Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sarmiento, J.
Sarmiento, J.
340
SARMIENTO, J.:
The petitioners invoke the provisions on human relations of the Civil
Code in this appeal by certiorari. The facts are beyond dispute:
On or about November 24, 1961 (Exhibit 16) the Tourist World Service,
Inc. appears to have been informed that Lina Sevilla was connected with
a rival firm, the Philippine Travel Bureau, and, since the branch office
was anyhow losing, the Tourist World Service considered closing down
its office. This was firmed up by two resolutions of the board of directors
of Tourist World Service, Inc. dated Dec. 2, 1961 (Exhibits 12 and 13), the
first abolishing the office of the manager and vice-president of the
Tourist World Service, Inc., Ermita Branch, and the second, authorizing
the corporate secretary to receive the properties of the Tourist World
Service then located at the said branch office. It further appears that on
Jan. 3, 1962, the contract with the appellees for the use of the Branch
Office premises was terminated and while the effectivity thereof was Jan.
31, 1962, the appellees no longer used it. As a matter of fact appellants
used it since Nov. 1961. Because of this, and to comply with the mandate
of the Tourist World Service, the corporate secretary Gabino Canilao
went over to the branch office, and, finding the premises locked, and,
being unable to contact Lina Sevilla, he padlocked the premises on June
4, 1962 to protect the interests of the Tourist World Service. When
neither the appellant Lina Sevilla nor any of her employees could enter
the locked premises, a complaint was filed by the herein appellants
against the appellees with a prayer for the issuance of mandatory
preliminary injunction. Both appellees answered with counterclaims. For
apparent lack of interest of the parties therein, the trial court ordered the
dismissal of the case without prejudice.
On June 17, 1963, the appellant Lina Sevilla refiled her case against the
herein appellees and after the issues were joined, the reinstated
counterclaim of Segundina Noguera and the new complaint of appellant
Lina Sevilla were jointly heard following which the court a quo ordered
both cases dismissed for lack of merit, on the basis of which was elevated
the instant appeal on the following assignment of errors:
In this appeal, appellant Lina Sevilla claims that a joint business venture
was entered into by and between her and appellee TWS with offices at
the Ermita branch office and that she was not an employee of the TWS to
the end that her relationship with TWS was one of a joint business
venture appellant made declarations showing:
Appellant Mrs. Sevilla did not receive any salary from appellee
"3. Tourist World Service, Inc., which had its own separate office located
at the Trade & Commerce Building; nor was she an employee thereof,
having no participation in nor connection with said business at the
Trade & Commerce Building (pp. 16-18 tsn. id.)
The trial court[2] held for the private respondents on the premise that the
private respondent, Tourist World Service, Inc., being the true lessee, it
was within its prerogative to terminate the lease and padlock the
premises.[3] It likewise found the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, to be a more
employee of said Tourist World Service, Inc. and as such, she was bound
by the acts of her employer.[4] The respondent Court of
Appeals[5] rendered an affirmance.
The petitioners now claim that the respondent Court, in sustaining the
lower court, erred. Specifically, they state:
I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW AND
GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT "THE
PADLOCKING OF THE PREMISES BY TOURIST WORLD SERVICE
INC. WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT OF THE
APPELLANT LINA SEVILLA X X X WITHOUT NOTIFYING MRS. LINA
O. SEVILLA OR ANY OF HER EMPLOYEES AND WITHOUT
INFORMING COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT (SEVILLA), WHO
IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE PADLOCKING INCIDENT, WAS IN
CONFERENCE WITH THE CORPORATE SECRETARY OF TOURIST
WORLD SERVICE (ADMITTEDLY THE PERSON WHO PADLOCKED
THE SAID OFFICE), IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO AMICABLY SETTLE
THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE APPELLANT (SEVILLA) AND
THE TOURIST WORLD SERVICE X X X (DID NOT) ENTITLE THE
LATTER TO THE RELIEF OF DAMAGES" (ANNEX "A" PP. 7, 8 AND
ANNEX "B" P. 2) - A DECISION AGAINST DUE PROCESS WHICH
ADHERES TO THE RULE OF LAW.
II
III
IV
The Court finds the resolution of the issue material, for if, as the private
respondent, Tourist World Service, Inc., maintains, that the relation
between the parties was in the character of employer and employee, the
courts would have been without jurisdiction to try the case, labor
disputes being the exclusive domain of the Court of Industrial Relations,
later, the Bureau of Labor Relations, pursuant to statutes then in force.[9]
In the second place, and as found by the Appellate Court, "[w]hen the
branch office was opened, the same was run by the herein appellant Lina
O. Sevilla payable to Tourist World Service, Inc. by any airline for any
fare brought in on the effort of Mrs. Lina Sevilla."[13] Under these
circumstances, it cannot be said that Sevilla was under the control of
Tourist World Service, Inc. "as to the means used." Sevilla in pursuing
the business, obviously relied on her own gifts and capabilities.
It is further admitted that Sevilla was not in the company's payroll. For
her efforts, she retained 4% in commissions from airline bookings, the
remaining 3% going to Tourist World. Unlike an employee then, who
earns a fixed salary usually, she earned compensation in fluctuating
amounts depending on her booking successes.
The fact that Sevilla had been designated "branch manager" does not
make her, ergo, Tourist World's employee. As we said, employment is
determined by the right-of-control test and certain economic
parameters. But titles are weak indicators.
The Court is satisfied that from the chronicle of events, there was indeed
some malevolent design to put the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, in a bad light
following disclosures that she had worked for a rival firm. To be sure, the
respondent court speaks of alleged business losses to justify the
closure,[21] but there is no clear showing that Tourist World Ermita
Branch had in fact sustained such reverses, let alone, the fact that Sevilla
had moonlit for another company. What the evidence discloses, on the
other hand, is that following such an information (that Sevilla was
working for another company), Tourist World's board of directors
adopted two resolutions abolishing the office of "manager" and
authorizing the corporate secretary, the respondent Eliseo Canilao, to
effect the takeover of its branch office properties. On January 3, 1962,
the private respondents ended the lease over the branch office premises,
incidentally, without notice to her.
It was only on June 4, 1962, and after office hours significantly, that the
Ermita office was padlocked, personally by the respondent Canilao, on
the pretext that it was necessary "to protect the interests of the Tourist
World Service."[22] It is strange indeed that Tourist World Service, Inc.
did not find such a need when it cancelled the lease five months earlier.
While Tourist World Service, Inc. would now pretend that it sought to
locate Sevilla to inform her of the closure, but surely, it was aware that
after office hours, she could not have been anywhere near the premises.
Capping these series of "offensives," it cut the office's telephone lines,
paralyzing completely its business operations, and in the process,
depriving Sevilla of her participation therein.
This conduct on the part of Tourist World Service, Inc. betrays a sinister
effort to punish Sevilla for what it had perceived to be disloyalty on her
part. It is offensive, in any event, to elementary norms of justice and fair
play.
ART. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a
manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.
(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34,
and 35.
SO ORDERED.