san miguel foods, inc.-cebu b-meg feed plant vs. hon. bienvenido laguesma

7/24/2019 San Miguel Foods, Inc.-Cebu B-meg Feed Plant vs. Hon. Bienvenido Laguesma

1/27

[G.R. No. 116172. October 10, 1996]

SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC.CE!U !MEG FEED "LAN#,petitioner, vs. $ON.

!IEN%ENIDO E. LAGUESMA, U&'er(ecret)r* o+ DOLE )&' ILA A# !U-LOD NG

MANGGAGAA I!M/, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

HERMOSISIMA, JR.,J.:

This is a petition for certiorariunder Rule ! to re"ie# and set aside t#o Resolutions of

Mediator$Ar%iter A&hilles '. Manit, dated Januar( !, )**+ and April , )**+, and the affiration

Order on appeal of the pu%li& respondent, -nderse&retar( ien"enido E. /a0uesa of theDepartent of /a%or and Eplo(ent. The petition %elo# #as entitled: In Re: 1etition for

Dire&t Certifi&ation as the Sole and E2&lusi"e ar0ainin0 A0ent of All Monthl( 1aid Eplo(ees

of SM3I$Ce%u $Me0 3eeds 1lant, do&4eted as OS$MA$A$5$!)$*+ 6RO788$*58*$R-$859.

The essential fa&ts are not disputed.

On Septe%er +, )**5, a petition for &ertifi&ation ele&tion aon0 the onthl($paid eplo(ees

of the San Mi0uel 3oods, In&.$Ce%u $Me0 3eeds 1lant #as filed %( pri"ate respondent la%or

federation Ila# at u4lod n0 Man00a0a#a 6IM, for %re"it(9 %efore Med$Ar%iter A&hilles '.

Manit, alle0in0, inter alia, that it is a le0itiate la%or or0ani;ation dul( re0istered #ith theDepartent of la%or and Eplo(ent 6DO/E9 under the Re0istration Certifi&ate No. !5*$I1.

SM3I$Ce%u $Me0 3eeds 1lant 6SM3I, for %re"it(9, herein petitioner, is a %usiness entit( dul(

or0ani;ed and e2istin0 under the la#s of the 1hilippines #hi&h eplo(s rou0hl( se"ent($fi"e

67!9 onthl( paid eplo(ees, alost all of #ho support the present petition. It #as su%ittedin said petition that there has %een no &ertifi&ation ele&tion &ondu&ted in SM3I to deterine the

sole and e2&lusi"e %ar0ainin0 a0ent thereat for the past t#o (ears and that the proposed%ar0ainin0 unit, #hi&h is SM3Is onthl( paid eplo(ees, is an unor0ani;ed one. It #as also

stated therein that petitioner IM 6herein pri"ate respondent9 has alread( &oplied #ith the

andator( re


2/27

On De&e%er , )**5, pri"ate respondent IM filed its Opposition to SM3Is Motion to Disiss

&ontendin0, aon0 others, that the &ase referred to %( SM3I had alread( %een resol"ed %( Med$

Ar%iter Manit in his Resolution and Order date Jul( , )**5iand Septe%er , )**5,iirespe&ti"el(, #herein IMs first petition for &ertifi&ation ele&tion #as denied ainl( due to

IMs failure to &opl( #ith &ertain andator( re


3/27

/et the re&ords of this &ase %e for#arded to the Re0ional Offi&e of ori0in for the

iediate &ondu&t of &ertifi&ation ele&tion su%>e&t to the usual pre$ele&tion &onferen&e.

SO RESO/'ED."

Thereafter, a Motion for Re&onsideration #as filed #hi&h #as also denied %( the pu%li&

respondent in his Order dated Ma( +, )**+."i

Hen&e, the instant petition interposin0 the follo#in0 >ustifi&ations:

