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
BAR REVIEWER ON LABOR LAW 2014 (2nd) Edition - By Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan

 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2720 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3259-P] : April 07, 2012] JUDGE SALVADOR R. SANTOS, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, ANGAT, BULACAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. EDITHA R. MANGAHAS, COURT STENOGRAPHER OF THE SAME COURT, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 174489 : April 07, 2012] ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR, SEBASTIAN M. BALTAZAR, ANTONIO L. MANGALINDAN, ROSIE M. MATEO, NENITA A. PACHECO, VIRGILIO REGALA, JR., AND RAFAEL TITCO, PETITIONERS, VS. LORENZO LAXA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-10-2232 : April 10, 2012] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE CADER P. INDAR, PRESIDING JUDGE AND ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 14, COTABATO CITY AND BRANCH 15, SHARIFF AGUAK, MAGUINDANAO, RESPECTIVELY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 147036-37 : April 10, 2012] PETITIONER-ORGANIZATIONS, NAMELY: PAMBANSANG KOALISYON NG MGA SAMAHANG MAGSASAKA AT MANGGAGAWA SA NIYUGAN (PKSMMN), COCONUT INDUSTRY REFORM MOVEMENT (COIR), BUKLOD NG MALAYANG MAGBUBUKID, PAMBANSANG KILUSAN NG MGA SAMAHANG MAGSASAKA (PAKISAMA), CENTER FOR AGRARIAN REFORM, EMPOWERMENT AND TRANSFORMATION (CARET), PAMBANSANG KATIPUNAN NG MGA SAMAHAN SA KANAYUNAN (PKSK); PETITIONER- LEGISLATOR: REPRESENTATIVE LORETA ANN ROSALES; AND PETITIONER-INDIVIDUALS, NAMELY: VIRGILIO V. DAVID, JOSE MARIE FAUSTINO, JOSE CONCEPCION, ROMEO ROYANDOYAN, JOSE V. ROMERO, JR., ATTY. CAMILO L. SABIO, AND ATTY. ANTONIO T. CARPIO, PETITIONERS, VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION, INC. (COCOFED), AND UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK (UCPB), RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2912 : April 10, 2012] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. MARY LOU C. SARMIENTO, INTERPRETER II, BRANCH 57, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, SAN JUAN CITY, AND ARTURO F. ANATALIO, SHERIFF, BRANCH 58, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, SAN JUAN CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-07-1667 : April 10, 2012] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE JAMES v. GO AND CLERK OF COURT MA. ELMER M. ROSALES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC), BRANCH 2, BUTUAN CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173320 : April 11, 2012] EDUARDO B. MANZANO, PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO B. LAZARO, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-12-3053 (formerly A.M. No. 06-3-88-MTCC) : April 11, 2012] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. CARPIO, (CHAIRPERSON), BRION, ABAD,* SERENO, AND REYES, JJ. MANUEL Z. ARAYA, JR., UTILITY WORKER, MTCC, BRANCH 2, OZAMIS CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 174118 : April 11, 2012] THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, REPRESENTED BY THE ARCHBISHOP OF CACERES, PETITIONER, VS. REGINO PANTE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186141 : April 11, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JESUSA FIGUEROA Y CORONADO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 175303 : April 11, 2012] PACIFIC ACE FINANCE LTD. (PAFIN), PETITIONER, VS. EIJI* YANAGISAWA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173844 : April 11, 2012] LIGAYA P. CRUZ, PETITIONER, VS. HON. RAUL M. GONZALEZ, ETC., DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND COURT OF APPEALS. RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188661 : April 11, 2012] ESTELITA VILLAMAR, PETITIONER, VS. BALBINO MANGAOIL, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-3002 (Formerly A.M. No. 11-9-96-MTCC) : April 11, 2012] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. MS. ESTRELLA NINI, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES-BOGO, CITY OF CEBU, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 164457 : April 11, 2012] ANNA LERIMA PATULA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175763 : April 11, 2012] HEIRS OF BIENVENIDO AND ARACELI TANYAG, NAMELY: ARTURO TANYAG, AIDA T. JOCSON AND ZENAIDA T. VELOSO, PETITIONERS, VS. SALOME E. GABRIEL, NESTOR R. GABRIEL, LUZ GABRIEL-ARNEDO MARRIED TO ARTURO ARNEDO, NORA GABRIEL-CALINGO MARRIED TO FELIX CALINGO, PILAR M. MENDIOLA, MINERVA GABRIEL-NATIVIDAD MARRIED TO EUSTAQUIO NATIVIDAD, AND ERLINDA VELASQUEZ MARRIED TO HERMINIO VELASQUEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167057 : April 11, 2012] NERWIN INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AND ESTER R. GUERZON, CHAIRMAN, BIDS AND AWARDS COMMITTEE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 193509 : April 11, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. IRENEO GANZAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 181544 : April 11, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JULIUS TAGUILID Y BACOLOD, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188322 : April 11, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSEPH ASILAN Y TABORNAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 170290 : April 11, 2012] PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. CITIBANK, N.A. AND BANK OF AMERICA, S.T. & N.A., RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-12-3028 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3649-P] : April 11, 2012] ATTYS. RICARDO D. GONZALES & ERNESTO D. ROSALES, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ARTHUR G. CALO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL C, BRANCH 5, BUTUAN CITY RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 7880 : April 11, 2012] WILLIAM HECTOR MARIA, PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. WILFREDO R. CORTEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 5098 : April 11, 2012] JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179936 : April 11, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAMAD ABEDIN Y JANDAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 177224 : April 11, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JIMMY BIYALA VELASQUEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184926 : April 11, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDMUNDO VILLAFLORES Y OLANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184282 : April 11, 2012] FRANCISCO SORIANO AND DALISAY SORIANO, PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, (REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 197807 : April 16, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CECILIA LAGMAN Y PIRING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 193443 : April 16, 2012] JEAN TAN, ROSELLER C. ANACINTO, CARLO LOILO ESPINEDA AND DAISY ALIADO MANAOIS, REPRESENTED IN THIS ACT BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MA. WILHELMINA E. TOBIAS, PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173951 : April 16, 2012] DANIEL M. ISON, PETITIONER, VS. CREWSERVE, INC., ANTONIO GALVEZ, JR., AND MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., LTD., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173820 : April 16, 2012] PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. EXCELSA INDUSTRIES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 6903 : April 16, 2012] SUZETTE DEL MUNDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ARNEL C. CAPISTRANO, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 6332 : April 17, 2012] IN RE: SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION DATED 28 APRIL 2003 IN G.R. NOS. 145817 AND 145822

