10 Philippine Pizza, Inc. v. Cayetano

3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 878

G.R. No. 230030. August 29, 2018. *

PHILIPPINE PIZZA, INC., petitioner, vs. JENNY
PORRAS** CAYETANO, RIZALDO G. AVENIDO, PEE JAY T.
GURION, RUMEL A. RECTO, ROGELIO T. SUMBANG, JR., and
JIMMY J. DELOSO, respondents.
Grave Abuse of Discretion; Words and Phrases; Case law states that
grave abuse of discretion connotes a capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment, done in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility, the character of which being so patent and gross as to amount to
an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty
enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law.—Case law states that
grave abuse of discretion connotes a capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment, done in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility, the character of which being so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined
by or to act at all in contemplation of law.
Same; Labor Cases; National Labor Relations Commission; In labor
cases, grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) when its findings and conclusions are not
supported by substantial evidence, which refers to that amount of relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion.—In labor cases, grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to
the NLRC when its findings and conclusions are not supported by
substantial evidence, which refers to that amount of relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Thus, if
the NLRC’s ruling has basis in the evidence and the applicable law and
jurisprudence, then no grave abuse of discretion exists and the CA should so
declare and, accordingly, dismiss the petition.
Dismissal of Actions; Minute Resolutions; Judgment on the Merits;
Case law instructs that although the Supreme Court’s (SC’s)
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
** “Poras” in the title of the Petition. See Rollo (Vol. I), p. 9.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017819f259ae1f57f7e9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
447
VOL. 878, AUGUST 29, 2018 447

Philippine Pizza, Inc. vs. Cayetano
dismissal of a case via a minute resolution constitutes a disposition on the

merits, the same could not be treated as a binding precedent to cases involving other
persons who are not parties to the case, or another subject matter that may or may
not have the same parties and issues.—The CA’s reliance on the Philippine Pizza,
Inc.’s minute resolution is, however, misplaced. Case law instructs that although the
Court’s dismissal of a case via a minute resolution constitutes a disposition on the
merits, the same could not be treated as a binding precedent to cases involving other
persons who are not parties to the case, or another subject matter that may or may
not have the same parties and issues. In other words, a minute resolution does not
necessarily bind non-parties to the action even if it amounts to a final action on a
case.
Labor Law; Employer-Employee Relationship; Control Test; The

existence of the element of control can also be inferred from Consolidated
Building Maintenance, Inc.’s (CBMI’s) act of subjecting respondents to
disciplinary sanctions for violations of company rules and regulations as
evidenced by the various Offense Notices and Memoranda issued to them.—
More importantly, the NLRC correctly gave credence to CBMI’s claim that
it retained control over respondents, as shown by the deployment of at least
one (1) CBMI supervisor in each Pizza Hut branch to regularly oversee,
monitor, and supervise the employees’ attendance and performance. This
claim was further substantiated by CBMI’s area coordinators, who admitted
in their Affidavits that: (a) they oversee, monitor, and ensure CBMI
employees’ compliance with company policies, rules, and regulations
whichever Pizza Hut branch they may be assigned; (b) they are responsible
for ensuring that CBMI employees perform their tasks and functions in the
manner that CBMI mandates; (c) they regularly visit and monitor each area
of deployment; (d) they track and confirm the attendance and punctuality of
CBMI employees; and (e) they constantly inform CBMI’s Human Resource
Department (HRD) Manager of any company violations committed by the
employees. Furthermore, the existence of the element of control can also be
inferred from CBMI’s act of subjecting respondents to disciplinary sanctions
for violations of company rules and regulations as evidenced by the various
Offense Notices and Memoranda issued to them. Additionally, records show
that CBMI employed measures to ensure the observance of due process
before subjecting respondents to disciplinary action. In fact, CBMI’s HRD
Manager,

