International v. Concepcion

PERALTA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioners Polyfoam-RGC International Corporation (Polyfoam) and Precilla A. Gramaje (Gramaje) against respondent Edgardo Concepcion assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision1 dated December 19, 2005 and Resolution2 dated April 25, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 83696. The assailed decision reversed the National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC's) Decision3 dated May 7, 2003 in NLRC NCR CA No. 030622-02, while the assailed resolution denied petitioners' and respondent's motions for reconsideration. The factual and procedural antecedents follow: On February 8, 2000, respondent filed a Complaint4 for illegal dismissal, non-payment of wages, premium pay for rest day, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, damages, and attorney's fees against Polyfoam and Ms. Natividad Cheng (Cheng).

Respondent alleged that he was hired by Polyfoam as an "all-around" factory worker and served as such for almost six years.5 On January 14, 2000, he allegedly discovered that his time card was not in the rack and was later informed by the security guard that he could no longer punch his time card.6 When he protested to his supervisor, the latter allegedly told him that the management decided to dismiss him due to an infraction of a company rule. Cheng, the company's manager, also refused to face him.

Respondent's counsel later wrote a letter7 to Polyfoam's manager requesting that respondent be re-admitted to work, but the request remained unheeded prompting the latter to file the complaint for illegal dismissal.8 On April 28, 2000, Gramaje filed a Motion for Intervention9 claiming to be the real employer of respondent. On the other hand, Polyfoam and Cheng filed a Motion to Dismiss10 on the grounds that the NLRC has no jurisdiction over the case, because of the absence of employer-employee relationship between Polyfoam and respondent and that the money claims had already prescribed.11 On May 24, 2000, Labor Arbiter Adolfo Babiano issued an Order12 granting Gramaje's motion for intervention, it appearing that she is an indispensable party and denying Polyfoam and Cheng's motion to dismiss as the lack of employer-employee relationship is only a matter of defense. In their Position Paper,13 Polyfoam and Cheng insisted that the NLRC has no jurisdiction over the case, because respondent was not their employee.

They likewise contended that respondent's money claims had already prescribed. Finally, they fault respondent for including Cheng as a party-defendant, considering that she is not even a director of the company.14 In her Position Paper,15 Gramaje claimed that P.A. Gramaje Employment Services (PAGES) is a legitimate job contractor who provided some manpower needs of Polyfoam. It was alleged that respondent was hired as "packer"

and assigned to Polyfoam, charged with packing the latter's finished foam products. She argued, however, that respondent was not dismissed from employment, rather, he simply stopped reporting for work.16 On December 14, 2001, Labor Arbiter (LA) Marita V. Padolina rendered a Decision finding respondent to have been illegally dismissed from employment and holding Polyfoam and Gramaje/PAGES solidarily liable for respondent's money claims. The dispositive portion of the Decision is quoted below for easy reference:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding complainant to have been illegally dismissed and respondents Polyfoam-RGC International Corporation, P.A. Gramaje Employment Services/Precilla A. Gramaje are ordered to pay complainant jointly and severally the following: 1). Separation Pay - ₱ 52,000.00 2). Backwages - 157,041.38 3). 13th Month Pay - 17,407.00 4). Moral Damages - 5,000.00 5). Exemplary Damages - 5,000.00 6). Attorney's fees - 23,644.83