Case Summary (G.R. No. 227795)
Facts of the Case
Marvin O. Daguinod was engaged as a counter crew/cashier at a Jollibee franchise in Makati under a Service Agreement between Generation One and Southgate Foods, Inc. Daguinod's Service Contract was vague, lacking specific job responsibilities, and stated the terms of employment were geared towards a project duration. Upon application, he became a member of the cooperative, with requirements including a nominal membership fee and acquisition of shares.
Allegations by the Petitioner
On April 10, 2011, Daguinod was accused of theft after a cash discrepancy was noted during an audit. He was coerced into providing a confession and spent several days in jail, only to be released when the Assistant City Prosecutor deemed the allegations insufficient. Following this, Daguinod learned that his employment had been terminated via a phone call.
Counter-Allegations by Respondents
Generation One acknowledged Daguinod's employment while claiming his actions constituted attempted theft. Southgate denied any employment relationship, asserting that Daguinod's complaint for illegal dismissal was retaliation against employees who reported him. The respondents also maintained that the cooperative was a legitimate labor contractor, countering Daguinod's claims of illegal dismissal.
Ruling of Labor Tribunals
The Labor Arbiter found Generation One to be a legitimate contractor and ruled that Daguinod had not been dismissed, affirming ongoing investigations into the incident. The NLRC upheld the Arbiter's ruling, stating that no proof of dismissal had been provided by Daguinod.
Court of Appeals Decision
The CA dismissed Daguinod's petition alleging grave abuse of discretion, asserting that he failed to provide competent evidence of dismissal. The CA endorsed the view that Daguinod's absence from work was self-induced and that Generation One’s registration with the DOLE certified its legitimacy.
Supreme Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court found the CA's reliance on the NLRC and Labor Arbiter's rulings misplaced, indicating a grave error in appreciating the facts and the relationship dynamics between the parties. It established that Daguinod's functions were essential to the food service business, categorizing him as a regular employee of Southgate, not a mere contract worker of Generation One.
Findings on Employment Relationship
The Court emphasized that Generation One failed to demonstrate substantial capital and thus was not a legitimate contractor; it instead determined that Southgate exercised control over Daguinod’s employment, thus establishing a direct employer-employee relation. Furthermore, the lack of due process in Daguinod's alleged termination was pronounced, highlighting that he did not receive proper notice or an opportunity to de
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 227795)
Case Background
- The case involves a petition for review filed by Marvin O. Daguinod against Southgate Foods, Inc. and Generation One Resource Service and Multi-Purpose Cooperative.
- The petition was lodged under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision dated January 28, 2016, and Resolution dated March 18, 2016.
Facts of the Case
- Daguinod served as a counter crew/cashier for a Jollibee franchise in Makati City under a Service Agreement between Generation One and Southgate.
- Prior to his current position, he was an employee directly contracted by Southgate from March 12, 2010, to August 26, 2010.
- Daguinod's employment with Generation One commenced on September 9, 2010, after he paid a membership fee and completed an application form.
Incident Leading to Dismissal
- On April 10, 2011, Daguinod was accused of theft by the store manager after a cash overage of P106.00 was discovered following a transaction mishap.
- Daguinod was subjected to two Notices to Explain (NTEs), one for the alleged cash overage and another for unauthorized use of a manager's swipe card.
- He was detained at the Makati Police Station after being accused of Qualified Theft and was pressured into writing a confession letter under duress.
Respondents' Counter-Allegations
- Generation One admitted Daguinod's employment but claimed the complaint was premature as their investigation was ongoing.
- Southgate argued that Daguinod was an employee of Generation One and that the claim of illegal dismissal was retaliatory.