  • [G.R. No. 175139 : April 18, 2012] HERMOJINA ESTORES, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES ARTURO AND LAURA SUPANGAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180177 : April 18, 2012] ROGELIO S. REYES, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185918 : April 18, 2012] LOCKHEED DETECTIVE AND WATCHMAN AGENCY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171995 : April 18, 2012] STEELCASE, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DESIGN INTERNATIONAL SELECTIONS, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194677 : April 18, 2012] ALEN H. SANTIAGO, PETITIONER, VS. PACBASIN SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC. AND/OR MAJESTIC CARRIERS, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167735 : April 18, 2012] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF SALVADOR ENCINAS AND JACOBA DELGADO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177761 : April 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. REMEDIOS TANCHANCO Y PINEDA, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 200030 : April 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NELSON BAYOT Y SATINA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 193415 : April 18, 2012] SPOUSES DAISY AND SOCRATES M. AREVALO, PETITIONERS, VS. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PARAÑAQUE CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175039 : April 18, 2012] ADDITION HILLS MANDALUYONG CIVIC & SOCIAL ORGANIZATION, INC., PETITIONER, VS. MEGAWORLD PROPERTIES & HOLDINGS, INC., WILFREDO I. IMPERIAL, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR, NCR, AND HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177611 : April 18, 2012] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES), PETITIONER, VS. RODOLFO L. LEGASPI, SR., QUEROBIN L. LEGASPI, OFELIA LEGASPI-MUELA, PURISIMA LEGASPI VDA. DE MONDEJAR, VICENTE LEGASPI, RODOLFO LEGASPI II, AND SPOUSES ROSALINA LIBO-ON AND DOMINADOR LIBO-ON, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 192514 : April 18, 2012] D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. AND/OR DAVID M. CONSUNJI, PETITIONERS, VS. ESTELITO L. JAMIN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 180898 : April 18, 2012] PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. PETROLEUM DISTRIBUTORS & SERVICE CORPORATION RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188921 : April 18, 2012] LEO C. ROMERO AND DAVID AMANDO C. ROMERO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AURORA C. ROMERO AND VITTORIO C. ROMERO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 163700 : April 18, 2012] CHARLIE JAO, PETITIONER, VS. BCC PRODUCTS SALES INC., AND TERRANCE TY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 163657 : April 18, 2012] INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES/MARILYN C. PASCUAL, PETITIONER, VS. ROEL P. LOGARTA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-3004 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3483-P) : April 18, 2012] JUDGE ANDREW P. DULNUAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ESTEBAN D. DACSIG, CLERK OF COURT II, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 163125 : April 18, 2012] JOSE ABELGAS, JR. AND LETECIA JUSAYAN DE ABELGAS, PETITIONERS, VS. SERVILLANO COMIA, RURAL BANK OF SOCORRO INC. AND RURAL BANK OF PINAMALAYAN, INC. RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182331 : April 18, 2012] MA. CORINA C. JIAO, RODEN B. LOPEZ, FRANCISCO L. DIMAYUGA, NORMA G. DEL VALLE, MACARIO G. MARASIGAN, LANIE MARIA B. PASANA, NILO M. DE CASTRO, ANGELITO M. BALITAAN, CESAR L. RICO, CRISPIN S. CONSTANTINO, GLENDA S. CORPUZ, LEONILA C. TUAZON, ALFREDO S. DAZA, LORNA R. CRUZ, MARIA M. AMBOJIA, NOEMI M. JAPOR, ANGELITO V. DANAN, GLORIA M. SALAZAR, JOHN V. VIGILIA, ROEL D. ROBINO, WILLIAM L. ENDAYA, TERESITA M. ROMAN, ARTURO M. SABALLE, AUGUSTO N. RIGOR, ALLAN O. OLANO, RODOLFO T. CABATU, NICANOR R. BRAVO, EDUARDO M. ALCANTARA, FELIPE F. OCAMPO, ELPIDIO C. ADALIA, RENATO M. CRUZ, JOSE C. PEREZ, JR., FERNANDO V. MAPILE, ROMEO R. PATRICIO, FERNANDO N. RONGAVILLA, FERMIN A. COBRADOR, ANTONIO O. BOSTRE, RALPH M. MICHAELSON, CRISTINA G. MANIO, EDIGARDO M. BAUTISTA, CYNTHIA C. SANIEL, PRISCILLA F. DAVID, MACARIO V. ARNEDO, NORLITO V. HERNANDEZ, ALFREDO G. BUENAVENTURA, JOSE R. CASTRONUEVO, OLDERICO M. AGORILLA, CESAR M. PEREZ, RONALD M. GENER, EMMANUEL G. QUILAO, BENJAMIN C. CUBA, EDGARDO S. MEDRANO, GODOFREDO D. PATENA, VIRGILIO G. ILAGAN, MYRNA C. LEGASPI, ELIZABETH P. REYES, ANTONIO A. TALON, ROMEO P. CRUZ, ELEANOR T. TAN, FERDINAND G. PINAUIN, MA. OLIVETTE A. NAKPIL, GILBERT NOVIEM A. COLUMNA, ARTHUR L. ABELLA, BENJAMIN L. ENRIQUEZ, ANTONINO P. QUEVEDO, ADFEL GEORGE MONTEMAYOR, RAMON S. VELASCO, WILFREDO M. HALILI, ANTONIO M. LUMANGLAS, ANDREW M. MAGNO, SONNY S. ESTANISLAO, RODOLFO S. ALABASTRO, MICAH B. MARALIT, LINA M. QUEBRAL, REBECCA R. NARCISO, RONILO T. TOLENTINO, RUPERTO B. LETAN, JR., MEDARDO A. VASQUEZ, VALENTINA A. SANTIAGO, RODELO S. DIAZ, JOHN O. CORDIAL, EDWIN J. ANDAYA, RODRIGO M. MOJADO, GERMAN L. ESTRADA, BENJAMIN B. DADUYA, MARLYN A. MUNOZ, MARIVIC M. DIONISIO, CESAR M. FLORES, JACINTO T. GUINTO, JR., BELEN C. SALAVERRIA, EVELYN M. ANZURES, GLORIA D. ABELLA, LILIAN V. BUNUAN, MA. CONCEPCION G. UBIADAS, ROLANDO I. CAMPOSANO, MONICO R. GOREMBALEM, ELADIO M. VICENCIO, AMORSOLO B. BELTRAN, LEOPOLDO B. JUAREZ, NEPHTALI V. SALAZAR, SANGGUNI P. ROQUE, ROY O. SAPANGHILA, MELVIN A. DEVEZA, CARMENCITA D. ABELLA, PRIMITIVO S. AGUAS, JOSE MA. ANTONIO I. BUGAY, HILARIO P. DE GUZMAN, WILLIAM C. VENTIGAN, NOEL L. AMA, ROMEO G. USON, RAOUL E. VELASCO, FLORENCIO B. PAGSALIGAN, RUBEN C. CRUZ, ANGELA D. CUSTODIO, NOEL C. CABEROY, GUILLERMO V. GAVINO, JR., GAUDENCIO P. BESA, AIDA M. PADILLA, ROWENA M. BAUYON, HENRY C. EPISCOPE, ALVIN T. PATRIARCA, EUSTAQUIO C. AQUINO, JR., VALENTINO T. ARELLANO, REYNALDO J. AUSTRIA, BAYANI A. CUNANAN, EFREN T. JOSE, EDUARDO P. LORIA, REYNALDO M. PORTILLO, ARMANDO B. DUPAYA, SESINANDO