)9THE HONORA/E -NDERSECRETAR@ IEN'ENIDO E. /A?-ESMA

?RA'E/@ A-SED HIS DISCRETION BHEN HE ARITRARI/@R-/ED THAT A /OCA/ OR CHA1TER O3 A /AOR 3EDERATION,

/IE RES1ONDENT IM, NEED NOT OTAIN A CERTI3ICATE O3

RE?ISTRATION 3ROM THE -REA- O3 /AOR RE/ATIONS TOAC-IRE /E?A/ 1ERSONA/IT@, BHEN ARTIC/E 5+ O3 THE

/AOR CODE O3 THE 1HI/I11INES AND SECTION 5 O3 R-/E II O3

OO ' O3 THE R-/ES IM1/EMENTIN? THE /AOR CODE, ASAMENDED, C/EAR/@ 1RO'IDES THAT A ?RO-1 O3 BORERS OR

A /OCA/ -NION SHA// AC-IRE /E?A/ 1ERSONA/IT@ ON/@

-1ON THE ISS-ANCE O3 THE CERTI3ICATE O3 RE?ISTRATION @

THE -REA- O3 /AOR RE/ATIONS. AND,

9 THE HONORA/E -NDERSECRETAR@ IEN'ENIDO E. /A?-ESMA

?RA'E/@ A-SED HIS DISCRETION BHEN HE 1REMAT-RE/@

AND ARITRARI/@ R-/ED THAT RES1ONDENT IM IS A/E?ITIMATE /AOR OR?ANIATION BHEN THE A-THENTICIT@

AND D-E EFEC-TION O3 THE CHARTER CERTI3ICATE

S-MITTED @ RES1ONDENT IM CANNOT @ET EASCERTAINED ECA-SE IT IS STI// NOT NOBN BHO ARE THE/E?ITIMATE O33ICERS O3 THE IM 3EDERATION BHO MA@

'A/ID/@ ISS-E SAID CHARTER CERTI3ICATE AS THE CASE 3I/ED

TO RESO/'E THE ISS-E ON BHO ARE THE /E?ITIMATE O33ICERSO3 THE IM 3EDERATION IS STI// 1ENDIN? RESO/-TION

E3ORE THIS HONORA/E S-1REME CO-RT."ii

The petition has no erit.

1etitioner asserts that IM at SM3I is not a le0itiate la%or or0ani;ation not#ithstandin0 the

fa&t that it is a lo&al or &hapter of the IM 3ederation. This is so %e&ause under Arti&le 5+ of the/a%or Code, an( la%or or0ani;ation shall a&


4/27

Arti&le )6h9 of the /a%or Code defines a le0itiate la%or or0ani;ation as an( la%or

or0ani;ation dul( re0istered #ith the Departent of /a%or and Eplo(ent, and includes any

branch or local thereof.

It is iportant to deterine #hether or not a parti&ular la%or or0ani;ation is le0itiate sin&e

le0itiate la%or or0ani;ations ha"e e2&lusi"e ri0hts under the la# #hi&h &annot %e e2er&ised %(non$le0itiate unions, one of #hi&h is the ri0ht to %e &ertified as the e2&lusi"e representati"e of

all the eplo(ees in an appropriate &olle&ti"e %ar0ainin0 unit for purposes of &olle&ti"e%ar0ainin0. These ri0hts are found under Arti&le + of the /a%or Code, to #it:

ART. +. Ri0hts of le0itiate or0ani;ations.$$A le0itiate la%or or0ani;ation shall ha"e the

ri0ht:

6a9To a&t as the representati"e of its e%ers for the purpose of &olle&ti"e %ar0ainin0

6%9 To be certiified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate

collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining;

6&9 To %e furnished %( the eplo(er, upon #ritten ree&ts not &ontrar( to la#.

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.G

The pertinent


5/27

6a9 3ift( pesos 61!8.889 re0istration fee

6%9 The naes of its offi&ers, their addresses, the prin&ipal address of the la%or or0ani;ation,

the inutes of the or0ani;ational eetin0s and the list of the #or4ers #ho parti&ipated in su&heetin0s

6&9 The naes of all its e%ers &oprisin0 at least t#ent( per&ent 689 of all the

eplo(ees in the %ar0ainin0 unit #here it see4s to operate

6d9 If the appli&ant union has %een in e2isten&e for one or ore (ears, &opies of its annual

finan&ial reports and

6e9 3our 6+9 &opies of the &onstitution and %($la#s of the appli&ant union, inutes of its

adoption or ratifi&ation, and the list of the e%ers #ho parti&ipated in it.

ART. 5!. A&tion on appli&ation. $$ The ureau shall a&t on all appli&ations for

re0istration #ithin thirt( 6589 da(s fro filin0.All re


6/27

1ara0raph 6a9 refers to a lo&al or &hapter of a federation #hi&h did not under0o the rudients of

re0istration #hile para0raph 6%9 refers to an independentl( re0istered union #hi&h affiliated #ith

a federation. Ipli&it in the fore0oin0 differentiation is the fa&t that a lo&al or &hapter need not %eindependentl( re0istered. ( for&e of la# 6in this &ase, Arti&le ) hK9, su&h lo&al or &hapter

%e&oes a le0itiate la%or or0ani;ation upon &oplian&e #ith the aforeentioned pro"isions of

Se&tion 5i2

6a9 and 6e9, #ithout ha"in0 to %e issued a Certifi&ate of Re0istration in its fa"or %( the/R.

