G.R. No. 83402 Case Digest

G.R. No. 83402, October 6, 1997
Algon Engineering Const. Corp. and Alex Gonzales, petitioners
vs NLRC and Jose Espinosa, respondents
Ponente: Hermosisima

Facts:
This is a petition for certiorari assailing the resolution of NLRC dismissing their appeal and denying their  motion for reconsideration and affriming the Labor arbiter's findings that Espinosa is an employee of Algon.

Algon as standard operating procedure of their construction business entered into a lease of contract with Espinosa for the storage and parking of their heavy equipment in exchange for a storage or parking fee. 

Espinosa claims that he was hired by Algon to be a watchman with the duty of guarding the heavy equipment in other house spaces his area from 6pm to 6am. This was affirmed by Labor arbiter, finding that Algon pays Espinosa P20 on a daily basis as watchman.

Algon then appealed to the NLRC, arguing that Algon did not hire Espinosa, the relationship is merely that of leased storage or parking space. But NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter on the same basis.

Ruling: Petition with no merit.

(1) Cash vouchers issued by Algon as payment to Espinosa illustrate that Espinosa was paid not only for the storage and parking in his premisess but also with the other storage of Algon. (2) Algon's memorandum issued to Espinosa citing him for the loss of 4 batteries is sufficient to prove the existence of en employer-employee relationship as well. The two evidence fulfilling the elements of employer-employee relationship: (1) selection and engagement of the employee; (2) payment of wages; (3) power of dismissal; and (4) employer's own power to control employee's conduct.

Issue: Existence of an employee-employer relationship between Algon and Espinosa

G.R. Nos. 83380-81 Case Digest

G.R. Nos. 83380-81 November 15, 1989
Makati Haberda Shery Inc., Jorge Ledesma and Cecilio Inocencio, petitioners
vs NLRC, etc., respondents.
Ponente: Fernan

Facts:
This is a petition assailing the decision of NLRC affirming the decision of Labor Arbiter finding Haberda guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering him to reinstate the dismissed workers and in concluding that there is employer-employee relationship between workers and Haberda.

The complainants were working for Haberda as tailors, seamstress, sewers, basters and plantsadoras. Paid on a piece-rate basis with allowance when they report for work before 9:30am everyday.(MON-SAT)

July 1984, the labor organization where the complainants are members filed a complaint for underpayment of basic wage, living allowance, non-payment of overtime work, non-payment of holiday pay, non-payment of service incentive pay ad other benefits under wage orders.

During the pendency, Haberda dismiss the workers for the alleged job acceptance from another, which was denied by the workers and countered by filing a complaint for illegal dismissal. Which was granted by NLRC. Hence, this petition raising the issues on:

Issues: (1) employer-employee relationship? (2) workers entitled to monetary claims? (3) were respondents illegally dismissed?

Ruling:
(1) There is employer-employee relationship. The facts at bar indubitably reveal that the most important requisite of control is present. As gleaned from the operations of petitioner, when a customer enters into a contract with the haberdashery or its proprietor, the latter directs an employee who may be a tailor, pattern maker, sewer or "plantsadora" to take the customer's measurements, and to sew the pants, coat or shirt as specified by the customer. Supervision is actively manifested in all these aspects — the manner and quality of cutting, sewing and ironing.
(2) Because the workers were proven to be regular employees, they shall be entitled to minimum wages. Plus the respondents didn't appealed when the Labor Arbiter granted the minimum wage award to the workers in the first place. But workers are not entitled to incentive pay and other benefits because piece-rate workers are paid at fixed amount for performing work irrespective of the time consumed.
(3) There was no illegal dismissal to the two workers accused of the copied Barong Tagalog design, because when they were asked to explain to their employer, the workers did not but instead go AWOL. Imposing disciplinary sanctions upon an employee for just and valid cause is within the rights of the employer.

G.R. No. 81510 Case Digest

G.R. NO. 81510, March 14, 1990

Hortencia Salazar, petitioner

vs Hon. Tomas Achaoso as Administrator of POEA and Ferdie Marquez, respondents

Ponente: Sarmiento

Facts:

Concerns the validity of the power of Secretary of Labor to issue of warrants of arrest and seizure under Article 38 of the Labor Code, prohibiting illegal recruitment

On October 1987, Rosalie Tesoro of Pasay City in a sworn statement filed with POEA charged Hortencia Salazar of illegally taking her PECC Card thus prohibiting her to be employed.

