ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1279 March 1, 2001 - ALICIA GONZALES-DECANO v. ORLANDO ANA F. SIAPNO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1282 March 1, 2001 - SOFRONIO DAYOT v. RODOLFO B. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 112092 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT NUÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 123069 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SASPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126019 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO CALDONA

  • G.R. No. 131637 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODELIO PERALTA

  • G.R. No. 133888 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO NARDO

  • G.R. No. 134330 March 1, 2001 - ENRIQUE M. BELO, ET AL. v. PHIL. NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135667-70 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESSIE VENTURA COLLADO

  • G.R. No. 138666 March 1, 2001 - ISABELO LORENZANA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 140511 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR AMION

  • G.R. No. 142313 March 1, 2001 - MANUEL CHU, SR., ET AL. v. BENELDA ESTATE DEV’T. CORP.

  • G.R. No. 142527 March 1, 2001 - ARSENIO ALVAREZ v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144678 March 1, 2001 - JAVIER E. ZACATE v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146710-15 & 146738 March 2, 2001 - JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v. ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113236 March 5, 2001 - FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113265 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 118680 March 5, 2001 - MARIA ELENA RODRIGUEZ PEDROSA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123788 March 5, 2001 - DOMINADOR DE GUZMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124686 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROQUE ELLADO

  • G.R. No. 127158 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO HERIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132353 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO IBO

  • G.R. No. 126557 March 6, 2001 - RAMON ALBERT v. CELSO D. GANGAN

  • G.R. No. 138646 March 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOMER CABANSAY

  • G.R. No. 139518 March 6, 2001 - EVANGELINE L. PUZON v. STA. LUCIA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT

  • G.R. Nos. 140249 & 140363 March 6, 2001 - DANILO S. YAP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140884 March 6, 2001 - GELACIO P. GEMENTIZA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143823 March 6, 2001 - JENNIFER ABRAHAM v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126168 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO SAMUDIO

  • G.R. No. 129594 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUNNIFER LAURENTE

  • G.R. No. 135945 March 7, 2001 - UNITED RESIDENTS OF DOMINICAN HILL v. COMM. ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS

  • G.R. No. 136173 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO ICALLA

  • G.R. Nos. 137481-83 & 138455 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO SALADINO

  • G.R. Nos. 139962-66 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO MANGOMPIT

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1297 March 7, 2001 - JOSEFINA BANGCO v. RODOLFO S. GATDULA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329 March 8, 2001 - HERMINIA BORJA-MANZANO v. ROQUE R SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 122611 March 8, 2001 - NAPOLEON H. GONZALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125901 March 8, 2001 - EDGARDO A. TIJING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130378 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNEL MATARO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134279 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY ROGER AUSTRIA

  • G.R. Nos. 135234-38 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO GUNTANG

  • G.R. No. 137649 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO VILLADARES

  • G.R. No. 138137 March 8, 2001 - PERLA S. ZULUETA v. ASIA BREWERY

  • G.R. No. 138774 March 8, 2001 - REGINA FRANCISCO, ET AL v. AIDA FRANCISCO-ALFONSO

  • G.R. No. 140479 March 8, 2001 - ROSENCOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. PATERNO INQUING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140713 March 8, 2001 - ROSA YAP PARAS, ET AL. v. ISMAEL O. BALDADO

  • G.R. No. 112115 March 9, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140619-24 March 9, 2001 - BENEDICTO E. KUIZON, ET AL. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

  • G.R. No. 126099 March 12, 2001 - ROBERTO MITO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128372 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMEGIO DELA PEÑA

  • G.R. Nos. 130634-35 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLITO OYANIB

  • G.R. No. 131889 March 12, 2001 - VIRGINIA O. GOCHAN, ET AL. v. RICHARD G. YOUNG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136738 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN VALEZ

  • G.R. No. 137306 March 12, 2001 - VIRGINIA AVISADO, ET AL. v. AMOR RUMBAUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140011-16 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO MORATA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1464 March 13, 2001 - SALVADOR O. BOOC v. MALAYO B. BANTUAS

