REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION, vs.

ERLINDA CASTANEDA
G.R. Nos. 169295-96 November 2, 26
Po!e!"e# J. PUNO
N$"%re# Petition for Review on Certiorari fled by Remington Industrial Sales Corporation
to reverse and set aside te !e"ision of te Court of #ppeals wi" dismissed petitioner$s
"onsolidated petitions for "ertiorari% and its subse&uent Resolution wi" denied
petitioner$s motion for re"onsideration.
Do&"r'!e# 'e determination of te e(isten"e of an employer)employee relationsip is
defned by law a""ording to te fa"ts of ea" "ase% regardless of te nature of te a"tivities
involved.
($&"s#
*rlinda Castaneda fled on +ar" ,% -../% a "omplaint for illegal dismissal% underpayment
of wages% non)payment of overtime servi"es% non)payment of servi"e in"entive leave pay
and non)payment of -0
t
mont pay against Remington before te N1RC 2also a "omplaint
for reinstatement witout loss of seniority rigts% salary di3erentials% servi"e in"entive
leave pay% -0
t
mont pay and -45 attorney$s fees6. 'e "omplaint impleaded +r. #ntonio
'an in is "apa"ity as te +anaging !ire"tor of Remington.
Se started wor7ing in #ugust -./0 as "ompany "oo7 wit a salary of Pp 8%444.44 for
Remington% si( 296 days a wee7% starting as early as 9:44 a.m. and ending at around ;:04
p.m. Se "ontinuously wor7ed wit Remington until se was un"eremoniously prevented
from reporting for wor7 wen Remington transferred to a new site in *dsa% Caloo"an City.
Se reported for wor7 at te new site in Caloo"an City on January -;% -../% only to be
informed tat Remington no longer needed er servi"es. *rlinda believed tat er
dismissal was illegal be"ause se was not given te noti"es re&uired by law.
Remington said tat *rlinda was a domesti" elper 2"oo76 and tis <ob ad noting to do
wit Remington$s business of trading in "onstru"tion or ardware materials% steel plates
and wire rope produ"ts. *rlinda$s duty was merely to "oo7 lun" and =merienda.= It did not
e(er"ise any degree of "ontrol and>or supervision over *rlinda$s wor7. Se was free to do
watever wen not doing er assigned "ores. It was *rlinda wo refused to report for
wor7 wen Remington moved to a new lo"ation in Caloo"an City.
In January -.% -...% te labor arbiter dismissed te "omplaint and ruled tat te
respondent was a domesti" elper under te personal servi"e of #ntonio 'an% fnding tat
er wor7 as a "oo7 was not usually ne"essary and desirable in te ordinary "ourse of trade
and business of te petitioner "orporation% wi" operated as a trading "ompany% and tat
te latter did not e(er"ise "ontrol over er fun"tions. 'e respondent refused to go wit
te family of #ntonio 'an wen te "orporation transferred o3i"e and tat% terefore%
respondent "ould not ave been illegally dismissed.
Upon appeal% te National 1abor Relations Commission 2N1RC6 reversed te labor arbiter$s
ruling% saying tat tere was no allegation by Remington tat *rlinda ad ever wor7ed in
te residen"e of +r. 'an. Se "ontinuously did er <ob as a "oo7 in te o3i"e of respondent
serving te needed food for lun" and merienda of te employees. ?er wor7 as "oo7 was
for te beneft of te individual employees of Remington. 'ere was a "ertif"ation dated
+ay ,0% -..@ issued by te "orporate se"retary of te "ompany "ertifying tat "omplainant
is teir bonafde employee. Complainant$s wor7 s"edule and being paid a montly salary
are "lear indi"ation tat se is a "ompany employee. 'ere is more reason to believe tat
"omplainant$s refusal to <oin te wor7for"e due to poor eyesigt "ould not be "onsidered
abandonment of wor7 or voluntary resignation from employment.
