THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 200580, February 11, 2015 MARIAN B. NAVARETTE, PETITIONER, VS. MANIA INTERNATIONA FREIGHT FOR!ARDERS, IN"#MIFFI OGISTI"S "OMPAN$, IN"., MR. HARADA, AND MBI MIENNI%M E&PERTS, IN"., RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENTS. DE"ISION
VEAS"O 'R., '.( '.( T)e "a*e Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the October 4, 2011 ecision of the Court of !""eals #C!$, as e%ectivel& reiterated in its 'anuar& (0, 2012 Resolution, in C!)*+R+ P -o+ 112102, entitled Manila entitled Manila International Freight Forwarders, F orwarders, Inc./MIFFI Inc./MIFFI Logistics Company, Company, Inc. v. v. National Labor Relations Commission Commission and Marian B. Navarette Navarette+ .he C! issuances reversed and set aside the /ebruar& 2, 200 ecision and October 1, 200 Resolution of the -ational abor Relations Co33ission #-RC$ and reinstated the a& 24, 2004 ecision of the abor !rbiter which dis3issed the co3"laint for illegal dis3issal+ T)e Fa+* Res"ondents anila nternational /reight /orwarders, nc+ #//$ and // ogistics Co3"an&, nc+ #C$ are cor"orations engaged in the business of freight and cargo forwarding, hauling, carr&ing, handling, distributing, loading and unloading of general cargoes and all classes of goods, wares and 3erchandise+
//1 had, during the "eriod 3aterial, entered into a contract with B illenniu3 67"erts, nc+ #B$ for the "rovision of "roduction wor8ers and technical "ersonnel for //9s "ro:ects or te3"orar& needs, including the assign3ent of e3"lo&ees to te3"oraril& re"lace those in the Pac8aging e"art3ent who are on 3aternit& leave+ .o be able to address the i33ediate concerns of the e3"lo&ees detailed to the aforesaid de"art3ent, B assigned a su"ervisor;coordinator, a+ *l&nnis ui"3ent and was su"ervised b& *ide& /a:icula& and onn& Porto, both e3"lo&ees of //+ ! second contract was later concluded between -avarette and B, under which she was to serve as //9s warehouse sta% fro3 !"ril 1?, 2002 to October 1, 2002+ !nother contract e%ective arch 1, 200( until !ugust 1, 200( resulted in -avarette being transferred to res"ondent C ) //9s subsidiar&+ On 'ul& 2, 200(, -avarette, :oined b& other e3"lo&ees, =led a co3"laint for ins"ection against //, C, B and a certain P! with the e"art3ent of abor and 63"lo&3ent #O6$ Regional !rbitration Branch @+ /ollowing an ins"ection of res"ondents9 "re3ises on !ugust 5, 200(, certain violations of labor laws were uncovered, including labor)onl& contracting b& B+ everal hearings were had and eventuall&, the "arties decided to sub3it an agree3ent to be signed b& all concerned and to be a""roved b& O6 o%icials+
Pursuant to said covenant, B called a 3eeting where -avarette and her co)wor8ers were handed and as8ed to sign a docu3ent entitled Ainutes of the earing;!gree3ent, O6D, Region @+A -avarette found the contents of the docu3ent to be erroneous since it stated that the "arties had alread& co3e to an agree3ent on the issues and conditions when, in fact, no such agree3ent was 3ade+ .his angered -avarette, causing her to throw the docu3ent and to sa&, A indi ito ang pinag!"sapan natin sa O6E Nilolo#o niyo long #ami+A er actuations, to B, constituted serious 3isconduct, for which a show cause 3e3orandu3 was issued directing her to e7"lain herself+ issatis=ed with her e7"lanationFthat her actuations were so because the inutes did not reGect the truthFB issued another 3e3orandu3 which -avarette, u"on "erusal, tore and threw awa&+ !fter issuing several 3e3oranda setting conferences