448
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sarah G. Delgado, attested in her Affidavit that one of her duties is to

make sure that due process is equally afforded to all erring CBMI
employees before a disciplinary action is imposed upon them.
Same; Termination of Employment; Illegal Dismissals; Respondents
could not have been illegally terminated from work, for they were placed in
a temporary layoff status when they prematurely filed the complaints.—As
to the issue of illegal dismissal, the Court agrees with the finding of the
NLRC that respondents were not illegally dismissed from work. Records
show that while PPI denied the existence of an employer-employee
relationship with respondents, CBMI actually acknowledged that
respondents were its employees. CBMI likewise presented proof that it duly
informed respondents of their impending layoff, yet they immediately filed
the complaints before it had the chance to redeploy them. On the other hand,
respondents did not even refute CBMI’s claim that they were informed of its
decision to place them in floating status pending their redeployment. As
such, respondents could not have been illegally terminated from work, for
they were placed in a temporary layoff status when they prematurely filed
the complaints. There being no dismissal to speak of, respondents were thus
not illegally dismissed by CBMI, their actual employer.
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.
Laguesma, Magsalin, Consulta & Gastardo for petitioner.
Ernesto Arellano for respondents.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the
Decision2 dated March 30, 2016 and the Resolution3 dated
_______________
1 Id., at pp. 9-40.

449
VOL. 878, AUGUST 29, 2018 449

January 6, 2017 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R.

S.P. No. 136333, which reversed and set aside the Decision4 dated
January 28, 2014 and the Resolution5 dated April 30, 2014 of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC-NCR Nos.
04-05060-13, 05-06931-13, 05-07363-13, 05-07941-13, and 06-
08125-13, and thereby, reinstated the Decision6 dated August 30,
2013 of the Labor Arbiter (LA) in NLRC-NCR Case Nos. 04-05060-
13, 05-06931-13, 05-07363-13, 05-07941-13, and 06-08125-13,
finding petitioner Philippine Pizza, Inc. (PPI) and Consolidated
Building Maintenance, Inc. (CBMI) jointly and severally liable for
illegal dismissal.

The Facts

7
On various dates, respondents Jenny Porras Cayetano
(Cayetano), Rizaldo G. Avenido (Avenido), Pee Jay T. Gurion
(Gurion), Rumel A. Recto (Recto), Rogelio T. Sumbang, Jr.
(Sumbang, Jr.), and Jimmy J. Deloso (Deloso; collectively,
respondents) were hired by CBMI, a job contractor which provides
kitchen, delivery, sanitation, and allied services to PPI’s8 Pizza Hut
chain of restaurants (Pizza Hut),9 and were
_______________
2 Id., at pp. 46-60. Penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, with
Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales Sison and Ramon A. Cruz, concurring.
3 Id., at pp. 62-63.
4 Rollo (Vol. II), pp. 537-552. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C.
Nograles, with Commissioners Perlita B. Velasco and Romeo L. Go, concurring.
5 Id., at pp. 553-555.
6 CA Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 52-65. Penned by J. Potenciano F. Napenas, Jr.
7 Respondents were hired on the following dates: Cayetano on November 9,
2004; Avenido in March 2006; Gurion in August 2006; Recto in May 2002;
Sumbang, Jr. on June 23, 2003; and Deloso on June 10, 2002 (see Rollo [Vol. I], p.
47).
8 Rollo (Vol. II), p. 506.

450

thereafter deployed to the various branches of the latter. Cayetano

and Deloso worked as team members/service crew, while Avenido,
Gurion, Recto, and Sumbang, Jr. served as delivery riders.10
Respondents alleged that they rendered work for Pizza Hut,

ranging from seven (7) to eleven (11) years, hence, they were
regular employees of PPI and not of CBMI. They claimed to have
been initially hired by PPI but were subsequently transferred to
CBMI so as to prevent them from attaining their regular
employment status. Despite the said transfer, however, they were
still under the direct supervision of the managers of Pizza Hut and
had been using its tools and machines for work.11 Thus, respondents,
along with several others,12 filed separate complaints for Illegal
Dismissal against PPI and CBMI,13 before the NLRC, docketed as
NLRC-NCR Case Nos. 04-05060-13, 05-06931-13, 05-07363-13,
05-07941-13, and 06-08125-13.
For its part, PPI denied any employer-employee relationship with
respondents, averring that it entered into several Contracts of
Services14 with CBMI to perform janitorial, bussing, kitchen, table
service, cashiering, warehousing, delivery, and allied services in
PPI’s favor. It also contended that re-
_______________
9 Id. (Vol. I), p. 10.

