LOLITA LOPEZ, pettoner,

vs.
BODEGA CITY (Video-Disco Kitchen of the
Philippines !nd"o# A$D%E& C' TO%%E&-YAP,
respondents.
D E C I & I O $
A(&T%IA-)A%TI$EZ, J.*
Before the Court s a Petton for Revew on Certiorari
under Rue 45 of the Rues of Court assang the |uy
18, 2002 Decson
1
of the Court of Appeas (CA) n CA-
G.R. SP No. 66861, dsmssng the petton for certiorari
ed before t and amrmng the Decson of the Natona
Labor Reatons Commsson (NLRC) n NLRC-NCR Case
No. 00-03-01729-95; and ts Resouton dated October
16, 2002,
2
denyng pettoner's Moton for
Reconsderaton. The NLRC Decson set asde the
Decson of the Labor Arbter ndng that Lota Lopez
(pettoner) was egay dsmssed by Bodega Cty
and/or Andres C. Torres-Yap (respondents).
Respondent Bodega Cty (Bodega Cty) s a corporaton
duy regstered and exstng under and by vrtue of the
aws of the Repubc of the Phppnes, whe
respondent Andres C. Torres-Yap (Yap) s ts owner/
manager. Pettoner was the "ady keeper" of Bodega
Cty tasked wth mannng ts ades' comfort room.
In a etter sgned by Yap dated February 10, 1995,
pettoner was made to expan why the concessonare
agreement between her and respondents shoud not be
termnated or suspended n vew of an ncdent that
happened on February 3, 1995, wheren pettoner was
seen to have acted n a hoste manner aganst a ady
customer of Bodega Cty who nformed the
management that she saw pettoner seepng whe on
duty.
In a subsequent etter dated February 25, 1995, Yap
nformed pettoner that because of the ncdent that
happened on February 3, 1995, respondents had
decded to termnate the concessonare agreement
between them.
On March 1, 1995, pettoner ed wth the Arbtraton
Branch of the NLRC, Natona Capta Regon, Ouezon
Cty, a compant for ega dsmssa aganst
respondents contendng that she was dsmssed from
her empoyment wthout cause and due process.
In ther answer, respondents contended that no
empoyer-empoyee reatonshp ever exsted between
them and pettoner; that the atter's servces rendered
wthn the premses of Bodega Cty was by vrtue of a
concessonare agreement she entered nto wth
respondents.
The compant was dsmssed by the Labor Arbter for
ack of mert. However, on appea, the NLRC set asde
the order of dsmssa and remanded the case for
further proceedngs. Upon remand, the case was
assgned to a dherent Labor Arbter. Thereafter,
hearngs were conducted and the partes were requred
to submt memoranda and other supportng
documents.
On December 28, 1999, the Labor Arbter rendered
|udgment ndng that pettoner was an empoyee of
respondents and that the atter egay dsmssed her.
3
Respondents ed an appea wth the NLRC. On March
22, 2001, the NLRC ssued a Resouton, the dspostve
porton of whch reads as foows:
WHEREFORE, premses duy consdered, the
Decson appeaed from s hereby ordered SET
ASIDE and VACATED, and n ts stead, a new
one entered DISMISSING the above-entted
case for ack of mert.
4
Pettoner ed a moton for reconsderaton of the
above-quoted NLRC Resouton, but the NLRC dened
the same.
Aggreved, pettoner ed a Petton for Certiorari wth
the CA. On |uy 18, 2002, the CA promugated the
presenty assaed Decson dsmssng her speca cv
acton for certiorari. Pettoner moved for
reconsderaton but her moton was dened.
Hence, heren petton based on the foowng grounds:
1. WITH DUE RESPECT, PUBLIC RESPONDENT
COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN
EXCESS OF |URISDICTION IN RULING THAT THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION DID
NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE LABOR
ARBITER FINDING PETITIONER TO HAVE BEEN
ILLEGALLY DISMISSED BY PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS.
2. WITH DUE RESPECT, PUBLIC RESPONDENT
COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN
EXCESS OF |URISDICTION IN RULING THAT
PETITIONER WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.
5
Pettoner contends that t was wrong for the CA to
concude that even f she dd not sgn the document
evdencng the concessonare agreement, she
mpedy accepted and thus bound hersef to the terms
and condtons contaned n the sad agreement when
she contnued to perform the task whch was aegedy
speced theren for a consderabe ength of tme.
Pettoner cams that the concessonare agreement
was ony ohered to her durng her tenth year of servce
and after she organzed a unon and ed a compant
aganst respondents. Pror to a these, pettoner
asserts that her |ob as a "ady keeper" was a task
assgned to her as an empoyee of respondents.
Pettoner further argues that her recept of a speca
aowance from respondents s a cear evdence that
she was an empoyee of the atter, as the amount she
receved was equvaent to the mnmum wage at that
tme.
Pettoner aso contends that her dentcaton card
ceary shows that she was not a concessonare but an
empoyee of respondents; that f respondents reay
ntended the ID card ssued to her to be used smpy
for havng access to the premses of Bodega Cty, then
respondents coud have ceary ndcated such ntent
on the sad ID card.
Moreover, pettoner submts that the fact that she was
requred to foow rues and reguatons prescrbng
approprate conduct whe she was n the premses of
Bodega Cty s cear evdence of the exstence of an
empoyer-empoyee reatonshp between her and
pettoners.
On the other hand, respondents contend that the
present petton was ed for the soe purpose of
deayng the proceedngs of the case; the grounds
reed upon n the nstant petton are matters that
have been exhaustvey dscussed by the NLRC and the
CA; the present petton rases questons of fact whch
are not proper n a petton for revew on certiorari
under Rue 45 of the Rues of Court; the respectve
decsons of the NLRC and the CA are based on
evdence presented by both partes; pettoner's
compance wth the terms and condtons of the
proposed concessonare contract for a perod of three
years s evdence of her mped acceptance of such
proposa; pettoner faed to present evdence to prove
her aegaton that the sub|ect concessonare
agreement was ony proposed to her n her 10
th
year of
empoyment wth respondent company and after she
organzed a unon and ed a abor compant aganst
respondents; pettoner faed to present competent
documentary and testmona evdence to prove her
contenton that she was an empoyee of respondents
snce 1985.
The man ssue to be resoved n the present case s
whether or not pettoner s an empoyee of
respondents.
The ssue of whether or not an empoyer-empoyee
reatonshp exsts n a gven case s essentay a
queston of fact.
6
Whe t s a setted rue that ony errors of aw are
generay revewed by ths Court n pettons for revew
on certiorari of CA decsons,
7
there are we-recognzed
exceptons to ths rue, as n ths case, when the factua
ndngs of the NLRC as amrmed by the CA contradct
those of the Labor Arbter.
8
In that event, t s ths
Court's task, n the exercse of ts equty |ursdcton, to
re-evauate and revew the factua ssues by ookng
nto the records of the case and re-examnng the
questoned ndngs.
9
It s a basc rue of evdence that each party must
prove hs amrmatve aegaton.
10
If he cams a rght
granted by aw, he must prove hs cam by competent
evdence, reyng on the strength of hs own evdence
and not upon the weakness of that of hs opponent.
11
The test for determnng on whom the burden of proof
es s found n the resut of an nqury as to whch party
woud be successfu f no evdence of such matters
were gven.
12
In an ega dsmssa case, the onus probandi rests on
the empoyer to prove that ts dsmssa of an
empoyee was for a vad cause.
13
However, before a
case for ega dsmssa can prosper, an empoyer-
empoyee reatonshp must rst be estabshed.
14
In ng a compant before the Labor Arbter for ega
dsmssa based on the premse that she was an
empoyee of respondent, t s ncumbent upon
pettoner to prove the empoyee-empoyer reatonshp
by substanta evdence.
15
The NLRC and the CA found that pettoner faed to
dscharge ths burden, and the Court nds no cogent
reason to depart from ther ndngs.
The Court appes the four-fod test expounded n
Abante v. Lamadrid Bearing and Parts Corp.,
16
to wt:
To ascertan the exstence of an empoyer-
empoyee reatonshp, |ursprudence has
nvaraby apped the four-fod test, namey: (1)
the manner of seecton and engagement; (2)
the payment of wages; (3) the presence or
absence of the power of dsmssa; and (4) the
presence or absence of the power of contro. Of
these four, the ast one s the most mportant.
The so-caed "contro test" s commony
regarded as the most cruca and determnatve
ndcator of the presence or absence of an
empoyer-empoyee reatonshp. Under the
contro test, an empoyer-empoyee
reatonshp exsts where the person for whom
the servces are performed reserves the rght
to contro not ony the end acheved, but aso
the manner and means to be used n reachng
that end.
17
To prove the eement of payment of wages, pettoner
presented a petty cash voucher showng that she
receved an aowance for ve (5) days.
18
The CA dd
not err when t hed that a sotary petty cash voucher
dd not prove that pettoner had been recevng saary
from respondents or that she had been respondents'
empoyee for 10 years.
Indeed, f pettoner was reay an empoyee of
respondents for that ength of tme, she shoud have
been abe to present saary vouchers or pay sps and
not |ust a snge petty cash voucher. The Court agrees
wth respondents that pettoner coud have easy
shown other peces of evdence such as a contract of
empoyment, SSS or Medcare forms, or certcates of
wthhodng tax on compensaton ncome; or she coud
have presented wtnesses to prove her contenton that
she was an empoyee of respondents. Pettoner faed
to do so.
Anent the eement of contro, pettoner's contenton
that she was an empoyee of respondents because she
was sub|ect to ther contro does not hod water.
Pettoner faed to cte a snge nstance to prove that
she was sub|ect to the contro of respondents nsofar
as the manner n whch she shoud perform her |ob as a
"ady keeper" was concerned.
It s true that pettoner was requred to foow rues
and reguatons prescrbng approprate conduct whe
wthn the premses of Bodega Cty. However, ths was
mposed upon pettoner as part of the terms and
condtons n the concessonare agreement emboded
n a 1992 etter of Yap addressed to pettoner, to wt:
|anuary 6, 1992
Dear Ms. Lota Lopez,
The new owners of Bodega Cty, 1121 Food
Servce Corporaton ohers to your goodsef the
concessonare/contract to provde
ndependenty, customer comfort servces to
assst users of the ades comfort room of the
Cub to further enhance ts busness, under the
foowng terms and condtons:
1. You w provde at your own
expense, a toet suppes, usefu for
the purpose, such as toet papers,
soap, har pns, safety pns and other
reated tems or thngs whch n your
opnon s beneca to the servces you
w undertake;
2. For the entre duraton of ths
concessonare contract, and durng the
Cub's operatng hours, you sha
mantan the ceanness of the ades
comfort room. Provded, that genera
ceanness, santaton and physca
mantenance of sad comfort rooms
sha be undertaken by the owners of
Bodega Cty;
3. You sha at a tmes ensure
satsfacton and good servces n the
dscharge of your undertakng. More
mportanty, you sha aways observe
utmost courtesy n deang wth the
persons/ndvduas usng sad comfort
room and sha refran from dong acts
that may adversey ahect the goodw
and busness standng of Bodega Cty;
4. A remuneratons, tps, donatons
gven to you by ndvduas/persons
utzng sad comfort rooms and/or
guests of Bodega Cty sha be waved
by the atter to your benet provded
however, that f concessonare
receves tps or donatons per day n an
amount exceedng 200% the prevang
mnmum wage, then, she sha remt
fty percent (50%) of sad amount to
Bodega Cty by way of royaty or
concesson fees;
5. Ths contract sha be for a perod of
one year and sha be automatcay
renewed on a yeary bass uness
notce of termnaton s gven thrty
(30) days pror to expraton. Any
voaton of the terms and condtons of
ths contract sha be a ground for ts
mmedate revocaton and/or
termnaton.
6. It s hereby understood that no
empoyer-empoyee reatonshp exsts
between Bodega Cty and/or 1121
FoodServce Corporaton and your
goodsef, as you are an ndependent
contractor who has represented to us
that you possess the necessary
quacaton as such ncudng
manpower compment, equpment,
factes, etc. and that any person you
may engage or empoy to work wth or
assst you n the dscharge of your
undertakng sha be soey your own
empoyees and/or agents.
1121 FoodServce Corporaton Bodega Cty
By:
(Sgd.) ANDRES C. TORRES-YAP
Conforme:
_______________
LOLITA LOPEZ
19
Pettoner does not dspute the exstence of the etter;
nether does she deny that respondents ohered her the
sub|ect concessonare agreement. However, she
contends that she coud not have entered nto the sad
agreement wth respondents because she dd not sgn
the document evdencng the same.
Setted s the rue that contracts are perfected by mere
consent, upon the acceptance by the oheree of the
oher made by the oheror.
20
For a contract, to arse, the
acceptance must be made known to the oheror.
21

