Corporal v. NLRC

9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 341
VOL. 341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 657

People vs. Rodriguez
*
G.R. No. 129315. October 2, 2000.
OSIAS I. CORPORAL, SR., PEDRO TOLENTINO,

MANUEL CAPARAS, ELPIDIO LACAP, SIMPLICIO
PEDELOS, PATRICIA NAS, and TERESITA FLORES,
petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, LAO ENTENG COMPANY, INC. and/or
TRINIDAD LAO ONG, respondents.
Administrative Law; Evidence; Appeals; The Supreme Court

has long settled that it will not uphold erroneous conclusions
unsupported by substantial evidence.—This case is an exception to
the general rule that findings of facts of the NLRC are to be
accorded respect and finality on appeal. We have long settled that
this Court will not uphold erroneous conclusions unsupported by
substantial evidence. We must also stress that where the findings
of the NLRC contradict those of the labor arbiter, the Court, in
the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, may look into the records of
the case and re-examine the questioned findings.
Labor Law; Employer-Employee Relationship; Barber Shops;
Even the sharing of proceeds for every job of barbers in a barber
shop does not mean they were not employees of the company.—The
Labor Arbiter’s findings that the parties were engaged in a joint
venture is unsupported by any documentary evidence. It should
be noted that aside from the selfserving affidavit of Trinidad Lao
Ong, there were no other evidentiary documents, nor written
partnership agreements presented. We have ruled that even the
sharing of proceeds for every job of petitioners in the barber shop
does not mean they were not employees of the respondent
company.
Same; Independent Contractors; Labor-Only Contracting;
Words and Phrases; “Independent Contractor,” Explained.—An
independent contractor is one who undertakes “job contracting,”
i.e., a person who (a) carries on an independent business and
undertakes the contract work on his own account under his own
responsibility according to his own manner and method, free from
the control and direction of his employer or principal in all
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749eb1ddbd41f275e4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14
matters connected with the performance of the work except as to

the results thereof, and (b) has substantial capital or investment
in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, and
other materials which are necessary in the conduct of the
business.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
659
VOL. 341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 659
Corporal, Sr. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Same; Employer-Employee Relationship; Elements.—Did an

employee-employer relationship exist between petitioners and
private respondent? The following elements must be present for
an employer-employee relationship to exist: (1) the selection and
engagement of the workers; (2) power of dismissal; (3) the
payment of wages by whatever means; and (4) the power to
control the worker’s conduct, with the latter assuming primacy in
the overall consideration.
Same; Same; Control Test; The power to control refers to the
existence of the power and not necessarily to the actual exercise
thereof.—Private respondent claims it had no control over
petitioners. The power to control refers to the existence of the
power and not necessarily to the actual exercise thereof, nor is it
essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance
of duties of the employee. It is enough that the employer has the
right to wield that power. As to the “control test,” the following
facts indubitably reveal that respondent company wielded control
over the work performance of petitioners, in that: (1) they worked
in the barber shop owned and operated by the respondents; (2)
they were required to report daily and observe definite hours of
work; (3) they were not free to accept other employment elsewhere
but devoted their full time working in the New Look Barber Shop
for all the fifteen (15) years they have worked until April 15, 1995;
(4) that some have worked with respondents as early as in the
1960’s; (5) that petitioner Patricia Nas was instructed by the
respondents to watch the other six (6) petitioners in their daily
task. Certainly, respondent company was clothed with the power
to dismiss any or all of them for just and valid cause. Petitioners
were unarguably performing work necessary and desirable in the
business of the respondent company.
Same; Same; Social Security; It is no longer true that