10 Id. (Vol. II), p. 507.
11 See Id. (Vol. I), p. 48; and id., at pp. 540-541.
12 Complaints were likewise filed by Alexander Castillo and Jojo N. Nace in
NLRC Case No. 04-05060-13, but the latter opted to settle their claims with PPI and
CBMI. As to Eduardo M. Buot, Jr. and Michael Bachicha, the latter failed to appear
and file their respective position papers; thus, their complaints were dismissed for
lack of interest (Id., at p. 53).
13 The Complaints were likewise filed against PPI and CBMI’s respective
Presidents, i.e., Jorge Araneta, and Salvador Ortañez (see CA Rollo [Vol. I], pp. 66-
88).
14 See copies of various contracts of service between Pizza Hut and CBMI; Rollo
(Vol. I), pp. 112-202.

451
VOL. 878, AUGUST 29, 2018 451

spondents were assigned to various branches of Pizza Hut and were

performing tasks in accordance with CBMI’s manner and method,
free from the direction and control of PPI.15
On the other hand, CBMI admitted that respondents were its
employees, and that it paid their wages and remitted their
SSS,16 PhilHealth,17 and Pag-IBIG18 contributions. It insisted that it
is a legitimate job contractor, as it possesses substantial capital and a

Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Certificate of
Registration;19 undertakes a business separate and distinct from that
of PPI based on its Articles of Incorporation;20 and more
importantly, retained and exercised the right of control over
respondents. Moreover, CBMI explained that it had no choice but to
recall, and subsequently, place respondents in floating status,
considering that PPI had reduced its need for services in some Pizza
Hut branches. Lastly, CBMI maintained that before it had the
opportunity to reassign respondents, the latter already filed their
complaints.21

The LA’s Ruling

22
In a Decision dated August 30, 2013, the LA found PPI and
CBMI jointly and severally liable for illegal dismissal, and
accordingly, ordered them to immediately reinstate respondents to
their former positions without loss of seniority
_______________
15 Id., at pp. 48-49.

16 Stands for “Social Security Service.”
17 Stands for “Philippine Health Insurance Corporation.”
18 Stands for “Pagtutulungan sa Kinabukasan: Ikaw, Bangko, Industria at
Gobyerno.”
19 See CA Rollo (Vol. I), p. 479.
20 Id. (Vol. II), p. 754.
21 See Rollo (Vol. I), p. 50.
22 CA Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 53-65.

452

rights and privileges and to pay respondents their full backwages

and moral and exemplary damages.23
The LA ruled that respondents were regular employees of PPI
and not of CBMI, as they were repeatedly hired to perform work
that was usually necessary and desirable to the main business of PPI.
It observed that while CBMI was able to establish compliance with
the substantial capital requirement, it failed to show that it undertook
the contract work on its own account. On the other hand, it found
that PPI exercised control over respondents through the numerous
certifications issued to them, e.g., for delivering hospitality behavior,

for demonstrating skills and knowledge in the areas of cooking, for
having completed training, for being an outstanding rider, and for
exemplary performance.24
Moreover, the LA took judicial notice of the case of Philippine
Pizza, Inc. v. Noel Matias25 (Philippine Pizza, Inc.), which involved
a similar complaint for illegal dismissal filed by a delivery rider of
Pizza Hut. In the said case, the Court disregarded the separate
personalities of PPI and CBMI, holding that they were engaged in a
prohibited labor-only contracting arrangement.26
Aggrieved, PPI and CBMI appealed27 to the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC).

The NLRC’s Ruling

28
In a Decision dated January 28, 2014, the NLRC reversed and
set aside the LA’s Decision and dismissed the complaints
_______________
23 Id., at pp. 63-65.

