Fleischer Company, Inc. vs. NLRC, Ruamar, et. al.

Fleischer Company, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Ruamar, et. al.
355 SCRA 105, GR No. 121608, March 26, 2001
FACTS:

Petitioner, an agricultural plantation, hired private respondents as security guards in 1989 due to their being members of the Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF). Respondent Ruamar, who was hired as a utility man, was terminated from service on February 23, 1990 while respondent security guards Dalit, Vivero and Dubal were all terminated on March 13, 1990. Respondents, then, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter Aponesto. They insisted that they were entitled to wage differentials on the ground that as security guards their wages should be based on the industrial rate and not on the agricultural rate. Petitioner rejected respondents’ money claims contending that they are agricultural workers and not underpaid, and that the company’s payroll showed that they were given their money claims.

The Labor Arbiter ruled that respondents were illegally dismissed from service and ordered petitioner to pay the respondents’ respective separation pay, all on the ground that petitioner failed to sufficiently establish the facts to warrant the dismissal of the respondents. He, however, declined to award respondents their backwages because petitioner was found to be in good faith when it offered to pay respondents their separation pay as indicated in their letters of dismissal. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s finding of illegal dismissal on the ground that the case us analogous to or one involving redundancy since rh respondents’ services were no longet needed when the latter cased to be members of the CHDF abd when duly licensed security guards were already hired. The payment of separation pays was likewise ordered by the NLRC but later modified the decision by deleting the monetary award in favor of respondent Dalit.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there existed an employer-employee relationship between the parties

COURT RULING:

The Supreme Court accorded great weight and respect to the findings of the NLRC that there exists an employer-employee relationship between the parties, and, therefore, affirmed the NLRC’s first decision as modified by the resolution also made by NLRC.

It is well-settled that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is essentially a factual question and the NLRC’s findings thereon are accorded great weight and espect and even finality when the same are supported by substantial violence.

A review in the Supreme Court concerning factual findings in labor cases is confined to determining allegations of lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.

Lapid vs. NLRC, Phil Hanse Ship Agency, et. al.

Lapid vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Phil Hanse Ship Agency, et. al.,
306 SCRA 349, GR No. 117518, April 29, 1999
FACTS:

Respondent Phil Hans employed petitioner’s son, Ariel, to be a steward on board M/V Cast Muskox in Canada. Ariel left for the said country in September 1990 and was supposed to come home in August 1991 upon the termination of the 1-year period of employment contract. However, his lifeless body was found hanging by the neck from the ceiling of an abandoned warehouse in Quebec, Canada on August 13, 1991. After examining the corpse, the coroner reported that the causer of death was asphyxiation by hanging and, therefore, the circumstances of death was following self-destruction. Based on the said report, Phil Hanse informed petitioner that Ariel committed suicide.

When the remains arrived in Manila on August 29, 1991, petitioner noticed immediately that it bore several bruises so petitioner sought the help of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and submitted the cadaver for post mortem examination. The NBI reported that the body vore abrasions on the elbow, contusions on the forehead, hematoma and ligature marks on the neck, all of which are inconsistent with the suicide earlier reported. Petitioner then filed a claim with the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) asserting that Ariel was a victim of foul play abroad in the course of his overseas employment. However, the POEA Administrator ruled that the pieces of evidence adduced substantially proved that suicide was committed just as what the coroner reported. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the assailed decision based on a conclusion that since Ariel’s $2,000.00 remained in tact in his wallet when his body was found and that based on the coroner’s report, Ariel committed suicide and there was no foul play at all.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner is entitled to death benefits under Sec. 6(6), Part II of the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen

COURT RULING:

Finding that the coroner’s report to be incomplete, the Phil Hanse’s evidence to be lean, frail and far from convincing, and that Phil Hanse failed to ascertain the circumstances of Ariel’s death, the Supreme Court reversed the NLRC’s decision and ordered the remand of the case to the POEA for computation of death benefits.

It is the employer’s duty to ascertain the circumstances surrounding its employee’s death while the employee was on the course of his work.

Under Section 6 (6), Part II of the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen, if the injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seaman was because of his own doing, no compensation shall be payable.

The employer must prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is attributable to the seaman, in order for the employer to evade any liability for death benefits.