Case Digest (G.R. No. 161787)
Facts:
Masing and Sons Development Corporation and Crispin Chan v. Gregorio P. Rogelio, G.R. No. 161787, July 27, 2011, the Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are Masing and Sons Development Corporation (MSDC) and Crispin Chan; respondent is Gregorio P. Rogelio.
On May 19, 1997 Rogelio filed a complaint against Chan seeking, inter alia, retirement pay under Republic Act No. 7641 (amending Article 287 of the Labor Code), 13th month pay, premium pay, service incentive leave, COLA, underpaid wages and attorney’s fees; MSDC was later joined as co-respondent. Rogelio recounted continuous service in the Ibajay branch from as early as 1949, SSS coverage beginning January 1974, and an internal arrangement in 1991 under which Chan issued a certification that Rogelio had been “officially separated” effective July 1, 1989 to enable Rogelio to claim SSS retirement while in fact Rogelio continued working until March 17, 1997.
At the Labor Arbiter (LA), petitioners denied they were Rogelio’s employer after July 1, 1989, asserting he became an employee of Wynne (Wayne) Lim, an independent copra buyer; they submitted Lim’s affidavit and SSS forms showing Lim reported Rogelio as an employee. The LA dismissed Rogelio’s complaint on April 5, 1999, finding no employer-employee relationship between Rogelio and petitioners after July 1, 1989 and ruling some claims barred by prescription.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA’s dismissal on January 28, 2000, adding that Rogelio’s prior SSS retirement in 1991 precluded a second retirement claim under RA 7641 which took effect January 7, 1993. Rogelio’s motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was denied. Rogelio then filed a special civil action for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA) alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.
On October 24, 2003 the CA reversed and set aside the NLRC decision, finding that the evidence—Rogelio’s testimony, his co-worker Juanito Palomata’s corroboration, and a certification issued by Chan—substantially established continuous employment by petitioners up to March 17, 1997; the CA held RA 7641 benefits are distinct from SSS retirement benefits (citing Oro Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC) and remanded for computation of retirement pay and attorney’s fees. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Co...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Rogelio’s petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals timely despite the entry of judgment on the NLRC decision?
- Did substantial evidence support the Court of Appeals’ finding that an employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and Rogelio continued from July 1, 1989 until March 17, 1997?
- Was Rogelio entitled to retirement benefits and attorney’s fees under Article 287 of the Labor Code ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)