24 Id., at pp. 59-60.
25 See Minute Resolution in G.R. No. 200656, April 16, 2012.
26 See CA Rollo (Vol. I), p. 61.
27 See Rollo (Vol. II), pp. 453-471 (for PPI) and pp. 504-536 (for CBMI).
28 Id., at pp. 537-552.

453
VOL. 878, AUGUST 29, 2018 453

for lack of merit.29 The NLRC found that CBMI is a legitimate job
contractor, as it has sufficient capital and investment to properly
carry out its obligation with PPI, as well as adequate funds to cover
its operational expenses. It also observed that CBMI is presumed to
have complied with all the requirements of a legitimate job
contractor in light of the Certificate of Registration issued by the
DOLE.30
The NLRC also held that there was no employer-employee
relationship between PPI and respondents, observing that the mere
issuance of Pizza Hut’s certifications was insufficient to show the
element of control. On the contrary, CBMI was the one which
ultimately exercised control and supervision over respondents, as it
assigned at least one (1) supervisor in respondents’ respective
workplaces to regularly control, supervise, and monitor their

attendance and performance.31
Meanwhile, the NLRC ruled that the principle of stare
decisis could not be applied to the instant case, since Philippine
Pizza, Inc.’s case was resolved through a mere minute resolution,
and as such, was bereft of a complete statement of the facts of the
case, as well as the applicable laws and jurisprudence. It also
declared that respondents’ floating status did not constitute dismissal
from service, as it was done in the exercise of CBMI’s management
prerogative.32
Dissatisfied, respondents sought reconsideration,33 which was
denied in a Resolution34 dated April 30, 2014. Thus, they filed a
petition for certiorari35 before the CA.
_______________
29 Id., at p. 551.
30 Id., at pp. 549-550.
31 Id., at p. 550.
32 Id., at pp. 550-551.
33 Not attached to the Records.
34 Rollo (Vol. II), pp. 553-554.
35 Dated July 11, 2014. Id., at pp. 556-580.

454

The CA’s Ruling

36
In a Decision dated March 30, 2016, the CA annulled and set
aside the NLRC’s ruling, and accordingly, reinstated the LA’s
ruling.37 In holding PPI and CBMI jointly and severally liable to
respondents, the CA applied the principle of stare decisis, relying on
the Court’s ruling in Philippine Pizza, Inc. that CBMI is engaged in
prohibited labor-only contracting and thus, PPI is the principal
employer of respondents. According to the CA, there was no
showing that CBMI supervised and evaluated the performance of the
employees who were deployed to Pizza Hut. CBMI likewise did not
prove that it had established the working methods and procedures of
the said employees. On the contrary, it found PPI to have exercised
control and supervision over its employees in view of the awards
and seminars given to them.38
Moreover, the CA declared that respondents were regular

employees of PPI, having rendered service for more than a year,
specifically ranging from seven (7) to eleven (11) years.39
Unperturbed, PPI and CBMI moved for reconsideration,40 which
was denied in a Resolution41 dated January 6, 2017; hence, this
petition filed by PPI.

The Issues Before the Court

The issues to be resolved by the Court are whether or not the CA:
(a) correctly relied on the ruling in Philippine Pizza, Inc. in
concluding that CBMI is engaged in a prohibited labor-only
contracting arrangement with PPI; and (b) correctly
_______________
36 Id. (Vol. II), pp. 46-60.

37 Id., at pp. 59-60.
38 Id., at pp. 55-57.
39 Id., at p. 57.
40 Id., at pp. 617-641 (for PPI) and pp. 643-667 (for CBMI).
41 Id. (Vol. I), pp. 62-63.

455
VOL. 878, AUGUST 29, 2018 455

ruled that respondents were illegally dismissed from employment.