While the petition was pending with the Court of Appeals, the NLRC rendered another
Decision in the same case on August 29, 2001 !n the merits, the NLRC found
respondent"s motion for reconsideration meritorious leading to the increase of the award of
retirement pa# due
Petitioner "allenged te se"ond de"ision of te N1RC% in"luding te resolution denying its
motion for re"onsideration% troug a se"ond Petition for Certiorari fled wit te Court of
#ppeals. On January 0-% ,44;% te Court of #ppeals dismissed te "onsolidated petitions
for la"7 of merit% fnding no grave abuse of dis"retion on te part of te N1RC in issuing
te assailed de"isions. It upeld te ruling of te N1RC tat respondent was a regular
employee of te petitioner. On te issue of illegal dismissal% it ruled tat as a regular
employee% se en<oys te "onstitutionally guaranteed rigt to se"urity of tenure and tat
petitioner failed to dis"arge te burden of proving tat er dismissal on January -;% -../
was for a <ust or autoriAed "ause and tat te manner of dismissal "omplied wit te
re&uirements under te law.
Iss%e# BON respondent is a domesti" elper or a regular employee of te petitionerC BON
te latter is guilty of illegal dismissal. 2Regarding% pro"edural issue% it sould not be a bar
to te earing of te "ase be"ause of so"ial <usti"e.6
)e*+# 'e Court of #ppeals% as well as te N1RC% "orre"tly eld tat based on te given
"ir"umstan"es% te respondent is a regular employee of te petitioner. Des% Remington
illegally dismissed Castaneda.
R$"'o!$*e#
'is Court as eld tat a ouseelper in te sta3 ouses of an industrial "ompany was a
regular employee of te said frm. Under Rule EIII% Se"tion -2b6% Foo7 0 of te 1abor Code%
as amended% te terms =ouseelper= or =domesti" servant= are defned as = synonymous to
te term Gdomesti" servant$ and sall refer to any person% weter male or female% wo
renders servi"es in and about te employer$s ome and wi" servi"es are usually
ne"essary or desirable for te maintenan"e and en<oyment tereof% and ministers
e("lusively to te personal "omfort and en<oyment of te employer$s family.=
'e "riteria is te personal "omfort and en<oyment of te family of te employer in te
ome of said employer. Bile it may be true tat te nature of te wor7 of a ouseelper%
domesti" servant or laundrywoman in a ome or in a "ompany sta3ouse may be similar in
nature% te di3eren"e in teir "ir"umstan"es is tat in te former instan"e tey are a"tually
serving te family wile in te latter "ase% weter it is a "orporation or a single
proprietorsip engaged in business or industry or any oter agri"ultural or similar pursuit%
servi"e is being rendered in te sta3ouses or witin te premises of te business of te
employer. In su" instan"e% tey are employees of te "ompany or employer in te business
"on"erned entitled to te privileges of a regular employee.
Sin"e respondent is wor7ing witin te premises of te business of te employer and in
relation to or in "onne"tion wit its business% se sould be "onsidered as a regular
employee of te employer and not as a mere family ouseelper or domesti" servant as
"ontemplated in Rule EIII% Se"tion -2b6% Foo7 0 of te 1abor Code% as amended. 'at se
wor7s witin "ompany premises% and tat se does not "ater e("lusively to te personal
"omfort of +r. 'an and is family% is reHe"tive of te e(isten"e of te petitioner$s rigt of
"ontrol over er fun"tions% wi" is te primary indi"ator of te e(isten"e of an employer)
employee relationsip. 'e "ompany$s "orporate se"retary as "ertifed tat respondent is
a $ona%de "ompany employeeC se ad a f(ed s"edule and routine of wor7 and was paid a
montly salaryC se served wit te "ompany for -; years starting in -./0. ?aving
determined tat te respondent is petitioner$s regular employee% we now pro"eed to
as"ertain te legality of er dismissal from employment.
#s a regular employee% respondent en<oys te rigt to se"urity of tenure under #rti"le
,@. of te 1abor Code and may only be dismissed for a <ust or autoriAed "ause% oterwise
te dismissal be"omes illegal and te employee be"omes entitled to reinstatement and full
ba"7wages "omputed from te time "ompensation was witeld up to te time of a"tual
reinstatement.