S. GOMEZ, BRICCIO B. GAFFUD III, DANILO N. PALO, MARIO F. SOLANO, MARIANITO B. GOOT AND ELSA S. TANGO, ZENAIDA N. GARIN, RUBY L. TEJADA, JOEL B. GARCIA, MA. RUBY L. JIMENEA, ARLENE L. MADLANGBAYAN, ROCELY P. MARASIGAN, MA. ROSARIO H. RIVERA, OSCAR G. BARACHINA, EDITA M. REMO, ROBERTO P. ENDAYA, ALELI B. ALANO, FRANCISCO T. MENEZ, CAMILO N. CARILLO, ROSEMARIE A. DOMINGO, LYNDON D. ENOROBA, MERLY H. JAVELLANA, HERNES M. MANDABON, LUZ G. ONG, GILBERTO B. PICO, CRISPIN A. TAMAYO, RICARDO C. VERNAIZ, RENATO V. SACRAMENTO, CLODUALDO O. GOMEZ, MARINEL O. ALPINO, ELY P. RAMOS, NICANOR E. REYES, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, GLOBAL BUSINESS BANK, INC., CORPORATE OFFICERS OF GLOBAL BANK: ROBIN KING, HENRY M. SUN, BENJAMIN G. CHUA, JR., JOVENCIO F. CINCO, EDWARD S. GO, MARY VY TY, TAKANORI NAKANO, JOHN K.C. NG, FLORENCIO T. MALLARE, EDMUND/EDDIE GAISANO, FRANCISCO SEBASTIAN, SAMUEL S. YAP, ALFRED VY TY, GEN TOMII, CHARLES WAI-BUN CHEUNG AND METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170425 : April 23, 2012] SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, PETITIONER, VS. RIZZA G. MENDOZA, CARLITO LEE, GRESHIELA G. COMPENDIO, RAUL RIVERA, REY BELTRAN, REX ALMOJUELA, LINDA P. CAPALUNGAN, HILDA R. RONQUILLO, MA. LODA CALMA, TERESITA P. ALMOJUELA, RUFINA ABAD AND AMADOR A. PASTRANA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 143264 : April 23, 2012] LISAM ENTERPRISES, INC. REPRESENTED BY LOLITA A. SORIANO, AND LOLITA A. SORIANO, PETITIONERS, VS. BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC. (FORMERLY PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK),[*] LILIAN S. SORIANO, ESTATE OF LEANDRO A. SORIANO, JR., REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LEGASPI CITY, AND JESUS L. SARTE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179488 : April 23, 2012] COSCO PHILIPPINES SHIPPING, INC., PETITIONER, VS. KEMPER INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-08-1711 : April 23, 2012] RAMONCITO AND JULIANA LUARCA, VS. COMPLAINANTS, JUDGE IRENEO B. MOLATO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BONGABONG, ORIENTAL MINDORO, RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. MTJ-08-1716] JENY AGBAY, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE IRENEO B. MOLATO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BONGABONG, ORIENTAL MINDORO, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2948 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3049-P] : April 23, 2012] EVELYN V. JALLORINA, COMPLAINANT, VS. RICHELLE TANEO-REGNER, DATA ENTRY MACHINE OPERATOR II, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, SAN MATEO, RIZAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175042 : April 23, 2012] DANILO A. DU, PETITIONER, VS. VENANCIO R. JAYOMA, THEN MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF MABINI, BOHOL, VICENTE GULLE, JR., JOVENIANO MIANO, WILFREDO MENDEZ, AGAPITO VALLESPIN, RENE BUCIO, JESUS TUTOR, CRESCENCIO BERNALES, EDGARDO YBANEZ, AND REY PAGALAN, THEN MEMBERS OF THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN (SB) OF MABINI, BOHOL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 7481 : April 24, 2012] LORENZO D. BRENNISEN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RAMON U. CONTAWI, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171101 : April 24, 2012] HACIENDA LUISITA, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, LUISITA INDUSTRIAL PARK CORPORATION AND RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, PETITIONERS-IN-INTERVENTION, VS. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL; SECRETARY NASSER PANGANDAMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM; ALYANSA NG MGA MANGGAGAWANG BUKID NG HACIENDA LUISITA, RENE GALANG, NOEL MALLARI, AND JULIO SUNIGA[1] AND HIS SUPERVISORY GROUP OF THE HACIENDA LUISITA, INC. AND WINDSOR ANDAYA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 191970 : April 24, 2012] ROMMEL APOLINARIO JALOSJOS, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND DAN ERASMO, SR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 184379-80 : April 24, 2012] RODOLFO NOEL LOZADA, JR., VIOLETA LOZADA AND ARTURO LOZADA, PETITIONERS, VS. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, EDUARDO ERMITA, AVELINO RAZON, ANGEL ATUTUBO AND SPO4 ROGER VALEROSO,* RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 164987 : April 24, 2012] LAWYERS AGAINST MONOPOLY AND POVERTY (LAMP), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND COUNSEL, CEFERINO PADUA, MEMBERS, ALBERTO ABELEDA, JR., ELEAZAR ANGELES, GREGELY FULTON ACOSTA, VICTOR AVECILLA, GALILEO BRION, ANATALIA BUENAVENTURA, EFREN CARAG, PEDRO CASTILLO, NAPOLEON CORONADO, ROMEO ECHAUZ, ALFREDO DE GUZMAN, ROGELIO KARAGDAG, JR., MARIA LUZ ARZAGA-MENDOZA, LEO LUIS MENDOZA, ANTONIO P. PAREDES, AQUILINO PIMENTEL III, MARIO REYES, EMMANUEL SANTOS, TERESITA SANTOS, RUDEGELIO TACORDA, SECRETARY GEN. ROLANDO ARZAGA, BOARD OF CONSULTANTS, JUSTICE ABRAHAM SARMIENTO, SEN. AQUILINO PIMENTEL, JR., AND BARTOLOME FERNANDEZ, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. THE SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, THE TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN REPRESENTATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 192791 : April 24, 2012] DENNIS A. B. FUNA, PETITIONER, VS. THE CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REYNALDO A. VILLAR, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181367 : April 24, 2012] LA CARLOTA CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS MAYOR, HON. JEFFREY P. FERRER, AND THE SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD OF LA CARLOTA CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-MAYOR, HON. DEMIE JOHN C. HONRADO, PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. REX G. ROJO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 193261 : April 24, 2012] MEYNARDO SABILI, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND FLORENCIO