Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

Twelfth (12th) Division

MARLITO M. VILLAS,

Petitioner,

CA-G.R. SP No. 119833 Members:

- versus NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Sixth Division), ABDA CONSTRUCTION INC., LIBERTY MANPOWER PLACEMENT SPECIALIST, ENGR. ABEL PANGILINAN, and FELY IBUA, Respondents.

VELOSO, V.S.E.., Chairperson LANTION, J.A.C., and, PERALTA, JR., E.B., JJ.

Promulgated: 01/31/13

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DECISION
LANTION, J.A.C., J.:

THE CASE
This is a Petition for Certiorari 1 under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, assailing the Decision2 of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated 18 February 2011 and its Resolution 3 dated 31 March 2011 in (NLRC Case No. LAC 11-002908-10 [RAB CASE No. 00-01-01044-10]) the respective decretal portions of which read:
Rollo, pp. 03-19 Id., pp. 74-81 3 Id., pp. 88-91
1 2

CA-G.R.SP No. 119833 Decision

Page 2 of 11

18 February 2011 Decision: WHEREFORE, the Complainant's Appeal is DISMISSED and the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 31 August 2010 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. 31 March 2011 Resolution WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of the Complainant is DENIED for lack of merit. No further Motion for Reconsideration of the same tenor shall be entertained. SO ORDERED.

THE FACTS
On 19 January 2010, petitioner Marlito M. Villas filed a Complaint 4 for illegal dismissal and damages against private respondents ABDA Construction, Inc., Liberty Manpower Phils. Specialist, Engr. Abel Pangilinan, and Fely Ibua. Petitioner alleged the following in his Position Paper: 1. Complainant Marlito M. Villas applied and was hired as a truck driver on October 17, 2009 and was made to sign a contract stating among others that his employment as a truck driver will last for five (5) months or until March 17, 2010; However the complainant was not given any copy of the contract and neither were the contents of the contract explained to him as he was simply made to sign the contract;

Id., pp. 23-25

CA-G.R.SP No. 119833 Decision

Page 3 of 11

2. Prior to his actual hiring, complainant was made to report at LIBERTY MANPOWER PLACEMENT AGENCY to undergo some written and practical tests, which he all passed satisfactorily and thereafter, he was made to submit the necessary requirements/documents to the ABDA Construction and finally started to report for work on October 17, 2009; xxx xxx xxx

3. As a truck driver, complainant has no definite work schedule. Complainant was made to drive either in the morning or in the evening or sometimes from morning until the evening of the same day which were all beyond the 8-hour per day hours of work which is mandated by the Labor Code of the Philippines; 4. Although Complainant was made to work beyond the 8-hour per day as mandated by the Labor Code, complainant was not properly compensated for all his overtimes and was not even paid of his night shift differentials; 5. Complainant most of the time would also work outside of his job description as a truck driver. Complainant was also made to work as an all-around worker at the respondent's shop whenever he has no trip order and while complainant was waiting for his truck to be loaded up. 6. On December 3, 2009, for reasons known only to the respondents, complainant was no longer given any trip order. Complainant religiously reported for work and patiently waited that he be given any trip orders but he was ignored and was not advised at all of the situation; 7. Complainant repeatedly inquired of his work with the respondents but (he) was simply given the answer that he was no longer needed as a truck driver and will just be advised in the future, hence, complainant filed the instant case before the National Labor elations Commission.5 Private respondent ABDA Construction, Inc. countered in its Position Paper:

Id., pp. 26-34

CA-G.R.SP No. 119833 Decision

Page 4 of 11

ABDA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION is a subcontractor at MANILA WATER SERVICES. It needs truck drivers to operate heavy equipments such as trucks and tankers used in various projects with Manila Water Services, most of which are emergency in nature, which explains why it has to source some of its work force from LIBERTY MANPOWER, a labor only contracting agency owned by OSCAR H. DORSA. Complainant was hired as a tanker truck driver last October 15, 2009 through LIBERTY MANPOWER for a period of six (6) months with a salary of P400 per day. In a short interview, Complainant MARLITO M. VILLAS represented himself as an experienced truck tanker driver. However, after about a week or less, it has reached respondent's knowledge that Villas had difficulty operating the tanker truck he was assigned to operate. From ABDA's garage to one of its project site in Novaliches, Quezon City, where he was dispatched together with a truck helper, it took him almost an hour to arrive. After he maneuvered the tanker truck to turn around, he almost hit a MERALCO post and created a traffic snarl.It was not after a few days (when) the incident reached the knowledge of ABDA's owner Engr. Abel Pangilinan, and decided to immediately terminate Villas to prevent any further damage to lives, limbs, and properties because the latter was not competent to the position he was purposely hired. Immediately too, LIBERTY MANPOWER was notified of Villa's termination. LIBERTY MANPOWER failed to provide a reliever to the position vacated by Villas, thus, ABDA had to immediately find another driver suitable for the position. xxx xxx xxx6