The &ases ofopez &ugar 'orporation v. &ecretary of abor and (mployment,2)hoenix *ron

and &teel 'orporation v. &ecretary of abor and (mployment,2iand)rotection Technology, *nc.

v. &ecretary, +epartment of abor and (mployment,2iiall 0oin0 %a&4 to our landar4 holdin0 in)rogressive +evelopment 'orporation v. &ecretary, +epartment of abor and (mployment,2iii

une


7/27

&harter &ertifi&ate9 are &ertified under oath and attested to %( the lo&al unions se&retar(

and 1resident, respe&ti"el(.2"

1etitioner SM3I does not dispute the fa&t that IM at SM3I has &oplied #ith the se&ond set ofre


8/27

&on&ern of the eplo(ees.2i2The onl( e2&eption to this rule is #here the eplo(er has to file the

petition for &ertifi&ation ele&tion pursuant to Arti&le !=22of the /a%or Code %e&ause it #as

re


9/27

that petitioner did not &hallen0e the le0al personalit( of the federation in the pro&eedin0s %efore

the Med$Ar%iter. Nor #as this issue raised in petitioners appeal to the Offi&e of the Se&retar( of

/a%or and Eplo(ent. This atter is %ein0 raised for the first tie in this petition. An issue#hi&h #as neither alle0ed in the pleadin0s nor raised durin0 the pro&eedin0s %elo# &annot %e

"entilated for the first tie %efore this Court. It #ould %e offensi"e to the %asi& rule of fair pla(,

>usti&e and due pro&ess.222iii

'ertiorariis a reed( narro# in its s&ope and infle2i%le in &hara&ter.It is not a 0eneral utilit( tool in the le0al #or4shop.222i"3a&tual issues are not a proper su%>e&t for

&ertiorari, as the po#er of the Supree Court to re"ie# la%or &ases is liited to the issue of

>urisdi&tion and 0ra"e a%use of dis&retion.222"It is sipl( unthin4a%le for the pu%li& respondent-nderse&retar( of /a%or to ha"e &oitted 0ra"e a%use of dis&retion in this re0ard #hen the

issue as to the le0al personalit( of the pri"ate respondent IM 3ederation #as ne"er interposed

in the appeal %efore said foru.

'

3inall(, the &ertifi&ation ele&tion sou0ht to %e stopped %( petitioner is, as of no#,fait accompli.

The onthl( paid ran4$and$file eplo(ees of SM3I ha"e alread( arti&ulated their &hoi&e as to#ho their &olle&ti"e %ar0ainin0 a0ent should %e. In the &ertifi&ation ele&tion held on Au0ust 8,

)**+,222"ithe SM3I #or4ers &hose IM at SM3I to %e their sole and e2&lusi"e %ar0ainin0 a0ent.This deo&rati& de&ision deser"es utost respe&t. A0ain, it %ears stressin0 that la%or le0islation

see4s in the ain to prote&t the interest of the e%ers of the #or4in0 &lass. It should ne"er %e

used to su%"ert their #ill.222"ii

$EREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs a0ainst petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

ellosillo, 'itu0, and apunan, JJ., &on&ur.

1adilla 6Chairan9, J., no part, on a&&ount of interests in San Mi0uel ?roup of &opanies.


10/27

i

ii

iii

iv

v

vi

vii

viii

ix

x

2i[G.R. No. 12006. October 2, 1996]"$ILI""INE AIRLINES, INC.petitioner, vs.NA#IONAL

LA!OR RELA#IONS COMMISSION, $ON. LA!OR AR!I#ER CORNELIO LINSANGAN,


11/27

UNICORN SECURI# SER%ICES, INC., )&' FRED !AU#IS#A, et al., respondents.

D E C I S I O N

DA'IDE, JR.,J.:

This is a petition for certiorariunder Rule ! of the Rules of Court to annul the de&ision of the /a%orAr%iter dated ) Au0ust )**) in N/RC Case No. 88$))$888=$*8 and the resolutions of pu%li&

respondent National /a%or Relations Coission 6N/RC9 proul0ated on 7 O&to%er )**+ and 5)

Ma( )**! disissin0 the appeal filed %( the petitioner and den(in0 the otion for re&onsideration,

respe&ti"el(.

