Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > October 1983 Decisions > G.R. No. L-61684 October 11, 1983 - ROLANDO ROXAS SURVEYING COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

210 Phil. 24:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-61684. October 11, 1983.]

ROLANDO ROXAS SURVEYING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MATHEW LEONARDO, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR CODE; EMPLOYER- EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP; CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT; APPRENTICE; CLEAR AND WRITTEN STATEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AS SUCH, A PRE-REQUISITE. — Petitioner’s communication to Engineer Morales for him to assess the capabilities of private respondent is not sufficient to show that he was taken in as an apprentice. There was no written agreement that his services had teen engaged as an apprentice. If it was really the intention of petitioner to employ private respondent as an apprentice only, it should have stated the same clearly and in writing.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; REGULAR EMPLOYEE; DEFINITION THEREOF. — Under Article 281 of the Labor Code, a regular employee is one who performs activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT TERMINABLE EXCEPT FOR A JUST CAUSE. — Every circumstance would indicate that private respondent was accepted on the basis of his credentials that he had been an employee for several years in the Bureau of Lands. He was given a salary of P450.00 a month and on June 1, 1976, was sent to Surigao del Sur to perform the work of a surveyor, with seven men under him to supervise. For all intent and purposes, he comes within the meaning of a regular employee "to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer" (Article 281 of the Labor Code). Thus, as a regular employee, private respondent cannot be terminated except for a just cause or when authorized under Article 283 of the Labor Code.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; AWARD OF BACKWAGES FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL, PROPER. — Considering the circumstances of the case and the seeming bad faith of petitioner in dismissing private respondent, it is in consonance with justice, reason and equity that respondent NLRC awarded backwages to private Respondent. Private respondent, during his layoff, and his family have to undergo difficulties and hardships of life (National Shipyards and Steel Corp. v. CIR, Et Al., 57 SCRA 642). In the case at bar, it has not been shown that in the interim from his illegal dismissal, private respondent has found some means of livelihood to support livelihood and his family.


D E C I S I O N


RELOVA, J.:


Labor Arbiter Fernando A. Sambajon, in the complaint filed by private respondent Mathew Leonardo against herein petitioner Rolando Roxas Surveying Co. with the Regional Office No. IV, Ministry of Labor, for illegal dismissal, unpaid wages and unpaid per diems, rendered a decision on June 27, 1979, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent to reinstate complainant to his former position with back salaries of P450.00 monthly, from October 1, 1976 up to the date of reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and to pay to complainant emergency allowance of P15.00 monthly for the period of his service from March 1, 1976 to September 15, 1976.

"The claims of unpaid wages and per diems are denied for lack of merit.

"SO ORDERED." (p. 42, Rollo)

Petitioner appealed to respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which, on February 11, 1982, rendered judgment as follows:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

"WHEREFORE, let the decision appealed from be MODIFIED in the sense that the respondent is hereby ordered to pay the complainant two years backwages and one month separation pay subject to computation by the Socio-Economic Analyst of this Commission. The decision is affirmed in all other respects.

"SO ORDERED." (p. 53, Rollo)

Upon denial of its motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed with Us a petition for certiorari with prayer, among others, that "the award of two (2) years backwages, be deleted from the decision, if only to make it conform with the rulings laid down by this Honorable Court as above-quoted."cralaw virtua1aw library

The facts of the case are stated in the decision of respondent NLRC, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A review of the record shows that the complainant applied for and was accepted as surveyman by the respondent on the strength of his 14 years of experience in survey work with the Bureau of Lands; that on March 1, 1976, he started working as such surveyman with seven men under him in Surigao del Sur; that in September 1976, he requested and was granted 15 days vacation leave; that after the expiration of his leave of absence, he reported for work but was not allowed by the engineer of the cadastral survey party unless the consent of the respondent had been obtained; that for his reason, he sent a telegram to the respondent but received no reply so he proceeded to Manila and called up the respondent who told him he could no longer return to his job because of the irregularities he had committed during his employment; that this created a misunderstanding between the complainant and the respondent which resulted in the filing of charges and counter-charges against each other." (p. 50, Rollo)

Petitioner contends that the reason for private respondent’s dismissal was his anomalous conduct while working for the company — unauthorized collection of money from people whose lands were being surveyed; that his continuance in the service, is patently inimical to its interest, aside from the fact that his dishonesty is shown when he did not disclose his conviction for malversation of public funds, with the penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold government office; that the filing and observation of respondent NLRC that reinstatement of private respondent to his former position "would be imprudent and impracticable" lead to the inevitable conclusion that he should not be paid back wages. To do otherwise, it is argued, "would be doing violence to the rule that conclusions made in the decision must be consistent with the findings of facts." (Memorandum for the petitioner, p. 111, Rollo)

Further, petitioner points out that private respondent was employed merely for the cadastral survey being conducted in Surigao del Sur and that there was no fixed period for said employment. Thus, the company has the right to terminate private respondent at any time and even without cause.

