ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION vs. MARLYN NAZARENO, MERLOU GERZON, JENNIFER DEIPARINE, and JOSEPHINE LERASAN (G.R. No. 164156, September 26, 2006)
Facts:
Petitioner ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN) is engaged in the broadcasting business and owns a network of television and radio stations, whose operations revolve around the broadcast, transmission, and relay of telecommunication signals. The respondents Nazareno, Gerzon, Deiparine, and Lerasan as production assistants (PAs) on different dates were employed by the Petitioner, assigned at the news and public affairs, for various radio programs in the Cebu Broadcasting Station, with a monthly compensation of P4,000. They were issued ABS-CBN employees’ identification cards and were required to work for a minimum of eight hours a day, including Sundays and holidays. They were under the control and supervision of Assistant Station Manager Dante J. Luzon, and News Manager Leo Lastimosa.
On December 19, 1996, petitioner and the ABS-CBN Rank-and-File Employees executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to be effective during the period from December 11, 1996 to December 11, 1999. However, since petitioner refused to recognize PAs as part of the bargaining unit, respondents were not included to the CBA.
On October 12, 2000, respondents filed a Complaint for Recognition of Regular Employment Status, Underpayment of Overtime Pay, Holiday Pay, Premium Pay, Service Incentive Pay, Sick Leave Pay, and 13th Month Pay with Damages against the petitioner before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter directed the parties to submit their respective position paper however they failed to file their position papers within the reglementary period, Labor Arbiter Jose G. Gutierrez dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of interest to pursue the case. Respondents received a copy of the Order on May 16, 2001. Instead of re-filing their complaint with the NLRC within 10 days from May 16, 2001, they filed, on June 11, 2001, an Earnest Motion to Refile Complaint with Motion to Admit Position Paper and Motion to Submit Case for Resolution. The Labor Arbiter granted this motion in an Order dated June 18, 2001, and forthwith admitted the position paper of the complainants.
On July 30, 2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of the respondents, and declared that they were regular employees of petitioner; as such, they were awarded monetary benefits. On appeal to the NLRC, it ruled that respondents were entitled to the benefits under the CBA because they were regular employees who contributed to the profits of petitioner through their labor. Petitioner thus filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA, raising both procedural and substantive issues. CA Affirmed the ruling of the NLRC.
ISSUE
Whether the appellate court committed palpable and serious error of law when it affirmed the rulings of the NLRC, and entertained respondents’ appeal from the decision of the Labor Arbiter despite the admitted lapse of the reglementary period within which to perfect the appeal.
HELD
We agree with petitioner’s contention that the perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional; failure to do so renders the assailed decision final and executory and deprives the appellate court or body of the legal authority to alter the final judgment, much less entertain the appeal. However, this Court has time and again ruled that in exceptional cases, a belated appeal may be given due course if greater injustice may occur if an appeal is not given due course than if the reglementary period to appeal were strictly followed. The Court resorted to this extraordinary measure even at the expense of sacrificing order and efficiency if only to serve the greater principles of substantial justice and equity.
In the case at bar, the NLRC did not commit a grave abuse of its discretion in giving Article 223 of the Labor Code a liberal application to prevent the miscarriage of justice. Technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties. We have held in a catena of cases that technical rules are not binding in labor cases and are not to be applied strictly if the result would be detrimental to the workingman.