Ior a valid fnding of abandonment% tese two fa"tors sould be present: 2-6 te failure to
report for wor7 or absen"e witout valid or <ustifable reasonC and 2,6 a "lear intention to
sever employer)employee relationsip% wit te se"ond as te more determinative fa"tor
wi" is manifested by overt a"ts from wi" it may be dedu"ed tat te employee as no
more intention to wor7. 'e intent to dis"ontinue te employment must be sown by "lear
proof tat it was deliberate and un<ustifed. 'is% te petitioner failed to do in te "ase at
bar.
Respondent$s immediate fling of er "omplaint wit te N1RC is proof enoug of er
desire to return to wor7% tus% negating te employer$s "arge of abandonment. In
termination "ases% te burden of proof rests upon te employer to sow tat te dismissal
is for a <ust and valid "auseC failure to do so would ne"essarily mean tat te dismissal was
illegal.
,%+-eme!"# Petition is denied for la"7 of merit. 'e assailed !e"ision dated January 0-%
,44;% and te Resolution dated #ugust --% ,44;% of te Court of #ppeals in C#)J.R. SP
Nos. 98;@@ and 9/8@@ are #IIIR+*!.
PAL vs L'-$! e". $*.
Iebruary ,.% ,44/
Carpio)+orales
(ACTS#
Petitioner PAL .owner/ and S0!er-0 Servi"es Corporation 2"ontra"tor6 entered into an
#greement in July -;% -..-. Synergy is to Kprovide loading% unloading% delivery of baggage
and "argo and oter related servi"esL to P#1$s air"raft at te +a"tan Station. In te
agreement% tere was a spe"ifed KS"ope of Servi"esL of Synergy% and providing tat
Synergy sall furnis te "apital% te wor7ers% tools and e&uipment for te <ob. It was $*so
e12ress*0 s"$"e+ Ktat Synergy was =an independent "ontra"tor and . . . tat tere wMouldN
be no employer)employee relationsip between CON'R#C'OR and>or its employees on te
one and% and OBN*R% on te oter.= Regarding te duration of te wor7% Se". -4 of te
#greement provides tat wen P#1 fnds Synergy$s servi"es to be Kunsatisfa"tory%L it sall
tell Synergy so% and Synergy would ave to improve its servi"es witin -; days. If P#1 is
still not satisfed after -; days% ten it Ksall ave te rigt to terminate tis #greement.L
'e ,8 respondents% employees of Synergy% e("luding 3e!e+'&"o #u(tero% were assigned
by Synergy to P#1 after tat #greement. 'ese ,8 fled against Synergy% P#1% and teir
respe"tive o3i"ials "omplaints before te N1RC for Kunderpayment% non)payment of
premium pay for olidays% premium pay for rest days% servi"e in"entive leave pay% -0t
mont pay and allowan"es% and for regulariAation of employment statusL wit P#1% saying
tat tey were doing <obs for P#1$s beneft anyway. Fenedi"to ad earlier fled a "omplaint
for regulariAation% ten e alleged tat e was verbally dismissed witout legal ground.
Now e$s suing against P#1 and Synergy for illegal dismissal and reinstatement wit full
ba"7 wages. 'e "omplaints were "onsolidated.
1# said Synergy is an independent "ontra"tor. 1# dismissed te regulariAation plea but
awarded te money "laims.
N1RC set aside 1#$s de"ision. Said tat Synergy is a labor)only "ontra"tor% and P#1 to
a""ept te ,; as regular employees and give tem all te benefts of a regular employee%
and Fenedi"to to be reinstated 2be"ause e was illegally dismissed6 wit ba"7wages and
full benefts. C# a3irmed N1RC.
