in"reconsideration of pulic respondents decision dated )pril #(,1//, which pulic respondent denied. ith this otion forreconsideration, the laor triunal had aple opportunit5 torectif5 errors or ista@es it a5 have coitted efore resortto courts of Fustice can e had.1Thus, when privaterespondent filed a second otion for reconsideration, pulicrespondent should have forthwith denied it in accordance withRule 2, Section 1 of its New Rules of Procedure which allowsonl5 one otion for reconsideration fro the sae part5, thusnder the law, an eplo5ee who is unFustl5 disissed frowor@ shall e entitled to reinstateent without loss of seniorit5ri"hts and other privile"es and to his full ac@wa"es, inclusiveof allowances, and to his other enefits or their onetar5e;uivalent coputed fro the tie his copensation waswithheld fro hi up to the tie of his actual reinstateent.#&Itust e ephasi7ed, thou"h, that recent Fudicialpronounceents#distin"uish etween eplo5ees ille"all5disissed prior to the effectivit5 of Repulic )ct No. 321! on$arch #1, 1/(/, and those whose ille"al disissals wereeffected after such date. Thus, eplo5ees ille"all5 disissedprior to $arch #1, 1/(/, are entitled to ac@wa"es up to three

*&+ 5ears without deduction or ;ualification, while those ille"all5disissed after that date are "ranted full ac@wa"es inclusiveof allowances and other enefits or their onetar5 e;uivalentfro the tie their actual copensation was withheld frothe up to the tie of their actual reinstateent. Thele"islative polic5 ehind Repulic )ct No. 321! points to fullac@wa"es as eanin" e9actl5 that, i.e., without deductin"fro ac@wa"es the earnin"s derived elsewhere 5 theconcerned eplo5ee durin" the period of his ille"al disissal.Considerin" that petitioners were terinated fro wor@ on

)u"ust 1, 1//1, the5 are entitled to full ac@wa"es on theasis of their last dail5 earnin"s.

ith re"ard to the aount deducted dail5 5 private

respondent fro petitioners for washin" of the ta9i units, weview the sae as not ille"al in the conte9t of the law. e notethat after a tour of dut5, it is incuent upon the driver torestore the unit he has driven to the sae clean conditionwhen he too@ it out. Car washin" after a tour of dut5 is indeeda practice in the ta9i industr5 and is in fact dictated 5 fairpla5.#!=ence, the drivers are not entitled to reiurseent ofwashin" char"es.1wphi1.nDt

=ERE4ORE, the instant petition is -R)NTED. The assailedDECISION of pulic respondent dated Octoer #(, 1//, ishere5 SET )SIDE. The DECISION of pulic respondent dated

)pril #(, 1//, and its RESO0>TION dated Deceer 1&,1//, are here5 REINST)TED suFect to $ODI4IC)TION.Private respondent is directed to reinstate petitioners to their

positions held at the tie of the coplained disissal. Privaterespondent is li@ewise ordered to pa5 petitioners their fullac@wa"es, to e coputed fro the date of disissal untiltheir actual reinstateent. =owever, the order of pulicrespondent that petitioners e reiursed the aount paid aswashin" char"es is deleted. Costs a"ainst privaterespondents.

SO ORDERED.


73/90

G.R. No. 140. Jaar: 1-, 200

%EDRO C)A"EZ,petitioner, vs.NATIONA# #ABORRE#ATIONS COMMISSION, S&%REME

%AC(AGING, INC. a! A#"IN #EE, %la/Maa=r,respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CA##EJO, SR., J.@

6efore the Court is the petition for review on certiorari ofthe ResolutionB1dated Deceer 1!, #%%% of the Court of

)ppeals *C)+ reversin" its Decision dated )pril #(, #%%% in C)-.R. SP No. !#(!. The assailed resolution reinstated theDecision dated 'ul5 1%, 1//( of the National 0aor RelationsCoission *N0RC+, disissin" the coplaint for ille"aldisissal filed 5 herein petitioner Pedro Chave7. The said

N0RC decision siilarl5 reversed its earlier Decision dated'anuar5 #2, 1//( which, affirin" that of the 0aor )riter,ruled that the petitioner had een ille"all5 disissed 5respondents Supree Pac@a"in", Inc. and $r. )lvin 0ee.