The dispute arose fro these ante&edents:

On 5 De&e%er )*=7, pri"ate respondent -ni&orn Se&urit( Ser"i&es, In&. 6-SSI9 and petitioner

1hilippine Airlines, In&. 61A/9 e2e&uted a se&urit( ser"i&e a0reeent. -SSI #as desi0nated therein as

the CONTRACTOR. Aon0 the pertinent ters and &onditions of the a0reeent are as follo#s:

6+9 The CONTRACTOR shall assi0n to 1A/ an initial for&e of EI?HT@ ONE 6=)9 %odies #hi&h

a( %e de&reased or in&reased %( a0reeent in #ritin0 . It is, of &ourse, understood that the

CONTRACTOR underta4es to pa( the #a0es or salaries and &ost of li"in0 allo#an&e of the

0uards in a&&ordan&e #ith the pro"isions of the /a%or Code, as aended, the different

1residential De&rees, Orders and #ith the rules and re0ulations proul0ated %( &opetent

authorities ipleentin0 said a&ts, assuin0 all responsi%ilities therefor .

2 2 2

69 Bithout an( e2pense on the part of 1A/, CONTRACTOR shall see to it that the 0uardsassi0ned to 1A/ are pro"ided, at the e2pense of CONTRACTOR, #ith the ne&essar( firears,

aunitions and fa&ilities needed for the rendition of the se&urit( ser"i&es as aforesaid

679 CONTRACTOR shall sele&t, en0a0e and dis&har0e the 0uards, eplo(ees, or a0ents, and shall

other#ise dire&t and &ontrol their ser"i&es herein pro"ided or heretofore to %e set forth or

pres&ri%ed. The deterination of #a0es, salaries and &opensation of the 0uards or

eplo(ees of the CONTRACTOR shall %e #ithin its full &ontrol %ut shall in no #a(

&ontra"ene e2istin0 la#s on the atter. It is further understood that CONTRACTOR as the

eplo(er of the se&urit( 0uards a0rees to &opl( #ith all rele"ant la#s and re0ulations,

in&ludin0 &opulsor( &o"era0e under the So&ial Se&urit( A&t, /a%or Code, as aended and

the Medi&al Care A&t, in its operations. Althou0h it is understood and a0reed %et#een parties

hereto that CONTRACTOR in the perforan&e of its o%li0ations under this A0reeent, is

su%>e&t to the &ontrol and dire&tion of 1A/ erel( as to the result as to %e a&&oplished %(

the #or4 or ser"i&es herein spe&ified, and not as to the eans and ethods for a&&oplishin0

su&h result, CONTRACTOR here%( #arrants that it #ill perfor su&h #or4 or ser"i&es in

su&h anner as #ill a&hie"e the result herein desired %( 1A/.


12/27

6=9 Dis&ipline and adinistration of the se&urit( 0uards shall %e the sole responsi%ilit( of the

CONTRACTOR to the end that CONTRACTOR shall %e a%le to render the desired se&urit(

ser"i&e reustifia%le o%>e&tion to the presen&e in its preises of an( of

CONTRACTORs offi&er, 0uard or a0ent under this A0reeent, it shall send su&h o%>e&tion in

#ritin0 to CONTRACTOR and the latter shall iediatel( ta4e proper a&tion.

6)89 The se&urit( 0uards eplo(ed %( CONTRACTOR in perforin0 this A0reeent shall %e paid

%( the CONTRACTOR and it is distin&tl( understood that there is no eplo(ee$eplo(er

relationship %et#een CONTRACTOR andLor his 0uards on the one hand, and 1A/ on the

other. CONTRACTOR shall ha"e entire &har0e, &ontrol and super"ision of the #or4 and

ser"i&es herein a0reed upon, and 1A/ shall in no anner %e ans#era%le or a&&ounta%le for

an( a&&ident or in>ur( of an( 4ind #hi&h a( o&&ur to an( 0uard or 0uards of the

CONTRACTOR in the &ourse of, or as a &onseur(, loss or daa0e, and shall indenif( 1A/

for an( lia%ilit( or e2pense it a( in&ur %( reason thereof and to hold 1A/ free and harless

fro an( su&h lia%ilit(.

2 2 2

6)59 3or and in &onsideration of the ser"i&es to %e rendered %( CONTRACTOR under these

presents, 1A/ shall pa( CONTRACTOR the aount of 1ESOS NINE +8L)88 CT'S

6 1 *.+89 1ER HO-R ultiplied %( *8! hours e


13/27

terinated upon thirt( 6589 da(s noti&e ser"ed upon %( one part( to the other, e2&ept as

pro"ided for in Arti&les ), )7 )= hereof.