LIBREA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 7940 : April 24, 2012] RE: SC DECISION DATED MAY 20, 2008 IN G.R. NO. 161455 UNDER RULE 139-B OF THE RULES OF COURT, VS. ATTY. RODOLFO D. PACTOLIN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184528 : April 25, 2012] NILO OROPESA, PETITIONER, VS. CIRILO OROPESA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-11-1781 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-2161-MTJ) : April 25, 2012] DR. RAMIE G. HIPE, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ROLANDO T. LITERATO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, MAINIT, SURIGAO DEL NORTE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183706 : April 25, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SAMSON ESCLETO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 170865 : April 25, 2012] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES CHEAH CHEE CHONG AND OFELIA CAMACHO CHEAH, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 170892] SPOUSES CHEAH CHEE CHONG AND OFELIA CAMACHO CHEAH, PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183308 : April 25, 2012] INSULAR INVESTMENT AND TRUST CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. CAPITAL ONE EQUITIES CORP. (NOW KNOWN AS CAPITAL ONE HOLDINGS CORP.) AND PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189434 : April 25, 2012] FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 189505] IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, PETITIONER , VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190610 : April 25, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SATURNINO DE LA CRUZ AND JOSE BRILLANTES Y LOPEZ, ACCUSED. JOSE BRILLANTES Y LOPEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 192737 : April 25, 2012] NEMIA CASTRO, PETITIONER, VS. ROSALYN GUEVARRA AND JAMIR GUEVARRA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-12-3058 [Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3357-P] : April 25, 2012] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT OF ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. GEORGE E. GAREZA, SHERIFF III, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, VICTORIAS CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194813 : April 25, 2012] KAKAMPI AND ITS MEMBERS, VICTOR PANUELOS, ET AL., REPRESENTED BY DAVID DAYALO, KAKAMPI VICE PRESIDENT AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, PETITIONER, VS. KINGSPOINT EXPRESS AND LOGISTIC AND/OR MARY ANN CO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189127 : April 25, 2012] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES BERNARDO AND MINDALUZ SALUDARES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187919 : April 25, 2012] RAFAEL H. GALVEZ AND KATHERINE L. GUY, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND ASIA UNITED BANK, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 187979] ASIA UNITED BANK, PETITIONER, VS. GILBERT G. GUY, PHILIP LEUNG, KATHERINE L. GUY, RAFAEL H. GALVEZ AND EUGENIO H. GALVEZ, JR., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 188030] GILBERT G. GUY, PHILIP LEUNG AND EUGENIO H. GALVEZ, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. ASIA UNITED BANK, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188497 : April 25, 2012] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190321 : April 25, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SAMMY UMIPANG Y ABDUL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 190569 : April 25, 2012] P/INSP. ARIEL S. ARTILLERO, PETITIONER, VS. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN; BERNABE D. DUSABAN, PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF ILOILO; EDITO AGUILLON, BRGY. CAPT., BRGY. LANJAGAN, AJUY, ILOILO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 190749 : April 25, 2012] VALENTIN ZAFRA Y DECHOSA AND EROLL MARCELINO Y REYES, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194024 : April 25, 2012] PHILIP L. GO, PACIFICO Q. LIM AND ANDREW Q. LIM PETITIONERS, VS. DISTINCTION PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, INC. RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183916 : April 25, 2012] SPOUSES NICANOR MAGNO AND CARIDAD MAGNO, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF PABLO PARULAN, REPRESENTED BY EMILIANO PARULAN, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, BALIUAG, BULACAN, OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF GUIGUINTO, BULACAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172538 : April 25, 2012] ISABELO ESPERIDA, LORENZO HIPOLITO, AND ROMEO DE BELEN, PETITIONERS, VS. FRANCO K. JURADO, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 161909 : April 25, 2012] PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. FELIX PARAS AND INLAND TRAILWAYS, INC., AND HON. COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173870 : April 25, 2012] OSCAR DEL CARMEN, JR., PETITIONER, VS. GERONIMO BACOY, GUARDIAN AND REPRESENTING THE CHILDREN, NAMELY: MARY MARJORIE B. MONSALUD, ERIC B. MONSALUD, METZIE ANN B. MONSALUD, KAREEN B. MONSALUD, LEONARDO B. MONSALUD, JR., AND CRISTINA B. MONSALUD, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173840 : April 25, 2012] SAMAR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (SAMELCO II) AND ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, COMPOSED OF DEBORAH T. MARCO (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT), ATTY. MEDINO L. ACUBA, ENGR. MANUEL C. OREJOLA, ALFONSO F. QUILAPIO, RAUL DE GUZMAN AND PONCIANO R. ROSALES (GENERAL MANAGER AND EX OFFICIO DIRECTOR), PETITIONERS, VS. ANANIAS D. SELUDO, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M No. P-11-3003 (Formerly A.M. IPI No. 08-2970-P) : April 25, 2012] RE: COMPLAINT FILED BY PAZ DE VERA LAZARO AGAINST EDNA MAGALLANES, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28; AND BONIFACIO G. MAGALLANES, PROCESS SERVER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 30, BAYOMBONG, NUEVA VIZCAYA.

