San Miguel Corporation vs. Aballa: - Third Division

8/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 461
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

San Miguel Corporation vs. Aballa
*
G.R. No. 149011. June 28, 2005.
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. PROSPERO A.

ABALLA, BONNY J. ABARING, EDWIN M. ADLA-ON, ALVIN
C. ALCALDE, CELANIO D. ARROLLADO, EDDIE A.
ARROLLADO, REYNALDO T. ASONG, RENE A. ASPERA,
JOEL D. BALATERIA, JOSEPH D. BALATERIA, JOSE JOLLEN
BALLADOS, WILFREDO B. BASAS, EDWIN E. BEATINGO,
SONNY V. BERONDO, CHRISTOPHER D. BRIONES, MARLON
D. BRIONES, JOEL C. BOOC, ENRIQUE CABALIDA,
DIOSCORO R. CAHINOD, ERNESTO P. CAHINOD, RENANTE
S. CAHINOD, RUDERICK R. CALIXTON, RONILO C. CALVEZ,
PANCHO CAÑETE, JUNNY CASTEL, JUDY S. CELESTE,
ROMEO CHUA, DANILO COBRA, ARMANDO C. DEDOYCO,
JOEY R. DELA CRUZ, JOHN D. DELFIN, RENELITO P. DEON,
ARNEL C. DE PEDRO, ORLANDO DERDER, CLIFFORD A.
DESPI, RAMIE A. DESPI, SR., VICTOR A. DESPI, ROLANDO
L. DINGLE, ANTONIO D. DOLORFINO, LARRY DUMA-OP,
NOEL DUMOL, CHITO L. DUNGOG, RODERICK C.
DUQUEZA, ROMMEL ESTREBOR, RIC E. GALPO,
MANSUETO GILLE, MAXIMO L. HILA-US, GERARDO J.
JIMENEZ, ROBERTLY Y. HOFILEÑA, ROBERTO HOFILEÑA,
VICENTE INDENCIO, JONATHAN T. INVENTOR, PETER
PAUL T. INVENTOR, JOEBERT G. LAGARTO, RENATO
LAMINA, ALVIN LAS POBRES, ALBERT LAS POBRES,
LEONARD LEMONCHITO, JERRY LIM, JOSE COLLY S.
LUCERO, ROBERTO E. MARTIL, HERNANDO MATILLANO,
VICENTE M. MATILLANO, TANNY C. MENDOZA, WILLIAM
P. NAVARRO, WILSON P. NAVARRO, LEO A. OLVIDO,
ROBERTO G. OTERO, BIENVENIDO C. PAROCHILIN,
REYNALDO C. PAROCHILIN, RICKY PALANOG, BERNIE O.
PILLO, ALBERTO O. PILLO, JOE-MARIE S. PUGNA, EDWIN
G. RIBON, RAUL
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
393
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 393

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c8b9fbae98dbfce22003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/35
A. RUBIO, HENRY S. SAMILLANO, EDGAR SANTIAGO,

ROLAND B. SANTILLANA, ROLDAN V. SAYAM, JOSEPH S.
SAYSON, RENE SUARNABA, ELMAR TABLIGAN, JERRY D.
TALITE, OSCAR TALITE, WINIFREDO TALITE, CAMILO N.
TEMPOROSA, JOSE TEMPOROSA, RANDY TINGALA,
TRISTAN A. TINGSON, ROGELIO TOMESA, DIONISE A.
TORMIS, ADELINO C. UNTAL, FELIX T. UNTAL, RONILO E.
VISTA, JOAN C. VIYO and JOSE JOFER C. VIYO and the
COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping;

Procedural Rules and Technicalities; The general rule is that the certificate
of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a
case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient; Strict compliance
with the provisions regarding the certificate of non-forum shopping merely
underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be
altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded but it
does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under
justifiable circumstances.—While the general rule is that the certificate of
non-forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a
case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient, this Court has
stressed that the rules on forum shopping, which were designed to promote
and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not be interpreted
with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate
objective. Strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certificate of
non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the
certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements
completely disregarded. It does not, however, thereby interdict substantial
compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Given the collective nature of the petition
filed before the appellate court by ninety-seven persons, raising one
common cause of action against a corporation, the execution by only three
of them in behalf of the others of the certificate of non-forum shopping
constitutes substantial compliance with the Rules; The merits of the
substantive aspects of the case may also be deemed as “special
circumstance” or “compelling reason” to take cognizance of
394
a petition although the certification against forum shopping was not

executed and signed by all of the petitioners.—Given the collective nature
of the petition filed before the appellate court by herein private respondents,
raising one common cause of action against SMC, the execution by private
respondents Winifredo Talite, Renelito Deon and Jose Temporosa in behalf
of all the other private respondents of the certificate of non-forum shopping
constitutes substantial compliance with the Rules. That the three indeed
represented their co-petitioners before the appellate court is, as it correctly
found, “subsequently proven to be true as shown by the signatures of the
majority of the petitioners appearing in their memorandum filed before Us.”
Additionally, the merits of the substantive aspects of the case may also be
deemed as “special circumstance” or “compelling reason” to take
cognizance of a petition although the certification against forum shopping
was not executed and signed by all of the petitioners.
Same; Same; Same; Same; It is the appellate court which ultimately
determines if the supporting documents are sufficient to make out a prima
facie case.—SMC goes on to argue that the petition filed before the CA is
fatally defective as it was not accompanied by “copies of all pleadings and
documents relevant and pertinent thereto” in contravention of Section 1,
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. This Court is not persuaded. The records
show that private respondents appended the following documents to their
petition before the appellate court: the September 23, 1997 Decision of the
Labor Arbiter, their Notice of Appeal with Appeal Memorandum dated
October 16, 1997 filed before the NLRC, the December 29, 1998 NLRC
Decision, their Motion for Reconsideration dated March 26, 1999 filed with
the NLRC and the September 10, 1999 NLRC Resolution. It bears stressing
at any rate that it is the appellate court which ultimately determines if the
supporting documents are sufficient to make out a prima facie case. It
discerns whether on the basis of what have been submitted it could already
judiciously determine the merits of the petition. In the case at bar, the CA
found that the petition was adequately supported by relevant and pertinent
documents.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Instances Where a Liberal Construction of
the Rule on the Accomplishment of a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping
Allowed; Rules of procedure should indeed be viewed as mere tools
designed to facilitate the attainment of justice—their strict
395
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 395
and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to

frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed.
—At all events, this Court has allowed a liberal construction of the rule on
the accomplishment of a certificate of non-forum shopping in the following
cases: (1) where a rigid application will result in manifest failure or
miscarriage of justice; (2) where the interest of substantial justice will be
served; (3) where the resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the
sound and judicious discretion of the court; and (4) where the injustice to
the adverse party is not commensurate with the degree of his
thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. Rules of
procedure should indeed be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the
attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result
in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice,
must always be eschewed.
Administrative Law; When the findings of fact of the labor arbiter and
the NLRC are not supported by substantial evidence or their judgment was
based on a misapprehension of facts, the appellate court may make an
independent evaluation of the facts of the case.—The general rule, no doubt,
is that findings of facts of an administrative agency which has acquired
expertise in the particular field of its endeavor are accorded great weight on
appeal. The rule is not absolute and admits of certain well-recognized
exceptions, however. Thus, when the findings of fact of the labor arbiter and
the NLRC are not supported by substantial evidence or their judgment was
based on a misapprehension of facts, the appellate court may make an
independent evaluation of the facts of the case.
Labor Law; Pleadings and Practice; Verification; That the verification
where it is manifested that the one signing is one of the complainants and
was causing the preparation of the complaint “with the authority of my co-
complainants” indubitably shows that he was representing the rest of his co-
complainants in signing the verification in accordance with Section 7, Rule
III of the 1990 NRLC Rules, now Section 8, Rule 3 of the 1997 NLRC Rules.
—A perusal of the complaint shows that the ninety seven complainants were
being represented by their counsel of choice. Thus the first sentence of their
complaint alleges: “x x x complainants, by counsel and unto this Honorable
Office respectfully state x x x.” And the complaint was signed by Atty. Jose
Max S. Ortiz as “counsel for the complainants.”
396
Following Section 6, Rule III of the 1990 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC,
now Section 7, Rule III of the 1999 NLRC Rules, Atty. Ortiz is presumed to
be properly authorized by private respondents in filing the complaint. That
the verification wherein it is manifested that private respondent Talite was
one of the complainants and was causing the preparation of the complaint
“with the authority of my co-complainants” indubitably shows that Talite
was representing the rest of his co-complainants in signing the verification
in accordance with Section 7, Rule III of the 1990 NLRC Rules, now
Section 8, Rule 3 of the 1999 NLRC Rules, which states: Section 7.
Authority to bind party.—Attorneys and other representatives of parties
shall have authority to bind their clients in all matters of procedure; but they
cannot, without a special power of attorney or express consent, enter into a
compromise agreement with the opposing party in full or partial discharge
of a client’s claim.
Same; Labor Only Contracting; Independent Contractors; The test to
determine the existence of independent contractorship is whether one
claiming to be an independent contractor has contracted to do the work
according to his own methods and without being subject to the control of the
employer, except only as to the results of the work; In labor-only
contracting, the statute creates an employer-employee relationship for a
comprehensive purpose—to prevent a circumvention of labor laws.—The
test to determine the existence of independent contractorship is whether one
claiming to be an independent contractor has contracted to do the work
according to his own methods and without being subject to the control of
the employer, except only as to the results of the work. In legitimate labor
contracting, the law creates an employer-employee relationship for a limited
purpose, i.e., to ensure that the employees are paid their wages. The
principal employer becomes jointly and severally liable with the job
contractor, only for the payment of the employees’ wages whenever the
contractor fails to pay the same. Other than that, the principal employer is
not responsible for any claim made by the employees. In labor-only
contracting, the statute creates an employer-employee relationship for a
comprehensive purpose: to prevent a circumvention of labor laws. The
contractor is considered merely an agent of the principal employer and the
latter is responsible to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if such
employees had been directly employed by the principal employer.
397
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 397
Same; Same; Same; The language of a contract is not determinative of