Soetie in Au0ust of )*==, 1A/ reust or deanda%le &lai on a&&ount

of #hi&h ser"i&es of &ounsel ha"e %een re


14/27

1A/ filed a otion to disiss the &oplaint on the 0rounds that the /a%or Ar%iter had no >urisdi&tion

o"er the su%>e&t atter or nature of the &oplaint and that -SSI had no &ause of a&tion a0ainst 1A/. In

aplifi&ation thereof, 1A/ ar0ued that the &ase in"ol"ed the interpretation of the se&urit( ser"i&e

a0reeent, #hi&h is purel( &i"il in &hara&ter and falls outside of the /a%or Ar%iters >urisdi&tion. It is

&lear fro Arti&le )7 of the /a%or Code that for &lais to %e #ithin the >urisdi&tion of /a%or Ar%iters,

the( ust arise fro an eplo(er$eplo(ee relationship. 1A/ &laied that -SSI did not alle0e the

e2isten&e of an eplo(er$eplo(ee relationship %et#een 1A/ and -SSI or its 0uards, and that in fa&t,para0raph )8 of the a0reeent pro"ides that there is no eplo(er$eplo(ee relationship %et#een the

CONTRACTOR andLor his 0uards on the one hand and 1A/ on the other.

In its Opposition, -SSI pointed out that 1A/ for0ot or o"erloo4ed the fa&t that insofar as la%or

standards, %enefits, et&. ha"e to %e resol"ed or ad>udi&ated, lia%ilit( therefor is shifted to, or assued %(

respondent herein petitionersK #hi&h, in la#, has %een &onstituted as an indire&t eplo(er.

1A/ filed a suppleental otion to disiss #herein it &ites the follo#in0 reasons for the disissal of

the &oplaint: 6)9 the &lear stipulations in the a0reeent 6para0raphs + and )89 that there e2ists no

eplo(er$eplo(ee relationship %et#een 1A/ on the one hand and -SSI and the 0uards on the other

69 there #ere no ) additional 0uards, as the ) 0uards #ho #ere reurisdi&tion o"er the

&ase, he stated:

As heretofore and in"aria%l( held in siilar &ases, the issue of #hether or not /a%or Ar%iters ha"e

>urisdi&tion o"er one( &lais affe&tin0 se&urit( 0uards assi0ned %( se&urit( a0en&ies 6li4e

&oplainant herein9 to their &lient$&opanies su&h as 1A/ is, ore or less, settled, espe&iall( sin&e, as

the la# "ie#s su&h as pe&uliar relationship, su&h one( &lais insofar as the( ha"e to %e paid, are the

ultiate responsi%ilit( of the &lient$firs. In effe&t, the se&urit( 0uards ha"e %een &onstituted as

indire&t eplo(ees of the &lient >ust as the &lient %e&oes the indire&t eplo(er of the 0uards. Art. )87


15/27

and )8* of the /a%or Code e2pressl( pro"ide that.

To >ustif( the a#ards, /a%or Ar%iter /insan0an opined:

E"iden&e addu&ed &learl( sho# that soetie in De&e%er )*=7, aforeentioned se&urit( ser"i&e

&ontra&t #as e2e&uted, %ased on #hi&h the reust or deanda%le &lai, an a#ard for attorne(s fees ust perfor&e %e

assessed.

On 5 Septe%er )**), 1A/ filed its Appeal #herein it indi&ated that it re&ei"ed a &op( of the de&ision

on Au0ust )**). Atta&hed thereto #as a a&hine &op( of the Noti&e of Jud0entL3inal Order, #ith

the date of its re&eipt, i.e., Au0ust )**), ha"in0 %een staped on the upper ri0ht hand &orner %(

1A/s /e0al Departent.

-SSI &ountered this Appeal #ith a otion for e2e&ution of >ud0ent on the 0round that sin&e 1A/,

re&ei"ed a &op( of the de&ision on the 5rd, not on the th, of Au0ust )**) it had until Septe%er )**)

to appeal hen&e, the appeal interposed on 5 Septe%er #as late %( one da(. The de&ision had then

%e&oe final and e2e&utor(.


16/27

In its opposition to this otion, 1A/ insisted that it re&ei"ed a &op( of the de&ision on Au0ust )**)

thus, it had until ! Septe%er )**) to file its appeal.

On 58 Septe%er )**), /a%or Ar%iter /insan0an issued a #rit of e2e&ution.

