Case Digest (G.R. No. L-53590)
Facts:
Rosario Brothers Inc. (Manila COD Department Store) v. Hon. Blas F. Ople, the National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. L-53590, July 31, 1984, the Supreme Court First Division, Relova, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Rosario Brothers, Inc. operated a tailoring department (Modes Suburbia) where a group of private respondents — tailors, pressers, stitchers and similar workers — performed garment-related work from various dates (some since 1969) until their separation on January 2, 1978. The workers were paid weekly on a piecework basis; their attendance was recorded by a bundy clock; they were required to report Monday through Saturday and to remain in the shop for no less than eight hours except when no job orders were available after a waiting period; a master cutter distributed job orders and monitored deadlines; the company withheld BIR taxes and deducted SSS premiums, and the workers were covered by the store’s collective bargaining agreement through the Avenida-Cubao Manila COD Department Store Labor Union.
On September 7, 1977, the private respondents filed a complaint with the Regional Office of the Department (Ministry) of Labor for unpaid benefits under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 851 (13th month pay) and PD 525 as amended by PD 1123 (Emergency Living Allowance). The case was certified for compulsory arbitration to the Labor Arbiter, who on December 29, 1977 dismissed the claims for lack of merit, finding the complainants were not employees within the meaning of Article 267(b) of the Labor Code. The private respondents were dismissed from employment on January 2, 1978 and filed a separate illegal dismissal complaint; the NLRC later affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal of the benefits claims.
On March 27, 1979, the Minister of Labor reversed the NLRC, holding that an employer-employee relationship clearly existed and ordering payment of emergency allowances and 13th month pay to named complainants from applicable effectivity dates. A writ of execution was sought and partially implemented; a Socio-Economic Analyst computed a balance of P71,131.14 as of February 29, 1980, and a writ of execution issued for that amount. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari on April 11, 1980 see...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition for certiorari timely such that the Minister of Labor’s March 27, 1979 decision remained subject to judicial review?
- Did an employer-employee relationship exist between petitioner and the private respondents entitling the latter to benefits under PD 525...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)