G.R. No. 182915
December 12, 2011
MARIALY O. SY, et.al, Petitioners, vs. FAIRLAND KNI!RAF !O., IN!., Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 189"58 S#SAN . D$ L$ON, Petitioner, vs. FAIRLAND KNI!RAF !O., IN!., MARIALY O. SYet.al , Respondents.
DECISION D$L !ASILLO, J.:
The issues of labor-onl !ontra!tin" and the a!#uisition of a labor tribunal of $urisdi!tion over the person of a respondent respondent are the %atters %atters up for !onsideratio !onsideration n in these !onsolidated !onsolidated Petitions for Revie& on Certiorari. 'ssailed in (.R. No. )*+) is the a , +//* Resolution) of the Spe!ial Ninth Division of the Court of 'ppeals 0C'1 in C'-(.R. SP No. 2+/3 &hi!h reversed and set aside the 4ul +, +//5 De!ision+ of the C'6s 7irst Division and ordered the ex!lusion of 7airland 8nit!raft Co., In!. 07airland1 fro% the de!isions of the labor tribunals. Said 4ul +, +//5 De!ision, on the other other hand, hand, affir% affir%ed ed the Nove%b Nove%ber er 2/, +//3 +//3 De!isi De!ision on2 and 'u"us 'u"ustt +9, +// +// Resolution3 of the National :abor Relations Co%%ission 0N:RC1 &hi!h, in turn, reversed and set aside the Nove%ber +9, +//2 De!ision of the :abor 'rbiter findin" the dis%issal as valid. On the other hand, assailed in (.R. No. )*9* is the 4ul +/, +// De!ision9 of the C'6s Spe!ial Spe!ial 7or%er Spe!ial Spe!ial Ei"hth Ei"hth Division Division in C'-(.R. C'-(.R. SP No. 2*9/, &hi!h &hi!h affir%ed affir%ed the aforesaid aforesaid Nove%ber Nove%ber 2/, +//3 De!ision De!ision and 'u"ust 'u"ust +9, +// Resolution Resolution of the N:RC. :i;e&i :i;e&ise se assail assailed ed is the O!tob O!tober er ), +// +// C' Resoluti Resolution on5 deni denin" n" the otion otion for Re!onsideration thereto.
On 7ebruar , +//2, =eesan =eesan filed before the Depart%ent Depart%ent of :abor and E%plo%entE%plo%entNational Capital Re"ion 0DO:E-NCR1 a report on its te%porar !losure for a period of not less than six %onths. 's the ∨ers &ere not an%ore allo&ed to ∨ on that sa%e da, the filed on 7ebruar )*, +//2 an '%ended Co%plaint,)/ and on ar!h )2, +//2, another pleadin" entitled '%ended Co%plaints and Position Paper for Co%plainants,)) to in!lude the !har"e !har"e of ille"al ille"al dis%issal dis%issal and i%pleaded i%pleaded 7airland and its %ana"er, Debbie anduabas anduabas 0Debbie1, as additional respondents. ' Noti!e of Aearin")+ &as thereafter sent to =eesan re#uestin" it to appear before :abor 'rbiter Ra%on >alentin C. Rees 0:abor 'rbiter Rees1 on 'pril 2, +//2, at )/B// a.%. On said date and ti%e, 'tt. 'ntonio '. (eroni%o 0'tt. (eroni%o1 appeared as !ounsel for =eesan and re#uested for an extension of ti%e to file his !lient6s position paper.)2 On the next hearin" on 'pril +*, +//2, 'tt. (eroni%o (eroni%o also entered his appearan!e for 7airland and a"ain re#uested for an extension of ti%e to file position paper .)3 On a )9, +//2, 'tt. 'tt. (eroni%o filed t&o separate position papers one for 7airland) and another for Susan<=eesan.)9 The Position Paper for 7airland &as verified b Debbie &hile the one for Susan<=eesan &as verified b Susan. To these pleadin"s, the ∨ers filed a Repl. Repl.)5 'tt. (eroni%o then filed filed a Consolidated Repl)* verified) both b Susan and Debbie. On Nove%ber +, +//2, the ∨ers sub%itted their Re$oinder.+/ Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
On Nove%ber +9, +//2, :abor 'rbiter Rees rendered his De!ision,+) the dispositive portion of &hi!h readsB %&$R$FOR$, pre%ises all !onsidered, $ud"%ent is hereb rendered, as follo&sB
Dis%issin Dis%issin" " the !o%plaint !o%plaint for la!; of %erit %erit and orderin" the respondent respondents s to pa ea!h !o%plainant P,///.// b &a of finan!ial assistan!e. SO ORDERED. ++
Factual Antecedents
R'l()* o+ te Nat(o)al Labor Relat(o)- !omm(--(o)
7airland 7airland is a do%esti! do%esti! !orporation !orporation en"a"ed in "ar%ents "ar%ents business, business, &hile &hile Susan Susan de :eon 0Susan1 is the o&ner
The ∨ers filed their appeal &hi!h &as "ranted b the N:RC. The dispositive portion of the N:RC De!ision+2readsB
On the other hand, the !o%plainin" ∨ers 0the ∨ers1 are se&ers, tri%%ers, helpers, a "uard and a se!retar &ho &ere hired b =eesan. 0na%e of ∨ers o%itted1
%&$R$FOR$, pre%ises !onsidered, the appealed de!ision is hereb set aside and the dis%issal of !o%plainants is de!lared ille"al.
On De!e%ber +2, +//+, ∨ers arial O. S, >iven!ia Penullar, 'urora '"uinaldo, (ina 'niano, (e%%a dela Pe?a and Efre%ia atias filed &ith the 'rbitration 'rbitration @ran!h of the N:RC a Co%plaint Co%plaint for underpa%ent and
Respondents are, therefore, ordered to reinstate !o%plainants to their ori"inal or e#uivalent position &ith full ba!;&a"es &ith le"al interests thereon fro% 7ebruar , +//2, until a!tuall reinstated reinstated and full paid, &ith retention retention of seniorit ri"hts and are further ordered to pa solidaril solidaril to the !o%plainan !o%plainants ts the differen! differen!e e of their underpaid
In the event that reinstate%ent is not possible, respondents are ordered to pa solidaril to !o%plainants their respe!tive separation pas !o%puted as follo&sB
'""rieved, the ∨ers filed before us their Petition for Revie& on Certiorari do!;eted as (.R. No. )*+).
xxxx
Rulin" of the Court of 'ppeals in C'-(.R. SP No. 2*9/
Respondents are li;e&ise ordered to pa ten 0)/1 per!ent of the "ross a&ard as and b &a of attorne6s fees.