the parties’ relationship—it is the totality of the facts and surrounding
circumstances of the case.—The Contract of Services between SMC and
Sunflower shows that the parties clearly disavowed the existence of an
employer-employee relationship between SMC and private respondents. The
language of a contract is not, however, determinative of the parties’
relationship; rather it is the totality of the facts and surrounding
circumstances of the case. A party cannot dictate, by the mere expedient of a
unilateral declaration in a contract, the character of its business, i.e., whether
as labor-only contractor or job contractor, it being crucial that its character
be measured in terms of and determined by the criteria set by statute.
Same; Same; Same; Where it is shown that the workers’ daily time
records were signed by the principal and control of the premises in which
they worked was by the principal, these tend to disprove the independence
of the contractor who engaged the services of the work-ers.—Sunflower did
not carry on an independent business or undertake the performance of its
service contract according to its own manner and method, free from the
control and supervision of its principal, SMC, its apparent role having been
merely to recruit persons to work for SMC. Thus, it is gathered from the
evidence adduced by private respondents before the labor arbiter that their
daily time records were signed by SMC supervisors Ike Puentebella, Joemel
Haro, Joemari Raca, Erwin Tumonong, Edison Arguello, and Stephen
Palabrica, which fact shows that SMC exercised the power of control and
supervision over its employees. And control of the premises in which
private respondents worked was by SMC. These tend to disprove the
independence of the contractor.
Same; Same; Same; The circumstance that the contractor’s workers
had been working alongside regular employees of the principal, performing
identical jobs under the same supervisors, is another indicium of the
existence of labor-only contractorship.—Private respondents had been
working in the aqua processing plant inside the SMC compound alongside
regular SMC shrimp processing workers performing identical jobs under the
same SMC supervisors. This circumstance is another indicium of the
existence of a labor-only contractorship.
398

Same; Two Kinds of Regular Employees; Workers who were engaged in

janitorial and messengerial tasks fall under the category of regular
employees who have rendered at least one year of service, whether
continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are
employed, and are entitled to differential pay and benefits extended to other
regular employees from the day immediately following their first year of
service.—The law of course provides for two kinds of regular employees,
namely: (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and (2)
those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or
broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed. As for those
of private respondents who were engaged in janitorial and messengerial
tasks, they fall under the second category and are thus entitled to differential
pay and benefits extended to other SMC regular employees from the day
immediately following their first year of service.
Same; Retrenchment; Words and Phrases; Where a particular
department under a corporate group of companies was closed allegedly due
to serious business reverses, this constitutes retrenchment by, and not
closure of, the enterprise or the company.—In the case at bar, a particular
department under the SMC group of companies was closed allegedly due to
serious business reverses. This constitutes retrenchment by, and not closure
of, the enterprise or the company itself as SMC has not totally ceased
operations but is still very much an on-going and highly viable business
concern.
Same; Same; Requisites.—Retrenchment is a management prerogative
consistently recognized and affirmed by this Court. It is, however, subject to
faithful compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements laid
down by law and jurisprudence. For retrenchment to be considered valid the
following substantial requirements must be met: (a) the losses expected
should be substantial and not merely de minimis in extent; (b) the substantial
losses apprehended must be reasonably imminent such as can be perceived
objectively and in good faith by the employer; (c) the retrenchment must be
reasonably necessary and likely to effectively prevent the expected losses;
and (d) the alleged losses, if already incurred, and the expected imminent
losses sought to be forestalled, must be proved by sufficient and convincing
evidence.
399
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 399
Same; Same; The financial statements must be prepared and signed by

independent auditors failing which they can be assailed as self-serving
documents.—In the discharge of these requirements, it is the employer who
has the onus, being in the nature of an affirmative defense. Normally, the
condition of business losses is shown by audited financial documents like
yearly balance sheets, profit and loss statements and annual income tax
returns. The financial statements must be prepared and signed by
independent auditors failing which they can be assailed as self-serving
documents.
Same; Same; Damages; Where the dismissal is based on an authorized

cause under Article 283 of the Labor Code but the employer failed to
comply with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiff as the
dismissal process was initiated by the employer’s exercise of his
management prerogative, as opposed to dismissal based on a just cause
under Article 282.—Where the dismissal is based on an authorized cause
under Article 283 of the Labor Code but the employer failed to comply with
the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiff as the dismissal process
was initiated by the employer’s exercise of his management prerogative, as
opposed to a dismissal based on a just cause under Article 282 with the
same procedural infirmity where the sanction to be imposed upon the
employer should be tempered as the dismissal process was, in effect,
initiated by an act imputable to the employee. In light of the factual
circumstances of the case at bar, this Court awards P50,000.00 to each
private respondent as nominal damages.
Same; Attorney’s Fees; Although an express finding of facts and law is
still necessary to prove the merit of the award of attorney’s fees, there need
not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when
it withheld the wages—there need only be a showing that the lawful wages
were not paid accordingly.—With respect to attorney’s fees, in actions for
recovery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and thus
incurred expenses to protect his rights and interests, a maximum of ten
percent (10%) of the total monetary award by way of attorney’s fees is
justifiable under Article 111 of the Labor Code, Section 8, Rule VIII, Book
III of its Implementing Rules, and paragraph 7, Article 2208 of the Civil
Code. Although an express finding of facts and law is still necessary to
prove the merit of the award, there need not be any showing that the
employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the
400
wages. There need only be a showing that the lawful wages were not paid
accordingly, as in this case.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

De Lima-Bohol & Meñez Law Offices for petitioner.
Jose Max S. Ortiz for private respondents.
Filomeno B. Tan for Purok Sunflower Multi-Purpose
Cooperative.
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
Petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC), represented by its

Assistant Vice President and Visayas Area Manager for Aquaculture
Operations Leopoldo S. Titular, and Sunflower Multi-Purpose
Cooperative (Sunflower), represented by the Chairman of its Board
of Directors Roy G. Asong, entered into a one-year Contract of
1
1
Services commencing on January 1, 1993, to be renewed on a
month to month basis until terminated by either party. The pertinent
provisions of the contract read:
1. The cooperative agrees and undertakes to perform and/or

provide for the company, on a non-exclusive basis for a
period of one year the following services for the Bacolod
Shrimp Processing Plant:
A. Messengerial/Janitorial
B. Shrimp Harvesting/Receiving
2
C. Sanitation/Washing/Cold Storage
_______________
1 Rollo at pp. 278-286.

2 Annexed to the Service Contract is a detailed listing of the scope of the services
to be provided to SMC:
A. Shrimp Receiving/Harvesting
- Assist in the crushing and loading of ice;
401
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 401

2. To carry out the undertaking specified in the immediately

preceding paragraph, the cooperative shall employ the
necessary personnel and provide adequate equipment,
materials, tools and
_______________
- Receive the raw materials and put them into the chilling tanks;
- Sort the shrimp according to standard quality specifications;
- Pack the raw materials into styropor boxes/containers and assist
on the delivery of the harvested raw materials to the processing
plant;
- Prepare harvest materials and equipment and clean them after use
and
- Perform other duties that the company may assign from time to
time.
B. Janitorial and Messengerial Services
1. Maintain, sanitize and clean the following:
- Streets cemented and otherwise

- Canals and floor area
- Administration building offices and comfort rooms
- Logistics/materials/warehouse building
- Clinic and comfort room
- Plant grounds/lawn
2. Maintain and Water the plants and trees
3. Haul and dispose garbage daily from designated waste containers within the
compound to an area outside and far from the compound.
4. Perform messengerial activities within Bacolod City and other duties that
may be assigned during office hours.
C. Sanitation/Washing Services
1. Wash and sanitize boxes, chilling tanks, trays and other harvesting materials.
2. Store harvesting materials in the designated area after washing.
3. Load and unload boxes, trays, chilling tanks and other harvesting materials to
be used during harvest schedule.
402

apparatus, to efficiently, fully and speedily accomplish the work and

services undertaken by the cooperative. x x x
3. In consideration of the above undertaking the company

expressly agrees to pay the cooperative the following rates
per activity:
A. Messengerial/Janitorial Monthly Fixed Service Charge of:

Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred Pesos Only (P19,500.00)
B. Harvesting/Shrimp Receiving.—Piece rate of P0.34/kg. Or
P100.00 minimum per person/activity whichever is higher,
with provisions as follows:
P25.00 Fixed Fee per person

Additional meal allowance P15.00 every meal time in
case harvest duration exceeds one meal.
This will be pre-set every harvest based on harvest
plan approved by the Senior Buyer.
C. Sanitation/Washing and Cold Storage P125.00/person for 3

shifts.
One-half of the payment for all services rendered shall be
payable on the fifteenth and the other half, on the end of
each month. The cooperative shall pay taxes, fees, dues and
other impositions that shall become due as a result of this
contract.
The cooperative shall have the entire charge, control and
supervision of the work and services herein agreed upon. x
xx
4. There is no employer-employee relationship between the

company and the cooperative, or the cooperative and any of
its members, or the company and any members of the
cooperative. The cooperative is an association of self-
employed members, an independent contractor, and an
entrepreneur. It is subject to the control and direction of the
company only as to the result to be accomplished by the
work or services herein specified, and not as to the work
herein contracted. The cooperative and its members
recognize that it is taking a business risk in accepting a
fixed service fee to provide the services contracted for and
its realization of profit or loss from its undertaking, in
relation to all its other undertakings, will depend on how
efficiently it deploys and fields its members and how they
perform the work and manage its operations.
403
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 403

5. The cooperative shall, whenever possible, maintain and

keep under its control the premises where the work under
this contract shall be performed.
6. The cooperative shall have exclusive discretion in the
selection, engagement and discharge of its member-workers
or otherwise in the direction and control thereof. The
determination of the wages, salaries and compensation of
the member-workers of the cooperative shall be within its
full control. It is further understood that the cooperative is
an independent contractor, and as such, the cooperative
agrees to comply with all the requirements of all pertinent
laws and ordinances, rules and regulations. Although it is
understood and agreed between the parties hereto that the
cooperative, in the performance of its obligations, is subject
to the control or direction of the company merely as a (sic)
result to be accomplished by the work or services herein
specified, and not as to the means and methods of
accomplishing such result, the cooperative hereby warrants
that it will perform such work or services in such manner as
will be consistent with the achievement of the result herein
contracted for.
xxx
8. The cooperative undertakes to pay the wages or salaries of
its member-workers, as well as all benefits, premiums and
protection in accordance with the provisions of the labor
code, cooperative code and other applicable laws and
decrees and the rules and regulations promulgated by
competent authorities, assuming all responsibility therefor.
The cooperative further undertakes to submit to the
company within the first ten (10) days of every month, a
statement made, signed and sworn to by its duly authorized
representative before a notary public or other officer
authorized by law to administer oaths, to the effect that the
cooperative has paid all wages or salaries due to its
employees or personnel for services rendered by them
during the month immediately preceding, including
overtime, if any, and that such payments were all in
accordance with the requirements of law.
xxx
12. Unless sooner terminated for the reasons stated in
paragraph 9 this contract shall be for a period of one (1)
year commencing on January 1, 1993. Thereafter, this
Contract will be deemed renewed on a month-to-month
basis until terminated by either party
404

by sending a written notice to the other at least thirty (30) days prior to the
intended date of termination.
3
x x x (Underscoring supplied)
Pursuant to the contract, Sunflower engaged private respondents to,

as they did, render services at SMC’s Bacolod Shrimp Processing
Plant at Sta. Fe, Bacolod City. The contract was deemed renewed by
the parties every month after its expiration on January 1, 1994 and
private respondents continued to perform their tasks until September
11, 1995.
In July 1995, private respondents filed a complaint before the
NLRC, Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI, Bacolod City, praying
to be declared as regular employees of SMC, with claims for
recovery of all benefits and privileges enjoyed by SMC rank and file
employees.
Private respondents subsequently filed on September 25, 1995 an
4
Amended Complaint to include illegal dismissal as additional cause
of action following SMC’s closure of its Bacolod Shrimp Processing
5
Plant on September 15, 1995 which resulted in the termination of
their services.
SMC filed a Motion for Leave to File Attached Third Party
6
Complaint dated November 27, 1995 to implead
7
Sunflower as Third
Party Defendant which was, by Order of December 11, 1995,
granted by Labor Arbiter Ray Alan T. Drilon.
In the meantime, on September 30, 1996, SMC filed before the
Regional Office at Iloilo City of the Department of Labor and
8
Employment (DOLE) a Notice of Closure of its aquaculture
operations effective on even date, citing serious business losses.
_______________
3 Rollo at pp. 279-283.

4 Id., at pp. 114-117.
5 Id., at p. 502.
6 Id., at pp. 118-120.
7 Id., at p. 121.
8 Id., at p. 340.
405
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 405
By Decision of September 23, 1997, Labor Arbiter Drilon dismissed

private respondents’ complaint for lack of merit, ratiocinating as
follows:
We sustain the stand of the respondent SMC that it could properly exercise
its management prerogative to contract out the preparation and processing
aspects of its aquaculture operations. Judicial notice has already been taken
regarding the general practice adopted in government and private
institutions and industries of hiring independent contractors to perform
special services. x x x
xxx
Indeed, the law allows job contracting. Job contracting is permissible
under the Labor Code under specific conditions and we do not see how this
activity could not be legally undertaken by an independent service
cooperative like the third-party respondent herein.
There is no basis to the demand for regularization simply on the theory
that complainants performed activities which are necessary and desirable in
the business of respondent. It has been held that the definition of regular
employees as those who perform activities which are necessary and
desirable for the business of the employer is not always determinative
because any agreement may provide for one (1) party to render services for
and in behalf of another for a consideration even without being hired as an
employee.
The charge of the complainants that third-party respondent is a mere
labor-only contractor is a sweeping generalization and completely
unsubstantiated. x x x In the absence of clear and convincing evidence
showing that third-party respondent acted merely as a labor only contractor,
we are firmly convinced of the legitimacy and the integrity of its service
contract with respondent SMC.
In the same vein, the closure of the Bacolod Shrimp Processing Plant
was a management decision purely dictated by economic factors which was
(sic) mainly serious business losses. The law recognizes the right of the
employer to close his business or cease his operations for bonafide reasons,
as much as it recognizes the right of the employer to terminate the
employment of any employee due to closure or cessation of business
operations, unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the
provisions of the law on security of tenure. The decision of respondent SMC
to close its Bacolod Shrimp Processing Plant, due to serious business losses
which has (sic)
406

clearly been established, is a management prerogative which could hardly

be interfered with.
x x x The closure did affect the regular employees and workers of the
Bacolod Processing Plant, who were accordingly terminated following the
legal requisites prescribed by law. The closure, however, in so far as the
complainants are concerned, resulted in the termination of SMC’s service
9
contract with their cooperative x x x (Italics supplied)
Private respondents appealed to the NLRC.
By Decision of December 29, 1998, the NLRC dismissed the
appeal for lack of merit, it finding that third party respondent
Sunflower was an independent contractor in light of its observation
that “[i]n all the activities of private respondents, they were under
the actual direction, control and supervision of third party
respondent Sunflower, as well as the payment of wages, and power
10
of dismissal.”
11
Private respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration having been
denied by the NLRC for lack of merit by Resolution of September
12
10, 1999, they filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals (CA).
13
Before the CA, SMC filed a Motion to Dismiss private
respondents’ petition for non-compliance with the Rules on Civil
Procedure and failure to show grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the NLRC.
14
SMC subsequently filed its Comment to the petition on March
30, 2000.
By Decision of February 7, 2001, the appellate court reversed
the NLRC decision and accordingly found for private respondents,
disposing as follows:
_______________
9 Id., at pp. 504-507.