Moreover, the acceptance of the thng and the cause,
whch are to consttute a contract, may be express or
mped as can be nferred from the contemporaneous
and subsequent acts of the contractng partes.
22
A
contract w be uphed as ong as there s proof of
consent, sub|ect matter and cause; t s generay
obgatory n whatever form t may have been entered
nto.
23
In the present case, the Court nds no cogent reason
to dsregard the ndngs of both the CA and the NLRC
that whe pettoner dd not amx her sgnature to the
document evdencng the sub|ect concessonare
agreement, the fact that she performed the tasks
ndcated n the sad agreement for a perod of three
years wthout any compant or queston ony goes to
show that she has gven her mped acceptance of or
consent to the sad agreement.
Pettoner s kewse estopped from denyng the
exstence of the sub|ect concessonare agreement.
She shoud not, after en|oyng the benets of the
concessonare agreement wth respondents, be
aowed to ater dsown the same through her
aegaton that she was an empoyee of the
respondents when the sad agreement was termnated
by reason of her voaton of the terms and condtons
thereof.
The prncpe of estoppe in pais appes wheren -- by
one's acts, representatons or admssons, or sence
when one ought to speak out -- ntentonay or through
cupabe neggence, nduces another to beeve certan
facts to exst and to rghtfuy rey and act on such
beef, so as to be pre|udced f the former s permtted
to deny the exstence of those facts.
24
Moreover, pettoner faed to dspute the contents of
the amdavt
25
as we as the testmony
26
of Femon
Habtan (Habtan), the concessonare of the men's
comfort room of Bodega Cty, that he had persona
knowedge of the fact that pettoner was the
concessonare of the ades' comfort room of Bodega
Cty.
Pettoner aso cams that the concessonare
agreement was ohered to her ony n her 10th year of
servce, after she organzed a unon and ed a
compant aganst respondents. However, pettoner's
cam remans to be an aegaton whch s not
supported by any evdence. It s a basc rue n
evdence that each party must prove hs amrmatve
aegaton,
27
that mere aegaton s not evdence.
28
The Court s not persuaded by pettoner's contenton
that the Labor Arbter was correct n concudng that
there exsted an empoyer-empoyee reatonshp
between respondents and pettoner. A perusa of the
Decson
29
of the Labor Arbter shows that hs ony bass
for arrvng at such a concuson are the bare assertons
of pettoner and the fact that the atter dd not sgn
the etter of Yap contanng the proposed
concessonare agreement. However, as earer
dscussed, ths Court nds no error n the ndngs of
the NLRC and the CA that pettoner s deemed as
havng gven her consent to the sad proposa when
she contnuousy performed the tasks ndcated theren
for a consderabe ength of tme. For a ntents and
purposes, the concessonare agreement had been
perfected.
Pettoner nssts that her ID card s sumcent proof of
her empoyment. In Domasig v. National Labor
Relations Commission,
30
ths Court hed that the
companant's ID card and the cash vouchers coverng
hs saares for the months ndcated theren were
substanta evdence that he was an empoyee of
respondents, especay n ght of the fact that the
atter faed to deny sad evdence. Ths s not the
stuaton n the present case. The ony evdence
presented by pettoner as proof of her aeged
empoyment are her ID card and one petty cash
voucher for a ve-day aowance whch were dsputed
by respondents.
As to the ID card, t s true that the words "EMPLOYEE'S
NAME" appear prnted beow pettoner's name.
31

However, she faed to dspute respondents' evdence
consstng of Habtan's testmony,
32
that he and the
other "contractors" of Bodega Cty such as the sngers
and band performers, were aso ssued the same ID
cards for the purpose of enabng them to enter the
premses of Bodega Cty.
The Court quotes, wth approva, the rung of the CA
on ths matter, to wt:
Nor can pettoners dentcaton card mprove
her cause any better. It s undsputed that non-
empoyees, such as Femon Habtan, an
admtted concessonare, muscans, sngers
and the ke at Bodega Cty are aso ssued
dentcaton cards. Gven ths premse, t
appears cear to Us that pettoner's I.D. Card s
ncompetent proof of an aeged empoyer-
empoyee reatonshp between the heren
partes. Vewed n the context of ths case, the
card s at best a "passport" from management
assurng the hoder thereof of hs unmoested
access to the premses of Bodega Cty.
33
Wth respect to the petty cash voucher, pettoner
faed to refute respondent's cam that t was not gven
to her for servces rendered or on a reguar bass, but
smpy granted as nanca assstance to hep her
temporary meet her famy's needs.
Hence, gong back to the eement of contro, the
concessonare agreement merey stated that
pettoner sha mantan the ceanness of the ades'
comfort room and observe courtesy gudenes that
woud hep her obtan the resuts they wanted to
acheve. There s nothng n the agreement whch
speces the methods by whch pettoner shoud
acheve these resuts. Respondents dd not ndcate the
manner n whch she shoud go about n mantanng
the ceanness of the ades' comfort room. Nether dd
respondents determne the means and methods by
whch pettoner coud ensure the satsfacton of
respondent company's customers. In other words,
pettoner was gven a free hand as to how she woud
perform her |ob as a "ady keeper." In fact, the ast
paragraph of the concessonare agreement even
aowed pettoner to engage persons to work wth or
assst her n the dscharge of her functons.
34
Moreover, pettoner was not sub|ected to dente
hours or condtons of work. The fact that she was
expected to mantan the ceanness of respondent
company's ades' comfort room durng Bodega Cty's
operatng hours does not ndcate that her performance
of her |ob was sub|ect to the contro of respondents as
to make her an empoyee of the atter. Instead, the
requrement that she had to render her servces whe
Bodega Cty was open for busness was dctated smpy
by the very nature of her undertakng, whch was to
gve assstance to the users of the ades' comfort
room.
In Consulta v. Court of Appeals,
35
ths Court hed:
It shoud, however, be obvous that not every
form of contro that the hrng party reserves to
hmsef over the conduct of the party hred n
reaton to the servces rendered may be
accorded the ehect of estabshng an
empoyer-empoyee reatonshp between them
n the ega or technca sense of the term. A
ne must be drawn somewhere, f the
recognzed dstncton between an empoyee
and an ndvdua contractor s not to vansh
atogether. Reastcay, t woud be a rare
contract of servce that gves untrammeed
freedom to the party hred and eschews any
nterventon whatsoever n hs performance of
the engagement.
Logcay, the ne shoud be drawn between
rues that merey serve as gudenes towards
the achevement of the mutuay desred resut
wthout dctatng the means or methods to be
empoyed n attanng t, and those that contro
or x the methodoogy and bnd or restrct the
party hred to the use of such means. The rst,
whch am ony to promote the resut, create no
empoyer-empoyee reatonshp unke the
second, whch address both the resut and the
means used to acheve t.
36
Lasty, the Court nds that the eements of seecton
and engagement as we as the power of dsmssa are
not present n the nstant case.
It has been estabshed that there has been no
empoyer-empoyee reatonshp between respondents
and pettoner. Ther contractua reatonshp was
governed by the concessonare agreement emboded
n the 1992 etter. Thus, pettoner was not dsmssed
by respondents. Instead, as shown by the etter of Yap
to her dated February 15, 1995,
37
ther contractua
reatonshp was termnated by reason of respondents'
termnaton of the sub|ect concessonare agreement,
whch was n accordance wth the provsons of the
agreement n case of voaton of ts terms and
condtons.
In ne, the CA dd not err n dsmssng the petton for
certiorari ed before t by pettoner.
+,E%E-O%E, the nstant petton s DE$IED. The
assaed Decson and Resouton of the Court of
Appeas are A--I%)ED. Costs aganst pettoner.
&O O%DE%ED
G'%' $o' .//012 A343st .5, 0116
+IL,EL)I$A &' O%OZCO, pettoner,
vs.
T,E -I-T, DIVI&IO$ O- T,E ,O$O%ABLE CO(%T
O- APPEAL&, P,ILIPPI$E DAILY I$7(I%E%, !nd
LETICIA 8I)E$EZ )AG&A$OC, respondents.
D E C I & I O $
$AC,(%A, J.*
The case before ths Court rases a nove queston
never before decded n our |ursdcton - whether a
newspaper coumnst s an empoyee of the newspaper
whch pubshes the coumn.
In ths Petton for Revew under Rue 45 of the Revsed
Rues on Cv Procedure, pettoner Whemna S.
Orozco assas the Decson
1
of the Court of Appeas
(CA) n CA-G.R. SP No. 50970 dated |une 11, 2002 and
ts Resouton
2
dated September 11, 2002 denyng her
Moton for Reconsderaton. The CA reversed and set
asde the Decson
3
of the Natona Labor Reatons
Commsson (NLRC), whch n turn had amrmed the
Decson
4
of the Labor Arbter ndng that Orozco was
an empoyee of prvate respondent Philippine Daily
n!uirer (PDI) and was egay dsmssed as coumnst
of sad newspaper.
In March 1990, PDI engaged the servces of pettoner
to wrte a weeky coumn for ts Lfestye secton. She
regousy submtted her artces every week, except
for a sx-month stnt n New York Cty when she,
nonetheess, sent severa artces through ma. She
receved compensaton of P250.00 - ater ncreased to
P300.00 - for every coumn pubshed.
5
On November 7, 1992, pettoners coumn appeared n
the PDI for the ast tme. Pettoner cams that her then
edtor, Ms. Lta T. Logarta,
6
tod her that respondent
Letca |menez Magsanoc, PDI Edtor n Chef, wanted
to stop pubshng her coumn for no reason at a and
advsed pettoner to tak to Magsanoc hersef.
Pettoner narrates that when she taked to Magsanoc,
the atter nformed her that t was PDI Charperson
Eugena Aposto who had asked to stop pubcaton of
her coumn, but that n a teephone conversaton wth
Aposto, the atter sad that Magsanoc nformed her
(Aposto) that the Lfestye secton aready had many
coumnsts.
7