  • [G.R. No. 192190 : April 25, 2012] BILLY M. REALDA, PETITIONER, VS. NEW AGE GRAPHICS, INC. AND JULIAN I. MIRASOL, JR. RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 193250 : April 25, 2012] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. AMELIO TRIA AND JOHN DOE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185829 : April 25, 2012] ARMANDO ALILING, PETITIONER, VS. JOSE B. FELICIANO, MANUEL F. SAN MATEO III, JOSEPH R. LARIOSA, AND WIDE WIDE WORLD EXPRESS CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  •  





     
     

    chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS - ON-LINE

    [G.R. No. 163700 : April 18, 2012]   CHARLIE JAO, PETITIONER, VS. BCC PRODUCTS SALES INC., AND TERRANCE TY, RESPONDENTS.

     

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 163700 : April 18, 2012]

    CHARLIE JAO, PETITIONER, VS. BCC PRODUCTS SALES INC., AND TERRANCE TY, RESPONDENTS.

    D E C I S I O N


    BERSAMIN, J.:

    The issue is whether petitioner was respondents’ employee or not. Respondents denied an employer-employee relationship with petitioner, who insisted the contrary.cralaw

    Through his petition for review on certiorari, petitioner appeals the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) on February 27, 2004,[1] finding no employee-employer relationship between him and respondents, thereby reversing the ruling by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to the effect that he was the employee of respondents.