=ith re"ard to Susan6s petition, the C' Spe!ial Ninth Division issued on a )), +//9 a Resolution2 te%poraril restrainin" the N:RC fro% enfor!in" its assailed Nove%ber 2/, +//3 De!ision and thereafter the C' Spe!ial Ei"hth Division issued a &rit of preli%inar prohibitor in$un!tion.29 On 4ul +/, +//, the Spe!ial 7or%er Spe!ial Ei"hth Division of the C' resolved the !ase throu"h a De!ision,25 the dispositive portion of &hi!h readsB
SO ORDERED. +3 Aen!e, 'tt. (eroni%o filed a otion for Re!onsideration.+ Ao&ever, 7airland filed another otion for Re!onsideration+9 throu"h 'tt. elina O. Te!son 0'tt. Te!son1 assailin" the $urisdi!tion of the :abor 'rbiter and the N:RC over it, !lai%in" that it &as never su%%oned to appear, attend or parti!ipate in all the pro!eedin"s !ondu!ted therein. It also denied that it en"a"ed the servi!es of 'tt. (eroni%o. The N:RC ho&ever, denied both %otions for la!; of %erit.+5 7airland and Susan thus filed their separate Petitions for Certiorari before the C' do!;eted as C'-(.R. SP No. 2+/3 and C'-(.R. SP No. 2*9/, respe!tivel. Rulin" of the Court of 'ppeals in C'-(.R. SP No. 2+/3 On 4ul +, +//5, the C'6s 7irst Division denied 7airland6s petition.+* It affir%ed the N:RC6s rulin" that the ∨ers &ere ille"all dis%issed and that =eesan and 7airland are solidaril liable to the% as labor-onl !ontra!tor and prin!ipal, respe!tivel. +
2/
7airland filed its otion for Re!onsideration as &ell as a otion for >oluntar Inhibition of 'sso!iate 4usti!es Celia C. :ibrea-:ea"o"o and Re"alado E. aa%bon" fro% handlin" the !ase. 's the otion for >oluntar Inhibition &as "ranted throu"h a Resolution2) dated Nove%ber *, +//5, the !ase &as transferred to the C'6s Spe!ial Ninth Division for resolution of 7airland6s otion for Re!onsideration.2+ 22
On a , +//*, the C'6s Spe!ial Ninth Division reversed the 7irst Division6s rulin". It held that the labor tribunals did not a!#uire $urisdi!tion over the person of 7airland, and even assu%in" the did, 7airland is not liable to the ∨ers sin!e =eesan is not a %ere labor-onl !ontra!tor but a bona fide independent !ontra!tor. The Spe!ial Ninth Division thus annulled and set aside the assailed N:RC De!ision and Resolution insofar as 7airland is !on!erned and ex!luded the latter therefro%. The dispositive portion of said Resolution readsB =AERE7ORE, the otion for Re!onsideration filed b the %ovant is (R'NTED. The 4ul +, +//5 De!ision of the 7irst Division of this Court findin" that the N:RC did not a!t &ith "rave abuse of dis!retion a%ountin" to la!; or ex!ess of $urisdi!tion and denin" the Petition is RE>ERSED and SET 'SIDE. Conse#uentl, the De!ision and Resolution issued b the publi! respondent on Nove%ber 2/, +//3 and 'u"ust +9, +//, respe!tivel, are hereb 'NNF::ED and SET 'SIDE insofar as GitH !on!erns the petitioner 7airland 8nit!raft Co., In!. G&hi!hH is hereb ordered dropped and ex!luded therefro%. SO ORDERED. 23
=AERE7ORE, pre%ises !onsidered, the present petition is hereb DENIED DFE COFRSE and a!!ordin"l DISISSED for la!; of %erit. The De!ision dated Nove%ber 2/, +//3 and Resolution dated 'u"ust +9, +// of the National :abor Relations Co%%ission 0N:RC1 in C' No. /225-/3 0N:RC NCR //-)+-))+3-/+, //-/)-///+5-/2, //-/)-//)2)-/2, //-/)//*+/-/2 and //-/)-/)+3-/21 are hereb '77IRED and FPAE:D. The &rit of preli%inar prohibitor in$un!tion issued b this Court on 4ul )2, +//9 is hereb :I7TED and SET 'SIDE. =ith !ost a"ainst petitioner. SO ORDERED. 2* Susan %oved for re!onsideration2 &hi!h &as denied b the C' in its O!tober ), +// Resolution.3/ Aen!e, she filed before this Court a Petition for Revie& on Certiorari do!;eted as (.R. No. )*9* &hi!h &as denied in this Court6s De!e%ber )9, +// Resolution3) on te!hni!alit and for failure to suffi!ientl sho& an reversible error in the assailed $ud"%ent. Susan and 7airland filed their respe!tive otions for Re!onsideration.3+ @ut before said %otions !ould be resolved, the Court ordered the !onsolidation of Susan6s petition &ith that of the ∨ers.32 Susan6s otion for Re!onsideration of this Court6s De!e%ber )9, +// Resolution in (.R No. )*9* is "ranted. Conse#uentl, her Petition for Revie& on Certiorari is reinstated. =ith Susan and 7airland6s respe!tive otions for Re!onsideration still unresolved, this Court shall first address the%. One of the "rounds for the denial of Susan6s petition &as her failure to indi!ate the date of filin" her otion for Re!onsideration &ith the C' as re#uired under Se!tion 30b1,33 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. Ao&ever, failure to !o%pl &ith the rule on a state%ent of %aterial GdateH in the petition %a be ex!used GifH the Gdate isH evident fro% the re!ords. 3 In the !ase of Susan, re!ords sho& that she re!eived the !op of the De!ision of the C' on 4ul +3, +//. She then ti%el filed her otion for Re!onsideration via re"istered %ail on 'u"ust 5, +// as sho&n b the envelope39 &ith sta%ped re!eipt of the @atan"as Cit Post Offi!e bearin" the date 'u"ust 5, +//. The fa!t of su!h filin" &as also stated in the otion for Extension of Ti%e to 7ile Petition for Revie&35 that she filed before this Court &hi!h for%s part of the
re!ords of this !ase. Aen!e, it is !lear that Susan seasonabl filed her otion for Re!onsideration.
before the N:RC that Ri!hon is alread dead, and in an event, no proper substitution &as ever %ade.
oreover, &hile &e note that Susan6s petition &as also denied on the "round of no reversible error !o%%itted b the C', &e dee% it proper, in the interest of $usti!e, to ta;e a se!ond loo; on the %erits of Susan6s petition and reinstate (.R. No. )*9*. This is also to har%oniJe our rulin" in these !onsolidated petitions and avoid !onfusion that %a arise in their exe!ution. Aen!e, &e "rant Susan6s otion for Re!onsideration and !onse#uentl, reinstate her Petition for Revie& on Certiorari.