  • G.R. No. 103073 March 13, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131530 March 13, 2001 - Y REALTY CORP. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136594 March 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL CANIEZO

  • G.R. No. 139405 March 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO F. PACIFICADOR

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1530 March 14, 2001 - EDGARDO ALDAY, ET AL. v. ESCOLASTICO U. CRUZ

  • G.R. Nos. 116001 & 123943 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUISITO GO

  • G.R. No. 130209 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY LAVAPIE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130515 & 147090 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANSELMO BARING

  • G.R. Nos. 134451-52 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO FRETA

  • G.R. No. 137036 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANDO DE MESA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138045 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIETTA PATUNGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139300 March 14, 2001 - AMIGO MANUFACTURING v. CLUETT PEABODY CO.

  • G.R. No. 102985 March 15, 2001 - RUBEN BRAGA CURAZA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133480 March 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORANTE AGUILUZ

  • G.R. Nos. 135201-02 March 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 141616 March 15, 2001 - CITY OF QUEZON v. LEXBER INCORPORATED

  • G.R. No. 116847 March 16, 2001 - MANUFACTURERS BUILDING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128083 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO M. HILARIO

  • G.R. No. 128922 March 16, 2001 - ELEUTERIA B. ALIABO, ET AL. v. ROGELIO L. CARAMPATAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129070 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELLIE CABAIS

  • G.R. No. 131544 March 16, 2001 - EPG CONSTRUCTION CO., ET AL. v. GREGORIO R. VIGILAR

  • G.R. No. 135047 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO CACHOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137282 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ALIPAR

  • G.R. Nos. 137753-56 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. NILO ARDON

  • A.M. No. 01-1463 March 20, 2001 - EVELYN ACUÑA v. RODOLFO A. ALCANTARA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1306 March 20, 2001 - ROBERT M. VISBAL v. RODOLFO C. RAMOS

  • A.M. No. P-97-1241 March 20, 2001 - DINNA CASTILLO v. ZENAIDA C. BUENCILLO

  • G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 108991 March 20, 2001 - WILLIAM ALAIN MIAILHE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130663 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ANGELES STA. TERESA

  • G.R. Nos. 136862-63 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 139413-15 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENDRICO GALAS

  • G.R. No. 140356 March 20, 2001 - DOLORES FAJARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140919 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUTCH BUCAO LEE

  • G.R. No. 142476 March 20, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 144074 March 20, 2001 - MEDINA INVESTIGATION & SECURITY CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127772 March 22, 2001 - ROBERTO P. ALMARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133815-17 March 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO LIAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134972 March 22, 2001 - ERNESTO CATUNGAL, ET AL. v. DORIS HAO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1469 March 26, 2001 - ROEL O. PARAS v. MYRNA F. LOFRANCO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1624 March 26, 2001 - REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE RELATIVE TO SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. 28

  • A.M. No. 99-731-RTJ March 26, 2001 - HILARIO DE GUZMAN v. DEODORO J. SISON

  • G.R. Nos. 102407-08 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO LUCERO

  • G.R. No. 121608 March 26, 2001 - FLEISCHER COMPANY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121902 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WALTER MELENCION

  • G.R. No. 125865 March 26, 2001 - JEFFREY LIANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 129916 March 26, 2001 - MAGELLAN CAPITAL MNGT. CORP., ET AL. v. ROLANDO M. ZOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131638-39 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO MEDENILLA

  • G.R. No. 131653 March 26, 2001 - ROBERTO GONZALES v. NLRC, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 133475 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. 134903 March 26, 2001 - UNICRAFT INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136790 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL GALVEZ

  • G.R. No. 137268 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIA CARMEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137590 March 26, 2001 - FLORENCE MALCAMPO-SIN v. PHILIPP T. SIN

  • G.R. No. 137739 March 26, 2001 - ROBERTO B. TAN v. PHIL. BANKING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137889 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 142950 March 26, 2001 - EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. ROSITA KU