10 Id., at pp. 553-557.
11 Id., at pp. 559-563.
12 Id., at pp. 574-587.
13 CA Rollo at pp. 74-82.
14 Id., at pp. 108-142.
407
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 407

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, judgment is

hereby RENDERED: (1) REVERSING and SETTING ASIDE both the 29
December 1998 decision and 10 September 1999 resolution of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Fourth Division, Cebu City in NLRC
Case No. V-0361-97 as well as the 23 September 1997 decision of the labor
arbiter in RAB Case No. 06-07-10316-95; (2) ORDERING the respondent,
San Miguel Corporation, to GRANT petitioners: (a) separation pay in
accordance with the computation given to the regular SMC employees
working at its Bacolod Shrimp Processing Plant with full backwages,
inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent,
from 11 September 1995, the time their actual compensation was withheld
from them, up to the time of the finality of this decision; (b) differentials
pays (sic) effective as of and from the time petitioners acquired regular
employment status pursuant to the disquisition mentioned above, and all
such other and further benefits as provided by applicable collective
bargaining agreement(s) or other relations, or by law, beginning such time
up to their termination from employment on 11 September 1995; and
ORDERING private respondent SMC to PAY unto the petitioners attorney’s
fees equivalent to ten (10%) percent of the total award.
No pronouncement as to costs.
15
SO ORDERED.” (Italics supplied)
Justifying its reversal of the findings of the labor arbiter and the
NLRC, the appellate court reasoned:
Although the terms of the non-exclusive contract of service between SMC

and [Sunflower] showed a clear intent to abstain from establishing an
employer-employee relationship between SMC and [Sunflower] or the
latter’s members, the extent to which the parties successfully realized this
intent in the light of the applicable law is the controlling factor in
determining the real and actual relationship between or among the parties.
xxx
With respect to the power to control petitioners’ conduct, it appears that
petitioners were under the direct control and supervision of SMC
supervisors both as to the manner they performed their
_______________
15 Rollo at p. 22.
408

functions and as to the end results thereof. It was only after petitioners
lodged a complaint to have their status declared as regular employees of
SMC that certain members of [Sunflower] began to countersign petitioners’
daily time records to make it appear that they (petitioners) were under the
control and supervision of [Sunflower] team leaders (rollo, pp. 523-527). x x
x
Even without these instances indicative of control by SMC over the
petitioners, it is safe to assume that SMC would never have allowed the
petitioners to work within its premises, using its own facilities, equipment
and tools, alongside SMC employees discharging similar or identical
activities unless it exercised a substantial degree of control and supervision
over the petitioners not only as to the manner they performed their functions
but also as to the end results of such functions.
xxx
x x x it becomes apparent that [Sunflower] and the petitioners do not
qualify as independent contractors. [Sunflower] and the petitioners did not
have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment,
implements, work premises, et cetera necessary to actually perform the
service under their own account, responsibility, and method. The only “work
premises” maintained by [Sunflower] was a small office within the confines
of a small “carinderia” or refreshment parlor owned by the mother of its
chair, Roy Asong; the only equipment it owned was a typewriter (rollo, pp.
525-525) and, the only assets it provided SMC were the bare bodies of its
members, the petitioners herein (rollo, p. 523).
In addition, as shown earlier, petitioners, who worked inside the
premises of SMC, were under the control and supervision of SMC both as to
the manner and method in discharging their functions and as to the results
thereof.
Besides, it should be taken into account that the activities undertaken by
the petitioners as cleaners, janitors, messengers and shrimp harvesters,
packers and handlers were directly related to the aquaculture business of
SMC (See Guarin vs. NLRC, 198 SCRA 267, 273). This is confirmed by the
renewal of the service contract from January 1993 to September 1995, a
period of close to three (3) years.
Moreover, the petitioners here numbering ninety seven (97), by itself, is a
considerable workforce and raises the suspicion that the non-exclusive
service contract between SMC and [Sunflower] was “designed to evade the
obligations inherent in an employer-employee
409
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 409

relationship” (See Rhone-Poulenc Agrochemicals Philippines, Inc. vs.

NLRC, 217 SCRA 249, 259).
Equally suspicious is the fact that the notary public who signed the by-
laws of [Sunflower] and its [Sunflower] retained counsel are both partners
of the local counsel of SMC (rollo, p. 9).
xxx
With these observations, no other logical conclusion can be reached
except that [Sunflower] acted as an agent of SMC, facilitating the
manpower requirements of the latter, the real employer of the petitioners.
We simply cannot allow these two entities through the convenience of a
non-exclusive service contract to stipulate on the existence of employer-
employee relation. Such existence is a question of law which cannot be
made the subject of agreement to the detriment of the petitioners (Tabas vs.
California Manufacturing, Inc., 169 SCRA 497, 500).
xxx
There being a finding of “labor-only” contracting, liability must be
shouldered either by SMC or [Sunflower] or shared by both (See Tabas vs.
California Manufacturing, Inc., supra, p. 502). SMC however should be
held solely liable for [Sunflower] became nonexistent with the closure of
the aquaculture business of SMC.
Furthermore, since the closure of the aquaculture operations of SMC
appears to be valid, reinstatement is no longer feasible. Consistent with the
pronouncement in Bustamante, et al. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 111651, 28
November 1996, petitioners are thus entitled to separation pay (in the
computation similar to those given to regular SMC employees at its Bacolod
Shrimp Processing Plant) “with full backwages, inclusive of allowances and
other benefits or their monetary equivalent, from the time their actual
compensation was withheld from them” up to the time of the finality of this
decision. This is without prejudice to differentials pays (sic) effective as of
and from the time petitioners acquired regular employment status pursuant
to the discussion mentioned above, and all such other and further benefits as
provided by applicable collective bargaining agreement(s) or other relations,
or by law, beginning such time up to their termi-
410

16
16
nation from employment on 11 September 1995. (Emphasis and italics
supplied)
17
SMC’s Motion for Reconsideration having been denied for lack of
merit by Resolution of July 11, 2001, it comes before this Court via
the present petition for review on certiorari assigning to the CA the
following errors:
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING DUE

COURSE AND GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ PATENTLY DEFECTIVE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. IN DOING SO, THE COURT OF
APPEALS DEPARTED FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE
OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RECOGNIZING

ALL THE RESPONDENTS AS COMPLAINANTS IN THE CASE BEFORE
THE LABOR ARBITER. IN DOING SO, THE COURT OF APPEALS
DECIDED THIS CASE IN A MANNER NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW
OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
III
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT

RESPONDENTS ARE EMPLOYEES OF SMC.
IV
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDNG

(sic) THAT RESPONDENTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY RELIEF. THE
CLOSURE OF THE BACOLOD SHRIMP PROCESSING PLANT WAS
18
DUE TO SERIOUS BUSINESS LOSSES. (Italics supplied)
_______________
16 Id., at pp. 15-21-a.

17 Id., at pp. 623-637.
18 Id., at pp. 57-58.
411
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 411

SMC bewails the failure of the appellate court to outrightly dismiss

the petition for certiorari as only three out of the ninety seven named
petitioners signed the verification and certification against forum-
shopping.
While the general rule is that the certificate of non-forum
shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case
19
and the signature of only one of them is insufficient, this Court has
stressed that the rules on forum shopping, which were designed to
promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should
not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own
20
20
ultimate and legitimate objective. Strict compliance with the
provisions regarding the certificate of non-forum shopping merely
underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be
altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely
21
disregarded. It does not, however, thereby interdict substantial
22
compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.
Thus in the recent case of HLC Construction and Development
Corporation v. Emily Homes Subdivision Homeowners
23
Association, this Court held:
Respondents (who were plaintiffs in the trial court) filed the complaint
against petitioners as a group, represented by their homeowners’ association
president who was likewise one of the plaintiffs, Mr. Samaon M. Buat.
Respondents raised one cause of action which was the breach of contractual
obligations and payment of damages. They shared a common interest in the
subject matter of the case,
_______________
19 Docena v. Lapesura, 355 SCRA 658, 667 (2001).

20 Cavile v. Heirs of Clarita Cavile, 400 SCRA 255, 261-262 (2003) (citations omitted).
21 HLC Construction and Development Corporation v. Emily Homes Subdivision
Homeowners Association, 411 SCRA 504, 508 (2003).
22 Cavile v. Heirs of Clarita Cavile, 400 SCRA 255, 262 (2003) (citation omitted).
23 411 SCRA 504 (2003).
412

being the aggrieved residents of the poorly constructed and developed

Emily Homes Subdivision. Due to the collective nature of the case, there
was no doubt that Mr. Samaon M. Buat could validly sign the certificate of
non-forum shopping in behalf of all his co-plaintiffs. In cases therefore
where it is highly impractical to require all the plaintiffs to sign the
certificate of non-forum shopping, it is sufficient, in order not to defeat the
ends of justice, for one of the plaintiffs, acting as representative, to sign the
certificate provided that xxx the plaintiffs share a common interest in the
subject matter of the case or filed the case as a “collective,” raising only
24
one common cause of action or defense. (Emphasis and italics supplied)
Given the collective nature of the petition filed before the appellate
court by herein private respondents, raising one common cause of
action against SMC, the execution by private respondents Winifredo
Talite, Renelito Deon and Jose Temporosa in behalf of all the other
private respondents of the certificate of non-forum shopping
25
constitutes substantial compliance with the Rules. That the three
indeed represented their co-petitioners before the appellate court is,
as it correctly found, “subsequently proven to be true as shown by
_______________
24 Id., at pp. 509-510.

