View full case

MARTICIO SEMBLANTE v. CA

FACTS:

Petitioners Marticio Semblante and Dubrick Pilar were hired by respondents-spouses Vicente and Maria Luisa Loot, the owners of Gallera de Mandaue, as the official masiador and sentenciador, respectively, of the cockpit in 1993. Semblante, as the masiador, takes bets, starts the cockfight, and distributes winnings. Pilar, as the sentenciador, oversees the proper gaffing of fighting cocks and declares the result of the cockfight. They were paid weekly salaries of Php 2,000 and Php 3,500, respectively. They worked every Tuesday, Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday, excluding monthly derbies and cockfights held on special holidays. Petitioners were issued employee identification cards. On November 14, 2003, petitioners were denied entry into the cockpit and informed of the termination of their services. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Respondents denied that petitioners were their employees and claimed that they were associates of an independent contractor. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of petitioners, but the NLRC later reversed the decision, stating that there was no employer-employee relationship between petitioners and respondents. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in entertaining an appeal that was not perfected because the appeal bond was filed late.

  2. Whether the petitioners Semblante and Pilar were employees of the respondents under the four-fold test of employment.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that albeit the appeal bond was filed late, the CA did not err in entertaining the appeal because substantial merits of the case warranted the relaxation of the bond requirement.

  2. The Supreme Court found that petitioners Semblante and Pilar were not employees of the respondents, as their relationship did not meet the criteria of the four-fold test of employment: selection and engagement, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and control over the employee's conduct.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Four-fold test of employment: This test includes (1) the selection and engagement of the employee, (2) the payment of wages, (3) the power of dismissal, and (4) the power to control the employee's conduct.

  • Relaxation of technical rules: Technical rules on appeal can be relaxed when strong and compelling reasons, such as the prevention of miscarriage of justice, dictate such action.

  • Substantial compliance: Belated posting of an appeal bond may be deemed as substantial compliance under exceptional circumstances.

  • Independent contractors: Individuals who render services based on their unique skills, expertise, or talent and are free from control in the performance of their work are considered independent contractors, not employees.