Professional Documents
Culture Documents
South East International Rattan, Inc. vs. Coming
South East International Rattan, Inc. vs. Coming
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
659
660
true and complete list of the employee. In this case, the exhibits
offered by petitioners before the NLRC consisting of copies of
payrolls and pay earnings records are only for the years 1999 and
2000; they do not cover the entire 18-year period during which
respondent supposedly worked for SEIRI.
Same; Same; In any controversy between a laborer and his
master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are resolved
in favor of the laborer.—In any controversy between a laborer and
his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are
resolved in favor of the laborer. As a regular employee,
respondent enjoys the right to security of tenure under Article 279
of the Labor Code and may only be dismissed for a just or
authorized cause, otherwise the dismissal becomes illegal.
Same; Illegal Dismissals; Reinstatement; Separation Pay;
Separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of
service should be awarded as an alternative in case reinstatement
in not possible.—Respondent, whose employment was terminated
without valid cause by petitioners, is entitled to reinstatement
without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full
back wages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their
monetary equivalent, computed from the time his compensation
was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
Where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, back wages
shall be computed from the time of the illegal termination up to
the finality of the decision. Separation pay equivalent to one
month salary for every year of service should likewise be awarded
as an alternative in case reinstatement in not possible.
661
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 to reverse and set aside the Decision[2] dated
February 21, 2008 and Resolution[3] dated February 9,
2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. CEB-SP No.
02113.
Petitioner South East International Rattan, Inc. (SEIRI)
is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of
manufacturing and exporting furniture to various countries
with principal place of business at Paknaan, Mandaue
City, while petitioner Estanislao Agbay, as per records, is
the President and General Manager of SEIRI.[4]
On November 3, 2003, respondent Jesus J. Coming filed
a complaint[5] for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages,
nonpayment of holiday pay, 13th month pay and service
incentive leave pay, with prayer for reinstatement, back
wages, damages and attorney’s fees.
Respondent alleged that he was hired by petitioners as
Sizing Machine Operator on March 17, 1984. His work
schedule is from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Initially, his
compensation was on “pakiao” basis but sometime in June
1984, it was fixed at P150.00 per day which was paid
weekly. In 1990, without any apparent reason, his
employment was interrupted as he was told by petitioners
to resume work in two months time. Being an uneducated
person, respondent was persuaded by the management as
well as his brother not to complain, as otherwise
petitioners might decide not to call him back for work.
_______________
[2] Rollo, pp. 37-46. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-
Padilla with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Franchito N.
Diamante, concurring.
[3] Id., at pp. 47-48. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-
Padilla with Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Franchito N.
Diamante, concurring.
[4] Records, pp. 21, 27-37 and 56.
[5] Id., at p. 1.
662
_______________
[6] Id., at pp. 1, 47.
[7] Id., at p. 47.
[8] Id., at pp. 44-45.
[9] Id., at pp. 42-43.
[10] Id., at pp. 23, 51.
[11] Id., at p. 62.
663
_______________
[12] Id., at pp. 63-68.
[13] Id., at p. 67.
[14] Id., at pp. 101-282.
[15] Id., at pp. 283-284.
[16] Id., at p. 285.
[17] Id., at pp. 313-318.
664
The NLRC likewise denied respondent’s motion for
reconsideration.[19]
Respondent elevated the case to the CA via a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65.
By Decision dated February 21, 2008, the CA reversed
the NLRC and ruled that there existed an employer-
employee relationship between petitioners and respondent
who was dismissed without just and valid cause. The CA
thus decreed:
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the CA
denied it under Resolution dated February 9, 2009.
_______________
[18] Id., at p. 318.
[19] Id., at pp. 345-347.
[20] Rollo, p. 46.
665
6.1
WHETHER UNDER THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON
RECORD, THE FINDING OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS THAT THERE EXISTS EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND
RESPONDENT IS IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE
DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.
6.2
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
CORRECTLY APPRECIATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
APPLICABLE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED BY BOTH PARTIES.
6.3
WHETHER UNDER THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE
PRESENTED, THE FINDING OF THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS THAT PETITIONERS ARE LIABLE FOR
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL OF RESPONDENT IS IN ACCORD
WITH APPLICABLE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
6.4
WHETHER UNDER THE FACTS PRESENTED, THE RULING
OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE
BACKWAGES DUE THE RESPONDENT SHOULD BE
COMPUTED FROM THE TIME OF ILLEGAL TERMINATION
UNTIL THE FINALITY OF THE DECISION IS SUPPORTED
BY PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE.[21]
_______________
[21] Id., at p. 16.
666
_______________
[22] Manila Water Co., Inc. v. Peña, 478 Phil. 68, 77; 434 SCRA 53, 58
(2004), citing Fleischer Co., Inc. v. NLRC, 407 Phil. 391, 399; 355 SCRA
105, 112 (2001).