25 Vide: Cavile v. Heirs of Clarita Cavile, 400 SCRA 255 (2003) where this Court
found:
We find that the execution by Thomas George Cavile, Sr. in behalf of all the other petitioners of
the certificate of non-forum shopping constitutes substantial compliance with the Rules. All the
petitioners, being relatives and co-owners of the properties in dispute, share a common interest
thereon. They also share a common defense in the complaint for partition filed by the
respondents. Thus, when they filed the instant petition, they filed it as a collective, raising only
one argument to defend their rights over the properties in question. There is sufficient basis,
therefore, for Thomas George Cavili, Sr. to speak for and in behalf of his co-petitioners that
they have not filed any action or claim involving the same issues in another court or tribunal,
nor is there other pending action or claim in another court or tribunal involving the same issues.
413
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 413

the signatures of the majority of the petitioners appearing in their

26
memorandum filed before Us.”
Additionally, the merits of the substantive aspects of the case
may also be deemed as “special circumstance” or “compelling
reason” to take cognizance of a petition although the certification
against forum shopping was not executed and signed by all of the
27
petitioners.
SMC goes on to argue that the petition filed before the CA is
fatally defective as it was not accompanied by “copies of all
pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto” in
28
contravention of Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
This Court is not persuaded. The records show that private
respondents appended the following documents to their petition
before the appellate court: the September 23, 1997 Decision of the
29
Labor Arbiter, their Notice of Appeal with Appeal Memorandum
30
dated October 16, 1997 filed before the NLRC,
_______________
26 Rollo at p. 28.
27 Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation, 433 SCRA 455, 467
(2004); Cavile v. Heirs of Clarita Cavile, 400 SCRA 255, 262 (2003) (citation
omitted).
28 SECTION 1. Petition for Certiorari.—When any tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or
his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and
granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order
or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and
pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the
third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
29 CA Rollo at pp. 16-31.
30 Id., at pp. 33-47.
414
31
the December 29, 1998 NLRC Decision, their Motion for
32
Reconsideration dated March 26, 1999 filed with the NLRC and
33
the September 10, 1999 NLRC Resolution.
It bears stressing at any rate that it is the appellate court which
ultimately determines if the supporting documents are sufficient to
34
make out a prima facie case. It discerns whether on the basis of
what have been submitted it could already judiciously determine the
35
merits of the petition. In the case at bar, the CA found that the
petition was adequately supported by relevant and pertinent
documents.
At all events, this Court has allowed a liberal construction of the
rule on the accomplishment of a certificate of non-forum shopping in
the following cases: (1) where a rigid application will result in
manifest failure or miscarriage of justice; (2) where the interest of
substantial justice will be served; (3) where the resolution of the
motion is addressed solely to the sound and judicious discretion of
the court; and (4) where the injustice to the adverse party is not
commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not
36
complying with the procedure prescribed.
Rules of procedure should indeed be viewed as mere tools
designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid
application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate
37
rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed.
SMC further argues that the appellate court exceeded its
jurisdiction in reversing the decisions of the labor arbiter and
_______________
31 Id., at pp. 48-61.

32 Id., at pp. 63-67.
33 Id., at pp. 68-69.
34 Atillo v. Bombay, 351 SCRA 361, 369 (2001).
35 Ibid.
36 Manila Hotel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 384 SCRA 520, 524 (2002)
(citation omitted).
37 Serrano v. Galant Maritime Services, Inc., 408 SCRA 523, 528 (2003) (citations
omitted).
415
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 415

the NLRC as “findings of facts of quasi-judicial bodies like the

NLRC are accorded great respect and finality,” and that this
principle acquires greater weight and application in the case at bar as
the labor arbiter and the NLRC have the same factual findings.
The general rule, no doubt, is that findings of facts of an
administrative agency which has acquired expertise in the particular
38
field of its endeavor are accorded great weight on appeal. The rule
is not absolute and admits of certain well-recognized exceptions,
however. Thus, when the findings of fact of the labor arbiter and the
NLRC are not supported by substantial evidence or their judgment
was based on a misapprehension of facts, the appellate court may
39
make an independent evaluation of the facts of the case.
SMC further faults the appellate court in giving due course to
private respondents’ petition despite the fact that the complaint filed
before the labor arbiter was signed and verified only by private
respondent Winifredo Talite; that private respondents’ position
40 41
paper was verified by only six out of the ninety seven
42
complainants; and that their Joint-Affidavit was executed only by
43
twelve of the complainants.
_______________
38 Pepsi-Cola Distributors of the Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations

Commission, 272 SCRA 267, 276 (1997); Trendline Employees Association-Southern
Philippines Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Commission, 272 SCRA
172, 179 (1997) (citation omitted).
39 EMCO Plywood Corporation v. Abelgas, 427 SCRA 496, 515-516 (2004)
(citations omitted); Villar v. National Labor Relations Commission, 331 SCRA 686,
692 (2000) (citation omitted).
40 Rollo at pp. 124-136.
41 Winifredo Talite, Camilo Temporosa, Arnel De Pedro, Jonathan Inventor, Ramie
Despi and Roderick Duquesa.
42 Rollo at pp. 483-489.
43 Winifredo Talite, Jerry Talite, Clifford Despi, Joey de la Cruz, Jonathan
Inventor, Ramie Despi, Arnel De Pedro, Leonardo Lemoncito, Camilo Temporosa,
Renelito Deon, Jose Temporosa and Victor Despi.
416

Specifically with respect to the Joint-Affidavit of private

respondents, SMC asserts that it should not have been considered by
the appellate court in establishing the claims of those who did not
sign the same, citing this Court’s ruling in Southern Cotabato
44
Development and Construction, Inc. v. NLRC.
SMC’s position does not lie.
A perusal of the complaint shows that the ninety seven
complainants were being represented by their counsel of choice.
Thus the first sentence of their complaint alleges: “xxx
complainants, by counsel and unto this Honorable Office
respectfully state xxx.” And the complaint was signed by Atty. Jose
Max S. Ortiz as “counsel for the complainants.” Following Section
6, Rule III of the 1990 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, now
Section 7, Rule III of the 1999 NLRC Rules, Atty. Ortiz is presumed
to be properly authorized by private respondents in filing the
complaint.
That the verification wherein it is manifested that private
respondent Talite was one of the complainants and was causing the
preparation of the complaint “with the authority of my co-
complainants” indubitably shows that Talite was representing the
rest of his co-complainants in signing the verification in accordance
with Section 7, Rule III of the 1990 NLRC Rules, now Section 8,
Rule 3 of the 1999 NLRC Rules, which states:
Section 7. Authority to bind party.—Attorneys and other representatives of

parties shall have authority to bind their clients in all matters of procedure;
but they cannot, without a special power of attorney or express consent,
enter into a compromise agreement with the opposing party in full or partial
discharge of a client’s claim. (Italics supplied)
As regards private respondents’ position paper which bore the

signatures of only six of them, appended to it was an Au-
_______________
44 280 SCRA 853 (1997).
417
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 417

45
thority/Confirmation of Authority signed by the ninety one others
conferring authority to their counsel “to file RAB Case No. 06-07-
10316-95, entitled Winifredo Talite, et al. v. San Miguel Corporation
presently pending before the sala of Labor Arbiter Ray Alan Drilon
at the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI in Bacolod City”
and appointing him as their retained counsel to represent them in the
said case.
That there has been substantial compliance with the requirement
on verification of position papers under Section 3, Rule V of the
46
1990 NLRC Rules of Procedure is not difficult to appreciate in
light of the provision of Section 7, Rule V of the 1990 NLRC Rules,
now Section 9, Rule V of the 1999 NLRC Rules which reads:
Section 7. Nature of Proceedings.—The proceedings before a Labor Arbiter

shall be non-litigious in nature. Subject to the requirements of due process,
the technicalities of law and procedure
_______________
45 Rollo at pp. 133-135.

46 Section 3. Submission of Position Papers/Memorandum.—Should the parties fail to agree
upon an amicable settlement, either in whole or in part, during the conferences, the Labor
Arbiter shall issue an order stating therein the matters taken up and agreed upon during the
conferences and directing the parties to simultaneously file their respective verified position
papers.
These verified position papers shall cover only those claims and causes of action raised in
the complaint excluding those that may have been amicably settled, and shall be accompanied
by all supporting documents including the affidavits of their respective witnesses which shall
take the place of the latter’s direct testimony. The parties shall thereafter not be allowed to
allege facts, or present evidence to prove facts, not referred to and any cause or causes of action
not included in the complaint or position papers, affidavits and other documents. Unless
otherwise requested in writing by both parties, the Labor Arbiter shall direct both parties to
submit simultaneously their position papers/memorandum with the supporting documents and
affidavits within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of the last conference, with proof of
having furnished each other with copies thereof.
418

and the rules obtaining in the courts of law shall not strictly apply thereto.
The Labor Arbiter may avail himself of all reasonable means to ascertain
the facts of the controversy speedily, including ocular inspection and
examination of well-informed persons. (italics supplied)
As regards private respondents’ Joint-Affidavit which is being

assailed in view of the failure of some complainants to affix their
signatures thereon, this Court quotes with approval the appellate
court’s ratiocinations:
A perusal of the Southern Cotabato Development Case would reveal that

movant did not quote the whole text of paragraph 5 on page 865 of 280
SCRA. The whole paragraph reads:
“Clearly then, as to those who opted to move for the dismissal of their complaints, or
did not submit their affidavits nor appear during trial and in whose favor no other
independent evidence was adduced, no award for back wages could have been
validly and properly made for want of factual basis. There is no showing at all that
any of the affidavits of the thirty-four (34) complainants were offered as evidence for
those who did not submit their affidavits, or that such affidavits had any bearing at
all on the rights and interest of the latter. In the same vein, private respondent’s
position paper was not of any help to these delinquent complainants.
The implication is that as long as the affidavits of the complainants

