G.R. No.
78711 June 27, 1990 Respondent ABOITIZ denies that the petitioners were
ABOITIZ SHIPPING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
LAZARO ABAIGAR, VICTORIANO ANIBAN, FELIPE
BATERZAL, RUFINO YAGUIT, JONNIE YAGUIT and
EUGENIO BALBUENA, petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and
ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION, respondents.
Rogelio B. De Guzman for petitioners.
Bienvenido A. Salinas, Jr. for private respondent.
PARAS, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the
Resolutions of the public respondent National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) dated April 30, 1987 and
May 29, 1987 affirming the Decision of August 23,
1985 rendered by Labor Arbiter Julio P. Andres, Jr.
holding that:
... respondent Aboitiz Shipping
Corporation could not be guilty of said
charge (unfair labor practice through
dismissal) for lack of employer-
employee relationship between them
and the individual complainants at the
time said act was allegedly committed
in April 1985. (p. 165, Rollo)
and consequently dismissing the case for lack of merit.
Hence, this petition anchored on two grounds:
1. GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
COMMITTED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION WHICH
AMOUNTS TO LACK OF JURISDICTION.
2. THE RESOLUTIONS SOUGHT TO BE
REVIEWED ARE NOT IN ACCORD WITH
LAW AND APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF
THIS HONORABLE COURT. (p. 2
Comment, p. 166, Rollo)
The real issue however which surfaces from the
allegations and arguments of the parties is whether or
not an employer-employee relationship existed
between respondent Aboitiz Shipping Corporation
(ABOITIZ, for short) and the petitioners-workers at the
time of the latter's alleged dismissal on April 26, 1985.
The six (6) petitioners herein claimed that they were
employed as carpenters by respondent corporation
until their illegal dismissal on April 26, 1985. They
alleged that they were all allegedly dismissed by Ben
Baguio and his spouse on April 26, 1985 just a day
after the inspection made by Efren Bautista of the
National Capital Region of the Ministry of Labor and
Employment on respondent ABOITIZ in connection
with LSED-4-408-85, a labor case which same
complainants filed with the Ministry of Labor and
Employment. According to the complainants, said act
of the Baguios constitute unfair labor practice defined
under par. (f) of Article 249 of the Labor Code, as
amended, and the resultant dismissal of the individual
complainants is illegal as there was allegedly no just
cause nor were they duly afforded due process of law.
They thus, pray that the respondent corporation be
held liable for unfair labor practice through dismissal,
damages and attorney's fees.
their employees at the time of their dismissal but are
employees of respondent Ben Baguio by virtue of a
Service Contract dated June 16, 1984. A pertinent
portion of which reads as follows:
8. That it is understood and agreed
that there is no employer-employee
relationship between the FIRST PARTY
(Aboitiz Shipping Corporation) and
SECOND PARTY (Narben's Service
Contractor) much less any of the
latter's carpenters. The SECOND PARTY
shall have the right to hire and fire
such employees, exercise general
control as to the time, manner and
method of performance of work; that
the sole interest of the FIRST PARTY is
that all its properties, cargoes,
equipments and other appurtenances
be safe and protected from
destruction, pilferage, damage and
other losses as envisioned in paragraph
9. The SECOND PARTY shall hold free
from any liability the FIRST PARTY
from any claim of whatsoever nature
which the carpenters of the SECOND
PARTY may institute either against the
FIRST PARTY and SECOND PARTY. (pp.
3-4, NLRC Resolution; pp. 3-4, Rollo)
On their part, spouses Ben and Leonarda Baguio aver
that they are the proprietors of Narben's Service
Contractor engaged in contracting carpentry jobs and
has a service contract with respondent Aboitiz Shipping
Corporation. Spouses Baguio admit that the petitioners
were indeed their employees whose duties were to do
carpentry work, subject to the condition that the
moment their works were finished, their employment
would end, and that they would be re-hired once
respondent ABOITIZ would enter into another contract.
Petitioners submit the following pieces of evidence in
support of the presence of employer-employee
relationship with respondent Aboitiz, viz:
(1) Social Security Numbers:
03-173171-0 — Lazaro
Abaigar;
06-112277-9 — Felipe
Baterzal;
03-634457-0 — Rufino
Yaguit;
03-77089084 — Jonnie
Yaguit;
07-4915-8 — Eugenio
Balbuena; and
03-78050193 —
Victoriano Aniban
(2) Deduction for Social Security
Premitims from their salaries;
(3) Company Identification Cards
issued to petitioners, examples of
which are Annexes "B", "B-1" and "B-
2", of Petition;
(4) Withholding of taxes as evidenced
by BIR Form W-2 Annexes "C" to "C-
5", of Petition; and
(5) Time Cards and normal conduct of
employer-employee relations
enumerated in the above Statement of
 Facts. (Memorandum of Petitioners, p. PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is hereby
212, Rollo) DISMISSED for lack of merit.

They therefore pray that the resolutions of public SO ORDERED.

respondent be set aside; that this Court declare the
illegality of dismissal of individual petitioners; and that
their reinstatement with full backwages to private
respondent as regular employees thereof be granted.

In the resolution of April 18, 1988, this Court gave due

course to the petition and required the parties to file
their simultaneous memoranda within thirty (30) days
from notice.

Records reveal that petitioners are not regular

employees of the private respondent at the time of
their alleged illegal dismissal. For one, petitioners, on
June 20, 1984, filed individual application for
employment with Narben's Service Contractor. They
were eventually issued payslips, deducted SSS
premiums, Pag-ibig fund and withholding tax from
their salaries by this Contractor.

As held in Mafinco Trading Corporation vs. Ople, 70

SCRA 139 (1976), the existence of employer-employee
relationship is determined by four (4) elements,
namely: (1) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of
dismissal; and (4) the power to control employees'
conduct. From a reading of the provisions of the
aforesaid service contract, the concurrence of these
four elements on NARBEN's will easily be noted. For
NARBEN's had the right to hire the necessary number
of carpenters to accomplish the carpentry
requirements of respondent corporation and to fire
them. It had charge of the payment of wages of its
laborers and the power of administrative supervision
and general control as to the time, manner and
method of performance of work.

All the above evidences constitute positive proofs that

the petitioners-workers were, at the time in question,
in the employ of NARBEN's and not anymore of
respondent Corporation. Respondent NLRC, therefore,
did not err in refusing to give weight to petitioners'
uncorroborated claim that they were continuously
employees of Aboitiz Shipping Corporation.

With regard to the issuance of Id's to petitioners by

private respondent, it appears that these Id's were
special Id's and is different from those issued to its
regular employees. On these special Identification
cards, the following words are written: THIS IS TO
CERTIFY THAT THE BEARER WHOSE PICTURE APPEAR
ON THIS CARD IS AUTHORIZED TO HAUL, OPERATE,
AND TRANSACT BUSINESS WITH ABOITIZ SHIPPING
CORPORATION. On the other hand, appearing on the
regular or probationary employee's Id cards are the
following words: "THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE
BEARER WHOSE PICTURE AND PERSONAL DATA
APPEAR ON THIS CARD IS AN EMPLOYEE OF ABOITIZ
SHIPPING CORPORATION." (pp. 109-110, Rollo)

Besides, the issue of the existence of employer-

employee relationship between the parties in the case
at bar is a question of fact which has already been
resolved by the labor arbiter and upheld by the
National Labor Relations Commission. Review of labor
cases are confined to questions of jurisdiction or grave
abuse of discretion. We find that no grave abuse of
discretion W-as committed by public respondent NLRC
in affirming the non-existence of employer-employee
relationship between petitioners and private
respondent.