G.R. No. 121490 May 5, 1997
Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa Sony (NAMASO) and Elvira O. Elpa, petitioners, vs. National Labor Relations Commission (First Division), Hon. Commissioners Vicente Veloso and Alberto Quimpo, Solid Corporation, Elena Lim, James Uy, Delma M. Olam, Asia Central Employment Services Inc. and Jose P. Banez, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Elvira O. Elpa was hired by respondent Asia Central Employment Services, Inc. (ACES), a manpower agency, on January 24, 1992. She signed a “Kasunduan” agreeing to a fixed five-month assignment as an assembler with respondent Solid Corporation (SOLID), a manufacturer of Sony products. Her assignment ended on June 24, 1992. During her tenure, she was supervised by SOLID personnel, performed work necessary to SOLID’s business, and used SOLID’s equipment. She and her union, NAMASO, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing she was a regular employee of SOLID, with ACES being a mere labor-only contractor. They contended the fixed-term contract was a scheme to circumvent security of tenure.
ACES and SOLID defended the arrangement as legitimate job contracting. They asserted ACES was Elpa’s true employer, as evidenced by the “Kasunduan,” its payment of her wages, and its claimed power of control. They maintained her separation was due to the contract’s expiration, not dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, upholding the contract. The NLRC initially reversed this, finding Elpa was SOLID’s regular employee, but upon a motion for reconsideration, set aside its own decision and ordered the case remanded to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside its decision and remanding the case for further proceedings instead of resolving the appeal on its merits based on the complete records.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC’s order of remand. The Court emphasized that the NLRC, as an appellate body, has the duty to decide cases based on the entire record before it. The records, including all position papers and evidence submitted by the parties, were already complete and sufficient for a judicious determination of the core issue: the existence of an employer-employee relationship and the legality of Elpa’s separation. The NLRC’s initial decision demonstrated it could resolve the factual and legal issues based on these documents. Ordering a remand under these circumstances was unnecessary and constituted a dereliction of the NLRC’s adjudicatory function, which unjustly delayed the resolution of the case. The Court set aside the remand order and directed the NLRC to decide the appeal on its merits within sixty days, considering all evidence already of record.