532 Phil. 517
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Respondent (Cebu Metal Corporation) is a corporation engage (sic) in buying and selling of scrap iron x x x. In the Bacolod Branch, it has three regular (3) employees holding such positions as Officer-in- Charge, a scaler and a yardman, x x x whose salaries are paid directly by its main office in Cebu while others are undertaking pakiao work in the unloading of scrap iron for stockpiling.
Among those workers who presented for work in the unloading of scrap iron in the area are the unemployed persons or trisicad drivers standing by in the vicinity some of whom are the herein complainants x x x Gregorio Robert Saliling, Elias Bolido, Manuel Alquiza, Benjie Amparado and non- complainants Arnel Allera, Eliseo Torralba or any other persons who wanted to augment their income aside from their regular jobs. Robert Gregorio Saliling started working in 1996, Elias Bolido on (sic) October 1995 while Manuel Alquiza and Benjie Amparado, on (sic) February 1996.As compensation for their services, these workers including the herein complainants are paid at the rate of P15.00 per ton for which each person can unload at least two (2) to three (3) tons per hour or can earn at least P240.00 to P360.00 in eight (8) hours if work is only available which payment necessarily includes cost of living allowance (COLA) and 13th-month pay.
The Bacolod buying station is mainly a stockyard where scrap metal delivered by its suppliers are stockpiled.In contrast, respondent complainants, Gregorio Saliling, Elias Bolido, Manuel Alquiza and Benjie Amparado, in their position paper[8] submitted to the Labor Arbiter, narrate:
The supply of scrap metal is not steady as it depends upon many factors, such as availability of supplies, price, competition and demand among others. There are therefore (sic) instances when in a single week , one or two trucks of scrap metal are delivered while there are weeks when not a single truck of scrap metal are delivered although there may also be weeks when quite a number of trucks are delivered to the stockyard x x x. The arrivals of these trucks and the deliveries of scrap metal are not regular and the schedules of deliveries x x x to the stockyard x x x are not known before hand by the respondent (petitioner company).
x x x [t]he trucks used in the delivery of scrap metal are owned and/or rented by the different suppliers of scrap metal. These trucks have their own driver and truck boys employed by these different suppliers. Sometimes, these trucks do not have any truck boys, and in these instances, the respondent hires the services of people for the purpose of unloading the scrap metal from these trucks.
It is for this reason that the unloaders hired by the respondent to unload the scrap metal from these trucks are basically seasonal workers. They are hired only whenever there are trucks of suppliers of scrap metal that deliver scrap metal to the yard of the respondent and these trucks happen not to have any accompanying truck boys. Whoever are available and whoever are willing to help unload x x x on a particular occasion are hired to unload x x x.
Usually, there is a leader for a particular group who is tasked to unload the scrap metal from a particular truck. It is this leader who distributes the individual take of each member of the particular group unloading the scrap metal from a particular truck.
- That complainants Gregorio Saliling was employed by defendant Corporation x x x in 1988, complainant Elias Bolido was hired in 1992 and complainant Benjie Amparado was hired by respondent in 1994; x x x.
- The aforesaid complainants, from the time they were employed by respondent, they received their salary on (sic) the following rate:
GREGORIO ROBERT SALILING- ---------- P5.00/hour in 1988 5.00/hour in 1989 6.00/hour in 1990 7.00/hour in 1991 7.00/hour in 1992 7.00/hour in 1993 7.00/hour in 1994 7.50/hour in 1995 8.75/hour in 1996 ELIAS BOLIDO ---------- P100.00/day in 1992 7.00/hour in 1993 7.00/hour in 1994 7.50/hour in 1995 8.75/hour in 1996 BENJIE AMPARADO ---------- P7.00/hour in 1994 7.50/hour in 1995 8.75/hour in 1996
- That the aforesaid complainants never received any other benefits from the respondent, except the amount indicated above; (sic) They received the sum of P10.93 per hour in case of overtime work, but they never received additional benefits in case, (sic) they worked on Saturdays, Sundays, and Holidays;
Complainants likewise never received 13th month pay, holiday pay, incentive leave pay, bonuses and other labor benefits;
- Complainants were required to work from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 noon and from 1:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. or for eight hours a day; seven days a week and thirty days a month;
On 10 January 1997, respondent complainants filed a Complaint[9] before the Regional Arbitration Branch No VI, Bacolod City for underpayment of wages and non- payment of the following benefits: 1) 13th month pay; 2) holiday pay; and 3) service incentive leave pay.
- When these complainants demanded from respondent for the increase of their salary, respondent through Marlon got irritated and instructed complainants to stop working, thus, complainants, effective December 1996 were precluded from entering respondent loading and unloading compound x x x.
On 6 March 1998, respondent complainants manifested[10] that they were including in their complaint against petitioner company, the claim for illegal dismissal. Such belated filing was alleged to have been due to the fact that they were only dismissed after the filing of their complaint.
