Lawyerly

GR No. 202215

2015-12-09

VICMAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CAMILO ELARCOSA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In labor cases, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when its findings and conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence or such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[64] The CA may grant a Petition for Certiorari if it finds that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by capriciously, whimsically or arbitrarily disregarding the material evidence decisive of a case. It cannot "make this determination without looking into the evidence presented by the parties. Necessarily, the appellate court can only evaluate the materiality or significance of the evidence, which is alleged to have been capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarded by the NLRC, in relation to all other evidence on record."[65]

GR No. 218787

2015-12-08

LEO Y. QUERUBIN v. COMELEC EN BANC

VELASCO JR., J.

It is a basic tenet that except only in cases in which alternative methods of procurement are allowed, all government procurement shall be done by competitive bidding. This is initiated by the BAC, which publishes an Invitation to Bid for contracts under competitive bidding in order to ensure the widest possible dissemination thereof.[81]

GR No. 177592

2014-06-09

AVELINO S. ALILIN v. PETRON CORPORATION

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Sections 8 and 9, Rule VIII, Book III[51] of the implementing rules of the Labor Code, in force since 1976 and prior to DOLE Department Order No. 10, series of 1997,[52] provide that for job contracting to be permissible, one of the conditions that has to be met is that the contractor must have substantial capital or investment. Petron having failed to show that this condition was met by RDG, it can be concluded, on this score alone, that RDG is a mere labor-only contractor. Otherwise stated, the presumption that RDG is a labor-only contractor stands due to the failure of Petron to discharge the burden of proving the contrary.

GR No. 202791

2013-06-10

PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS v. LEANDRO LEGASPI

MENDOZA, J.

The CA, therefore, could grant the petition for certiorari if it finds that the NLRC, in its assailed decision or resolution, committed grave abuse of discretion by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is material to or decisive of the controversy; and it cannot make this determination without looking into the evidence of the parties. Necessarily, the appellate court can only evaluate the materiality or significance of the evidence, which is alleged to have been capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarded by the NLRC, in relation to all other evidence on record.[13] Notably, if the CA grants the petition and nullifies the decision or resolution of the NLRC on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction, the decision or resolution of the NLRC is, in contemplation of law, null and void ab initio; hence, the decision or resolution never became final and executory.[14]

GR No. 203766

2013-04-02

ATONG PAGLAUM v. COMELEC

CARPIO, J.

- The nominees did not appear to be marginalized and underrepresented. Resolution dated 30 October 2012[32] 21 204428 12-256 (PLM) Ang Galing Pinoy (AG) Cancelled registration and accreditation

GR No. 203766

2013-04-02

ATONG PAGLAUM v. COMELEC

CARPIO, J.

In Dole Philippines Inc. v. Esteva,[153] the Court defined quasi-judicial power, to wit: Quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power on the other hand is the power of the administrative agency to adjudicate the rights of persons before it. It is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. The administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it. In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions the administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them as basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature. Since rights of specific persons are affected, it is elementary that in the proper exercise of quasi-judicial power due process must be observed in the conduct of the proceedings.[154]

GR No. 179169

2010-03-03

LEONIS NAVIGATION CO. v. CATALINO U. VILLAMATER

NACHURA, J.

The CA, therefore, could grant the petition for certiorari if it finds that the NLRC, in its assailed decision or resolution, committed grave abuse of discretion by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is material to or decisive of the controversy; and it cannot make this determination without looking into the evidence of the parties. Necessarily, the appellate court can only evaluate the materiality or significance of the evidence, which is alleged to have been capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarded by the NLRC, in relation to all other evidence on record.[22] Notably, if the CA grants the petition and nullifies the

GR No. 179830

2009-12-03

LINTANG BEDOL v. COMELEC

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply, and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. The Court, in Dole Philippines Inc. v. Esteva,[8] described quasi-judicial power in the following manner, viz: Quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power on the other hand is the power of the administrative agency to adjudicate the rights of persons before it. It is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. The administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it. In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions the administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them as basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature. Since rights of specific persons are affected, it is elementary that in the proper exercise of quasi-judicial power due process must be observed in the conduct of the proceedings. [Emphasis ours.]

GR No. 163033

2009-10-02

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. EDUARDO L. TEODOSIO

PERALTA, J.