  • G.R. Nos. 147066 & 147179 March 26, 2001 - AKBAYAN - Youth, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA March 27, 2001 - IN RE: DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1473 March 27, 2001 - GLORIA O. BENITEZ v. MEDEL P. ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 123149 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIO CABUG

  • G.R. No. 131588 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLENN DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 137762-65 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO BARES

  • G.R. No. 137989 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SONNY MATIONG, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1357 March 28, 2001 - MONFORT HERMANOS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. ROLANDO V. RAMIREZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1574 March 28, 2001 - GORGONIO S. NOVA v. SANCHO DAMES II

  • G.R. No. 100701 March 28, 2001 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101442 March 28, 2001 - JOSE ANGELES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 110012 March 28, 2001 - ANASTACIO VICTORIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112314 March 28, 2001 - VICENTE R. MADARANG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117964 March 28, 2001 - PLACIDO O. URBANES, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122216 March 28, 2001 - ALJEM’S CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126751 March 28, 2001 - SAFIC ALCAN & CIE v. IMPERIAL VEGETABLE OIL CO.

  • G.R. No. 126959 March 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO SATURNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136965 March 28, 2001 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDINA ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 137660 March 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS L. ALCANTARA

  • G.R. No. 137932 March 28, 2001 - CHIANG YIA MIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138474 March 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO BALANO

  • G.R. Nos. 139571-72 March 28, 2001 - ROGER N. ABARDO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 140153 March 28, 2001 - ANTONIO DOCENA, ET AL. v. RICARDO P. LAPESURA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141307 March 28, 2001 - PURTO J. NAVARRO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142007 March 28, 2001 - MANUEL C. FELIX v. ENERTECH SYSTEMS INDUSTRIES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143173 March 28, 2001 - PEDRO ONG, ET AL. v. SOCORRO PAREL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144169 March 28, 2001 - KHE HONG CHENG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131836 March 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELITA SINCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137564 March 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR DOMENDED

  • G.R. No. 137648 March 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 140311 March 30, 2001 - DENNIS T. GABIONZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 121608   March 26, 2001 - FLEISCHER COMPANY v. NLRC, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 121608. March 26, 2001.]

    FLEISCHER COMPANY, INC. AND/OR RUTH YRAD, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NATHANIEL RUAMAR, PEDRO DALIT, FELIX VIVERO, and EDDIE DUBAL, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    BUENA, J.:


    This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assails the decision 1 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated December 27, 1994 which reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter granting private respondents’ complaint for illegal dismissal and ordering petitioners to pay them separation pay, wage differentials, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay, as well as the resolution of the NLRC dated June 21, 1995 modifying its earlier decision by deleting therefrom the monetary award in favor of private respondent Pedro Dalit who signed a quitclaim in favor of petitioner. In the assailed decision, the NLRC declared private respondents’ termination as valid on the ground of redundancy and ordered the payment of separation pay, wage differentials, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Petitioner Fleischer Company, Inc., an agricultural plantation producing copra, hired private respondents as security guards in 1989. 2 Nathaniel Ruamar was terminated on February 23, 1990 on the ground that his services were "no longer needed by the corporation" and was instructed to collect his separation pay from the corporation’s resident manager. 3 Pedro Dalit, Felix Vivero and Eddie Dubal were all terminated on March 13, 1990 because they allegedly could no longer perform their duties as security guards since they no longer had the necessary firearms, and were informed that the corporation would be hiring security guards from a security agency. 4

    On March 27, 1990, private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement, backwages, underpayment of wages, 13th month pay, holiday pay, rest-day pay, and 5-day service incentive leave pay before Labor Arbiter Arturo P. Aponesto. 5 In their position paper dated July 9, 1990, private respondents argued that their dismissal from employment was illegal and the alleged reason for their dismissal has no basis, claiming that they were not required to provide their own firearms when they were hired by Fleischer Company, Inc. but were actually provided with firearms by the latter. 6 Private respondents further claimed that they were dismissed without due process asserting that they should have been given notice of their dismissal at least 30 days before the intended date of termination. 7 The dismissal of private respondents from employment was made effective upon receipt of their respective termination letters. 8 Furthermore, private respondents insisted that they were entitled to wage differentials on the ground that as security guards their wages should be based on the industrial rate and not on the agricultural rate. 9 Finally, private respondents sought their reinstatement with full backwages.

