Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
11
VOL.677,JULY18,2012
11
LegendHotel(Manila)vs.Realuyo
12
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
LegendHotel(Manila)vs.Realuyo
hissecurityoftenure.Theinequalitythatcharacterizesemployeremployee
relations generally tips the scales in favor of the employer, such that the
employeeisoftenscarcelyprovidedrealandbetteroptions.
Same Wages Talent Fees Respondents remuneration, albeit
denominated as talent fees, was still considered as included in the term
wage in the sense and context of the Labor Code, regardless of how
petitioner chose to designate the remuneration.Respondents
remuneration, albeit denominated as talent fees, was still considered as
included in the term wage in the sense and context of the Labor Code,
regardless of how petitioner chose to designate the remuneration. Anent
this, Article 97(f) of the Labor Code clearly states: xxx wage paid to any
employee shall mean the remuneration or earnings, however designated,
capableofbeingexpressedintermsofmoney,whetherfixedorascertained
onatime,task,piece,orcommissionbasis,orothermethodofcalculating
the same, which is payable by an employer to an employee under a
written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be
done,orforservicesrenderedortoberendered,andincludesthefairand
reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, of board,
lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the
employee.
Same Hours of Work Article 83 of the Labor Code only set a
maximum of number of hours as normal hours of work but did not
prohibit work of less than eight hours.That respondent worked for less
than eight hours/day was of no consequence and did not detract from the
VOL.677,JULY18,2012
13
LegendHotel(Manila)vs.Realuyo
reserves the right to control both the end achieved and the manner and
meansusedtoachievethatend.
SameTerminationofEmploymentRetrenchmentRetrenchmentisone
of the authorized causes for the dismissal of employees recognized by the
Labor Code.Retrenchment is one of the authorized causes for the
dismissalofemployeesrecognizedbytheLaborCode.Itisamanagement
prerogative resorted to by employers to avoid or to minimize business
losses. xxxxxx The Court has laid down the following standards that an
employershouldmeettojustifyretrenchmentandtofoilabuse,namely:(a)
The expected losses should be substantial and not merely de minimis in
extent (b) The substantial losses apprehended must be reasonably
imminent(c)Theretrenchmentmustbereasonablynecessaryandlikelyto
effectivelypreventtheexpectedlossesand(d)Theallegedlosses,ifalready
incurred,andtheexpectedimminentlossessoughttobeforestalledmustbe
provedbysufficientandconvincingevidence.
14
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
LegendHotel(Manila)vs.Realuyo
RespondentaverredthathehadworkedasapianistattheLegend
HotelsTanglawRestaurantfromSeptember1992withaninitialrate
of P400.00/night that was given to him after each nights
performance that his rate had increased to P750.00/night and that
during his employment, he could not choose the time of
performance, which had been fixed from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm for
threetosixtimes/week.HeaddedthattheLegendHotelsrestaurant
manager had required him to conform with the venues motif that
he had been subjected to the rules on employees representation
checksandchits,aprivilegegrantedtootheremployeesthatonJuly
9, 1999, the management had notified him that as a costcutting
measure his services as a pianist would no longer be required
effective July 30, 1999 that he disputed the excuse, insisting that
Legend Hotel had been lucratively operating as of the filing of his
complaintandthatthelossofhisemploymentmadehimbringhis
complaint.2
In its defense, petitioner denied the existence of an employer
employee relationship with respondent, insisting that he had been
only a talent engaged to provide live music at Legend Hotels
Madison Coffee Shop for three hours/day on two days each week
and stated that the economic crisis that had hit the country
constrainedmanagementtodispensewithhisservices.
On December 29, 1999, the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the
complaint for lack of merit upon finding that the parties had no
employeremployeerelationship.3TheLAexplainedthusly:
xxx
On the pivotal issue of whether or not there existed an employer
employeerelationshipbetweentheparties,ourfindingisin
_______________
2Id.,atpp.5354.
3Id.,atpp.5358.
16
16
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
LegendHotel(Manila)vs.Realuyo
the negative. The finding finds support in the service contract dated
September1,1992xxx.
xxx
Even if we grant the initial nonexistence of the service contract, as
complainant suggests in his reply (third paragraph, page 4), the picture
would not change because of the admission by complainant in his letter
datedOctober8,1996(AnnexC)thatwhathewasreceivingwastalent
feeandnotsalary.
This is reinforced by the undisputed fact that complainant received his
talentfeenightly,unliketheregularemployeesofthehotelwhoarepaidby
monthlyxxx.
xxx
And thus, absent the power to control with respect to the means and
methodsbywhichhisworkwastobeaccomplished,thereisnoemployer
employeerelationshipbetweenthepartiesxxx.
xxx
WHEREFORE,thiscasemustbe,asitishereby,DISMISSEDforlack
ofmerit.
SOORDERED.4
16
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
LegendHotel(Manila)vs.Realuyo
Well settled is the rule that of the four (4) elements of employer
employeerelationship,itisthepowerofcontrolthatismoredecisive.
