Case Digest (G.R. No. 96608-09)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 96608-09)
Facts:
Tucor Industries, Inc. and Patrickboll v. National Labor Relations Commission, Florencio Basco, Regino Dayrit, Floranio Garcia, Jesus Canlas, Abel David, Reynaldo Infante, Edison Tapang, Larry Enriquez, Rey Salalila and Pacifico C. Dizon, G.R. Nos. 96608-09, May 20, 1991, Supreme Court First Division, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Tucor Industries, Inc. and Patrickboll (petitioners) operate a moving and storage business serving, among others, military personnel within United States military facilities in the Philippines. On various dates petitioners hired the private respondents as packers, drivers and utilitymen/carpenters under identical company-prepared master employment contracts that described their status as “as-needed,” invoked the principle of “no work, no pay,” denied entitlement to permanent-employee benefits, and subjected employees to periodic security screening (including polygraph examinations) and company investigations as a basis for pass issuance or employment action.
On July 17, 1989 the Chief of Traffic Management of Clark Air Base circulated a memorandum-letter reminding agents, including petitioners, that employees who failed polygraph examinations administered by an acknowledged security company would be required to return their base passes. On that same day petitioners terminated the employment of the private respondents by sending identical written notices stating that the respondents’ base passes “were not cleared by the American authorities” after an investigation into missing items from shipments, and that petitioners could not therefore avail themselves of the respondents’ services. At the time of dismissal all private respondents had rendered continuous service for more than one year.
Except for Pacifico Dizon (who filed slightly later), the private respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal with the Regional Arbitration Branch No. 5 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in San Fernando, Pampanga on August 2, 1989. After hearings and position papers, the Executive Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dated August 7, 1989 ordering petitioners to pay P205,457.56 in backwages and to reinstate the complainants without loss of seniority or, alternatively, to reinstate them on the payroll at least at the minimum wage. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC; on September 14, 1990 the NLRC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision in toto, and petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on November 20, 1990.
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction and restraining order before the Supreme Court, alleging, among other things, that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the private respondents were regular employees and that their termination was illegal. On January 21, 1991 the Court, without giving due course to the petition, required respondents to comment within ten days and issued a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of the NLRC resolutions; petitioners posted a P100,000 bond as required.
Issues:
- Did the NLRC gravely abuse its discretion in finding that the private respondents were regular employees of petitioners?
- Did the NLRC gravely abuse its discretion in ruling that the termination of the private respondents constituted illegal dismissal?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)