The Court’s Ruling

The petition is meritorious.
At the outset, the Court stresses the distinct approach in
reviewing a CA’s ruling in a labor case. In a Rule 45 review, the
Court examines the correctness of the CA’s Decision in contrast with
the review of jurisdictional errors under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule
45 limits the review to questions of law. In ruling for legal
correctness, the Court views the CA’s Decision in the same context
that the petition for certiorari was presented to the CA. Hence, the
Court has to examine the CA’s Decision from the prism of whether
the CA correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse
of discretion in the NLRC’s Decision.42
Case law states that grave abuse of discretion connotes a
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, done in a despotic
manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, the character of

which being so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by
or to act at all in contemplation of law.43
In labor cases, grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to the
NLRC when its findings and conclusions are not supported by
substantial evidence, which refers to that amount of relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify
a conclusion. Thus, if the NLRC’s ruling has basis in the evidence
and the applicable law and juris-
_______________
42 See Quebral v. Angbus Construction, Inc., G.R. No. 221897, November 7,

2016, 807 SCRA 176, 184, citing Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation, 613
Phil. 696, 707; 597 SCRA 334, 343 (2009).
43 See Quebral v. Angbus Construction, Inc., id., at p. 184, citing Gadia v. Sykes
Asia, Inc., 752 Phil. 413, 419-420; 748 SCRA 633, 641 (2015).

456

prudence, then no grave abuse of discretion exists and the CA

should so declare and, accordingly, dismiss the petition.44
Guided by the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the
CA erroneously ascribed grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
NLRC. In arriving at its Decision, the CA adopted the Court’s
minute resolution in Philippine Pizza, Inc., as it purportedly
stemmed from a similar complaint for illegal dismissal filed by a
delivery rider against PPI and CBMI. In the said case, the Court
found CBMI to be a labor-only contractor and held PPI as the
employer of the delivery rider.
The CA’s reliance on the Philippine Pizza, Inc.’s minute
resolution is, however, misplaced. Case law instructs that although
the Court’s dismissal of a case via a minute resolution constitutes a
disposition on the merits, the same could not be treated as a binding
precedent to cases involving other persons who are not parties to the
case, or another subject matter that may or may not have the same
parties and issues.45 In other words, a minute resolution does not
necessarily bind non-parties to the action even if it amounts to a final
action on a case.46
In this case, records do not bear proof that respondents were also
parties to the Philippine Pizza, Inc.’s case or that they participated or
were involved therein. Moreover, there was no showing that the

subject matters of the two (2) cases were in some way similar or
related to one another, since the minute resolution in the case
of Philippine Pizza, Inc. did not
_______________
44 See Quebral v. Angbus Construction, Inc., id., citations omitted.

45 See Read-Rite Philippines, Inc. v. Francisco, G.R. No. 195457, August 16,
2017, 837 SCRA 235, citing Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc. v. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, 616 Phil. 387, 421; 600 SCRA 413, 446 (2009).
46 See Read-Rite Philippines, Inc. v. Francisco, id., citing Alonso v. Cebu
Country Club, Inc., 426 Phil. 61, 86; 375 SCRA 390, 408 (2002).

457
VOL. 878, AUGUST 29, 2018 457

contain a complete statement of the facts, as well as a discussion of

the applicable laws and jurisprudence that became the basis for the
Court’s minute resolution therein. In this light, the principle of stare
decisis cannot be invoked to obtain a dismissal of the instant
petition.
Instead, independently considering the attending circumstances
of this case, the Court finds that the NLRC did not in fact gravely
abuse its discretion in holding that CBMI is a legitimate job
contractor, and consequently, the employer of respondents. As the
NLRC aptly pointed out, CBMI is presumed to have complied with
all the requirements of a legitimate job contractor, considering the
Certificates of Registration47 issued to it by the DOLE. Although not
a conclusive proof of legitimacy, the certification nonetheless
prevents the presumption of labor-only contracting from arising. It
gives rise to a disputable presumption that the contractor’s
operations are legitimate.48
The NLRC was also correct in holding that CBMI has substantial
capital and investment. Based on CBMI’s 2012 General Information
Sheet,49 it has an authorized capital stock in the amount of
P10,000,000.00 and subscribed capital stock in the amount of
P5,000,000.00, P3,500,000.00 of which had already been paid up.
Additionally, its audited financial statements50 show that it has
considerable current and non-current assets amounting to
P85,518,832.00. Taken together, CBMI has substantial capital to
properly carry out its obligations with PPI, as well as to sufficiently
cover its own operational expenses.
More importantly, the NLRC correctly gave credence to CBMI’s

claim that it retained control over respondents, as
_______________
47 CA Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 479-481.

