Case Digest
Case Digest
Case Digest
vs.
MILLENIUM ERECTORS CORPORATION and/or RAGAS TIU, Respondents.
G.R. No. 209822, July 8, 2015
Facts
Respondent Millenium Erectors Corporation (MEC) is a construction company based in the
United States. On October 6, 2010, petitioner filed a complaint with the NLRC, National Capital Region,
alleging wrongful dismissal with money claims against MEC and its owner/manager, respondent Ragas
Tiu (respondents).
Respondents, for their part, denied having illegally dismissed petitioner, claiming that he was
merely a project employee whose contract expired on June 4, 2010 after he completed his masonry work
assignment in the Residential & Commercial Building Project (RCB-Malakas Project) along East Avenue,
QC. Respondents also denied having employed petitioners since 1998, claiming that the company was
only organized and began operations in February 2000. Following that, petitioner reapplied and was hired
as a mason on the RCB-Malakas Project on April 15, 2010. The Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) Makati/Pasay Field Office was notified of the petitioner's termination from both projects.
Issues
1. Whether the CA made reversible error in concluding that the NLRC misused its discretion in
declaring petitioner a regular employee rather than a project employee?
Decision
The Court holds that the CA appropriately granted respondents' certiorari petition because the
NLRC misused its authority in concluding that petitioner was a regular employee of MEC whereas the
latter had proved by significant evidence that he was only a project employee. However, there is no
evidence on file to support petitioner's assertion that he was hired as early as 1998. A project-based
employee is distinguished from a normal employee by Article 29436 of the Labor Code37, as amended:
Art. 294. Regular and casual employment. - The provisions of written agreement to the contrary
notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be
regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for
a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time
of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature
and the employment is for the duration of the season.
CENTENNIAL TRANSMARINE, INC. and/or MR. EDUARDO R. JABLA, CENTENNIAL
MARITIME SERVICES & MN BONNIE SMITHWICK, Petitioners,
vs.
Facts
Pastor has worked as a messman for petitioner Centennial Transmarine, Inc. since 2004 on behalf
of its foreign owner, petitioner Centennial Maritime Services. The Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) approved his last six-month contract on board the vessel MV Bonnie Smithwick,
which was covered by the International Transport Workers' Federation-Collective Bargaining Agreement
(ITF-CBA).
Pastor boarded the MV Bonnie Smithwick on June 5, 2006, in accordance with the arrangement.
However, shortly after, or during the first week of August 2006, he was involved in an accident while
transporting large food supplies. He was in agonizing agony in his upper back as a result of this. Pastor
was issued an oral pain reliever by the ship doctor, but the medication only provided brief relief. As his
condition worsened, he was referred to CityMed Health Associates in Singapore on September 5, 2006 for
additional evaluation and treatment. He exhibits lumbar muscular spasm with disc degeneration at the
L2/L3 and L5/S1 levels, as well as thoracic spondylosis with disc degeneration from T4/T5 to T7/T8
levels, according to the results of his x-ray examination.
Pastor was assigned to Dr. Leticia Abesamis, the company's official physician, upon his arrival in
the Philippines on September 18, 2006. (Dr. Abesamis). Dr. Abesamis diagnosed him with Thoraco
Lumbar spine nerve impingement and R/O herniated disc on October 2, 2006.13 She then referred Pastor
to the Makati Medical Center for an MRI and to Dr. Antonio Acosta, Jr., who later advised him not to
carry heavy objects because it could collapse his T-5 vertebral body.
Pastor filed a Complaint against petitioners for permanent disability compensation in the amount
of US$78,750.00 pursuant to the Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines
(AMOSUP)/ ITF TCCC CBA, sickness wages for 120 days, moral and exemplary damages, attorney's
fees, and other benefits as provided by law while undergoing treatment, or on November 7, 2006.
Issues
1. What is the nature of the private respondent's illness on board the ship?
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in law or in applying Supreme Court precedent in affirming the
NLRC's Decision and Resolution despite the fact that the private respondent's illness is not work-related;
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in law or in applying Supreme Court precedent in awarding
US$78,750.00 despite the private respondent's failure to produce evidence of a Grade 1 handicap;
4. Whether the Court of Appeals awarded attorney's fees in a way that was contrary to the law or
applicable Supreme Court rulings.