were offered as evidence for those who did not submit theirs, or the
affidavits were material and relevant to the rights and interest of the
latter, such affidavits may be sufficient to establish the claims of those
who did not give their affidavits.
Here, a reading of the joint affidavit signed by twelve (12) of the ninety-
seven (97) complainants (petitioners herein) would readily reveal that the
affidavit was offered as evidence not only for the signatories therein but for
all of the complainants. (These ninety-seven (97) individuals were
previously identified during the mandatory conference as the only
complainants in the proceedings before the labor arbiter) Moreover, the
affidavit touched on the common interest of all of the complainants as it
supported their claim of the existence of an employer-employee relationship
between them and
419
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 419

respondent SMC. Thus, the said affidavit was enough to prove the claims of
47
the rest of the complainants. (Emphasis supplied, italics in the original)
In any event, SMC is reminded that the rules of evidence prevailing

in courts of law or equity do not control proceedings before the
Labor Arbiter. So Article 221 of the Labor Code enjoins:
ART. 221. Technical rules not binding and prior resort to amicable
settlement.—In any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Labor
Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not
be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the
Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all
reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively
and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of
due process. x x x
As such, their application may be relaxed to serve the demands of

48
substantial justice.
On the merits, the petition just the same fails.
SMC insists that private respondents are the employees of
Sunflower, an independent contractor. On the other hand, private
respondents assert that Sunflower is a labor-only contractor.
Article 106 of the Labor Code provides:
ART. 106. Contractor or subcontracting.—Whenever an employer enters

into a contract with another person for the performance of the former’s
work, the employees of the contractor and of the latter’s subcontractor, if
any shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
_______________
47 Rollo at p. 26.
48 Havtor Management Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 372
SCRA 271, 274 (2001) (citation omitted); Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Moldex
Products, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 324 SCRA 237, 252 (2000)
(citation omitted).
420

In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his
employees in accordance with this Code, the employer shall be jointly and
severally liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to
the extent of the work performed under the contract, in the same manner and
extent that he is liable to employees directly employed by him.
The Secretary of Labor may, by appropriate regulations, restrict or
prohibit the contracting out of labor to protect the rights of workers
established under the Code. In so prohibiting or restricting, he may make
appropriate distinctions between labor-only contracting and job contracting
as well as differentiations within these types of contracting and determine
who among the parties involved shall be considered the employer for
purposes of this Code, to prevent any violation or circumvention of any
provision of this Code.
There is “labor-only” contracting where the person supplying workers to
an employer does not have substantial capital or investment in the form of
tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and the
workers recruited and placed by such person are performing activities which
are directly related to the principal business of such employer. In such cases,
the person or intermediary shall be considered merely as an agent of the
employer who shall be responsible to the workers in the same manner and
extent as if the latter were directly employed by him.
Rule VIII-A, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the

Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 18, distinguishes
between legitimate and labor-only contracting:
Section 3. Trilateral Relationship in Contracting Arrangements.—In

legitimate contracting, there exists a trilateral relationship under which there
is a contract for a specific job, work or service between the principal and the
contractor or subcontractor, and a contract of employment between the
contractor or subcontractor and its workers. Hence, there are three parties
involved in these arrangements, the principal which decides to farm out a
job or service to a contractor or subcontractor, the contractor or
subcontractor which has the capacity to independently undertake the
performance of the job, work or service, and the contractual workers
engaged by the contractor or subcontractor to accomplish the job, work or
service.
421
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 421

Section 5. Prohibition against labor-only contracting.—Labor-only

contracting is hereby declared prohibited. For this purpose, labor-only
contracting shall refer to an arrangement where the contractor or
subcontractor merely recruits, supplies or places workers to perform a job,
work or service for a principal, and any of the following elements are
present:
i) The contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or

investment which relates to the job, work or service to be
performed and the employees recruited, supplied or placed by such
contractor or subcontractor are performing activities which are
directly related to the main business of the principal, or
ii) The contractor does not exercise the right to control over the
performance of the work of the contractual employee.
The foregoing provisions shall be without prejudice to the application of

Article 248 (c) of the Labor Code, as amended.
“Substantial capital or investment” refers to capital stocks and
subscribed capitalization in the case of corporations, tools, equipment,
implements, machineries and work premises, actually and directly used by
the contractor or subcontractor in the performance or completion of the job,
work or service contracted out.
The “right to control” shall refer to the right reserved to the person for
whom the services of the contractual workers are performed, to determine
not only the end to be achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in
reaching that end.
The test to determine the existence of independent contractorship is

whether one claiming to be an independent contractor has
contracted to do the work according to his own methods and
without being subject to the control of the employer, except only as
49
to the results of the work.
_______________
49 New Golden City Builders & Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,

418 SCRA 411, 417 (2003); Vinoya v. National Labor Relations Commission, 324
SCRA 469, 487 (2000) (citation omitted); Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor
Relations Commission, 298 SCRA 430, 444 (1998) (citation omitted).
422

In legitimate labor contracting, the law creates an employer-

employee relationship for a limited purpose, i.e., to ensure that the
employees are paid their wages. The principal employer becomes
jointly and severally liable with the job contractor, only for the
payment of the employees’ wages whenever the contractor fails to
pay the same. Other than that, the principal employer is not
50
responsible for any claim made by the employees.
In labor-only contracting, the statute creates an employer-
employee relationship for a comprehensive purpose: to prevent a
circumvention of labor laws. The contractor is considered merely an
agent of the principal employer and the latter is responsible to the
employees of the labor-only contractor as if such employees had
51
been directly employed by the principal employer.
The Contract of Services between SMC and Sunflower shows
that the parties clearly disavowed the existence of an employer-
employee relationship between SMC and private respondents. The
language of a contract is not, however, determinative of the parties’
relationship; rather it is the totality
_______________
50 New Golden City Builders & Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,

418 SCRA 411, 419 (2003) (citation omitted); San Miguel Corporation v. MAERC
Integrated Services, Inc., 405 SCRA 579, 596 (2003) (citation omitted).
51 Manila Water Company, Inc. v. Peña, 434 SCRA 53, 61 (2004) (citation
omitted); San Miguel Corporation v. MAERC Integrated Services, Inc., 405 SCRA
579, 596 (2003); Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
298 SCRA 430, 447 (1998) (citation omitted); Ponce v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 293 SCRA 366, 375-376, (1998) (citations omitted); Tiu v. National
Labor Relations Commission, 254 SCRA 1, 9 (1996) (citations omitted); Ecal v.
National Labor Relations Commission, 195 SCRA 224, 231 (1991) (citation omitted);
Philippine Bank of Communications v. National Labor Relations Commission, 146
SCRA 347, 356 (1986).
423
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 423

52
52
of the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case. A party
cannot dictate, by the mere expedient of a unilateral declaration in a
contract, the character of its business, i.e., whether as labor-only
contractor or job contractor, it being crucial that its character be
53
measured in terms of and determined by the criteria set by statute.
SMC argues that Sunflower could not have been issued a
certificate of registration as a cooperative if it had no substantial
54
capital.
While indeed Sunflower was issued Certificate of Registration
55
No. IL0-875 on February 10, 1992 by the Cooperative
Development Authority, this merely shows that it had at least
P2,000.00 in paid-up share capital as mandated by Section 5 of
56
Article 14 of Republic Act No. 6938, otherwise known as the
Cooperative Code, which amount cannot be considered substantial
capitalization.
What appears is that Sunflower does not have substantial
capitalization or investment in the form of tools, equipment,
machineries, work premises and other materials to qualify it as an
independent contractor.
_______________
52 San Miguel Corporation v. MAERC Integrated Services, Inc, 405 SCRA 579,
589 (2003) (citation omitted), Bernardo v. National Labor Relations Commission, 310
SCRA 186, 205 (1999) (citation omitted).
53 De los Santos v. National Labor Relations Commission, 372 SCRA 723, 734
(2001).
54 Rollo at p. 76.
55 Id., at p. 287.
56 (5) No cooperative shall be registered unless the articles of cooperation is
accompanied with the bonds of the accountable officers and a sworn statement of the
treasurer elected by the subscribers showing that at least twenty-five per centum
(25%) of the authorized share capital has been subscribed and at least twenty-five per
centum (25%) of the total subscription has been paid: Provided, That in no case shall
the paid-up share capital shall be less than Two thousand pesos (P2,000.00).
424

On the other hand, it is gathered that the lot, building, machineries

and all other working tools utilized by private respondents in
carrying out their tasks were owned and provided by SMC. Consider
the following uncontroverted allegations of private respondents in
the Joint Affidavit:
[Sunflower], during the existence of its service contract with respondent