Having gained the status of a regular employee, respondent is entitled to security of tenure and could only be dismissed on just or authorized causes and after he has been accorded due process.[32]

GR No. 178827

2009-03-04

JEROMIE D. ESCASINAS v. SHANGRI-LA'S MACTAN ISLAND RESORT

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The existence of an independent and permissible contractor relationship is generally established by considering the following determinants: whether the contractor is carrying on an independent business; the nature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term and duration of the relationship; the right to assign the performance of a specified piece of work; the control and supervision of the work to another; the employer's power with respect to the hiring, firing and payment of the contractor's workers; the control of the premises; the duty to supply the premises, tools, appliances, materials and labor; and the mode, manner and terms of payment.[11]

GR No. 179546

2009-02-13

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. v. ALAN M. AGITO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Thus, in San Miguel Corporation, the investment of MAERC, the contractor therein, in the form of buildings, tools, and equipment of more than P4,000,000.00 did not impress the Court, which still declared MAERC to be a labor-only contractor. In another case, Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Esteva,[42] the Court did not recognize the contractor therein as a legitimate job contractor, despite its paid-up capital of over P4,000,000.00, in the absence of substantial investment in tools and equipment used in the services it was rendering.

GR No. 177785

2008-09-03

RANDY ALMEDA v. ASAHI GLASS PHILIPPINES

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In the instant Petition, the Court has already declared that petitioners' employment as quality controllers and glass cutters are directly related to the usual business or trade of respondent as a glass manufacturer. Respondent would have wanted this Court to believe that petitioners' employment was dependent on the increased market demand. However, bearing in mind that petitioners have worked for respondent for not less than three years and as much as 11 years, which respondent did not refute, then petitioners' continued employment clearly demonstrates its continuing necessity and indispensability to the business of respondent, raising their employment to regular status. Thus, having gained regular status, petitioners were entitled to security of tenure and could only be dismissed on just or authorized causes and after they had been accorded due process.[21]

GR No. 146408

2008-02-29

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. ENRIQUE LIGAN

CARPIO MORALES, J.

More significantly, however, is that respondents worked alongside petitioner's regular employees who were performing identical work.[23] As San Miguel Corporation v. Aballa[24] and Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Esteva, et al.[25] teach, such is an indicium of labor-only contracting.

GR NO. 168988

2007-06-19

FERNANDO G. MANAYA v. ALABANG COUNTRY CLUB INCORPORATED

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In legitimate labor contracting, the law creates an employer-employee relationship for a limited purpose, i.e., to ensure that the employees are paid their wages. The principal employer becomes jointly and severally liable with the job contractor, only for the payment of the employees' wages whenever the contractor fails to pay the same. Other than that, the principal employer is not responsible for any claim made by the employees. [44]

