G.R. No. 182252 - Ang vs. So

Respondent Edgardo Concepcion filed a Complaint on February 8, 2000, alleging illegal dismissal and various wage- and benefit-related claims against Polyfoam-RGC International Corporation and Ms. Natividad Cheng.
Respondent’s complaint included claims for illegal dismissal, non-payment of wages, premium pay for rest day, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, damages, and attorney’s fees.
Following the filing of the complaint, Precilla A. Gramaje (or P.A. Gramaje Employment Services) intervened on April 28, 2000, claiming to be the real employer of the respondent.
Polyfoam and Cheng filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the Labor Arbiter (LA) lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship and alleging that the claim for money had prescribed.

On December 14, 2001, LA Marita V. Padolina rendered a Decision finding the respondent was illegally dismissed and ruled that Polyfoam and Gramaje were solidarily liable for his claims.

The LA awarded full backwages (including allowances) and separation pay computed as one month’s salary for every year of service in lieu of reinstatement.
The LA also ordered the payment of additional money claims such as 13th month pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees—but these were later questioned on appeal.

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the LA decision:

It exonerated Polyfoam from liability regarding separation pay and deleted awards for backwages, 13th month pay, damages, and attorney’s fees.
The NLRC characterized Gramaje as an independent contractor who contracted only for the packaging aspect of Polyfoam’s business.
The NLRC focused on evidence showing that Gramaje paid wages, provided SSS benefits, and maintained its own office equipment and tools, although doubts were raised regarding the authenticity of those evidences.

The CA, in its Decision dated December 19, 2005, reversed the NLRC’s modified conclusions by reinstating the LA’s findings on the illegal dismissal of the respondent.
Key findings and evidentiary issues included:

The CA determined that Gramaje did not meet the characteristics of a legitimate job contractor due to lack of substantial capital, absence of a written contract with Polyfoam for the packaging services, questionable authenticity of DOLE licenses, and failure to show an independent business operation.
The CA noted that the actual work of the respondent was performed under the direct supervision and control of Polyfoam.
The CA affirmed that the dismissal was carried out without due process and without just or lawful cause.

The CA’s decision awarded separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement with full backwages) and affirmed respondent’s claims, while petitioners raised issues regarding the timeliness of the respondent’s petition and the merits of the underlying factual findings.

Allegation that the petition for certiorari by respondent was filed out of time.
Contention that the CA erred in:

ii. P.A. Gramaje is a legitimate job contractor. iii. Respondent was not dismissed from his job.

Reinstating the LA’s awards for backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

Whether the respondent’s petition for certiorari was filed out of time, having allegedly missed the designated 60-day period by filing on the 77th day from receipt of the NLRC resolution.

Whether P.A. Gramaje Employment Services is an independent (legitimate) job contractor as claimed, or is in reality a labor-only contractor.
Whether the supposed independent contractor status should preclude the establishment of an employer-employee relationship between Polyfoam and the respondent.

Whether there was an employer-employee relationship between Polyfoam and the respondent, despite Gramaje’s claim of being the actual employer.
Whether the dismissal of the respondent was illegal, considering the alleged absence of due process and just cause in terminating his employment.