G.R. No. 169704 - Teng vs. Pahagac

Albert Teng Fish Trading, owned by Albert Teng and managed by Emilia Teng-Chua, is engaged in deep sea fishing.
The business operates by providing boats (basnig), equipment, and capital while entering joint venture agreements with master fishermen (maestros) who manage each fishing expedition.

Acting as “eyes and ears” aboard the fishing boats,
Checking and classifying the volume of fish caught during each voyage,
Reporting the volume via radio communication to Teng, and
Preparing lists of provisions for approval by the maestro and related personnel.

Identification cards bearing Teng’s signature were issued to the respondent workers by the company, indicating an employer–employee relationship.

On February 20, 2003, the respondent workers filed a complaint before the NCMB alleging illegal dismissal and claiming the existence of an employer–employee relationship with Teng.
They asserted that their employment was without a written contract, and their duties, regular salary, and benefits pointed to a direct employment tie despite being recruited by the maestros.
The Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) rendered a decision on May 30, 2003, dismissing the complaint by ruling that no employer–employee relationship existed, relying on the absence of a motion for reconsideration as provided in the 1989 Procedural Guidelines.

After the VA decision, the respondent workers filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on June 27, 2003, and then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) on July 21, 2003.
The CA, in its September 21, 2004 decision, reversed the VA ruling and found sufficient evidence to establish an employer–employee relationship between Teng and the respondent workers, ordering payment of separation pay, backwages, and other benefits.
Teng’s subsequent motion to reconsider the CA decision was dismissed in the September 1, 2005 resolution, leading him to file the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

The VA’s decision was not subject to a motion for reconsideration since Article 262-A of the Labor Code (as amended by RA No. 6715) did not provide for such recourse,
His role was limited strictly to providing capital, tools, and equipment, and
The contractual arrangement was a joint venture with the maestros, not an employment relationship.

He contended that when the respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, the VA’s decision had already become final and executory after the lapse of the ten-day period provided by the guidelines.

Whether the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator is absolutely final and not subject to a motion for reconsideration under Article 262-A of the Labor Code.
Whether an employer–employee relationship existed between Teng and the respondent workers despite the purported joint venture arrangement with the maestros.
Whether the procedural framework, including the 1989 and 2005 Procedural Guidelines and DO No. 40-03, permits the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the voluntary arbitration decision within the prescribed ten-day period.
Whether Teng’s dismissal of the respondent workers was justified under the law, given the alleged absence of due process and the reliance on mere suspicions of improper conduct.