GR 111870; (June, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111870 June 30, 1994
Air Material Wing Savings and Loan Association, Inc., petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Luis S. Salas was appointed “notarial and legal counsel” for petitioner Air Material Wing Savings and Loan Association (AMWSLAI) in 1980. His reappointment for a term of three years effective March 1, 1987, was approved by the Board, with duties enumerated per the by-laws, and his monthly compensation/retainer’s fee remained the same. On January 9, 1990, petitioner issued an order reminding Salas of the approaching termination of his legal services. Salas filed a complaint against AMWSLAI for various monetary claims. AMWSLAI moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, alleging no employer-employee relationship. The labor arbiter dismissed most of Salas’ claims but ordered AMWSLAI to pay his notarial fees from 1987 to March 2, 1990, and attorney’s fees. The NLRC affirmed the decision in toto.
ISSUE
The threshold issue is whether Salas can be considered an employee of the petitioner company. A subsequent issue is whether his claim for notarial fees falls under the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter and is substantiated.
RULING
The Supreme Court held that an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and Salas. The elements were present: (1) selection and engagement by the board of directors; (2) payment of a monthly compensation/retainer’s fee; (3) power of dismissal reserved by petitioner for cause or necessity; and (4) power of control exercised by AMWSLAI by defining his duties and functions as legal counsel. The NLRC’s finding on this matter, being supported by substantial evidence, is accorded respect.
On the claim for notarial fees, the Court held that labor arbiters have jurisdiction over such money claims arising out of the employer-employee relationship. However, the Court found no substantial evidence to support the award. The letter-contract of January 23, 1987, contained no stipulation for separate payment of notarial fees; his notarial services appeared to be part of his regular functions covered by his monthly compensation. The fact that notarial fees were paid by members-borrowers to the petitioner’s account was insufficient basis for Salas’ claim absent any agreement.
The appealed judgment of the NLRC was AFFIRMED, with the modification that the award of notarial fees and attorney’s fees was disallowed.