G.R. No. 209418, December 07, 2015 - W.M. MANUFACTURING, INC.

, Petitioner,
v. RICHARD R. DALAG AND GOLDEN ROCK MANPOWER SERVICES, Respondent.

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 209418, December 07, 2015

W.M. MANUFACTURING, INC., Petitioner, v. RICHARD R. DALAG AND

GOLDEN ROCK MANPOWER SERVICES, Respondent.

DECISION

VELASCO JR., J.:

Nature of the Case

For consideration is the amended petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, assailing the February 21, 2013 Decision1 and September 17, 2013
Amended Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
122425,3 which declared petitioner W.M. Manufacturing, Inc. (WM MFG) and
respondent Golden Rock Manpower Services (Golden Rock) solidarily liable to
respondent Richard R. Dalag (Dalag) for the latter's alleged illegal dismissal from
employment.

The Facts

On January 3, 2010, petitioner, as client, and respondent Golden Rock, as

contractor, executed a contract denominated as "Service Agreement,"4 which
pertinently reads:

SERVICE AGREEMENT

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS

xxxx

The CONTRACTOR shall render, undertake, perform and employ the necessary
number of workers as the CLIENT may need, at such dates and times as the
CLIENT may deem necessary.
 The CLIENT shall have the right to request for replacement to relieve such
workers as the need arises for any reason whatsoever and the CONTRACTOR
undertakes to furnish a replacement immediately as possible.

xxxx

There shall be no employer-employee relationship between the CLIENT, on the

one hand, and the persons assigned by the CONTRACTOR to perform the
services called for hereunder, on the other hand.

In view of this, CONTRACTOR agrees to hold the CLIENT free from any liability,
cause(s) o(f) action and/or claims which may failed (sic) by said workers
including but not limited to those arising from injury or death of any kind of
nature that may be sustained by them while in the performance of their assigned
tasks.

The CONTRACTOR hereby warrants compliance with the provisions of the Labor
Code of the Philippines as well as with all other presidential decrees, general
orders, letters of instruction, laws rules and regulations pertaining to the
employment of a labor now existing or which may hereafter be enacted,
including the payment of wages, allowances, bonuses, and other fringe benefits,
and the CLIENT shall not in any way be responsible for any claim for personal
injury or death, for wages, allowances, bonuses and other fringe benefits, made
either by the said personnel or by third parties, whether or not such injury,
death or claim by third parties, whether or not such injury, death or claim arises
out of, or in any way connected with, the performance of personnel's duties.

The CLIENT shall have the right to report to the CONTRACTOR and protest any
untoward act, negligence, misconduct, malfeasance or nonfeasance of the said
personnel and the contractor alone shall have the right to discipline the said
personnel.

The CONTRACTOR shall fully and faithfully comply with the provisions of the New
Labor Code, as well as with other laws, rules and regulations, pertaining to the
employment of labor which is now existing or which hereafter be promulgated or
enacted.
 The Issues

The issues in this case can be summarized, thusly:

1. Whether or not Dalag is excused from not moving for reconsideration

before filing a petition for certiorari;

2. Whether or not WM MFG and Golden Rock engaged in labor-only

contracting;

3. Whether or not Dalag was illegally dismissed; and

4. What monetary award/s is Dalag entitled to, if any, and at what amount.

The Court's Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

Respondent Dalag was excused from filing a Motion for

Reconsideration before filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule
65 with the CA

As a general rule, a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite for the

availment of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The intention behind
the requirement is to afford the public respondent an opportunity, the
NLRC in this case, to correct any error attributed to it by way of re-
examination of the legal and factual aspects of the case.49 The Court,
however, has declined from applying the rule rigidly in certain scenarios.
The well-recognized exceptions are enumerated in Romy 's Freight Service
v. Castro,50 viz:

5. (a) Where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no
jurisdiction;

(b) Where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly
raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those
raised and passed upon in the lower court;

(c) Where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question
and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or
of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable;

(d) Where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would

be useless;

(e) Where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme
urgency for relief;