On ) O&to%er )**), 1A/ filed a otion to


17/27

On 5) Ma( )**!, the N/RC denied the otion for re&onsideration for the reason that it &annot a&&ept

1A/s e2&use as it a( open the flood0ates to a%use and that the lapse of the period to appeal had

alread( depri"ed the Coission of >urisdi&tion o"er the &ase.

1A/ then filed this spe&ial &i"il a&tion for certiorariunder Rule ! of the Rules of Court alle0in0 that

6)9 pu%li& respondents &oitted serious and patent error in failin0 to de&lare that the /a%or Ar%iter

had no >urisdi&tion o"er the instant &ase 69 The /a%or Ar%iter 0ra"el( a%used its dis&retion in orderin01A/ to pa( the separation pa( of the ) se&urit( 0uards assi0ned at 1A/s preises %( -SSI and 659

respondent N/RC &oitted 0ra"e a%use of dis&retion in de&larin0 1A/s appeal to ha"e %een filed out

of tie.

1A/ ar0ues that sin&e -SSIs &ause of a&tion #as founded on the se&urit( ser"i&e a0reeent, and that

thereunder no eplo(er$eplo(ee relationship e2isted %et#een 1A/ and the se&urit( 0uards #ho #ere

-SSIs eplo(ees, the /a%or Ar%iter had no >urisdi&tion o"er the &oplaint. Moreo"er, assuin0

arguendothat the &lais of the se&urit( 0uards #ere "alid, -SSI had no personalit( to file the

&oplaint, for there is nothin0 #hatsoe"er to sho# that it #as e2pressl( authori;ed %( the se&urit(

0uards to a&t as their trustee.

As to the se&ond assi0ned error, 1A/ asserts that it is not lia%le to pa( separation pa( %e&ause 6)9 it #as

not the eplo(er of the se&urit( 0uards 69 e"en as an indire&t eplo(er, as held %( the /a%or Ar%iter,

its lia%ilit( #as liited to "iolations of la%or standards la#, and non$pa(ent of the separation pa( is

not a "iolation of the said la# 659 the se&urit( ser"i&e a0reeent #ith -SSI did not pro"ide for

pa(ent of separation pa( 6+9 the pa(ent ade to the = se&urit( 0uards upon the terination of the

a0reeent #ithout the prior 58$da( noti&e #as not for separation pa( %ut a %enefit in lieu of the 58$da(

noti&e reurisdi&tion of the /a%or Ar%iter. As re0ards 1A/s plea for the rela2ation of the rule on perfe&tion ofappeals, -SSI &ontends that the ne0li0en&e of 1A/s &ounsel should not %e deeed &opellin0 reason

to #arrant rela2ation of the rule.

In its Manifestation and Motion in /ieu of Coent, the Offi&e of the Soli&itor ?eneral a0rees #ith

1A/ that the /a%or Ar%iter did not ha"e >urisdi&tion o"er the &oplaint %e&ause there #as no eplo(er$

eplo(ee relationship %et#een 1A/ and the ) se&urit( 0uards that Arti&les )87 and )8* of the /a%or

Code #hi&h pro"ide for >oint and se"eral lia%ilit( for pa(ent of #a0es %( the dire&t and indire&t


18/27

eplo(er find no appli&ation in the present &ase %e&ause the ) se&urit( 0uards eplo(ed %( -SSI

#ere not after unpaid #a0es and that in the interest of >usti&e and &onsiderin0 that the appeal #as filed

onl( one da( late, the rule on perfe&tion of appeals should ha"e %een rela2ed to pre"ent a is&arria0e

of >usti&e.

In "ie# of the stand of the Offi&e of the Soli&itor ?eneral, #e ad"ised pu%li& respondents to file their

o#n &oent if the( so desired.

In their Coent, the N/RC and /a%or Ar%iter /insan0an aintain that the( had >urisdi&tion o"er the

&ase %e&ause of Arti&les )87 and )8* of the /a%or Code #hi&h &onstitute 1A/ as indire&t eplo(er of

the ) se&urit( 0uards, there %ein0 a e&t atter of

N/RC$NCR Case No. 88$))$888=$*8, %e&ause no eplo(er$eplo(ee relationship e2isted %et#een

1A/ and the se&urit( 0uards pro"ided %( -SSI under the se&urit( ser"i&e a0reeent, in&ludin0 the

alle0ed ) additional se&urit( 0uards.

