Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Masing and Sons Development Corp. v. Rogelio20180912-5466-8cestc
Masing and Sons Development Corp. v. Rogelio20180912-5466-8cestc
DECISION
BERSAMIN , J : p
In any controversy between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising
from the evidence are resolved in favor of the laborer.
We re-a rm this principle, as we uphold the decision of the Court of Appeals
(CA) that reversed the uniform nding that there existed no employment relationship
between the petitioners, as employers, and the respondent, as employee, made by the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Labor Arbiter (LA).
Petitioners Masing and Sons Development Corporation (MSDC) and Crispin Chan
assail the October 24, 2003 decision, 1 whereby the CA reversed the decision dated
January 28, 2000 of the NLRC that a rmed the decision of the LA (dismissing the
claim of the respondent for retirement bene ts on the ground that he had not been
employed by the petitioners but by another employer). EHCaDS
Antecedents
On May 19, 1997, respondent Gregorio P. Rogelio (Rogelio) brought against Chan
a complaint for retirement pay pursuant to Republic Act No. 7641, 2 in relation to Article
287 of the Labor Code, holiday and rest days premium pay, service incentive leave, 13th
month pay, cost of living allowances (COLA), underpayment of wages, and attorney's
fees. On January 20, 1998, Rogelio amended his complaint to include MSDC as a co-
respondent. His version follows.
Rogelio was rst employed in 1949 by Pan Phil. Copra Dealer, MSDC's
predecessor, which engaged in the buying and selling of copra in Ibajay, Aklan, with its
main o ce being in Kalibo, Aklan. Masing Chan owned and managed Pan Phil. Copra
Dealer, and the Branch Manager in Ibajay was a certain So Na. In 1965, Masing Chan
changed the business name of Pan Phil. Copra Dealer to Yao Mun Tek, and appointed
Jose Conanan Yap Branch Manager in Ibajay. In the 1970s, the business name of Yao
Mun Tek was changed to Aklan Lumber and General Merchandise, and Leon Chan
became the Branch Manager in Ibajay. Finally, in 1984, Masing Chan adopted the
business name of Masing and Sons Development Corporation (MSDC), appointing
Wynne or Wayne Lim (Lim) as the Branch Manager in Ibajay. Crispin Chan replaced his
father, Masing Chan, in 1990 as the manager of the entire business.
In all that time, Rogelio worked as a laborer in the Ibajay Branch, along with
twelve other employees. In January 1974, Rogelio was reported for Social Security
System (SSS) coverage. After paying contributions to the SSS for more than 10 years,
he became entitled to receive retirement bene ts from the SSS. Thus, in 1991, he
availed himself of the SSS retirement bene ts, and in order to facilitate the grant of
such bene ts, he entered into an internal arrangement with Chan and MSDC to the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
effect that MSDC would issue a certi cation of his separation from employment
notwithstanding that he would continue working as a laborer in the Ibajay Branch. DEcITS
On March 17, 1997, Rogelio was paid his last salary. Lim, then the Ibajay Branch
Manager, informed Rogelio that he was deemed retired as of that date. Chan con rmed
to Rogelio that he had already reached the compulsory retirement age when he went to
the main office in Kalibo to verify his status. Rogelio was then 67 years old. aTHCSE
Considering that Rogelio was supposedly receiving a daily salary of P70.00 until
1997, but did not receive any 13th month pay, service incentive leave, premium pay for
holidays and rest days and COLA, and even any retirement bene t from MSDC upon his
retirement in March 1997, he commenced his claim for such pay and benefits.
In substantiation, Rogelio submitted the January 19, 1998 a davits of his co-
workers, namely: Domingo Guevarra, 4 Juanito Palomata, 5 and Ambrosio Señeres, 6
whereby they each declared under oath that Rogelio had already been working at the
Ibajay Branch by the time that MSDC's predecessor had hired them in the 1950s to
work in that branch; and that MSDC and Chan had continuously employed them until
their own retirements, that is, Guevarra in 1994, and Palomata and Señeres in 1997.
They thereby corroborated the history of MSDC and the names of the various Branch
Managers as narrated by Rogelio, and con rmed that like Rogelio, they did not receive
any retirement benefits from Chan and MSDC upon their retirement.
In their defense, MSDC and Chan denied having engaged in copra buying in Ibajay,
insisting that they did not ever register in such business in any government agency.