Private respondent Liberty Manpower Placement Specialist, for its part, countered: It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a temporary and contractual worker or employee of respondent Liberty Manpower Placement Specialist; this can be gleaned upon his cause of action for 'unexpire portion of the contract.' The Complainant has Temporary Employment Contract with respondent Liberty Manpower Placement Specialist duly accepted, signed, and acknowledged by him, with the explicit provision on the duration
6

Id., pp. 40-50

CA-G.R.SP No. 119833 Decision

Page 5 of 11

(of) such appointment stated therein ranging from One (1) to Six (6) months. xxx xxx xxx

(B)y the very nature of the temporary employment and with the express acceptance of the same, it was therefore undeniable on the part of the complainant that he knew of the fact that such employment was not regular in nature. The complainant applied for the position of the Truck Driver and that he was assigned to ABDA Construction by respondent Liberty Manpower by virtue of a Service Contract between the two companies, however, he was found to be unqualified and incompetent for the said job as he could hardly drive a truck. He was instead made to do jobs of a utility man with the same salary of a driver while his replacement was underway. xxx xxx xxx

He was likewise reminded that he was never dismissed by Liberty Manpower Placement Specialist as it was he who failed to report after he was informed that he was no longer to report to ABDA Construction as he could have been offered other jobs by the herein respondent. His gross incompetence for the job of Truck Driver which he was found to be unqualified and incompetent is a serious misrepresentation which would warrant Summary Dismissal, as the same was prejudicial to the welfare of both companies and the public in general.7 On 31 August 2010, after due proceedings, the Labor Arbiter dismissed8 the Complaint filed by the petitioner and noted that per Application Form dated 01 August 2009 attached to private respondent Liberty Manpower's Position Paper, petitioner was hired by the latter as Truck Driver and thereafter assigned to ABDA Construction, Inc. and given an identification card. In the same ID card, it appears that petitioner was hired only as a Temporary Worker since it was indicated therein that the card was valid only until 17 March 2010. Stated otherwise, petitioner's term of employment had already purportedly lapsed as of the
7 8

Id., pp. 51-54 See Labor Arbiter's Decision, Id., pp. 58-64

CA-G.R.SP No. 119833 Decision

Page 6 of 11

time when the Labor Arbiter rendered his 31 August 2010 Decision. For humanitarian reasons, the Labor Arbiter awarded one month's pay, or P10,400.00 to petitioner. Dissatisfied with the above-mentioned Decision, the petitioner elevated the case to public respondent NLRC. On 18 February 2011, the NLRC rendered its assailed Decision which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's 31 August 2010 Decision dismissing the instant case. Petitioner seasonably sought for a reconsideration of the NLRC's adverse 18 February 2011 ruling but the same was denied in the Commission a quo's Resolution dated 31 March 2011. Hence, this Petition.

ISSUE
Petitioner cites this lone Issue in the instant Petition: WHETHER (OR NOT) THE PETITIONER WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM EMPLOYMENT

THIS COURT'S RULING

Prefatorily, the jurisdiction of this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court cannot usually be exercised in order to review the judgment of the lower court as to its intrinsic correctness, either upon the law or the facts of the case. The general rule is that questions or findings of facts in the lower court, board or tribunal, and the probative weight and sufficiency of the

CA-G.R.SP No. 119833 Decision

Page 7 of 11

evidence upon which the said findings were based are not reviewable by certiorari. However, the sufficiency of the evidence may be inquired into in order to determine whether jurisdictional facts were or were not proved or whether the lower court had exceeded its jurisdiction. This exception arises out of the most important office and function of the writ the keeping of the lower court and tribunal within their jurisdiction. If the decision of the lower court as to the sufficiency of the evidence to establish jurisdictional facts were not reviewable, certiorari would be of no avail as a remedy against an assumption of jurisdiction. For the purpose of enabling the reviewing court to determine whether jurisdictional facts were established, it may delve into and review the evidence on which such facts were based.9 Petitioner Marlito M. Villas contends that under the law, one's employment is treated as a property entitled to protection, in the sense that one cannot be deprived of his work without due process. In this connection, he adds, the employer is required to furnish the worker sought to be dismissed with two (2) written notices before his dismissal can be legally effected, namely, notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. Petitioner ultimately claims that he was deprived of due process when private respondent companies dismissed him from his work as a truck driver without complying with the aforesaid two-notice rule. Private respondents ABDA Construction, Inc. and Engr. Abel Pangilinan, for their part, counter that contrary to petitioner Marlito M. Villas' claims, he was hired by private respondent Liberty Manpower Placement Specialists, a labor-only contracting agency, 10 which in turn assigned him to ABDA Construction, Inc. for a period of five (5) months or until 17 March 2010. ABDA claims that petitioner represented himself as an experienced truck tanker driver. However during one incident, after petitioner maneuvered the tanker truck to turn around, he almost hit a Meralco post and created a traffic snarl. When ABDA's owner, Engr. Abel Pangilinan, learned of the incident, he decided to immediately
See Hanjin Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., et al. V Court of Appeals, et al. (G.R. No. 165910, 10 April 2006) 10 Id., p. 41
9