We find no merit in this petition. In the first place, the claim that private respondent asked money from people whose lands were being surveyed is not supported by evidence, except the testimony of Engineer Eugenio Morales who, however, did not confront the private respondent, much less, present the persons from whom he allegedly demanded or received money.

With respect to the issue that private respondent was only an apprentice and not a regular employee, petitioner relied on the letter, dated January 30, 1976, addressed to Engineer Morales, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1-30-76

Engr. Jamison or Morales

Cadastral Survey Party

Cad-5-37-D, San Miguel Cadastre

San Miguel, Surigao del Sur

The bearer is Mr. Mathew Leonardo also likes to join our office and field force there in our project operation. As alleged he knows transit work so with little office work so please assess him and I’ll be the one who will determine his salary upon arrival. I’ll be arriving soon, as my Lanao project has a little problem.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Regards: Good luck to all

Sgd. (Illegible)" (p. 136, Rollo)

The above communication to Engineer Morales for him to assess the capabilities of private respondent is not sufficient to show that he was taken in as an apprentice. There was no written agreement that his services had been engaged as an apprentice. On the contrary, every circumstance would indicate that he was accepted on the basis of his credentials that he had been an employee for several years as a surveyor in the Bureau of Lands. He was given a salary of P450.00 a month and, on June 1, 1976, was sent to Surigao del Sur to perform the work of a surveyor, with seven men under him to supervise. For all intents and purposes, he comes within the meaning of a regular employee "to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employees." (Article 281 of the Labor Code). In short, if it was really the intention of petitioner to employ private respondent as an apprentice only, it should have so stated the same clearly and in writing.

Thus, as a regular employee, private respondent cannot be terminated except for a just cause or when authorized under Article 283 of the Labor, which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Art. 283. Termination by employer. — An employer may terminate an employee without a definite period for any of the following just causes:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) The closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or enterprise, or where the employer has to reduce his workforce by more than one-half (1/2) due to serious business reverses, unless the closing is for purpose of circumventing the provision of this Chapter;

(b) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;

(c) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

(d) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or representative;

(e) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or representative; and

(f) Other causes analogous to the foregoing."cralaw virtua1aw library

Finally, We find merit in the submission of the Solicitor General that "considering the circumstances of the case and the seeming bad faith of petitioner in dismissing private respondent, it is in consonance with justice, reason and equity that respondent NLRC awarded back wages to private Respondent. Private respondent, during his lay-off, and his family have to undergo difficulties and hardships of life (National Shipyards and Steel Corporation v. CIR, et et., 57 SCRA 642). It has not been shown that in the interim from his illegal dismissal, private respondent has found some means of livelihood to support himself and his family."cralaw virtua1aw library

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition is dismissed and the temporary restraining order issued on September 22, 1982 is hereby LIFTED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera (Actg. Chairman), Abad Santos, Plana and Escolin, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1983 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-39683 October 10, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO PERIO-PERIO

    210 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-58595 October 10, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO M. ILARDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60577 October 11, 1983 - JOSEFA LEGASPI-SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 20

  • G.R. No. L-61684 October 11, 1983 - ROLANDO ROXAS SURVEYING COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 24

  • G.R. No. L-64397 October 11, 1983 - CARNATION PHILIPPINES EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 30

  • G.R. No. L-49044 October 12, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAO WAN SING

    210 Phil. 32

  • G.R. No. L-61408 October 12, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISIDRO CLORES, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 51

  • G.R. No. L-57259 October 13, 1983 - ANGEL P. PERAN v. PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH II, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF SORSOGON, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 60

  • G.R. No. L-27602 October 15, 1983 - VICENTE CAOILE, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 67

  • G.R. No. L-60706 October 15, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES GREFIEL

    210 Phil. 83

  • G.R. No. L-65162 October 15, 1983 - IN RE: MONICO B. BIGLAEN v. JOSEPHUS RAMAS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 92

  • G.R. No. L-33459 October 20, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 95

  • Adm. Case No. 1354 October 24, 1983 - COSME ROSELL v. JOSE E. FANTONIAL

  • G.R. No. L-49101 October 24, 1983 - RAOUL S.V. BONNEVIE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 100

  • G.R. No. L-50143 October 24, 1983 - MARIA TEVES VDA. DE BACANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 113

  • G.R. No. L-51906 October 24, 1983 - PLARIDEL C. JOSE v. CHAM SAMCO & SONS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61078 October 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BARTOLOME JABEGUERO

    210 Phil. 119

  • G.R. No. L-63761 October 24, 1983 - IN RE: LETICIA H. GORDULA v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 127

  • G.R. No. L-61105 October 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO UNTALASCO, JR., ET AL.