Be ha"e pronoun&ed in nuerous &ases that in deterinin0 the e2isten&e of an eplo(er$eplo(ee

relationship, the follo#in0 eleents are 0enerall( &onsidered: 6)9 the sele&tion and en0a0eent of the

eplo(ee 69 the pa(ent of #a0es 659 the po#er to disiss and 6+9 the po#er to &ontrol the

eplo(ees &ondu&t.

In the instant &ase, the se&urit( ser"i&e a0reeent %et#een 1A/ and -SSI pro"ides the 4e( to su&h&onsideration. A &areful perusal thereof, espe&iall( the ters and &onditions e%odied in para0raphs +,

, 7, =, *, )8, )5 and 8


19/27

). -nfair la%or pra&ti&e &ases

. Terination disputes

5. If a&&opanied #ith a &lai for reinstateent, those &ases that #or4ers a( file in"ol"in0 #a0es,

rates of pa(, hours of #or4 and other ters and &onditions of eplo(ent

+. Clais for a&tual, oral, e2eplar( and other fors of daa0es arisin0 fro eplo(er$eplo(ee

relations

!. Cases arisin0 fro an( "iolation of Arti&le + of this Code, in&ludin0 urisdi&tional reointl( and se"erall( lia%le #ith his &ontra&tor or su%&ontra&tor to

su&h eplo(ees to the e2tent of the #or4 perfored under the &ontra&t, in the sae anner and e2tent

that he is lia%le to eplo(ees dire&tl( eplo(ed %( hi.

Bhile -SSI is an independent &ontra&tor under the se&urit( ser"i&e a0reeent and 1A/ a( %e

&onsidered an indire&t eplo(er, that status did not a4e 1A/ the eplo(er of the se&urit( 0uards in

e"er( respe&t. As &orre&tl( posited %( the Offi&e of the Soli&itor ?eneral, 1A/ a( %e &onsidered an

indire&t eplo(er onl( for purposes of unpaid #a0es sin&e Arti&le )8, #hi&h is appli&a%le to the

situation &onteplated in Se&tion )87, spea4s of #a0es. The &on&ept of indire&t eplo(er onl( relates


20/27

or refers to the lia%ilit( for unpaid #a0es. Read to0ether, Arti&les )8 and )8* sipl( ean that the

part( #ith #ho an independent &ontra&tor deals is solidaril( lia%le #ith the latter for unpaid #a0es,

and onl( to that e2tent and for that purpose that the latter is &onsidered a dire&t eplo(er. The ter

#a0e is defined in Arti&le *76f9 of the /a%or Code as the reuneration of earnin0s, ho#e"er

desi0nated, &apa%le of %ein0 e2pressed in ters of one(, #hether fi2ed or as&ertained on a tie, tas4,

pie&e, or &oission %asis, or other ethod of &al&ulatin0 the un#ritten &ontra&t of eplo(ent for

#or4 done or to %e done, or for ser"i&es rendered or to %e rendered and in&ludes the fair and reasona%le"alue, as deterined %( the Se&retar( of /a%or, of %oard, lod0in0, or other fa&ilities &ustoaril(

furnished %( the eplo(er to the eplo(ee.

No "alid &lai for #a0es or separation pa( &an arise fro the se&urit( ser"i&e a0reeent in urisdi&tion o"er the su%>e&t atter

of N/RC$NCR Case No. 88$))$888=$*8 and that the ) se&urit( 0uards are not in fa&t entitled to

separation pa( under the se&urit( ser"i&e a0reeent, the hi0her interest of >usti&e fa"ors a rela2ation of

the rule on perfe&tion of appeals in la%or &ases.

Bhile it is an esta%lished rule that the perfe&tion of an appeal in the anner and #ithin the period

pres&ri%ed %( la# is not onl( andator( %ut >urisdi&tional, and failure to perfe&t an appeal has the


21/27

effe&t of renderin0 the >ud0ent final and e2e&utor(, it is eusti&e or of

un>ust enri&hent, as #here the tard( appeal is fro a de&ision 0rantin0 separation pa( #hi&h #as

alread( 0ranted in an earlier final de&ision and 6d9 spe&ial &ir&ustan&es of the &ase &o%ined #ith itsle0al erits or the aount and the issue in"ol"ed. A one$da( dela( in the perfe&tion of the appeal #as

e2&used in 1a&ifi& Asia O"erseas Shippin0 Corp. "s. N/RC,*nsular life -ssurance 'o. vs. 0!', and

Cit( 3air Corp "s. N/RC.

