GR 160278; (February, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160278 ; February 8, 2012
GARDEN OF MEMORIES PARK and LIFE PLAN, INC. and PAULINA T. REQUIÑO, Petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION, LABOR ARBITER FELIPE T. GARDUQUE II and HILARIA CRUZ, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Garden of Memories operates a memorial park. Respondent Hilaria Cruz worked as a utility worker from August 1991 until February 1998. Cruz alleged that after a misunderstanding with a co-worker, petitioner Paulina Requiño instructed her to go home and not return. When she reported back, she was informed she had been replaced. Cruz filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims against Garden of Memories. Garden of Memories impleaded Requiño, asserting she was an independent service contractor and the true employer of Cruz. Requiño claimed she merely supervised workers after her mother fell ill and that Cruz had abandoned her work.
ISSUE
The primary issue was whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Cruz and Garden of Memories, or whether Requiño was a legitimate independent contractor, thereby negating Garden of Memories’ liability.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the rulings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals. The Court held that Requiño was engaged in labor-only contracting, not legitimate job contracting. For a contractor to be considered independent, it must possess substantial capital, investment, or tools to perform the job independent of the principal’s control. The evidence showed Requiño had no such substantial capital or investment. Consequently, under labor law, the principal (Garden of Memories) is deemed the employer of the workers supplied by a labor-only contractor. Therefore, an employer-employee relationship existed between Cruz and Garden of Memories, making them jointly and severally liable with Requiño for Cruz’s monetary claims.
The Court also rejected the defense of abandonment. Abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume work. Cruz’s immediate filing of the illegal dismissal complaint strongly negated any intent to abandon her employment. The dismissal was thus illegal for lack of just cause and due process. The awarded monetary claims, including backwages, separation pay, and other benefits, were upheld.