Case Digest (G.R. No. 214667)
Facts:
Lingnam Restaurant v. Skills & Talent Employment Pool, Inc., and Jessie Colaste, G.R. No. 214667, December 03, 2018, the Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Skills & Talent Employment Pool, Inc. (STEP) is a manpower services corporation that supplied personnel to client Lingnam Restaurant; Jessie Colaste was engaged by STEP as a project employee and assigned to work at Lingnam Restaurant as an assistant cook under successive employment contracts. Colaste alleged he worked for Lingnam Restaurant from December 21, 2006 until March 5, 2008 when he was informed his contract had expired and was told not to report for work.
Colaste filed an amended complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter on May 21, 2008, claiming he was paid P350/day and was entitled to reinstatement, backwages, benefits and attorney’s fees. In initial proceedings, STEP asserted it was Colaste’s employer and that his status was co-terminus with STEP’s contract; Lingnam denied liability, contending STEP was the real employer and that Colaste was hired by the franchisee at a particular branch.
Labor Arbiter Felipe P. Pati first dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding STEP to be the real employer. The NLRC, however, remanded for further proceedings because the Labor Arbiter had not ruled on the illegal dismissal issue. After fuller proceedings, Labor Arbiter Pablo A. Gajardo, Jr. found Lingnam Restaurant guilty of illegal dismissal (Decision dated September 26, 2012) and ordered reinstatement and monetary awards, dismissing the complaint as against STEP for lack of service of summons.
On appeal the NLRC reversed (Decision dated January 31, 2013), dismissing the case against Lingnam Restaurant and holding STEP liable for constructive dismissal for failing to reassign Colaste after six months; STEP’s motion for reconsideration was denied (Resolution April 22, 2013). STEP filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the Court of Appeals. In CA-G.R. SP No. 129856 the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s September 26, 2012 Decision (Decision December 20, 2013; Resolution denying reconsideration September 24, 2014), holding STEP to be a labor-only contractor and Lingnam the true employer responsible for illegal dismissal.
Lingnam Restaurant sought review in this Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, raising pro...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in allowing Lingnam Restaurant to be joined or subjected to relief in STEP’s petition for certiorari despite the petition containing no allegations or prayers for relief against Lingnam (procedural/due process issue)?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in setting aside the NLRC decision dismissing the case as to Lingnam Restaurant and in reviewing Lingnam’s alleged liability (finality/executory and jurisdictional issue)?
- Was STEP a labor-only contractor such that Lingnam Restaurant is deemed Colaste’s employer and liable for illegal dismissal (substantive employment/labor-contracting issue)?
- If the dismissal w...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)