On the other hand, PDI cams that n |une 1991,
Magsanoc met wth the Lfestye secton edtor to
dscuss how to mprove sad secton. They agreed to
cut down the number of coumnsts by keepng ony
those whose coumns were we-wrtten, wth reguar
feedback and foowng. In ther |udgment, pettoners
coumn faed to mprove, contnued to be supercay
and poory wrtten, and faed to meet the hgh
standards of the newspaper. Hence, they decded to
termnate pettoners coumn.
8

Aggreved by the newspapers acton, pettoner ed a
compant for ega dsmssa, backwages, mora and
exempary damages, and other money cams before
the NLRC.
On October 29, 1993, Labor Arbter Arthur
Amansec rendered a Decson n favor of
pettoner, the dspostve porton of whch
reads:
WHEREFORE, |udgment s hereby rendered,
ndng companant to be an empoyee of
respondent company; orderng respondent
company to renstate her to her former or
equvaent poston, wth backwages.
Respondent company s aso ordered to pay her
13
th
month pay and servce ncentve eave pay.
Other cams are hereby dsmssed for ack of
mert.
SO ORDERED.
9
The Labor Arbter found that:
|R|espondent company exercsed fu and
compete contro over the means and method
by whch companants work - that of a reguar
coumnst - had to be accompshed. Ths
contro mght not be found n an nstructon,
verba or ora, gven to companant denng
the means and method she shoud wrte her
coumn. Rather, ths contro s manfested and
certaned (sc) n respondents admtted
prerogatve to re|ect any artce submtted by
companant for pubcaton.
By vrtue of ths power, companant was
hepessy constraned to adopt her sub|ects
and stye of wrtng to sut the edtora taste of
her edtor. Otherwse, oh to the trash can went
her artces.
Moreover, ths contro s aready manfested n
coumn tte, "Femnst Reecton" aotted
companant. Under ths tte, companants
wrtng was controed and mted to a
womans perspectve on matters of femnne
nterests. That respondent had no contro over
the sub|ect matter wrtten by companant s
strongy beed by ths observaton. Even the
ength of companants artces were set by
respondents.
Inevtaby, respondents woud have no contro
over when or where companant wrote her
artces as she was a coumnst who coud
produce an artce n thrty (3) (sc) months or
three (3) days, dependng on her mood or the
amount of research requred for an artce but
her actons were controed by her obgaton to
produce an artce a week. If companant dd
not have to report for work eght (8) hours a
day, sx (6) days a week, t s because her task
was many menta. Lasty, the fact that her
artces were (sc) pubshed weeky for three
(3) years show that she was respondents
reguar empoyee, not a once-n-a-bue-moon
contrbutor who was not under any pressure or
obgaton to produce reguar artces and who
wrote at hs own whm and esure.
10
PDI appeaed the Decson to the NLRC. In a Decson
dated August 23, 1994, the NLRC Second Dvson
dsmssed the appea thereby amrmng the Labor
Arbters Decson. The NLRC ntay noted that PDI
faed to perfect ts appea, under Artce 223 of the
Labor Code, due to non-ng of a cash or surety bond.
The NLRC sad that the reason prohered by PDI for not
ng the bond - that t was dmcut or mpossbe to
determne the amount of the bond snce the Labor
Arbter dd not specfy the amount of the |udgment
award - was not persuasve. It sad that a PDI had to
do was compute based on the amount t was payng
pettoner, countng the number of weeks from
November 7, 1992 up to promugaton of the Labor
Arbters decson.
11

The NLRC aso resoved the appea on ts merts. It
found no error n the Labor Arbters ndngs of fact
and aw. It sustaned the Labor Arbters reasonng that
respondent PDI exercsed contro over pettoners
work.
PDI then ed a Petton for Revew
12
before ths Court
seekng the reversa of the NLRC Decson. However, n
a Resouton
13
dated December 2, 1998, ths Court
referred the case to the Court of Appeas, pursuant to
our rung n "t. #artin $uneral %omes v. National Labor
Relations Commission.
14

The CA rendered ts assaed Decson on |une 11,
2002. It set asde the NLRC Decson and dsmssed
pettoners Compant. It hed that the NLRC
msapprecated the facts and rendered a rung wantng
n substanta evdence. The CA sad:
The Court does not agree wth pubc
respondent NLRCs concuson. Frst, prvate
respondent admtted that she was and |had|
never been consdered by pettoner PDI as ts
empoyee. Second, t s not dsputed that
prvate respondent had no empoyment
contract wth pettoner PDI. In fact, her
engagement to contrbute artces for
pubcaton was based on a verba agreement
between her and the pettoners Lfestye
Secton Edtor. Moreover, t was evdent that
prvate respondent was not requred to report
to the omce eght (8) hours a day. Further, t s
not dsputed that she stayed n New York for sx
(6) months wthout pettoners permsson as
to her eave of absence nor was she gven any
dscpnary acton for the same. These
undsputed facts negate prvate respondents
cam that she s an empoyee of pettoner.
Moreover, wth regards (sc) to the contro test,
the pubc respondent NLRCs rung that the
gudenes gven by pettoner PDI for prvate
respondent to foow, e.g. n terms of space
aocaton and ength of artce, s not the form
of contro envsoned by the gudenes set by
the Supreme Court. The ength of the artce s
obvousy mted so that a the artces to be
featured n the paper can be accommodated.
As to the topc of the artce to be pubshed, t
s but ogca that prvate respondent shoud
not wrte morbd topcs such as death because
she s contrbutng to the festye secton.
Other than sad gven mtatons, f the same
coud be consdered mtatons, the topcs of
the artces submtted by prvate respondent
were a her choces. Thus, the pettoner PDI n
decdng to pubsh prvate respondents
artces ony contros the resut of the work and
not the means by whch sad artces were
wrtten.
As such, the above facts faed to measure up
to the contro test necessary for an empoyer-
empoyee reatonshp to exst.
15
Pettoners Moton for Reconsderaton was dened n a
Resouton dated September 11, 2002. She then ed
the present Petton for Revew.
In a Resouton dated Apr 29, 2005, the Court, wthout
gvng due course to the petton, ordered the Labor
Arbter to carfy the amount of the award due
pettoner and, thereafter, ordered PDI to post the
requste bond. Upon compance therewth, the
petton woud be gven due course. Labor Arbter
Amansec cared that the award under the Decson
amounted to P15,350.00. Thus, PDI posted the
requste bond on |anuary 25, 2007.
16

We sha ntay dspose of the procedura ssue rased
n the Petton.
Pettoner argues that the CA erred n not dsmssng
outrght PDIs Petton for Certiorari for PDIs faure to
post a cash or surety bond n voaton of Artce 223 of
the Labor Code.
Ths ssue was setted by ths Court n ts Resouton
dated Apr 29, 2005.
17
There, the Court hed:
But whe the postng of a cash or surety bond
s |ursdctona and s a condton sne qua non
to the perfecton of an appea, there s a
pethora of |ursprudence recognzng
exceptona nstances wheren the Court
reaxed the bond requrement as a condton
for postng the appea.
x x x x
In the case of &aberrah v. NLRC, the Court
made note of the fact that the assaed
decson of the Labor Arbter concerned dd not
contan a computaton of the monetary award
due the empoyees, a crcumstance whch s
kewse present n ths case. In sad case, the
Court stated,
As a rue, compance wth the
requrements for the perfecton of an
appea wthn the regamentary (sc)
perod s mandatory and |ursdctona.
However, n Natona Federaton of
Labor Unons v. Ladrdo as we as n
severa other cases, ths Court reaxed
the requrement of the postng of an
appea bond wthn the regementary
perod as a condton for perfectng the
appea. Ths s n ne wth the prncpe
that substanta |ustce s better served
by aowng the appea to be resoved
on the merts rather than dsmssng t
based on a techncaty.
The |udgment of the Labor Arbter n ths case
merey stated that pettoner was entted to
backwages, 13
th
month pay and servce
ncentve eave pay wthout however ncudng
a computaton of the aeged amounts.
x x x x
In the case of N$L' v. Ladrido , ths Court
postuated that "prvate respondents cannot be
expected to post such appea bond equvaent
to the amount of the monetary award when the
amount thereof was not ncuded n the
decson of the abor arbter." The computaton
of the amount awarded to pettoner not havng
been ceary stated n the decson of the abor
arbter, prvate respondents had no bass for
determnng the amount of the bond to be
posted.
Thus, whe the requrements for perfectng an
appea must be strcty foowed as they are
consdered ndspensabe nterdctons aganst
needess deays and for ordery dscharge of
|udca busness, the aw does admt of
exceptons when warranted by the
crcumstances. Techncaty shoud not be
aowed to stand n the way of equtaby and
competey resovng the rghts and obgatons
of the partes. But whe ths Court may reax
the observance of regementary perods and
technca rues to acheve substanta |ustce, t
s not prepared to gve due course to ths
petton and make a pronouncement on the
weghty ssue obtanng n ths case unt the
aw has been duy comped wth and the
requste appea bond duy pad by prvate
respondents.
18
Records show that PDI has comped wth the Courts
drectve for the postng of the bond;
19
thus, that ssue
has been ad to rest.
We now proceed to rue on the merts of ths case.
The man ssue we must resove s whether pettoner s
an empoyee of PDI, and f the answer be n the
amrmatve, whether she was egay dsmssed.
We rue for the respondents.
The exstence of an empoyer-empoyee reatonshp s
essentay a queston of fact.
20
Factua ndngs of
quas-|udca agences ke the NLRC are generay
accorded respect and naty f supported by
substanta evdence.
21