on the 3atter to which -avarette could not attend because of her wor8 schedule, B =nall& ter3inated -avarette9s e3"lo&3ent on October ?, 200(+ 1D On October 2(, 200(, -avarette =led a co3"laint for illegal dis3issal before the -RC against B, // and C, doc8eted as -RC) -CR Case -o+ 00)10)1105)0(+ n a ecision dated a& 24, 2004, abor !rbiter olores + Peralta)Bele& dis3issed the co3"laint on the =nding that -avarette9s acts co3"lained of constituted serious 3isconduct, a valid cause for dis3issal+ .oo, B, being a legiti3ate :ob contractor, is -avarette9s e3"lo&er, not // or C+ .he $allo of the ecision readsH n the light of the foregoing, the co3"laint for illegal dis3issal 3ust be dis3issed for want of factual and legal basis+ -ecessaril&, the clai3 for bac8 wages 3ust li8ewise be dis3issed as it is granted onl& to illegall& dis3issed e3"lo&ees b& wa& of relief+
7777 !HEREFORE, "re3ises considered, :udg3ent is hereb& rendered dis3issing the instant co3"laint for lac8 of 3erit+ SO ORDERED.2D On a""eal,(D the -RC reversed the ecision of the abor !rbiter and ordered -avarette9s reinstate3ent with bac8wages and other bene=ts+ .o the co33ission, B is a labor)onl& contractor, thus 3a8ing // and C -avarette9s e3"lo&er+ .he -RC dis"osed of the case in this wiseH !HEREFORE, "re3ises considered, the a""eal is GRANTED+ .he ecision of the abor !rbiter dated a& 24, 2004 is REVERSED andSET ASIDE, and a NE! ONE rendered =nding res"ondent B as a labor)onl& contractor+ Conse>uentl&, res"ondents //;C are declared to be co3"lainant9s e3"lo&er, and accordingl& res"ondents //;C are ordered toH 1+ Reinstate co3"lainant to her for3er "osition or e>uivalent "osition without loss of seniorit& rightsI 2+ Pa& co3"lainant her full bac8wages co3"uted fro3 the ti3e she was illegall& dis3issed u" to the =nalit& of this ecisionI and (+ Pa& co3"lainant attorne&9s fees in an a3ount e>uivalent to ten #10J$ of the total 3onetar& award+ Co3"lainant9s 3onetar& award is "rovisionall& co3"uted as followsH Bac8wages 1+$ Basic alar&
10/6/036/15/05 250x26x20.30131,950.00 6/16/057/10/06 275x26x12.8391,734.50 7/11/068/27/07 300x26x13.57105,846.00 8/28/076/13/08 362x26x9.53 89,696.36 6/14/088/27/08 377x26x2.47 24,210.94 8/28/082/3/09 382x26x5.17 51,348.44
494,786.24
2+$ 1(th 3o "a& 494,786.24/12
41,232.19
(+$ P 250x5/12x20.3 0 275x5/12x12.8 3 300x5/12x13.5 7 362x5/12x9.53 377x5/12x2.47 382x5/12x5.17
2,114.58 1.470.10 1,696.25 1,437.44 387.99 822.89
7,929.25
4+$ CO! 10/6/037/9/04 50x26x9.10 11,830.00 7/10/048/27/07 50x26x37.60 48,880.00 6/14/088/27/08 5x26x24.7 321.10 Attorney's fee 10% Total Awar
61,031.10
604,978.78 60,497.88 !665.476.66"4#
!ggrieved, res"ondents 3oved for reconsideration, alleging that -avarette is not their e3"lo&ee, B being a legiti3ate
:ob contractor, as held b& the -RC in the related case of Manlangit v. MIFFI and/or MCLI and MBI +5D .he -RC, however, in its October 1, 200 Resolution, found no 3erit therein and sustained its earlier ecision+ Res"ondents, thus, sought a review of the -RC ecision and Resolution before the C! via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule ?5 of the Rules of Court+ Before the C! could dis"ose of said "etition, the Court, on !ugust (1, 2011, in Manlangit, et al. v. MIFFI, et al.,?D issued a Resolution where it dis3issed the Manlangit "etition and u"held the ruling of the C! that B9s contract with //1;C1, res"ondents in said case as well as in the case at bar, was one of legiti3ate :ob contracting, contrar& to the assertions of therein "etitioners+ 6ventuall&, the C!, in