Masing v. Rogelio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Gregorio P. Rogelio filed a complaint for retirement pay, holiday and rest days premium pay, service incentive leave, 13th month pay, cost of living allowances, underpayment of wages, and attorney's fees against Crispin Chan and Masing and Sons Development Corporation (MSDC). Rogelio claimed to have been employed as a laborer by MSDC and its predecessors since 1949. He alleged that despite working continuously, he was issued a certification of separation from employment in 1989 to facilitate his SSS retirement benefits, but he continued working until March 17, 1997, without receiving any retirement benefits or other mandated pays from MSDC and Chan. Petitioners denied the employment relationship, asserting Rogelio was employed by an independent contractor, Wynne Lim, from July 1, 1989, onwards. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Rogelio's complaint, finding no employer-employee relationship between Rogelio and the petitioners from July 1, 1989, and that his claims were barred by prescription. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA's decision. Rogelio then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The CA reversed the NLRC's decision, finding that Rogelio had substantially established his employment with Chan and MSDC and remanding the case for computation of retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 7641. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Chan and MSDC. The Petition: Petitioners Masing and Sons Development Corporation and Crispin Chan filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision. They contend that the CA erred in taking cognizance of Rogelio's petition for certiorari despite the NLRC's decision allegedly becoming final and executory, in concluding that Rogelio remained their employee from July 6, 1989, to March 17, 1997, and in awarding retirement benefits and attorney's fees to Rogelio. The Supreme Court, in its decision, denied the petition, affirming the CA's ruling that Rogelio was indeed an employee of the petitioners and was entitled to retirement benefits.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in taking cognizance of Rogelio's petition for certiorari despite the alleged finality of the NLRC's decision. Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioners and the respondent from July 6, 1989, up to March 17, 1997. Whether the respondent is entitled to retirement benefits from the petitioners under Republic Act No. 7641.
Ruling
The Court denies the petition for review on certiorari and affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on October 24, 2003. Costs of suit are to be paid by the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the certiorari petition: The Court held that the CA did not err in taking cognizance of Rogelio's petition for certiorari. Rogelio received the NLRC's denial of his motion for reconsideration on January 16, 2003. He had 60 days from that date, or until March 17, 2003, to file his petition. The CA received his petition on March 17, 2003, making it timely filed. The Court clarified that the finality of the NLRC's decision does not preclude the filing of a special civil action for certiorari within the prescribed period, especially when the issue raised is jurisdictional. The period for filing a certiorari petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is independent of the finality of the lower tribunal's decision. On the existence of an employer-employee relationship: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that Rogelio remained an employee of the petitioners from July 6, 1989, to March 17, 1997. The Court reiterated the principle that in controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are resolved in favor of the laborer. The CA's factual findings were based on substantial evidence, including Rogelio's own statements, the affidavit of his co-worker Juanito Palomata (who did not disown his affidavit), and the certification of separation issued by Crispin Amigo Chan, which the CA considered a mere internal arrangement for SSS purposes. The Court found the petitioners' evidence, particularly the affidavit of Wynne Lim and the SSS report, insufficient to overcome the substantial evidence presented by Rogelio, especially given the continuity of Rogelio's work and the lack of clear explanation for the alleged mass transfer of employees. The Court emphasized that the petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proving their affirmative allegation that Rogelio was employed by Lim. On entitlement to retirement benefits: The Court concurred with the CA that Rogelio was entitled to retirement benefits under Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7641. The CA correctly ruled that the benefits under RA 7641 are separate from those provided under the Social Security Law, citing Oro Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC. Given the finding that Rogelio was an employee of MSDC and Chan until March 17, 1997, and that the Ibajay branch employed more than ten workers, the exemption for small establishments did not apply. The Court noted that RA 7641 was enacted as a labor protection measure and can be applied retroactively to the commencement of employment contracts. Therefore, Rogelio, having reached the retirement age and served for more than five years, was entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least one-half month's salary for every year of service.
Main Doctrine
Doubts reasonably arising from the evidence in any controversy between a laborer and his master are resolved in favor of the laborer. The existence of an employer-employee relationship must be based on substantial evidence, and the benefits under Republic Act No. 7641 are separate from Social Security Law benefits.