Manila Golf & Coutry Club, Inc. vs.

IAC
GRN 64948; S!t"br #$, %994
NARVASA, C.J.
PETITION for review of a decision of the then Immediate Appellate Court.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The question before the Court here is whether or not persons rendering
cadding services for members of golf clubs and their guests in said clubs!
courses or premises are the emploees of such clubs and therefore within
the compulsor coverage of the "ocial "ecurit "stem #"""$.
That question appears to have been involved% either directl or peripherall%
in three separate proceedings% all initiated b or on behalf of herein private
respondent and his fellow caddies. That which gave rise to the present
petition for review was originall &led with the "ocial "ecurit Commission
#""C$ via petition of seventeen #'($ persons who stled themselves )Caddies
of *anila +olf and Countr Club,PTCCEA) for coverage and availment of
bene&ts under the "ocial "ecurit Act as amended% )PTCCEA) being the
acronm of a labor organi-ation% the )Philippine Technical% Clerical%
Commercial Emploees Association%) with which the petitioners claimed to
be a.liated. The petition% doc/eted as ""C Case No. 0112% alleged in
essence that although the Petitioners were emploees of the *anila +olf and
Countr Club% a domestic corporation% the latter had not registered them as
such with the """.
At about the same time% two other proceedings bearing on the same
question were &led or were pending% these were3
#'$ a certi&cation election case &led with the 4abor 5elations of the *inistr
of 4abor b the PTCCEA on behalf of the same caduces of the *anila +olf and
Countr Club% the case being titled )Philippines Technical% Clerical%
Commercial Association vs. *anila +olf and Countr Club) and doc/eted as
Case No. 51,4567,*,'8,081,(9: it appears to have been resolved in favor of
the petitioners thereof b *edArbiter Orlando ". 5o;o% who was thereafter
upheld b 6irector Carmelo ". Noriel% dening the Club!s motion for
reconsideration:'
#<$ a compulsor arbitration case initiated before the Arbitration =ranch of
the *inistr of 4abor b the same labor organi-ation% titled )Philippine
Technical% Clerical% Commercial Emploes Association #PTCCEA$% >ermin
4amar and 5amundo ?omo/ vs *anila +olf and Countr Club% Inc.% *iguel
Celdran% @enr 4im and +eronimo Ale;o:) it was dismissed fur lac/ of merit
b 4abor Arbiter Cornelio T. 4insangan% a decision later a.rmed on appeal b
the National 4abor 5elations Commission on the ground that there was no
emploer,emploee relationship between the petitioning caddies and the
respondent Club.<
In the case before the ""C% the respondent Club &led answer praing for the
dismissal of the petition% alleging in substance that the petitioners% caddies
b occupation% were allowed into the Club premises to render services as
such to the individual members and guests plaing the Club!s golf course
and who themselves paid for such services: that as such caddies% the
petitioners were not sub;ect to the direction and control of the Club as
regards the manner in which the performed their wor/: and hence% the
were not the Club!s emploees.
