Case Digest (G.R. No. 161115)
Facts:
Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Medel Esteva, et al., G.R. No. 161115, November 30, 2006, First Division, CHICO-NAZARIO, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Dole Philippines, Inc. (petitioner or Dole) is a pineapple producer whose plantation and processing facilities are in Polomolok, South Cotabato. Respondents are Medel Esteva and 86 others, members of Cannery Multi-Purpose Cooperative (CAMPCO), a cooperative organized under Republic Act No. 6938 and registered with the CDA on January 6, 1993; respondents worked at Dole’s cannery pursuant to a Service Contract dated August 17, 1993 between Dole (the “Company”) and CAMPCO (the “Contractor”).
Local concern about contracting practices prompted the Sangguniang Bayan of Polomolok to request a DOLE inquiry on May 5, 1993; a DOLE regional Task Force investigated and, after conferences and exchange of position papers, DOLE Regional Director Henry Parel issued an order on October 19, 1993 declaring CAMPCO one of three cooperatives engaged in prohibited “labor-only contracting” and directing them to cease and desist. CAMPCO appealed; DOLE Undersecretary Cresencio Trajano, by authority of the DOLE Secretary, dismissed the appeal on September 15, 1994. That administrative order became final and executory after denial of reconsideration; a writ of execution issued July 27, 1999 when CAMPCO allegedly continued operations with Dole.
Respondents had worked for Dole starting in 1993–1994 and, while some continued, others were put on “stay home status” at various dates in 1994–1996 and thereafter received no work. On December 19, 1996 respondents filed a complaint with the NLRC (illegal dismissal, regularization, wage differentials, damages, attorney’s fees), alleging CAMPCO was a mere labor-only contractor and that Dole was their real employer.
The Labor Arbiter, relying in part on DOLE Department Order No. 10 (1997) which amended the implementing rules, ruled for petitioner on June 11, 1999: CAMPCO was a legitimate job contractor and respondents were not regular employees of Dole. The NLRC dismissed respondents’ appeal and affirmed the Labor Arbiter in a February 29, 2000 Resolution. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, contending the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the prior DOLE orders and in finding CAMPCO had substantial capitalization.
The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated May 20, 2002 (later amended November 27, 2003), granted respondents’ petition: it set aside the NLRC resolution, held CAMPCO to be engaged in labor-only contracting (thus Dole was the effective employer), and—in the Amended Decisi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals exceed its jurisdiction under certiorari review when it reviewed the NLRC’s factual findings?
- Should DOLE Department Orders No. 10 (1997) and No. 3 (2001) be applied retroactively to the events of 1993–1996?
- Are the DOLE orders of Regional Director Parel (19 Oct 1993) and Undersecretary Trajano (15 Sep 1994) binding on the NLRC under the doctrine of res judicata?
- Can respondents be estopped from asserting they are Dole’s regular employees because they were members/owners of CAMPCO and held out CAMPCO as a legitimate contractor?
- Was CAMPCO a labor-only contractor such that Dole must be treated as the employer?
- If Dole is the employer, were respondents regular employees whose prolonged “stay home status” ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)