48 See W.M. Manufacturing, Inc. v. Dalag, 774 Phil. 353, 378; 776 SCRA 258,
285 (2015).
49 CA Rollo (Vol. II), pp. 768-777.
50 Id., at pp. 780-782.

458

shown by the deployment of at least one (1) CBMI supervisor in

each Pizza Hut branch to regularly oversee, monitor, and supervise
the employees’ attendance and performance. This claim was further
substantiated by CBMI’s area coordinators, who admitted in their
Affidavits51 that: (a) they oversee, monitor, and ensure CBMI
employees’ compliance with company policies, rules, and
regulations whichever Pizza Hut branch they may be assigned; (b)
they are responsible for ensuring that CBMI employees perform
their tasks and functions in the manner that CBMI mandates; (c)
they regularly visit and monitor each area of deployment; (d) they
track and confirm the attendance and punctuality of CBMI
employees; and (e) they constantly inform CBMI’s Human Resource
Department (HRD) Manager of any company violations committed
by the employees.
Furthermore, the existence of the element of control can also be
inferred from CBMI’s act of subjecting respondents to disciplinary
sanctions for violations of company rules and regulations as
evidenced by the various Offense Notices and Memoranda52 issued
to them. Additionally, records show that CBMI employed measures
to ensure the observance of due process before subjecting
respondents to disciplinary action. In fact, CBMI’s HRD Manager,
Sarah G. Delgado, attested in her Affidavit53 that one of her duties is
to make sure that due process is equally afforded to all erring CBMI
employees before a disciplinary action is imposed upon them.
Lastly, the NLRC correctly found that no employer-employee
relationship exists between PPI and respondents, and that the latter
were employees of CBMI. Records reveal that respondents applied
for work with CBMI and were con-
_______________
51 Id., at pp. 803-811.

52 See copies of various Offense Notices and Memoranda issued to respondents;
id., at pp. 812-818.
53 Id., at pp. 800-802.

459
VOL. 878, AUGUST 29, 2018 459

sequently selected and hired by the latter.54 They were then required
by CBMI to attend orientations and seminars wherein respondents
were apprised of the working conditions, basic customer service,
basic good grooming, and company rules and regulations.55 During
the course of their employment, CBMI paid their wages56 and
remitted/paid their SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG contributions.57
CBMI also exercised the power of discipline and control over them
as discussed in the preceding paragraphs.
From all indications, the Court finds that CBMI is a legitimate
job contractor, and thus, the employer of respondents.
As to the issue of illegal dismissal, the Court agrees with the
finding of the NLRC that respondents were not illegally dismissed
from work. Records show that while PPI denied the existence of an
employer-employee relationship with respondents, CBMI actually
acknowledged that respondents were its employees. CBMI likewise
presented proof that it duly informed respondents of their impending
layoff, yet they immediately filed the complaints before it had the
chance to redeploy them.58 On the other hand, respondents did not
even refute CBMI’s claim that they were informed of its decision to
place them in floating status pending their redeployment. As
_______________
54 See copies of respondents’ biodata and personnel information sheets; id., at pp.
641-642, 645-649, 651-655.
55 See copies of various certifications; id., at pp. 643-644, 650.
56 See copies of respondents’ pay slips; id., at pp. 656-667.
57 See copies of computer-generated reports of the SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-
IBIG remittances/payments made by CBMI for respondents; id., at pp. 668-724. See
also copies of the certifications of such remittances; id., at pp. 725-730.
58 See copies of various memoranda issued by CBMI to respondents informing
them of their impending layoff; id., at pp. 731-735. See also copies of affidavits of
CBMI’s officials attesting to PPI’s decision to reduce its need for services in some of
its branches; id., at pp. 736-740.

