[LOPEZ] G.R. No.
154463 September 5, 2006 the respondents job was necessary and part of the business of
CEBU METAL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. GREGORIO ROBERT
SALILING, ELIAS BOLIDO, MANUEL ALQUIZA, and BENJIE
AMPARADO, respondents.
Topic: Seasonal Employees
Facts:
1. Cebu Metal Corporation is a corporation engaged in buying and
selling of scrap iron. It has 3 regular employees whose salaries
are paid directly by its main office in Cebu, while other are
undertaking pakiao work in unloading scarp iron.
2. Cebu Metal Corporation operates at the Bacolod buying station.
Such is mainly a stockyard where scrap metal delivered by
suppliers are stockpiled.
3. The supply of scrap metal is not steady as it depends on the
availability of supplies, among others. The arrivals of trucks that
deliver scraps are not regular and nor known beforehand by Cebu
Metal Corp.
4. The trucks are owned/rented by different suppliers. Sometimes,
these trucks do not have any truck boys, and in these instances,
Cebu Metal Corp. hires the services of people for unloading the
scrap metal from these trucks. This is when Cebu Metal Corp.
hired pakiao workers for this purpose.
5. Among these pakiao workers were the unemployed persons or
trisicad drivers standing by in the vicinity, some of whom are the
respondents.
6. As compensation for their services, these workers are paid at the
rate of Php 15.00/ton for each person can unload at least 2 3
tons per hour, or can earn them at least Php 240.00 to Php
360.00 in eight hours, if work is available. This payment includes
the cost of living allowance, and 13th month pay.
7. However, respondents filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for
underpayment of wages, and non-payment of: 1) 13th month pay,
2) holiday pay, and 3) service incentive leave pay. They argued
that they work 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, 30 days a month.
8. A year after they filed the complaint, they manifested that they will
include the claim for illegal dismissal. Such belated filing was
allegedly due to the fact that they were only dismissed after filing
of complaint.
9. Labor Arbiter: in favor of respondents. It ordered Cebu Metal
Corp to reinstate the respondents, with backwages. It found that
Cebu Metal Corp. Under, Art. 280 of the Labor Code, these are
considered regular employees. Hence, they were dismissed
without a cause and due process.
10. NLRC: in favor of Cebu Metal Corp. The respondents were not
regular employees.
11. NLRC also held that Labor Arbiter should not have ruled on the
question of illegal dismissal as respondents invalidly raised such
issue (only on a position paper and a year later).
12. CA: in favor of respondents. It held that Cebu Metal Corp. never
really made an issue whether the claim for illegal dismissal was
validly stated on not. Hence, NLRC abused its discretion in ruling on
an issue not raised on appeal.
Issue: 1.) W/N respondents were regular workers - YES
2.) W/N the NLRCs ruling constituted grave abuse of discretion NO.
Held:
Respondents were regular workers
1. The petty cash vouchers submitted by Cebu Metal Corp showed
that the respondents were paid on pakiao or task basis. Such
irregular nature of the work involved (the stoppage and
resumption depended solely on the availability of supplies), it
necessarily follows that after the job of unloading was completed,
and the unloaders were paid, the working relationship has legally
ended. They were then free to offer their services elsewhere.
2. Their services are needed only when scrap metals are delivered,
which occurs only once or twice a week, or sometimes, no
delivery at all in a given week. It would be unjust to require Cebu
Metal Corp to maintain complainants in the payroll even if there is
no more work to be done.
3. Also, not every truck delivery of scrap metal requires the services of
respondents, particularly when a particular truck is accompanied by
its own "unloader." And whenever required, respondents were not
always the ones contracted to unload the trucks since the work was
offered to whomever were available at a given time. Hence, since
the respondents are not regular employees, there can be no
illegal dismissal to speak of.
NLRC did not gravely abuse their discretion
1. In the case at bar, it is quite apparent that no grave abuse of
discretion can be attributed to the NLRC. Its decision simply
expressed an observation, to wit:
a. Moreover, We note that in the complaint filed last
January 10, 1997, the issue of illegal dismissal was not
raised as a cause of action although it was later
discussed in their position paper filed on January 12,
1998.
2. The use of the word "moreover" clearly expresses NLRC's
position in treating the matter of the non-inclusion of the issue of
illegal dismissal in the complaint merely as an add-on, adjunct or
a supplement to its finding that respondents were not regular
employees of Cebu Metal Corp.
3. At any rate, the Court is clothed with authority to review matters,
even if they are not assigned as errors in their appeal, if it finds
that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision
of the case.