SMC, did not own a single machinery, equipment, or working tool used in
the processing plant. Everything was owned and provided by respondent
SMC. The lot, the building, and working facilities are owned by respondent
SMC. The machineries and equipments (sic) like washer machine, oven or
cooking machine, sizer machine, freezer, storage, and chilling tanks, push
carts, hydrolic (sic) jack, tables, and chairs were all owned by respondent
SMC. All the boxes, trays, molding pan used in the processing are also
owned by respondent SMC. The gloves and boots used by the complainants
were also owned by respondent SMC. Even the mops, electric floor
cleaners, brush, hoose (sic), soaps, floor waxes, chlorine, liquid stain
removers, lysol and the like used by the complainants assigned as cleaners
were all owned and provided by respondent SMC.
Simply stated, third-party respondent did not own even a small capital in
the form of tools, machineries, or facilities used in said prawn processing
xxx
The alleged office of [Sunflower] is found within the confines of a small
“carinderia” or “refreshment” (sic) owned by the mother of the Cooperative
Chairman Roy Asong.
x x x In said . . . office, the only equipment used and owned by
57
[Sunflower] was a typewriter.
And from the job description provided by SMC itself, the work
assigned to private respondents was directly related to the
aquaculture operations of SMC. Undoubtedly, the nature of the work
performed by private respondents in shrimp harvesting, receiving
and packing formed an integral part of the
_______________
57 Rollo at pp. 483-486.
425
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 425

shrimp processing operations of SMC. As for janitorial and

messengerial services, that they are considered directly related to the
58
principal business of the employer has been jurisprudentially
recognized.
Furthermore, Sunflower did not carry on an independent business
or undertake the performance of its service contract according to its
own manner and method, free from the control and supervision of its
principal, SMC, its apparent role having been merely to recruit
persons to work for SMC.
Thus, it is gathered from the evidence adduced by private
respondents before the labor arbiter that their daily time records
were signed by SMC supervisors Ike Puentebella, Joemel Haro,
Joemari Raca, Erwin Tumonong, Edison Arguello, and Stephen
Palabrica, which fact shows that SMC exercised the power of
59
control and supervision over its employees. And control of the
premises in which private respondents worked was by SMC. These
60
tend to disprove the independence of the contractor.
More. Private respondents had been working in the aqua
processing plant inside the SMC compound alongside regular SMC
shrimp processing workers performing identical jobs under the same
61
SMC supervisors. This circumstance is another indicium of the
62
existence of a labor-only contractorship.
_______________
58 Coca Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 307
SCRA 131, 137 (1999) (citation omitted); Neri v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 224 SCRA 717, 722 (1993) (citation omitted); Guarin v. National Labor
Relations Commission, 178 SCRA 267, 273 (1989) (citation omitted).
59 De los Santos v. National Labor Relations Commission, 372 SCRA 723, 732
(2001).
60 San Miguel Corporation v. MAERC Integrated Services, Inc., 405 SCRA 579,
590 (2003) (citation omitted).
61 Rollo at p. 485.
62 Vide: Philippine Bank of Communications v. National Labor Relations
Commission (146 SCRA 347, 354) where this Court found:
426

And as private respondents alleged in their Joint Affidavit which did

not escape the observation of the CA, no showing to the contrary
having been proffered by SMC, Sunflower did not cater to clients
63
other than SMC, and with the closure of SMC’s Bacolod Shrimp
Processing Plant, Sunflower likewise ceased to exist. This Court’s
ruling in San Miguel Corporation v. MAERC Integrated Services,
64
Inc. is thus instructive.
x x x Nor do we believe MAERC to have an independent business. Not only

was it set up to specifically meet the pressing needs of SMC which was then
having labor problems in its segregation division, none of its workers was
also ever assigned to any other establishment, thus convincing us that it was
created solely to service the needs of SMC. Naturally, with the severance of
relationship between MAERC and SMC followed MAERC’s cessation of
operations, the loss of jobs for the whole MAERC workforce and the
65
resulting actions instituted by the workers. (Italics supplied)
All the foregoing considerations affirm by more than substantial

evidence the existence of an employer-employee relationship
between SMC and private respondents.
_______________
Turning to the power to control Orpiada’s conduct, it should be noted immediately

that Orpiada performed his functions within the bank’s premises, and not within the
office premises of CESI. As such, Orpiada must have been subject to at least the same
control and supervision that the bank exercises over any other person physically
within its premises and rendering services to or for the bank, in other words, any
employee or staff member of the bank. It seems unreasonable to suppose that the bank
would have allowed Orpiada and the other persons assigned to the bank by CESI to
remain within the bank’s premises and there render services to the bank, without
subjecting them to a substantial measure of control and supervision x x x
63 Vide: Coca Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
307 SCRA 131, 140 (1999).
64 405 SCRA 579 (2003).
65 Id., at pp. 595-596.
427
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 427
Since private respondents who were engaged in shrimp processing

performed tasks usually necessary or desirable in the aquaculture
business of SMC, they should be deemed regular employees of the
66
latter and as such are entitled to all the benefits and rights
67
appurtenant to regular employment. They should thus be awarded
differential pay corresponding to the difference between the wages
and benefits given them and those accorded SMC’s other regular
employees.
Respecting the private respondents who were tasked with
janitorial and messengerial duties, this Court quotes with approval
the appellate court’s ruling thereon:
Those performing janitorial and messengerial services however acquired

regular status only after rendering one-year service pursuant to Article 280
of the Labor Code. Although janitorial and messengerial services are
considered directly related to the aquaculture business of SMC, they are
deemed unnecessary in the conduct of its principal business; hence, the
distinction (See Coca Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. NLRC, 307 SCRA 131,
68
136-137 and Philippine Bank of Communications v. NLRC, supra, p. 359).
The law of course provides for two kinds of regular employees,

namely: (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer; and (2) those who have rendered at least one year of
service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in
69
which they are employed.
As for those of private respondents who were engaged in
janitorial and messengerial tasks, they fall under the second category
and are thus entitled to differential pay and benefits
_______________
66 Manila Water Company, Inc. v. Peña, 434 SCRA 53, 62 (2004).

67 Ecal v. National Labor Relations Commission, 195 SCRA 224, 234 (1991)
(citations omitted).
68 Rollo at p. 21.
69 Kimberly Independent Union v. Drilon, 185 SCRA 190, 203 (1990).
428

extended to other SMC regular employees from the day immediately

70
following their first year of service.
Regarding the closure of SMC’s aquaculture operations and the
consequent termination of private respondents, Article 283 of the
Labor Code provides:
ART. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel.—The

employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the
installation of labor saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent
losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or
undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the
provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the
Department of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the
intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor
saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled
to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least
one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of
retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of
operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business
losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1)
month pay or to at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service,
whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered
one (1) whole year. (Italics supplied)
In the case at bar, a particular department under the SMC group of

companies was closed allegedly due to serious business reverses.
This constitutes retrenchment by, and not closure of, the enterprise
or the company itself as SMC has not totally ceased operations but is
71
still very much an ongoing and highly viable business concern.
_______________
70 Id., at p. 205.
71 Catatista v. National Labor Relations Commission, 247 SCRA 46, 51 (1995);
Construction & Development Corporation of the Philippines v. Leogardo, Jr., 125
SCRA 863, 867 (1983).
429
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 429

Retrenchment is a management prerogative consistently recognized

and affirmed by this Court. It is, however, subject to faithful
compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements laid
72
down by law and jurisprudence.
For retrenchment to be considered valid the following substantial
requirements must be met: (a) the losses expected should be
substantial and not merely de minimis in extent; (b) the substantial
losses apprehended must be reasonably imminent such as can be
perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer; (c) the
retrenchment must be reasonably necessary and likely to effectively
prevent the expected losses; and (d) the alleged losses, if already
incurred, and the expected imminent losses sought to be forestalled,
73
must be proved by sufficient and convincing evidence.
In the discharge of these requirements, it is the employer who has
74
the onus, being in the nature of an affirmative defense.
_______________
72 EMCO Plywood Corporation v. Abelgas, 427 SCRA 496, 511 (2004) (citation
omitted).
omitted); Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing & Redrying Corporation v. National Labor
Relations Commission, 300 SCRA 37, 55-56 (1998) (citation omitted); Somerville
Stainless Steel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 287 SCRA 420,
430 (1998) (citation omitted); Edge Apparel, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 286 SCRA 302, 313 (1998) (citation omitted); San Miguel Jeepney
Service v. National Labor Relations Commission, 265 SCRA 35, 44 (1996) (citation
omitted); Catatista v. National Labor Relations Commission, 247 SCRA 46, 52
(1995) (citation omitted).
74 Somerville Stainless Steel Corporation v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 287 SCRA 420, 432 (1998) (citation omitted); San Miguel Jeepney
Service v. National Labor Relations Commission, 265 SCRA 35, 45 (1996) (citation
omitted); Guerrero v. National Labor Relations Commission, 261 SCRA 301, 306
(1996) (citation omitted).
430