Decision
Pastor has osteoarthritis, which is designated as an occupational condition under the POEA-SEC,
according to the CA's Decision dated February 28, 2011. It was determined that the ailment originated
during Pastor's employment and progressed due to the conditions of his messman position. As a result, the
CA determined that Pastor's illness stemmed from his job. Furthermore, it found his incapacity to be
permanent and total because his illness limited his earning capability.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the CA pronounced Pastor to have
osteoarthritis when he did not. They claimed that his condition was spinal disc degeneration, which is not
listed as an occupational disease under the POEA-SEC and is not the same as osteoarthritis. Furthermore,
Pastor failed to meet the POEA-compensability SEC's requirements.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, claiming that the CA incorrectly diagnosed Pastor
with osteoarthritis. They claimed he had spinal disc degeneration, which is not an occupational disease
under the POEA-SEC and is not the same as osteoarthritis. Pastor also failed to meet the standards of the
POEA-compensability SEC.
U-BIX CORPORATION and EDILBERTO B. BRAVO, Petitioners,
vs.
Facts
Petitioners filed NLRC-NCR-Case No. 00-05-03696-97 against respondent, seeking repayment of
training costs plus interest, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. Respondent, on
the other hand, filed NLRC-NCR-Case No. 00-08-05988-97 against petitioners, alleging improper
dismissal, unpaid salaries, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's costs. Later, the two
complaints were combined.
The Labor Arbiter ruled respondent's dismissal to be lawful in a Decision dated February 8, 1999;
she was also directed to reimburse petitioners for the sum spent on her training, plus interest at the rate of
12% per annum.
The NLRC overturned the Labor Arbiter's decision on appeal. It awarded respondent back wages
from the date of her dismissal until the date of the NLRC Decision, as well as separation compensation in
lieu of reinstatement due to strained relations, after finding her to have been unjustly terminated. The
NLRC ruled that petitioners' reimbursement lawsuit is one for collection of an amount of money over
which it has no jurisdiction. As a result, the conclusive portion of the NLRC Resolution of July 12, 1999
Issues
A.THE NLRC AND THE SUPREME COURT HAVE ACCREDITED MAPFRE INSULAR
INSURANCE CORPORATION AS A BONDING COMPANY.
Decision
Based on the OCA certification that Mapfre's authority to do business as a bonding corporation
pertains exclusively to civil and special matters, petitioners allege that the CA erred in deciding that the
supersedeas bond they placed was irregular and thus has no force and effect. They draw attention to the
NLRC's Legal and Enforcement Division's Memorandum dated June 8, 2010 issued for the information
and guidance of all Presiding/Commissioners and Executive/Labor Arbiters regarding the list of bonding
companies accredited by this Court in criminal and civil cases, which includes Mapfre. The NLRC's
support of the abovementioned list to all Presiding Commissioners and Executive/Labor Arbiters,
according to petitioners, can only mean that the bonding corporations named can be considered for labor
matters.
The Court agrees with the petitioners' arguments. One of the prerequisites for accreditation of a
bonding firm, according to the NLRC's 2013 Guidelines for Accreditation of Surety Companies, is the
submission of a valid Certificate of Accreditation and Authority granted by the OCA. The Legal and
Enforcement Division of the NLRC shall provide a copy of the Certificate of Accreditation and Authority,
as well as a list of accredited surety companies and their agents, to all Presiding/Commissioners and
Deputy/Executive Clerks of Court, upon submission of the same and compliance with the other
requirements. While the aforementioned rules were only established in 2013, it is reasonable to assume
that the Memorandum dated June 8, 2010 served the same goal, namely, to provide a list of accredited
bonding companies to all Presiding/Commissioners and Executive/Labor Arbiters. For starters, the Legal
and Enforcement Division sent the Memorandum to all Presiding/Commissioners, Executive/Labor
Arbiters, and those who follow the aforementioned standards. For another, as petitioners correctly pointed
out, there could have been no other reasonable rationale for the abovementioned issuance than to inform
the concerned labor authorities of the list of bonding businesses with which they may conduct business in
their respective offices.
SEGIFREDO T. VILCHEZ, Petitioner,
vs.