On November 1987, Atty. Marquez telegram the petitioner to report to the anti-illegal recruitment unit of PEOA, but on the same day, having ascertained that the petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment agency, Achaoso issued his challenged Closure and Seizure Order stating that pursuant to PD No. 1920, the recruitment agency ordered be for closure and seizure of the documents having verified that it has (1) no valid license from DOLE to recruit and deploy workers for overseas employment (2) committed acts prohibited under Article 34 of Labor Code in relation to Article 38.

On January 26, 1988, POEA director on Licensing and Regulation Atty. Espiritu issued an office order designating the Atty Marquez and other members of a team tasked to implement closure and seizure.

On January 28, 1988, petitioner filed a petition with POEA that the personal properties seized at her residence be immediately returned on the ground that it was contrary to law because: (1) client was not given prior notice or hearing, (2) violates section 2 of constitution (3)  the premises invaded were the private residence of the Salazar family and it was without consent.

On February 2, 1988 before POEA could answer the letter, petitioner filed the instant petition, on even date, POEA filed a criminal complaint against her with the Pasig Provincial Fiscal

Issue: May POEA validly issue warrants of search and seizure under Article 38 of the Labor Code?

Ruling: 

Under new constitution, only a judge may issue warrants of search and arrest, however in the amended RA 8042, the minister of labor shall have the power to cause the arrest and detention of non-licensee of authority if after proper investigation.

Petition is granted, Article 38 of the Labor code is declared unconstitutional and null and void. 

G.R. No. 127195 Case Digest

G.R. No. 127195, August 25, 1999

Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. and Diamantides Maritime, Inc.. petitioners

vs NLRC and Wilfredo Cajeras, respondents

Ponente: Bellosillo

Facts:

Petitioners assail the decision of public respondent NLRC affirming the Labor Arbiter's decision finding them guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering them to pay Wilfredo Cajeras salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment contract, plus attorney's fees.

Cajeras was hired by Marsaman, the local manning agent of Diamantides as chief cook steward on MV Prigipos, owned and operated by Diamantides, for a period of 10 months with monthly salary of US$600. Cajeras started work on August 1995 but in less than 2 months was repatriated to the Philippines allegedly by mutual consent.

On November 1995 Cajeras filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioners with the NLRC-NCR Arbitration branch alleging that he was dismissed illegally, denying that his repatriation was by mutual consent and asking for payment. That he was assigned as chief cook, assistant cook and mess man in addition assignment. And because of the added assignments, he became sick and requested for medical attention but was refused by the ship's captain. When the ship docked in Holland, Cajeras were examined by a doctor who recommended for the immediate repatriation of Cajeras for some disease unknown.

On September 1995, Cajeras was handed his seaman's service record book with the mutual consent as the cause of discharge. Cajeras promptly objected for the cause of discharge but was not able to do anything as ha was immediately sent to the airport. After his arrival in Manila, Cajeras complained to Marsaman but to no avail.

Marsaman and Diamantides denied the imputation of illegal dismissal, alleging that Cajeras approached the captain and requested for repatriation and the doctors diagnose showed that he is suffering from paranoia and other mental problems.

On January 1996, Labor Arbiter resolved the dispute in favor of Cajeras ruling that the manning company did not show convincing evidence.

Petitioners then appealed to the NLRC, but NLRC affirmed the findings of the labor arbiter. That petitioners didn't proved the mutual consent especially by noting that Cajeras did not actually sign his seaman's service record book to signify his repatriation. The captain's deck log was not considered reliable because Cajeras was given opportunity to contest the entry.

Petitioners motion for reconsideration contends that: (1) NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in not according full faith and credit to the official entry of captain, (2) by not appreciating the medical report issued by the examining doctor, (3) in affirming the award of attorney's fees despite the claim for exemplary damages and (4) in ordering a monetary award beyond the maximum of 3 months salary for every year of service set by RA 8042.

Ruling: Petition denied.

The employment of a Filipino seaman according to the Standard Employment Contract may be terminated when expiration of the contract unless Master and the Seaman by mutual consent in writing agree to an early termination. Of which, no document was shown to prove the mutual consent.

The deck log was not given credit too because there was no signature showing that Cajeras signify his conformity to the repatriation.