    Antecedents

    Petitioner maintained that respondent BCC Product Sales Inc. (BCC) and its President, respondent Terrance Ty (Ty), employed him as comptroller starting from September 1995 with a monthly salary of P20,000.00 to handle the financial aspect of BCC’s business;[2] that on October 19,1995, the security guards of BCC, acting upon the instruction of Ty, barred him from entering the premises of BCC where he then worked; that his attempts to report to work in November and December 12, 1995 were frustrated because he continued to be barred from entering the premises of BCC;[3] and that he filed a complaint dated December 28, 1995 for illegal dismissal, reinstatement with full backwages, non-payment of wages, damages and attorney’s fees.[4]

    Respondents countered that petitioner was not their employee but the employee of Sobien Food Corporation (SFC), the major creditor and supplier of BCC; and that SFC had posted him as its comptroller in BCC to oversee BCC’s finances and business operations and to look after SFC’s interests or investments in BCC.[5]

    Although Labor Arbiter Felipe Pati ruled in favor of petitioner on June 24, 1996,[6] the NLRC vacated the ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.[7] Thereafter, Labor Arbiter Jovencio Ll. Mayor rendered a new decision on September 20, 2001, dismissing petitioner’s complaint for want of an employer-employee relationship between the parties.[8] Petitioner appealed the September 20, 2001 decision of Labor Arbiter Mayor.

    On July 31, 2002, the NLRC rendered a decision reversing Labor Arbiter Mayor’s decision, and declaring that petitioner had been illegally dismissed. It ordered the payment of unpaid salaries, backwages and 13th month pay, separation pay and attorney’s fees.[9] Respondents moved for the reconsideration of the NLRC decision, but their motion for reconsideration was denied on September 30, 2002.[10] Thence, respondents assailed the NLRC decision on certiorari in the CA.

    Ruling of the CA

    On February 27, 2004, the CA promulgated its assailed decision,[11] holding:

    After a judicious review of the records vis-à-vis the respective posturing of the contending parties, we agree with the finding that no employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner BCC and the private respondent.  On this note, the conclusion of the public respondent must be reversed for being issued with grave abuse of discretion.

    “Etched in an unending stream of cases are the four (4) standards in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, namely, (a)  the manner of selection and engagement of the putative employee; (b)  the mode of payment of wages; (c)  the presence or absence of power of dismissal; and, (d)  the presence or absence of control of the putative employee’s conduct.” Of these powers the power of control over the employee’s conduct is generally regarded as determinative of the existence of the relationship.

    Apparently, in the case before us, all these four elements are absent.  First, there is no proof that the services of the private respondent were engaged to perform the duties of a comptroller in the petitioner company.  There is no proof that the private respondent has undergone a selection procedure as a standard requisite for employment, especially with such a delicate position in the company.  Neither is there any proof of his appointment nor is there any showing that the parties entered into an employment contract, stipulating thereof that he will receive P20,000.00/month salary as comptroller, before the private respondent commenced with his work as such.  Second, as clearly established on record, the private respondent was not included in the petitioner company’s payroll during the time of his alleged employment with the former.  True, the name of the private respondent Charlie Jao appears in the payroll however it does not prove that he has received his remuneration for his services.  Notably, his name was not among the employees who will receive their salaries as represented by the payrolls.  Instead, it appears therein as a comptroller who is authorized to approve the same.  Suffice it to state that it is rather obscure for a certified public accountant doing the functions of a comptroller from September 1995 up to December 1995 not to receive his salary during the said period.  Verily, such scenario does not conform with the usual and ordinary experience of man.  Coming now to the most controlling factor, the records indubitably reveal the undisputed fact that the petitioner company did not have nor did not exercise the power of control over the private respondent.  It did not prescribe the manner by which the work is to be carried out, or the time by which the private respondent has to report for and leave from work.  As already stated, the power of control is such an important factor that other requisites may even be disregarded.  In Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court emphatically held, thus:
    “The “control test,” under which the person for whom the services are rendered reserves the right to direct not only the end to be achieved but also the means for reaching such end, is generally relied on by the courts.”

    We have carefully examined the evidence submitted by the private respondent in the formal offer of evidence and unfortunately, other than the bare assertions of the private respondent which he miserably failed to substantiate, we find nothing therein that would decisively indicate that the petitioner BCC exercised the fundamental power of control over the private respondent in relation to his employment—not even the ID issued to the private respondent and the affidavits executed by Bertito Jemilla and Rogelio Santias.  At best, these pieces of documents merely suggest the existence of employer-employee relationship as intimated by the NLRC.  On the contrary, it would appear that the said sworn statement provided a substantial basis to support the contention that the private respondent worked at the petitioner BCC as SFC’s representative, being its major creditor and supplier of goods and merchandise.  Moreover, as clearly pointed out by the petitioner in his Reply to the private respondent’s Comment, it is unnatural for SFC to still employ the private respondent “to oversee and supervise collections of account receivables due SFC from its customers or clients” like the herein petitioner BCC on a date later than December, 1995 considering that a criminal complaint has already been instituted against him.

    Sadly, the private respondent failed to sufficiently discharge the burden of showing with legal certainty that employee-employer relationship existed between the parties.  On the other hand, it was clearly shown by the petitioner that it neither exercised control nor supervision over the conduct of the private respondent’s employment.  Hence, the allegation that there is employer-employee relationship must necessarily fail.

    Consequently, a discussion on the issue of illegal dismissal therefore becomes unnecessary.

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the public respondent NLRC dated July 31, 2002 and the Resolution dated September 30, 2002 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated September 20, 2001 is hereby REINSTATED.

    SO ORDERED.

