G.R. No. 219637 - Bulanon vs. Mendco Development Corp.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 219637)

Petitioner’s Claims and Initial Administrative Findings

Petitioner filed a complaint with DOLE (January 6, 2006) alleging non-payment of overtime, legal holiday pay, 13th month pay, holiday and rest day premium pay, and non-enrollment in SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG. DOLE inspected Pinnacle’s premises (January 13, 2006) and found petitioner unpaid for 13th month pay, legal holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, and overtime pay. Petitioner later reported for work (January 14, 2006) but was allegedly told not to report again and was prevented from entering the premises (January 16, 2006). Petitioner then filed complaints with the NLRC-RAB for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal with claims for backwages, separation pay, attorney’s fees, and moral and exemplary damages.

Respondents’ Position and Pleadings

Respondents denied an employer-employee relationship, asserting that petitioner was not their employee but was instead engaged by Eric and his family on a task basis for masonry and maintenance works at residences within a compound. Respondents filed a Position Paper before the Labor Arbiter, which the LA later treated as invalid on procedural grounds.

Labor Arbiter Decision

The Labor Arbiter (June 17, 2008) found respondents guilty of illegal dismissal. The LA treated respondents’ Position Paper as a “mere scrap of paper” because it lacked the required certification against forum shopping and contained a verification signed by an individual (Edgardo Albia) without evidence of his authority to sign. With respondents’ Position Paper disregarded, the LA deemed the allegations in the complaint admitted and awarded backwages (P268,450.00), separation pay (P72,800.00), and attorney’s fees (10%, P34,125.00), jointly and solidarily.

NLRC Ruling on Appeal

The NLRC (October 30, 2009) reversed and set aside the LA decision and dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint. The NLRC found it legally and physically impossible for petitioner to be a regular employee of five distinct employers. It determined petitioner failed to establish an employer-employee relationship and characterized him as an independent, task-based operator (handyman/freelance) with irregular work engagements. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was denied.

Court of Appeals Decision and Reasoning

The CA (April 30, 2014) dismissed petitioner’s certiorari petition. It held that furnishing the complaining party with a certified true copy of a surety bond is not a mandatory element for perfecting an appeal. The CA accepted the NLRC’s reception of respondents’ appeal and additional evidence. On the merits, the CA applied the four-fold test (selection and engagement; payment of wages; power to discipline/dismiss; power of control over means and methods) and agreed that petitioner was an independent operator/maintenance man who rendered varied services on an as-needed basis. The CA found petitioner’s evidence (affidavit and daily time records, “DTRs”) insufficient and of dubious probative value, and affirmed dismissal of the illegal dismissal claim.

Issue before the Supreme Court

Whether petitioner proved by substantial evidence the existence of an employer-employee relationship with respondents, a necessary predicate to maintain an illegal dismissal claim.

Standard of Review and Exceptions to Fact-Finding Finality

The Court acknowledged the general rule that Rule 45 petitions do not permit re-examination of factual findings, but recognized established exceptions permitting review where factual findings of the LA, NLRC, and CA conflict. Because the tribunals’ findings diverged in this case, the Supreme Court re-examined the factual record and evidentiary submissions. The Court also reiterated that technical procedural rules may be relaxed to serve substantial justice, citing precedent that allows liberal application of procedural requirements when strict compliance would defeat equity.

Verification and Certification Requirements — Procedural Considerations

The LA had invalidated respondents’ Position Paper for lack of certification against forum shopping and absence of proof of authority for the verification signatory. The Supreme Court discussed the jurisprudential framework from Altres v. Empleo distinguishing verification defects (which may be corrected or excused under appropriate circumstances) from defects in certification against forum shopping (which are generally more strictly treated but can be relaxed for substantial compliance or compelling reasons). The Court found a compelling reason to relax procedural strictness here because petitioner failed substantively to show he was an employee, and it would be unjust to impose liability when the asserted relationship was not established.

Evidentiary Assessment — Affidavit and Daily Time Records (DTRs)

The Court found petitioner’s affidavit self-serving and uncorroborated; no witnesses supported his account. The DTRs were of “dubious” probative value: photocopies (not certified true copies or originals), some lacking signatures of company representatives, and signatures not duly identified or their authority proven. The Court cited Jarcia Machine Shop v. NLRC to underscore that unsigned or uncertified photocopied DTRs have doubtful evidentiary weight and may be treated as mere scraps of paper. Many DTR entries described discrete, varying tasks (installation of gates, hanging carpets, fabrication of partitions, chipping concrete, railings at Eric’s residence), which the Court viewed as consistent with task-based, independent work rather than the predictable, bounded duties of a regular employee.

