Case Digest (G.R. No. L-50358)
Facts:
Shipside, Incorporated v. National Labor Relations Commission and Tita Abejon, et al., G.R. No. 50358, November 02, 1982, Supreme Court Second Division, De Castro, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Shipside, Incorporated (SHIPSIDE) is a domestic corporation operating harbor and wharfage facilities in San Fernando, La Union. On December 27, 1963 SHIPSIDE executed a “Contract for Services” with La Union Stevedores, Inc. (STEVEDORES), effective January 1, 1964, granting STEVEDORES the exclusive right to perform stevedoring services at SHIPSIDE’s piers; under the contract STEVEDORES would supply the labor, present payrolls to SHIPSIDE for payment, and the net stevedoring receipts would be split fifty-fifty.
Pursuant to that contract STEVEDORES engaged the private respondents (including Tita Abejon, Eduardo Alviarne, Feliciano Alviarne, and others) as its labor force. On August 28, 1974 SHIPSIDE notified STEVEDORES that the contract would be terminated effective November 30, 1974; SHIPSIDE offered to absorb certain operating personnel on a vessel-to-vessel basis, but many stevedores did not accept the offer and were left jobless.
Because they received no separation benefits, the private respondents filed a complaint for separation pay with the Ministry of Labor in February 1975 (NLRC Case No. RB-1-38-78). The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment on November 22, 1977 declaring SHIPSIDE and STEVEDORES jointly and severally liable as employers (construing the contract as a joint venture or partnership) and awarding separation pay and an additional two months’ salary each for failure to file the required clearance under the Labor Code.
On separate appeals the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter in its decision dated October 11, 1978; SHIPSIDE’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC en banc in a February 9, 1979 resolution. The Labor Arbiter issued an order dated A...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether SHIPSIDE was the employer of the private respondents, thereby liable for separation pay and related claims.
- Whether the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC should have refrained from deciding whether the contract for services constituted a partnership or joint venture given an earlier-filed civil case raising that issue (prejudicial question doctrine).
- Whether SHIPSIDE had a duty to file the clearance/report of termination with the Ministry of Labor and is therefore liable for the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)