"ubsequentl% all but two of the seventeen petitioners of their own accord
withdrew their laim for social securit coverage% avowedl coming to reali-e
that indeed there was no emploment relationship between them and the
Club. The case continued% and was eventuall ad;udicated b the ""C after
protracted proceedings onl as regards the two holdouts% >ermin 4lamar and
5amundo ?omo/. The Commission dismissed the petition for lac/ of merit%2
ruling3
)AAA that the cadd!s fees were paid b the golf plaers themselves and not
b respondent club. >or instance% petitioner 5amundo ?omo/ averred that
for their services as caddies a cadd!s Claim "tub #EBh.!,A!$ is issued b a
plaer who will in turn hand over to management the other portion of the
stub /nown as Cadd Tic/et #EBh. !'!$ so that b this arrangement
management will /now how much a cadd will be paid #T"N% p. 98% ?ul <2%
'C98$. 4i/ewise% petitioner >ermin 4lamar admitted that cadd wor/s on his
own in accordance with the rules and regulations #T"N% p. <1% >ebruar <D%
'CC8$ but petitioner ?omo/ could not state an polic of respondent that
directs the manner of cadding #T"N% pp. (D,((% ?ul <2% 'C98$. Ehile
respondent club promulgates rules and regulations on the assignment%
deportment and conduct of caddies #EBh. !C!$ the same are designed to
impose personal discipline among the caddies but not to direct or conduct
their actual wor/. In fact% a golf plaer is at libert to choose a cadd of his
preference regardless of the respondent club!s group rotation sstem and
has the discretion on whether or not to pa a cadd. As testi&ed to b
petitioner 4lamar that their income depends on the number of plaers
engaging their services and liberalit of the latter #T"N% pp. '8,''% >eb. <D%
'C98$. This lends credence to respondent!s assertion that the caddies are
never their emploees in the absence of two elements% namel% #'$ pament
of wages and #<$ control or supervision over them. In this connection% our
"upreme Court ruled that in the determination of the eBistence of an
emploer,emploee relationship% the !control test! shall be considered
decisive #Philippine *anufacturing Co. vs. +eronimo and +arcia% CD Phil. <(D:
*ansal vs. P.P. +ocheco 4umber Co.% CD Phil. C1': Fiana vs. Allagadan% et al.%
CC Phil. 189: Fda. de Ang% et al. vs. The *anila @otel Co.% '8' Phil. 209% 4FN
Pictures Inc. vs% Phil. *usicians +uild% et al.% 4,'<09<% ?anuar <9% 'CD'% '
"C5A '2<. AAA #reference being made also to Investment Planning
Corporation Phil. vs. """% <' "C5A C<0$.
5ecords show that respondent club had reported for "" coverage +raciano
Awit and 6aniel Gui;ano% as bat unloader and helper% respectivel% including
their ground men% house and administrative Personnel% a situation indicative
of the latter!s concern with the rights and welfare of its emploees under the
"" law% as amended. The unrebutted testimon of Col. +eneroso A. Ale;o
#5et.$ that the I6 cards issued to the caddies were merel intended to
identif the holders as accredited caddies of the club and privilege#d$ to pl
their trade or occupation within its premises which could be withdrawn
antime for loss of con&dence. This gives us a reasonable ground to state
that the defense posture of respondent that petitioners were never its
emploees is well ta/en.)1
>rom this 5esolution appeal was ta/en to the Intermediate Appellate Court b
the union representing 4lamar and ?umo/.
After the appeal was conducted0 and some months before decision thereon
was reached and promulgated% 5amundo ?omol!s appeal was dismissed at
his instance% leaving >ermin 4lamar the lone appellant.D
The appeal ascribed two errors to the ""C3
#'$ refusing to suspend the proceedings to await ;udgment the 4abor
5elations 6ivision of National Capital 5egional O.ce in the certi&cation
election ease #51,456,*,'8,081,(9$ supra% on the precise issue of the
eBistence of emploer,emploee relationship between the respondent club
and the appellants% it being contended that said issue was )a function of the
proper labor o.ce): and #<$ ad;udging that self same issue in a manner
contrar to the ruling of the 6irector of the =ureau of 4abor 5elations% which
)has nut onl become &nal but #has: been$ eBecuted or #become$ res
ad;udicata.)(
The Intermediate Appellate Court gave short shrift to the &rst assigned error%
dismissing it as of the least importance. Nor% it would appear% did it &nd an
greater merit in the second alleged error. Although said Court reversed the
appealed ""C decision and declared >ermin 4lamar an emploee of the
*anila +olf and Countr Club% ordering that he be reported as such for social
securit coverage and paid an corresponding bene&ts%9 it conspicuousl
ignored the issue of res ad;udicata raised in sold second assignment. Instead%
it drew basis for the reversal from this Court!s ruling in Investment Planning
Corporation of the Philippines vs. "ocial "ecurit "stem% supraC and
declared that upon the evidence% the questioned emploeremploee
relationship between the Club and >ermin 4lamar passed the so,called
)control test%) established in that case,i.e.% )whether the emploer controls or
has reserved the right to control the emploee not onl as to the result of the
wor/ to be done but also as to the means and methods b which the same is
to be accomplished%),the Club!s control over the caddies encompassing.