Consderng, however, that the CAs ndngs are n
drect conct wth those of the Labor Arbter and NLRC,
ths Court must now make ts own examnaton and
evauaton of the facts of ths case.
It s true that pettoner hersef admtted that she "was
not, and |had| never been consdered respondents
empoyee because the terms of works were arbtrary
decded upon by the respondent."
22
However, the
empoyment status of a person s dened and
prescrbed by aw and not by what the partes say t
shoud be.
23
Ths Court has constanty adhered to the "four-fod
test" to determne whether there exsts an empoyer-
empoyee reatonshp between partes.
24
The four
eements of an empoyment reatonshp are: (a) the
seecton and engagement of the empoyee; (b) the
payment of wages; (c) the power of dsmssa; and (d)
the empoyers power to contro the empoyees
conduct.
25

Of these four eements, t s the power of contro whch
s the most cruca
26
and most determnatve factor,
27

so mportant, n fact, that the other eements may even
be dsregarded.
28
As ths Court has prevousy hed:
the sgncant factor n determnng the
reatonshp of the partes s the presence or
absence of supervsory authorty to contro the
method and the detas of performance of the
servce beng rendered, and the degree to
whch the prncpa may ntervene to exercse
such contro.
29

In other words, the test s whether the empoyer
contros or has reserved the rght to contro the
empoyee, not ony as to the work done, but aso as to
the means and methods by whch the same s
accompshed.
30
Pettoner argues that severa factors exst to prove
that respondents exercsed contro over her and her
work, namey:
a. As to the Contents of her Coumn - The
PETITIONER had to nsure that the contents of
her coumn hewed cosey to the ob|ectves of
ts Lfestye Secton and the over-a prncpes
that the newspaper pro|ects tsef to stand for.
As admtted, she wanted to wrte about death
n reaton to A Sous Day but was advsed not
to.
b. As to Tme Contro - The PETITIONER, as a
coumnst, had to observe the deadnes of the
newspaper for her artces to be pubshed.
These deadnes were usuay that tme perod
when the Secton Edtor has to "cose the
pages" of the Lfestye Secton where the
coumn n ocated. "To cose the pages" means
to prepare them for prntng and pubcaton.
As a coumnst, the PETITIONERs wrtngs had
a dente day on whch t was gong to appear.
So she submtted her artces two days before
the desgnated day on whch the coumn woud
come out.
Ths s the usua routne of newspaper work.
Deadnes are set to fu the newspapers
obgatons to the readers wth regard to
tmeness and freshness of deas.
c. As to Contro of Space - The PETITIONER was
tod to submt ony two or three pages of artce
for the coumn, (sc) "Femnst Reectons" per
week. To go beyond that, the Lfestye edtor
woud aready chop oh the artce and pubsh
the rest for the next week. Ths shows that
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS had contro over the
space that the PETITIONER was assgned to .
d. As to Dscpne - Over tme, the newspaper
readers eyes are traned or habtuated to ook
for and read the works of ther favorte reguar
wrters and coumnsts. They are condtoned,
based on ther day purchase of the
newspaper, to ook for specc spaces n the
newspapers for ther favorte wrte-ups/or
opnons on matters reevant and sgncant
ssues asde from not beng ate or amss n the
responsbty of tmey submsson of ther
artces.
The PETITIONER was dscpned to submt her
artces on hghy reevant and sgncant
ssues on tme by the PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
who have a say on whether the topcs beong
to those consdered as hghy reevant and
sgncant, through the Lfestye Secton Edtor.
The PETITIONER had to dscuss the topcs rst
and submt the artces two days before
pubcaton date to keep her coumn n the
newspaper space reguary as expected or
wthout mss by ts readers.
31
Gven ths dscusson by pettoner, we then ask the
queston: s this the form of control that our labor la(s
contemplate such as to establish an employer)
employee relationship bet(een petitioner and
respondent PD?
It s not.
Pettoner has msconstrued the "contro test," as dd
the Labor Arbter and the NLRC.
Not a rues mposed by the hrng party on the hred
party ndcate that the atter s an empoyee of the
former. Rues whch serve as genera gudenes
towards the achevement of the mutuay desred resut
are not ndcatve of the power of contro.
32
Thus, ths
Court has expaned:
It shoud, however, be obvous that not every
form of contro that the hrng party reserves to
hmsef over the conduct of the party hred n
reaton to the servces rendered may be
accorded the ehect of estabshng an
empoyer-empoyee reatonshp between them
n the ega or technca sense of the term. A
ne must be drawn somewhere, f the
recognzed dstncton between an empoyee
and an ndvdua contractor s not to vansh
atogether. Reastcay, t woud be a rare
contract of servce that gves untrammeed
freedom to the party hred and eschews any
nterventon whatsoever n hs performance of
the engagement.
Logcay, the ne shoud be drawn between
rues that merey serve as gudenes towards
the achevement of the mutuay desred resut
wthout dctatng the means or methods to be
empoyed n attanng t, and those that contro
or x the methodoogy and bnd or restrct the
party hred to the use of such means. The rst,
whch am ony to promote the resut, create no
empoyer-empoyee reatonshp unke the
second, whch address both the resut and the
means used to acheve t. x x x.
33
The man determnant therefore s whether the rues
set by the empoyer are meant to contro not |ust the
resuts of the work but aso the means and method to
be used by the hred party n order to acheve such
resuts. Thus, n ths case, we are to examne the
factors enumerated by pettoner to see f these are
merey gudenes or f they ndeed fu the
requrements of the contro test.
Pettoner beeves that respondents acts are meant to
contro how she executes her work. We do not agree. A
carefu examnaton reveas that the factors
enumerated by the pettoner are nherent condtons n
runnng a newspaper. In other words, the so-caed
contro as to tme, space, and dscpne are dctated by
the very nature of the newspaper busness tsef.
We agree wth the observatons of the Omce of the
Soctor Genera that:
The Inqurer s the pubsher of a newspaper of
genera crcuaton whch s wdey read
throughout the country. As such, pubc nterest
dctates that every artce appearng n the
newspaper shoud subscrbe to the standards
set by the Inqurer, wth ts thousands of
readers n mnd. It s not, therefore, unusua for
the Inqurer to contro what woud be pubshed
n the newspaper. What s mportant s the fact
that such contro pertans ony to the end
resut, .e., the submtted artces. The Inqurer
has no contro over |pettoner| as to the
means or method used by her n the
preparaton of her artces. The artces are
done by |pettoner| hersef wthout any
nterventon from the Inqurer.
34
Pettoner has not shown that PDI, actng through ts
edtors, dctated how she was to wrte or produce her
artces each week. Asde from the constrants
presented by the space aocaton of her coumn, there
were no restrants on her creatvty; pettoner was free
to wrte her coumn n the manner and stye she was
accustomed to and to use whatever research method
she deemed sutabe for her purpose. The apparent
mtaton that she had to wrte ony on sub|ects that
betted the Lfestye secton dd not transate to
contro, but was smpy a ogca consequence of the
fact that her coumn appeared n that secton and
therefore had to cater to the preference of the readers
of that secton.
The perceved constrant on pettoners coumn was
dctated by her own choce of her coumns
perspectve. The coumn tte "Femnst Reectons"
was of her own choosng, as she hersef admtted,
snce she had been known as a femnst wrter.
35
Thus,
respondent PDI, as we as her readers, coud
reasonaby expect her coumns to speak from such
perspectve.
Contrary to pettoners protestatons, t does not
appear that there was any actua restrant or mtaton
on the sub|ect matter - wthn the Lfestye secton -
that she coud wrte about. Respondent PDI dd not
dctate how she wrote or what she wrote n her coumn.
Nether dd PDIs gudenes dctate the knd of
research, tme, and ehort she put nto each coumn. In
fact, pettoner hersef sad that she receved "no
comments on her artces.except for her to shorten
them to t nto the box aotted to her coumn."
Therefore, the contro that PDI exercsed over
pettoner was ony as to the nshed product of her
ehorts, .e., the coumn tsef, by way of ether
shortenng or outrght re|ecton of the coumn.
The newspapers power to approve or re|ect
pubcaton of any specc artce she wrote for her
coumn cannot be the contro contempated n the
"contro test," as t s but ogca that one who
commssons another to do a pece of work shoud have
the rght to accept or re|ect the product. The mportant
factor to consder n the "contro test" s st the
eement of contro over how the work tsef s done, not
|ust the end resut thereof.
In contrast, a reguar reporter s not as ndependent n
dong hs or her work for the newspaper. We note the
common practce n the newspaper busness of
assgnng ts reguar reporters to cover specc
sub|ects, geographca ocatons, government agences,
or areas of concern, more commony referred to as
"beats." A reporter must produce stores wthn hs or
her partcuar beat and cannot swtch to another beat
wthout permsson from the edtor. In most
newspapers aso, a reporter must nform the edtor
about the story that he or she s workng on for the day.
The story or artce must aso be submtted to the
edtor at a speced tme. Moreover, the edtor can
easy pu out a reporter from one beat and ask hm or
her to cover another beat, f the need arses.
Ths s not the case for pettoner. Athough pettoner
had a weeky deadne to meet, she was not precuded
from submttng her coumn ahead of tme or from
submttng coumns to be pubshed at a ater tme.
More mportanty, respondents dd not dctate upon
pettoner the sub|ect matter of her coumns, but ony
mposed the genera gudene that the artce shoud
conform to the standards of the newspaper and the
genera tone of the partcuar secton.
Where a person who works for another performs hs |ob
more or ess at hs own peasure, n the manner he
sees t, not sub|ect to dente hours or condtons of
work, and s compensated accordng to the resut of hs
ehorts and not the amount thereof, no empoyer-
empoyee reatonshp exsts.
36
Asde from the contro test, ths Court has aso used the
economc reaty test. The economc reates prevang
wthn the actvty or between the partes are
examned, takng nto consderaton the totaty of
crcumstances surroundng the true nature of the
reatonshp between the partes.
37
Ths s especay
approprate when, as n ths case, there s no wrtten
agreement or contract on whch to base the
reatonshp. In our |ursdcton, the benchmark of
economc reaty n anayzng possbe empoyment
reatonshps for purposes of appyng the Labor Code
ought to be the economc dependence of the worker on
hs empoyer.
38
Pettoners man occupaton s not as a coumnst for
respondent but as a womens rghts advocate workng
n varous womens organzatons.
39
Lkewse, she
hersef admts that she aso contrbutes artces to
other pubcatons.
40
Thus, t cannot be sad that
pettoner was dependent on respondent PDI for her
contnued empoyment n respondents ne of
busness.
41