CA-G.R.SP No. 119833 Decision

Page 8 of 11

terminate Villas to prevent any further damage to lives, limbs, and properties because the latter was not competent to the position he was purposely hired.11 Liberty Manpower Placement Specialist was then notified of petitioner's termination.12 Liberty Manpower failed to provide a reliever to the position vacated by petitioner, and this prompted ABDA Construction, Inc. to find another driver suitable for the position. ABDA Constructon Inc. ultimately posits that it is not liable to pay the claims of petitioner because petitioner was an employee of Liberty Manpower and not ABDA. Private respondent Liberty Manpower Placement Specialist prefatorily maintains that petitioner was its temporary employee xxx for the duration of his contract ranging from one to six months. However, when ABDA Construction, Inc. found him to be unqualified and unfit for the position of truck driver, ABDA was constrained to terminate its service contract with Liberty Manpower insofar as petitioner's employment was concerned due to lack of confidence on his ability to perform the job specifically assigned to him.13 Liberty Manpower finally reiterates that it never dismissed petitioner as it was the latter who allegedy failed to report to work14 after he was informed that he would be pulled-out from ABDA Construction, Inc. We have perused the pleadings at hand and the records of the case and found nothing which would move this Court to modify or set aside the assailed 18 February 2011 Decision and 31 March 2011 Resolution of public respondent NLRC. Petitioner's contention that he was purportedly illegally dismissed by private respondents ABDA Construction, Inc. and/or Liberty Manpower Placement Specialist is misplaced. As aptly noted by the NLRC: The Appeal is without merit. In this case, the evidence on record, particularly the Identification Card of the Complainant xxx clearly shows that the

Supra Id., p. 42 13 Id., pp. 46-47 14 See Memorandum, Id., pp. 135-138; 137
11 12

CA-G.R.SP No. 119833 Decision

Page 9 of 11

Complainant is the employee of Respondent-Liberty and was merely assigned to Respondent-ABDA pursuant to a Service Contract. Having said thus, the Complainant has no cause of action against Respondent-ABDA considering that his true employer was Respondent-Liberty. Moreover, the act of Respondent-ABDA in relieving the Complainant and requiring Respondent-Liberty to replace the Complainant for incompetency cannot be considered as dismissal becauise Respondent-ABDA was merely exercising its right under the Service Agreement. On the other hanmd, as correctly observed in the findings of the Labor Arbiter, the Complainant has no cause of action against Respondent-Liberty since his contract with respondent Liberty has expired on 17 March 2010.15 To digress a bit, in legitimate job contracting, the law creates an employer-employee relationship for a limited purpose, i.e., to ensure that the employees are paid their wages. The principal, which in this case is ABDA Construction, Inc. becomes jointly and severally liable with the job contractor (Liberty Manpower Placement Specialist) only for the payment of the employees' wages whenever the contractor fails to pay the same. Other than that, the principal is not responsible for any claim made by the employees. Neither can this Court hold private respondent Liberty Manpower Placement Specialist liable for the money claims (backwages, unexpired portion of contract, holiday pay, overtime pay). Contrary to the claims of petitioner, there was no dismissal which occurred, but rather, the term for which petitioner was hired by private respondent company 17 March 2010 as reflected in the identification card extant in the records, had simply expired. But what of Liberty Manpower's acquiscence to the request for his substitution as truck driver by ABDA Construction? The Supreme Court had this to say: Considering that even labor laws discourage intrusion in the employers' judgment concerning the conduct of their business, courts often decline to interfere in their legitimate business decisions,16 absent showing of illegality, bad faith or arbitrariness. Indeed, the right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their
15 16

See Note 2 Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. Del Villar, (G.R. No. 163091, 06 October 2010)

CA-G.R.SP No. 119833 Decision

Page 10 of 11

assignments or to transfer them.17 The rule is settled, however, that "off-detailing" is not equivalent to dismissal, so long as such status does not continue beyond a reasonable time and that it is only when such a "floating status" lasts for more than six months that the employee may be considered to have been constructively dismissed.18 A complaint for illegal dismissal filed prior to the lapse of said six-month and/or the actual dismissal of the employee is generally considered as prematurely filed. 19 Here, there was even no off-detailing as petitioner simply refused to report for work after he learned that he was removed by ABDA Construction as truck driver. There is no illegal dismissal to speak of. All told, the Petition fails. WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the NLRC dated 18 February 2011 and its Resolution dated 31 March 2011 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. JANE AURORA C. LANTION Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

VICENTE S.E. VELOSO Chairperson Associate Justice

EDUARDO B. PERALTA, JR. Associate Justice

Mendoza v. Rural Bank of Lucban, (G.R. No. 155421, 07 July 2004) Megaforce Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Lactao, (G.R. No. 160940, 21 July 2008) 19 Sasan, Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission 4th Division, (G.R. No. 176240, 17 October 2008)
17 18

CA-G.R.SP No. 119833 Decision

Page 11 of 11

CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. VICENTE S.E. VELOSO Chairperson, Twelfth Division