Case Digest (G.R. No. 204555)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 204555)
Facts:
Pedrito R. Parayday and Jaime Reboso v. Shogun Shipping Co., Inc., G.R. No. 204555, July 06, 2020, Supreme Court Second Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Pedrito R. Parayday and Jaime Reboso filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, regularization, underpayment of wages and various benefits, and damages against Shogun Shipping Co., Inc. (referred to in the record as Shogun Ships) and two of its officers. They alleged employment beginning in October 1996 and March 1997 with Oceanview (Oceanview/VRC Lighterage Co., Inc. and VRC/Oceanview Shipbuilders Co., Inc.), later continued under Shogun Ships after an alleged corporate name change; they claimed long service as fitters/welders, seven-day workweeks, daily pay of ₱350, and nonpayment of overtime/holiday and other benefits. Petitioners submitted an Oceanview ID, a 2001 Certificate of Employment (COE), and handwritten payslips/Time Keeper's Reports as evidence.
In May 2006 petitioners were injured in an explosion while doing welding work on Shogun Ships' barge M/T Daniela Natividad; they were hospitalized and received medical assistance and some pay, but alleged pay and assistance later ceased. They asserted they were verbally dismissed effective May 1, 2008 for lack of work. Respondent denied an employer-employee relationship with petitioners, contending Shogun Ships was a distinct corporation incorporated in 2002 and that petitioners were occasional helpers engaged by regular employees; it submitted affidavits from two regular employees to that effect.
The Labor Arbiter (Decision promulgated April 27, 2009) found petitioners to be regular employees and illegally dismissed, ordered reinstatement with full backwages, but denied the other money claims for lack of factual basis. The NLRC (Decision August 28, 2009; Resolution October 27, 2009) affirmed the Labor Arbiter, agreeing that petitioners had rendered sufficient service and that the employer failed to prove just cause or due process. Shogun Ships sought relief in the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari (Rule 65), arguing lack of substantial evidence of employment and urging that Oceanview and Shogun Ships were not the same entity. The CA, in a May 11, 2012 Decision (refused reconsideration on November 19, 2012), granted the petition, set aside the NLRC decisions, and dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal and other money claims on the ground that petitioners failed to prove employer-employee relationship and that documents were uncorroborated.
Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's May 11, 2012 Decision and November 19, 2012 Resolution. The case reached the Court on that Rule 45 petition; no separate concurring or dissenting opinions were filed below other than the CA's membership notation.
Issues:
- Were petitioners regular employees of Shogun Ships?
- If so, were petitioners validly (lawfully) dismissed from employment?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)