The nevtabe concuson s that pettoner was not
respondent PDIs empoyee but an ndependent
contractor, engaged to do ndependent work.
There s no nexbe rue to determne f a person s an
empoyee or an ndependent contractor; thus, the
characterzaton of the reatonshp must be made
based on the partcuar crcumstances of each case.
42

There are severa factors
43
that may be consdered by
the courts, but as we aready sad, the rght to contro
s the domnant factor n determnng whether one s
an empoyee or an ndependent contractor.
44
In our |ursdcton, the Court has hed that an
ndependent contractor s one who carres on a dstnct
and ndependent busness and undertakes to perform
the |ob, work, or servce on ones own account and
under ones own responsbty accordng to ones own
manner and method, free from the contro and
drecton of the prncpa n a matters connected wth
the performance of the work except as to the resuts
thereof.
45
On ths pont, "on*a v. AB")CBN Broadcasting
Corporation
46
s enghtenng. In that case, the Court
found, usng the four-fod test, that pettoner, |ose Y.
Sonza, was not an empoyee of ABS-CBN, but an
ndependent contractor. Sonza was hred by ABS-CBN
due to hs "unque sks, taent and ceebrty status not
possessed by ordnary empoyees," a crcumstance
that, the Court sad, was ndcatve, though not
concusve, of an ndependent contractua reatonshp.
Independent contractors often present themseves to
possess unque sks, expertse or taent to dstngush
them from ordnary empoyees.
47
The Court aso found
that, as to payment of wages, Sonzas taent fees were
the resut of negotatons between hm and ABS-CBN.
48