Inthisregard,publicrespondentfailedtotakeintoconsiderationthatin
petitionerslineofwork,hewassupervisedandcontrolledbyrespondents
restaurantmanagerwhoatcertaintimeswouldrequirehimtoperformonly
tagalogsongsormusic,orwearbarongtagalogtoconformwithFilipiniana
motif of the place and the time of his performance is fixed by the
respondentsfrom7:00pmto10:00pm,threetosixtimesaweek.Petitioner
couldnotchoosethetimeofhisperformance.xxx.
As to the status of petitioner, he is considered a regular employee of
privaterespondentssincethejobofthepetitionerwasinfurtheranceofthe
restaurantbusinessofrespondenthotel.Grantingthatpetitionerwasinitially
acontractualemployee,bythesheerlengthofservicehehadrendered for
privaterespondents,hehadbeenconvertedintoaregularemployeexxx.
xxx
xxxIn other words, the dismissal was due to retrenchment in order to
avoidorminimizebusinesslosses,whichisrecognizedbylawunderArticle
283oftheLaborCode,xxx.
xxx
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, this petition is
GRANTED.xxx.7
Issues
Inthisappeal,petitionercontendsthattheCAerred:
_______________
7Id.,atpp.7176.
17
VOL.677,JULY18,2012
17
LegendHotel(Manila)vs.Realuyo
I.XXX WHEN IT RULED THAT THERE IS THE EXISTENCE OF
EMPLOYEREMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN
THE
PETITIONERHOTELANDRESPONDENTROA.
II.XXX IN FINDING THAT ROA IS A REGULAR EMPLOYEE AND
THAT THE TERMINATION OF HIS SERVICES WAS ILLEGAL. THE
CALIKEWISEERREDWHENITDECLAREDTHEREINSTATEMENT
OFROATOHISFORMERPOSITIONORBEGIVENASEPARATION
PAYEQUIVALENTTOONEMONTHFOREVERYYEAROFSERVICE
FROM SEPTEMBER 1999 UNTIL JULY 30, 1999 CONSIDERING THE
ABSENCE OF AN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
PARTIES.
III.XXX WHEN IT DECLARED THAT ROA IS ENTITLED TO
BACKWAGES,SERVICEINCENTIVELEAVEANDOTHERBENEFITS
18
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
LegendHotel(Manila)vs.Realuyo
shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive
evidenceandperformanyandallactsnecessarytoresolvefactual
issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate
jurisdiction,includingthepowertograntandconductnewtrialsor
furtherproceedings.
_______________
8Leonardov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.152459,June15,2006,490SCRA691,
697St.MartinFuneralHomev.NLRC,G.R.No.130866,September16,1998,295
SCRA494,502.
19
VOL.677,JULY18,2012
19
LegendHotel(Manila)vs.Realuyo
SubstantiveIssueNo.1:
Employeremployeerelationship
existedbetweentheparties
We next ascertain if the CA correctly found that an employer
employeerelationshipexistedbetweentheparties.
The issue of whether or not an employeremployee relationship
existed between petitioner and respondent is essentially a question
of fact.9 The factors that determine the issue include who has the
powertoselecttheemployee,whopaystheemployeeswages,who
hasthepowertodismisstheemployee,andwhoexercisescontrolof
the methods and results by which the work of the employee is
accomplished.10Althoughnoparticularformofevidenceisrequired
to prove the existence of the relationship, and any competent and
relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted,11 a
finding that the relationship exists must nonetheless rest on
substantialevidence,whichisthatamountofrelevantevidencethat
areasonablemindmightacceptasadequatetojustifyaconclusion.12
Generally,theCourtdoesnotreviewfactualquestions,primarily
becausetheCourtisnotatrieroffacts.However,where,likehere,
thereisaconflictbetweenthefactualfindingsoftheLaborArbiter
andtheNLRC,ontheonehand,andthoseoftheCA,ontheother
hand, it becomes proper for the Court, in the exercise of its equity
jurisdiction,toreviewand
_______________
9Lopezv.BodegaCity,G.R.No.155731,September3,2007,532SCRA56,64
ManilaWaterCompany,Inc.v.Pea,G.R.No.158255,July8,2004,434SCRA53,
58.
10Leonardov.CourtofAppeals,supranote8,p.700.
11 Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage v. NLRC, G.R. No. 98368, December 15,
1993,228SCRA473,478.
12 Section 5, Rule 133, Rules of Court Peoples Broadcasting (Bombo Radyo
Phils., Inc.) v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, G.R. No.
179652,May8,2009,587SCRA724,753.
20
20
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
LegendHotel(Manila)vs.Realuyo
reevaluatethefactualissuesandtolookintotherecordsofthecase
andreexaminethequestionedfindings.13
A review of the circumstances reveals that respondent was,
indeed, petitioners employee. He was undeniably employed as a
pianist in petitioners Madison Coffee Shop/Tanglaw Restaurant
from September1992until hisservices were terminated on July9,
1999.