The medical diagnose of the examining doctor was not credited too because the doctor was a medical practitioner and didn't show expertise as to the diagnose of paranoia and mental disease. 

The attorney's fees awarded will suffice too because in action for recovery of wages where an employee was forced to litigate and incurred expenses to protect his rights and interests, a maximum of 10% is legally and morally justifiable to be entitled with the award.

As to the salaries, the rule has been that an illegally dismissed worker whose employment if for a fixed period shall be entitled to payment of his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment. However, Section 10 of RA 8042 provides that "...the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of the employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term whichever is less."

Court agree with petitioner that Cajeras can't be entitled with the full payment of his unexpired term because he served for less than two months but we disagree that Cajeras is entitled to 3 months pay only because the law is not clear also as to the terms of the payment thus as a general rule in interpreting a statute that every part of the word thereof be given effect.

NLRC's decision was affirmed.

G.R. No. 127195 Case Digest

G.R. No. 127195, August 25, 1999

Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. and Diamantides Maritime, Inc.. petitioners

vs NLRC and Wilfredo Cajeras, respondents

Ponente: Bellosillo

Facts:

Petitioners assail the decision of public respondent NLRC affirming the Labor Arbiter's decision finding them guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering them to pay Wilfredo Cajeras salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment contract, plus attorney's fees.

Cajeras was hired by Marsaman, the local manning agent of Diamantides as chief cook steward on MV Prigipos, owned and operated by Diamantides, for a period of 10 months with monthly salary of US$600. Cajeras started work in August 1995 but in less than 2 months was repatriated to the Philippines allegedly by mutual consent.

In November 1995 Cajeras filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioners with the NLRC-NCR Arbitration branch alleging that he was dismissed illegally, denying that his repatriation was by mutual consent and asking for payment. That he was assigned as chief cook, assistant cook and mess man in addition assignment. And because of the added assignments, he became sick and requested for medical attention but was refused by the ship's captain. When the ship docked in Holland, Cajeras were examined by a doctor who recommended for the immediate repatriation of Cajeras for some disease unknown.

In September 1995, Cajeras was handed his seaman's service record book with the mutual consent as the cause of discharge. Cajeras promptly objected for the cause of discharge but was not able to do anything as ha was immediately sent to the airport. After his arrival in Manila, Cajeras complained to Marsaman but to no avail.

Marsaman and Diamantides denied the imputation of illegal dismissal, alleging that Cajeras approached the captain and requested for repatriation and the doctors diagnose showed that he is suffering from paranoia and other mental problems.

In January 1996, Labor Arbiter resolved the dispute in favor of Cajeras ruling that the manning company did not show convincing evidence.

Petitioners then appealed to the NLRC, but NLRC affirmed the findings of the labor arbiter. That petitioners didn't proved the mutual consent especially by noting that Cajeras did not actually sign his seaman's service record book to signify his repatriation. The captain's deck log was not considered reliable because Cajeras was given opportunity to contest the entry.

Petitioners motion for reconsideration contends that: (1) NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in not according full faith and credit to the official entry of captain, (2) by not appreciating the medical report issued by the examining doctor, (3) in affirming the award of attorney's fees despite the claim for exemplary damages and (4) in ordering a monetary award beyond the maximum of 3 months salary for every year of service set by RA 8042.

Ruling: Petition denied.

The employment of a Filipino seaman according to the Standard Employment Contract may be terminated when expiration of the contract unless Master and the Seaman by mutual consent in writing agree to an early termination. Of which, no document was shown to prove the mutual consent. The deck log was not given credit too because there was no signature showing that Cajeras signify his conformity to the repatriation.

The medical diagnose of the examining doctor was not credited too because the doctor was a medical practitioner and didn't show expertise as to the diagnose of paranoia and mental disease. 

The attorney's fees awarded will suffice too because in action for recovery of wages where an employee was forced to litigate and incurred expenses to protect his rights and interests, a maximum of 10% is legally and morally justifiable to be entitled with the award.

As to the salaries, the rule has been that an illegally dismissed worker whose employment if for a fixed period shall be entitled to payment of his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment. However, Section 10 of RA 8042 provides that "...the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of the employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term whichever is less."

Court agree with petitioner that Cajeras can't be entitled with the full payment of his unexpired term because he served for less than two months but we disagree that Cajeras is entitled to 3 months pay only because the law is not clear also as to the terms of the payment thus as a general rule in interpreting a statute that every part of the word thereof be given effect.

