View full case

DEALCO FARMS v. NLRC

FACTS:

The petitioner, Dealco Farms, Inc., is a corporation engaged in the importation, production, fattening, and distribution of live cattle. It imports cattle from Australia and transports them to its farms in Polomolok, South Cotabato, or in Magalang, Pampanga, for fattening. The respondents, Albert Caban and Chiquito Bastida, were hired by the petitioner as escorts or "comboys" for the transit of live cattle from General Santos City to Manila. Their work involved tending to the cattle during transportation, which included feeding and showering them. Upon arrival in Manila, the cattle are turned over to the buyers or customers of the petitioner. Respondents were paid P1,500.00 for every round trip travel, which typically lasted 12 days. Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioner, claiming that they were replaced without cause and without due process. The petitioner argues that respondents were not employees but independent contractors, providing "comboy" services on a per-trip basis. The petitioner denies the existence of an employer-employee relationship with respondents.

The case involves respondents who were hired by the petitioner as caretakers or "comboys" for the transportation of cattle from General Santos City to Manila. Petitioner admits to engaging the services of respondents on a per trip basis and paying them a certain amount per trip. However, petitioner argues that respondents were independent contractors and not employees. The Labor Arbiter found that respondents were indeed employees of petitioner as evidenced by the control and supervision exercised by petitioner over respondents' work. It was also established that the transportation of cattle was an essential aspect of petitioner's business. The Labor Arbiter granted respondents' claim for separation pay, COLA, and union service fees but denied their claim for backwages, 13th month pay, salary differential, service incentive leave pay, and damages. The denial of backwages was based on respondents' indication that they did not want to be reinstated and instead requested for separation pay. The denial of other labor standard claims was also explained.

The respondents were engaged by the petitioner as escorts of cattle shipped from General Santos to Manila. The respondents were paid a fee of P1,500.00 per trip or an average of P3,000.00 for a twelve-day work period. After some time, the respondents filed a complaint against the petitioner claiming their entitlement to 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, salary differentials, and damages. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondents, finding that an employer-employee relationship existed between the parties. The Labor Arbiter ordered the petitioner to pay the respondents their separation pay, cost of living allowance (COLA), and union service fees, amounting to a total of P41,580.00. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's ruling, finding no cogent reason to disturb the previous findings on the existence of an employer-employee relationship based on the facts and evidence presented.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion when it dismissed the petition for certiorari based on technical rules of procedure.

  2. Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it affirmed the Labor Arbiter's ruling on the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties.

  3. Corollary thereto, whether the NLRC gravely erred when it affirmed the Labor Arbiter's finding that respondents were illegally dismissed by petitioner and the consequent award of money claims to respondents.

  4. Whether or not petitioner complied with the requisites for filing a petition for certiorari.

  5. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed an error in denying due course to and dismissing the petition for certiorari.

  6. Whether petitioner failed to prove payment of respondents' services by any of the supposed traders or that said traders actually shipped livestock.

  7. Whether the affidavits of Maquinsay and Parrocha bear more weight than the claims of respondents in their complaint and position paper.

  8. Whether respondents attained regular employee status even if their task is not part of petitioner's regular course of business.

  9. Whether the NLRC decision in NLRC CA No. M-005974-2000 (RAB-11-10-50453-99) should be affirmed.

RULING:

  1. The Court agrees with the appellate court's dismissal of the petition for certiorari. The dismissal was based on the procedural flaws committed by the petitioner, specifically the failure to attach other material portions of the record to the petition and the lack of a written explanation for not resorting to personal service, as required by the rules of procedure.

  2. The petitioner did not comply with the requisites for filing a petition for certiorari as stated in the Rules of Court. The failure to attach copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent to the petition for certiorari is a ground for the dismissal of the petition.

  3. The Court of Appeals did not commit an error in denying due course to and dismissing the petition for certiorari due to its procedural defects. The petitioner's failure to attach relevant pleadings and documents warranted the dismissal of the petition.

  4. The lack of documentary evidence and failure to prove payment of respondents' services and engagement by supposed traders or shippers will be taken against petitioner. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC's finding that petitioner failed to substantiate its allegation on the relationship between the parties is upheld.

  5. The affidavits of Maquinsay and Parrocha do not bear more weight than the claims of respondents. The doubts reasonably arising from the evidence should be resolved in favor of the laborer. Petitioner's self-serving contention is rejected.

  6. Respondents attained regular employee status with respect to the escort or "comboy" activity for which they had been engaged since 1993 and 1994. Even if the task is not part of petitioner's regular course of business, it does not preclude respondents from attaining regular employee status.

  7. The NLRC decision in NLRC CA No. M-005974-2000 (RAB-11-10-50453-99) is affirmed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Compliance with procedural rules is essential in the proper handling and disposition of cases.

  • Dismissal of a petition for certiorari based on procedural flaws is not considered a grave abuse of discretion.

  • Failure to attach necessary documents and provide a written explanation for not resorting to personal service can be fatal to the petitioner's case.

  • Factual findings of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded respect and finality, and bind the Court when supported by substantial evidence.

  • The Court is not a trier of facts and may only resolve factual issues when the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Labor Arbiter are inconsistent with those of the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals.

  • In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the control test is the most important element. The control test merely calls for the existence of the right to control, and not necessarily the exercise thereof.

  • Doubts reasonably arising from the evidence should be resolved in favor of the laborer.

  • An employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, regardless of the continuity or brokenness of service.

  • Lack of documentary evidence and failure to prove payment of services will be taken against the party alleging the relationship between the parties.

  • The NLRC decision in labor cases may be subject to review by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.