membership in Social Security System is predicated on the
existence of an employee-employer relationship since the policy is
now to encourage even the selfemployed dressmakers, manicurists
and jeepney drivers to become Social Security System members; It
is unlikely that a company would report certain persons as its
workers, pay their Social Security System premium as well as
their wages if it were not true that they were indeed its employees.
— While it is no longer true that membership to SSS is predicated
on the existence of an employee-employer relationship since the
policy is now to encourage even the self-employed dressmakers,
manicurists and jeepney drivers to become SSS members, we
could not agree with private respondents that petitioners were
registered with the Social Security System as their employees
only as an accommodation. As we have earlier mentioned private
respondent showed no proof to their claim that petitioners were
660
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the ones who solely paid all SSS contributions. It is unlikely that
respondents would report certain persons as their workers, pay
their SSS premium as well as their wages if it were not true that
they were indeed their employees.
Same; Management Prerogatives; Closure of Establishment;
An employer may adopt policies or changes or adjustments in its
operations to insure profit to itself or protect investment of its
stockholders, and in the exercise of such management prerogative,
the employer may merge or consolidate its business with another,
or sell or dispose all or substantially all of its assets and properties
which may bring about the dismissal or termination of its
employees in the process.—We agree with the labor arbiter that
there was sufficient evidence that the barber shop was closed due
to serious business losses and respondent company closed its
barber shop because the building where the barber shop was
located was sold. An employer may adopt policies or changes or
adjustments in its operations to insure profit to itself or protect
investment of its stockholders. In the exercise of such
management prerogative, the employer may merge or consolidate
its business with another, or sell or dispose all or substantially all
of its assets and properties which may bring about the dismissal
or termination of its employees in the process.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Francisco D. Estrada for petitioners.
Romero A. Yu for private respondents.
QUISUMBING, J .:
This special civil action for certiorari seeks the review of

the Resolution dated October 17, 1996 of public respondent
1
National Labor Relations Commission (First Division), in
NLRC NCR Case No. 00-04-03163-95, and the Resolution
dated March 5, 1997 denying the motion for
reconsideration. The aforecited October 17th Resolution
affirmed the Decision dated September 28, 1996 of La-
_______________
1 Per Commissioner Alberto R. Quimpo and concurred in by Presiding

Commissioner Bartolome S. Carale and Commissioner Vicente S.E.
Veloso.
661
VOL. 341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 661

bor Arbiter Potenciano S. Cañizares dismissing the

petitioners’ complaint for illegal dismissal and declaring
that petitioners are not regular employees of private
respondent Lao Enteng Company, Inc.
The records of the case show that the five male
petitioners, namely, Osias I. Corporal, Sr., Pedro Tolentino,
Manuel Caparas, Elpidio Lacap, and Simplicio Pedelos
worked as barbers, while the two female petitioners,
Teresita Flores and Patricia Nas worked as manicurists in
New Look Barber Shop located at 651 P. Paterno Street,
Quiapo, Manila owned by private respondent Lao Enteng
Co., Inc. Petitioner Nas alleged that she also worked as
watcher and marketer of private respondent.
Petitioners claim that at the start of their employment
with the New Look Barber Shop, it was a single
proprietorship owned and managed by Mr. Vicente Lao. On
or about January 1982, the children of Vicente Lao
organized a corporation which was registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission as Lao Enteng Co.,
Inc. with Trinidad Ong as President of the said corporation.
Upon its incorporation, the respondent company took over

the assets, equipment, and properties of the New Look
Barber Shop and continued the business. All the
petitioners were allowed to continue working with the new
company until April 15, 1995 when respondent Trinidad
Ong informed them that the building wherein the New
Look Barber Shop was located had2
been sold and that their
services were no longer needed.
On April 28, 1995, petitioners filed with the Arbitration
Branch of the NLRC, a complaint for illegal dismissal,
illegal deduction, separation pay, non-payment of 13th
month pay, and salary differentials. Only petitioner Nas
asked for payment of salary differentials as she alleged
that she was paid a daily wage of P25.00 throughout her
period of employment. The petitioners also sought the
refund of the P1.00 that the respondent company collected
from each of them daily as salary of the sweeper of the
barber shop. Private respondent in its position paper
averred that the petitioners were joint venture partners
and were receiving fifty percent
_______________
2 Rollo, pp. 5-7.
662