In the instant &ase, the /a%or Ar%iters la&4 of >urisdi&tion $$ so palpa%l( &lear on the fa&e of the

&oplaint $$ and the perpetuation of un>ust enri&hent if the appeal is disallo#ed are enou0h

&o%ination of reasons that #arrant a rela2ation of the rules on perfe&tion of appeals in la%or &ases.

$EREFORE,the instant petition is here%( ?RANTED. The


22/27

2ssue:3hether or not *&R+ acted without or in e4cess of its urisdiction

eld:P.%. 9/#" is clear that 7all actions for claims against corporations, partnerships, orassociations under management or receivership pending before an court, tribunal, board or

bod shall be suspended accordingl.8 *&R+ thus acted without an in e4cess of its urisdictionwhen it proceeded to decide the case despite the suspension order. "s a conseuence, anresolution decisions or order that is rendered without urisdiction is a nullit.

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi

xvii

xviii

xix

xx


23/27

22i

['.R. No. 23. July 26, 2!R*++&R-RL [P/0LS.!, 0NC., 1$d J*L0& A-

-N',petitioner, vs. NA0-NAL LA+-R R&LA0-NS C-0SS0-N, A5*0N-

A'SAL0N, P&R- A0+-, R0CAR- +-RJA, AL0C0A . SAN P&R- AN

&L-&NA +. -L0N, respondents.

& C 0 S 0 - N

PAR-, J.7

3hat is before the +ourt for resolution is a petition to annul the resolution of the

*ational &abor Relations +ommission *&R+;, affirming the laborarbiter, a corporation

established in 1965, was engaged in manufacturing footwear, bags and garments.

"uilino ?agsalin, Pedro ?anibo, Ricardo )ora, )enamin +amitan, "licia ?. (an

Pedro, and Felomena 0olin were emploed as dispatcher, warehouseman, issue

monitor, foreman, ac's cementer and outer sole attacher, respectivel.

!n "ugust #6, 199$, Rubberworld filed with the %epartment of &abor and -mploment

a notice of temporar shutdown of operations to ta'e effect on (eptember #6, 199$.

)efore the effectivit date, however, Rubberworld was forced to prematurel shutdownits operations.

!n *ovember 11, 199$, private respondents filed with the *ational &abor Relations

+ommission a complaint against petitioner for illegal dismissal and nonpament of

separation pa.

!n *ovember ##, 199$, Rubberworld filed with the (ecurities and -4change

+ommission (-+; a petition for declaration of suspension of paments with a

proposed rehabilitation plan.

!n %ecember #, 199$, (-+ issued the following order:

@"ccordingl, with the creation of the ?anagement +ommittee, all actions for

claims against Rubberworld Philippines, 2nc. pending before an court, tribunal,

office, board, bod, +ommission or sheriff are hereb deemed (A(P-*%-%.

@+onseuentl, all pending incidents for preliminar inunctions, writ or

attachments, foreclosures and the li'e are hereb rendered moot and academic.


24/27

@(! !R%-R-%.@

!n Banuar #$, 1995, petitioners submitted to the labor arbiter a motion to suspend the

proceedings invo'ing the (-+ order dated %ecember #, 199$. 0he labor arbiter did

not act on the motion and ordered the parties to submit their respective position

papers.

!n %ecember 1/, 1995, the labor arbiter rendered a decision, which provides:

@2n the light of the foregoing, respondents are hereb declared guilt of 2&&-C"&

(A0%!3* and that respondents are ordered to pa complainants their

separation pa euivalent to one 1; month pa for ever ear of service.

+onsidering the malicious act of closing the business precipitatel without due

regard to the rights of complainants, moral damages and e4emplar damage in

the sum of P 5/,///.// and P D/,///.// respectivel is hereb awarded for

each of the complainants.

Finall 1/ E of all sums owing to complainants is hereb adudged as attorne


25/27

Presidential %ecree *o. 9/#" is clear that @all actions for claims against corporations,

partnerships or associations under management or receivership pending before an

court, tribunal, board or bod shall be suspended accordingl.@ 0he law did not ma'e

an e4ception in favor of labor claims.

@0he ustification for the automatic sta of all pending actions for claims is to enable the

management committee or the rehabilitation receiver to effectivel e4ercise itshispowers free from an udicial or e4tra udicial interference that might undul hinder or

prevent the


26/27

xxiii

xxiv

xxv

xxvi

xxvii

xxviii

xxix

xxx

xxxi

xxxii

xxxiii


27/27

xxxiv

xxxv

xxxvi

xxxvii

san miguel foods, inc.-cebu b-meg feed plant vs. hon. bienvenido laguesma

Documents