GR 96520; (June, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 96520 June 28, 1996
Restituto C. Palomado, petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Marling Rice Mill and/or Mario Tan Teng Kuan and Rolando Tan, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Restituto Palomado filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and various benefits against Marling Rice Mill, its owner Mario Tan Teng Kuan, and Rolando Tan. He alleged he was hired as a truck driver in 1970 and was illegally dismissed in August 1987 after being promised retention following the sale of his assigned truck. He claimed continuous employment until 1987.
Respondents contested the claims. Rolando Tan denied being the owner or manager of Marling Rice Mill, asserting he operated a separate business, R.S. Ricemill, starting in 1987. He argued that Mario Tan Teng Kuan was the sole proprietor of Marling Rice Mill, which ceased operations in 1987, and that petitioner was never his employee. The labor arbiter decided the case based on position papers and supporting documents without a formal trial.
ISSUE
The core issue was whether an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondent Rolando Tan, a prerequisite for a valid claim of illegal dismissal.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC resolution. The Court emphasized that the appropriate remedy to challenge NLRC rulings is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not an appeal, and such a petition can only assail jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion, not factual findings. The labor arbiter and the NLRC found no employer-employee link between Palomado and Rolando Tan.
The labor arbiter’s factual findings, accorded finality, showed that Palomado’s employment with Marling Rice Mill (owned by Mario Tan) ended in June 1979, as evidenced by SSS records showing premium payments ceased after that date, corroborated by payrolls and a co-worker’s affidavit. Since Marling Rice Mill ceased operations in 1987 and Mario Tan died in 1989, and Rolando Tan owned a separate rice mill, no employment relationship with Rolando Tan was established. Consequently, the claim for illegal dismissal and attendant benefits against him necessarily failed. The Court upheld the labor tribunals’ use of substantial evidence and their discretion to decide based on position papers without a formal hearing.