CATHAY PACIFIC STEEL CORPORATION vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CAPASCO UNION OF SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES (CUSE) and ENRIQUE TAMONDONG III, (G.R. No. 164561, August 30, 2010)
Facts:
Petitioner CAPASCO, hired private respondent Tamondong as Assistant to the Personnel Manager for its Cainta Plant on 16 February 1990. Thereafter, he was promoted to the position of Personnel/Administrative Officer, and later to that of Personnel Superintendent. Sometime in June 1996, the supervisory personnel of CAPASCO launched a move to organize a union among their ranks, later known as private respondent CUSE. Private respondent Tamondong actively involved himself in the formation of the union and was even elected as one of its officers after its creation. Consequently, petitioner CAPASCO sent a memo dated 3 February 1997, to private respondent Tamondong requiring him to explain and to discontinue from his union activities, with a warning that a continuance thereof shall adversely affect his employment in the company. Private respondent Tamondong ignored said warning and made a reply letter on 5 February 1997, invoking his right as a supervisory employee to join and organize a labor union. In view of that, on 6 February 1997, petitioner CAPASCO through a memo[10] terminated the employment of private respondent Tamondong on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, citing his union activities as acts constituting serious disloyalty to the company.
Acting Executive Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision in favor of private respondent Tamondong, finding [petitioner CAPASCO] guilty of unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal. On appeal, the NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Respondents Tamondong and CUSE filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals which reinstated the Decision of the Labor Arbiter.
ISSUE:
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion when it reinstated the Decision of Executive Labor Arbiter holding CAPASCO liable for backwages, 13th month pay, service incentive leave, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
HELD:
The special civil action for Certiorari is intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Its principal office is only to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[
The essential requisites for a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 are: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board, or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function; (2) such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of jurisdiction means that an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer is not authorized, and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting. Without jurisdiction means lack or want of legal power, right or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter. It means lack of power to exercise authority. Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
TIRSO ENOPIA, VIRGILIO NANO, and 34 OTHERS vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JOAQUIN LU, and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (G.R. No. 147396, July 31, 2006)
FACTS:
Petitioners were hired from January 20, 1994 to March 20, 1996 as crewmembers of the fishing mother boat F/B MG-28 owned by respondent Joaquin “Jake” Lu (Lu) who is the sole proprietor of Mommy Gina Tuna Resources based in General Santos City. Petitioners and Lu had an income-sharing arrangement wherein 55% goes to Lu, 45% to the crewmembers, with an additional 4% as “backing incentive.” They also equally share the expenses for the maintenance and repair of the mother boat, and for the purchase of nets, ropes and payaos.
In August 1997, Lu proposed the signing of a Joint Venture Fishing Agreement between them, but petitioners refused to sign the same as they opposed the one-year term provided in the agreement. According to petitioners, during their dialogue on August 18, 1997, Lu terminated their services right there and then because of their refusal to sign the agreement. On the other hand, Lu alleged that the master fisherman (piado) Ruben Salili* informed him that petitioners still refused to sign the agreement and have decided to return the vessel F/B MG-28.
LA Solamo dismissed the case for lack of merit, finding that there was no employer-employee relationship between petitioners and Lu. The NLRC, however, affirmed the LA’s Decision and likewise denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
The CA dismissed the petition for having been filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period within which to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and that the sworn certification of non-forum shopping was signed only by 2 of the petitioners who have not shown any authority to sign in behalf of the other petitioners.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in summarily dismissing the petition filed before it
2. Whether the sworn certification of non-forum shopping was signed only by 2 of the petitioners who have not shown any authority to sign in behalf of the other petitioners.
3. Whether there exists an employer-employee relationship between petitioners and respondent.
HELD
1. Petitioners cannot blame the CA for dismissing their petition because under the old rule, the filing of the petition under Rule 65 shall be 60 days from notice of judgment and a MFR merely interrupts the running of the period. Fortunately for petitioners, Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure was subsequently amended by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which took effect on 1 September 2000. Under this amendment, the 60-day period within which to file the petition starts to run from receipt of notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration, if one is filed. Applying the amendment in petitioners’ case, the 60-day period should then be counted from July 29, 1999, with September 27, 1999 as the last day for filing. Having been filed on said date, the petition was therefore timely filed.
2. The Court finds petitioners’ reasons justifiable enough to warrant a relaxation of the rule on certification against forum-shopping. In addition, it has been ruled that where the parties share a common interest in the case or filed the case as a “collective”, raising only one common cause of action or defense, then the signature of one of the petitioners, acting as representative, is sufficient compliance.
3. Consequently, the Court need not resolve the substantive issue of the existence of an employer-employee relationship between petitioners and respondent, as the case should be remanded to the CA for proper determination since such issue involves a question of fact. It is well settled that when the law entrusts the review of factual and substantive issues to a lower court or to a quasi-judicial tribunal, that court or agency must be given the opportunity to pass upon those issues. Only thereafter may the parties resort to this Court.
(G.R. No. 165910, April 10, 2006)
FACTS:
Hanjin and the Philippine Government, through the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), executed contracts for the construction of the Malinao Dam at Pilar, Bohol, with a projected completion period of 1,050 calendar days, including main canal and lateral projects for 750 days.[4] From August 1995 to August 1996, Hanjin contracted the services of 712 carpenters, masons, truck drivers, helpers, laborers, heavy equipment operators, leadmen, engineers, steelmen, mechanics, electricians and others.
In April 1998, 712 employees filed complaints for illegal dismissal and for payment of benefits against Hanjin and Nam Hyun Kim, the officer-in-charge of the project (herein petitioners), before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The complainants averred that they were regular employees of Hanjin and that they were separated from employment without any lawful or just cause. Only 521 of the complainants affixed their signatures in the complaints.
On May 12, 1998, the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of the 428 complainants, granting separation pay and attorney’s fees to each of them. Petitioners appealed the decision to the NLRC, which affirmed with modification the Labor Arbiter’s ruling on January 28, 2000. The NLRC dismissed the complaints of 34 complainants and awarded monetary benefits to the others.
On appeal, the CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC’s ruling that the dismissed employees (respondents) were regular employees. The CA stressed that petitioners failed to refute the claim of the respondents that they were regular employees. Petitioners moved to reconsider the decision, which the CA denied.
ISSUE:
Whether the Public respondents are guilty of grave and patent abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in declaring private respondents-complainants as regular employees when in fact, law, and evidence they are project employees.
HELD:
We agree that petitioners’ recourse to this Court via Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court was inappropriate.
Under the Constitution and the Revised Rules of Court, judicial review of the decisions or final orders of the NLRC should be filed with the CA under Section 5 of Rule 65, on the ground that the NLRC has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. The remedy of the aggrieved party from the CA decision, in turn, shall be by petition for review on certiorari with this Court under Rule 45.
The aggrieved party is proscribed from assailing a decision or final order of the CA via Rule 65 because such recourse is proper only if the party has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law. In this case, petitioners have an adequate remedy, namely, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It must be stressed that the remedies of appeal under Rule 45 and an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive
Whether or not respondents were project employees or regular employees is a question of fact. To arrive at a conclusion, the Court will have to delve into and weigh and calibrate the documentary and testimonial evidence of the parties. However, the Court is proscribed from re-examining the evidence on record and weighing the same in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. It must be stressed that the only issue before the Court in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in its decision.
INTERCONTINENTAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION (IBC), represented by ATTY. RENATO Q. BELLO, in his capacity as CEO and President, vs. NOEMI B. AMARILLA, CORSINI R. LAGAHIT, ANATOLIO G. OTADOY, and CANDIDO C. QUIÑONES, JR., (G.R. No. 162775, October 27, 2006)
FACTS:
Petitioner employed the following persons at its Cebu station: Candido C. Quiñones, Jr.; on February 1, 1975;[3] Corsini R. Lagahit, as Studio Technician, also on February 1, 1975; Anatolio G. Otadoy, as Collector, on April 1, 1975; and Noemi Amarilla, as Traffic Clerk, on July 1, 1975. On March 1, 1986, the government sequestered the station, including its properties, funds and other assets, and took over its management and operations from its owner, Roberto Benedicto. However, in December 1986, the government and Benedicto entered into a temporary agreement under which the latter would retain its management and operation. On November 3, 1990, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and Benedicto executed a Compromise Agreement, where Benedicto transferred and assigned all his rights, shares and interests in petitioner station to the government.