(f) Where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and
 the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable;

(g) Where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due
process;

(h) Where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no
opportunity to object; and

(i) Where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is
involved, (emphasis added)
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > October 2016
Decisions > G.R. No. 217455, October 05, 2016 - OYSTER PLAZA HOTEL,
ROLITO GO, AND JENNIFER AMPEL, Petitioners, v. ERROL O. MELIVO,
Respondent.:

G.R. No. 217455, October 05, 2016 - OYSTER PLAZA HOTEL, ROLITO GO,
AND JENNIFER AMPEL, Petitioners, v. ERROL O. MELIVO, Respondent.

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 217455, October 05, 2016

OYSTER PLAZA HOTEL, ROLITO GO, AND JENNIFER

AMPEL, Petitioners, v. ERROL O. MELIVO, Respondent.

DECISION

MENDOZA, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the April
30, 2014 Decision1 and the March 12, 2015 Resolution2 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 122767, which affirmed the June 21, 2011
Decision3 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR
Case No. 10-14771-09, a case for illegal dismissal.

The Antecedents:

On October 22, 2009, respondent Errol O. Melivo (Melivo) filed before the NLRC
a Complaint4 for illegal dismissal with prayers for reinstatement and payment of
back wages, holiday pay, overtime pay, service incentive leave, and, 13th month
pay against petitioners Oyster Plaza Hotel (Oyster Plaza), Rolito Go (Go), and
Jennifer Ampel (Ampel).

ISSUES

WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS WERE DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHT TO DUE

PROCESS OF LAW AS THEY WERE NOT PROPERLY SERVED WITH SUMMONS
 II

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT MELIVO

WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED

III

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING PETITIONERS GO AND

AMPEL SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH OYSTER PLAZA/MDC]
chanrobleslaw
The petitioners argue, first, that the service of summons was defective leaving
the proceedings before the LA and the NLRC, and the decisions they rendered,
void; that neither Miraña nor Ampel was authorized to receive the summons for
Oyster Plaza/MDC because they were not its president, manager, secretary,
cashier, agent, director, corporate secretary, or in-house counsel; that Ampel
did not receive any summons; that Go never received any summons in the New
Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa City, where he was serving his sentence; that
Oyster Plaza, being a mere name and business style, could not be sued because
it had no legal personality; and that the summons and notices addressed to
Oyster Plaza could not bind MDC.

Second, on the assumption that the summons was validly served, the petitioners
argue that Melivo was not illegally dismissed because he was not a regular
employee but merely a fixed-term employee. Lastly, assuming that Oyster Plaza
was liable, Go could not be made solidarity liable because he was no longer
connected with the hotel Neither could Ampel be held solidarity liable as there
was no proof that she acted in bad faith.

In his Comment,24 dated October 23, 2015, Melivo refuted the petitioners'
arguments. He countered that in quasi-judicial proceedings before the NLRC and
its arbitration branch, procedural rules governing service of summons were not
strictly construed; that the service of summons and notices substantially
complied with the requirements of the 2005 Revised NLRC Rules of Procedure;
that the non-inclusion of the corporate name of MDC was a mere procedural
error which did not affect the jurisdiction of the labor tribunals; that Go and
Ampel were responsible officers of Oyster Plaza; and that Melivo's dismissal was
done in bad faith because he was verbally and arbitrarily dismissed.

In their Reply,25 dated March 23, 2016, the petitioners merely reiterated the
arguments they raised in their petition.
 The Court's Ruling

The petition is partly meritorious.

Petitioners were Not Deprived of their

Right to Due Process

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The April 30, 2014

Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 122767 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION in that only Oyster Plaza Hotel/Martyniuk Development
Corporation is ORDERED to reinstate Melivo to his former position without loss
of seniority rights; and to pay Melivo his backwages, proportionate 13th month
pay, and attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the monetary awards.

The total monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of 12% per annum
from the date that Melivo was illegally terminated from work until June 30,
2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until their full satisfaction.

SO ORDERED.