Case Digest (G.R. No. 121605)
Facts:
Paz Martin Jo and Cesar Jo v. National Labor Relations Commission and Peter Mejila, G.R. No. 121605, February 02, 2000, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Paz Martin Jo and Cesar Jo purchased the Dinas Barber Shop in 1970, absorbed the existing employees, and renamed it Windfield Barber Shop; respondent Peter Mejila was one of those employees, working as a barber paid on a piece‑rate basis (barbers received two‑thirds of the fee, owners one‑third). In 1977 petitioners designated Mejila as the shop's caretaker in addition to being a barber; his caretaker duties included reporting malfunctions, calling the laundry woman, recommending applicants (with owners retaining hiring power), and opening/closing the shop. For caretaker duties he initially received an honorarium equal to one‑third of net income and later a fixed monthly honorarium.
When the building housing the shop was demolished in 1986, petitioners relocated the business (Cesars Palace Barbershop and Massage Clinic) and continued compensating Mejila both as a barber (commission) and as caretaker (honorarium). In November 1992 Mejila had repeated altercations with a co‑worker; after a labor‑department mediated conference, further meetings were scheduled but Mejila ceased attending. On January 2, 1993 he surrendered the shop duplicate keys and removed his belongings, and on January 8, 1993 he began working as a barber at another shop. On January 12, 1993 Mejila filed a complaint for illegal dismissal seeking separation pay and other monetary benefits but not reinstatement.
The Labor Arbiter, in a decision dated June 15, 1993, found an employer‑employee relationship but held that Mejila had voluntarily left his employment (abandoned), dismissed the complaint, and awarded only 13th month pay and attorney’s fees. Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC (Fifth Division), in a decision penned by Commissioner Oscar M. Abella and promulgated November 21, 1994, set aside the Labor Arbiter, ruled that Mejila was illegally dismissed for lack of due process, and ordered reinstatement (or separation pay if reinstatement was not feasible), backwages from January 1, 1993, 13th month pay (in his capacity as caretaker), separation pay (reckoned from 1970 for his barber earnings and from 1977 for his caretaker capacity...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was there an employer‑employee relationship between petitioners and private respondent Peter Mejila?
- Was Mejila dismissed by petitioners or did he abandon his emp...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)