FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 126586.
August 25, 2000]
ALEXANDER VINOYA, petitioner,
vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, REGENT FOOD CORPORATION AND/OR
RICKY SEE (PRESIDENT), respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
KAPUNAN, J.:
This treats of a
motion for reconsideration filed by private respondent Regent Food Corporation
(RFC) of our Decision, promulgated on 2 February 2000, which affirmed the
decision of the labor arbiter ordering RFC to reinstate petitioner Alexander
Vinoya to his former position and pay him backwages and other benefits.
In its first
motion for partial reconsideration,[1] filed on 8 March 2000, RFC alleges
that it respects and abides by the finding of the Supreme Court that it is the
employer of petitioner. However, RFC
points out that in view of the existing employment contract between petitioner
and Peninsula Manpower Company, Inc. (PMCI) and the service contract between
RFC and PMCI, both of which have not been declared as void by the Court, RFC
claims that petitioner still appears to be the employee of PMCI, since
petitioner was merely assigned to it by PMCI by virtue of its own declaration
in the aforesaid contracts. Along this
line, RFC argues that since PMCI held itself out to the public as a qualified
and legitimate independent contractor which convinced RFC to enter into a
contract of service with PMCI, when it truth and as held by the Court, it was
not so, PMCI should be made to reimburse RFC of the amount it will pay to
petitioner as the adjudged employer of the latter.
Subsequently, on
24 March 2000, a supplemental motion for reconsideration[2] was filed by RFC. In this motion, RFC pleads that in the event
that the Court sustains its original decision and denies its first partial
motion for reconsideration, it prays that the Court modify the award of
reinstatement of petitioner and instead order the payment of separation pay in
favor of the latter.
In a Resolution,[3] dated 5 April 2000, the Court
required the petitioner to file his comment to the motion for partial
reconsideration filed by RFC. On 12 May
2000, petitioner filed his comment/opposition[4] to the motion for partial
reconsideration. Petitioner argues that
the motion filed by RFC dealt with issues already resolved and discussed by the
Court in its decision. Thus, petitioner
prays that the motion for partial reconsideration be dismissed for lack of
merit.
We have
carefully examined and studied the records of the case but we have found no
reason to modify our finding that RFC is the true employer of petitioner. Indeed, despite the existence of the alleged
contracts of service and employment, the status of petitioner as the employee
of RFC is not affected. As we have
previously held in our 2 February 2000 Decision, RFC is the rightful employer
of petitioner under the four-fold test of employer-employee relations.[5] Moreover, PMCI, based on the
standards set by the Labor Code, is merely a labor-only contractor and, as
such, cannot be properly considered as the employer of petitioner. On this score, we deny the first motion for partial
reconsideration of RFC.
However, we find
merit in the supplemental motion for reconsideration filed by RFC. Previously, we have held that an illegally
dismissed employee is entitled to: (1)
either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is
no longer viable, and (2) backwages.
Private respondent claims that reinstatement is no longer feasible due
to the parties’ strained relations. As
a general rule, strained relations is an issue factual in nature that should be
raised and proved before the Labor Arbiter.[6] However, the case before us
presents peculiar circumstances as the strained relations arose after the
filing of the case. As pointed out by
the private respondent, the antagonistic feelings of the parties towards each
other stemmed from the filing by the petitioner of the complaint before the
labor arbiter and deepened during the eight-year pendency of the case. This fact, petitioner has failed to deny in
his comment to the motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner merely opposes private respondent’s motion for
reconsideration on the ground that the same does not raise any new issues not
resolved in the decision. However, the
issue of strained relations was never squarely dealt with in the decision being
reconsidered. The Court finds that it
would be impractical and not in the best interest of the parties if we insist
that petitioner be reinstated to his former position. Considering further that petitioner’s former position as sales representatives
involves the handling of accounts and other property of RFC, it would not be
equitable on the part of RFC to be forced to maintain petitioner in its employ
since it may only inspire vindictiveness on the part of petitioner. Accordingly in lieu of reinstatement,
payment of separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of
service may be awarded.[7]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion
for reconsideration is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The dispositive portion of the 2 February 2000 decision is hereby
MODIFIED in that private respondent is ordered to pay petitioner separation pay
equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service in lieu of
reinstatement, plus full backwages, without deduction or qualification, counted
from the date of dismissal until the finality of this resolution including
other benefits to which he is entitled under the law.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.