commission of the amount charged to customers. Thus,

there was no employer-employee relationship between
them and petitioners. And assuming arguendo, that there
was an employer-employee relationship, still petitioners
are not entitled to separation pay because the cessation of
operations of the barber shop was due to serious business
losses.
Respondent Trinidad Lao Ong, President of respondent
Lao Enteng Co., Inc., specifically stated in her affidavit
dated September 06, 1995 that Lao Enteng Company, Inc.
did not take over the management of the New Look Barber
Shop, that after the death of Lao Enteng petitioners were
verbally informed time and again that the partnership may
fold up anytime because nobody in the family had the time
to be at the barber shop to look after their interest; that
New Look Barber Shop had always been a joint venture
partnership and the operation and management of the
barber shop was left entirely to petitioners; that her
father’s contribution to the joint venture included the place

of business, payment for utilities including electricity,
water, etc. while petitioners as industrial partners,
supplied the labor; and that the barber shop was allowed to
remain open up to April 1995 by the children because they
wanted to give the partners a chance at making it work.
Eventually, they were forced to close the barber shop
because they continued to lose money while petitioners
earned from it. Trinidad also added that private
respondents had no control over petitioners who were free
to come and go as they wished. Admittedly too by
petitioners they received fifty percent to sixty percent of
the gross paid by customers. Trinidad explained that some
of the petitioners were allowed to register with the Social
Security System as employees of Lao Enteng Company,
Inc. only as an act of accommodation. All the SSS
contributions were made by petitioners. Moreover, Osias
Corporal, Elpidio Lacap and Teresita Flores were not
among those registered with the Social Security System.
Lastly, Trinidad avers that without any employee-employer
relationship petitioners claim for 13th month 3
pay and
separation pay have no basis in fact and in law.
_______________
3 Rollo, pp. 115-119.
663
VOL. 341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 663

In a Decision dated September 28, 1995, Labor Arbiter

Potenciano S. Cañizares, Jr. ordered the dismissal of the
complaint on the basis of his findings that the
complainants and the respondents were engaged in a joint
venture and that there existed no employer-employee
relation between them. The Labor Arbiter also found that
the barber shop was closed due to serious business losses or
financial reverses and consequently declared that the law
does not compel the establishment
4
to pay separation pay to
whoever were its employees.
On appeal, NLRC affirmed the said findings of the
Labor Arbiter and dismissed the complaint for want of
merit, ratiocinating thus:
Indeed, complainants failed to show the existence of employer-

employee relationship under the fourway test established by the
Supreme Court. It is a common practice in the Barber Shop

industry that barbers supply their own scissors and razors and
they split their earnings with the owner of the barber shop. The
only capital of the owner is the place of work whereas the barbers
provide the skill and expertise in servicing customers. The only
control exercised by the owner of the barber shop is to ascertain
the number of customers serviced by the barber in order to
determine the sharing of profits. The barbers maybe
characterized as independent contractors because they are under
the control of the barber shop owner only with respect to the
result of the work, but not with respect to the details or manner of
performance. The barbers are engaged in an independent 5
calling
requiring special skills available to the public at large.
Its motion for reconsideration denied in the Resolution6

dated March 5, 1997, petitioners filed the instant petition
assigning that the NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion in:
I. ARBITRARILY DISREGARDING SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

PROVING THAT PETITIONERS WERE EMPLOYEES OF
RESPONDENT COMPANY IN RULING THAT PETITIONERS
WERE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.
_______________
4 Id. at 84-85.
5 Id. at 122.
6 Id. at 128-130.
664

II. NOT HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS WERE ILLEGALLY

DISMISSED
7
AND IN NOT AWARDING THEIR MONEY
CLAIMS.
Petitioners principally argue that public respondent NLRC

gravely erred in declaring that the petitioners were
independent contractors. They contend that they were
employees of the respondent company and cannot be
considered as independent contractors because they did not
carry on an independent business. They did not cut hair,
manicure, and do their work in their own manner and
method. They insist they were not free from the control and
direction of private respondents in all matters, and their
services were engaged by the respondent company to
attend to its customers in its barber shop. Petitioners also

