G.R. No. 197899 - Lu vs. Enopia

The respondents were hired as crew members of the fishing mother boat F/B MG-28, operating from January 20, 1994, to March 20, 1996.
The respondents and petitioner (Joaquin Lu, proprietor of Mommy Gina Tuna Resources or MGTR) entered into an income-sharing arrangement whereby:

Lu received 55% of the income from the fish catch.
The crew members (respondents) received 45% of the income along with an additional 4% backing incentive.

Expenses for the maintenance and repair of the vessel, as well as for the purchase of fishing gear like nets, ropes, and payaos, were equally shared among the parties.

In August 1997, Lu proposed the signing of a Joint Venture Fishing Agreement, which would establish a one-year term subject to renewal upon mutual consent.
The respondents opposed the one-year term and thus refused to sign the agreement.
During a dialogue on August 18, 1997, conflicting accounts emerged:

Respondents claimed that Lu terminated their services immediately upon their refusal.
Lu asserted that he was informed by the master fisherman (piado) Ruben Salili that the respondents had rejected the agreement and elected to return the vessel.

Following these events, the respondents filed a complaint on August 25, 1997, alleging illegal dismissal, monetary losses, and damages.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially attempted to settle certain claims amicably, resulting in agreements on issues such as Balansi 8 and 9, a 10% piado share, sud-anon refund, and a refund for a motorcycle payment of P15,000.00.
LA Arturo P. Aponesto, who initially handled the case, later inhibited himself due to "delicadeza," and the case was raffled to LA Amado M. Solamo.
In his Position Paper, the respondents contested that their mere refusal to sign the joint venture agreement could not constitute just cause for dismissal. They also claimed undue deductions amounting to P8,700,407.70 from their income share for repairs and supplies.

On June 30, 1998, LA Solamo rendered a decision dismissing the case on the ground of the absence of an employer-employee relationship, finding instead that the arrangement was one of joint venture. His findings included:

The hiring was conducted by the master fisherman (piado) rather than Lu directly.
Compensation was issued as a percentage share of the catch rather than fixed wages.
There was no imposition of discipline or direct supervision by Lu regarding the day-to-day fishing operations.
Use of the radio and assignments of checkers were merely for monitoring logistics and ensuring proper sharing, not for exercising control over how the fishing was conducted.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) later affirmed the LA decision with its Resolution dated March 12, 1999, and subsequently denied a motion for reconsideration on July 9, 1999.
The respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which initially dismissed the petition for being filed beyond the 60-day period under Rule 65 and due to procedural defects in the certification of non-forum shopping.
The case was then remanded by the Supreme Court to the CA for further proceedings, where, on October 22, 2010, the CA reversed the NLRC decision and issued a new ruling ordering MGTR and petitioner Lu to render monetary relief to each respondent, including separation pay, full back wages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

Following the CA’s decision and a subsequent denial of his motion for reconsideration on May 12, 2011, petitioner Lu filed a petition for review on certiorari.
Lu contended that:

The CA had re-evaluated the evidence and essentially treated the certiorari as an ordinary appeal.
The findings by the NLRC and prior labor agencies, particularly regarding the joint venture characterization, were erroneous and contrary to both evidence and law.
The CA’s decision making the relief immediately executory pending appeal was unfounded since not all respondents sought immediate payment.

Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner Lu and the respondents or whether their relationship was merely that of joint venture industrial partners.

Examination of control over the fishing operations, compensation method, and exercise of disciplinary power.
Evaluation of whether the existence of SSS registrations and backing incentive arrangements are indicative of an employment relationship.

Whether the dismissal of respondents’ complaint for illegal dismissal by the Labor Arbiter and subsequently by the NLRC was proper.

Analysis of the factual determinations made by the LA regarding the control and supervision of the respondents by petitioner Lu.
Determination on whether the NLRC’s affirmation of the LA’s finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Whether the CA exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion by re-evaluating the evidence and subsequently ordering the monetary awards (separation pay, full back wages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees).

Consideration of the CA’s power under its original jurisdiction in petitions for certiorari to assess new evidence and correct factual findings.
Review of whether the immediate executory nature of the CA’s decision was justified given the respondents’ current employment status elsewhere.