#a$ the promulgation of no less than twent four #<1$ rules and regulations
;ust about ever aspect of the conduct that the cadd must observe% or
avoid% when serving as such% an violation of an of which would sub;ect in to
disciplinar action% which ma include suspending or cutting oH his access to
the club premises.
#b$ the devising and enforcement of a group rotation sstem whereb a
cadd is aligned a number which designates his turn to serve a plaer:
#c$ the Club!s )suggesting) the rate of ices paable to the caddies.
6eemed of little or no moment b the Appellate Court was the fact that the
caddies were paid b the plaers% not b the Club% that the observed no
de&nite wor/ing hours and earned no &Bed income. It quoted with approval
from an American decision'8 to the eHect that3 )whether the club paid the
caddies and afterward collected from the plaers or the plaers themselves
paid the caddies in the &rst instance% the caddies were still emploees of the
club.) This% no matter that the case which produced this ruling had a slightl
diHerent factual cast% apparentl having involved a claim for wor/men!s
compensation made b a cadd who% about to leave the premises of the club
where he wor/ed% was hit and in;ured b an automobile then negotiating the
club!s private drivewa.
That same issue of res ad;udicata% ignored b the IAC beond bare mention
thereof% as alread pointed out% is now among the mainstas of the private
respondent!s defense to the petition for review. Considered in the
perspective of the incidents ;ust recounted% it illustrates as well as anthing
can% wh the practice of forum,shopping ;ustl merits censure and punitive
sanction. =ecause the same question of emploer,emploee relationship has
been dragged into three diHerent for a% will,nill and in quic/ succession% it
has birthed controvers as to which of the resulting ad;udications must now
be recogni-ed as decisive. On the one hand% there is the certi&cation case
#51,4567,*,'8081,(9$% where the decision of the *ed,Arbiter found for the
eBistence of emploeremploee relationship between the parties% was
a.rmed b 6irector Carmelo ". Noriel% who ordered a certi&cation election
held% a disposition never thereafter appealed according to the private
respondent: on the other% the compulsor arbitration case #NC5 Case No. A=,
1,'((',(C$% instituted b or for the same respondent at about the same time%
which was dismissed for lac/ of merit b the 4abor Arbiter% which was
afterwards a.rmed b the N45C itself on the ground that there eBisted no
such relationship between the Club and the private respondent. And% as if
matters were not alread complicated enough% the same respondent% with
the support and assistance of the PTCCEA% saw &t% also contemporaneousl%
to initiate still a third proceeding for compulsor social securit coverage
with the "ocial "ecurit Commission #""C Case No. 0112$% with the result
alread mentioned.
=efore this Court% the petitioner Club now contends that the decision of the
*ed,Arbiter in the certi&cation case had never become &nal% being in fact the
sub;ect of three pending and unresolved motions for reconsideration% as well
as of a later motion for earl resolution.'' Infortunatel% none of these
motions is incorporated or reproduced in the record before the Court. And%
for his part% the private respondent contends% not onl that said decision had
been appealed to and been a.rmed b the 6irector of the =45% but that a
certi&cation election had in fact been held% which resulted in the PTCCEA
being recogni-ed as the sole bargaining agent of the caddies of the *anila
+olf and Countr Club with respect to wages% hours of wor/% terms of
emploment% etc.'< Ehatever the truth about these opposing contentions%
which the record before the Court does not adequatel disclose% the more
controlling consideration would seem to be that% however &nal it ma
become% the decision in a certi&cation case% b the ver nature of that
proceeding% is not such as to foreclose all further dispute between the parties
as to the eBistence% or non,eBistence% of emploer,emploee relationship
between them.
It is well settled that for res ad;udicata% or the principle of bar b prior
;udgment% to appl% the following essential requisites must concur3 #'$ there
must be a &nal ;udgment or order: #<$ said ;udgment or order must be on the
merits: #2$ the court rendering the same must have ;urisdiction over the
sub;ect matter and the parties: and #1$ there must be between the two cases
identit of parties% identit of sub;ect matter and identit of cause of
action.'2
Clearl implicit in these requisites is that the action or proceedings in which
is issued the )prior ?udgment) that would operate in bar of a subsequent
action between the same parties for the same cause% be adversarial% or
contentious% )one having opposing parties: #is$ contested% as distinguished
from an eB parts hearing or proceeding. AAA of which the part see/ing relief
has given legal notice to the other part and aHorded the latter an
opportunit to contest it%)'1 and a certi&cation case is not such a
proceeding% as this Court has alread ruled3
)A certi&cation proceeding is not a !litigation! in the sense in which this term
is commonl understood% but a mere investigation of a non,adversar%
fact&nding character% in which the investigating agenc plas the part of a
disinterested investigator see/ing merel to ascertain the desires of the
emploees as to the matter of their representation. The court en;os a wide
discretion in determining the procedure necessar to insure the fair and free
choice of bargaining representatives b the emploees.)'0
Indeed% if an ruling or ;udgment can be said to operate as res ad;udicata on
the contested issue of emploer,emploee relation. ship between present
petitioner and the private respondent% it would logicall be that rendered in
the compulsor arbitration case #NC5 Case No. A=,1,((',(C% supra$%
petitioner having asserted% without dispute from the private respondent% that
said issue was there squarel raised and litigated% resulting in a ruling of the
Arbitration =ranch #of the same *inistr of 4abor$ that such relationship did
not eBist% and which ruling was thereafter a.rmed b the National 4abor
5elations Commission in an appeal ta/en b said respondent.'D
In an case% this Court is not inclined to allow private respondent the bene&t
of an doubt is to which of the conJicting rulings ;ust adverted to should be
accorded primac% given the fact that it was he who activel sight them
simultaneousl% as it were% from separate fore% and even if the graver
sanctions more latel imposed b the Court for forum,shopping ma not be
applied to him retroactivel.
Accordingl% the IAC is not to be faulted for ignoring private respondent!s
invocation of res ad;udicata: on the contrar% it acted correctl in doing so.
"aid Court!s holding that upon the facts% there eBists #or eBisted$ a
relationship of emploer and emploee between petitioner and private
respondent is% however% another matter. The Court does not agree that said
facts necessaril or logicall point to such a relationship% and to the eBclusion
of an form of arrangements% other than of emploment% that would ma/e
the respondent!s services available to the members and guests of the
petitioner.
As long as it is% the list made in the appealed decision detailing the various
matters of conduct% dress% language% etc. covered b the petitioner!s
regulations% does not% in the mind of the Court% so circumscribe the actions or
;udgment of the caddies concerned as to leave them little or no freedom of
choice whatsoever in the manner of carring out their services. In the ver
nature of things% caddies must submit to some supervision of their conduct
while en;oing the privilege of pursuing their occupation within the premises
and grounds of whatever club the do their wor/ in. >or all that is made to
appear% the wor/ for the club to which the attach themselves on
suHerance but% on the other hand% also without having to observe an
wor/ing hours% free to leave antime the please% to sta awa for as long as
the li/e. It is not pretended that if found remiss in the observance of said
rules% an discipline ma be meted them beond barring them from the
premises which% it ma be supposed% the Club ma do in an case even
absent an breach of the rules% and without violating an right to wor/ on
their part. All these considerations clash frontall with the concept of
emploment.
The IAC would point to the fact that the Club suggests the rate of fees
paable b the plaers to the caddies as still another indication of the latter!s
status as emploees. It seems to the Court% however% that the intendment of
such fact is to the contrar% showing that the Club has not the measure of
control over the incidents of the caddies! wor/ and compensation that an
emploer would possess.