Firstofall,petitioneractuallywieldedthepowerofselectionat
thetimeitenteredintotheservicecontractdatedSeptember1,1992
withrespondent.Thisistrue,notwithstandingpetitionersinsistence
thatrespondenthadonlyofferedhisservicestoprovidelivemusicat
petitioners Tanglaw Restaurant, and despite petitioners position
thatwhathadreallytranspiredwasanegotiationofhisrateandtime
of availability. The power of selection was firmly evidenced by,
among others, the express written recommendation dated January
12, 1998 by Christine Velazco, petitioners restaurant manager, for
theincreaseofhisremuneration.14
Petitioner could not seek refuge behind the service contract
enteredintowithrespondent.Itisthelawthatdefinesandgoverns
anemploymentrelationship,whosetermsarenotrestrictedtothose
fixedinthewrittencontract,forotherfactors,likethenatureofthe
work the employee has been called upon to perform, are also
considered.Thelawaffordsprotectiontoanemployee,anddoesnot
countenance any attempt to subvert its spirit and intent. Any
stipulationinwritingcanbeignoredwhentheemployerutilizesthe
stipulation to deprive the employee of his security of tenure. The
inequality thatcharacterizesemployeremployee relations generally
tipsthescalesinfavoroftheemployer,suchthat
_______________
13 Lopez v. Bodega City, supra, p. 64 Manila Water Company, Inc. v. Pena,
supra,pp.5859Tiuv.Pasaol,Sr.,G.R.No.139876,April30,2003,402SCRA312,
319.
14Rollo,p.47.
21
VOL.677,JULY18,2012
21
LegendHotel(Manila)vs.Realuyo
theemployeeisoftenscarcelyprovidedrealandbetteroptions.15
Secondly,petitionerarguesthatwhateverremunerationwasgiven
torespondentwereonlyhistalentfeesthatwerenotincludedinthe
definitionofwageundertheLaborCode and that such talent fees
were but the consideration for the service contract entered into
betweenthem.
Theargumentisbaseless.
Respondent was paid P400.00 per three hours of performance
from7:00pmto10:00pm,threetosixnightsaweek.Suchrateof
remuneration was later increased to P750.00 upon restaurant
manager Velazcos recommendation. There is no denying that the
remuneration denominated as talent fees was fixed on the basis of
histalentandskillandthequalityofthemusicheplayedduringthe
hoursofperformanceeachnight,takingintoaccounttheprevailing
rateforsimilartalentsintheentertainmentindustry.16
Respondents remuneration, albeit denominated as talent fees,
was still considered as included in the term wage in the sense and
context of the Labor Code, regardless of how petitioner chose to
designate the remuneration. Anent this, Article 97(f) of the Labor
Codeclearlystates:
xxx wage paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration or
earnings, however designated, capable of being expressed in terms of
money,whetherfixedorascertainedonatime,task,piece,orcommission
basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an
employer to an employee under a written or unwritten contract of
employmentforworkdoneortobedone,orforservicesrenderedorto
berendered,andincludesthefairandreasonablevalue,asdeterminedby
the Secretary of Labor, of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily
furnishedbytheemployertotheemployee.
_______________
15 Paguio v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 147816, May 9,
2003,403SCRA190,198.
16Rollo,p.14.
22
22
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
LegendHotel(Manila)vs.Realuyo
VOL.677,JULY18,2012
23
LegendHotel(Manila)vs.Realuyo
24
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
LegendHotel(Manila)vs.Realuyo
VOL.677,JULY18,2012
25
LegendHotel(Manila)vs.Realuyo
Anentthelaststandardofsufficientandconvincingevidence,it
oughttobepointedoutthatalessexactingstandardofproofwould
render too easy the abuse of retrenchment as a ground for
terminationofservicesofemployees.23
Wastheretrenchmentofrespondentvalid?
Interminationcases,theburdenofprovingthatthedismissalwas
for a valid or authorized cause rests upon the employer. Here,
petitioner did not submit evidence of the losses to its business
operations and the economic havoc it would thereby imminently
sustain.Itonlyclaimedthatre
_______________
22Oriental Petroleum and Minerals Corporation v. Fuentes, G.R. No. 151818,
October 14, 2005, 473 SCRA 106, 115 Anino v. National Labor Relations
Commission,G.R.No.123226,May21,1998,290SCRA489,502.
23OrientalPetroleumandMineralsCorporationv.Fuentes,supra,pp.115116.
26
26
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
LegendHotel(Manila)vs.Realuyo
VOL.677,JULY18,2012
27
LegendHotel(Manila)vs.Realuyo
Petitiondenied,judgmentaffirmed.
Notes.To justify the employees termination of service, the
lossesmustbeserious,actualandreal,andtheymustbesupported
by sufficient and convincing evidence. (Mobilia Products, Inc. vs.
Demecillo,578SCRA39[2009])
A labor union is not prohibited from offering and agreeing to
reduce wages and benefits of the employeesthe right to free
collectivebargainingincludestherighttosuspendit.(InsularHotel
Employees UnionNFL vs. Waterfront Insular Hotel Davao, 631
SCRA136[2010])
o0o
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.