Semblante v. CA Digest

Topic Under Work Relationship; Four-Fold Test
MARTICIO SEMBLANTE and DUBRICK PILAR vs. CA
G.R. No. 196426; 15 August 2011
NATURE:
Petition for review on Certiorari
BRIEF:
This is an appeal for the CA ruling which stated that there is no employer-employee
relationship between herein petitioner and private repondents.
FACTS:
Petitioners Marticio Semblante and Dubrick Pilar assert that they were hired by herein
respondent-spouses Vicente and Maria Lusia Loot, as the official masiador and sentenciador of the
cockpit that the spouses own, sometime in 1993.
Semblante, as the masiador, calls and takes the bets from the gamecock owners and other
bettors and orders the start of the cockfight. On the other hand, Pilar, as sentenciador, oversees
the proper gaffing of fighting cocks, determines the physical condition of the same, as well as its
capabilities to continue with the cockfight. He eventually declares the result of the cockfight.
They were paid depending on the amount of arriba (commission for the cockpit; percentage
collected from the total bets) collected.
Petitioners then allege that on 14 November 2003, they were denied entry to the cockpit
upon the instructions of respondents, and were subsequently informed that their services were
being terminated effective on the same day. Hence, petitioners filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal before the Labor Arbiter.
Respondents denied the allegations and stated that the petitioners were associates of the
hired as independent contractors. The averred that 1) petitioners have no working time or day
and are free to decide for themselves whether to report for work or not on any cockfighting day;
2) In times when there are few cockfights in the gallery, petitioners go to other cockfights in the
vicinity; 3) petitioners were only issued identification cards to indicate that they were free from
normal entrance fee and to differentiate them to the general public.
The Labor Arbiter favored herein petitioners, and ordered the respondents to pay them
their backwages and separation pay. The LA contended that they were considered as regular
employees considering that their work was necessary and indispensable to the usual trade and
business of the respondents.
Counsel for herein respondent then received a copy of the Decision on 14 September
2004, and within the 10-day period, filed an incomplete appeal, due to his failure to post a cash
or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award granted by LA.
The respondents only filed an appeal bond on 11 October 2004. This prompted the
appeal to be denied by the NLRC by reason of its non-perfection, through a Resolution dated 25
August 2005.
Subsequently, the NLRC reversed its Resolution and found the appeal meritorious, and
ruled that there is no employer-employee relationship.
Petitioners then moved for a reconsideration but it was denied. They then sought help to
the Court of Appeals arguing that the approval of the appeal from NLRC was an exercise of
grave abuse of discretion because the appeal was not perfected in the first place.
The CA affirmed the Decision of the NLRC. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship.
HELD:
NO. The following are the tests to prove the existence of an employer-employee
relationship:
(1) the selection and engagement of the employee;

(2) the payment of wages;
(3) the power of dismissal; and
(4) the power to control the employees conduct, which is the most important element.
As found by both the NLRC and the CA, respondents had no part in the petitioners’
selection and management because the petitioners’ compensation was paid out of the arriba
(which is a percentage deducted from the total bets), not by petitioners; and petitioners
performed their functions as masiador and sentenciador free from the direction and control of
respondents. In the conduct of their work, petitioners relied mainly on their expertise that is
characteristic of the cockfight gambling, and were never given by respondents any tool needed
for the performance of their work.
NOTES: As to the approval of the appeal despite its non-perfection
Indeed, the posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases

involving monetary awards from the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. Article 223 of the Labor
Code provides:
Article 223. Appeal. Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and
executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar
days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. Such appeal may be entertained only on
any of the following grounds:
In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be

perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding
company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award
in the judgment appealed from.
Time and again, however, this Court, considering the substantial merits of the case, has
relaxed this rule on, and excused the late posting of, the appeal bond when there are strong and
compelling reasons for the liberality, such as the prevention of miscarriage of justice extant in
the case or the special circumstances in the case combined with its legal merits or the amount
and the issue involved. After all, technical rules cannot prevent courts from exercising their
duties to determine and settle, equitably and completely, the rights and obligations of the
parties. This is one case where the exception to the general rule lies.
While respondents had failed to post their bond within the 10-day period provided
above, it is evident, on the other hand, that petitioners are NOT employees of respondents, since
their relationship fails to pass muster the four-fold test of employment We have repeatedly
mentioned in countless decisions:
Respondents, not being petitioners’ employers, could never have dismissed, legally or
illegally, petitioners, since respondents were without power or prerogative to do so in the first
place. The rule on the posting of an appeal bond cannot defeat the substantive rights of
respondents to be free from an unwarranted burden of answering for an illegal dismissal for
which they were never responsible.
Strict implementation of the rules on appeals must give way to the factual and legal
reality that is evident from the records of this case. After all, the primary objective of our laws is
to dispense justice and equity, not the contrary.

Semblante v. CA Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Semblante v. CA Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic Under Work Relationship; Four-Fold Test

MARTICIO SEMBLANTE and DUBRICK PILAR vs. CA

G.R. No. 196426; 15 August 2011

Petition for review on Certiorari

The CA affirmed the Decision of the NLRC. Hence, this petition.

Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship.

(1) the selection and engagement of the employee;

NOTES: As to the approval of the appeal despite its non-perfection

Indeed, the posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases

In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be

You might also like