Payment, Control, and the Four-Fold Test Applied

On payment of wages, petitioner admitted receiving salary from a personal assistant (Terry Godinez) rather than company accounting departments, and admitted performing work for the various respondents alternately within the same week. The Court found it implausible that a regular employee would be permitted to work for five employers concurrently or to “joggle” between employers in the manner

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 219637)

Procedural Posture

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking reversal and setting aside:
- April 30, 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City in CA G.R. SP No. 05103;
- July 2, 2015 Resolution of the CA denying reconsideration.
Case originated from complaints filed before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the National Labor Relations Commission, Regional Arbitration Branch VII (NLRC-RAB).
Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision dated June 17, 2008 finding illegal dismissal and awarding monetary reliefs.
NLRC reversed the LA Decision by Decision dated October 30, 2009 and dismissed the complaint.
CA denied the petition for certiorari and sustained the NLRC ruling; subsequent CA resolution denied reconsideration.
Supreme Court (SC) review concerned primarily the factual question whether an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondents.

Case Facts

Petitioner Anselmo P. Bulanon alleged employment as a Welder/Fabricator in the furniture business of respondent Eric Ng Mendoza (Eric).
Eric is alleged to own several furniture businesses: Mendco Development Corporation (Mendco), Pinacle/Pinnacle Casting Corporation (Pinacle/Pinnacle), Mastercraft Phil. Inc. (Mastercraft), and Jacquer International (Jacquer).
On January 6, 2006 petitioner filed a Complaint with DOLE for non-payment of overtime pay, legal holiday pay, 13th month pay, holiday and rest day premium pay, and non-inclusion in SSS, PhilHealth and PAG-IBIG coverage.
DOLE inspection on January 13, 2006 found petitioner was not paid 13th month pay, legal holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and overtime pay.
On January 14, 2006 petitioner reported for work; a Human Resources representative named Raquel reportedly gave his salary and instructed him not to report thereafter. On January 16, 2006 a security guard prevented him from entering the premises.
Petitioner then filed complaints before the NLRC-RAB for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal with claims for backwages, separation pay, attorney’s fees, and moral and exemplary damages.
Respondents denied employment relationship, asserting petitioner was not their employee but was engaged by Eric and his family to perform masonry and other works at their residences in the same compound in Burgos Street, Mandaue City.

Reliefs Sought by Petitioner

Non-payment claims: overtime pay, legal holiday pay, 13th month pay, holiday/rest day premiums.
Non-inclusion in statutory social benefits: SSS, PhilHealth, PAG-IBIG.
In NLRC case: claims for backwages, separation pay, attorney’s fees, moral and exemplary damages for alleged illegal suspension and illegal dismissal.

Labor Arbiter Decision (June 17, 2008)

LA treated respondents’ Position Paper as a mere scrap of paper because it lacked the required Certification of Non-Forum Shopping and was not properly verified; Verification was signed by Edgardo Albia allegedly without board authority.
Because respondents’ Position Paper was invalid, LA deemed the allegations in petitioner’s Complaint as admitted.
LA found respondents guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered joint and solidary payment as follows:
- Backwages from illegal dismissal up to promulgation: P268,450.00 (calculation: 1/16/06 to 6/08 = 29.5 months x P350 x 26 days x 29.50 mos.);
- Separation pay (1 month pay for every year): P72,800.00 (July 2001 to June 2008 = 8 years; P350 x 26 days x 8 mos.);
- Attorney’s fees 10%: P34,125.00;
- Total Award: P375,375.00.
LA Decision penned by Labor Arbiter Henry F. Te.

NLRC Decision (October 30, 2009)

NLRC reversed and set aside the LA Decision and dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint.
NLRC held it was physically and legally impossible for petitioner to be an employee of five different employers: Mendco, Mastercraft, Pinnacle, Jacquer and Eric.
NLRC found petitioner failed to establish the existence of an employer-employee relationship and characterized him as a neighborhood carpenter, plumber or electrician engaged on a task basis shown by the irregular nature of his work.
NLRC fallo: reversed and set aside LA decision and dismissed the complaint.
Reconsideration by petitioner was denied by NLRC Resolution dated February 25, 2010.

Court of Appeals Decision (April 30, 2014) and Resolution (July 2, 2015)

CA dismissed petitioner’s petition for certiorari, sustaining NLRC's act of giving due course to respondents' appeal.
CA held furnishing petitioner with a certified true copy of the Surety Bond was not mandatory for perfection of appeal.
CA considered respondents’ timely appeal accompanied by additional evidence sufficient to reverse LA findings, noting rules of evidence in courts of law are not controlling in labor cases.
On merits, CA concurred with NLRC: petitioner was an independent operator/freelance service contractor akin to a "maintenance" man performing odd jobs for various persons; petitioner’s evidence failed to establish employer-employee relationship with the companies.
CA decretal portion: dismissed the petition for certiorari absent grave abuse of discretion.
Reconsideration denied in CA Resolution dated July 2, 2015.

Issue on Review

Whether pe