As to the power of dsmssa, the Court found that the
terms of Sonzas engagement were dctated by the
contract he entered nto wth ABS-CBN, and the same
contract provded that ether party may termnate the
contract n case of breach by the other of the terms
thereof.
49
However, the Court hed that the foregong
are not determnatve of an empoyer-empoyee
reatonshp. Instead, t s st the power of contro that
s most mportant.
On the power of contro, the Court found that n
performng hs work, Sonza ony needed hs sks and
taent - how he devered hs nes, appeared on
teevson, and sounded on rado were outsde ABS-
CBNs contro.
50
Thus:
We nd that ABS-CBN was not nvoved n the
actua performance that produced the nshed
product of SONZAs work. ABS-CBN dd not
nstruct SONZA how to perform hs |ob. ABS-
CBN merey reserved the rght to modfy the
program format and artme schedue "for more
ehectve programmng." ABS-CBNs soe
concern was the quaty of the shows and ther
standng n the ratngs. Ceary, ABS-CBN dd
not exercse contro over the means and
methods of performance of SONZAs work.
SONZA cams that ABS-CBNs power not to
broadcast hs shows proves ABS-CBNs power
over the means and methods of the
performance of hs work. Athough ABS-CBN dd
have the opton not to broadcast SONZAs
show, ABS-CBN was st obgated to pay
SONZAs taent fees... Thus, even f ABS-CBN
was competey dssatsed wth the means
and methods of SONZAs performance of hs
work, or even wth the quaty or product of hs
work, ABS-CBN coud not dsmss or even
dscpne SONZA. A that ABS-CBN coud do s
not to broadcast SONZAs show but ABS-CBN
must st pay hs taent fees n fu.
Ceary, ABS-CBNs rght not to broadcast
SONZAs show, burdened as t was by the
obgaton to contnue payng n fu SONZAs
taent fees, dd not amount to contro over the
means and methods of the performance of
SONZAs work. ABS-CBN coud not termnate or
dscpne SONZA even f the means and
methods of performance of hs work - how he
devered hs nes and appeared on teevson -
dd not meet ABS-CBNs approva. Ths proves
that ABS-CBNs contro was mted ony to the
resut of SONZAs work, whether to broadcast
the na product or not. In ether case, ABS-
CBN must st pay SONZAs taent fees n fu
unt the expry of the Agreement.
In +aughan, et al. v. ,arner, et al., the Unted
States Crcut Court of Appeas rued that
vaudeve performers were ndependent
contractors athough the management
reserved the rght to deete ob|ectonabe
features n ther shows. Snce the management
dd not have contro over the manner of
performance of the sks of the artsts, t coud
ony contro the resut of the work by deetng
ob|ectonabe features.
SONZA further contends that ABS-CBN
exercsed contro over hs work by suppyng a
equpment and crew. No doubt, ABS-CBN
supped the equpment, crew and artme
needed to broadcast the "Me & |ay" programs.
However, the equpment, crew and artme are
not the "toos and nstrumentates" SONZA
needed to perform hs |ob. What SONZA
prncpay needed were hs taent or sks and
the costumes necessary for hs appearance.
Even though ABS-CBN provded SONZA wth
the pace of work and the necessary
equpment, SONZA was st an ndependent
contractor snce ABS-CBN dd not supervse
and contro hs work. ABS-CBNs soe concern
was for SONZA to dspay hs taent durng the
arng of the programs.
A rado broadcast specast who works under
mnma supervson s an ndependent
contractor. SONZAs work as teevson and
rado program host requred speca sks and
taent, whch SONZA admttedy possesses. The
records do not show that ABS-CBN exercsed
any supervson and contro over how SONZA
utzed hs sks and taent n hs shows.
51
The nstant case presents a parae to "on*a. Pettoner
was engaged as a coumnst for her taent, sk,
experence, and her unque vewpont as a femnst
advocate. How she utzed a these n wrtng her
coumn was not sub|ect to dctaton by respondent. As
n "on*a, respondent PDI was not nvoved n the actua
performance that produced the nshed product. It ony
reserved the rght to shorten pettoners artces based
on the newspapers capacty to accommodate the
same. Ths fact, we note, was not unque to pettoners
coumn. It s a reaty n the newspaper busness that
space constrants often dctate the ength of artces
and coumns, even those that reguary appear theren.
Furthermore, respondent PDI dd not suppy pettoner
wth the toos and nstrumentates she needed to
perform her work. Pettoner ony needed her taent
and sk to come up wth a coumn every week. As
such, she had a the toos she needed to perform her
work.
Consderng that respondent PDI was not pettoners
empoyer, t cannot be hed guty of ega dsmssa.
+,E%E-O%E, the foregong premses consdered, the
Petton s DI&)I&&ED. The Decson and Resouton of
the Court of Appeas n CA-G.R. SP No. 50970 are
hereby A--I%)ED.
&O O%DE%ED.
_________________________________
G'%' $o' .95:5. A343st 06, 01.5
$AT,A$IEL $' DO$GO$, PETITIONER,
vs.
%APID )OVE%& A$D -O%+A%DE%& CO', I$C',
A$D"O% $ICA$O% E' 8AO, 8%', RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
BE%&A)I$, J.:
The prerogatve of the empoyer to dsmss an
empoyee on the ground of wfu dsobedence to
company poces must be exercsed n good fath and
wth due regard to the rghts of abor.
The Case
By petton for revew on certorar, pettoner appeas
the adverse decson promugated on October 24,
2003,
1
whereby the Court of Appeas (CA) set asde the
decson dated |une 17, 2002 of the Natona Labor
Reatons Commsson (NLRC) n hs favor.
2
The NLRC
had thereby reversed the rung dated September 10,
2001 of the Labor Arbter dsmssng hs compant for
ega dsmssa.
3
Antecedents
The foowng background facts of ths case are stated
n the CAs assaed decson, vz:
From the records, t appears that pettoner Rapd s
engaged n the haung and truckng busness whe
prvate respondent Nathane T. Dongon s a former
truck heper eadman.
Prvate respondents area of assgnment s the Tanduay
Ots Warehouse where he has a |ob of factatng the
oadng and unoadng |of the| pettoners trucks. On
23 Apr 2001, prvate respondent and hs drver,
Vcente Varuz, were n the vcnty of Tanduay as they
tred to get some goods to be dstrbuted to ther
cents.
Tanduays securty guard caed the attenton of prvate
respondent as to the fact that Mr. Varuz|s| was not
wearng an Identcaton Card (I.D. Card). Prvate
respondent, then, assured the guard that he w secure
a speca permsson from the management to warrant
the ordery reease of goods.
Instead of compyng wth hs compromse, prvate
respondent ent hs I.D. Card to Varuz; and by reason
of such msrepresentaton , prvate respondent and Mr.
Varuz got a cearance from Tanduay for the reease of
the goods. However, the securty guard, who saw the
msrepresentaton commtted by prvate respondent
and Mr. Varuz, accosted them and reported the
matter to the management of Tanduay.
On 23 May 2001, after conductng an admnstratve
nvestgaton, prvate respondent was dsmssed from
the pettonng Company.
On 01 |une 2001, prvate respondent ed a Compant
for Iega Dsmssa. x x x
4
In hs decson, the Labor Arbter dsmssed the
compant, and rued that respondent Rapd Movers
and Forwarders Co., Inc. (Rapd Movers) rghty
exercsed ts prerogatve to dsmss pettoner,
consderng that: (1) he had admtted endng hs
company ID to drver Vcente Varuz; (2) hs act had
consttuted menta dshonesty and decet amountng to
breach of trust; (3) Rapd Movers reatonshp wth
Tanduay had been |eopardzed by hs act; and (4) he
had been banned from a the warehouses of Tanduay
as a resut, eavng Rapd Movers wth no avaabe |ob
for hm.
5
On appea, however, the NLRC reversed the Labor
Arbter, and hed that Rapd Movers had not dscharged
ts burden to prove the vadty of pettoners dsmssa
from hs empoyment. It opned that Rapd Movers dd
not suher any pecunary damage from hs act; and that
hs dsmssa was a penaty dsproportonate to the act
of pettoner companed of. It awarded hm backwages
and separaton pay n eu of renstatement, to wt:
WHEREFORE, the decson appeaed from s REVERSED
and SET ASIDE and a new one ENTERED orderng the
payment of hs backwages from Apr 25, 2001 up to
the naty of ths decson and n eu of renstatement,
he shoud be pad hs separaton pay from date of hre
on May 2, 1994 up to the naty hereof.
SO ORDERED.
6
Rapd Movers brought a petton for certorar n the CA,
averrng grave abuse of dscreton on the part of the
NLRC, to wt:
I.
x x x IN STRIKING DOWN THE DISMISSAL OF THE
PRIVATE RESPONDENT |AS| ILLEGAL ALLEGEDLY FOR
BEING GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE OFFENSE
COMMITTED IN THAT NEITHER THE PETITIONERS NOR
ITS CLIENT TANDUAY SUFFERED ANY PECUNIARY
DAMAGE THEREFROM THEREBY IMPLYING THAT FOR A
DISHONEST ACT/MISCONDUCT TO BE A GROUND FOR
DISMISSAL OF AN EMPLOYEE, THE SAME MUST AT
LEAST HAVE RESULTED IN PECUNIARY DAMAGE TO THE
EMPLOYER;
II.
x x x IN EXPRESSING RESERVATION ON THE GUILT OF
THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT IN THE LIGHT OF ITS
PERCEIVED CONFLICTING DATES OF THE LETTER OF
TANDUAY TO RAPID MOVERS (|ANUARY 25, 2001) AND
THE OCCURRENCE OF THE INCIDENT ON APRIL 25,
2001 WHEN SAID CONFLICT OF DATES CONSIDERING
THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, WAS MORE APPARENT
THAN REAL.
7
Rung of the CA
On October 24, 2003, the CA promugated ts assaed
decson renstatng the decson of the Labor Arbter,
and uphodng the rght of Rapd Movers to dscpne
ts workers, hodng thusy:
There s no dspute that the prvate respondent ent hs
I.D. Card to another empoyee who used the same n
enterng the compound of the pettoner customer,
Tanduay. Consderng that ths amounts to dshonesty
and s provded for n the pettonng Companys
Manua of Dscpne, ts mposton s but proper and
approprate.
It s basc n any enterprse that an empoyee has the
obgaton of foowng the rues and reguatons of ts
empoyer. More basc further s the eementary
obgaton of an empoyee to be honest and truthfu n
hs work. It shoud be noted that honesty s one of the
foremost crtera of an empoyer when hrng a
prospectve empoyee. Thus, we see empoyers
requrng an NBI cearance or poce cearance before
formay acceptng an appcant as ther empoyee.
Such rues and reguatons are necessary for the
emcent operaton of the busness.
Empoyees who voate such rues and reguatons are
abe for the penates and sanctons so provded, e.g.,
the Companys Manua of Dscpne (as n ths case)
and the Labor Code.
The argument of the respondent commsson that no
pecunary damage was sustaned s oh-tangent wth
the facts of the case. The act of endng an ID s an act
of dshonesty to whch no pecunary estmate can be
ascrbed for the smpe reason that no monetary
equaton s nvoved. What s nvoved s pan and
smpe adherence to truth and voaton of the rues.
The act of utterng or the makng of a fasehood does
not need any pecunary estmate for the act to gestate
to one punshabe under the abor aws. In ths case,
the ega use of the I.D. Card whe t may appear to
be ntay trva s of cruca reevance to the
pettoners customer, Tanduay, whch deas wth
drvers and eadmen wthdrawng goods and
merchandse from ts warehouse. For those wth
crmna ntentons can use anothers ID to asport
goods and merchandse.
Hence, whe t can be conceded that there s no
pecunary damage nvoved, the fact remans that the
ohense does not ony consttute dshonesty but aso
wfu dsobedence to the awfu order of the
Company, e.g., to observe at a tme the terms and
condtons of the Manua of Dscpne. Artce 282 of
the Labor Code provdes:
"Termnaton by Empoyer - An empoyer may
termnate an empoyment for any of the foowng
causes:
(a) Serous msconduct or wfu dsobedence by the
empoyee of the awfu orders of hs empoyer or
representatve n connecton wth hs work;
x x x." (Emphass, supped)
The consttutona protecton ahorded to abor does not
condone wrongdongs by the empoyee; and an
empoyers power to dscpne ts workers s nherent
to t. As honesty s aways the best pocy, the Court s
convnced that the rung of the Labor Arbter s more n
accord wth the sprt of the Labor Code. "The
Consttutona pocy of provdng fu protecton to abor
s not ntended to oppress or destroy management
(Cap vs. NLRC, 270 SCRA 488|1997|." Aso, n Atas