On 27 May 1999, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision[11] the dispositive of which reads:
CONFORMABLY TO THE FOREGOING, respondent Cebu Metal Corporation, through its manager, MARLON RADEN, is hereby ordered to REINSTATE complainants to their former positions with backwages limited to one (1) year and 13th month pay, ERA and COLA as follows:
NAME OF COMPLAINANTS:
A) Backwages -------------- P42,238.30B) 13th Month Pay -------------- 7,912.34C) ERA -------------- 1,139.83D) COLA
-------------- 12,961.91 TOTAL-------------- P64,252.382. Elias Bolido A) Backwages -------------- P42,238.30B) 13th Month Pay -------------- 7,912.34C) ERA
-------------- 1,139.83D) COLA
-------------- 12,961.91 TOTAL-------------- P64,252.383. Manuel Alquiza A) Backwages -------------- P42,238.30B) 13th Month Pay -------------- 7,912.34C) ERA
-------------- 1,139.83D) COLA
-------------- 12,961.91 TOTAL-------------- P64,252.384. Benjie Amparado A) Backwages -------------- P42,238.30B) 13th Month Pay -------------- 7,912.34C) ERA
-------------- 1,139.83D) COLA
-------------- 12,961.91 TOTAL-------------- P64,252.38GRAND TOTAL -------------- P257,009.52
Regarding the second issue which is illegal dismissal, we find the same meritorious. Under Article 280 of the Labor Code, complainants are regular employees since they are "engaged to perform activities which are necessary and desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer", (sic) x x x. Complainants job of loading, unloading and stockpiling scrap iron is necessary and part of the business of respondent. Since complainants were dismissed without cause and due process of law, they are entitled to reinstatement with backwages limited to one (1) year.Aggrieved, petitioner company appealed the foregoing decision to the NLRC.
The Court of Appeals decision ended in this wise:The Issues
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the PETITION HAVING MERIT is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE. RESULTANTLY, the challenged decision of Public Respondent National Labor Relations Commission is hereby ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE LABOR ARBITER IN RAB-CASE No. 06-01-10019-97 REINSTATED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
In essence, the issue for resolution in the case at bar is whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that the NLRC had no authority to adjudicate on an issue not properly raised in petitioner company's Memorandum on Appeal.I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION FOURTH DIVISION, CEBU CITY HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DISMISS PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S CLAIMS FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL AND OTHER MONEY CLAIMS;II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION FOURTH DIVISION, CEBU CITY HAD NO AUTHORITY TO REVERSE THE LABOR ARBITER'S DECISION; andIII.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN CA G.R. SP. NO. 66480 AND IN ANNULING (sic) THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION.
It is interesting to note that the Labor Arbiter had given credence and probative value to the Petty Cash Vouchers submitted by the respondents. Thus he said:
"The petty cash vouchers (Annexes "1" to"1-A-62", respondents position paper) show that complainants are not paid on hourly or daily basis as they would like this office to believe but on "pakiao" or task basis at P15.00 per metric ton. There is no basis then for complainants to claim that they are underpaid since there is no minimum wage in this type of work. Complainants' earnings depend upon their own diligence and speed in unloading and stockpiling scrap iron. More importantly, it depends upon the availability of scrap iron to be unloaded and stockpiled."
The above findings validate respondent's position as to the nature of complainants' work. Their services are needed only when scrap metals are delivered which occurs only one or twice a week or sometimes no delivery at all in a given week. The irregular nature of work, stoppage of work and then work again depending on the supply of scrap metal has not been denied by complainants. On the contrary they even admitted the same in their Reply to respondent's Appeal. x x x. Indeed, it would be unjust to require respondent to maintain complainants in the payroll even if there is no more work to be done. To do so would make complainants privileged retainers who collect payment from their employer for work not done. This is extremely unfair and amount to cuddling of labor at the expense of management.[16]It should be remembered that The Philippine Constitution, while inexorably committed towards the protection of the working class from exploitation and unfair treatment, nevertheless mandates the policy of social justice so as to strike a balance between an avowed predilection for labor, on the one hand, and the maintenance of the legal rights of capital, the proverbial hen that lays the golden egg, on the other. Indeed, we should not be unmindful of the legal norm that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed with in the light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence.[17]
x x x there can be no illegal dismissal to speak of. Besides, complainants cannot claim regularity in the hiring every time a truck comes loaded with scrap metal. This is confirmed in the Petty cash Vouchers which are in the names of different leaders who apportion the amount earned among his members.[18]And, quite telling is the fact that not every truck delivery of scrap metal requires the services of respondent complainants when a particular truck is accompanied by its own "unloader." And whenever required, respondent complainants were not always the ones contracted to undertake the unloading of the trucks since the work was offered to whomever were available at a given time.
Moreover, We note that in the complaint filed last January 10, 1997, the issue of illegal dismissal was not raised as a cause of action although it was later discussed in their position paper filed on January 12, 1998. x x x. [Emphasis supplied.]The use of the word "moreover" clearly expresses NLRC's position in treating the matter of the non- inclusion of the issue of illegal dismissal in the complaint merely as an add-on, adjunct or a supplement to its finding that respondent complainants' were not regular employees of petitioner company.