stated that, individually or collectively, they do not have
substantial capital nor investments in tools, equipments,
work premises and other materials necessary in the
conduct of the barber shop. What the barbers owned were
merely combs, scissors, and razors, while the manicurists
owned only nail cutters, nail polishes, nippers and cuticle
removers. By no standard can these be considered
“substantial capital” necessary to operate a barber shop.
Finally, petitioners fault the NLRC for arbitrarily
disregarding substantial evidence on record showing that
petitioners Pedro Tolentino, Manuel Caparas, Simplicio
Pedelos, and Patricia Nas were registered with the Social
Security System as regular employees of the respondent
company. The SSS employment records in common show
that the employer’s ID No. of Vicente Lao/Barber and Pawn
Shop was 03-0606200-1 and that of the respondent
company was 03-8740074-7. All the foregoing entries in the
SSS employment records were painstakingly detailed by
the petitioners in their position paper and in their
memorandum appeal but were arbitrarily ignored first by
the Labor Arbiter and then by the respondent NLRC which
did not even mention said employment records in its
questioned decision.
We found petition is impressed with merit.
In our view, this case is an exception to the general rule
that findings of facts of the NLRC are to be accorded
respect and final-
_______________
7 Id. at 11.
665
VOL. 341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 665

ity on appeal. We have long settled that this Court will not
uphold erroneous
8
conclusions unsupported by substantial
evidence. We must also stress that where the findings of
the NLRC contradict those of the labor arbiter, the Court,
in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, may look into the
records 9of the case and re-examine the questioned
findings.
The issues raised by petitioners boil down to whether or
not an employer-employee relationship existed between
petitioners and private respondent Lao Enteng Company,
Inc. The Labor Arbiter has concluded that the petitioners

and respondent company were engaged in a joint venture.
The NLRC concluded that the petitioners were
independent contractors.
The Labor Arbiter’s findings that the parties were
engaged in a joint venture is unsupported by any
documentary evidence. It should be noted that aside from
the self-serving affidavit of Trinidad Lao Ong, there were
no other evidentiary documents, nor written partnership
agreements presented. We have ruled that even the
sharing of proceeds for every job of petitioners in the barber
shop does not mean 10
they were not employees of the
respondent company.
Petitioner aver that NLRC was wrong when it concluded
that petitioners were independent contractors simply
because they supplied their own working implements,
shared in the earnings of the barber shop with the owner
and chose the manner of performing their work. They
stressed that as far as the result of their work was
concerned the barber shop owner controlled them.
An independent contractor is one who undertakes “job
contracting,” i.e., a person who (a) carries on an
independent business and undertakes the contract work on
his own account under his own responsibility according to
his own manner and method, free from the control and
direction of his employer or principal in all matters
connected with the performance of the work except as to
the results
_______________
8 Anino vs. NLRC, 290 SCRA 489, 499-500 (1998).

9 Paz Martin Jo vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 121605, February 02, 2000, p. 7,
324 SCRA 437.
10 Labor Congress of the Philippines vs. NLRC, 290 SCRA 509, 528
(1998); San Miguel Jeepney Service vs. NLRC, 265 SCRA 35 (1998).
666

thereof, and (b) has substantial capital or investment in the

form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, and
other materials
11
which are necessary in the conduct of the
business.
Juxtaposing this provision vis-à-vis the facts of this case,
we are convinced that petitioners are not “independent
contractors.” They did not carry on an independent

business. Neither did they undertake cutting hair and
manicuring nails, on their own as their responsibility, and
in their own manner and method. The services of the
petitioners were engaged by the respondent company to
attend to the needs of its customers in its barber shop.
More importantly, the petitioners, individually or
collectively, did not have a substantial capital or
investment in the form of tools, equipment, work premises
and other materials which are necessary in the conduct of
the business of the respondent company. What the
petitioners owned were only combs, scissors, razors, nail
cutters, nail polishes, the nippers—nothing else. By no
standard can these be considered substantial capital
necessary to operate a barber shop. From the records, it
can be gleaned that petitioners were not given work
assignments in any place other than at the work premises
of the New Look Barber Shop owned by the respondent
company. Also, petitioners were required to observe rules
and regulations of the respondent company pertaining,
among other things, observance of daily attendance, job
performance, and regularity of job output. The nature of
work performed by petitioners was clearly directly related
to private respondent’s business of operating barber shops.
Respondent company did not dispute that it owned and
operated three (3) barber shops. Hence, petitioners were
not independent contractors.
Did an employee-employer relationship exist between
petitioners and private respondent? The following elements
must be present for an employer-employee relationship to
exist: (1) the selection and engagement of the workers; (2)
power of dismissal; (3) the payment of wages by whatever
means; and (4) the power to control the worker’s conduct,
with the latter assuming primacy in the overall
consideration. Records of the case show that the late
_______________
11 Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III, of the Omnibus Rules Implementing

the Labor Code; Ponce vs. NLRC, 293 SCRA 366, 374-375 (1998).
667
VOL. 341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 667

