Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bernante v. PBA PDF
Bernante v. PBA PDF
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c1c8d0c2937c0189a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/17
7/23/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657
receipt was made. The mailman may also testify that the notice
was actually delivered.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
746
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c1c8d0c2937c0189a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/17
7/23/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657
747
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c1c8d0c2937c0189a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/17
7/23/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657
_______________
1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2 Rollo, pp. 73-83. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon
with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Ricardo R. Rosario,
concurring.
3 Id., at pp. 85-86. In the same resolution, the Court of Appeals granted
the Motion to Withdraw motion for reconsideration filed by Renato
Guevarra, another referee and petitioner’s co-respondent in the Court of
Appeals, rendering the decision of the Court of Appeals final as to him.
748
The Facts
of the year in 2003. He felt that the dismissal was caused by his
refusal to fix a game upon order of Ernie De Leon.
On the other hand, complainant Guevarra alleges that he was
invited to join the PBA pool of referees in February 2001. On
March 1, 2001, he signed a contract as trainee. Beginning 2002,
he signed a yearly contract as Regular Class C referee. On May 6,
2003, respondent Martinez issued a memorandum to Guevarra
expressing dissatisfaction over his questioning on the assignment
of referees officiating out-of-town games. Beginning February
2004, he was no longer made to sign a contract.
Respondents aver, on the other hand, that complainants
entered into two contracts of retainer with the PBA in the year
2003. The first contract was for the period January 1, 2003 to July
15, 2003; and the second was for September 1 to December 2003.
After the lapse of the latter period, PBA decided not to renew
their contracts.
750
The rest of the claims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit or basis.
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 74-75.
5 Id., at pp. 111-147.
6 Teresita D. Castillon-Lora.
750
SO ORDERED.”7
In its 28 January 2008 Decision,8 the NLRC affirmed
the Labor Arbiter’s judgment. The dispositive portion of the
NLRC’s decision reads:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c1c8d0c2937c0189a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/17
7/23/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657
“While the NLRC agreed that the PBA has no control over the
referees’ acts of blowing the whistle and making calls during
basket-
_______________
7 Rollo, p. 147.
8 Id., at pp. 87-94. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles
with Commissioners Perlita B. Velasco and Romeo L. Go, concurring.
9 Id., at p. 93.
10 Id., at p. 83.
751
ball games, it, nevertheless, theorized that the said acts refer to
the means and methods employed by the referees in officiating
basketball games for the illogical reason that said acts refer only
to the referees’ skills. How could a skilled referee perform his job
without blowing a whistle and making calls? Worse, how can the
PBA control the performance of work of a referee without
controlling his acts of blowing the whistle and making calls?
Moreover, this Court disagrees with the Labor Arbiter’s finding
(as affirmed by the NLRC) that the Contracts of Retainer show
that petitioners have control over private respondents.
x x x x
Neither do We agree with the NLRC’s affirmance of the Labor
Arbiter’s conclusion that private respondents’ repeated hiring
made them regular employees by operation of law.”11
The Issues
_______________
11 Id., at pp. 78-79, 81.
752
“x x x
That upon receipt of said registered mail matter, our registry in
charge, Vicente Asis, Jr., immediately issued the first registry notice to
claim on July 12, 2005 by the addressee. The second and third notices
were issued on July 21 and August 1, 2005, respectively.
That the subject registered letter was returned to the sender (RTS)
because the addressee failed to claim it after our one month retention
period elapsed. Said registered letter was dispatched from this office to
Manila CPO (RTS) under bill #6, line 7, page1, column 1, on September
8, 2005.”12
complete upon the expiration of ten (10) days after mailing, unless
the court otherwise provides. Service by registered mail is
complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or after five (5)
days from the date he received the first notice of the postmaster,
whichever date is earlier.”
_______________
12 Id., at p. 150.
753
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c1c8d0c2937c0189a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/17
7/23/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657
_______________
13 Philemploy Services and Resources, Inc. v. Rodriguez, G.R. No.
152616, 31 March 2006, 486 SCRA 302, 321.
14 Id.; Spouses Aguilar v. Court of Appeals, 369 Phil. 655, 661; 310
SCRA 393, 398 (1999).
15 Spouses Aguilar v. Court of Appeals, supra at 662; p. 398, citing De
la Cruz v. De la Cruz, 160 SCRA 361 (1988).
16 Spouses Aguilar v. Court of Appeals, supra at p. 662; p. 398, citing
Barrameda v. Castillo, 168 Phil. 170; 78 SCRA 1 (1977).
17 Barrameda v. Castillo, 168 Phil. 170, 173; 78 SCRA 1, 4 (1977).
754
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c1c8d0c2937c0189a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/17
7/23/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657
_______________
18 Sycip Gorres Velayo & Company v. De Raedt, G.R. No. 161366, 16
June 2009, 589 SCRA 160, 167.
19 Id.; Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, G.R. No. 138051,
10 June 2004, 431 SCRA 583, 594-595.
755
756
_______________
20 Rollo, p. 78.
21 Supra note 19.
22 Id., at pp. 603-604.
757
_______________
23 Case No. 09 C 4280, 22 June 2011 (citations omitted).
758
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c1c8d0c2937c0189a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/17
7/23/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657
759
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c1c8d0c2937c0189a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/17
7/23/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657
_______________
24 Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2009 WL 4878614 Tenn.Ct.App., 2009. No.
M2009-00504-COA-R3-CV, 16 December 2009.
760
SO ORDERED.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c1c8d0c2937c0189a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/17
7/23/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657
——o0o——
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c1c8d0c2937c0189a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/17