the "resent case, ordered the reversal of the -RC ecision and the reinstate3ent of the abor !rbiter9s ruling+ .he dis"ositive "ortion of the a""ellate court9s ecision is hereunder >uotedH !HEREFORE, the "etition is GRANTED+ .he ecision dated /ebruar& 2, 200 and Resolution dated October 1, 200 of the -RCD areREVERSED and SET ASIDE+ .he ecision of the abor !rbiter dated a& 24, 2004, which dis3issed the co3"laint for lac8 of 3erit isREINSTATED+ SO ORDERED.D Petitioner9s 3otion for reconsideration was also denied+ T)e I**ue* Petitioner "resentl& see8s a review of the C! ecision on the following groundsH .he onorable C!D 3isa""lied the law and 3isa""rehended the facts in ruling that there is absence of e3"lo&er) e3"lo&ee relationshi" between the "etitioner and the res"ondent //D+
.he on+ C!D 3isa""lied the law in ruling that "etitioner is not entitled to the reliefs "ra&ed for+ .he issues in the case at bar are as followsH #1$ whether "etitioner -avarette is res"ondents9 e3"lo&eeI and #2$ whether her dis3issal is illegal+ Our Ru-/ Ke resolve to den& the "etition+ Naaree * MBI* e34-oyee ! funda3ental "rinci"le in Phili""ine labor law is the a""lication of the four)fold test in deter3ining the e7istence of an e3"lo&er)e3"lo&ee relationshi", thusH #1$ selection and engage3entI #2$ "a&3ent of wagesI #($ "ower to dis3issI and #4$ "ower of control over the 3eans and 3ethods b& which the wor8 is to be acco3"lished+LD .here are, however, instances when these ele3ents are not e7ercised b& a single "erson or entit&+ .here are cases where one or 3ore of the said factors are assu3ed b& another entit&, for which reason, the Court 3ade it clear that of the four tests 3entioned, it is the "ower of control that is deter3inative+D One such instance is whenever an e3"lo&er su""lies wor8ers to another "ursuant to a contracting agree3ent, i+e+, :ob contracting+ Per O6 Order -o+ (, eries of 2001, there is contracting or subcontracting whenever an e3"lo&er, referred to as the "rinci"al, far3s out the "erfor3ance of a "art of its business to another, referred to as the contractor or subcontractor, and for the "ur"ose of underta8ing the "rinci"al9s business that is far3ed out, the contractor or subcontractor then e3"lo&s its own e3"lo&ees+ n such an arrange3ent, the four)fold test 3ust be satis=ed b& the contractor or subcontractor+10D Otherwise, it is the "rinci"al that shall be
considered as the e3"lo&er+ -ot all for3s of contracting arrange3ents are, however, "er3itted+ n contrast, there is the so)called labor)onl& contracting+ abor)onl& contracting e7ists whenH #1$ the "erson su""l&ing wor8ers to the "ur"orted "rinci"al does not have substantial ca"ital or invest3ents in the for3 of tools, e>ui"3ent, 3achineries, wor8 "re3ises, a3ong othersI and #2$ the wor8ers recruited and "laced b& such "erson;entit& "erfor3 activities which are directl& related to the "rinci"al business of the alleged "rinci"al+11D /inding that a contractor is engaged in labor)onl& contracting is then e>uivalent to declaring that there e7ists an e3"lo&er)e3"lo&ee relationshi" between the su""osed "rinci"al and the e3"lo&ee of the "ur"orted contractor+ 12D t also results in the followingH #1$ the subcontractor will be treated as the agent of the "rinci"al whose acts and re"resentations bind the latterI #2$ the "rinci"al, being the e3"lo&er, will be res"onsible to the e3"lo&ees for all their entitle3ents and bene=ts under labor lawsI and #($ the "rinci"al and the subcontractor will be solidarit& treated as the e3"lo&er+ Kith the 3entioned