Case Digest (G.R. No. 205597)
Facts:
George S. Galbinez, Jr. v. Mc Gerry’s Restaurant, Hokian and Kim Co. and Gerry Velasquez, G.R. No. 205597, September 28, 2022, Supreme Court Third Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner George S. Galbinez, Jr. alleges he was hired on January 6, 2006 by spouses Hokian and Kim Co (respondent spouses) as a delivery boy, dishwasher and janitor at Mc Gerry’s Restaurant and paid P100.00 per day for long hours without overtime, rest-day/holiday or holiday pay; he claimed the proprietors were in fact the respondent spouses though the business was registered in the name of Gerry Velasquez. Petitioner further avers that in September 2006 his salary began being coursed through Metro’s Manpower Agency (MMA), his schedule was reduced, and on December 30, 2007 he was barred from the restaurant and told his services were no longer required.
On June 4, 2008 petitioner filed an amended complaint with the NLRC for actual illegal dismissal, underpayment/non-payment of wages and other monetary claims against Mc Gerry’s, the respondent spouses, Velasquez, and Bobby Velasco (connected to MMA). Mc Gerry’s and Velasquez maintained the restaurant was a sole proprietorship registered in Velasquez’s name, that MMA had assigned petitioner to them, and that petitioner subsequently stopped reporting for work.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) found no employer-employee relationship with Mc Gerry’s and held MMA and Bobby Velasco liable, ordering reinstatement and backwages (LA Decision, June 2, 2009). Petitioner appealed to the NLRC which reversed the LA on February 25, 2010, finding petitioner a regular employee of Mc Gerry’s/respondents and ordering separation pay, backwages, underpaid wages, overtime, premium pay, ECOLA, 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees; MMA and Velasco were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The NLRC denied reconsideration (April 28, 2010).
Respondents petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion; in a June 28, 2012 Decision the CA partly granted the petition: it affirmed the employer-employee relationship but nullified the NLRC’s finding of illegal dismissal and deleted separation pay, backwages, overtime and some awards, while affirming awards for underpaid wages, ECOLA, 13th month pay and attorney’s fees; the CA remanded for detailed computation. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied (Jan. 21, 2013).
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review on Certio...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner prove that he was illegally dismissed by respondents?
- Did respondents prove that petitioner abandoned his employment?
- Who is liable for petitioner’s monetary claims (separation pay, underpaid wages, ECOLA, 13th month pay, attorney’s fees) given the business registration in Velasquez’s name and petitioner’s allegations concerning the respondent spouses?
- Are attorney’s fees in this labor recovery case limited to ten percent of the amount recovered under Article 111...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)