460

such, respondents could not have been illegally terminated from work, for
they were placed in a temporary layoff status when they prematurely filed
the complaints.59 There being no dismissal to speak of, respondents were
thus not illegally dismissed by CBMI, their actual employer.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated March
30, 2016 and the Resolution dated January 6, 2017 rendered by the Court of
Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 136333 are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, the Decision dated January 28, 2014 and the
Resolution dated April 30, 2014 of the National Labor Relations
Commission in NLRC-NCR Nos. 04-05060-13, 05-06931-13, 05-07363-13,
05-07941-13, and 06-08125-13 are REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Senior Associate Justice, Chairperson), Caguioa, A.

Reyes, Jr. and J. Reyes, Jr.,*** JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set aside.

That of the NLRC reinstated.
Notes.—The power of control refers to the existence of the

power and not necessarily to the actual exercise thereof, nor is it
essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of
duties of the employee. (Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc., 783
SCRA 657 [2016])
_______________
59 See Innodata Knowledge Services, Inc. v. Inting, G.R. No. 211892, December
6, 2017, 848 SCRA 106; and Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Service, Inc. v.
Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Minterbro-Southern Philippines Federation of Labor,
700 Phil. 205; 687 SCRA 28 (2012).
*** Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28,
2018.

461
VOL. 878, AUGUST 29, 2018 461
An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered tainted with

grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. (Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza and Binay Law
Offices vs. Court of Appeals, 813 SCRA 1 [2016])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

10 Philippine Pizza, Inc. v. Cayetano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 Philippine Pizza, Inc. v. Cayetano

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

10 Philippine Pizza, Inc. v. Cayetano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 878

G.R. No. 230030. August 29, 2018. *

VOL. 878, AUGUST 29, 2018 447

dismissal of a case via a minute resolution constitutes a disposition on the

Labor Law; Employer-Employee Relationship; Control Test; The

448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sarah G. Delgado, attested in her Afﬁdavit that one of her duties is to

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

1 Id., at pp. 9-40.

VOL. 878, AUGUST 29, 2018 449

January 6, 2017 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R.

450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

thereafter deployed to the various branches of the latter. Cayetano

Respondents alleged that they rendered work for Pizza Hut,

9 Id. (Vol. I), p. 10.

VOL. 878, AUGUST 29, 2018 451

spondents were assigned to various branches of Pizza Hut and were

is a legitimate job contractor, as it possesses substantial capital and a

15 Id., at pp. 48-49.

452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

rights and privileges and to pay respondents their full backwages

certiﬁcations issued to them, e.g., for delivering hospitality behavior,

23 Id., at pp. 63-65.

VOL. 878, AUGUST 29, 2018 453

workplaces to regularly control, supervise, and monitor their

454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The CA’s Ruling

Moreover, the CA declared that respondents were regular

36 Id. (Vol. II), pp. 46-60.

VOL. 878, AUGUST 29, 2018 455

ruled that respondents were illegally dismissed from employment.

manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, the character of

42 See Quebral v. Angbus Construction, Inc., G.R. No. 221897, November 7,

456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

prudence, then no grave abuse of discretion exists and the CA

were involved therein. Moreover, there was no showing that the

44 See Quebral v. Angbus Construction, Inc., id., citations omitted.

VOL. 878, AUGUST 29, 2018 457

contain a complete statement of the facts, as well as a discussion of

More importantly, the NLRC correctly gave credence to CBMI’s

47 CA Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 479-481.

458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

shown by the deployment of at least one (1) CBMI supervisor in

51 Id., at pp. 803-811.

VOL. 878, AUGUST 29, 2018 459

460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Carpio (Senior Associate Justice, Chairperson), Caguioa, A.

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set aside.

Notes.—The power of control refers to the existence of the

VOL. 878, AUGUST 29, 2018 461

Philippine Pizza, Inc. vs. Cayetano

An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered tainted with

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like