The Workers’ Arguments
's to 7airland6s otion for Re!onsideration, &e shall treat the sa%e as its !o%%ent to Susan6s petition, 7airland bein" one of the respondents therein. Issues In (.R. No. )*9*, Susan i%putes upon the C' the follo&in" errorsB I. The Court of 'ppeals erred in findin" that petitioner is a labor-onl !ontra!tor a!tin" as an a"ent of respondent 7airland. II. The Court of 'ppeals erred in findin" that the individual private respondents &ere ille"all dis%issed. III. The Court of 'ppeals erred in not resolvin" the issue raised b petitioner in her repl D'TED 4F:K *, +//9 re"ardin" the propriet of the appeal ta;en b private respondent Ri!hon Caino 'parre &ho &as alread dead prior to the filin" of the %e%orandu% of appeal before the N:RC.3* S'-a)- Ar*'me)t-
Susan insists that the C' erred in rulin" that =eesan is a labor-onl !ontra!tor based on the findin" that its ∨pla!e is o&ned b 7airland. She %aintains that the pla!e is o&ned b De :uxe Shirt 7a!tor, In!. 0De :uxe1 and not b 7airland as sho&n b the Contra!ts of :ease bet&een =eesan and De :uxe. Susan also avers that the C' erred in rulin" that =eesan &as "uilt of ille"al dis%issal. She %aintains that the ter%ination of the ∨ers &as due to finan!ial losses suffered b =eesan as sho&n b various do!u%ents sub%itted b the latter to the tribunals belo&. In fa!t, =eesan sub%itted its Establish%ent Ter%ination Report &ith the DO:E-NCR and sa%e &as dul re!eived b the latter. :astl, Susan ar"ues that the appeal of one of the ∨ers, Ri!hon Caino 'parre 0Ri!hon1, should not have been "iven due !ourse be!ause in the Noti!e of 'ppeal &ith 'ppeal e%orandu% filed &ith the N:RC, a !ertain :uJvilla '. Raon 0:uJvilla1, &hose identit &as never established, si"ned for and on his behalf. Ao&ever, there is no infor%ation sub%itted
The ∨ers !lai% that =eesan is a labor-onl !ontra!tor be!ause it does not have substantial !apital or invest%ent in the for% of tools, e#uip%ent, %a!hineries, and ∨ pre%ises, a%on" others, and that the ∨ers it re!ruited are perfor%in" a!tivities &hi!h are dire!tl related to the "ar%ents business of 7airland. Aen!e, =eesan should be !onsidered as a %ere a"ent of 7airland, &ho shall be responsible to the ∨ers as if the &ere dire!tl e%ploed b it 07airland1.3 The ∨ers also alle"e that the te%porar suspension of operations of =eesan &as %otivated not b a desire to prevent further losses, but to dis!oura"e the ∨ers fro% ventilatin" their !lai%s for non-pa%ent
=hether x x x the de!ision of the National :abor Relations Co%%ission be!a%e final and exe!utorG andH
0b1 The ∨ers re!ruited and pla!ed b su!h person are perfor%in" a!tivities &hi!h are dire!tl related to the prin!ipal business of the e%ploer.
III.
Aere, there is no #uestion that the ∨ers, %a$orit of &ho% are se&ers, &ere re!ruited b Susan<=eesan and that the perfor%ed a!tivities &hi!h are dire!tl related to 7airland6s prin!ipal business of "ar%ents. =hat %ust be deter%ined is &hether Susan<=eesan has substantial !apital or invest%ent in the for% of tools, e#uip%ent, %a!hineries, ∨ pre%ises, a%on" others.
=hether x x x respondent is solidaril liable &ith =EES'N ('RENT< SFS'N DE :EONG.H
3
The Workers’ Arguments
The ∨ers !ontend that the :abor 'rbiter and the N:RC properl a!#uired $urisdi!tion over the person of 7airland be!ause the latter voluntaril appeared and a!tivel parti!ipated in the pro!eedin"s belo& &hen 'tt. (eroni%o sub%itted on its behalf a Position Paper verified b its %ana"er, Debbie. 's %ana"er, Debbie ;ne& of all the %aterial and si"nifi!ant events &hi!h transpired in 7airland sin!e she had !onstant !onta!t &ith the people in the da-to-da operations of the !o%pan. Thus, the ∨ers %aintain that the :abor 'rbiter and the N:RC a!#uired $urisdi!tion over the person of 7airland and the De!isions rendered b the said tribunals are valid and bindin" upon it. :astl, the ∨ers aver that 7airland is solidaril liable &ith Susan< =eesan be!ause it &as sho&n that the latter &as indeed the se&in" ar% of the for%er and is a %ere labor-onl !ontra!tor. Fairland’s Arguments
In "ist, 7airland !ontests the labor tribunals6 a!#uisition of $urisdi!tion over its person either throu"h servi!e of su%%ons or voluntar appearan!e. It denies that it en"a"ed the servi!es of 'tt. (eroni%o and asserts that it has its o&n le"al !ounsel, 'tt. Te!son, &ho &ould have represented it had it ;no&n of the penden! of the !o%plaints a"ainst 7airland. 7airland li;e&ise e%phasiJes that &hen it filed its otion for Re!onsideration &ith the N:RC, it %ade an express reservation that the sa%e &as &ithout pre$udi!e to its ri"ht to #uestion the $urisdi!tion over its person and the bindin" effe!t of the assailed de!ision. In the absen!e, therefore, of a valid servi!e of su%%ons or voluntar appearan!e, the pro!eedin"s !ondu!ted and the $ud"%ent rendered b the labor tribunals are null and void as a"ainst it. Aen!e, 7airland !annot be held solidaril liable &ith Susan<=eesan. O'r R'l()*
=e "rant the ∨ers6 petition 0(.R. No. )*+)1 but den the petition of Susan 0(.R. No. )*9*1. (.R. No. )*9* Susan/Weesan is a mere labor-only contractor.