e%ects of labor)onl& contracting on e3"lo&3ent status, a deter3ination of the legiti3ac& or illegalit& of the contracting arrange3ent between the "rinci"al and the contractor is necessar& not onl& to deter3ine who between the two entities is the real e3"lo&er of the e3"lo&ee but also to deter3ine u"on who3 liabilit& should be i3"osed in the event that the e3"lo&ee is illegall& dis3issed, as here, a3ong others+ n this res"ect, res"ondents contend that B is a legiti3ate :ob contractor1(D and conse>uentl&, -avarette is B9s e3"lo&ee, invo8ing the a""lication of the "rinci"le of res %"dicata+ !ccording to res"ondents, the Court has alread&
"assed u"on and ruled on the legiti3ac& of B9s contract with the3Fthat it is one of "er3issible :ob contractingF when Ke a%ir3ed the contract9s status through a Resolution dated !ugust (1, 2011 in the adverted case of Manlangit, et al. v. MIFFI, et al., doc8eted as *+R+ -o+ 1?15+ BrieG&, Manlangit involved a co3"laint for regulariMation, illegal deduction, wage distortion and attorne&9s fees, later a3ended to include illegal dis3issal, =led b& *abriel anlangit and thirt& si7 #(?$ other wor8ers against //, C, and B+ i8e -avarette, anlangit, et al+ were also hired b& B and assigned to //+ !fter due "roceedings, the abor !rbiter found for //, C and B and dis3issed the co3"laint, ruling that anlangit, et al+ were "ro:ect e3"lo&ees of B, whose e3"lo&3ents were coter3inous with the service agree3ent between B and //;C+ .herefro3, anlangit, et al+ went to the -RC which dis3issed their a""eal for lac8 of 3erit and for non)"erfection in view of their failure to co3"l& with the 3andator& "rovision on veri=cation and certi=cation of non)foru3 sho""ing+ U"on the review of the case, the C!, then later this Court, veritabl& a%ir3ed the ecision of the abor !rbiter, as e%ectivel& u"held b& the -RC+14D n light of Manlangit, res"ondents add, the ruling on the legalit& of B and res"ondents9 contractual relationshi", being one of "er3issible :ob contracting, can no longer be disturbed+ Ke agree with res"ondents that Our ad:udication in Manlangit of the issue of the legiti3ac& of B9s contract with res"ondents and necessaril&, the >uestion who between B and // is -avarette9s e3"lo&er, have alread& been settled b& the Court and 3ust not be disturbed+ Per Manlangit, B is res"ondents9 e3"lo&er and res
%"dicata b& conclusiveness of :udg3ent bars further challenge on this issue+ /or res %"dicata b& conclusiveness of :udg3ent to a""l&, the following ele3ents should be "resent, viMH #1$ the :udg3ent sought to bar the new action 3ust be =nalI #2$ the decision 3ust have been rendered b& a court having :urisdiction over the sub:ect 3atter and the "artiesI #($ the dis"osition of the case 3ust be a :udg3ent on the 3eritsI and #4$ there 3ust be as between the =rst and second action, identit& of "arties, but not identit& of causes of action+ 15D Khen a""licable, the doctrine of conclusiveness of :udg3ent has this e%ectH the "rior :udg3ent is concl"sive in the second case only as to those matters act"ally and directly controverted and determined and not as to 3atters 3erel& involved therein+ tated di%erentl&, conclusiveness of :udg3ent =nds a""lication when a $act or &"estion has been s&"arely p"t in iss"e, %"dicially passed "pon, and ad%"dged in a $ormer s"it by a co"rt o$ competent %"risdiction+1?D !s to the =rst re>uisite, Manlangit which is being set as a bar to the instant case is a =nal :udg3ent+ Kith res"ect to the second re>uisite, the decision was rendered b& the Court of !""eals