Normally, the condition of business losses is shown by audited

financial documents like yearly balance sheets, profit and loss
statements and annual income tax returns. The financial statements
must be prepared and signed by independent auditors failing which
75
they can be assailed as self-serving documents.
In the case at bar, company losses were duly established by
financial documents audited by Joaquin Cunanan & Co. showing
that the aquaculture operations of SMC’s Agribusiness Division
accumulated losses amounting to P145,848,172.00 in 1992 resulting
in the closure of its Calatrava Aquaculture Center in Negros
Occidental, P11,393,071.00 in 1993 and P80,325,608.00 in 1994
which led to the closure of its San Fernando Shrimp Processing
Plant in Pampanga and the Bacolod Shrimp Processing Plant in
1995.
SMC has thus proven substantial business reverses justifying
retrenchment of its employees.
For termination due to retrenchment to be valid, however, the law
requires that written notices of the intended retrenchment be served
by the employer on the worker and on the DOLE at least one (1)
76
month before the actual date of the retrenchment, in order to give
employees some time to prepare for the eventual loss of their jobs,
as well as to give DOLE the opportunity to ascertain the verity of
77
the alleged cause of termination.
_______________
75 Asian Alcohol Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 305

SCRA 417 (1999) (citations omitted).
76 EMCO Plywood Corporation v. Abelgas, 427 SCRA 496, 511-512 (2004)
(citation omitted); San Miguel Corporation v. MAERC Integrated Services, Inc., 405
SCRA 579, 596 (2003) (citations omitted); Guerrero v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 261 SCRA 301, 307 (1996).
omitted); Sebuguero v. National Labor Relations Commission, 248 SCRA 532, 545
(1995).
431
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 431
Private respondents, however, were merely verbally informed on

September 10, 1995 by SMC Prawn Manager Ponciano Capay that
effective the following day or on September 11, 1995, they were no
78
longer to report for work as SMC would be closing its operations.
Where the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under
Article 283 of the Labor Code but the employer failed to comply
with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiff as the
dismissal process was initiated by the employer’s exercise of his
management prerogative, as opposed to a dismissal based on a just
cause under Article 282 with the same procedural infirmity where
the sanction to be imposed upon the employer should be tempered as
the dismissal process was, in effect, initiated by an act imputable to
79
the employee.
In light of the factual circumstances of the case at bar, this Court
awards P50,000.00 to each private respondent as nominal damages.
The grant of separation pay as an incidence of termination of
employment due to retrenchment to prevent losses is a statutory
obligation on the part of the employer and a demandable right on the
part of the employee. Private respondents should thus be awarded
separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month pay or to at least
one-half month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher, as
mandated by Article 283 of the Labor Code or the separation pay
awarded by SMC to other regular SMC employees that were
terminated as a result of the retrenchment, depending on which is
most beneficial to private respondents.
Considering that private respondents were not illegally
dismissed, however, no backwages need be awarded. It is well
settled that backwages may be granted only when there is a
_______________
78 Rollo at 126.
79 JAKA Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot, G.R. No. 151378, March 28,
2005, 454 SCRA 119.
432

80
finding of illegal dismissal. The appellate court thus erred in
awarding backwages to private respondents upon the authority of
81
Bustamante v. NLRC, what was involved in that case being one of
illegal dismissal.
With respect to attorney’s fees, in actions for recovery of wages
or where an employee was forced to litigate and thus incurred
82
expenses to protect his rights and interests, a maximum of ten
83
percent (10%) of the total monetary award by way of attorney’s
84
fees is justifiable under Article 111 of the Labor Code, Section 8,
85
Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules, and paragraph 7,
86
Article 2208 of the Civil Code. Although an express finding of
facts and law is still necessary to prove the merit of the award, there
need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in
bad faith when
_______________
80 J.A.T. General Services v. National Labor Relations Commission, 421 SCRA

78, 91 (2004) (citation omitted).
81 265 SCRA 61, 71 (1996).
82 Manila Water v. Peña , 434 SCRA 53, 64-65 (2004) (citation omitted);
Rasonable v. National Labor Relations Commission, 253 SCRA 815, 819 (1996)
(citations omitted).
83 Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 409 SCRA 267, 284 (2003) (citations omitted);
Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 313
SCRA 88, 99 (1999).
84 ART. 111. Attorney’s fees.—(a) In cases of unlawful withholding of wages the
culpable party may be assessed attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent of the amount
of wages recovered. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to demand or accept, in
any judicial or administrative proceedings for the recovery of the wages, attorney’s
fees which exceed ten percent of the amount of wages recovered.
85 SEC. 8. Attorney’s fees.—Attorney’s fees in any judicial or administrative
proceedings for the recovery of wages shall not exceed 10% of the amount awarded.
The fees may be deducted from the total amount due the winning party.
86 ART. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except: x x x (7) In actions
for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers.
433
VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 433

it withheld the wages. There need only be a showing that the lawful
87
wages were not paid accordingly, as in this case.
Absent any evidence showing that Sunflower has been dissolved
88
in accordance with law, pursuant to Rule VIII-A, Section 19 of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Sunflower is held
solidarily liable with SMC for all the rightful claims of private
respondents.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision
dated February 7, 2001 and Resolution dated July 11, 2001 of the
Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Petitioner San Miguel Corporation and Sunflower MultiPurpose
Cooperative are hereby ORDERED to jointly and severally pay each
private respondent differential pay from the time they became
regular employees up to the date of their termination; separation pay
equivalent to at least one (1) month pay or to at least one-half month
pay for every year of service, whichever is higher, as mandated by
Article 283 of the Labor Code or the separation pay awarded by
SMC to other regular SMC employees that were terminated as a
result of the retrenchment, depending on which is most beneficial to
private respondents; and ten percent (10%) attorney’s fees based on
the herein modified award.
_______________
87 Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 409 SCRA 267, 283 (2003) (citations omitted).
88 SEC. 19. Solidary Liability.—The principal shall be deemed as the direct
employer of the contractual employees and therefore, solidarily liable with the
contractor or subcontractor for whatever monetary claims the contractual employees
may have against the former in the case of violations as provided for in Sections 5
(Labor-Only contracting), 6 (Prohibitions), 8 (Rights of Contractual Employees) and
16 (Delisting) of these Rules. In addition, the principal shall also be solidarily liable
in case the contract between the principal and contractor or subcontractor is
preterminated for reasons not attributed to the fault of the contractor or subcontractor.
434

Petitioner San Miguel Corporation is further ORDERED to pay each

private respondent the amount of P50,000.00, representing nominal
damages for non-compliance with statutory due process.
The award of backwages is DELETED.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and

Garcia, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, assailed decision and resolution affirmed with

modification.
Notes.—The President of a corporation who actively manages

the business falls within the meaning of an “employer” as
contemplated by the Labor Code and may be held jointly and
severally liable for the obligations of the corporation to its dismissed
employees. (Naguiat vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 269
SCRA 564 [1997])
The principal test for determining whether an employee is a
project employee or a regular employee is whether or not the project
employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or
undertaking, the duration and scope of which were specified at the
time the employee was engaged for that project. (Nagusara vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, 290 SCRA 249 [1998])
——o0o——
435
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

San Miguel Corporation vs. Aballa: - Third Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Miguel Corporation vs. Aballa: - Third Division

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

San Miguel Corporation vs. Aballa: - Third Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 461

392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. PROSPERO A.

VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 393

A. RUBIO, HENRY S. SAMILLANO, EDGAR SANTIAGO,

Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Certiﬁcate of Non-Forum Shopping;

394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

San Miguel Corporation vs. Aballa

a petition although the certiﬁcation against forum shopping was not

VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 395

San Miguel Corporation vs. Aballa

and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to

396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

San Miguel Corporation vs. Aballa

VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 397

San Miguel Corporation vs. Aballa

Same; Same; Same; The language of a contract is not determinative of

398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

San Miguel Corporation vs. Aballa

Same; Two Kinds of Regular Employees; Workers who were engaged in

VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 399

San Miguel Corporation vs. Aballa

Same; Same; The ﬁnancial statements must be prepared and signed by

Same; Same; Damages; Where the dismissal is based on an authorized

400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

San Miguel Corporation vs. Aballa

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC), represented by its

1. The cooperative agrees and undertakes to perform and/or

1 Rollo at pp. 278-286.

- Assist in the crushing and loading of ice;

VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 401

2. To carry out the undertaking speciﬁed in the immediately

B. Janitorial and Messengerial Services

1. Maintain, sanitize and clean the following:

- Streets cemented and otherwise

402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

apparatus, to efﬁciently, fully and speedily accomplish the work and

3. In consideration of the above undertaking the company

A. Messengerial/Janitorial Monthly Fixed Service Charge of:

P25.00 Fixed Fee per person

C. Sanitation/Washing and Cold Storage P125.00/person for 3

4. There is no employer-employee relationship between the

VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 403

5. The cooperative shall, whenever possible, maintain and

404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pursuant to the contract, Sunﬂower engaged private respondents to,

3 Rollo at pp. 279-283.

VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 405

By Decision of September 23, 1997, Labor Arbiter Drilon dismissed

406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

clearly been established, is a management prerogative which could hardly

9 Id., at pp. 504-507.

VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 407

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, judgment is

Although the terms of the non-exclusive contract of service between SMC

408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 461, JUNE 28, 2005 409