ISSUE $!+ )ELD
Is Synergy a labor)only "ontra"tor or a legitimate sub>"ontra"torO 21#FOR)ON1D
"ontra"tor. 'is is illegal.6
RATIO
1C -49 provides: K'ere is =*$bor-o!*04 &o!"r$&"'!- were te person supplying wor7ers
to an employer does not ave substantial "apital or investment in te form of tools%
e&uipment% ma"ineries% wor7 premises% among oters% #N! te wor7ers re"ruited and
pla"ed by su" person are performing a"tivities wi" are dire"tly related to te prin"ipal
business of su" employer.L
!ept Order No. -/)4, 2Rules Implementing #rti"les -49)-4. of te 1C6:
Se".0. Le-'"'m$"e &o!"r$&"'!-# e(ists a trilateral relationsip under wi" tere is a
"ontra"t for a spe"if" <ob% wor7 or servi"e between te 2r'!&'2$* and te &o!"r$&"or or
s%b&o!"r$&"or% and a "ontra"t of employment between te "ontra"tor or sub"ontra"tor
and '"s 5or6ers.
Se". ;. L$bor-o!*0 &o!"r$&"'!- is 2ro7'b'"e+. 1abor)only "ontra"ting is Kwere te
"ontra"tor or sub"ontra"tor merely re"ruits% supplies or pla"es wor7ers to perform a <ob%
wor7 or servi"e for a prin"ipal.L #ny of tese elements must be present:
a. Sub>"ontra"tor as NO substantial "apital or investment 2tools% ma"ines%
e&uipment a"tually used during wor76 related to te <ob>wor7>servi"e to be
performed #N! te employees of te sub>"ontra"tor are performing a"tivities wi"
are dire"tly related to te main business of te prin"ipal
b. Sub>"ontra"tor as NO rigt to "ontrol 2determining te end to be a"ieved% and
also te manner and te means to a"ieve tat6 over te performan"e of te wor7 of
te "ontra"tual employee.
?ere% P#1 sowed no eviden"e at frst tat Synergy as substantial "apital or investment in
its wor7. It did try to present tat only after its +R to te C# was denied. +oreover% it was
sown tat te ,8 were doing <obs similar to wat P#1$s regular employees were doing.
'at is an indi"ation of labor)only "ontra"ting 2&iguel Corporation ' A$alla
,8
and Dole
(hilippines, )nc ' *ste'a, et al Bat respondents were doing are also ne"essary and
desirable for P#1$s business.
P#1 was also te one wo a"tually supervised% wo determined teir wor7 s"edules. *ven
te #greement states tat P#1$s rules and regulations sould be followed by te ,8% and
tat teir uniforms and I!s are to be provided by P#1. 'ey were even "alled P#1$s Kstation
attendantsL% li7e te oter P#1 regular employees.
So even toug tere is an e(pli"it provision in teir #greement tat Synergy is only an
independent "ontra"tor% tis is NO' legally binding. It is te Ktotality of te fa"ts and
surrounding "ir"umstan"es of te "ase wi" is determinative of te partiesP relationsip%L
not te provisions of te "ontra"t.
Re: Fenedi"to% it seems tat e was P#1$s regular employee sin"e Nov-.//% and e was
really dismissed witout <ust "ause and witout pro"edural !P. P#1$s "laim of abandonment
was not proven.
P#1$s "laim before te N1RC and C# tat tey "ould not anymore a""ept regular employees
be"ause of e"onomi" "risis is not substantiated by eviden"e.
RU1INJ: te ,8 are to be"ome regular employees of P#1 for te same or e&uivalent
positions% and entitled to a regular employee$s wages and benefts P1US salary di3erential.
Fenedi"to is to be paid is salary di3erential% ba"7wages from te time e was dismissed%
and is separation pay 2-mo>yr of servi"e6 in lieu of reinstatement 2e was dismissed so
long ago6. Remand to 1# ON1D for determination of monetary liabilities
T$b$s e". A*. vs. C$*'8or!'$ M8-. Co, I!&. e".$*.