NLRC's decision is affirmed.

G.R. No. L-58886 Case Digest

G.R. No. L-58886 December 13, 1998

Consuelo Mallari, petitioner

vs People of the Philippines and CA, respondents

Ponente: Fernan

Facts:

Mallari with 3 others was accused of crime of estafa thru falsification of public document before the court of first instance of manila. Upon arraignment, Mallari pleaded not guilty. Trial was conducted then court rendered that Mallari is guilty of the crime charged. 

Mallari then appeal to CA but resulted to CA affirmation of the CFI's decision with modification as to the penalty.

Mallari then motion for reconsideration and contended that the decision placed her in jeopardy of being punished for the same offense. Unconvinced the appellate court denied the motion.

Issue: whether the accused was placed in double jeopardy?

Ruling: requisites of double jeopardy are the following: (1) first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second (2) first jeopardy must have been validly terminated and  (3) second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first

The question lies on the 3rd requisite because obviously 1st and 2nd is present in the case.The information filed in the two cases were compared and showed that they refer to the same series of acts, which is considered as continuing crimes.

Continued crime is a single crime consisting of series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution.

The singularity of the offense committed by the petitioner was demonstrated by the fact that the falsification of the two documents were performed on the same date, place and at the time on the same occasion.The petitioner having already been convicted of the complex crime of estafa stands to reason that she can no longer be held liable for the same crime in this case.

Petition granted.

G.R. No. 17165 Case Digest

G.R. No. 17165, December 13, 2007

Marietta Ilusio, petitioner

vs Sylvia Ilusorio, et. al, respondents

Ponente: Nachura

Facts:

This is an appeal by way of petition for review on certiorari by the resolution and decision by the CA on the case of petitioner for robbery, trespass to dwelling and violation of PD No. 1829 against respondents.

Petitioner alleged in a complaint affidavit that some of the respondents owns and control the majority stock of Lake Ridge Corporation, the registered owner of a penthouse. When one of the respondent left for the US, she left the petitioner full authority to take care and oversee the penthouse through a letter to that effect addressed to the management of pacific plaza.

Then, in November 1999, Sylvia Illusorio and other persons, with consent of the pacific plaza (Jovito, Chief of Security)has forcibly entered the penthouse by breaking its door and locks and allegedly caused the loss of documents and jewelry.

In a counter affidavit, respondents denied to owned and control the majority shares of the Lake Ridge and submitted copies of SEC's general information sheet all showing the stockholders of Lake Ridge. They alleged that the authority given by Erlinda to Marietta was without force and effect in absence of any board resolution to support it. Noting that Lake Ridge had not authorized the criminal case and that Erlinda's residence was not in pacific plaza but in Antipolo, Rizal. and that there is no robbery or trespassing to the penthouse because they had the right to enter the penthouse.

In a separate affidavit, Jovito explained that the penthouse was forced open was really for maintenance purposes requested by Sylvia as one of the legitimate owner of the unit. he claimed that he was merely dragged to the family feud of the Ilusorios.

In a resolution of prosecutor general Hirang of Makati city dismissed the charges against private respondents for lack of probable cause. He found out that being the legitimate owners, respondents have authority to open the penthouse and the charged against Jovito had already become moot and academic considering the dismissal of the charges for robbery and trespassing.

Marietta motion for reconsideration in DOJ but was denied. Marietta went to CA claiming for grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutors office and DOJ.

CA denied the petition for lack of merit.Marietta petition again that court should grant the petition because: (1) evidence on record sufficiently establish probable cause that the crimes were committed, (2) Marietta, Erlinda and Ramon and Shereen Ilusorio were the duly constituted officers of Lake Ridge, (3) self-serving assertions of private respondents that they were representatives of Lake Ridge  did not authorize them to break in to the penthouse

Court disagree.

On probable cause issue, based merely on opinion and reasonable belief does not import absolute certainty, finding probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial, does not impose guilty verdict.

The conduct of PI is executive in nature thus a prosecutor is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal information.in this case, we find no compelling reason to deviate from our policy of non-interference with the investigating prosecutor's findings of absence of probable cause.

Further, respondents establish by competent evidence that they are the vice-president and asst. vice-president of Lake Ridge and have the right therefore to freely enter the penthouse.

Petition is wherefore denied for lack of merit.