Teng vs Pahagac

download Teng vs Pahagac

of 22

Transcript of Teng vs Pahagac

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac


    Republic of the Philippines

    Supreme Court



    AL!RT T!N"# $oin% business

    un$er the firm name AL!RT

    T!N" &ISH TRADIN"# an$

    !MILIA T!N"'CH(A,


    - versus -



    H!RNAN *) ADILL!S an$

    ")R) No) +,-./0


    CARPIO MORALES, J., Chairperson,



    VILLARAMA, JR., and


  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac


    RO"!R S) PAHA"AC#



    Nove#er $%, &'$'

    1'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 1

    D ! C I S I O N


    Be(ore t)is Court is a Petition (or Revie* on Certiorari$+$ (i!ed #

    petitioners A!#ert en" /is) radin", its o*ner A!#ert en", and its ana"er

    Ei!ia en"-C)ua, to reverse and set aside t)e Septe#er &$, &''0 de1ision&+&

    and t)e Septe#er $, &''2 reso!ution3+3 o( t)e Court o( Appea!s 4CA5 in CA-6.R.

    SP No. %7%73. )e CA reversed t)e de1ision o( t)e Vo!untar Ar#itrator 4 VA5,

    Nationa! Con1i!iation and Mediation Board 4NCMB5, Re"ion I8, 9a#oan"a Cit,

    and de1!ared t)at t)ere eists an ep!oer-ep!oee re!ations)ip #et*een en"

    and respondents ;ernan Badi!!es, Or!ando Laese, Eddie Nipa, A!(redo Pa)a"a1,

    and Ro"er Pa)a"a1 41o!!e1tive!, respondent workers5. It a!so (ound t)at en"

    i!!e"a!! disissed t)e respondent *or rollo,pp. ?-3%.

    &+& Penned # Asso1iate Justi1e Arturo 6. aa", and 1on1urred in # Asso1iate Justi1e Este!a

    M. Per!as-Berna#e and Asso1iate Justi1e Ed"ardo A. Cae!!o> id.at 0$-2$.

    3+3Id.at 2&-23.

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac



    A!#ert en" /is) radin" is en"a"ed in deep sea (is)in" and, (or t)is

    purpose, o*ns #oats 4basnig5, e@uipent, and ot)er (is)in" parap)erna!ia. As

    o*ner o( t)e #usiness, en" 1!ais t)at )e 1ustoari! enters into oint venture

    a"reeents *it) aster (is)eren 4maestros5 *)o are s to report to en" viaradio 1ouni1ation t)e

    1!asses and vo!ue o( ea1) 1at1)> to re1eive instru1tions (ro )i as to *)ere and

    *)en to un!oad t)e 1at1)> to prepare t)e !ist o( t)e provisions re@uested # t)e

    maestroand t)e e1)ani1 (or )is approva!> and, to pro1ure t)e ites as approved

    0+0Id. at $0.

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac


    # )i.2+2 )e a!so 1!aied t)at t)e re1eived re"u!ar ont)! sa!aries, $3 t)

    ont) pa, C)ristas #onus, and in1entives in t)e (or o( s)ares in t)e tota!

    vo!ue o( (is) 1au")t.

    )e asserted t)at soetie in Septe#er &''&, en" epressed )is dou#ts

    on t)e 1orre1t vo!ue o( (is) 1au")t in ever (is)in" voa"e. D+D In e1e#er

    &''&, en" in(ored t)e t)at t)eir servi1es )ad #een terinated.%+%

    In )is de(ense, en" aintained t)at )e did not )ave an )and in )irin" t)e

    respondent *or t)e maestros, rat)er t)an )e, invited t)e to oin t)e venture.

    A11ordin" to )i, )is ro!e *as 1!ear! !iited to t)e provision o( t)e ne1essar

    1apita!, too!s and e@uipent, 1onsistin" o( basnig,"ears, (ue!, (ood, and ot)er


    )e VA rendered a de1ision?+? in en"Fs (avor and de1!ared t)at no

    ep!oer-ep!oee re!ations)ip eisted #et*een en" and t)e respondent *or

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac


    G;ERE/ORE, preises 1onsidered, ud"ent is )ere# rendered

    disissin" t)e instant 1op!aint (or !a1< o( erit.