There is labor-onl !ontra!tin" &hen the !ontra!tor or sub!ontra!tor %erel re!ruits, supplies or pla!es ∨ers to perfor% a $ob, ∨ or servi!e for a prin!ipal. In labor-onl !ontra!tin", the follo&in" ele%ents are presentB 0a1 The person supplin" ∨ers to an e%ploer does not have substantial !apital or invest%ent in the for% of tools, e#uip%ent, %a!hineries, ∨ pre%ises, a%on" others and
=e have exa%ined the re!ords but found nothin" therein to sho& that =eesan has invest%ent in the for% of tools, e#uip%ent or %a!hineries. The re!ords sho& that 7airland has to furnish =eesan &ith se&in" %a!hines for it to be able to provide the se&in" needs of the for%er.9 'lso, save for the @alan!e Sheets 5 purportedl sub%itted b =eesan to the @ureau of Internal Revenue 0@IR1 indi!atin" its fixed assets 0fa!tor e#uip%ent1 in the a%ount of P+32,///.//, =eesan &as unable to sho& that apart fro% the borro&ed se&in" %a!hines, it o&ned and possessed an other tools, e#uip%ent, and %a!hineries ne!essar to its bein" a !ontra!tor or sub-!ontra!tor for "ar%ents. Neither &as =eesan able to prove that it has substantial !apital for its business. :i;e&ise si"nifi!ant is the fa!t that there is doubt as to &ho reall o&ns the ∨ pre%ises o!!upied b =eesan. 's %a be re!alled, the ∨ers e%phasiJed in their 'ppeal e%orandu%* filed &ith the N:RC that Susan<=eesan &as a labor-onl !ontra!tor and that 7airland &as its prin!ipal. To buttress this, the alle"ed that the ∨ pre%ises utiliJed b =eesan is o&ned b 7airland, &hi!h si"nifi!antl, &as not in the business of rentin" properties. The also advan!ed that there &as no sho&in" that Susan<=eesan paid an rentals for the use of the pre%ises. The !ontended that all that Susan had &as a aor6s Per%it for =eesan indi!atin" 5) Ri!afort Street, Tondo, anila as its address. Susan failed to refute these alle"ations before the N:RC and attributed su!h failure to her for%er !ounsel, 'tt. (eroni%o. @ut &hen Susan6s petition for !ertiorari &as "iven due !ourse b the C', she finall had the !han!e to ans&er the sa%e b denin" that 7airland o&ned the ∨ pre%ises. Susan instead !lai%ed that =eesan rented the pre%ises fro% another entit, De :uxe. To support this, she atta!hed to her petition t&o Contra!ts of :ease purportedl entered into b her and De :uxe for the lease of the pre%ises !overin" the periods 'u"ust ), )5 to 4ul 2), +/// and 4anuar ), +//) to De!e%ber 2), +//3. On the other hand, the ∨ers in their Co%%ent9/ filed in C'-(.R. SP No. 2+/3 07airland6s petition for !ertiorari before the C'1, pointed out that in 7airland6s '%ended 'rti!les of In!orporation,9) five out of the seven in!orporators listed therein appeared to be residents of the sa%e 5) Ri!afort St., Tondo, anila. To the ∨ers, this is a !lear indi!ation that 7airland indeed o&ned =eesan6s ∨ pre%ises. 7airland, for its part, tried to explain this b sain" that its in!orporators, $ust li;e =eesan, &ere also %ere lessees of a portion of the %ulti-store buildin" o&ned b De :uxe lo!ated at 5) Ri!afort St., Tondo, anila. It also
!lai%ed that t&o ears prior to =eesan6s o!!upation of said pre%ises in )9, the five in!orporators alluded to alread transferred.9+ =e !annot, ho&ever, i"nore the apt observation on the %atter %ade b the C'6s Spe!ial 7or%er Spe!ial Ei"hth Division in its De!ision in C'-(.R. SP No. 2*9/, viz B The ∨ pre%ises are li;e&ise o&ned b 7airland, &hi!h petitioner tried to disprove b presentin" a purported Contra!t of :ease &ith another entit, De :uxe Shirt 7a!tor Co., In!. &o/eer, tere (- )o comete)t roo+ (t a( te -'o-e re)tal- to -a( 3o/)er . !'r(o'-l4, ')er te (tem 3Re)t $e)-e- () (t- a'(te +()a)c(al -tateme)t, o)l4 e6'(me)t re)tal /a- l(-te tere() /(to't a)4 (-b'r-eme)t7ee)-e +or re)tal o+ +actor4 rem(-e-, &hi!h onl buttressed the !lai% of private respondents that the pla!e &here the reported to and perfor%ed se&in" $obs for petitioner GSusanH and 7airland at No. 5) Ri!afort St., Tondo, anila, belon"ed to 7airland.92 0E%phasis supplied.1 Susan !ontests this pronoun!e%ent b pointin" out that althou"h onl se&in" %a!hines &ere spe!ified under the entr Rent Expenses in its finan!ial state%ent, the rent for the fa!tor pre%ises is alread dee%ed in!luded therein sin!e the !ontra!ts of lease she entered into &ith De :uxe referred to both the fa!tor pre%ises and %a!hineries. =e, ho&ever, find this !ontention i%plausible. =e &ent over the said !ontra!ts of lease and noted that sa%e &ere prin!ipall for the lease of the pre%ises in 5) Ri!afort St., Tondo, anila. Onl in!idental thereto is the in!lusion therein of the e#uip%ent found in said pre%ises. Aen!e, &e !annot see &h the rentals for the ∨ pre%ises, for &hi!h Susan even &ent to the extent of exe!utin" a !ontra!t &ith the purported lessor, &as not in!luded in the entr for rent expenses in =eesan6s finan!ial state%ent. Even if &e are to !on!ede to Susan6s !lai% that the entr for rent expenses alread in!ludes the rentals for the ∨ pre%ises, &e &onder &h the rental expenses for the ear +/// &hi!h &as P29,///.// is of the sa%e a%ount &ith the rental expenses for the ear +//). 's borne out b the Contra!t of :ease !overin" the period 'u"ust ), )5 to 4ul 2), +///, the %onthl rent for the ∨ pre%ises &as pe""ed at P+,///.//.93Ao&ever, in 4anuar to De!e%ber +//), sa%e &as in!reased to P+5,//.//.9 There bein" an in!rease in the rentals for the ∨ pre%ises, ho& !o%e that =eesan6s rental expenses for the ear +//) is still P29,///.//L This !ould onl %ean that said entr reall onl refers to the rentals of se&in" %a!hines and does not in!lude the rentals for the ∨ pre%ises. oreover, &e note that Susan !ould have $ust si%pl sub%itted re!eipts for her pa%ents of rentals to De :uxe. Ao&ever, she failed to present even a sin"le re!eipt eviden!in" su!h pa%ent. In an atte%pt to prove that it is De :uxe and not 7airland &hi!h o&ned the ∨ pre%ises, Susan atta!hed to her petition the follo&in"B 0)1 a plain !op of Transfer Certifi!ate of Title 0TCT1 No. )25/99 and De!laration of Real Propert95 both under the na%e of De :uxe and, 0+1 Real Propert Tax re!eipts issued to De :uxe for the ears +///-+//3.9* Ao&ever, the Court finds these do!u%ents &antin". No&here fro% the said TCT and De!laration of Real Propert !an it be inferred that the propert the refer to is the sa%e propert as that lo!ated at 5) Ri!afort St., Tondo, anila. 'lthou"h in said De!laration, 5) Ri!afort St., Tondo is the
indi!ated address of the de!larant 0De :uxe1, the address of the propert de!lared is %erel Ricafort, Tono !-A. The sa%e thin" !an also be said &ith re"ard to the real propert tax re!eipts. The entr under the box Location of "ro#erty in the re!eipt for +//) is I - 5)* Ri!afort and in the re!eipts for +//+, +//2, and +//3, the entries are either I Ri!afort St., Tondo or %erel I-Ri!afort St. In su%, the Court finds that Susan6s effort to ne"ate 7airland6s o&nership of the ∨ pre%ises is futile. The lo"i!al !on!lusion no& is that =eesan does not have its o&n ∨pla!e and is onl utiliJin" the ∨pla!e of 7airland to &ho% it supplied ∨ers for its "ar%ent business. Suffi!e it to sa that GtHhe presu%ption is that a !ontra!tor is a labor-onl !ontra!tor unless su!h !ontra!tor over!o%es the burden of provin" that it has substantial !apital, invest%ent, tools and the li;e.9 's Susan<=eesan &as not able to addu!e eviden!e that =eesan had an substantial !apital, invest%ent or assets to perfor% the ∨ !ontra!ted for, the presu%ption that =eesan is a labor-onl !ontra!tor stands.5/ The $ational Labor Relations Commission an the Court of A##eals i not err in their finings of illegal ismissal.