which was a%ir3ed b& this Court, both of which have :urisdiction over the sub:ect 3atter and the "arties+ !nent the third re>uisite, the dis"ositions were :udg3ents on the 3erit+ Regarding the fourth re>uisite, there is identit& or si3ilarit& of "arties but no identit& of causes of action+ Khile -avarette is not a "art& in anlangit, there is co33onalit& or si3ilarit& of "arties in the two cases+ -avarette and the "etitioners in Manlangit are si3ilarl& situated, being co) wor8ers "erfor3ing the sa3e tas8s of "ac8aging, barcoding, and sealing, a3ong others+ .oo, their assign3ent to herein res"ondents "roceeded fro3 the sa3e :ob contracting
agree3ent between B and res"ondents+ 1D n fact, it was the "etitioners in Manlangit who su""orted herein "etitioner, -avarette, their leader, when she =led the co3"laint for ins"ection against res"ondents before the O6 which, as "reviousl& 3entioned, &ielded a =nding that there is a labor)onl& contracting arrange3ent between B and res"ondents+ t is this co3"laint for ins"ection that triggered the chain of events which eventuall& led to the =ling b& therein "etitioners of a co3"laint for regulariMation, later converted into one for illegal dis3issal, 1LD as well as -avarette9s subse>uent =ling of her own co3"laint for illegal dis3issal against B and herein res"ondents+ .hus, based on these circu3stances, there is co33onalit& or si3ilarit& of "arties+ !n absolute identit& of "arties is not necessar& because a shared identit& of interest will su%ice for res %"dicata to a""l&+ ! 3ere substantial identit& of "arties or even co33unit& of interests between the "arties in the "rior and subse>uent cases would be su%icient+1D Kith res"ect to the causes of action, the cause of action in this "etition is for illegal dis3issal, while in Manlangit, the causes of action are for regulariMation, illegal deduction, wage distortion and attorne&9s fees+ .hus, all the re>uisites of res %"dicata b& conclusiveness of :udg3ent are "resent+ .he Court a""lies Manlangit to the instant "etition 3oored on res %"dicata b& conclusiveness of :udg3ent+ .o rule otherwise will not enhance and strengthen stabilit& of :udicial decisions+ Kith the =nding that B is a legiti3ate labor contractor and is the e3"lo&er of "etitioner -avarette, the Court cannot, however, "ass u"on the issue of whether B is guilt& of illegal dis3issal+ .he antecedents show that while the B is a "art& res"ondent in -RC)-CR Case -o+ 00)10) 1105)0( together with res"ondents // and C, the ruling of abor !rbiter Peralta)Bele& is to dis3iss
"etitioner9s co3"laint u"on a =nding of a valid dis3issal grounded on serious 3isconduct+ Petitioner a""ealed said adverse decision to the -RC against the B and herein res"ondents in -RC C! -o+ 040(4)04, and the -RC found // and C liable but not B+ !s a conse>uence, res"ondents // and C =led a "etition under Rule ?5 with the C! in C!)*+R+ P -o+ 112102+ B did not :oin said res"ondents since it was not ad:udged liable b& the -RC+ On the other hand, "etitioner did not =le a "etition with the C! >uestioning the -RC decision declaring // and C liable but absolving B+ .hus, the -RC decision dated /ebruar& 2, 2004 e7cluding B fro3 an& liabilit& to "etitioner beca3e /-! when "etitioner no longer challenged said ruling before the C!+ !HEREFORE, "re3ises considered, the instant "etition is hereb& DENIED+ !ccordingl&, the ecision of the Court of !""eals dated October 4, 2011 and its Resolution dated 'anuar& (0, 2012 in C!)*+R+ P -o+ 112102 are hereb& AFFIRMED+ -o "ronounce3ent as to costs+
