G.R. No. 121288 - Dela Cruz vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioner Rolando Dela Cruz filed a complaint before the NLRC alleging several labor violations including illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, underpayment of salary, non-payment of overtime pay, legal holiday pay, premium pay for holidays and rest days, non-payment of wages or commission, and separation pay.
The complaint was initially filed on September 5, 1991, and docketed as SRAB Case No. 06-09-50298-91, with subsequent pleadings, answers, and position papers from both petitioner and private respondent, Emmanuel Lo.

Petitioner alleged that he commenced work in June 1988 as an ordinary crew member and later was promoted several times—in January 1989 to light boat operator, in March 1989 to asecondo patrona, and in November 1989 to full-pledged patron (captain) of one of respondent’s fishing boats.
His compensation structure changed over time from sharing a portion of the catch to receiving a fixed salary combined with a share of the catch and per-box commission, reflecting evolving duties and promotions.

Petitioner claimed that on December 2, 1990, he was illegally dismissed without notice and separation pay, prompting a series of legal proceedings.
The Labor Arbiter, in his decision dated February 15, 1994, acknowledged the existence of an employer-employee relationship, held that the dismissal was illegal, and ordered Emmanuel Lo to pay separation pay while dismissing other claims including those for unfair labor practice and additional monetary benefits.

Following the Labor Arbiter’s decision, petitioner appealed the dismissal of his additional monetary claims to the NLRC.
The NLRC, throughout several resolutions and motions—including its decision on March 17, 1995, and the denial of reconsideration on May 19, 1995—dismissed both petitioner’s and respondent’s appeals on the ground that petitioner’s complaint did not properly plead the claim for back wages and other benefits, relying heavily on Section 3, Rule V of the NLRC’s Rules.

Petitioner testified that respondent exercised control over his work, including giving orders about when to set sail and managing the operations of the fishing boat, which supported the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
Respondent and his witnesses contended that there was no such supervisory control and that the working arrangement was a joint venture, whereby compensation was in the form of sharing the catch and not through a regular salary, thus arguing against the presence of a traditional employer-employee relationship.

Petitioner contended before this Court that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by denying his claim for back wages, insisting that his illegal dismissal automatically entitled him to back wages pursuant to Article 279 of the Labor Code.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed comments supporting the award of full back wages, while respondent argued that petitioner was a managerial employee, exempting him from claims such as overtime, premium, and other benefits under the Labor Code.

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s claim for back wages and other monetary benefits by failing to consider the substance of his illegal dismissal.

The issue centers on whether the failure to specifically plead “back wages” in the initial complaint should bar the recovery of such benefits under substantive law.
The application of Section 3, Rule V of the NLRC’s Rules and its impact on allowing substantive claims even when not expressly pleaded in the pro-forma complaint.

Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and private respondent despite the contention that the working arrangement was a joint venture.

Whether respondent’s control in directing the operations of the fishing boat, including giving orders and determining work parameters, establishes the traditional employer-employee relationship.
The significance of the testimonies presented, notably petitioner’s admission of obedience to orders versus respondent’s testimony emphasizing a voluntary joint venture.

The proper classification of petitioner as a managerial employee and the consequent applicability or non-applicability of various Labor Code benefits.

Whether, as a chief patron (de facto captain) exercising managerial control, petitioner falls within the exclusion from provisions covering overtime, premium pay for holidays/rest days, and service incentive leaves.
The implications of such classification on his substantive rights, particularly regarding separation pay versus claims for back wages.