G.R. No. 215281 - De Roca vs. Dabuyan

In 2012, private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against “RAF Mansion Hotel Old Management and New Management and Victoriano Ewayan.”
The respondents later amended their complaint by including petitioner Rolando De Roca as (co-)respondent.
Summons were sent by registered mail but returned undelivered; subsequently, a conference was scheduled which the respondent complainants attended while petitioner did not.
A bailiff of the NLRC personally served petitioner on March 14, 2012, as evidenced by the return of service.

Despite personal service, petitioner failed to attend hearings, prompting the labor arbiter to request the respondents to submit their position paper.
On April 18, 2012, the private respondents submitted their position paper; on the same day, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner argued that, as the owner of the building leased to Victoriano Ewayan (owner of Oceanic Travel and Tour Agency), he was not the true employer of the respondents. He claimed that the actual employer was Ewayan.
The labor arbiter rendered a decision on June 29, 2012, ordering petitioner and others to pay backwages and monetary awards to the respondents and denying the late-filed Motion to Dismiss.

Petitioner received a copy of the labor arbiter’s decision on August 3, 2012.
On September 4, 2012, he filed a petition for annulment of judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction before the NLRC, which was dismissed as it was filed beyond the reglementary period provided under the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration by petitioner was also denied.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA arguing that he was never the employer of the respondents but merely the owner of the premises leased to Oceanic Travel and Tour Agency.
He maintained that his inclusion in the labor case was a result of malice by the respondents, who added him only after discovering that their true employer, Ewayan, had absconded.
The CA, in its June 19, 2014 Decision and October 28, 2014 Resolution, dismissed petitioner’s petition on the ground of tardiness and procedural lapses, noting that the petition for annulment was filed 31 days after his receipt of the labor arbiter’s decision.

Despite the dismissal, petitioner sought injunctive relief against the execution of the judgment pending appeal.
On December 10, 2014, and January 12, 2015, the Court issued resolutions granting temporary injunctive relief and a Temporary Restraining Order upon petitioner’s filing of a cash or surety bond.
In November 2015, the CA resolved to give due course to petitioner’s Petition for Certiorari.

Petitioner maintained that he was not the employer, having never hired, supervised, paid or exercised control over the respondents, but was only the lessor by virtue of a lease agreement with Oceanic Travel and Tour Agency.
Respondents contended that the evidence, including IDs, pay envelopes, and related documents, proved that petitioner was in fact their employer as he owned the building where they worked.
The dispute also centered on whether the inclusion of petitioner as a respondent was merely an afterthought following the respondents’ inability to locate their true employer, Ewayan.

Whether the labor tribunals (labor arbiter and NLRC) had jurisdiction over petitioner given his claim of being merely the building owner rather than the employer of the respondents.
Whether petitioner’s alleged lack of involvement in the employment relationship precludes his liability for the monetary awards due to the respondents.

Whether petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss and subsequent petition for annulment or reconsideration, being filed beyond the prescribed reglementary periods, should be entertained.
Whether the CA correctly applied the provisions of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure in dismissing petitioner’s pleadings and motions.

Whether the strict application of procedural rules in labor disputes, which are non-litigious in nature, should yield to the interests of substantial justice and fairness.
Whether the evidence on record, particularly the lease agreement, supports petitioner’s contention regarding the lack of an employment relationship.