ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 142061. June 14, 2000]

NANCY CASIA vs. NLRC, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 14 2000.

G.R. No. 142061 (Nancy Casia vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Nelia Dellova.)

Petitioner assails the resolution of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission which in turn affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision finding petitioner guilty of illegally ordering private respondent's dismissal consequently declaring, thusly:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision appealed from us hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the respondent is ordered to reinstate complainant to her former position with full backwages from the time she was dismissed until the finality of this decision and if reinstatement is not feasible to give complainant separation pay equivalent to one (1) month per year of service, in lieu of reinstatement, in addition to full backwages.

Petitioner is the owner of the pub house where private respondent had been employed for thirteen years, initially as a waitress and later on as floor manager working from 6:30 in the evening until 6:00 in the morning.

The present controversy stemmed form an action for illegal dismissal filed by private respondent after she was told by petitioner to take a vacation and subsequently barred from entering the premises of the subject pub house.

In defense, petitioner averred that private respondent was merely a free-lance entertainer, a hospitality girl, allowed by petitioner to exercise her "profession" in the premises of the pub in exchange for bringing in customers.

The labor arbiter decided in favor of private respondent.

Upon appeal, the NLRC affirmed.

Subsequent recourse to the Court of Appeals likewise proved unavailing.

Undaunted, petitioner filed the instant petition which we find to be unavailing.

Petitioner's main argument rests on her insistence that Article 138 of the Labor Code is not a self-executory provision thereby necessitating the promulgation of implementing rules by the labor secretary.

Perhaps petitioner needs to be reminded of the existence of Section 4, Rule XII of the Implementing Rules of Book III, Employment of Women and Minors which provides:

SEC. 4. Status of woman workers in certain workplaces.-Any woman who is permitted or suffered to work with or without compensation, in any night club, cocktail lounge, beer house, massage clinic, bar or similar establishments, under the effective control or supervision of the employer for a substantial period of time as determined by the Secretary of Labor, shall be considered as an employee of such establishments for purposes of labor and social legislation. No employer shall discriminate against such employees or in any manner reduce whatever benefits they are not enjoying by reason of the provisions of this Section.

Pursuant to said rules, private respondent is indeed an employee of petitioner for it is undisputed that private respondent was permitted or suffered to work in petitioner's pub and was under petitioner's effective control.

Verily, Article 138 of the Labor Code and its implementing rules contain the phrase "for a substantial period of time as determined by the Secretary of labor". This requirement of "substantial period of time" is plainly satisfied in the case at bar, for private respondent worked for more than 13 years for petitioner.

Anent the other issues, it has been ruled that it is not for the Court to re-examine conflicting evidence, to re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses nor to substitute its findings of fact for those of an administrative tribunal which has gained expertise in the special field (National Federation of Labor vs. NLRC, 283 SCRA 280 [1997]).

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE