G.R. No. 200580 , February 11, 2015.
MARIAN B. NAVARETTE, PETITIONER, VS. MANILA INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT FORWARDERS, INC/MIFFI LOGISTICS COMPANY, INC., MR. HARADA, AND MBI MILLENNIUM EXPERTS, INC., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Respondents Manila International Freight Forwarders, Inc. (MIFFI) and MIFFI Logistics Company, Inc. (MCLI) are corporations engaged in freight and cargo forwarding. MIFFI entered into a contract with MBI Millennium Experts, Inc. (MBI) for the provision of production workers and technical personnel for MIFFI’s projects or temporary needs. On January 15, 2002, MBI hired petitioner Marian Navarette and assigned her as a temporary project employee to MIFFI’s Packaging Department for a fixed period of three months. She worked alongside MIFFI’s regular employees, used MIFFI’s equipment, and was supervised by MIFFI employees. Subsequent fixed-term contracts were concluded between Navarette and MBI for assignments with MIFFI and later MLCI.
On July 29, 2003, Navarette and others filed a complaint for inspection with the DOLE. After an inspection uncovered violations, including alleged labor-only contracting by MBI, the parties engaged in proceedings. During a meeting called by MBI to sign a settlement document, Navarette, believing the document was erroneous, threw it and made an angry remark. MBI considered this serious misconduct, issued show-cause memoranda, and, after Navarette tore one memorandum, terminated her employment on October 6, 2003. Navarette filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against MBI, MIFFI, and MCLI.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding MBI was a legitimate job contractor (thus Navarette’s employer) and that her dismissal for serious misconduct was valid. The NLRC reversed, declaring MBI a labor-only contractor, making MIFFI/MCLI Navarette’s employer, and ordering her reinstatement with backwages. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The CA’s decision was influenced by a prior Supreme Court Resolution in a related case (Manlangit, et al. v. MIFFI, et al., G.R. No. 196175) which upheld that MBI’s contract with MIFFI/MCLI was one of legitimate job contracting.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner Navarette is an employee of respondents MIFFI/MCLI.
2. Whether her dismissal is illegal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s decision.
1. On the Employer-Employee Relationship: The Court ruled that Navarette was an employee of MBI, not of MIFFI/MCLI. The determination hinged on whether MBI was a legitimate job contractor or a labor-only contractor. The Court applied the four-fold test (selection and engagement, payment of wages, power to dismiss, power of control), emphasizing control as the most determinative factor. It noted that in a legitimate job contracting arrangement, the contractor (MBI) must satisfy this test with respect to its employees. The Court found that MBI was a legitimate job contractor based on the findings in the related Manlangit case, where it was held that MBI had substantial capital and investments, and its employees were assigned to perform specific projects for MIFFI/MCLI. Therefore, no employer-employee relationship existed between Navarette and MIFFI/MCLI.
2. On the Legality of Dismissal: Since MBI was Navarette’s legitimate employer, the inquiry into the legality of her dismissal focused on MBI’s actions. The Court found that Navarette’s acts of throwing the settlement document, making angry remarks, and later tearing a company memorandum constituted serious misconduct, a valid cause for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code. Her explanation that she acted out of frustration was deemed insufficient to justify her behavior, which displayed disrespect and insubordination. The Court upheld the Labor Arbiter’s finding that the dismissal was for a just cause and therefore legal.
The Supreme Court concluded that the CA correctly reversed the NLRC and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal for lack of merit.