    On the other hand, Fleischer Company, Inc., in its position paper dated August 15, 1990, maintained that private respondents were dismissed for valid causes. According to Fleischer, Nathaniel Ruamar was incompetent and once used company funds for personal purposes without authority or consent from the company. 10 The three (3) other private respondents were allegedly terminated due to lack of firearms, beside the fact that Felix Vivero had a defective ear and could not hear anymore. 11 Furthermore, Fleischer rejected private respondents’ money claims contending that they are agricultural workers and not underpaid, and that the company’s payroll showed that they were given their money claims.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    After the parties had submitted their respective position papers, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dated July 31, 1991, the dispositive part of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, finding that complainants Pedro Dalit, Felix Vivero, Nathaniel Ruamar and Eddie Dubal were dismissed by respondent Fleischer Company, Inc. without just or authorized cause, hence illegal, said respondent is hereby directed to pay complainants their respective separation pay. In addition respondent company is further ordered to pay complainants’ money claims for wage differentials, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay as detailed and set forth above, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Separation Pay P43,748.14

    Money Claims P53,843.25

    ——————

    P97,591.39

    SO ORDERED." 12

    In his decision, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of private respondents holding that there was "no showing that the[ir] dismissal was for just cause and after due process." 13 According to the Labor Arbiter, Fleischer was not able to sufficiently establish the facts that would warrant private respondents’ dismissal from employment. In addition, the Labor Arbiter found that there was lack of due process in effecting their dismissal. Having concluded that private respondents were illegally dismissed, the Labor Arbiter ruled that private respondents are entitled to reinstatement to their former positions. However, since reinstatement was found to be impractical and illogical under the circumstances, and the relationship between the parties appeared to be strained, the Labor Arbiter ordered the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. With regard to the payment of backwages, the Labor Arbiter maintained that Fleischer was in good faith when it offered and directed private respondents to get their respective separation pays at the time they were terminated, hence, declined to award backwages to private respondents inasmuch as." . . to order respondent [Fleischer] to pay backwages would be unreasonable, if not oppressive." 14 The Labor Arbiter also found private respondents’ claims for wage differential, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay to be meritorious, it appearing from the payrolls presented by Fleischer that these money claims were not paid, but the same must be computed on the basis of the agricultural-plantation rate rather than the industrial rate.

    On appeal, the NLRC, in a decision dated December 27, 1994, reversed the finding of the Labor Arbiter that private respondents were illegally dismissed from employment. The dispositive part of the said decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, the decision of the Labor Arbiter below in the above-entitled case is hereby correspondingly modified and respondent Fleischer Company, Inc. is hereby ordered to pay complainants’ claims which are hereunder stated as follows:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Separation Pay to the four P34,918.00

    complainants

    Other Money Claims 53,843.25

    —————

    TOTAL AWARD P88,761.25

    SO ORDERED." 15

    In its decision, the NLRC upheld the existence of an employer-employee relationship between Fleischer and private respondents, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "x       x       x.

    "A review of the pleadings and evidence submitted before the Labor Arbiter of origin reveals that there is no dispute that complainants herein were indeed hired by the respondents. Respondent admitted to have hired complainant Nathaniel Ruamar as utility man although the latter contends that he was hired as [a] security guard. As to the other complainants — Pedro Dalit, Felix Vivero and Eddie Dubal, respondents admit to have hired them as security guards because at the time of their hiring, they were members of the Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF) with authority to carry firearms, and respondent believed they could make use of said employees to guard their premises against thieves and other malefactors.

