THIRD DIVISION
EMELITA LEONARDO, G.R.
No. 152459
CONRADO BARGAMENTO,
EMELITA NUÑEZ,
Present:
RODOLFO GRABAN, and
ROBERTO GRABAN,
QUISUMBING, J.,
Petitioners,
Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
-
versus -
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS and
DIGITAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Promulgated:
PHILIPPINES, INC.,
Respondents. June 15, 2006
x- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S
I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Before
the Court is a petition for review assailing the
BALTEL
holds the franchise from the
BALTEL
hired Emelita Leonardo, Conrado Bargamento, Emelita Nuñez, Rodolfo Graban, and Roberto Graban (“petitioners”) for various
positions[4] in the
company. On
In
a letter[8] dated P712,471.74.
On
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby entered in favor of the complainants and against respondents Balagtas Telephone System and/or Domingo de Asis and Digital Telecommunications Phils., Inc. ordering the latter, jointly and severally as follows:
1. To
pay the sum of P14,950.00 representing the unpaid salaries of all the
five (5) complainants for the month of February 1994;
2. To
pay another sum of P4,486.44 representing the unpaid overtime pay of
complainants Emelita Leonardo, Conrado Bargamento and Emelita Nuñez for
February 1994;
3. To
pay the sum of P71,400.00 as salary differential of the complainants;
4. To
pay the backwages of all complainants from the date they were dismissed on
February 28, 1994 up to this writing computed in the sum total of P224,250.00,
less their separation pay which they have received;
5. To
pay the sum of P31,508.64 as attorney’s fees which is equivalent to ten
(10%) percent of the amount of the award; and
6. To immediately reinstate all the complainants to their former or equivalent positions under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to their dismissal or separation including payment of their prevailing basic salaries and all other benefits or at the option of the employer merely reinstate in the payroll also with the payment of their salaries and all other benefits in accordance with Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715. Respondents are further ordered to submit upon receipt hereof their compliance with the reinstatement aspect.
SO DECIDED.[10]
DIGITEL appealed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision before the
NLRC. In its
DIGITEL filed a petition for review before this Court. In its
The Ruling
of the Court of Appeals
In its
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE insofar as it held petitioner jointly and severally liable with Balagtas Telephone Company and Domingo de Asis for the obligations of the two to private respondents, with the result that private respondents’ complaint against petitioner before the labor arbiter is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[14]
Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the Court of
Appeals’ Decision. In its
Hence, the petition before this Court.
Petitioners allege that the Court of Appeals erred in
disregarding the factual findings of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC which
should have been given more weight by appellate tribunals.
The
Issues
The
petition raises the following issues:
1. Whether DIGITEL is the successor-in-interest
of BALTEL; and
2. Whether an employer-employee relationship exists between
petitioners and DIGITEL.
The
Ruling of This Court
The petition has no merit.
The Court of Appeals has the power to review the decisions
of the NLRC and to pass upon factual issues raised by the parties. In R & E Transport, Inc. v. Latag,[15] this
Court held:
The power of the CA to review NLRC decisions via a Rule 65 petition is now a settled issue. As early as St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, we have definitively ruled that the proper remedy to ask for the review of a decision of the NLRC is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and that such petition should be filed with the CA in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts. Moreover, it has already been explained that under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa (BP) 129, as amended by Republic Act 7902, the CA – pursuant to the exercise of its original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari – was specifically given the power to pass upon the evidence, if and when necessary, to resolve factual issues.
We
agree with petitioners that factual findings of quasi-judicial and
administrative bodies are accorded great respect and even finality by the
courts. However, this rule is not
absolute. When there is a showing that
the factual findings of administrative bodies were arrived at arbitrarily or in
disregard of the evidence on record, they may be examined by the courts.[16] In this case, the Court of Appeals found
“nothing in the records [to support] the conclusion that DIGITEL became the
‘absolute owner’ of BALTEL or that the former ‘absorbed’ the latter’s
employees.” Hence, the Court of Appeals
is justified in reviewing the factual findings of both the Labor Arbiter and
the NLRC.
DIGITEL is not BALTEL’s
Successor-in-Interest
Petitioners
allege that DIGITEL took over the ownership of BALTEL, and as the new owner,
DIGITEL then absorbed petitioners as employees.
The
Court of Appeals correctly held that DIGITEL is not BALTEL’s
successor-in-interest.
It
is not disputed that BALTEL has the franchise to operate a telephone system in
Balagtas, Bulacan. It is also not
disputed that on
2. Appoints and contracts Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (Digitel for short), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, to provide personnel, consultancy and technical expertise in the management, administration and operation of the telephone service/system in Balagtas, Bulacan; to improve the internal and external plants of such system, provided that any improvement, whether by addition or replacement, shall belong to Digitel unless such improvement(s) is fully reimbursed; to handle customer relations and such other matters necessary for the efficient management and operation of said telephone service/system.
3. Subject to paragraph B, defines the terms of this Appointment and Agreement to one (1) year from date hereof unless renewed for another term at the option of Digitel.
4. Agrees to reimburse Digitel for all expenses incurred in the performance of its aforesaid services provided that such expenses do not exceed the net operating cash revenues of said telephone service/system unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the herein parties in writing.