In March 1999, petitioner informed respondent FSC management of the necessity for PNP
SOSIA licenses for its 159 physical security officers, and offered to assume entire responsibility for
obtaining the licenses and other criteria. He requested a total of 127,200.00 for the 159 security officers'
licenses, NBI clearances, psychological evaluations, and drug testing. Respondent FSC prepared
Disbursement Voucher No. 043084 dated March 25, 1999 in the sum of 127, 200.00 payable to a certain
Col. Angelito Gerangco, based on petitioner's counsel and suggestion, and petitioner attested that the
expenses were necessary and incurred under his direct supervision. To reimburse the cash advanced by
respondent FSC, all of the security employees involved were each deducted $800.00 in the same month.
After determining that Gerangco was not a designated disbursing officer and hence should not be
provided a cash advance, the Commission on Audit (COA) issued a Notice of Suspension of the
127,200.00 transaction on August 20, 1999. The COA further advised the petitioner to resolve the
suspension notice as soon as possible, citing Section 82 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1445, which
states that items not resolved after 90 days of receipt will be invalidated. Despite the passage of one (1)
year, no agreement was reached.
Respondent Kabigting wrote to petitioner, then FSC President, on April 16, 2001, that an
administrative action was being taken against him for serious misconduct resulting in loss of trust and
confidence, which offense constituted a ground for termination of employment under the Freeport Service
Corporation's Rules on Administration of Discipline, as well as Article 282 of the Labor Code.
Issues
1. Whether or not Segifredo Vilchez should be dismissed?
Decision
vs.
Facts
On February 21, 1993, and January 1996, respectively, Marilyn Domrique and Carina Leao began
working for [petitioners] as [photocopy] machine operators. They were assigned to the [petitioners'] Brgy
branch. 10, A.G. Laoag City's Tupaz Avenue. [Respondent] Domrique was paid 145.00 per day or 200.00
per day [with a 55.00 allowance], whereas [respondent] Leao was paid 120.00 per day. They also receive
7% of the branch's monthly earnings and are supplied with free lodging by [petitioners]. One (1) liquid
and one (1) powder photocopying equipment were assigned to [respondent Domrique].She was also
responsible with keeping track of photocopying supplies including bond papers and toners. [Respondent]
Leao, on the other hand, was assigned to manage one (1) liquid picture copier and keep the money
collected from consumers from October 1 to October 31, 2005.
On October 12, 2005, [respondent] Leao and another employee, Grace Lorenzo, filed a formal
complaint with the Regional Director of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), San
Fernando City, La Union, alleging that [petitioners] had violated labor rules. As a result, on October 18,
2005, the DOLE's Labor Inspector conducted an inspection of the company's premises, and according to
his report, [petitioners] committed certain labor standards violations, including underpayment of wages,
13th month pay, overtime pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leaves.
Susana Montano, the establishment's manager and the wife of [herein petitioner] Virgilio
Montano, requested an audit of their Laoag City branch on November 2, 2005. She does routine checks
and inspections of [petitioner] Copy Central's branches to examine the meter readings attached to the
phototopying machines as the company's manager. The number of documents copied at a rate of P.50 per
powder-type copy and P.50 each liquid-type copy is shown by such meter readings. It was stated that
following the said audit of the meter readings by a specific Cliezelle Jane "Kleng" Jacinto, anomalies in
the reading reports supplied by [respondents] Domrique and Leao were identified.Susana Montano came
to the conclusion that the [respondents] colluded to falsify meter readings in order to pocket the difference
between their final report and the actual meter reading. According to Jacinto and another technician
named Albert Alviz, [respondent] Domrique allegedly collected ₱31,472.50 between October 1 and
October 30, 2005, while [respondent] Leao pocketed ₱3,501.00. Susana Montano went to the police
station on November 3, 2005, to have the incident recorded in the police blotter. On the same day,
[respondents] were also forced to sign a paper called "Naiget Nga Kari," which means "Solemn Promise"
in Iloco dialect.
The CA issued its contested Decision on February 16, 2010, with the following dispositive
portion:
As a result, the petition is granted. The challenged National Labor Relations Commission
Decision dated May 29, 2009 and Resolution dated August 14, 2009 are therefore SET ASIDE, and the
Labor Arbiter's Decision dated February 28, 2006 is REINSTATED.
The Court of Appeals' Decision dated February 16, 2010 and Resolution dated July 20, 2010 in
CA-G.R. No. AFFIRMED in SP No. 110614.