January ,9% -./. Sarmiento
Doctrine+ it is the law which determines whether there is an emplo#er,emplo#ee
relationship, and who is the emplo#er in that case *mplo#er and its agent -e. La$or,
onl#/independent contractor0 are lia$le for 'alid la$or claims of the emplo#ees
(ACTS#
- 'e -/ petitioners were employees of L'v' +anpower Servi"es% In". 'ey were
assigned as Kpromotional mer"andisersL for C$*'8or!'$ +fg. Co. In". under a
manpower supply agreement. It stated tat California as no "ontrol and supervision
over 1ivi$s wor7ers% tat 1ivi is an independent "ontra"tor and not an agent of
California% tat 1ivi is te one wo sould "omply wit labor laws and California is free
from liability in "ase any a""ident appens on any 1ivi employee wile wor7ing for
California% tat tis assignment is on a seasonal and "ontra"tual basis% tat oliday pay
is to be "arged to California.
- Petitioners were made to sign 9)mont "ontra"ts% renewed upon e(piration. 'ey were
only paid P0/.;9 plus P-; allowan"e per day "ompared to P,/,0>mont tat regular
California employees re"eived.
- Petitioners say tat tey ave be"ome California$s regular employees and tey must be
paid te same. Fut California de"ided to stop reiring tem. 'us% tey sued for illegal
dismissal.
- 1# said tere was no employer)employee relationsip between petitioners and
California be"ause tere is te agreement% and it$s not liable for any money "laims. 1ivi
must pay separation pay.
ISSUES and )ELDS:
a. Bo is te real employer of te petitionersO 2C$*'8or!'$6
b. Bat are te e3e"ts of te employer designationO 2see below6
RATIO
$. C$*'8or!'$ 's "7e re$* em2*o0er.
- 1#B determines weter tere$s an employer)employee relationsip% and it "an$t be
agreed upon. !espite te agreement% law still determines wo is te employer. Plus%
sin"e only 1ivi and California are te "ontra"ting parties% tey alone are bound by it.
- Kdetermination of weter or not tere is an employer)employee relation depends upon
four standards: 2-6 te manner of sele"tion and engagement of te putative employeeC
2,6 te mode of payment of wagesC 206 te presen"e or absen"e of a power of dismissalC
and 286 te presen"e or absen"e of a power to "ontrol te putative employee$s "ondu"tL
2te most de"isive fa"tor is Q86
- See 1C -49 last paragrap. 1ivi is a labor)only 2or independent6 "ontra"tor% tus only
an agent of California. 'e wor7ers were performing a"ts ne"essary to te business
2promoting and pri"ing te produ"ts of California$s mer"andising business6.
California$s assets and e&uipment were used% 1ivi provided te wor7ers. 'e wor7 was
ne"essary to te business not only for a "ertain time% tus tey are not seasonal
wor7ers and tey ave already e("eeded te -)yr limit for regulariAation. See 1C 291
-related case+ (hilippine 1an2 of Communications 's NLRC0
- *ven toug California refuses to reinstate petitioners by saying tat it is not teir
employer and tey are already su3ering from e"onomi" problems% tey "an$t es"ape
liability. #s eld% petitioners are already regular employees wo "an$t be dismissed
witout due pro"ess of law. 'ere is no eviden"e re: fnan"ial problems.
b. em2*o0er +e"erm'!$"'o! $!+ e:e&"s#
even toug tere is an agreement saying tat tis party is te employer% it is still te
law wi" determines wo is te real employer in te employer)employee relationsip%
if any.
liability for valid labor "laims must be souldered by eiter one or sared by bot te
real employer and te agent of te employer 2i.e. te labor)only "ontra"tor6
if te employees are deemed regular employees of te employer% tey must be dealt
wit due pro"ess of law.
