Case Summary (G.R. No. L-64204)
Background of the Contractual Agreement
On February 1, 1978, Del Rosario & Sons entered into a "Contract of Services" with Calmar Security Agency to provide security personnel at a rate of P300.00 per guard per month. Later, complaints were filed by the security personnel employed under this contract regarding underpayment of salary, non-payment of living allowance, and 13th-month pay.
Initiation of Complaints
On October 4, 1979, Paulino Mabuti and two others filed complaints against both Calmar Security Agency and Del Rosario & Sons for labor law violations related to salary and allowances. Subsequently, five additional security guards joined the cause, seeking similar redress for their grievances.
Labor Arbiter's Decision
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on December 21, 1979, which dismissed the complaint against Del Rosario & Sons due to a lack of an employer-employee relationship. However, the Arbiter ordered Calmar Security Agency to pay the complainants a sum totaling P2,923.17.
NLRC Ruling on Appeal
Calmar Security Agency appealed the Labor Arbiter's decision to the NLRC, which modified the ruling by holding Del Rosario & Sons jointly and severally liable for the complaints based on the interpretation of Articles 106 and 107 of the Labor Code, which pertain to the responsibilities of joint employers and indirect employers.
Petitioner’s Arguments on Appeal
Del Rosario & Sons filed a petition for Certiorari to annul the NLRC decision, arguing three main points: (1) the NLRC erred in accepting an appeal that was not properly sworn and lacked payment of the requisite appeal fee; (2) it was incorrectly found liable to pay the complainants; and (3) it was wrongfully denied reconsideration of its position.
Determination of Appeal Validity
The Supreme Court found that the alleged formal defects in Calmar Security Agency's appeal were not fatal. Specifically, the absence of an oath could be rectified easily, and while the appeal fee was initially delayed, it had eventually been paid. Citing the principle of substantial justice, the Court noted that an appellate court has the discretion not to dismiss an appeal based on technical defects.
Applicability of Labor Code
The Court confirmed the NLRC's finding that Del Rosario & Sons was an indirect employer under Articles 106 and 107 of the Labor Code. The contract established that the guarding services were for Del Rosario & Sons, thus imposing joint and several liabilities on both the Security Agency and the logging compa
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-64204)
Case Overview
- The case concerns a petition for Certiorari filed by Del Rosario & Sons Logging Enterprises, Inc. against the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and several private individuals.
- The petition seeks to annul the NLRC Resolution in ROX Arbitration Case No. 445-79 and to uphold the decision made by the Labor Arbiter.
- The decision was rendered on May 31, 1985, with Justice Melencio-Herrera presiding.
Background of the Case
- On February 1, 1978, Del Rosario & Sons Logging Enterprises, Inc. entered into a "Contract of Services" with Calmar Security Agency, which was obligated to supply security guards to the logging company.
- The agreed payment was P300.00 per month for each guard provided by the Security Agency.
- On October 4, 1979, several security guards, including Paulino Mabuti, Napoleo Borata, and Silvino Tudio, filed a complaint against both the Security Agency and Del Rosario & Sons for underpayment of salaries, non-payment of living allowances, and 13th-month pay.
- Additional complaints were filed by five other guards citing similar grievances.
Proceedings Before the Labor Arbiter
- The petitioner, Del Rosario & Sons, argued that there was no employer-employee relationship between them and the complainants.
- Calmar Security Agency also denied liability, citing insufficient payments received under the Contract of Services as a reason for their inability to meet labor law obligations.
- The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint against Del Rosario & Sons, asserting the absence of an employer-employee relationship, but ordered the Security Agency to pay the complainants