Semblante Vs CA

MARTICIO SEMBLANTE AND DUBRICK PILAR, contract with respondents was ever executed by
PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, GALLERA petitioners. Petitioners appealed to CA.

DE MANDAUE / SPOUSES VICENTE AND MARIA 8. CA: Found for respondents noting that referees
LUISA LOOT, RESPONDENTS. and bet-takers in a cockfight need to have the
G.R. No. 196426 : August 15, 2011 kind of expertise that is characteristic of the game
Facts: to interpret messages conveyed by mere
1. Petitioners Marticio Semblante (Semblante) and gestures. Hence, petitioners are akin to
Dubrick Pilar (Pilar) assert that they were hired by independent contractors who possess unique
respondents-spouses Vicente and Maria Luisa skills, expertise, and talent to distinguish them
Loot, the owners of Gallera de Mandaue (the from ordinary employees. Further, respondents
cockpit), as the official masiador and did not supply petitioners with the tools and
sentenciador, respectively, of the cockpit instrumentalities they needed to perform work.
sometime in 1993. Petitioners only needed their unique skills and
2. As the masiador, Semblante calls and takes the talents to perform their job as masiador and
bets from the gamecock owners and other bettors sentenciador, hence, this petition for review on
and orders the start of the cockfight. He also certiorati.
distributes the winnings after deducting the
arriba, or the commission for the cockpit. Issue: WON there exists an EER between the parties.
Meanwhile, as the sentenciador, Pilar oversees (NO)
the proper gaffing of fighting cocks, determines
the fighting cocks’ physical condition and Ruling:
capabilities to continue the cockfight, and Petition denied. While respondents had failed to post their
eventually declares the result of the cockfight. bond within the 10-day period provided, it is evident, that
3. For their services as masiador and sentenciador, petitioners are NOT employees of respondents, since
Semblante receives PhP 2,000 per week or a their relationship fails to pass muster the four-fold test of
total of PhP 8,000 per month, while Pilar gets employment We have repeatedly mentioned in countless
PhP 3,500 a week or PhP 14,000 per month. decisions: (1) the selection and engagement of the
They work every Tuesday, Wednesday, employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of
Saturday, and Sunday every week, excluding dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employees’
monthly derbies and cockfights held on special conduct, which is the most important element.
holidays. Their working days start at 1:00 p.m.
and last until 12:00 midnight, or until the early As found by both the NLRC and the CA, respondents had
hours of the morning depending on the needs of no part in petitioners’ selection and management;
the cockpit. Petitioners had both been issued petitioners’ compensation was paid out of the arriba
employees’ identification cards that they wear (which is a percentage deducted from the total bets), not
every time they report for duty. They alleged by petitioners; and petitioners performed their functions
never having incurred any infraction and/or as masiador and sentenciador free from the direction and
violation of the cockpit rules and regulations. control of respondents. In the conduct of their work,
4. On November 14, 2003, however, petitioners petitioners relied mainly on their expertise that is
were denied entry into the cockpit upon the characteristic of the cockfight gambling, and were never
instructions of respondents, and were informed of given by respondents any tool needed for the
the termination of their services effective that performance of their work.
date. This prompted petitioners to file a complaint
for illegal dismissal against respondents. Respondents, not being petitioners’ employers, could
5. Respondents’ argument: Denied that petitioners never have dismissed, legally or illegally, petitioners,
were their employees and alleged that they were since respondents were without power or prerogative to
associates of respondents’ independent do so in the first place. The rule on the posting of an
contractor, Tomas Vega. Also claimed that appeal bond cannot defeat the substantive rights of
petitioners have no regular working time or day respondents to be free from an unwarranted burden of
and they are free to decide for themselves answering for an illegal dismissal for which they were
whether to report for work or not on any never responsible.
cockfighting day. In times when there are few
cockfights in Gallera de Mandaue, petitioners go Strict implementation of the rules on appeals must give
to other cockpits in the vicinity. Lastly, petitioners way to the factual and legal reality that is evident from the
were only issued identification cards to indicate records of this case. After all, the primary objective of our
that they were free from the normal entrance fee laws is to dispense justice and equity, not the contrary.
and to differentiate them from the general public.
6. LA Julie C. Rendoque: Petitioners were regular
employees of respondents as they performed
work that was necessary and indispensable to
the usual trade or business of respondents for a
number of years. Also ruled that petitioners were
illegally dismissed and ordered respondents to
pay petitioners their backwages and separation
pay.
7. Respondents appealed but without posting a
cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary
award granted by the Labor Arbiter. NLRC
denied the appeal for its non-perfection. On
MR, NLRC held in its Resolution that there was
no employer-employee relationship between
petitioners and respondents, respondents having
no part in the selection and engagement of
petitioners, and that no separate individual

Semblante Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Semblante Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Semblante Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MARTICIO SEMBLANTE AND DUBRICK PILAR, contract with respondents was ever executed by

PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, GALLERA petitioners. Petitioners appealed to CA.

You might also like