They asserted that Lim had not been their agent or employee, because he had been an
independent copra buyer. They averred, however, that Rogelio was their former
employee, hired on January 3, 1977 and retired on June 30, 1989; 7 and that Rogelio
was thereafter employed by Lim starting from July 1, 1989 until the ling of the
complaint.
MSDC and Chan submitted the a davit of Lim, whereby Lim stated that Rogelio
was one of his employees from 1989 until the termination of his services. 8 They also
submitted SSS Form R-1A, Lim's SSS Report of Employee-Members (showing that
Rogelio and Palomata were reported as Lim's employees); 9 Lim's application for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
registration as copra buyer; 1 0 Chan's a davit; 1 1 and the a davit of Guevarra 1 2 and
Señeres, 1 3 whereby said a ants denied having executed or signed the January 19,
1998 affidavits submitted by Rogelio.
In his a davit, Guevarra recanted the statement attributed to him that he had
been employed by Chan and MSDC, and declared that he had been an employee of Lim.
Likewise, Guevarra's daughter executed an a davit, 1 4 averring that his father had been
an employee of Lim and that his father had not signed the a davit dated January 19,
1998. cDEHIC
On April 5, 1999, the LA dismissed the complaint against Chan and MSDC, ruling
thus:
From said evidence, it is our considered view that there exists no employer-
employee relationship between the parties effective July 1, 1989 up to the date of
the ling of the instant complaint complainant was an employee of Wynne O.
Lim. Hence, his claim for retirement should have been led against the latter for
he admitted that he was the employer of herein complainant in his sworn
statement dated June 9, 1998.
The rest of the claims are also dismissed for the same accrued during
complainant's employment with Wynne O. Lim. TEcAHI
SO ORDERED. 1 5
Rogelio appealed, but the NLRC a rmed the decision of the LA on January 28,
2000, observing that there could be no double retirement in the private sector; that with
the double retirement, Rogelio would be thereby enriching himself at the expense of the
Government; and that having retired in 1991, Rogelio could not avail himself of the
bene ts under Republic Act No. 7641 entitled An Act Amending Article 287 of
Presidential Decree No. 442, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Labor Code of the
Philippines, by Providing for Retirement Pay to Quali ed Private Sector Employees in
the Absence of Any Retirement Plan in the Establishment, which took effect only on
January 7, 1993. 1 6
The NLRC denied Rogelio's motion for reconsideration.
Ruling of the CA
Rogelio commenced a special civil action for certiorari in the CA, charging the
NLRC with grave abuse of discretion in denying to him the bene ts under Republic Act
No. 7641, and in rejecting his money claims on the ground of prescription. IcDHaT
On October 24, 2003, the CA promulgated its decision, 1 7 holding that Rogelio
had substantially established that he had been an employee of Chan and MSDC, and
that the bene ts under Republic Act No. 7641 were apart from the retirement bene ts
that a quali ed employee could claim under the Social Security Law, conformably with
the ruling in Oro Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 110861, November 14, 1994, 238
SCRA 105).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
The CA decreed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the public respondent
NLRC is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE. This case is remanded to the Labor
Arbiter for the proper computation of the retirement bene ts of the petitioner
based on Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended, to be pegged at the
minimum wage prevailing in Ibajay, Aklan as of March 17, 1997, and attorney's
fees based on the same. Without costs.
SO ORDERED.
Chan and MSDC's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA.
Issues
In this appeal, Chan and MSDC contend that the CA erred: (a) in taking
cognizance of Rogelio's petition for certiorari despite the decision of the NLRC having
become nal and executory almost two months before the petition was led; ( b ) in
concluding that Rogelio had remained their employee from July 6, 1989 up to March 17,
1997; and (c) in awarding retirement benefits and attorney's fees to Rogelio. HAaDTE
Ruling
The petition for review is barren of merit.
I
Certiorari was timely commenced in the CA
Anent the rst error, the Court nds that the CA did not err in taking cognizance
of the petition for certiorari of Rogelio. TcaAID
Based on the records, Rogelio received the NLRC's denial of his motion for
reconsideration on January 16, 2003. He then had 60 days from January 16, 2003, or
until March 17, 2003, within which to le his petition for certiorari. It is without doubt,
therefore, that his ling was timely considering that the CA received his petition for
certiorari at 2:44 o'clock in the afternoon of March 17, 2003.
The petitioners' insistence, that the issuance of the entry of judgment with
respect to the NLRC's decision precluded Rogelio from ling a petition for certiorari,
was unwarranted. It ought to be without debate that the nality of the NLRC's decision
was of no consequence in the consideration of whether or not he could bring a special
civil action for certiorari within the period of 60 days for doing so under Section 4, Rule
65, Rules of Court, simply because the question being thereby raised was jurisdictional.