    After the CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on May 14, 2004,[12] he filed a motion for extension to file petition for review, which the Court denied through the resolution dated July 7, 2004 for failure to render an explanation on why the service of copies of the motion for extension on respondents was not personally made.[13] The denial notwithstanding, he filed his petition for review on certiorari. The Court denied the petition on August 18, 2004 in view of the denial of the motion for extension of time and the continuing failure of petitioner to render the explanation as to the non-personal service of the petition on respondents.[14] However, upon a motion for reconsideration, the Court reinstated the petition for review on certiorari and required respondents to comment.[15]

    Issue

    The sole issue is whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and BCC. A finding on the existence of an employer-employee relationship will automatically warrant a finding of illegal dismissal, considering that respondents did not state any valid grounds to dismiss petitioner.

    Ruling

    The petition lacks merit.

    The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a question of fact. Generally, a re-examination of factual findings cannot be done by the Court acting on a petition for review on certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts but reviews only questions of law. Nor may the Court be bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence adduced and considered in the proceedings below.[16] This rule is not absolute, however, and admits of exceptions. For one, the Court may look into factual issues in labor cases when the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA are conflicting.[17]

    Here, the findings of the NLRC differed from those of the Labor Arbiter and the CA. This conflict among such adjudicating offices compels the Court’s exercise of its authority to review and pass upon the evidence presented and to draw its own conclusions therefrom.

    To prove his employment with BCC, petitioner offered the following: (a) BCC Identification Card (ID) issued to him stating his name and his position as “comptroller,” and bearing his picture, his signature, and the signature of Ty; (b) a payroll of BCC for the period of October 1-15, 1996 that petitioner approved as comptroller; (c) various bills and receipts related to expenditures of BCC bearing the signature of petitioner; (d) various checks carrying the signatures of petitioner and Ty, and, in some checks, the signature of petitioner alone; (e) a court order showing that the issuing court considered petitioner’s ID as proof of his employment with BCC; (f) a letter of petitioner dated March 1, 1997 to the Department of Justice on his filing of a criminal case for estafa against Ty for non-payment of wages; (g) affidavits of some employees of BCC attesting that petitioner was their co-employee in BCC; and (h) a notice of raffle dated December 5, 1995 showing that petitioner, being an employee of BCC, received the notice of raffle in behalf of BCC.[18]

    Respondents denied that petitioner was BCC’s employee. They affirmed that SFC had installed petitioner as its comptroller in BCC to oversee and supervise SFC’s collections and the account of BCC to protect SFC’s interest; that their issuance of the ID to petitioner was only for the purpose of facilitating his entry into the BCC premises in relation to his work of overseeing the financial operations of BCC for SFC; that the ID should not be considered as evidence of petitioner’s employment in  BCC;[19] that petitioner executed an affidavit in March 1996,[20] stating, among others, as follows:

    1. I am a CPA (Certified Public Accountant) by profession but presently associated with, or employed by, Sobien Food Corporation with the same business address as abovestated;

    2. In the course of my association with, or employment by, Sobien Food Corporation (SFC, for short), I have been entrusted by my employer to oversee and supervise collections on account of receivables due SFC from its customers or clients; for instance, certain checks due and turned over by one of SFC’s customers is BCC Product Sales, Inc., operated or run by one Terrance L. Ty,  (President and General manager), pursuant to, or in accordance with, arrangements or agreement thereon; such arrangement or agreement is duly confirmed by said Terrance Ty, as shown or admitted by him in a public instrument executed therefor, particularly par. 2 of that certain Counter-Affidavit executed and subscribed on December 11, 1995, xerox copy of which is hereto attached, duly marked as Annex “A” and made integral part hereof.

    3. Despite such admission of an arrangement, or agreement insofar as BCC-checks were delivered to, or turned over in favor of SFC, Mr. Terrance Ty, in a desire to blemish my reputation or to cause me dishonor as well as to impute unto myself the commission of a crime, state in another public instrument executed therefor in that:
      “3. That all the said 158 checks were unlawfully appropriated by a certain Charlie Jao absolutely without any authority from BCC and the same were reportedly turned over by said Mr. Jao to a person who is not an agent or is not authorized representative of BCC.”

      xerox copy of which document (Affidavit) is hereto attached, duly marked as Annex “B” and made integral part hereof. (emphasis supplied)

    and that the affidavit constituted petitioner’s admission of the arrangement or agreement between BCC and SFC for the latter to appoint a comptroller to oversee the former’s operations.

    Petitioner counters, however, that the affidavit did not establish the absence of an employer-employee relationship between him and respondents because it had been executed in March 1996, or after his employment with respondents had been terminated on December 12, 1995; and that the affidavit referred to his subsequent employment by SFC following the termination of his employment by BCC.[21]
    br>We cannot side with petitioner.

    Our perusal of the affidavit of petitioner compels a conclusion similar to that reached by the CA and the Labor Arbiter to the effect that the affidavit actually supported the contention that petitioner had really worked in BCC as SFC’s representative. It does seem more natural and more believable that petitioner’s affidavit was referring to his employment by SFC even while he was reporting to BCC as a comptroller in behalf of SFC. As respondents pointed out, it was implausible for SFC to still post him to oversee and supervise the collections of accounts receivables due from BCC beyond December 1995 if, as he insisted, BCC had already illegally dismissed him and had even prevented him from entering the premises of BCC. Given the patent animosity and strained relations between him and respondents in such circumstances, indeed, how could he still efficiently perform in behalf of SFC the essential responsibility to “oversee and supervise collections” at BCC? Surely, respondents would have vigorously objected to any arrangement with SFC involving him.

