HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORP. vs PAGALILAUAN GR No. L-62909 1989 Fac s!

Petitioner corporation hired the private respondent Aban as its "Legal Assistant and received basic monthly salary of Pl,500.00 plus an initial living allowance of P50.00 which gradually increased to P !0.00. "n #eptember $, %&'0, Aban received a letter from the corporation informing him that he would be considered terminated effective "ctober $, %&'0 because of his alleged failure to perform his duties well. Aban filed a complaint against the petitioner for illegal dismissal. (he labor arbiter ruled that Aban was illegally dismissed. (his ruling was affirmed by the )L*+ on appeal. ,ence, this present petition. Iss"#! -hether or not there was an employer.employee relationship between the petitioner corporation and Aban. H#$%! (he #upreme +ourt dismissed the petition for lac/ of merit, and reinstate Aban to his former or a similar position without loss of seniority rights and to pay three 0 1 years bac/wages without 2ualification or deduction and P5,000.00 in attorney3s fees. #hould reinstatement not be feasible, the petitioner shall pay the private respondent termination benefits in addition to the above stated three years bac/pay and P5,000.00 attorney3s fees. A lawyer, li/e any other professional, may very well be an employee of a private corporation or even of the government. (his +ourt has consistently ruled that the determination of whether or not there is an employer. employee relation depends upon four standards4 0%1 the manner of selection and engagement of the putative employee5 0!1 the mode of payment of wages5 0 1 the presence or absence of a power of dismissal5 and 0$1 the presence or absence of a power to control the putative employee3s conduct. "f the four, the right. of.control test has been held to be the decisive factor. 6n this case, Aban received basic salary plus living allowance, wor/ed solely for the petitioner, dealt only with legal matters involving the said corporation and its employees and also assisted the Personnel "fficer in processing appointment papers of employees which is not act of a lawyer in the e7ercise of his profession. (hese facts showed that petitioner has the power to hire and fire the respondent employee and more important, e7ercised control over Aban by defining the duties and functions of his wor/ which met the four standards in determining whether or not there is an employee.employer relationship. Cirilo A. Bravo for private respondent.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. L-62909 April 18, 1989 HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORPORAT ON, petitioner, vs. LA!OR AR! TER ADR AN N. PAGAL LAUAN "#$ %&' NAT ONAL LA!OR RELAT ONS COMM SS ON, public respondents, "#$ ROGEL O A. A!AN, private respondent, G.E. Aragones & Associates for petitioner. The Solicitor General for public respondents.

GUT ERRE(, JR., J.: This is a petition to revie on certiorari the resolution of the National !abor Relations "o##ission $N!R"% hich affir#ed the labor arbiter&s decision orderin' herein petitioner, H(dro Resources "ontractors "orporation to reinstate Ro'elio ). )banto his for#er position ithout loss of seniorit( ri'hts, to pa( hi# *+ #onths bac, a'es in the a#ount of P*-,...... and to pa( attorne(&s fees in the a#ount of P*,-...... On October +/, *01-, petitioner corporation hired the private respondent )ban as its 2!e'al )ssistant.2 He received a basic #onthl( salar( of Pl,3..... plus an initial livin' allo ance of P3.... hich 'raduall( increased to P4+..... On Septe#ber /, *0-., )ban received a letter fro# the corporation infor#in' hi# that he ould be considered ter#inated effective October /, *0-. because of his alle'ed failure to perfor# his duties ell. On October 5, *0-., )ban filed a co#plaint a'ainst the petitioner for ille'al dis#issal. The labor arbiter ruled that )ban This rulin' as ille'all( dis#issed.

as affir#ed b( the N!R" on appeal.

Hence, this present petition. The onl( issue raised b( the petitioner is hether or not there as an e#plo(er6e#plo(ee relationship bet een the petitioner corporation and )ban. The petitioner 7uestions the 8urisdiction of the public respondents considerin' the alle'ed absence of