To ne"ate ille"al dis%issal, Susan relies on the due !losure of =eesan pursuant to the Establish%ent Ter%ination Report it sub%itted to the DO:E-NCR. Indeed, 'rti!le +*25) of the :abor Code allo&s as a %ode of ter%ination of e%plo%ent the !losure or ter%ination of business. Closure or !essation of business is the !o%plete or partial !essation of the operations and
iven!ia Penullar, 'urora '"uinaldo, (ina 'niano, (e%%a Dela Pe?a and Efre%ia atias filed before the :abor 'rbiter their !o%plaint for underpa%ent of salar, non-pa%ent of benefits, da%a"es and attorne6s fees a"ainst =eesan on De!e%ber +2, +//+.5 Su%%ons59 &as a!!ordin"l issued and sa%e &as re!eived b Susan on 4anuar
), +//2.55 ean&hile, other ∨ers follo&ed suit and filed their respe!tive !o%plaints on 4anuar +, 9, )5 and +*, +//2. 5* Shortl thereafter or %erel ei"ht das after the filin" of the last !o%plaint, =eesan filed &ith the DO:E-NCR its Establish%ent Ter%ination Report.
affe!ted b the de!ision rendered therein. Thus, it is onl &hen there is a denial of due pro!ess, as &hen the de!eased is not represented b an le"al representative or heir, that the !ourt nullifies the trial pro!eedin"s and the resultin" $ud"%ent therein.
Se!ond, the In!o%e Tax Returns5 for the ears +///, +//) and +//+ atta!hed to the Establish%ent Ter%ination Report, althou"h bearin" the sta%ped re!eipt of the Revenue Distri!t Offi!e &here the &ere purportedl filed, !ontain no si"nature or initials of the re!eivin" offi!er. The sa%e holds true &ith =eesan6s audited finan!ial state%ents.*/ This en"enders doubt as to &hether these do!u%ents &ere indeed filed &ith the proper authorities.
Aere, the la!; of for%al substitution of the de!eased ∨er Ri!hon did not result to denial of due pro!ess as to affe!t the validit of the pro!eedin"s before the N:RC sin!e his heir, :uJvilla, &as a&are of the pro!eedin"s therein. In fa!t, she is !onsidered to have voluntaril appeared before the said tribunal &hen she si"ned the ∨ers6 e%orandu% of 'ppeal filed there&ith. This Court has ruled that for%al substitution of parties is not ne!essar &hen the heirs the%selves voluntaril appeared, parti!ipated, and presented eviden!e durin" the pro!eedin"s.* Aen!e, the N:RC did not err in "ivin" due !ourse to the appeal &ith respe!t to Ri!hon.
Third, there &as no sho&in" that =eesan served upon the ∨ers &ritten noti!e at least one %onth before the intended date of !losure of business, as re#uired under 'rt. +*2 of the :abor Code. In fa!t, the ∨ers alle"ed that &hen =eesan filed its Establish%ent Ter%ination Report on 7ebruar , +//2, it alread !losed the ∨ pre%ises and did not an%ore allo& the% to report for ∨. This is the reason &h the ∨ers on 7ebruar )*, +//2 a%ended their !o%plaint to in!lude the !har"e of ille"al dis%issal.*) It bears stressin" that GtHhe burden of provin" that x x x a te%porar suspension is bona fie falls upon the e%ploer. *+ Clearl here, Susan<=eesan &as not able to dis!har"e this burden. The do!u%ents =eesan sub%itted to support its !lai% of severe business losses !annot be !onsidered as proof of finan!ial !risis to $ustif the te%porar suspension of its operations sin!e the !learl appear to have not been dul filed &ith the @IR. =eesan failed to satisfa!toril explain &h the In!o%e Tax Returns and finan!ial state%ents it sub%itted do not bear the si"nature of the re!eivin" offi!ers. 'lso hard to i"nore is the absen!e of the %andator 2/-da prior noti!e to the ∨ers. Aen!e, the Court finds that Susan failed to prove that the suspension of operations of =eesan &as bona fie and that it !o%plied &ith the %andator re#uire%ent of noti!e under the la&. Susan li;e&ise failed to dis!har"e her burden of provin" that the ter%ination of the ∨ers &as for a la&ful !ause. Therefore, the N:RC and the C', in C'-(.R. SP No. 2*9/, did not err in their findin"s that the ∨ers &ere ille"all dis%issed b Susan<=eesan. The formal substitution of the ecease &or'er Richon A#arre is not necessary as his heir voluntarily a##eare an #artici#ate in the #roceeings before the $ational Labor Relations Commission.
In Sarsaba v. (e )a. e Te, &e held thatB*2 The rule on substitution of parties is "overned b Se!tion )9,*3 Rule 2 of the GRules of CourtH. Stri!tl spea;in", the rule on substitution b heirs is not a %atter of $urisdi!tion, but a re#uire%ent of due pro!ess. The rule on substitution &as !rafted to prote!t ever parts ri"ht to due pro!ess. It &as desi"ned to ensure that the de!eased part &ould !ontinue to be properl represented in the suit throu"h his heirs or the dul appointed le"al representative of his estate. oreover, non-!o%plian!e &ith the Rules results in the denial of the ri"ht to due pro!ess for the heirs &ho, thou"h not dul notified of the pro!eedin"s, &ould be substantiall
(airlan*s claim of #rescri#tion eserves scant consieration.