    "x       x       x." 16

    Regarding the legality of private respondents’ dismissal from employment, the NLRC held that private respondents were not illegally dismissed from employment inasmuch as it considered the case "analogous to or one involving REDUNDANCY," 17 explaining thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "x       x       x.

    "It is clearly established that complainants were hired as security guards, or as utility man in the case of complainant-Ruamar, because of their positions as members of the CHDF, and being such they were authorized to carry firearms. Their being members of the CHDF or their having with them the firearms issued to them as CHDF members was a condition sine qua non to their positions as security guards of the company. Thus, when they ceased to be members of the CHDF and had lost the authority to carry their issued firearms, their positions in the company had become redundant because then, the company would have to hire duly licensed security guards from a security agency who are authorized to carry firearms." 18

    Consequently, the NLRC ordered the payment of separation pay equivalent to one-month pay for every year of service as mandated by Article 283 of the Labor Code. Lastly, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s finding that private respondents are entitled to their money claims and the same should be based on the prevailing wage rates for workers of agricultural plantations. However, the NLRC made a recomputation of the monetary awards because the actual computations done by the Labor Arbiter were based on the prevailing rates for non-agricultural or industrial establishments.

    In a Resolution dated June 21, 1995, the NLRC modified its earlier decision by deleting the monetary awards in favor of private respondent Pedro Dalit on account of the "Release and Quitclaim" signed by the latter, and affirmed its decision in all other respects. 19

    In this petition for certiorari, Fleischer Company, Inc. argues that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in rendering the assailed decision and resolution, and contends that first, there is no employer-employee relationship between petitioner and private respondents; and second, the parties have long settled this case amicably. 20

    We find no merit in the petition.cralawred

    It is well-settled that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is essentially a factual question and the public respondent’s findings thereon are accorded great weight and respect and even finality when the same are supported by substantial evidence. 21 A careful scrutiny of the records of this case failed to convince this Court that the findings of the agencies below are not supported by substantial evidence leading us to concur with the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter that an employer-employee relationship exists between Fleischer and private respondents. Fleischer’s contention on this matter deserves scant consideration.

    Likewise, Fleischer’s contention that this case has long been settled amicably by the parties is a question of fact the determination of which is the statutory function of the NLRC. As long as the findings of the NLRC on this question are supported by substantial evidence, the same will not be disturbed on review by this Court. Review in the Supreme Court concerning factual findings in labor cases is confined to determining allegations of lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. In this case, we see no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the NLRC. We are in agreement with the public respondent’s conclusion that there indeed existed an employer-employee relationship between Fleischer and private respondents, and the case has been amicably settled only as between Fleischer and Pedro Dalit. 22

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed decision of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission dated December 27, 1994, as modified by its Resolution dated June 21, 1995 is hereby AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Bellosillo, Mendoza and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Quisumbing, J., is on leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Decision penned by Commissioner Oscar Abella, and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Musib M. Buat and Commissioner Leon G. Gonzaga, NLRC-Cagayan de Oro City, Fifth Division, Rollo, p. 12.

    2. Petition, p. 3 in Rollo, pp. 4-10.

    3. Records, vol. 1, p. 20.

    4. Ibid., pp. 21-23.

    5. Records, vol. 1, p. 1.

    6. Ibid., pp. 15-16.

    7. Ibid., p. 16.

    8. Ibid., pp. 20-23.

    9. Ibid., p. 16.

    10. Ibid., p. 31.

    11. Ibid., p. 32.

    12. Ibid., pp. 46-47.

    13. Ibid., p. 42.

    14. Ibid., p. 45.

    15. Rollo, p. 16.

    16. Ibid., p. 13.

    17. Ibid.

    18. Ibid., p. 14.

    19. Ibid., p. 21.

    20. Ibid., p. 72.

    21. Santos v. NLRC, 293 SCRA 113, 125 (1998).

    22. Records, vol. 3, Annex A, A-1, pp. 61-62.

    G.R. No. 121608   March 26, 2001 - FLEISCHER COMPANY v. NLRC, ET AL.




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED