Gaspar v. M.I.Y. Real Estate Corp.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Flordivina M. Gaspar filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against M.I.Y. Real Estate Corporation (M.I.Y.) and Melissa Ilagan Yu. Gaspar alleged she was a regular employee of M.I.Y. from April 10, 2013, performing duties as Facilities Maintenance and Services (FM&S) personnel. Her tasks included maintaining the cleanliness and orderliness of the Goldrich Mansion, where M.I.Y. conducted business and Yu resided. Gaspar claimed M.I.Y. implemented a policy requiring her to resign every six months and that she was denied medical assistance after an accident at work. She further alleged constructive dismissal when she was prevented from reporting for work and pressured to sign a termination notice, accompanied by threatening text messages from Yu. M.I.Y. countered that it was a small company with few employees and Gaspar was not among them, presenting proof of SSS, Pag-IBIG, and PhilHealth contributions that did not include her. M.I.Y. asserted Gaspar was a domestic worker for Yu, a director of the company. Yu corroborated this, stating Gaspar was initially hired for her Pasig residence, then transferred to her Makati penthouse due to conflicts with other domestic workers, performing household tasks for a monthly salary of PHP 4,000.00. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Gaspar's complaint for lack of merit and jurisdiction, finding no employer-employee relationship between Gaspar and M.I.Y. and concluding she was a domestic worker under Yu's control. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA's decision, holding that Gaspar failed to prove her employment with M.I.Y. or Yu with substantial evidence and had not specifically denied Yu's allegations of being a domestic worker. Gaspar's motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, she filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was later amended to implead the NLRC. The CA dismissed the petition, affirming the NLRC's findings that Gaspar was not an employee of M.I.Y. but a domestic worker for Yu, and that these conclusions were supported by substantial evidence. Gaspar's motion for reconsideration before the CA was also denied. The Petition: Petitioner Flordivina M. Gaspar seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. She argues that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by affirming the findings that she was a domestic worker of Melissa Ilagan Yu and that no employer-employee relationship existed between her and M.I.Y. Real Estate Corporation. Gaspar contends that her work in the commercial establishment of M.I.Y. in Makati City, which housed Yu's residence, makes her a regular employee of M.I.Y., citing precedents where house helpers in company staff houses were deemed employees of the firm. She asserts that her work was not solely for Yu's personal comfort but for the businesses housed in the same building. The core of her petition is that the appellate court erred in upholding the labor tribunals' dismissal of her illegal dismissal complaint and money claims.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in ruling that petitioner is not an employee of M.I.Y. and consequently affirming the dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Whether an employer-employee relationship exists between petitioner and M.I.Y. Real Estate Corp. Whether petitioner is a domestic worker of Melissa Ilagan Yu.
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The April 26, 2017 Decision and the October 11, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 141835 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in ruling that petitioner is not an employee of M.I.Y. and consequently affirming the dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction: The Court ruled in the negative. It held that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Judicial review of NLRC decisions by the CA via a Rule 65 petition is limited to instances of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion signifies a capricious and arbitrary exercise of judgment, equivalent to a lack of jurisdiction. The NLRC's decisions may be deemed to have committed grave abuse of discretion if they are unsupported by substantial evidence, in total disregard of material evidence, necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or do substantial justice, contradict the LA's findings, or are necessary for a just decision. The Court accords great weight and respect to the NLRC's factual findings, considering their expertise in labor disputes, provided they are supported by substantial evidence. In this case, both the NLRC and the CA considered the evidence and uniformly found that petitioner did not establish her employment with M.I.Y. with substantial evidence, thus, the CA did not commit reversible error. On the issue of whether an employer-employee relationship exists between petitioner and M.I.Y. Real Estate Corp.: The Court found no employer-employee relationship between petitioner and M.I.Y. The existence of such a relationship is determined by the four-fold test: (1) selection and engagement of the employee; (2) payment of wages; (3) power to dismiss; and (4) power to control the employee's conduct, with the power to control being the most significant. The Court found no evidence that M.I.Y. selected or engaged petitioner. Petty cash vouchers presented were unauthenticated and easily manufactured, and there was no proof M.I.Y. paid her wages. The notice of termination was unsigned and its purported signatory was not proven to be connected with M.I.Y., indicating M.I.Y. lacked the power to dismiss her. Crucially, M.I.Y. did not control the means and methods by which petitioner performed her tasks, demonstrating the absence of the power of control. The Court found the control test sufficient to determine the absence of the relationship, rendering discussion of the economic dependence test unnecessary. The undisputed fact that petitioner was hired by Yu as a house helper further strengthened M.I.Y.'s argument that petitioner was not its employee. On the issue of whether petitioner is a domestic worker of Melissa Ilagan Yu: The Court found that a domestic employment relationship exists between petitioner and Yu. Under Republic Act No. 10361, or the "Domestic Workers Act" (Batas Kasambahay), domestic work is defined as work performed in or for a household. A domestic worker (kasambahay) is any person engaged in domestic work within an employment relationship. Petitioner's argument that she was not a domestic worker because her workplace was a commercial establishment (Goldrich Mansion) where Yu's businesses were located was found untenable. The Court agreed with the CA that petitioner's employment with Yu as a domestic worker was undisputed. She was hired as a house helper for Yu's Pasig residence and later transferred to Yu's Makati City residence, where M.I.Y. also held office. The Court concluded that petitioner performed household work solely for Yu's benefit, thus qualifying as a domestic worker. Consequently, there was no illegal dismissal to speak of, and petitioner was not entitled to separation pay, backwages, and damages, as Article 82 of the Labor Code expressly excludes domestic helpers from its coverage.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the ruling that petitioner was not an employee of M.I.Y. Real Estate Corp. but a domestic worker of Melissa Ilagan Yu, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals in upholding the labor tribunals' decisions. The absence of an employer-employee relationship with M.I.Y. was established through the four-fold test, particularly the lack of control, and the undisputed fact of her engagement as a domestic worker for Yu.