	GR No. 202215 2015-12-09	VICMAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CAMILO ELARCOSA DEL CASTILLO, J.
In labor cases, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when its findings and conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence or such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[64] The CA may grant a Petition for Certiorari if it finds that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by capriciously, whimsically or arbitrarily disregarding the material evidence decisive of a case. It cannot "make this determination without looking into the evidence presented by the parties. Necessarily, the appellate court can only evaluate the materiality or significance of the evidence, which is alleged to have been capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarded by the NLRC, in relation to all other evidence on record."[65]
	GR No. 218787 2015-12-08	LEO Y. QUERUBIN v. COMELEC EN BANC VELASCO JR., J.
It is a basic tenet that except only in cases in which alternative methods of procurement are allowed, all government procurement shall be done by competitive bidding. This is initiated by the BAC, which publishes an Invitation to Bid for contracts under competitive bidding in order to ensure the widest possible dissemination thereof.[81]
	GR No. 177592 2014-06-09	AVELINO S. ALILIN v. PETRON CORPORATION DEL CASTILLO, J.
Sections 8 and 9, Rule VIII, Book III[51] of the implementing rules of the Labor Code, in force since 1976 and prior to DOLE Department Order No. 10, series of 1997,[52] provide that for job contracting to be permissible, one of the conditions that has to be met is that the contractor must have substantial capital or investment. Petron having failed to show that this condition was met by RDG, it can be concluded, on this score alone, that RDG is a mere labor-only contractor. Otherwise stated, the presumption that RDG is a labor-only contractor stands due to the failure of Petron to discharge the burden of proving the contrary.
	GR No. 202791 2013-06-10	PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS v. LEANDRO LEGASPI MENDOZA, J.
The CA, therefore, could grant the petition for certiorari if it finds that the NLRC, in its assailed decision or resolution, committed grave abuse of discretion by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is material to or decisive of the controversy; and it cannot make this determination without looking into the evidence of the parties. Necessarily, the appellate court can only evaluate the materiality or significance of the evidence, which is alleged to have been capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarded by the NLRC, in relation to all other evidence on record.[13] Notably, if the CA grants the petition and nullifies the decision or resolution of the NLRC on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction, the decision or resolution of the NLRC is, in contemplation of law, null and void ab initio; hence, the decision or resolution never became final and executory.[14]
	GR No. 203766 2013-04-02	ATONG PAGLAUM v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
- The nominees did not appear to be marginalized and underrepresented. Resolution dated 30 October 2012[32] 21 204428 12-256 (PLM) Ang Galing Pinoy (AG) Cancelled registration and accreditation
	GR No. 203766 2013-04-02	ATONG PAGLAUM v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
In Dole Philippines Inc. v. Esteva,[153] the Court defined quasi-judicial power, to wit: Quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power on the other hand is the power of the administrative agency to adjudicate the rights of persons before it. It is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. The administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it. In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions the administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them as basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature. Since rights of specific persons are affected, it is elementary that in the proper exercise of quasi-judicial power due process must be observed in the conduct of the proceedings.[154]
	GR No. 179169 2010-03-03	LEONIS NAVIGATION CO. v. CATALINO U. VILLAMATER NACHURA, J.
The CA, therefore, could grant the petition for certiorari if it finds that the NLRC, in its assailed decision or resolution, committed grave abuse of discretion by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is material to or decisive of the controversy; and it cannot make this determination without looking into the evidence of the parties. Necessarily, the appellate court can only evaluate the materiality or significance of the evidence, which is alleged to have been capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarded by the NLRC, in relation to all other evidence on record.[22] Notably, if the CA grants the petition and nullifies the
	GR No. 179830 2009-12-03	LINTANG BEDOL v. COMELEC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply, and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. The Court, in Dole Philippines Inc. v. Esteva,[8] described quasi-judicial power in the following manner, viz: Quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power on the other hand is the power of the administrative agency to adjudicate the rights of persons before it. It is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. The administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it. In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions the administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them as basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature. Since rights of specific persons are affected, it is elementary that in the proper exercise of quasi-judicial power due process must be observed in the conduct of the proceedings. [Emphasis ours.]
	GR No. 163033 2009-10-02	SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. EDUARDO L. TEODOSIO PERALTA, J.
Having gained the status of a regular employee, respondent is entitled to security of tenure and could only be dismissed on just or authorized causes and after he has been accorded due process.[32]
	GR No. 178827 2009-03-04	JEROMIE D. ESCASINAS v. SHANGRI-LA'S MACTAN ISLAND RESORT CARPIO MORALES, J.
The existence of an independent and permissible contractor relationship is generally established by considering the following determinants: whether the contractor is carrying on an independent business; the nature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term and duration of the relationship; the right to assign the performance of a specified piece of work; the control and supervision of the work to another; the employer's power with respect to the hiring, firing and payment of the contractor's workers; the control of the premises; the duty to supply the premises, tools, appliances, materials and labor; and the mode, manner and terms of payment.[11]
	GR No. 179546 2009-02-13	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. v. ALAN M. AGITO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Thus, in San Miguel Corporation, the investment of MAERC, the contractor therein, in the form of buildings, tools, and equipment of more than P4,000,000.00 did not impress the Court, which still declared MAERC to be a labor-only contractor. In another case, Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Esteva,[42] the Court did not recognize the contractor therein as a legitimate job contractor, despite its paid-up capital of over P4,000,000.00, in the absence of substantial investment in tools and equipment used in the services it was rendering.
	GR No. 177785 2008-09-03	RANDY ALMEDA v. ASAHI GLASS PHILIPPINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the instant Petition, the Court has already declared that petitioners' employment as quality controllers and glass cutters are directly related to the usual business or trade of respondent as a glass manufacturer. Respondent would have wanted this Court to believe that petitioners' employment was dependent on the increased market demand. However, bearing in mind that petitioners have worked for respondent for not less than three years and as much as 11 years, which respondent did not refute, then petitioners' continued employment clearly demonstrates its continuing necessity and indispensability to the business of respondent, raising their employment to regular status. Thus, having gained regular status, petitioners were entitled to security of tenure and could only be dismissed on just or authorized causes and after they had been accorded due process.[21]
	GR No. 146408 2008-02-29	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. ENRIQUE LIGAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
More significantly, however, is that respondents worked alongside petitioner's regular employees who were performing identical work.[23] As San Miguel Corporation v. Aballa[24] and Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Esteva, et al.[25] teach, such is an indicium of labor-only contracting.
	GR NO. 168988 2007-06-19	FERNANDO G. MANAYA v. ALABANG COUNTRY CLUB INCORPORATED CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In legitimate labor contracting, the law creates an employer-employee relationship for a limited purpose, i.e., to ensure that the employees are paid their wages. The principal employer becomes jointly and severally liable with the job contractor, only for the payment of the employees' wages whenever the contractor fails to pay the same. Other than that, the principal employer is not responsible for any claim made by the employees. [44]

DOLE PHILIPPINES v. MEDEL ESTEVA