[23] Basay v. Hacienda Consolacion, G.R. No. 175532, April 19, 2010,
618 SCRA 422, 434, citing Lopez v. Bodega City (Video-Disco Kitchen of
the Phils.) and/or Torres-Yap, 558 Phil. 666, 673; 532 SCRA 56, 64 (2007).
[24] Jao v. BCC Products Sales, Inc., G.R. No. 163700, April 18, 2012,
670 SCRA 38, 44.
[25] Id., at p. 45.
[26] Atok Big Wedge Company, Inc. v. Gison, G.R. No. 169510, August
8, 2011, 655 SCRA 193, 202, citing Philippine Global Communications,
Inc. v. De Vera, 498 Phil. 301, 308-309; 459 SCRA 260, 268 (2005).
667
_______________
[27] Masing and Sons Development Corporation v. Rogelio, G.R. No.
161787, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 490, 498, citing Section 5, Rule 133 of
the Rules of Court, People’s Broadcasting (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc.) v.
Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 179652,
May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 724, 753 and Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 98368, December 15, 1993, 228 SCRA 473, 478.
[28] Records, pp. 27-43, 56, 101-287.
668
_______________
[29] Id., at p. 44.
669
On the other hand, respondent submitted the affidavit
executed by Eleoterio Brigoli, Pedro Brigoli, Napoleon
Coming, Efren Coming and Gil Coming who all attested
that respondent was their co-worker at SEIRI. Their
affidavit reads:
_______________
[30] Id., at p. 42.
[31] Id., at p. 43.
670
That we are former employees of SOUTH EAST RATTAN
which is owned by Estan Eslao Agbay;
That we personally know JESUS COMING considering that we
worked together in one company SOUTH EAST RATTANT [sic];
That we together with JESUS COMING are all under the
employ of ESTAN ESLAO AGBAY considering that the latter is
the one directly paying us and holds the absolute control of all
aspects of our employment;
That it is not true that JESUS COMING is under the employ of
one person other than ESTAN ESLAO AGBAY OF SOUTH EAST
RATTAN;
That Jesus Coming is one of the pioneer employees of SOUTH
EAST RATTAN and had been employed therein for almost twenty
years;
That we executed this affidavit to attest to the truth of the
foregoing facts and to deny any contrary allegation made by the
company against his employment with SOUTH EAST RATTAN.
[32]
In his decision, Labor Arbiter Carreon found that
respondent’s work as sizing machine operator is usually
necessary and desirable to the rattan furniture business of
petitioners and their failure to include respondent in the
employment report to SSS is not conclusive proof that
respondent is not their employee. As to the affidavit of
Vicente Coming, Labor Arbiter Carreon did not give weight
to his statement that respondent is not petitioners’
employee but that of one Faustino Apondar. Labor Arbiter
Carreon was not convinced that Faustino Apondar is an
independent contractor who has a contractual relationship
with petitioners.
In reversing the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC reasoned as
follows:
_______________
[32] Id., at p. 62.
671
672
On the other hand, the CA gave more credence to the
declarations of the five former employees of petitioners that
respondent was their co-worker in SEIRI. One of said
affiants is Vicente Coming’s own son, Gil Coming. Vicente
averred in his second affidavit that when he confronted his
son, the latter explained that he was merely told by their
Pastor to sign the affidavit as it will put an end to the
controversy. Vicente insisted that his son did not know the
contents and implications of the document he signed. As to
the absence of respondent’s name in the payroll and SSS
employment report, the CA observed that the payrolls
submitted were only from January 1, 1999 to December 29,
2000 and not the entire period of eighteen years when
respondent claimed he worked for SEIRI. It further noted
that the names of the five affiants, whom petitioners
admitted to be their former employees, likewise do not
appear in the aforesaid documents. According to the CA, it
is apparent that petitioners maintained a separate payroll
for certain employees or willfully retained a portion of the
payroll.
_______________
[33] Id., at pp. 314-315, 317-318.
673
_______________
[34] Rollo, p. 43.
[35] 436 Phil. 190, 204-205; 387 SCRA 393, 402 (2002), citing Lambo v.
NLRC, 375 Phil. 855, 862; 317 SCRA 420, 427 (1999).
[36] Id., at p. 205; p. 402, citing Spouses Santos v. NLRC, 354 Phil. 918,
932; 293 SCRA 113, 126 (1998).
[37] Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage v. NLRC, supra note 27.
674
_______________
[38] CA Rollo, p. 205.
675
_______________
[39] Id., at pp. 241-242.
[40] Masing and Sons Development Corporation v. Rogelio, supra note
27, at p. 502.
[41] Id.
[42] ART. 279. Security of Tenure.—In cases of regular
employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee
except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who
is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without
loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages,
inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from
him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
676
_______________
[43] LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Art. 282.
[44] Id., Arts. 283 and 284.
[45] CRC Agricultural Trading v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 177664, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 138, 151,
citing RBC Cable Master System v. Baluyot, G.R. No. 172670, January 20,
2009, 576 SCRA 668, 679 and Mt. Carmel College v. Resuena, 561 Phil.
620, 644; 535 SCRA 518, 541 (2007).
677