Vicente Lao engaged the services of the petitioners to work

as barbers and manicurists in the New Look Barber Shop,
then a single proprietorship owned by him; that in January

1982, his children organized a corporation which they
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission
as Lao Enteng Company, Inc.; that upon its incorporation,
it took over the assets, equipment, and properties of the
New Look Barber Shop and continued the business; that
the respondent company retained the services of all the
petitioners and continuously paid their wages. Clearly, all
three elements exist in petitioners’ and private
respondent’s working arrangements.
Private respondent claims it had no control over
petitioners. The power to control refers to the existence of
the power and not necessarily to the actual exercise
thereof, nor is it essential for the employer to actually
supervise the performance of duties of the employee. It is
enough12 that the employer has the right to wield that
power. As to the “control test,” the following facts
indubitably reveal that respondent company wielded
control over the work performance of petitioners, in that:
(1) they worked in the barber shop owned and operated by
the respondents; (2) they were required to report daily and
observe definite hours of work; (3) they were not free to
accept other employment elsewhere but devoted their full
time working in the New Look Barber Shop for all the
fifteen (15) years they have worked until April 15, 1995; (4)
that some have worked with respondents as early as in the
1960’s; (5) that petitioner Patricia Nas was instructed by
the respondents to watch the other six (6) petitioners in
their daily task. Certainly, respondent company was
clothed with the power to dismiss any or all of them for just
and valid cause. Petitioners were unarguably performing
work necessary and desirable in the business of the
respondent company.
While it is no longer true that membership to SSS is
predicated on the existence of an employee-employer
relationship since the policy is now to encourage even the
self-employed dressmakers, manicurists and jeepney
drivers to become SSS members, we could
_______________
12 Paz Martin Jo and Cesar Jo vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 121605, February
02, 2000, p. 5, 324 SCRA 437.
668

not agree with private respondents that petitioners were

registered with the Social Security System as their
employees only as an accommodation. As we have earlier
mentioned private respondent showed no proof to their
claim that petitioners were the ones who solely paid all
SSS contributions. It is unlikely that respondents would
report certain persons as their workers, pay their SSS
premium as well as their wages
13
if it were not true that they
were indeed their employees.
Finally, we agree with the labor arbiter that there was
sufficient evidence that the barber shop was closed due to
serious business losses and respondent company closed its
barber shop because the building where the barber shop
was located was sold. An employer may adopt policies or
changes or adjustments in its operations to insure profit to
itself or protect investment of its stockholders. In the
exercise of such management prerogative, the employer
may merge or consolidate its business with another, or sell
or dispose all or substantially all of its assets and
properties which may bring about the14 dismissal or
termination of its employees in the process.
Prescinding from the above, we hold that the seven
petitioners are employees of the private respondent
company; as such, they are to be accorded the benefits
provided under the Labor Code, specifically Article 283
which mandates the grant of separation pay in case of
closure or cessation of employer’s business which is 15
equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service.
Likewise, they are entitled to the protection of minimum
wage statutes. Hence, the separation pay due them may be
computed on the basis of the minimum wage prevailing at
the time their services were terminated by the respondent
company. The same is true with respect to the 13th month
pay. The Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of the
13th Month Pay Law states that “all rank and file
employees are now entitled to a 13th month pay regardless
of the amount of basic salary that they receive in a month.
Such em-
_______________
13 Nagusara vs. NLRC, 290 SCRA 245, 251 (1998).