    We note that petitioner executed the affidavit in March 1996 to refute a statement Ty himself made in his own affidavit dated December 11, 1995 to the effect that petitioner had illegally appropriated some checks without authority from BCC.[22] Petitioner thereby sought to show that he had the authority to receive the checks pursuant to the arrangements between SFC and BCC. This showing would aid in fending off the criminal charge respondents filed against him arising from his mishandling of the checks. Naturally, the circumstances petitioner adverted to in his March 1996 affidavit concerned those occurring before December 11, 1995, the same period when he actually worked as comptroller in BCC.

    Further, an affidavit dated September 5, 2000 by Alfredo So, the President of SFC, whom petitioner offered as a rebuttal witness, lent credence to respondents’ denial of petitioner’s employment. So declared in that affidavit, among others, that he had known petitioner for being “earlier his retained accountant having his own office but did not hold office” in SFC’s premises; that Ty had approached him (So) “looking for an accountant or comptroller to be employed by him (Ty) in [BCC’s] distribution business” of SFC’s general merchandise, and had later asked him on his opinion about petitioner; and that he (So) had subsequently learned  that “Ty had already employed [petitioner] as his comptroller as of September 1995.”[23]

    The statements of So really supported respondents’ position in that petitioner’s association with SFC prior to his supposed employment by BCC went beyond mere acquaintance with So. That So, who had earlier merely “retained” petitioner as his accountant, thereafter employed petitioner as a “retained” accountant after his supposed illegal dismissal by BCC raised a doubt as to his employment by BCC, and rather confirmed respondents’ assertion of petitioner being an employee of SFC while he worked at BCC.

    Moreover, in determining the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship, the Court has consistently looked for the following incidents, to wit:  (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished. The last element, the so-called control test, is the most important element.[24]

    Hereunder are some of the circumstances and incidents occurring while petitioner was supposedly employed by BCC that debunked his claim against respondents.

    It can be deduced from the March 1996 affidavit of petitioner that respondents challenged his authority to deliver some 158 checks to SFC. Considering that he contested respondents’ challenge by pointing to the existing arrangements between BCC and SFC, it should be clear that respondents did not exercise the power of control over him, because he thereby acted for the benefit and in the interest of SFC more than of BCC.

    In addition, petitioner presented no document setting forth the terms of his employment by BCC. The failure to present such agreement on terms of employment may be understandable and expected if he was a common or ordinary laborer who would not jeopardize his employment by demanding such document from the employer, but may not square well with his actual status as a highly educated professional.

    Petitioner’s admission that he did not receive his salary for the three months of his employment by BCC, as his complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages[25] and the criminal case for estafa he later filed against the respondents for non-payment of wages[26] indicated, further raised grave doubts about his assertion of employment by BCC. If the assertion was true, we are puzzled how he could have remained in BCC’s employ in  that period of time despite not being paid the first salary of P20,000.00/month. Moreover, his name did not appear in the payroll of BCC despite him having approved the payroll as comptroller.

    Lastly, the confusion about the date of his alleged illegal dismissal provides another indicium of the insincerity of petitioner’s assertion of employment by BCC. In the petition for review on certiorari, he averred that he had been barred from entering the premises of BCC on October 19, 1995,[27] and thus was illegally dismissed. Yet, his complaint for illegal dismissal stated that he had been illegally dismissed on December 12, 1995 when respondents’ security guards barred him from entering the premises of BCC,[28] causing him to bring his complaint only on December 29, 1995, and after BCC had already filed the criminal complaint against him. The wide gap between October 19, 1995 and December 12, 1995 cannot be dismissed as a trivial inconsistency considering that the several incidents affecting the veracity of his assertion of employment by BCC earlier noted herein transpired in that interval.

    With all the grave doubts thus raised against petitioner’s claim, we need not dwell at length on the other proofs he presented, like the affidavits of some of the employees of BCC, the ID, and the signed checks, bills and receipts. Suffice it to be stated that such other proofs were easily explainable by respondents and by the aforestated circumstances showing him to be the employee of SFC, not of BCC.cralaw

    WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals; and ORDERS petitioner to pay the costs of suit.

    SO  ORDERED.

    Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:


    [1] Rollo, pp. 38-46; penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in by Associate Justice Eloy R. Bello, Jr. (retired) and Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon.

    [2] Id., p. 12.

    [3] Id., p. 13.

    [4] Id., pp. 236-238.

    [5] Id., p. 179.

    [6] Id., p. 178.

    [7] Id., p. 39.

    [8] Id., pp. 105-119.

    [9]  Id., p. 40.

    [10] Id., p. 38.

    [11] Id., pp. 38-46.

    [12] Id., pp. 49-50.

    [13] Id., p. 8.

    [14] Id., p. 148.

    [15] Id., p. 176.

    [16] Diokno v. Cacdac, G.R. No. 168475, July 4, 2007, 526 SCRA 440, 460-461.

    [17] Pagsibigan v. People, G.R. No. 163868, June 4, 2009, 588 SCRA 249, 257.

    [18] Rollo pp. 120-147.

    [19] Id., pp. 179-180.

    [20] Id., p. 146.

    [21] Id., p. 32.

    [22] Id., p. 146.

    [23] Id., p. 25.

    [24] Abante, Jr. v. Lamadrid Bearing & Parts Corp., G.R. No. 159890, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 368, 379.

    [25] Id., pp. 236-238.

    [26] Id., p. 325.

    [27] Id., p. 13.

    [28] Id., p. 236.

    [G.R. No. 163700 : April 18, 2012]   CHARLIE JAO, PETITIONER, VS. BCC PRODUCTS SALES INC., AND TERRANCE TY, RESPONDENTS.




    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