In the meantime, the four (4) employees retired from the company and received, on staggered basis, their retirement benefits under the 1993 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between petitioner and the bargaining unit of its employees. When a salary increase took effect P1,500.00 salary increase was given to all employees of the company, current and retired, effective July 1994. However, when the four retirees demanded theirs, petitioner refused and instead informed them via a letter that their differentials would be used to offset the tax due on their retirement benefits in accordance with the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).
The four (4) retirees filed separate complaints[13] against IBC TV-13 Cebu and Station Manager Louella F. Cabañero for unfair labor practice and non-payment of backwages before the NLRC, Regional Arbitration Branch VII. The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of the retirees,
ISSUE
(1) whether the retirement benefits of respondents are part of their gross income; and
(2) whether petitioner is estopped from reneging on its agreement with respondent to pay for the taxes on said retirement benefits.
HELD
We agree with petitioner’s contention that, under the CBA, it is not obliged to pay for the taxes on the respondents’ retirement benefits. We have carefully reviewed the CBA and find no provision where petitioner obliged itself to pay the taxes on the retirement benefits of its employees.
We also agree with petitioner’s contention that, under the NIRC, the retirement benefits of respondents are part of their gross income subject to taxes.
For the retirement benefits to be exempt from the withholding tax, the taxpayer is burdened to prove the concurrence of the following elements: (1) a reasonable private benefit plan is maintained by the employer; (2) the retiring official or employee has been in the service of the same employer for at least 10 years; (3) the retiring official or employee is not less than 50 years of age at the time of his retirement; and (4) the benefit had been availed of only once.
While it may indeed be conceded that the previous dispensation of petitioner IBC-13 footed the bill for the withholding taxes, upon discovery by the new management, this was stopped altogether as this was grossly prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner IBC-13. The policy of withholding the taxes due on the differentials as a remedial measure was a matter of sound business judgment and dictates of good governance aimed at
protecting the interests of the government. Necessarily, the newly-appointed board and officers of the petitioner, who learned about this grossly disadvantageous mistake committed by the former management of petitioner IBC-13 cannot be expected to just follow suit blindly. An illegal act simply cannot give rise to an obligation. Accordingly, the new officers were correct in not honoring this highly suspect practice and it is now their duty to rectify this anomalous occurrence, otherwise, they become remiss in the performance of their sworn responsibilities.
INTERCONTINENTAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION vs. REYNALDO BENEDICTO, deceased, substituted by his surviving spouse LOURDES V. BENEDICTO, and children, namely: REYNALDO V. BENEDICTO, SHIRLEY V. BENEDICTO-TAN, EDGAR V. BENEDICTO and LILIBETH V. BENEDICTO-DE LA VICTORIA.2006 Jul 20 G.R. No. 152843
FACTS
Petitioner alleged that Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation is a government-owned and controlled corporation.[6] It is engaged in the business of mass media communications including, among others, the operation of television Channel 13 (IBC 13).[7]
In 1993, Reynaldo Benedicto was appointed by Ceferino Basilio, the general manager then of petitioner, as marketing manager with a monthly compensation of P20,000 plus 1% commission from collections of all advertising contracts consummated.[9]
In a letter dated October 11, 1994 signed by Tomas Gomez III, at that time the president of petitioner, Benedicto was terminated from his position.[10]
On December 3, 1996, Benedicto filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal and damages. He alleged that after his appointment, he was able to increase the televiewing, listening and audience ratings of petitioner which resulted in its improved competitive financial strength. Specifically, in 1994, he claimed that he successfully initiated, pursued and consummated an advertising contract with VTV Corporation for a period of five years involving the amount of P600 million. However, on October 11, 1994, he was terminated from his position without just or authorized cause.