7airland asserts that assu%in" that the ∨ers have valid !lai%s a"ainst it, sa%e onl pertain to six out of the 23 ∨ers-!o%plainants. '!!ordin" to 7airland, these six ∨ers &ere the onl ones &ho &ere in the e%plo of =eesan at the ti%e 7airland and =eesan had existin" !ontra!tual relationship in )9 to )5. @ut then, 7airland !ontends that the !lai%s of these six ∨ers have alread been barred b pres!ription as the filed their !o%plaint %ore than four ears fro% the expiration of the alle"ed !ontra!tual relationship in )5. Ao&ever, the Court notes that the re!ords are bereft of anthin" that provides for su!h alle"ed !ontra!tual relationship and the period !overed b it. 'bsent anthin" to support 7airland6s !lai%, sa%e deserves s!ant !onsideration. Interestin"l, &e noti!ed 7airland6s letter *9 dated 4anuar 2), +//2 infor%in" =eesan that it &ould te%poraril not be availin" of the latter6s se&in" servi!es and at the sa%e ti%e re#uestin" for the return of the se&in" %a!hines it lent to =eesan. 'ssu%in" said letter to be true, &h &as 7airland ter%inatin" =eesan6s servi!es onl on 4anuar 2), +//2 &hen it is no& !lai%in" that its !ontra!tual relationship &ith the latter onl lasted until )5L Thus, &e find the !ontentions rather abstruse. G.R. No. 182915
It is basi! that the :abor 'rbiter !annot a!#uire $urisdi!tion over the person of the respondent &ithout the latter bein" served &ith su%%ons.*5 Ao&ever, if there is no valid servi!e of su%%ons, the !ourt !an still a!#uire $urisdi!tion over the person of the defendant b virtue of the latter6s voluntar appearan!e.** Although not serve &ith summons, +urisiction over (airlan an ebbie &as acuire through their voluntary a##earance.
It !an be re!alled that the ∨ers6 ori"inal !o%plaints for non-pa%ent< underpa%ent of &a"es and benefits &ere onl a"ainst Susan<=eesan. 7or these !o%plaints, the :abor 'rbiter issued su%%ons* to Susan<=eesan &hi!h &as re!eived b the latter on 4anuar ), +//2./ The ∨ers thereafter a%ended their then alread !onsolidated !o%plaints to in!lude ille"al dis%issal as an additional !ause of a!tion as &ell as 7airland and Debbie as
additional respondents. =e have, ho&ever, s!anned the re!ords but found nothin" to indi!ate that su%%ons &ith respe!t to the said a%ended !o%plaints &as ever served upon =eesan, Susan, or 7airland. True to their !lai%, 7airland and Debbie &ere indeed never su%%oned b the :abor 'rbiter. The !ru!ial #uestion no& isB i (airlan an ebbie voluntarily a##ear before the Labor Arbiter as to submit themselves to its +urisiction 7airland ar"ued before the C' that it did not en"a"e 'tt. (eroni%o as its !ounsel. Ao&ever, the Court held inSantos v. $ational Labor Relations Commission,) viz B In the instant petition for certiorari , petitioner Santos reiterates that he should not have been ad$ud"ed personall liable b publi! respondents, the latter not havin" validl a!#uired $urisdi!tion over his person &hether b personal servi!e of su%%ons or b substituted servi!e under Rule ) of the Rules of Court. Petitioner6s !ontention is una!!eptable. The fa!t that 'tt. Ro%eo @. PereJ has been able to ti%el as; for a defer%ent of the initial hearin" on )3 Nove%ber )*9, !oupled &ith his subse#uent a!tive parti!ipation in the pro!eedin"s, should disprove the supposed &ant of servi!e of le"al pro!esses. 'lthou"h as a rule, %odes of servi!e of su%%ons are stri!tl follo&ed in order that the !ourt %a a!#uire $urisdi!tion over the person of a defendant, su!h pro!edural %odes, ho&ever, are liberall !onstrued in #uasi-$udi!ial pro!eedin"s, substantial !o%plian!e &ith the sa%e bein" !onsidered ade#uate. oreover, $urisdi!tion over the person of the defendant in !ivil !ases is a!#uired not onl b servi!e of su%%ons but also b voluntar appearan!e in !ourt and sub%ission to its authorit. 'ppearan!e6 b a le"al advo!ate is su!h voluntar sub%ission to a !ourt6s $urisdi!tion6. It %a be %ade not onl b a!tual phsi!al appearan!e but li;e&ise b the sub%ission of pleadin"s in !o%plian!e &ith the order of the !ourt or tribunal. To sa that petitioner did not authoriJe 'tt. PereJ to represent hi% in the !ase is to undul tax !redulit. :i;e the Soli!itor (eneral, the Court li;e&ise !onsiders it unli;el that 'tt. PereJ &ould have been so irresponsible as to represent petitioner if he &ere not, in fa!t, authoriJed. 'tt. PereJ is an offi!er of the !ourt, and he %ust be presu%ed to have a!ted &ith due propriet. The e%plo%ent of a !ounsel or the authorit to e%plo an attorne, it %i"ht be pointed out, need not be proved in &ritin" su!h fa!t !ould GbeH inferred fro% !ir!u%stantial eviden!e. x x x+ 0Citations o%itted.1 7ro% the re!ords, it appears that 'tt. (eroni%o first entered his appearan!e on behalf of Susan<=eesan in the hearin" held on 'pril 2, +//2.2 @ein" then ne&l hired, he re#uested for an extension of ti%e &ithin &hi!h to file a position paper for said respondents. On the next s!heduled hearin" on 'pril +*, +//2, 'tt. (eroni%o a"ain as;ed for another extension to file a position paper for all the respondents !onsiderin" that he li;e&ise entered his appearan!e for 7airland.3 Thereafter, said !ounsel filed pleadin"s su!h as Respondents6 Position Paper and Respondents6 Consolidated Repl9 on behalf of all the respondents na%el, Susan<=eesan, 7airland and Debbie. The fa!t that 'tt. (eroni%o entered his appearan!e for 7airland and Debbie and that he a!tivel defended the% before the :abor 'rbiter raised
the presu%ption that he is authoriJed to appear for the%. 's held in Santos, it is unli;el that 'tt. (eroni%o &ould have been so irresponsible as to represent 7airland and Debbie if he &ere not in fa!t authoriJed. 's an offi!er of the Court, 'tt. (eroni%o is presu%ed to have a!ted &ith due propriet. oreover, GiHt strains !redulit that a !ounsel &ho has no personal interest in the !ase &ould fi"ht for and defend a !ase &ith persisten!e and vi"or if he has not been authoriJed or e%ploed b the part !on!erned.5 =e do not a"ree &ith the reasons relied upon b the C'6s Spe!ial Ninth Division in its a , +//* Resolution in C'-(.R. No. 2+/3 &hen it ruled that 7airland, throu"h 'tt. (eroni%o, did not voluntaril sub%it itself to the :abor 'rbiter6s $urisdi!tion. In so rulin", the C' noted that 'tt. (eroni%o has no prior authoriJation fro% the board of dire!tors of 7airland to handle the !ase. 'lso, the alle"ed verifi!ation si"ned b Debbie, &ho is not one of 7airland6s dul authoriJed dire!tors or offi!ers, is defe!tive as no board resolution or se!retar6s !ertifi!ate authoriJin" her to si"n the sa%e &as atta!hed thereto. @e!ause of these, the Spe!ial Ninth Division held that the :abor 'rbiter !o%%itted "rave abuse of dis!retion in not re#uirin" 'tt. (eroni%o to sho& his proof of authorit to represent 7airland !onsiderin" that the latter is a !orporation. The presu%ption of authorit of !ounsel to appear on behalf of a !lient is found both in the Rules of Court and in the Ne& Rules of Pro!edure of the N:RC.* Se!. +), Rule )2* of the Rules of Court providesB Se!. +). 'uthorit of attorne to appear 'n attorne is presu%ed to be properl authoriJed to represent an !ause in &hi!h he appears, and no &ritten po&er of attorne is re#uired to authoriJe hi% to appear in !ourt for his !lient, but the presidin" $ud"e %a, on %otion of either part and reasonable "rounds therefor bein" sho&n, re#uire an attorne &ho assu%es the ri"ht to appear in a !ase to produ!e or prove the authorit under &hi!h he appears, and to dis!lose &henever pertinent to an issue, the na%e of the person &ho e%ploed hi%, and %a thereupon %a;e su!h order as $usti!e re#uires. 'n attorne &illfull appearin" in !ourt for a person &ithout bein" e%ploed, unless b leave of the !ourt, %a be punished for !onte%pt as an offi!er of the !ourt &ho has %isbehaved in his offi!ial transa!tions. On the other hand, Se!. *, Rule III of the Ne& Rules of Pro!edure of the N:RC, &hi!h is the rules prevailin" at that ti%e, states in partB SECTION *. 'PPE'R'NCES. - 'n attorne appearin" for a part is presu%ed to be properl authoriJed for that purpose. Ao&ever, he shall be re#uired to indi!ate in his pleadin"s his PTR and I@P nu%bers for the !urrent ear. @et&een the t&o provisions providin" for su!h authorit of !ounsel to appear, the :abor 'rbiter is pri%aril bound b the latter one, the N:RC Rules of Pro!edure bein" spe!ifi!all appli!able to labor !ases. 's 'tt. (eroni%o !onsistentl indi!ated his PTR and I@P nu%bers in the pleadin"s he filed, there is no reason for the :abor 'rbiter not to extend to 'tt. (eroni%o the presu%ption that he is authoriJed to represent 7airland.
Even if &e are to appl Se!. +), Rule )2* of the Rules of Court, the :abor 'rbiter !annot be expe!ted to re#uire 'tt. (eroni%o to prove his authorit under said provision sin!e there &as no %otion to that effe!t fro% either part sho&in" reasonable "rounds therefor. oreover, the fa!t that Debbie si"ned the verifi!ation atta!hed to the position paper filed b 'tt. (eroni%o, &ithout a se!retar6s !ertifi!ate or board resolution atta!hed thereto, is not suffi!ient reason for the :abor 'rbiter to be on his "uard and re#uire 'tt. (eroni%o to prove his authorit. Debbie, as (eneral ana"er of 7airland is one of the offi!ials of the !o%pan &ho !an si"n the verifi!ation &ithout need of a board resolution be!ause as su!h, she is in a position to verif the truthfulness and !orre!tness of the alle"ations in the petition.)// 'lthou"h &e note that 7airland filed a disbar%ent !ase a"ainst 'tt. (eroni%o due to the for%er6s !lai% of unauthoriJed appearan!e, &e hold that sa%e is not suffi!ient to over!o%e the presu%ption of authorit. Su!h %ere filin" is not proof of 'tt. (eroni%o6s alle"ed unauthoriJed appearan!e. Suffi!e it to sa that an attorne6s presu%ption of authorit is a stron" one.)/) ' %ere denial b a part that he authoriJed an attorne to appear for hi%, in the absen!e of a !o%pellin" reason, is insuffi!ient to over!o%e the presu%ption, espe!iall &hen the denial !o%es after the rendition of an adverse $ud"%ent,)/+ su!h as in the present !ase. Citin" "$C oc'yar an 0ngineering Cor#oration v. $ational Labor Relations Commission,)/2 the C' li;e&ise e%phasiJed that in labor !ases, both the part and his !ounsel %ust be dul served their separate !opies of the order, de!ision or resolution unli;e in ordinar pro!eedin"s &here noti!e to !ounsel is dee%ed noti!e to the part. It then #uoted 'rti!le ++3 of the :abor Code as follo&sB 'RTIC:E ++3. Exe!ution of de!isions, orders or a&ards. 0a1 the Se!retar of :abor and E%plo%ent or an Re"ional Dire!tor, the Co%%ission or an :abor 'rbiter, or %ed-arbiter or voluntar arbitrator %a, %otu proprio or on %otion of an interested part, issue a &rit of exe!ution on a $ud"%ent &ithin five 01 ears fro% the date it be!o%es final and exe!utor, re#uirin" a sheriff or a dul deputiJed offi!er to exe!ute or enfor!e final de!isions, orders or a&ards of the Se!retar of :abor and E%plo%ent or GRHe"ional Dire!tor, the Co%%ission, the :abor 'rbiter or ed-'rbiter, or >oluntar 'rbitrators. In an !ase, it shall be the dut of the responsible offi!er to-earatel4 +'r)(- (mme(atel4 te co')-el- o+ recor a) te art(e- /(t co(e- o+ -a( ec(-(o), orer- or a/ar-. 7ailure to !o%pl &ith the dut pres!ribed herein shall sub$e!t su!h responsible offi!er to appropriate ad%inistrative san!tions x x x 0E%phasis in the ori"inal1.)/3 The C' then !on!luded that sin!e 7airland and its !ounsel &ere not separatel furnished &ith a !op of the 'u"ust +9, +// N:RC Resolution denin" the %otions for re!onsideration of its Nove%ber 2/, +//3 De!ision, said De!ision !annot be enfor!ed a"ainst 7airland. The C' li;e&ise !on!luded that be!ause of this, said Nove%ber 2/, +//3 De!ision &hi!h held Susan<=eesan and 7airland solidaril liable to the ∨ers, has not attained finalit. =e !annot a"ree. In 1inete v. Sunrise 2anning Agency )/ &e held thatB