    210 Phil. 132

  • G.R. No. L-31179 October 26, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ULPIANO YARCIA, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 144

  • G.R. No. L-31949 October 26, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO BRECINIO

    210 Phil. 152

  • G.R. No. L-38700 October 26, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUDOVICO CERVANTES, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 156

  • G.R. No. L-44429 October 26, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO TORRES

    210 Phil. 167

  • G.R. No. L-50300 October 26, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO YAP, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 171

  • G.R. Nos. L-60549, 60553 to 60555 October 26, 1983 - HEIRS OF JUANCHO ARDONA, ET AL. v. JUAN Y. REYES, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 187

  • G.R. No. L-60665 October 26, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO FLORES

    210 Phil. 208

  • G.R. No. L-61679 October 26, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PONCIANO OYDOC

    210 Phil. 214

  • G.R. No. L-64731 October 27, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRESIDING JUDGE, URDANETA, PANGASINAN, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 222

  • Adm. Case No. 1092 October 27, 1983 - VICENTE LIM v. FRANCISCO G. ANTONIO

    210 Phil. 226

  • Adm. Case No. 1422 October 27, 1983 - JESUS V. MERRITT v. HERMINIO H. CACANINDIN

    210 Phil. 230

  • Adm. Case No. 1519 October 27, 1983 - WENCESLAO SUMAPIG v. MACARIO ESMAS, JR.

    210 Phil. 232

  • Adm. Case No. 2266 October 27, 1983 - HERMINIO R. NORIEGA v. EMMANUEL R. SISON

    210 Phil. 236

  • G.R. No. L-24548 October 27, 1983 - WENCESLAO VINZONS TAN v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26746 October 27, 1983 - JUSTO ALCARAZ, ET AL. v. RICARDO RACIMO, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 267

  • G.R. No. L-32550 October 27, 1983 - PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 276

  • G.R. No. L-35336 October 27, 1983 - AMALIA VDA. DE SUAN, ET AL. v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

    210 Phil. 284

  • G.R. No. L-37766 October 27, 1983 - ROGELIA PERARTILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 289

  • G.R. No. L-39835 October 27, 1983 - PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE v. LINO L. AÑOVER, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 291

  • G.R. No. L-40111 October 27, 1983 - PEDRO S. RAVELO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 302

  • G.R. No. L-45857 October 27, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SISON

    210 Phil. 305

  • G.R. No. L-48419 October 27, 1983 - EDUARDO M. LESACA v. SERAFIN R. CUEVAS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 316

  • G.R. No. L-50320 October 27, 1983 - PHILIPPINE APPAREL WORKERS UNION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 322

  • G.R. No. L-50419 October 27, 1983 - FRANCISCO K. REDOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53431 October 27, 1983 - BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION v. JOSE P. CASTRO, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 338

  • G.R. No. L-55539 October 27, 1983 - DIOSA DE LEON v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 347

  • G.R. No. L-58399 October 27, 1983 - EUSEBIO BERNABE, ET AL. v. ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 349

  • G.R. No. L-58849 October 27, 1983 - ANGEL V. CAGUIOA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 353

  • G.R. No. L-59280 October 27, 1983 - PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 356

  • G.R. No. L-60716 October 27, 1983 - AGUSAN DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., ET AL. v. FORTUNATO A. VAILOCES, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 360

  • G.R. No. L-61289 October 27, 1983 - FIRST INTEGRATED BONDING & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MARIO M. DIZON, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 364

  • G.R. No. L-62339 October 27, 1983 - MARIA LUISA P. MORATA, ET AL. v. VICTOR GO, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 367

  • G.R. No. L-62376 October 27, 1983 - MARIA VELASQUEZ, ET AL. v. WILLIAM GEORGE, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 378

  • G.R. No. 63779 October 27, 1983 - ASSOCIATED ANGLO-AMERICAN TOBACCO CORPORATION, ET AL. v. MANUEL M. LAZARO, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 384

  • Adm. Case No. 1856 October 28, 1983 - SALVACION E. MARCAYDA v. JUSTINIANO P. NAZ

    210 Phil. 386

  • G.R. No. L-54009 October 28, 1983 - VALLEY GOLF CLUB, INC. v. EMILIO SALAS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 390

  • G.R. No. L-54448 October 28, 1983 - UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 399

  • G.R. No. L-55337 October 28, 1983 - NINFA F. CUA v. EULALIO D. ROSETE, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 411

  • G.R. No. L-61255 October 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME CALIMQUIM

    210 Phil. 415

  • G.R. No. L-63557 October 28, 1983 - LINGNER & FISHER GMBH v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 438

  • G.R. No. L-49891 October 31, 1983 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. IRINEO V. MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62467 October 31, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO S. BROQUEZA

    210 Phil. 450