Imb%'+o vs N$"'o!$* L$bor Re*$"'o!s Comm'ss'o! .M$r&7 ;1, 2/
Po!e!"e# Fuena
($&"s# Imbuido was employed as a data en"oder by International Information Servi"es% In".
from #ugust -.// until O"tober -..- wen er servi"es were terminated. !uring tat
period% se entered into -0 separate employment "ontra"ts wit IIS% ea" "ontra"t lasting
only for a period of 0 monts. In September -..-% Imbuido and -, oter employees of IIS
allegedly agreed to te fling of a petition for "ertif"ation le"tion involving te ran7)and)fle
employees of private respondent. O"tober of tat year% Imbuido re"eived a termination
letter from te "ompany$s administrative o3i"er% allegedly due to low volume of wor7.
Imbuido fled a "omplaint for illegal dismissal wit te N1RC. In a position paper
fled before te 1abor #rbiter% Imbuido alleged tat er employment was terminated not
due to te alleged low volume of wor7 but be"ause se signed a petition for "ertif"ation
ele"tion among te ran7)and)fle employees of te respondents% tus "arging IIS wit
"ommitting unfair labor pra"ti"es. IIS maintained tat it ad valid reasons to terminate
Imbuido$s employment and dis"laimed any 7nowledge of te e(isten"e or formation of a
union among its ran7)and)fle employees% and tat its retention by "lient "ompanies wit
parti"ular empasis on data en"oding is on a pro<e"t to pro<e"t basis.
'e 1abor #rbiter ruled in favour of Imbuido and ordered er reinstatement. 'e
1abor #rbiter found Imbuido to be a regular employee% ruling tat se sould be
"onsidered as a regular employee in "onformity wit te provisions laid down under #rti"le
,/4 of te 1abor Code. Iurtermore% te 1abor #rbiter "on"luded tat Imbuido was
illegally dismissed be"ause te alleged reason for er termination is not among te <ust
"auses for termination. On appeal% te N1RC reversed te de"ision of te 1abor #rbiter.
Iss%e# BON Imbuido was a pro<e"t employee and was illegally dismissed
)e*+<<R$"'o#
No% Des.
'e Court agrees tat petitioner is a pro<e"t employee. T7e 2r'!&'2$* "es" 8or
+e"erm'!'!- 57e"7er $! em2*o0ee 's $ 2ro=e&" em2*o0ee or $ re-%*$r em2*o0ee 's
57e"7er "7e 2ro=e&" em2*o0ee 5$s $ss'-!e+ "o &$rr0 o%" $ s2e&'>& 2ro=e&" or
%!+er"$6'!-, "7e +%r$"'o! $!+ s&o2e o8 57'&7 5ere s2e&'>e+ $" "7e "'me "7e
em2*o0ee 5$s e!-$-e+ 8or "7$" 2ro=e&" In te instant "ase% petitioner was engaged to
perform a"tivities wi" were usually ne"essary or desirable in te usual business or trade
of te employer% as admittedly% petitioner wor7ed as a data en"oder for private respondent%
and er employment was f(ed for a spe"if" pro<e"t or underta7ing te "ompletion or
termination of wi" ad been determined at te time of er engagement% as may be
observed from te series of employment "ontra"ts between petitioner and private
respondent% all of wi" "ontained a designation of te spe"if" <ob "ontra"t and a spe"if"
period of employment.
?owever% te Court ad previously ruled in &araguinot 3r 's NLRC "7$" $ 2ro=e&"
em2*o0ee m$0 $&?%'re "7e s"$"%s o8 $ re-%*$r em2*o0ee 57e! 1/ "7ere 's $
&o!"'!%o%s re7'r'!- o8 2ro=e&" em2*o0ees eve! $8"er "7e &ess$"'o! o8 $ 2ro=e&" $!+
2/ "7e "$s6s 2er8orme+ b0 "7e $**e-e+ @2ro=e&" em2*o0eeA $re v'"$*, !e&ess$r0 $!+
'!+'s2e!s$b*e "o "7e %s%$* b%s'!ess or "r$+e o8 "7e em2*o0er. Su" instan"es are
present in tis "ase% and terefore% Imbuido as attained te status of a regular employee.
Feing a regular employee% Imbuido is entitled to se"urity of tenure and "ould only
be dismissed for a <ust or autoriAed "ause.