an e#plo(er6e#plo(ee relationship. The petitioner contends that its relationship ith )ban is that of a client ith his la (er. It is its position that 2$a% la (er as lon' as he is actin' as such, as lon' as he is perfor#in' acts constitutin' practice of la , can never be considered an e#plo(ee. His relationship ith those to ho# he renders services, as such la (er, can never be 'overned b( the labor la s. 9or a la (er to so ar'ue is not onl( de#eanin' to hi#self $sic%, but also his profession and to his brothers in the profession.2 Thus, the petitioner ar'ues that the labor arbiter and N!R" have no 8urisdiction over the instant case. The contention is ithout #erit. ) la (er, li,e an( other professional, #a( ver( ell be an e#plo(ee of a private corporation or even of the 'overn#ent. It is not unusual for a bi' corporation to hire a staff of la (ers as its in6house counsel, pa( the# re'ular salaries, ran, the# in its table of or'ani:ation, and other ise treat the# li,e its other officers and e#plo(ees. )t the sa#e ti#e, it #a( also contract ith a la fir# to act as outside counsel on a retainer basis. The t o classes of la (ers often or, closel( to'ether but one 'roup is #ade up of e#plo(ees hile the other is not. ) si#ilar arran'e#ent #a( e;ist as to doctors, nurses, dentists, public relations practitioners, and other professionals. This "ourt is not ithout a 'uide in decidin' hether or not an e#plo(er6e#plo(ee relation e;ists bet een the contendin' parties or hether or not the private respondent as hired on a retainer basis. )s stated in the case of Tabas v. California Manufacturing Co., $<.R. No. -.5-., =anuar( +5, *0-0%> This "ourt has consistentl( ruled that the deter#ination of hether or not there is an e#plo(er6e#plo(ee relation depends upon four standards> $*% the #anner of selection and en'a'e#ent of the putative e#plo(ee? $+% the #ode of pa(#ent of a'es? $4% the presence or absence of a po er of dis#issal? and $/% the presence or absence of a po er to control the putative e#plo(ee&s conduct. Of the four, the ri'ht6of6control test has been held to be the decisive factor. )ban as e#plo(ed b( the petitioner to be its !e'al )ssistant as evidenced b( his appoint#ent paper $@;hibit 2)2%. The petitioner paid hi# a basic salar( plus livin' allo ance. Thereafter, )ban as dis#issed on his alle'ed failure to perfor# his duties ell. $@;hibit 2A2%. )ban or,ed solel( for the petitioner and dealt onl( ith le'al #atters involvin' the said corporation and its e#plo(ees. He also assisted the Personnel Officer in processin' appoint#ent papers of e#plo(ees. This latter dut( is not an act of a la (er in the e;ercise of his profession but rather a dut( for the benefit of the corporation. The above6#entioned facts sho that the petitioner paid )ban&s a'es, e;ercised its po er to hire and fire the respondent e#plo(ee and #ore i#portant, e;ercised control over )ban b( definin' the duties and functions of his or,. Moreover, estoppel lies a'ainst the petitioner. It #a( no lon'er 7uestion the 8urisdiction of the labor arbiter and N!R" .

The petitioner presented docu#ents $@;hibits 2+2 to 2*02% before the !abor )rbiter to prove that )ban as a #ana'erial e#plo(ee. No , it is disclai#in' that )ban as ever its e#plo(ee. The proper procedure as for the petitioner to prove its alle'ations that )ban dran, heavil(, violated co#pan( policies, spent co#pan( funds and properties for personal ends, and other ise led the e#plo(er to lose trust and confidence in hi#. The real issue as due process, not the specious ar'u#ent raised in this petition. The ne theor( presented before this "ourt is a last6ditch effort b( the petitioner to cover up for the un arranted dis#issal of its e#plo(ee. This "ourt fro ns upon such dela(in' tactics. The findin's of fact of the !abor )rbiter bein' supported b( substantial evidence are bindin' on this "ourt. $See Industrial li#ber "orp. v. National !abor Relations "o##ission, <.R. No. -45*5, =anuar( +., *0-0%. "onsiderin' that the private respondent as ille'all( dis#issed fro# his e#plo(#ent in *0-., he is entitled to reinstate#ent to his for#er or si#ilar position ithout loss of seniorit( ri'hts, if it is still feasible, to bac, a'es ithout 7ualification or deduction for three (ears, $D.M. "onsun8i, Inc. v. Pucan *30 S"R) *.1 $*0--%? 9lores v. Nuestro, <.R. No. 55-0., )pril *3, *0--%, and to reasonable attorne(&s fees in the a#ount of P3,....... Should reinstate#ent prove no lon'er feasible, the petitioner ill pa( hi# separation pa( in lieu of reinstate#ent. $"it( Trust 9inance "orp. v. N!R", *31 S"R) -1? Santos v. N!R", *3/ S"R) *55? Metro Dru' v. N!R", et al., */4 S"R) *4+? !u:on Aro,era'e v. !u:on !abor Bnion, 1 S"R) **5%. The a#ount of such separation pa( as #a( be provided b( la or the collective bar'ainin' a'ree#ent is to be co#puted based on the period fro# +/ October *01- $date of first e#plo(#ent% to / October *0-4 $three (ears after date of ille'al dis#issal%. CManila Midto n "o##ercial "orporation v. Nu hrain *30 S"R) +*+ $*0--%D. EH@R@9OR@, the petition is hereb( DISMISS@D for lac, of #erit. The petitioner is ordered to reinstate the private respondent to his for#er or a si#ilar position ithout loss of seniorit( ri'hts and to pa( three $4% (ears bac, a'es ithout 7ualification or deduction and P3,...... in attorne(&s fees. Should reinstate#ent not be feasible, the petitioner shall pa( the private respondent ter#ination benefits in addition to the above stated three (ears bac,pa( and P3,...... attorne(&s fees. SO ORD@R@D. Fernan, C. ., Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, ., concur.