Fertzer Corporaton vs. NLRC, 273 SCRA 549 |1997|,
the Hghest Magstrate decared that "The aw, n
protectng the rghts of the aborers, authorzes nether
oppresson nor sef-destructon of the empoyer."
WHEREFORE, premses consdered, the Petton s
GRANTED. The assaed 17 |une 2002 Decson of
respondent Commsson n NLRC CA-029937-01 s
hereby SET ASIDE and the 10 September 2001
Decson of Labor Arbter Vcente R. Layawen s ordered
REINSTATED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
8
Pettoner moved for a reconsderaton, but the CA
dened hs moton on March 22, 2004.
9
Undaunted, the pettoner s now on appea.
Issue
Pettoner st asserts the egaty of hs dsmssa, and
denes beng guty of wfu dsobedence. He contends
that:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED
ITS DISCRETION IN SUSTAINING THE DECISION DATED
10 SEPTEMBER 2001 OF LABOR ARBITER VICENTE R.
LAYAWEN WHERE THE LATTER RULED THAT BY
LENDING HIS ID TO VILLARUZ, PETITIONER
(COMPLAINANT) COMMITTED MISREPRESENTATION AND
DECEIT CONSTITUTING MENTAL DISHONESTY WHICH
CANNOT BE DISCARDED AS INSIGNIFICANT OR
TRIVIAL.
10
Pettoner argues that hs dsmssa was dscrmnatory
because Varuz was retaned n hs empoyment as
drver; and that the CA gravey abused ts dscreton n
dsregardng hs showng that he dd not voate Rapd
Movers rues and reguatons but smpy performed hs
work n ne wth the dutes entrusted to hm, and n not
apprecatng hs good fath and ack of any ntenton to
wfuy dsobey the companys rues.
In ts comment,
11
Rapd Movers prays that the petton
for certorar be dsmssed for beng an mproper
remedy and apparenty resorted to as a substtute for a
ost appea; and nssts that the CA dd not commt
grave abuse of dscreton.-.(phi-
In hs repy,
12
pettoner submts that hs dsmssa was
a penaty too harsh and dsproportonate to hs
supposed voaton; and that hs dsmssa was
napproprate due to the voaton beng hs rst
nfracton that was even commtted n good fath and
wthout mace.
Based on the partes foregong submssons, the ssues
to be resoved are, rsty: Was the petton mproper
and dsmssbe?; and, secondy: If the petton coud
prosper, was the dsmssa of pettoner on the ground
of wfu dsobedence to the company reguaton
awfu?
Rung
The petton has mert.
1.
Petton shoud not be dsmssed
In St. Martn Funera Home v. Natona Labor Reatons
Commsson,
13
the Court has cared that partes
seekng the revew of decsons of the NLRC shoud e
a petton for certorar n the CA on the ground of
grave abuse of dscreton amountng to ack or excess
of |ursdcton on the part of the NLRC. Thereafter, the
remedy of the aggreved party from the CA decson s
an appea va petton for revew on certorar.
14
The petton ed here s sef-styed as a petton for
revew on certorar, but Rapd Movers ponts out that
the petton was reay one for certorar under Rue 65
of the Rues of Court due to ts bass beng the
commsson by the CA of a grave abuse of ts dscreton
and because the petton was ed beyond the
regementary perod of appea under Rue 45. Hence,
Rapd Movers nssts that the Court shoud dsmss the
petton because certorar under Rue 65 coud not be
a substtute of a ost appea under Rue 45.
Ordnary, an orgna acton for certorar w not
prosper f the remedy of appea s avaabe, for an
appea by petton for revew on certorar under Rue
45 of the Rues of Court and an orgna acton for
certorar under Rue 65 of the Rues of Court are
mutuay excusve, not aternatve nor successve,
remedes.
15
On severa occasons, however, the Court
has treated a petton for certorar as a petton for
revew on certorar when: (a) the petton has been
ed wthn the 15-day regementary perod;
16
(b) pubc
wefare and the advancement of pubc pocy dctate
such treatment; (c) the broader nterests of |ustce
requre such treatment; (d) the wrts ssued were nu
and vod; or (e) the questoned decson or order
amounts to an oppressve exercse of |udca
authorty.
17
The Court deems t proper to aow due course to the
petton as one for certorar under Rue 65 n the
broader nterest of substanta |ustce, partcuary
because the NLRCs appeate ad|udcaton was set
asde by the CA, and n order to put at rest the doubt
that the CA, n so dong, exercsed ts |udca authorty
oppressvey. Whether the petton was proper or not
shoud be of ess mportance than whether the CA
gravey erred n undong and settng asde the
determnaton of the NLRC as a revewng forum vs--
vs the Labor Arbter. We note n ths regard that the
NLRC had decared the dsmssa of pettoner to be
harsh and not commensurate to the nfracton
commtted. Gven the sprt and ntenton underyng
our abor aws of resovng a doubtfu stuaton n favor
of the workng man, we w have to revew the
|udgment of the CA to ascertan whether the NLRC had
reay commtted grave abuse of ts dscreton. Ths w
sette the doubts on the proprety of termnatng
pettoner, and at the same tme ensure that |ustce s
served to the partes.
18
2.
Pettoner was not guty of wfu dsobedence; hence,
hs dsmssa was ega
Pettoner mantans that wfu dsobedence coud not
be a ground for hs dsmssa because he had acted n
good fath and wth the soe ntenton of factatng
deveres for Rapd Movers when he aowed Varuz to
use hs company ID.
Wfu dsobedence to the awfu orders of an empoyer
s one of the vad grounds to termnate an empoyee
under Artce 296 (formery Artce 282) of the Labor
Code.
19
For wfu dsobedence to be a ground, t s
requred that: (a) the conduct of the empoyee must be
wfu or ntentona; and (b) the order the empoyee
voated must have been reasonabe, awfu, made
known to the empoyee, and must pertan to the dutes
that he had been engaged to dscharge.
20
Wfuness
must be attended by a wrongfu and perverse menta
atttude renderng the empoyees act nconsstent wth
proper subordnaton.
21
In any case, the conduct of the
empoyee that s a vad ground for dsmssa under the
Labor Code consttutes harmfu behavor aganst the
busness nterest or person of hs empoyer.
22
It s
mped that n every act of wfu dsobedence, the
errng empoyee obtans undue advantage detrmenta
to the busness nterest of the empoyer.
Under the foregong standards, the dsobedence
attrbuted to pettoner coud not be |usty
characterzed as wfu wthn the contempaton of
Artce 296 of the Labor Code. He nether benetted
from t, nor thereby pre|udced the busness nterest of
Rapd Movers. Hs expanaton that hs deed had been
ntended to benet Rapd Movers was credbe. There
coud be no wrong or perversty on hs part that
warranted the termnaton of hs empoyment based on
wfu dsobedence.
Rapd Movers argues, however, that the strct
mpementaton of company rues and reguatons
shoud be accorded respect as a vad exercse of ts
management prerogatve. It posts that t had the
prerogatve to termnate pettoner for voatng ts
foowng company rues and reguatons, to wt:
(a) "Pagpayag sa paggamt ng ba o paggamt
ng mang rekord ng kumpanya kaugnay sa
operatons, mantenance or materyaes o
trabaho" (Addtona Rues and Reguatons No.
2); and
(b) "Pagkutsaba sa pagpano o pagpuong sa
bang tao upang abagn ang anumang
atuntunn ng kumpanya" (Artce 5.28).
23
We cannot sustan the argument of Rapd Movers.
It s true that an empoyer s gven a wde attude of
dscreton n managng ts own ahars. The broad
dscreton ncudes the mpementaton of company
rues and reguatons and the mposton of dscpnary
measures on ts empoyees. But the exercse of a
management prerogatve ke ths s not mtess, but
hemmed n by good fath and a due consderaton of
the rghts of the worker.
24
In ths ght, the management
prerogatve w be uphed for as ong as t s not
weded as an mpement to crcumvent the aws and
oppress abor.
25
To us, dsmssa shoud ony be a ast resort, a penaty
to be meted ony after a the reevant crcumstances
have been apprecated and evauated wth the goa of
ensurng that the ground for dsmssa was not ony
serous but true. The cause of termnaton, to be awfu,
must be a serous and grave mafeasance to |ustfy the
deprvaton of a means of vehood. Ths requrement
s n keepng wth the sprt of our Consttuton and aws
to ean over backwards n favor of the workng cass,
and wth the mandate that every doubt must be
resoved n ther favor.
26
Athough we recognze the nherent rght of the
empoyer to dscpne ts empoyees, we shoud st
ensure that the empoyer exercses the prerogatve to
dscpne humaney and consderatey, and that the
sancton mposed s commensurate to the ohense
nvoved and to the degree of the nfracton. The
dscpne exacted by the empoyer shoud further
consder the empoyees ength of servce and the
number of nfractons durng hs empoyment.
27
The
empoyer shoud never forget that aways at stake n
dscpnng ts empoyee are not ony hs poston but
aso hs vehood,
28
and that he may aso have a
famy entrey dependent on hs earnngs.
29
Consderng that pettoners motve n endng hs
company ID to Varuz was to benet Rapd Movers as
ther empoyer by factatng the oadng of goods at
the Tanduay Ots Warehouse for dstrbuton to Rapd
Movers cents, and consderng aso that pettoner
had rendered seven ong unbemshed years of servce
to Rapd Movers, hs dsmssa was pany
unwarranted. The NLRCs reversa of the decson of the
Labor Arbter by hodng that penaty too harsh and
dsproportonate to the wrong attrbuted to hm was
egay and factuay |usted, not arbtrary or
whmsca. Consequenty, for the CA to pronounce that
the NLRC had thereby gravey abused ts dscreton
was not ony erroneous but was tsef a grave abuse of
dscreton amountng to ack of |ursdcton for not
beng n conformty wth the pertnent aws and
|ursprudence. We have hed that a concuson or
ndng derved from erroneous consderatons s not a
mere error of |udgment but one tanted wth grave
abuse of dscreton.
30
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petton;
REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decson promugated
by the Court of Appeas on October 24, 2003;
REINSTATES the decson of the Natona Labor
Reatons Commsson rendered on |une 17, 2002; and
ORDERS respondents to pay the costs of sut.
SO ORDERED.
Y;<on4 =s' AB&-CB$
G'%' $o' .6:66/
-!cts*
Pettoner Ernesto G. Ymbong started workng for ABS-
CBN Broadcastng Corporaton (ABS-CBN) n 1993 at ts
regona staton n Cebu as a teevson taent, co-
anchorng %oy /ising and TV Patro Cebu. Hs stnt n
ABS-CBN ater extended to rado when ABS-CBN Cebu
aunched ts AM staton DYAB n 1995 where he worked
as drama and voce taent, spnner, scrptwrter and
pubc ahars program anchor.
Lke Ymbong, Leandro Patanghug aso worked for ABS-
CBN Cebu. Startng 1995, he worked as taent, drector
and scrptwrter for varous rado programs ared over
DYAB.
On |anuary 1, 1996, the ABS-CBN Head Omce
n Mana ssued Pocy No. HR-ER-016 or the "Pocy on
Empoyees Seekng Pubc Omce." The pertnent
portons read:
1. An> e;plo>ee ?ho intends to #3n fo#
!n> p3<lic o@ce position, ;3st Ale his"he# lette#
of #esi4n!tion, at east thrty (30) days pror to the
omca ng of the certcate of canddacy ether for
natona or oca eecton.
x x x x
3. Further, !n> e;plo>ee ?ho intends to Boin
! politic!l 4#o3p"p!#t> o# e=en ?ith no politic!l
!@li!tion <3t ?ho intends to openl> !nd
!44#essi=el> c!;p!i4n fo# ! c!ndid!te o# 4#o3p
of c!ndid!tes (e.g. pubcy speakng/endorsng
canddate, recrutng campagn workers, etc.) ;3st
Ale ! #eC3est fo# le!=e of !<sence s3<Bect to
;!n!4e;entDs !pp#o=!l. For ths partcuar reason,
the empoyee shoud e the eave request at east
thrty (30) days pror to the start of the panned eave
perod.
x x x x |Emphass and underscorng supped.|
Because of the mpendng May 1998 eectons and
based on hs mmedate recoecton of the pocy at
that tme, Dante Luzon, Assstant Staton Manager of
DYAB ssued the foowng memorandum:
TO : ALL CONCERNED
FROM : DANTE LUZON
DATE : MARCH 25, 1998
SUB|ECT : AS STATED
Pease be nformed that per company pocy, !n>
e;plo>ee"t!lent ?ho ?!nts to #3n fo# !n>
position in the co;in4 election ?ill h!=e to Ale !
le!=e of !<sence the ;o;ent he"she Ales his"he#
ce#tiAc!te of c!ndid!c>'
The servces rendered by the concerned
empoyee/taent to ths company w then be
temporary suspended for the entre
campagn/eecton perod.
For strct compance.
After the ssuance of the March 25,
1998 Memorandum, Ymbong got n touch
