GR 84502; (June, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 84502 . June 30, 1989
CHRISTIAN CHILDREN’S FUND, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER RICARDO OLAIREZ, ELIZABETH SALAO, FELISA MAMARIL, FELIPA PITOK, JOY GONSODEN and ELENA ECLARINO, respondents.
FACTS
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed the appeal of petitioner Christian Children’s Fund (CCF) from a Labor Arbiter’s decision, declaring it filed out of time. The Labor Arbiter had found CCF liable for the illegal dismissal of private respondents, ordering it to pay backwages and separation pay. CCF received the Arbiter’s decision on May 15, 1986, making the appeal due on May 25, 1986. The records showed CCF posted its appeal via registered mail on May 24, 1986. Nevertheless, the NLRC deemed it filed only on May 30, 1986, the date stamped upon receipt, and dismissed it for tardiness.
On the merits, CCF denied being the employer of the private respondents. It asserted they were employed by the Cristo Regis Center, an unincorporated organization. CCF’s relationship with the Center was governed by a written agreement stating they were independent entities, the Center was not CCF’s agent, and CCF’s support was for direct child services. The project closed due to alleged anomalies, prompting an audit and work suspension, which led to the termination of the private respondents’ employment.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing CCF’s appeal; and (2) whether CCF was the real employer of the private respondents and liable for their alleged illegal dismissal.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition. On procedural grounds, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. Under the Rules of Court, the date of mailing is deemed the date of filing. Since the appeal was sent by registered mail on May 24, 1986, within the ten-day reglementary period, it was timely filed. The NLRC erred in using the date of receipt instead of verifying the mailing date from the registry receipts or envelope.
On the substantive issue, the Court ruled CCF was not the employer. The agreement expressly stipulated independence, with no agency relationship. The Cristo Regis Center had its own organizational setup, controlled the private respondents’ work, and operated autonomously. CCF merely provided financial support for a specific charitable program. The employer was the Cristo Regis Center. As an organization created for a lawful purpose, it could not evade liability by claiming lack of corporate personality; the doctrine of corporation by estoppel applied since it contracted and received benefits. Furthermore, the closure of the Center due to serious anomalies constituted a justified ground for retrenchment under the Labor Code. Thus, there was no illegal dismissal, and CCF could not be held liable for the private respondents’ money claims. The challenged resolutions and decision were set aside.