Case Digest: Sadol v. Pilipinas Kao, G.R. No. 87530, June 13, 1990

    Labor Law | Appeal 

• Geronimo Sadol was recruited as a laborer by private respondents, who are the owners of a private recruitment agency Vega & Co.
• He was assigned at Pilipinas Kao, Inc. (PKI). and was later allegedly summarily dismissed.
• He filed a complaint for reinstatement and backwages with DOLE.
• Labor Arbiter: Ordered payment of separation pay to the petitioner. 
• Both parties appealed to the NLRC but respondents appeal was filed out of time.
• NLRC: Modified the decision, ordering PKI to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages or, if reinstatement is impossible, payment of full backwages and separation pay.
• PKI's appeal was dismissed as filed out of time. 
• PKI filed a motion for reconsideration and a similar motion was filed by another Samahang Kabuhayan ng Barangay Luz Banzon.
• NLRC: Set aside its decision and dismissed the case for lack of merit. 
• The petitioner questioned this decision through a petition for certiorari.

WoN the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent and reversing its own decision. NO

There is no question that private respondents failed to file a timely appeal from the decision of the labor arbiter while the petitioner was able to interpose his appeal within the reglementary period. It is also an accepted postulate that issues not raised in the lower court or the labor arbiter may not be raised for the first time on appeal.

Note is taken of the fact that even the Solicitor General refused to represent the NLRC in this proceeding as it shares the view of petitioner that the decision of the labor arbiter having become final by the failure to respondent PKI to appeal on time the NLRC may no longer amend, modify, much less set aside the same.

This posture is correct insofar as respondent PKI is concerned. However, as petitioner had filed a timely appeal the NLRC had jurisdiction to give due se to his appeal and render the decision of August 28, 1988, a copy of which was furnished respondents. Having lost the right to appeal can respondent PKI file a motion for reconsideration of said decision? The Court resolves the question in the affirmative. The rules of technicality must yield to the broader interest of justice. It is only by giving due course to the motion for reconsideration that was timely filed that the NLRC may be able, to equitably evaluate the conflicting versions of facts presented by the parties.

In the now questioned resolution of the NLRC dated September 30,1988, the following findings and conclusions were made:

Respondent SKLB assails the finding of the Commission that it is engaged in labor-only contracting. In support thereof, respondent submitted a Clearance Certificate issued by the Department of Labor and Employment, Regional Office No. 10 situated in Cagayan de Oro City, certifying to its being cleared for issuance of a permit as a labor contractor. It also submitted payrolls showing that it indeed operated as such independent labor contractor in accordance with Article 106 of the Labor Code.

Attached to respondent SKLB's motion likewise is the joint affidavit of one Mario T. Ecarnum and Benito U. Ecarnum who jointly stated that they were neighbors and co-workers of the complainant in the pit burning area, in a work contracted by aforesaid respondent with respondent Pilipinas Kao, Inc.; that complainant abandoned his work starting April 19,1984 when he went to Manila to apply for work abroad and it wall only about eight (8) months later that he returned when he failed to secure an overseas employment; that complainant's prolonged absence was without prior permission or leave of absence.

Respondent SKLB further contends that it meets all requirements set by law and jurisprudence pertaining to an independent labor contractor, citing the case of Vda. de Eustaquio vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, 97 SCRA 255, thus:

An independent contractor is one who, in rendering services, exercise an independent employment or occupation and represents the will of his employer only as to the results of his work; and who is engaged to perform a certain service to another according to his own manner and methods, free from control and direction of his employer in all matters connected with the performance of the service, except as to the result of the work.

To further buttress respondent SKLB's claim of being an independent labor contractor and employer of complainant, it submitted a copy of a Memorandum dated April 21, 1984 sent to complainant requiring the latter to report to its office immediately otherwise he would be deemed to have abandoned his work.

It does strike Us as odd that if indeed complainant was dismissed sometime in April 1984 it took him almost three (3) years before filing the instant case for illegal dismissal . This circumstance adds a significant dimension to respondent's position that indeed complainant abandoned his job to look for greener pastures and it was only when he failed to find such opportunity that he came back to demand that he be allowed to resume the employment which he unceremoniously abandoned.

All the foregoing undisputed taken together, preponderate in favor of respondent SKLB's claim of being a lawful independent labor contractor which employed complainant who unjustifiably abandoned his employment.

WHEREFORE, the derision sought to be reconsidered is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one entered, dismissing the case for lack of merit. 

The factual findings of the NLRC are conclusive on this Court because the same appear to be supported by substantial evidence.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. No costs.