II
Respondent remained the petitioners'
employee despite his supposed separation
Did Rogelio remain the employee of the petitioners from July 6, 1989 up to March
17, 1997? aCSEcA
We agree with the CA's factual ndings, because they were based on the
evidence and records of the case submitted before the LA. The CA essentially complied
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
with the guidepost that the substantiality of evidence depends on both its quantitative
and its qualitative aspects. 2 3 Indeed, the records substantially established that Chan
and MSDC had employed Rogelio until 1997. In contrast, Chan and MSDC failed to
adduce credible substantiation of their averment that Rogelio had been Lim's employee
from July 1989 until 1997. Credible proof that could outweigh the showing by Rogelio
to the contrary was demanded of Chan and MSDC to establish the veracity of their
allegation, for their mere allegation of Rogelio's employment under Lim did not
constitute evidence, 2 4 but they did not submit such proof, sadly failing to discharge
their burden of proving their own a rmative allegation. 2 5 In this regard, as we pointed
out at the start, the doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are resolved in favor of
the laborer in any controversy between a laborer and his master. SATDEI
III
Respondent entitled to retirement benefits
from the petitioners
Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7641, provides:
Article 287. Retirement. — Any employee may be retired upon reaching
the retirement age established in the collective bargaining agreement or other
applicable employment contract.
In case of retirement, the employee shall be entitled to receive such
retirement bene ts as he may have earned under existing laws and any collective
bargaining agreement and other agreements; Provided, however, That an
employee's retirement bene ts under any collective bargaining and other
agreements shall not be less than those provided herein.
In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement providing for
retirement bene ts of employees in the establishment, an employee
upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years or more, but not beyond sixty-
ve (65) years which is hereby declared the compulsory retirement age,
who has served at least ve (5) years in the said establishment, may
retire and shall be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least one-
half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least
six (6) months being considered as one whole year. cSTHAC
Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term one-
half (1/2) month salary shall mean fteen (15) days plus one-twelfth
(1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash equivalent of not more than
five (5) days of service incentive leaves.
Was Rogelio entitled to the retirement bene ts under Article 287 of the Labor
Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7641? aTcIAS
We concur with the CA's holding. The third paragraph of the aforequoted
provision of the Labor Code entitled Rogelio to retirement bene ts as a necessary
consequence of the nding that Rogelio was an employee of MSDC and Chan. Indeed,
there should be little, if any, doubt that the bene ts under Republic Act No. 7641, which
was enacted as a labor protection measure and as a curative statute to respond, in part
at least, to the nancial well-being of workers during their twilight years soon following
their life of labor, can be extended not only from the date of its enactment but
retroactively to the time the employment contracts started. 2 7
WHEREFORE, the Court denies the petition for review on certiorari, and a rms
the decision promulgated on October 24, 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 75983.
Costs of suit to be paid by the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Corona, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Del Castillo and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 111-121; penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao (retired), with Associate
Justice Cancio C. Garcia (later Presiding Justice of the CA and a Member of the Court)
and Associate Justice Danilo B. Pine (retired), concurring.
2.Approved on December 9, 1992 and effective on January 7, 1993.
3.CA rollo, p. 48.
4.Id., pp. 44-45.
5.Id.
6.Id., pp. 46-47.
7.Id., p. 35.
8.Id., p. 38.
9.Id., p. 36.
10.Id., p. 37.
11.Id., pp. 39-40.
12.Id., p. 51.
20.Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage v. NLRC, G.R. No. 98368, December 15, 1993, 228 SCRA
473, 478.
21.Lopez v. Bodega City , supra, p. 65; Manila Water Company, Inc. v. Pena, supra, p. 58; Tiu v.
Pasaol, Sr., G.R. No. 139876, April 30, 2003, 402 SCRA 312, 319.
22.Rollo, pp. 117-119.
23.Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association-NATU v. Insular Life Assurance Co.,
Ltd., G.R. No. L-25291, March 10, 1977, 76 SCRA 50.
24.Martinez v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 117495, May 29, 1997, 272
SCRA 793, 801; P.T. Cerna Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91622, April 6, 1993,
221 SCRA 19, 25.
25.Jimenez v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 116960, April 2, 1996, 256 SCRA
84, 89.
26.Rollo, p. 120.
27.Oro Enterprises, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 110861, November
14, 1994, 238 SCRA 105, 112.