5. Grants Digitel
the right of first option to buy the franchise and the telephone system,
provided that the purchase shall be subject to the prior approval of the
Municipal Council of Balagtas, Bulacan, the NTC and the DOTC. For this purpose, Digitel shall remit to
Estela de Asis as attorney-in-fact of Domingo de Asis the amount of P415,000.00,
as option money, which shall be deducted from a mutually agreed purchase price
in the event Digitel exercises the option by written notice to Estela or
Domingo de Asis within 180 days from date hereof. In the event there is no agreement on the
purchase price, then such price shall be the net asset value (original cost
less depreciation) of all the serviceable equipment as of the date hereof.[17]
The
contract gives DIGITEL the option to buy BALTEL’s
franchise. However, the records do not
show that DIGITEL exercised the option.
Petitioners failed to show that DIGITEL eventually purchased BALTEL’s franchise and telephone system. The Court also notes that the purchase shall
be subject to the prior approval of the Municipal Council of Balagtas, Bulacan,
the NTC and the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC). The records do not show that DIGITEL sought
the approval of the Municipal Council of Balagtas, Bulacan, the NTC or the DOTC
to purchase BALTEL’s franchise. When BALTEL eventually discontinued its
operations, Estela de Asis informed the NTC of the cessation of its operations.
On
DIGITEL’s continued operations in Balagtas, Bulacan,
we adopt the findings of the Court of Appeals that it is pursuant to a
Financial Lease Agreement[18] entered
into by DOTC and DIGITEL. Under the
Financial Lease Agreement, the DOTC grants DIGITEL the exclusive right to
lease, operate, and develop DOTC’s local exchange
facilities and to perform the telecommunications services in the cities or
municipalities covered by the Financial Lease Agreement. Under Project NTP I-1,[19]
Balagtas, Bulacan is among the municipalities covered by the Financial Lease
Agreement.
There is No
Employer-Employee Relationship
Between DIGITEL and Petitioners
To
determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the Court has to
resolve who has the power to select the employees, who pays for their wages,
who has the power to dismiss them, and who exercises control in the methods and
the results by which the work is accomplished.[20] The most important element of an
employer-employee relationship is the control test. Under the control test, there is an
employer-employee relationship when the person for whom the services are
performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved but also the
manner and means used to achieve that end.[21]
In
this case, DIGITEL undoubtedly has the power of control. However, DIGITEL’s
exercise of the power of control necessarily flows from the exercise of its
responsibilities under the management contract which includes providing for
personnel, consultancy and technical expertise in the management,
administration, and operation of the telephone system. Thus, the control test has no application in
this case.
The
Court notes that DIGITEL did not hire petitioners. BALTEL had already employed petitioners when
BALTEL entered into the management contract with DIGITEL. We also agree with the Court of Appeals that
the fact that DIGITEL uses its payslips does not necessarily imply that DIGITEL
pays petitioners’ salaries. As pointed
out by the Court of Appeals, DIGITEL introduced its own financial and
accounting systems to BALTEL and it included the use of DIGITEL’s
payslips for accounting purposes. The management contract provides that BALTEL
shall reimburse DIGITEL for all expenses incurred in the performance of its
services and this includes reimbursement of whatever amount DIGITEL paid or
advanced to BALTEL’s employees.
Finally,
DIGITEL has no power to dismiss BALTEL’s
employees. When DIGITEL wanted to
dismiss Roberto Graban for habitual tardiness, BALTEL did not approve DIGITEL’s recommendation.
In the end, Roberto Graban was just suspended from work.
In
sum, no employer-employee relationship exists between petitioners and
DIGITEL. Hence, DIGITEL is not
solidarily liable with BALTEL and Domingo de Asis to petitioners.
WHEREFORE,
we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the
SO
ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz with Associate Justices Ramon Mabutas, Jr. and Roberto A. Barrios, concurring. Rollo, pp. 315-324.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz with Associate Justices Delilah Vidallon Magtolis and Roberto A.
Barrios, concurring.
[3] Also referred to as Domingo Asis.
[4] Emelita Leonardo was hired in 1988 as telephone operator; Conrado Bargamento was hired in 1977 as collector; Emelita Nuñez was hired in 1984 as telephone operator; Rodolfo Graban was hired in 1971 as telephone lineman and Roberto Graban was hired in 1990 as telephone lineman. Rollo, pp. 315-316.
[5]
[6] The agreement was signed by Estela L. de Asis, attorney-in-fact of Domingo de Asis who owns the franchise to operate the telephone system.
[7] Denominated as “Appointment and Agreement.”
[8] Signed by Estela de Asis. Rollo, p. 107.
[9]
[10]
[11] Penned by Commissioner Vicente S.E. Veloso with Commissioner Alberto R. Quimpo, concurring. CA rollo, pp. 16-22.
[12] Penned by Commissioner Vicente S.E. Veloso with Commissioners Rogelio L. Rayala
and Alberto R. Quimpo, concurring.
[13] 356 Phil. 811 (1998).
[14] Rollo, pp. 323-324.
[15]
G.R. No. 155214,
[16]
[17] Rollo, pp. 92-93.
[18]
[20] Miguel v. JCT Group, Inc.,
G.R. No. 157752,
[21] Abante, Jr. v. Lamadrid Bearing & Parts Corporation, G.R. No. 159890, 28 May 2004, 430 SCRA 368.