    It (o!!o*s a!so, t)at a!! ot)er 1!ais are !i

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac


    On4ul8 5+# 5//6# t)e respondent-*or


    #. no ep!oer-ep!oee re!ations)ip eisted #et*een en" and t)e

    respondent *or

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac


    en" 1ontends t)at t)e VAFs de1ision is not su#e1t to a otion (or

    re1onsideration in t)e a#sen1e o( an spe1i(i1 provision a!!o*in" t)is re1ourse

    under Arti1!e &D&-A o( t)e La#or Code.$%+$% ;e 1ites t)e $?7? Pro1edura!

    6uide!ines,*)i1), as t)e VA de1!ared, does not provide t)e reed o( a otion (or

    re1onsideration.$7+$7 ;e 1!ais t)at a(ter t)e !apse o( $' das (ro its re1eipt, t)e

    VAFs de1ision #e1oes (ina! and ee1utor un!ess an appea! is ta

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac


    TH! CO(RT>S R(LIN"

    Ge reso!ve to $en8t)e petition (or !a1< o( erit.

    Article 262-A of the Labor Code does not

    prohibit the filing of a motion for


    On Mar1) &$, $?7?, Repu#!i1 A1t No. D%$2&3+&3 too< e((e1t, aendin",

    aon" ot)ers, Arti1!e &D3 o( t)e La#or Code *)i1) *as

    &3+&3 An A1t o Etend Prote1tion o La#or, Stren"t)en )e Constitutiona! Ri")ts O( Gor

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac


    ori"ina!! *orded as:

    Art. &D3 Vo!untar ar#itration a*ards or de1isions shall be final#

    unappealable# an$ e1ecutor8)

    As aended, Arti1!e &D3 is no* Arti1!e &D&-A, *)i1) states:

    Art. &D&-A. +)e a*ard or de1ision s)a!! 1ontain t)e (a1ts and

    t)e !a* on *)i1) it is #ased. It shall be final an$ e1ecutor8 after ten ?+/@

    calen$ar $a8s from receipt of the cop8 of the a7ar$ or $ecision b8 theparties)

    Nota#!, Arti1!e &D&-A de!eted t)e *ord unappealableB(ro Arti1!e &D3.

    )e de!i#erate se!e1tion o( t)e !an"ua"e in t)e aendator a1t di((erin" (ro t)at

    o( t)e ori"ina! a1t indi1ates t)at t)e !e"is!ature intended a 1)an"e in t)e !a*, and

    t)e 1ourt s)ou!d endeavor to "ive e((e1t to su1) intent.&0+&0 Ge re1o"niHed t)e

    intent o( t)e 1)an"e o( p)raseo!o" inImperial &e'tile Mills, In#. v. (ampang,&2+&2

    *)ere *e ru!ed t)at:

    It is true t)at t)e present ru!e +Art. &D&-A a"ortillo v. (alvani,20 P)i!. 203 4$?3'5.

    &2+&2 6.R. No. ?0?D', Mar1) 7, $??3, &$? SCRA D2$.

    &D+&DId.at D20.

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac


    In Co#a*Cola Bottlers "hil., In#., (ales +or#e nion*"&%-*Balais v.

    Co#a*Cola Bottlers "hilippines, In#.,&%+&% *e !i

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac


    erred in denin" t)e otion #e1ause no otion (or re1onsideration is a!!o*ed.

    )e Court notes t)at despite our interpretation t)at Arti1!e &D&-A does not

    pre1!ude t)e (i!in" o( a otion (or re1onsideration o( t)e VAFs de1ision, a 1ontrar

    provision 1an #e (ound in Se1tion %, Ru!e 8I8 o( t)e epartent o( La#orFs

    epartent Order 45 No. 0', series o( &''3:3&+3&

    Ru!e 8I8

    Se1tion %. &inalit8 of A7ar$Decision) E )e de1ision, order, reso!utionor a*ard o( t)e vo!untar ar#itrator or pane! o( vo!untar ar#itrators s)a!! #e (ina!

    and ee1utor a(ter ten 4$'5 1a!endar das (ro re1eipt o( t)e 1op o( t)e a*ard

    or de1ision # t)e parties and it shall not be subFect of a motion for


    Presua#! on t)e #asis o( O 0'-'3, t)e $?7? Pro1edura! 6uide!ines *as revised

    in &''2 42334 "ro#ed$ral %$idelines5,33

    +33 *)ose pertinent provisions providet)at:

    Rule VII E


    Se1tion D. Finality of Decisions. )e de1ision o( t)e Vo!untar

    Ar#itrator s)a!! #e (ina! and ee1utor a(ter ten 4$'5 1a!endar das (ro re1eipt o(

    t)e 1op o( t)e de1ision # t)e parties.

    Se1tion %.Motions for Reconsideration. )e de1ision o( t)e Vo!untar

    Ar#itrator is not subFect of a Motion for Reconsi$eration)

    3&+3& oo< e((e1t on Mar1) $2, &''3.

    33+33 Si"ned # t)e Se1retar o( La#or on Mar1) $2, &''2.

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac


    Ge are surprised t)at neit)er t)e VA nor en" 1ited O 0'-'3 and t)e &''2

    Pro1edura! 6uide!ines as aut)orities (or t)eir 1ause, 1onsiderin" t)at t)ese *ere t)e

    "overnin" ru!es *)i!e t)e 1ase *as pendin" and t)ese dire1t! and (u!! supported

    t)eir t)eor. ;ad t)e done so, t)eir re!ian1e on t)e provisions *ou!d )ave

    nevert)e!ess #een unavai!in" (or reasons *e s)a!! no* dis1uss.

    In t)e eer1ise o( its po*er to prou!"ate ip!eentin" ru!es and

    re"u!ations, an ip!eentin" a"en1, su1) as t)e epartent o( La#or,30+30 is

    restri1ted (ro "oin" #eond t)e ters o( t)e !a* it see it s)ou!d

    neit)er odi( nor iprove t)e !a*. )e a"en1 (oru!atin" t)e ru!es and

    "uide!ines 1annot e1eed t)e statutor aut)orit "ranted to it # t)e !e"is!ature. 32


    B a!!o*in" a $'-da period, t)e o#vious intent o( Con"ress in aendin"

    Arti1!e &D3 to Arti1!e &D&-A is to provide an opportunit (or t)e part adverse!

    a((e1ted # t)e VAFs de1ision to see< re1ourse viaa otion (or re1onsideration or a

    petition (or revie* under Ru!e 03 o( t)e Ru!es o( Court (i!ed *it) t)e CA. Indeed,

    a otion (or re1onsideration is t)e ore appropriate reed in !ine *it) t)e

    do1trine o( e)austion o( adinistrative reedies. /or t)is reason, an appea! (ro

    30+30La#or Code, Arti1!e 2.5$les and reg$lations) )e epartent o( La#or and ot)er "overnent a"en1ies1)ar"ed *it) t)e adinistration and en(or1eent o( t)is Code or an o( its parts s)a!! prou!"ate t)e ne1essar

    ip!eentin" ru!es and re"u!ations. Su1) ru!es and re"u!ations s)a!! #e1oe e((e1tive (i(teen 4$25 das a(ter

    announ1eent o( t)eir adoption in ne*spapers o( "enera! 1ir1u!ation.

    32+32"hilippine Apparel -orkers nion v. N65C,No. L-2'3&', Ju! 3$, $?7$, $'D SCRA 000.

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac


    adinistrative a"en1ies to t)e CA via Ru!e 03 o( t)e Ru!es o( Court re@uires

    e)austion o( avai!a#!e reedies3D+3D as a 1ondition pre1edent to a petition under

    t)at Ru!e.

    )e re@uireent t)at adinistrative reedies #e e)austed is #ased on t)e

    do1trine t)at in providin" (or a reed #e(ore an adinistrative a"en1, ever

    opportunit ust #e "iven to t)e a"en1 to reso!ve t)e atter and to e)aust a!!

    opportunities (or a reso!ution under t)e "iven reed #e(ore #rin"in" an a1tion in,

    or resortin" to, t)e 1ourts o( usti1e.3%

    +3% G)ere Con"ress )as not 1!ear! re@uirede)austion, sound udi1ia! dis1retion "overns,37+37 "uided # 1on"ressiona!