14 Associated Labor Unions-VIMCONTU vs. NLRC, 204 SCRA 913 923
(1991).
15 Phil. Tobacco Flue-Curing & Redrying Corp. vs. NLRC, 300 SCRA
37, 55 (1998).
669
VOL. 341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 669

ployees are entitled to the benefit regardless of their

designation or employment status, and irrespective of the
method by which their wages are paid, provided that they
have worked for at least one (1) month during a calendar
year” and so all the seven (7) petitioners who were
16
not paid
their 13th month pay must be paid accordingly.
Anent the other claims of the petitioners, (such as the
P10,000.00 as penalty for non-compliance with procedural
process; P10,000.00 as moral damages; refund of P1.00 per
day paid to the sweeper; salary differentials for petitioner
Nas; attorney’s fees), we find them without basis.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The
public respondent’s Decision dated October 17, 1996 and
Resolution dated March 05, 1997 are SET ASIDE. Private
respondents are hereby ordered to pay, severally and
jointly, the seven (7) petitioners their (1) 13th month pay
and (2) separation pay equivalent to one month pay for
every year of service, to be computed at the then prevailing
minimum wage at the time of their actual termination
which was April 15, 1995.
Costs against private respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena and De

Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution set aside.
Notes.—The test to determine the existence of

independent contractorship is whether one claiming to be
an independent contractor has contracted to do the work
according to his own methods and without being subject to
the control of the employer except only as to the result of
the work. (AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, 267 SCRA 47
[1997])
The client of a service contractor is not liable for
separation pay and back wages of latter’s employees but is
jointly and severally liable with the contractor for the
employee’s service incentive leave
_______________
16 See Sec. 1, P.D. 851; Osias Academy vs. DOLE, 192 SCRA 612, 619
(1990); Dentech Mfg. Corp. vs. NLRC, 172 SCRA 588 (1989).
670

Cano-Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez
pay. (Sentinel Security Agency, Inc. vs. National Labor

Relations Commission, 295 SCRA 123 [1998])
Since no employer-employee relationship exists between
a company and the security guard members of the union in
the security agency who are assigned to secure the
company’s premises and property, there could be no labor
dispute and no right to strike against the company.
(Citibank, N.A. vs. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 390 [1998])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Corporal v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corporal v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Corporal v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 341

VOL. 341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 657

OSIAS I. CORPORAL, SR., PEDRO TOLENTINO,

Administrative Law; Evidence; Appeals; The Supreme Court

matters connected with the performance of the work except as to

VOL. 341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 659

Corporal, Sr. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Same; Employer-Employee Relationship; Elements.—Did an

Same; Same; Social Security; It is no longer true that

660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Corporal, Sr. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This special civil action for certiorari seeks the review of

1 Per Commissioner Alberto R. Quimpo and concurred in by Presiding

VOL. 341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 661

bor Arbiter Potenciano S. Cañizares dismissing the

Upon its incorporation, the respondent company took over

2 Rollo, pp. 5-7.

662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

commission of the amount charged to customers. Thus,

father’s contribution to the joint venture included the place

3 Rollo, pp. 115-119.

VOL. 341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 663

In a Decision dated September 28, 1995, Labor Arbiter

Indeed, complainants failed to show the existence of employer-

Supreme Court. It is a common practice in the Barber Shop

Its motion for reconsideration denied in the Resolution6

I. ARBITRARILY DISREGARDING SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

II. NOT HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS WERE ILLEGALLY

Petitioners principally argue that public respondent NLRC

attend to its customers in its barber shop. Petitioners also

VOL. 341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 665

Inc. The Labor Arbiter has concluded that the petitioners

8 Anino vs. NLRC, 290 SCRA 489, 499-500 (1998).

666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

thereof, and (b) has substantial capital or investment in the

contractors.” They did not carry on an independent

11 Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III, of the Omnibus Rules Implementing

VOL. 341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 667

Vicente Lao engaged the services of the petitioners to work

then a single proprietorship owned by him; that in January

668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

not agree with private respondents that petitioners were

13 Nagusara vs. NLRC, 290 SCRA 245, 251 (1998).

VOL. 341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 669

ployees are entitled to the benefit regardless of their

Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena and De

Petition granted, judgment and resolution set aside.

Notes.—The test to determine the existence of

670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

pay. (Sentinel Security Agency, Inc. vs. National Labor

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like