Case Digest (G.R. No. 129315)
Facts:
Osias I. Corporal, Sr., et al. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 129315, October 02, 2000, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.The seven petitioners (Osias I. Corporal, Sr., Pedro Tolentino, Manuel Caparas, Elpidio Lacap, Simplicio Pedelos, Patricia Nas, and Teresita Flores) worked as barbers and manicurists at New Look Barber Shop, located in Quiapo, Manila. The shop originally operated as a single proprietorship owned by Vicente Lao. In or about January 1982, Lao’s children organized Lao Enteng Company, Inc. (private respondent) and the corporation allegedly took over the assets and continued the barber-shop business; the petitioners continued working there until April 15, 1995, when they were informed that the building was sold and their services were no longer needed.
On April 28, 1995 petitioners filed with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC complaints for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction, separation pay, non-payment of 13th month pay, and salary differentials (only Nas claimed salary differentials and all sought refund of P1.00 daily collected for the sweeper). Private respondent answered that the petitioners were joint-venture partners or independent contractors sharing 50–60% of gross takings and that, even if an employment relation existed, separation pay was not due because the shop ceased operations due to business losses. Trinidad Lao Ong, president of the corporation, submitted an affidavit describing the arrangement as a joint venture, characterizing petitioners as industrial partners supplying labor while the family supplied premises and utilities; she also asserted that some SSS registrations were mere accommodations.
The Labor Arbiter, in a Decision dated September 28, 1995, dismissed the complaint, finding a joint venture and that the closure resulted from serious business losses; thus separation pay was not mandated. The National Labor Relations Commission (First Division) affirmed in its Resolution dated October 17, 1996 and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a March 5, 1997 resolution. Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari (Rule 45) before the Supreme Court...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Court reexamine and set aside the NLRC’s factual and legal conclusions in this case?
- Were the petitioners independent contractors or employees of Lao Enteng Company, Inc.?
- If employees, are the petitioners entitled to separation pay and 13th month pay (and other monetary claims) arising from the ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)