The Court agrees with petitioner that the group rotation sstem so,called% is
less a measure of emploee control than an assurance that the wor/ is fairl
distributed% a cadd who is absent when his turn number is called simpl
losing his turn to serve and being assigned instead the last number for the
da.'(
= and large% there appears nothing in the record to refute the petitioner!s
claim that3
)#Petitioner$ has no means of compelling the presence of a cadd. A cadd is
not required to eBercise his occupation onl in the premises of petitioner. @e
ma wor/ with an other golf club or he ma see/ emploment as a cadd or
otherwise with an entit or individual without restriction b petitioner.AAA
AAA In the &nal analsis% petitioner has no wa of compelling the presence of
the caddies as the are not required to render a de&nite number of hours of
wor/ an a single da. Even the group rotation of caddies is not absolute
because a plaer is at libert to choose a cadd of his preference regardless
of the cadd!s order in the rotation.
It can happen that a cadd who has rendered services to a plaer On one
da ma still &nd su.cient time to wor/ elsewhere. Inder such
circumstances% he ma then leave the premises of petitioner and go to such
other place of wor/ that he wishes #sic$. Or a cadd who is on call for a
Particular da ma deliberatel absent himself if he has more Pro&table
cadding% or another% engagement in some other place. These are things
beond petitioner!s control and for which it imposes no direct sanctions an
the caddies. AAA'9
E@E5E>O5E% the 6ecision of the Intermediate Appellate Court% review of
which is sought% is reversed and set aside% it being hereb declared that the
private respondent% >ernan 4lamar% is not an emploee of petitioner *anila
+olf and Countr Club and that petitioner is under no obligation to report him
for compulsor coverage to the "ocial "ecurit "stem. No pronouncement
as to costs.
"O O56E5E6.
5egalado and *endo-a% ??.% concur.
Padilla% ?.% On o.cial leave.
Puno% ?.% No part.
?udgment reversed and set aside.
'. 5ollo% pp. <'0,<'D.
<. NC5 Case No. A=,1,'((',(C: 5ollo% pp. '12,'0'.
2. In a unanimous resolution dated *a<'% 'C9' written b Ch <'. % 'C9'
written b Ch 1. 5ollo% pp. 9(,C8.
0. as AC,+,5. "P No. '2D19.
D. 5ollo% p. 0<.
(. Id.% at pp. 0<,02.
9. 6ecision promulgated ?une <8%'C92% rendered b the >irst "pecial ,19.
,08.
C. <' "C5A C<0% C<D footnote <.
'8. Indian @ill Club vs. Industrial Commission% et al.% '18 NE 9(' 9(<. % 28C
p. <(': 00. ,0D.
''. =rief for Petitioner% p. 2<% 5ollo% p. 'C.
'<. =rief for Privated 5espondent% p. <,1: 5ollo% p. <'D.
'2. Falencia vs. 5TC of Gue-on Cit% =r. C8% '91 "C5A 98% C8,C'% citing
Kusingco% et al.% vs. Ong @ing 4ien% 1< "C5A 09C% and 6eang vs. IAC% et al.%
'01 "C5A <08.
'1. =lac/!s 4aw 6ictionar% 0th edition% p. 18.
'0. 4FN Pictures% Inc. vs. Phil. *usicians +uild and CI5% ''8 Phil. (<0% citing
N.4.5.=. vs. =otan Eorsted *ills% 2'C I.". (0'% 9( 4. ed. '(80% and "outhern
".". Co. vs. N.4.5.=.% 2'D I." C'% 9D 4. ed. '<1D% and N.4.5.=. vs.A.?. Tower
Co.% DD "up. Ct. 'C'': also 5othenberg on 4abor 5elations% p. 0'1.
'D. =rief for Petition% pp. 2<,22.
'(. Petition for 5eview% p. 1: 5ollo% p. '9.
'9. Id.% 5ollo% pp. '9,'C.