GR 109224; (June, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109224 June 19, 1997
MEGASCOPE GENERAL SERVICES, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER ARIEL C. SANTOS, ERLINDA ARAOJO, LILING C. ARAGO, LUZ P. BALENA, ADELA R. BAUTISTA, GEMENA D. CANTA, VICTORINA S. COLLENA, ELISA H. DE GUZMAN, YOLANDA J. GOB, JULING R. GOB, FRANCISCO N. GUMARO, LOURDES P. MANALO, ROSALINA O. RAMIREZ, RODRIGO O. RAMIREZ, VENTURA RAMOS, REYNALDO MAGTANONG, AURELIA M. SAN JOSE, NESTOR SERIL, LUIS TUTOL and GENER J. DEL ROSARIO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Megascope General Services, a sole proprietorship engaged in contracting out general services, entered into a landscaping contract with System and Structures, Inc. (SSI) for the National Power Corporation (NPC) Housing Village in Bagac, Bataan. Between February 15, 1977 and January 1, 1989, it hired the nineteen private respondents as gardeners, helpers, and maintenance workers, deploying them at the NPC site. Their work ceased on January 31, 1991 (except for Gener J. del Rosario whose employment ended earlier on April 30, 1989). The private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries, nonpayment of service incentive leave, and holiday pay. Petitioner countered that the respondents were hired for a definite period tied to its contract with NPC, which had expired. The Labor Arbiter found the respondents to be “regular contractual employees” and, while ruling there was no illegal dismissal due to the contract’s expiration, awarded them separation pay based on one-half month for every year of service. The NLRC affirmed this decision. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, arguing the award lacked factual basis and that a full trial, not just position papers, was necessary.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s award of separation pay to the private respondents.
RULING
No, the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court upheld the award. The employer-employee relationship between petitioner and private respondents was established by the four elements: selection and engagement, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and power of control, as admitted by petitioner in its sworn position paper. The private respondents, having performed activities necessary or desirable in petitioner’s usual business for more than one year, were regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code, regardless of any contrary contractual stipulations. Their length of service converted them from potentially contractual to regular employees. The Court also ruled that a full-blown hearing was not indispensable; the position paper method was sufficient, and petitioner was given ample opportunity to present evidence. The decision was based on substantial evidence, not conjecture.