The !ase of PNOC Do!;ard and En"ineerin" Corporation vs. N:RC !ited b petitioner enun!iated that in labor !ases, both the part and its !ounsel %ust be dul served their separate !opies of the order, de!ision or resolution unli;e in ordinar $udi!ial pro!eedin"s &here noti!e to !ounsel is dee%ed noti!e to the part.6 Referen!e &as %ade therein to 'rti!le ++3 of the :abor Code. @ut, as !orre!tl pointed out b private respondent in its Co%%ent to the petition, 'rti!le ++3 of the :abor Code does not "overn the pro!edure for filin" a petition for !ertiorari &ith the Court of 'ppeals fro% the de!ision of the N:RC but rather, it refers to the exe!ution of final de!isions, orders or a&ards6 and re#uires the sheriff or a dul deputiJed offi!er to furnish both the parties and their !ounsel &ith !opies of the de!ision or a&ard for that purpose. There is no referen!e, express or i%plied, to the period to appeal or to file a petition for certiorari as indeed the !aption is exe!ution of de!isions, orders or a&ards6. Ta;en in proper !ontext, 'rti!le ++3 !onte%plates the furnishin" of !opies of final de!isions, orders or a&ards6 and !ould not have been intended to refer to the period for !o%putin" the period for appeal to the Court of 'ppeals fro% a non-final $ud"%ent or order. The period or %anner of appeal6 fro% the N:RC to the Court of 'ppeals is "overned b Rule 9 pursuant to the rulin" of the Court in the !ase of St. artin 7uneral Ao%es vs. N:RC. Se!tion 3 of Rule 9, as a%ended, states that the petition %a be filed not later than sixt 09/1 das fro% noti!e of the $ud"%ent, or resolution sou"ht to be assailed6. Corollaril, Se!tion 3, Rule III of the Ne& Rules of Pro!edure of the N:RC expressl %andates that 071or the purposes of !o%putin" the period of appeal, the sa%e shall be !ounted fro% re!eipt of su!h de!isions, a&ards or orders b the !ounsel of re!ord.6 'lthou"h this rule expli!itl !onte%plates an appeal before the :abor 'rbiter and the N:RC, &e do not see an !o"ent reason &h the sa%e rule should not appl to petitions for !ertiorari filed &ith the Court of 'ppeals fro% de!isions of the N:RC. (- roce're (- () l()e /(t te e-tabl(-e r'le tat )ot(ce to co')-el (- )ot(ce to art4 a) /e) a art4 (rere-e)te b4 co')-el, )ot(ce- -o'l be mae 'o) te co')-el o+ recor at (*(e) are-- to /(c )ot(ce- o+ all ()- ema)at()* +rom te co'rt -o'l be -e)t. It (- to be )ote al-o tat Sect(o) o+ te NLR! R'le- o+ :roce're ro(e- tat 3;A
finalit is li;e&ise the !ounsel6s date of re!eipt thereof, if a part is represented b !ounsel. Aen!e, the date of re!eipt referred to in Se!. )3, Rule >II of the then in for!e Ne& Rules of Pro!edure of the N:RC)/9 &hi!h provides that de!isions, resolutions or orders of the N:RC shall be!o%e exe!utor after 34 calenar ays from recei#t of the same , refers to the date of re!eipt b !ounsel. Thus !ontrar to the C'6s !on!lusion, the said N:RC De!ision be!a%e final, as to 7airland, )/ !alendar das after 'tt. Te!son6s re!eipt)/5 thereof .)/* In su%, &e hold that the :abor 'rbiter had validl a!#uired $urisdi!tion over 7airland and its %ana"er, Debbie, throu"h the appearan!e of 'tt. (eroni%o as their !ounsel and li;e&ise, throu"h the latter6s filin" of pleadin"s on their behalf. (airlan is Weesan*s #rinci#al.
In addition to our dis!ussion in (.R. No. )*9* &ith respe!t to the findin" that Susan<=eesan is a %ere labor-onl !ontra!tor &hi!h &e find to be li;e&ise si"nifi!ant here, a !areful exa%ination of the re!ords reveals other tellin" fa!ts that 7airland is Susan<=eesan6s prin!ipal, to &itB 0)1 aside fro% se&in" %a!hines, 7airland also lent =eesan other e#uip%ent su!h as fire extin"uishers, offi!e tables and !hairs, and plasti! !hairs)/ 0+1 no proof eviden!in" the !ontra!tual arran"e%ent bet&een =eesan and 7airland &as ever sub%itted b 7airland 021 &hile both =eesan and 7airland assert that the for%er had other !lients aside fro% the latter, no proof of =eesan6s !ontra!tual relationship &ith its other alle"ed !lient is extant on the re!ords and 031 there is no sho&in" that an of the ∨ers &ere assi"ned to other !lients aside fro% 7airland. oreover, as found b the N:RC and affir%ed b both the Spe!ial 7or%er Spe!ial Ei"hth Division in C'-(.R. SP No. 2*9/ and the 7irst Division in
C'-(.R. SP No. 2+/3, the a!tivities, the %anner of ∨ and the %ove%ent of the ∨ers &ere sub$e!t to 7airland6s !ontrol. It bears e%phasiJin" that fa!tual findin"s of #uasi-$udi!ial a"en!ies li;e the N:RC, &hen affir%ed b the Court of 'ppeals, as in the present !ase, are !on!lusive upon the parties and bindin" on this Court.))/ >ie&ed in its entiret, &e thus de!lare that 7airland is the prin!ipal of the labor-onl !ontra!tor, =eesan. 7airland, therefore, as the prin!ipal e%ploer, is solidaril liable &ith Susan<=eesan, the labor-onl !ontra!tor, for the ri"htful !lai%s of the e%ploees. Fnder this set-up, Susan<=eesan, as the labor-onl !ontra!tor, is dee%ed an a"ent of the prin!ipal, 7airland, and the la& %a;es the prin!ipal responsible to the e%ploees of the labor-onl !ontra!tor as if the prin!ipal itself dire!tl hired or e%ploed the e%ploees.))) =AERE7ORE, the Court, )1 in (.R. No. )*9*, denies the Petition for Revie& on Certiorari . The assailed De!ision dated 4ul +/, +// and Resolution dated O!tober ), +// of the Spe!ial 7or%er Spe!ial Ei"hth Division of the Court of 'ppeals in C'-(.R. No. 2*9/ are '77IRED. +1 in (.R. No. )*+), "rants the Petition for Revie& on Certiorari . The assailed Resolution dated a , +//* of the Spe!ial Ninth Division of the Court of 'ppeals in C'-(.R. No. 2+/3 is hereb RE>ERSED and SET 'SIDE and the De!ision dated 4ul +, +//5 of the 7irst Division of the Court of 'ppeals is REINST'TED and '77IRED. SO ORDERED.