The case steed fro the followin" factsSE O4 DISCRETION )$O>NTIN- TO EVCESS O4'>RISDICTION IN -I8IN- $ORE CONSIDER)TION TOT=E LCONTR)CT O4 SER8ICEM ENTERED INTO 6PETITIONER )ND PRI8)TE RESPONDENT T=)N

)RTIC0E #(% O4 T=E 0)6OR CODE O4 T=EP=I0IPPINES =IC= C)TE-ORIC)00 DE4INES )RE->0)R E$P0O$ENT NOTIT=ST)NDIN- )NRITTEN )-REE$ENT TO T=E CONTR)R )NDRE-)RD0ESS O4 T=E OR)0 )-REE$ENT O4 T=EP)RTIESA

*6+

T=E CO>RT O4 )PPE)0S CO$$ITTED ) -R)8E)6>SE O4 DISCRETION )$O>NTIN- TO EVCESS O4'>RISDICTION IN RE8ERSIN- ITS ON 4INDIN-ST=)T PETITIONER IS ) RE->0)R E$P0OEE )ND IN=O0DIN- T=)T T=ERE EVISTED NO E$P0OERE$P0OEE RE0)TIONS=IP 6ETEEN PRI8)TERESPONDENT )ND PETITIONER IN )S $>C= )S T=ELCONTRO0 TESTM =IC= IS CONSIDERED T=E$OST ESSENTI)0 CRITERION IN DETER$ININ- T=EEVISTENCE O4 S)ID RE0)TIONS=IP IS NOTPRESENT.B1%

The threshold issue that needs to e resolved is whetherthere e9isted an eplo5ereplo5ee relationship etween therespondent copan5 and the petitioner. e rule in theaffirative.

The eleents to deterine the e9istence of aneplo5ent relationship are< *1+ the selection anden"a"eent of the eplo5eeA *#+ the pa5ent of wa"esA *&+the power of disissalA and *+ the eplo5er?s power to controlthe eplo5ee?s conduct.B11 The ost iportant eleent is theeplo5er?s control of the eplo5ee?s conduct, not onl5 as tothe result of the wor@ to e done, ut also as to the eans andethods to accoplish it.B1#)ll the four eleents are presentin this case.

4irst. >ndenial5, it was the respondents who en"a"edthe services of the petitioner without the intervention of a thirdpart5.

Second. a"es are defined as Lreuneration orearnin"s, however desi"nated, capale of ein" e9pressed inters of one5, whether fi9ed or ascertained on a tie, tas@,piece or coission asis, or other ethod of calculatin" thesae, which is pa5ale 5 an eplo5er to an eplo5ee undera written or unwritten contract of eplo5ent for wor@ done orto e done, or for service rendered or to e rendered.M B1&Thatthe petitioner was paid on a per trip asis is not si"nificant.This is erel5 a ethod of coputin" copensation and not aasis for deterinin" the e9istence or asence of eplo5ereplo5ee relationship. One a5 e paid on the asis ofresults or tie e9pended on the wor@, and a5 or a5 notac;uire an eplo5ent status, dependin" on whether theeleents of an eplo5ereplo5ee relationship are present ornot.B1 In this case, it cannot e "ainsaid that the petitionerreceived copensation fro the respondent copan5 for theservices that he rendered to the latter.

$oreover, under the Rules Ipleentin" the 0aor Code,ever5 eplo5er is re;uired to pa5 his eplo5ees 5 eans ofpa5roll.B1! The pa5roll should show, aon" other thin"s, theeplo5ee?s rate of pa5, deductions ade, and the aountactuall5 paid to the eplo5ee. Interestin"l5, the respondentsdid not present the pa5roll to support their clai that thepetitioner was not their eplo5ee, raisin" speculations whetherthis oission proves that its presentation would e adverse totheir case.B13

Third. The respondents? power to disiss the petitionerwas inherent in the fact that the5 en"a"ed the services of thepetitioner as truc@ driver. The5 e9ercised this power 5terinatin" the petitioner?s services aleit in the "uise ofLseverance of contractual relationM due alle"edl5 to the latter?sreach of his contractual oli"ation.

4ourth. )s earlier opined, of the four eleents of theeplo5ereplo5ee relationship, the Lcontrol testM is the ostiportant. Copared to an eplo5ee, an independentcontractor is one who carries on a distinct and independentusiness and underta@es to perfor the Fo, wor@, or serviceon its own account and under its own responsiilit5 accordin"

to its own anner and ethod, free fro the control anddirection of the principal in all atters connected with theperforanc

Documents

Lab Rev Cases 2