wth Luzon. Luzon cams that Ymbong approached
hm and tod hm that he woud eave rado for a coupe
of months because he w campagn for the
admnstraton tcket. It was ony after the eectons
that they found out that Ymbong actuay ran for pubc
omce hmsef at the eeventh hour. Ymbong, on the
other hand, cams that n accordance wth the March
25, 1998 Memorandum, he nformed Luzon through a
etter that he woud take a few months eave of
absence from March 8, 1998 to May 18, 1998 snce he
was runnng for councor of Lapu-Lapu Cty.
As regards Patanghug, Patanghug
approached Luzon and advsed hm that he w run as
councor for Naga, Cebu. Accordng to Luzon, he
cared to Patanghug that he w be consdered
resgned and not |ust on eave once he es a
certcate of canddacy.
Later, Ymbong and Patanghug both tred to come
back to ABS-CBN Cebu. Accordng to Luzon, he
nformed them that they cannot work there anymore
because of company pocy. Ths was stressed even n
subsequent meetngs and they were tod that the
company was not aowng any exceptons. ABS-CBN,
however, agreed out of pure beraty to gve them a
chance to wnd up ther partcpaton n the rado
drama, Nagbabagang Langit, snce t was ratng we
and to avod an abrupt endng. The agreed wndng-
up, however, dragged on for so ong
promptng Luzon to ssue to Ymbong the memorandum
dated September 14, 1998 automatcay termnatng
them.
Iss3e*
1. whether Pocy No. HR-ER-016 s vad
2. whether the March 25, 1998 Memorandum ssued
by Luzonsuperseded Pocy No. HR-ER-016
3. whether Ymbong, by seekng an eectve post, s
deemed to have resgned and not dsmssed by ABS-
CBN.
,eld*
1. ABS-CBN had a vad |ustcaton for Pocy
No. HR-ER-016. Its ratonae s emboded n the pocy
tsef, to wt:
Ratonae:
AB&-CB$ B%OADCA&TI$G CO%PO%ATIO$ strongy
beeves that t s to the best nterest of the company
to contnuousy reman apotca. +hile it
enco3#!4es !nd s3ppo#ts its e;plo>ees to h!=e
4#e!te# politic!l !?!#eness !nd fo# the; to
eEe#cise thei# #i4ht to s3F#!4e, the co;p!n>,
ho?e=e#, p#efe#s to #e;!in politic!ll>
independent !nd 3n!tt!ched to !n> politic!l
indi=id3!l o# entit>'
Therefore, e;plo>ees ?ho GintendH to #3n fo#
p3<lic o@ce o# !ccept politic!l !ppoint;ent
sho3ld #esi4n f#o; thei# positions, in o#de# to
p#otect the co;p!n> f#o; !n> p3<lic
;isconceptions' To p#ese#=e its o<Becti=it>,
ne3t#!lit> !nd c#edi<ilit>, the company reterates
the foowng pocy gudenes for strct
mpementaton.
We have consstenty hed that so ong as a companys
management prerogatves are exercsed n good fath
for the advancement of the empoyers nterest and not
for the purpose of defeatng or crcumventng the
rghts of the empoyees under speca aws or under
vad agreements, ths Court w uphod them. In the
nstant case, ABS-CBN vady |usted the
mpementaton of Pocy No. HR-ER-016. It s we
wthn ts rghts to ensure that t mantans ts
ob|ectvty and credbty and freeng tsef from any
appearance of mpartaty so that the condence of
the vewng and stenng pubc n t w not be n any
way eroded. Even as the aw s soctous of the
wefare of the empoyees, t must aso protect the rght
of an empoyer to exercse what are ceary
management prerogatves. The free w of
management to conduct ts own busness ahars to
acheve ts purpose cannot be dened.
It s worth notng that such exercse of management
prerogatve has earned a stamp of approva from no
ess than our Congress tsef when on February 12,
2001, t enacted Repubc Act No. 9006, otherwse
known as the "Far Eecton Act." Secton 6.6 thereof
reads:
6.6. An> ;!ss ;edi! col3;nist, co;;ent!to#,
!nno3nce#, #epo#te#, on-!i# co##espondent o#
pe#son!lit> ?ho is ! c!ndid!te fo# !n> electi=e
p3<lic o@ce o# is ! c!;p!i4n =ol3ntee# fo# o#
e;plo>ed o# #et!ined in !n> c!p!cit> <> !n>
c!ndid!te o# politic!l p!#t> sh!ll <e dee;ed
#esi4ned, if so #eC3i#ed <> thei# e;plo>e#, or sha
take a eave of absence from hs/her work as such
durng the campagn perod: Provided, That any meda
practtoner who s an omca of a potca party or a
member of the campagn stah of a canddate or
potca party sha not use hs/her tme or space to
favor any canddate or potca party. |Emphass and
underscorng supped.|
2. The CA correcty rued that though Luzon, as
Assstant Staton Manager for Rado of ABS-CBN, has
pocy-makng powers n reaton to hs prncpa task of
admnsterng the networks rado staton n
the Cebu regon, the exercse of such power shoud be
n accord wth the genera rues and reguatons
mposed by the ABS-CBN Head Omce to ts empoyees.
Ceary, the March 25, 1998 Memorandum ssued
by Luzon whch ony requres empoyees to go on eave
f they ntend to run for any eectve poston s n
absoute contradcton wth Pocy No. HR-ER-016 ssued
by the ABS-CBN Head Omce n Mana whch requres
the resgnaton, not ony the ng of a eave of
absence, of any empoyee who ntends to run for pubc
omce. Havng been ssued beyond the scope of hs
authorty, the March 25, 1998 Memorandum s
therefore vod and dd not supersede Pocy No. HR-ER-
016.
Aso worth notng s that Luzon n hs Sworn Statement
admtted the naccuracy of hs recoecton of the
company pocy when he ssued the March 25, 1998
Memorandum and stated theren that upon doube-
checkng of the exact text of the pocy statement and
subsequent conrmaton wth the ABS-CBN Head Omce
n Mana, he earned that the pocy requred
resgnaton for those who w actuay run n eectons
because the company wanted to mantan ts
ndependence. Snce the omcer who hmsef ssued
the sub|ect memorandum acknowedged that t s not
n harmony wth the Pocy ssued by the upper
management, there s no reason for t to be a source of
rght for Ymbong.
3. As Pocy No. HR-ER-016 s the subsstng
company pocy and not Luzons March 25, 1998
Memorandum, Ymbong s deemed resgned when he
ran for councor.
We nd no mert n Ymbongs argument that "|hs|
automatc termnaton x x x was a batant |dsregard|
of |hs| rght to due process" as he was "never asked to
expan why he dd not tender hs resgnaton before he
ran for pubc omce as mandated by |the sub|ect
company pocy|." Ymbongs overt act of runnng for
councor of Lapu-Lapu Cty s tantamount to
resgnaton on hs part. He was separated from ABS-
CBN not because he was dsmssed but because he
resgned. Snce there was no termnaton to speak of,
the requrement of due process n dsmssa cases
cannot be apped to Ymbong. Thus, ABS-CBN s not
duty-bound to ask hm to expan why he dd not tender
hs resgnaton before he ran for pubc omce as
mandated by the sub|ect company pocy.
Petton dened.
ARNULFO O. ENDICO, Vs OUANTUM FOODS
DISTRIBUTION CENTER, CARPIO, |.: petton for revew
Ouantum Foods hred Endco as Fed Supervsor of
Davao Cty and was provded a servce vehce. The
agreement was that after ve years of contnuous
servce and payng 10% of the vehces book vaue,
possesson & ownershp woud transfer to Endco. Hs
good performance over the years was noted. Economc
crcumstances and costsavng needs ed Ouantum to
reduce Endcos 12 merchandsers to ve. He was aso
ordered mmedatey reeved and requred to turn over
a company propertes ssued to hm ncudng the
servce vehce. Endco comped wth the advse to
report to the head omce.
A show cause memorandum was ssued regardng
Endcos "serous msconduct due to msmanagement
of saes area resutng to ost saes and goodw wth
number one ma|or account.", referrng to ther SM
Cebu account. On the same day, Endco ed an
appcaton for eave of absence. He aso dened the
aegaton, camng proper coordnaton wth SM.
Endco presented a 3 May 1999 etter , where he
nformed Acuros and the head omce that the SM
account wanted a merchandser assgned to t for a
whoe day coverage and that SM had re|ected the
merchandser assgned to t wth a haf-day schedue.
In another etter dated 7 May 1999, Endco updated the
head omce on the status of the SM account. Endco
camed dena of due process by Ouantum Foods
because he was mmedatey reeved wthout beng
gven the opportunty to expan hs sde. On the same
day, Endco aso wthdrew hs appcaton for eave of
absence.
On 17 |une 1999, Ouantum Foods recaed Endcos
appcaton for eave of absence; requred hm to report
to the head omce, and ssued a Personne Acton
Request for Endcos transfer to the Head Omce st as
Area Saes Manager ehectve 14 |une 1999. Endco
faed to report for work despte two teegrams
drectng hm to report to the head omce.
Endco ed a compant for constructve ega
dsmssa, prayng for the payment of separaton pay,
backwages, other monetary benets, damages,
attorneys fees and recovery of the servce vehce.
The Labor Arbter rendered a decson n Endcos favor.
Ouantum Foods appeaed to the NLRC. The NLRC
amrmed the Labor Arbters decson wth modcaton
that Endco pay 10% of the purchase prce of the
servce vehce. Ouantum Foods ed a moton for
reconsderaton but was dened. Ouantum Foods ed a
petton for certorar before the Court of Appeas. The
Court of Appeas rued n favor of Ouantum Foods.
The Issues rased by Endco are whether:
1. he was constructvey dsmssed;
2. he s entted to separaton pay, backwages, other
monetary benets, damages and attorneys fees; and
3. he s entted to acqure the servce vehce.
The Rung of the Court: petton has no mert.
1. A petton for revew on certorar under Rue 45 s
mted to questons of aw. An excepton s where the
ndngs of the Labor Arbter and the NLRC vary from
the ndngs of the Court of Appeas.
|ursprudence recognzes the exercse of management
prerogatves. Labor aws aso dscourage nterference
wth an empoyers |udgment n the conduct of ts
busness. The Court often decnes to nterfere n
egtmate busness decsons of empoyers, as the aw
must protect not ony the wefare of empoyees, but
aso the rght of empoyers.
In the pursut of ts egtmate busness nterests,
especay durng adverse busness condtons,
management has the prerogatve to transfer or assgn
empoyees but there must be no demoton n rank or
dmnuton of saary, benets and other prveges; and
the acton s not motvated by dscrmnaton, bad fath,
or a form of punshment or demoton wthout sumcent
cause.30 Empoyees have the rght to securty of
tenure but they do not have vested rghts to ther
postons such that management s deprved of ts
prerogatve.
But Managera prerogatves are sub|ect to mtatons
provded by aw, coectve barganng agreements, and
genera prncpes of far pay and |ustce.33 The test
for determnng the vadty of the transfer of
empoyees s 34 as foows:
Xxxxx the empoyer must be abe to show that the
transfer s not unreasonabe, nconvenent or
pre|udca to the empoyee; nor does t nvove a
demoton n rank or a dmnuton of hs saares,
prveges and other benets. Shoud the empoyer fa
to overcome ths burden of proof, the empoyees
transfer sha be tantamount to constructve dsmssa,
whch has been dened as a quttng because
contnued empoyment s rendered mpossbe,
unreasonabe or unkey; as an oher nvovng a
demoton n rank and dmnuton n pay. Lkewse,
constructve dsmssa exsts when an act of cear
dscrmnaton, nsensbty or dsdan by an empoyer
has become so unbearabe to the empoyee eavng
hm wth no opton but to forego wth hs contnued
empoyment.35
The decson of Ouantum Foods to transfer Endco
pendng nvestgaton was a vad exercse of
management prerogatve to dscpne ts empoyees. It
was a preventve measure to avod further oss of saes
and the destructon of Ouantum Foods mage and
goodw. It was not desgned to be the cumnaton of
the on-gong admnstratve nvestgaton.
There was no demoton n rank or any dmnuton of
Endcos saary, prveges and other benets. He was
beng transferred to the head omce wth the same
poston he hed n Cebu. There was aso no proof that
the transfer nvoved a dmnuton of Endcos saary,
prveges and other benets.
On the aeged nconvenence on Endco and hs famy
because of the transfer to the head omce, the transfer
s vad, as there s no showng of bad fath on the part
of Ouantum Foods. Ouantum Foods, consderng the
decnng saes and the oss of a ma|or account n Cebu,
was actng n the egtmate pursut of what t
consdered ts best nterest n decdng to transfer
Endco to the head omce.
Snce we have rued that Ouantum Foods dd not
constructvey dsmss Endco, there s no need to
dscuss the other ssues rased by Endco.
PETITION DENIED AND THE CA DECISION AFFIRMED.