ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 165595.� December 15, 2004]
BELLESTAR vs. GANACIAS
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 15 2004.
G.R. No. 165595 (BELLESTAR PROMOTIONS, INC. vs. LEONIDA R. GANACIAS, et al.)
In this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner Bellestar Promotions, Inc., seeks the setting aside of the Decision dated June 18, 2004 [1] cralaw and Resolution dated October 5, 2004, of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 75087, respectively affirming an earlier decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), finding petitioner liable for the illegal dismissal of herein private respondent, Leonida R. Ganacias, and denying its motion for reconsideration.
Private respondent started working for petitioner in September 1985 when she was tasked to follow-up the Japan visa application of Bella Dimayuga, president of petitioner corporation. Thereafter, she represented petitioner before the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency in securing petitioner's POEA license and renewed Artist's Accreditation Certificate cards of petitioner's employees.
On January 24, 1991, private respondent signed an employment contract with petitioner appointing her as its liaison officer.
Sometime in 1994, she was assigned to guard the residence of Bella Dimayuga in San Lorenzo Village, Makati City from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. For such assignment, she was given the following benefits: (1) free board and lodging with 3 meals a day; (2) no work assignment during daytime; (3) free water and electricity; and (4) SSS contributions remitted through the remittance system of petitioner Bellestar Promotions, Inc.
On December 27, 1997, private respondent went on leave to celebrate her birthday. The following day, she was no longer allowed to report back to work nor was she informed of the cause of her termination. Consequently, she filed with the NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for separation pay and night differential pay against petitioner.
In his August 22, 2000 decision, [2] cralaw the labor arbiter dismissed private respondent's complaint, but on appeal, the same was reversed and set aside by the NLRC in its decision of April 30, 2002, [3] cralaw thus:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 22 August 2000 is hereby REVERSED and set aside and a NEW ONE ENTERED.
Accordingly, respondent BELLESTAR PROMOTION is hereby ordered to reinstate complainant to her former position as 'Liaison Officer' without loss of seniority rights and other benefits, plus payment of backwages from the time of her termination up to the time of her actual reinstatement. However, if reinstatement is not possible due to strained relations, respondent is ordered to pay complainant her separation pay, in addition to her backwages, for services rendered for eleven (11) years at a rate equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service.
All other claims and counterclaims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Partly says, the NLRC in the same decision:
Be that as it may have been, the fact remains that she was employed with respondent company as 'Liaison Officer.' Her relegation to a mere nocturnal 'guard' at Bella E. Dimayuga's residence does not at all prove that she was not an employee of respondent company. Neither does it strip her of her status as the respondent company's 'Liaison Officer.' It however, indicates an act of constructive illegal dismissal, since complainant [now private respondent] was subjected to the humiliation of having been made to work as nocturnal 'guard' rather than the job of a 'Liaison Officer' for which she was hired as preponderantly shown by evidence on record.
Taking all these undeniable facts into considerations, complainant deserves a reinstatement to her former position as 'Liaison Officer' and payment of backwages.
With its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the NLRC in its resolution of October 29, 2002, [4] cralaw petitioner went to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, thereat docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 75087.
In the herein assailed decision dated June 18, 2004, [5] cralaw the Court of Appeals affirmed that of the NLRC, to wit:
"xxx�� xxx������ xxx
"From the evidence presented by Leonida Ganacias, there is no iota of doubt that she was an employee of Bellestar Promotions, Inc. and not in the personal employ of Bella Dimayuga.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the consolidated petitions are denied due course for lack of merit and ordered dismissed. No costs.
Petitioner is now before this Court insisting that private respondent was a personal employee of its president, Bella Dimayuga, and not of petitioner. Ergo, so petitioner argues, it could not be made liable for private respondent's dismissal from employment.
This Court is not convinced.
Record reveals the presence of overwhelming evidence that private respondent had been continuously employed by petitioner. Substantially strong and credible are the following documents submitted by her before the labor arbiter as integral parts of her position paper, all of which belie petitioner's assertion to the contrary:
1) ID # 036, issued to her and clearly showing that she is an employee of petitioner;
2) Certification issued by the POEA expressly identifying her as Liaison Officer (L.O.) of petitioner;
3) Letter dated July 4, 1991, addressed to S.M. LAZO, by petitioner's legal counsel, expressly identifying private respondent as "Liaison Officer" of petitioner Bellestar Promotions Inc.;
4) Letter dated 11 January 1991, addressed to the Consul, Embassy of Japan, by Bella E. Dimayuga, expressly identifying private respondent as Liaison Officer of petitioner;
5) Certification dated August 5, 1998, issued by Bernadine Marie Dimayuga, Executive Vice President of petitioner, expressly acknowledging private respondent with SSS No. 33-0666453-2, as an employee of petitioner Bellestar Promotions, Inc.;
6) Authorization letter dated 28 November 1989 addressed to the POEA QIC Francisca de Castro by petitioner's Manager Lucina R. Estrella, expressly identifying private respondent as Liaison Officer of Bellestar Promotions, Inc.;
7) Pay envelope and advice slip and payroll slips of private respondent showing payment of her salaries by petitioner Bellestar Promotions, Inc.; and
8) Remittances of her SSS contributions through petitioner's remittance system.
This Court has repeatedly ruled that factual questions are for labor tribunals to resolve. The findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies, like the NLRC, are accorded with respect, even finality, when supported, as here, by substantial evidence. [6] cralaw
Much is placed by petitioner on the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter. We note, however, that those findings are basically anchored on petitioner's self-serving evidence. At any rate, with the NLRC's reversal of the labor arbiter's decision, the same stands vacated.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Asst. Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Noel G. Tijam of the Fourth Division.
[2] cralaw Rollo, pp. 91-101.
[3] cralaw Rollo, pp. 110-123.
[4] cralaw Rollo, pp. 134-138.
[5] cralaw Rollo, pp. 23-30.
[6] cralaw Shoppes Manila vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 147125, January 14, 2004.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