Labor arbiter Jovencio LL. Mayor, Jr.,[ in a decision dated August 17, 1998, ruled in favor of Benedicto finding that he was indeed illegally dismissed. The NLRC dismissed the appeal and ruled that petitioner failed to perfect its appeal since it did not file the appeal bond within the reglementary period. The CA affirmed the NLRC’s decision.
ISSUE
1. Whether the [CA] erred in affirming the assailed decision/resolution of the [NLRC] on mere technicality, failing to recognize that petitioner has in fact perfected its appeal under existing law and jurisprudence
2. Whether the Labor Arbiter erred in awarding commission for Benedicto.
HELD
Petitioner raises the issue of jurisdiction without, however, explaining properly the basis of its objections.[25] Such half-hearted and belated attempt to argue the NLRC’s alleged lack of jurisdiction cannot possibly be taken seriously at this late stage of the proceedings.
The NLRC and the CA dismissed petitioner’s appeal. Both held that petitioner failed to perfect its appeal. Petitioner had ten calendar days from its receipt of the labor arbiter’s decision on October 5, 1998 to appeal. While it filed its memorandum on appeal with motion to re-compute award on October 15, 1998, the appeal bond was posted after the appeal period.
Second, by nature, commissions are given to employees only if the employer receives income. Employees, as a reward, receive a percentage of the earnings of the employer, which they, through their efforts, helped produce. Commissions are also given in the form of incentives or encouragement so that employees will be inspired to put a little more industry into their tasks. Commissions can also be considered as direct remunerations for services rendered. All these different concepts of commissions are incongruent with the claim that an employee can continue to receive them indefinitely after reaching his mandatory retirement age.
Benedicto’s right to the commissions was coterminous with his employment with petitioner[48] and this ended when he reached the compulsory retirement age.
BERNARDINO LABAYOG vs. M.Y. SAN BISCUITS, INC. and MEW WAH LIM
G.R. No. 148102 July 11, 2006
FACTS:
On various dates in 1992, petitioners entered into contracts of employment with respondent company as mixers, packers and machine operators for a fixed term. On the expiration of their contracts, their services were terminated. Forthwith, they each executed a quitclaim.
On April 15, 1993, petitioners filed complaints for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of overtime, night differential and 13th month pay, damages and attorney’s fees. The labor arbiter ruled their dismissal to be illegal[5] on the ground that they had become regular employees who performed duties necessary and desirable in respondent company’s business. The labor arbiter ordered the reinstatement of petitioners with award of backwages, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay.
On appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the decision of the labor arbiter was set aside. Having entered into their employment contracts freely and voluntarily, they knew that their employment was only for a fixed period and would end on the prescribed expiration date. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
In a petition for certiorari filed by petitioners, the CA set aside the NLRC decision and reinstated the decision of the labor arbiter. However, on respondents’ motion for reconsideration, the CA reversed itself. The CA reasoned that, while petitioners performed tasks which were necessary and desirable in the usual business of respondent company, their employment contracts providing for a fixed term remained valid. No force, duress, intimidation or moral dominance was exerted on them. Respondents dealt with petitioners in good faith and within the valid parameters of management prerogatives. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied
ISSUE
Whether the Petitioners were regular employees of the Respondent.
HELD
Where the duties of the employee consist of activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer, the parties are not prohibited from agreeing on the duration of employment. Article 280 does not proscribe or prohibit an employment contract with a fixed period provided it is not intended to circumvent the security of tenure.
Two criteria validate a contract of employment with a fixed period: (1) the fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear on the employee and without any circumstances vitiating consent or, (2) it satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former on the latter. [12] Against these criteria, petitioners’ contracts of employment with a fixed period were valid.
Contracts of employment for a fixed period are not unlawful. What is objectionable is the practice of some scrupulous employers who try to circumvent the law protecting workers from the capricious termination of employment. Employers have the right and prerogative to choose their workers. “The law, while protecting the rights of the employees, authorizes neither the oppression nor destruction of the employer. When the law angles the scales of justice in favor of labor, the scale should never be so tilted if the result is an injustice to the employer.”