    B disa!!o*in" re1onsideration o( t)e VAFs de1ision, Se1tion %, Ru!e 8I8 o(

    O 0'-'3 and Se1tion % o( t)e &''2 Pro1edura! 6uide!ines *ent dire1t! a"ainst

    t)e !e"is!ative intent #e)ind Arti1!e &D&-A o( t)e La#or Code. )ese ru!es den t)e

    VA t)e 1)an1e to 1orre1t )ise!(0'+0' and 1ope! t)e 1ourts o( usti1e to

    preature! intervene *it) t)e a1tion o( an adinistrative a"en1 entrusted *it)

    t)e adudi1ation o( 1ontroversies 1oin" under its spe1ia!

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac


    spe1ia!iHed adinistrative a"en1ies *it) t)e spe1ia!

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac


    /or t)e $3 ears t)at t)e respondent *or

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac


    )e dire1ted )o* t)e respondent *or

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac


    4i5 )e 1ontra1tor or su#1ontra1tor does not )ave su#stantia! 1apita! or

    investent *)i1) re!ates to t)e o#, *or< or servi1e to #e per(ored and

    t)e ep!oees re1ruited, supp!ied or p!a1ed # su1) 1ontra1tor orsu#1ontra1tor are per(orin" a1tivities *)i1) are dire1t! re!ated to t)e

    ain #usiness o( t)e prin1ipa!> or

    4ii5 )e 1ontra1tor does not eer1ise t)e ri")t to 1ontro! over t)e per(oran1eo( t)e *or< o( t)e 1ontra1tua! ep!oee.

    In t)e present 1ase, t)e maestrosdid not )ave an su#stantia! 1apita! or

    investent. en" aditted t)at )e so!e! provided t)e 1apita! and e@uipent, *)i!e

    t)e maestros supp!ied t)e *or

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac


    )e disissa! o( an ep!oee, *)i1) t)e ep!oer ust va!idate, )as a

    t*o(o!d re@uireent: one is su#stantive, t)e ot)er is pro1edura!.0%+0% Not on!

    ust t)e disissa! #e (or a ust or an aut)oriHed 1ause, as provided # !a*> t)e

    rudientar re@uireents o( due pro1ess t)e opportunit to #e )eard and to

    de(end onese!( ust #e o#served as *e!!.07+07 )e ep!oer )as t)e #urden o(

    provin" t)at t)e disissa! *as (or a ust 1ause> (ai!ure to s)o* t)is, as in t)e

    present 1ase, *ou!d ne1essari! ean t)at t)e disissa! *as unusti(ied and,

    t)ere(ore, i!!e"a!.0?+0?

    )e respondent *or415 /raud or *i!!(u! #rea1) # t)e ep!oee o( t)e trust reposed in )i # )is

    ep!oer or du! aut)oriHed representative>

    4d5 Coission o( a 1rie or o((ense # t)e ep!oee a"ainst t)e person o( )isep!oer or an iediate e#er o( )is (ai! or )is du! aut)oriHed

    representatives> and

    4e5 Ot)er 1auses ana!o"ous to t)e (ore"oin".

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac


    and "enera!ities *ou!d p!a1e t)e ep!oee at t)e er1 o( )is ep!oer, and *ou!d

    eas1u!ate t)e ri")t to se1urit o( tenure.2$+2$ /or )is (ai!ure to 1op! *it) t)e

    La#or CodeFs su#stantive re@uireent on terination o( ep!oent, *e de1!are

    t)at en" i!!e"a!! disissed t)e respondent *or

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac



    Asso1iate Justi1e


    Asso1iate Justi1e


    Asso1iate Justi1e


    Asso1iate Justi1e

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac



    I attest t)at t)e 1on1!usions in t)e a#ove e1ision )ad #een rea1)ed in

    1onsu!tation #e(ore t)e 1ase *as assi"ned to t)e *riter o( t)e opinion o( t)e CourtFs



    Asso1iate Justi1e



    Pursuant to Se1tion $3, Arti1!e VIII o( t)e Constitution, and t)e ivision

    C)airpersonFs Attestation, it is )ere# 1erti(ied t)at t)e 1on1!usions in t)e a#ove

    e1ision )ad #een rea1)ed in 1onsu!tation #e(ore t)e 1ase *as assi"ned to t)e

    *riter o( t)e opinion o( t)e CourtFs ivision.

  • 8/12/2019 Teng vs Pahagac



    C)ie( Justi1e