Teng v. Pahagac (G.R. No. 169704; November 17, 2010)
CASE DIGEST: ALBERT TENG, doing business under the firm name ALBERT TENG FISH TRADING, and EMILIA TENG-CHUA v. ALFREDO S. PAHAGAC,EDDIE D. NIPA,ORLANDOP. LAYESE, HERNAN Y. BADILLES and ROGER S. PAHAGAC. (G.R. No. 169704; November 17, 2010)
FACTS: Albert Teng (Petitioner) is engaged in the business of deep sea fishing, and he employs master fishermen to facilitate his fishing venture. These master fishermen hire the Respondent workers as checkers of the volume of the fish caught in every voyage. Respondents filed a complaint of illegal dismissalthey averred that there was no employment contract, and sometime around Sept. 2002, Teng doubted the amounts that they were telling him regarding how much fish were caught. By December, Teng told them their services were terminated.
The VA dismissed the complaint because there was no employer-employee relationship. Respondents received the decision on June 12, 2003; They filed an MR which was denied and they received the order on July 8, 2003. The Voluntary Arbitrator reasoned that the Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration Proceedings (1989 Procedural Guidelines) does not provide the remedy of a motion for reconsideration to the party adversely affected by the VAs order or decision.
Respondents appealed to the CA, which ordered Petitioner to pay backwages and other monetary benefits. After denial of the MR,Teng files the case before the Supreme Court
ISSUES: Is the VA's decision not subject to a motion for reconsideration?
Is there an employer-employee relationship?
HELD: Article 262-A deleted the word"unappealable"from Article 263. The deliberate selection of the language in the amendatory act differing from that of the original act indicates that the legislature intended a change in the law, and the court should endeavor to give effect to such intent. Presumably, the decision may still be reconsidered by the Voluntary Arbitrator on the basis of a motion for reconsideration duly filed during that period. The seasonable filing of a motion for reconsideration is a mandatory requirement to forestall the finality of such decision.
The requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted is based on the doctrine that in providing for a remedy before an administrative agency, every opportunity must be given to the agency to resolve the matter and to exhaust all opportunities for a resolution under the given remedy before bringing an action in, or resorting to, the courts of justice.While Teng alleged that it was the maestros who hired the respondent workers, it was his company that issued to the respondent workers identification cards (IDs) bearing their names as employees and Tengs signature as the employer. Generally, in a business establishment, IDs are issued to identify the holder as a bona fide employee of the issuing entity. For the 13 years that the respondent workers worked for Teng, they received wages on a regular basis, in addition to their shares in the fish caught.
The element of controlis present in this case. Teng not only owned the tools and equipment, he directed how the respondent workers were to perform their job as checkers; they, in fact, acted as Tengs eyes and ears in every fishing expedition.
The dismissal of an employee, which the employer must validate, has a twofold requirement:one is substantive, the other is procedural.Not only must the dismissal be for a just or an authorized cause, as provided by law; the rudimentary requirements of due process the opportunity to be heard and to defend oneself must be observed as well. The employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a just cause; failure to show this, as in the present case, would necessarily mean that the dismissal was unjustified and, therefore, illegal. DENIED.
FACTS: Albert Teng (Petitioner) is engaged in the business of deep sea fishing, and he employs master fishermen to facilitate his fishing venture. These master fishermen hire the Respondent workers as checkers of the volume of the fish caught in every voyage. Respondents filed a complaint of illegal dismissalthey averred that there was no employment contract, and sometime around Sept. 2002, Teng doubted the amounts that they were telling him regarding how much fish were caught. By December, Teng told them their services were terminated.
The VA dismissed the complaint because there was no employer-employee relationship. Respondents received the decision on June 12, 2003; They filed an MR which was denied and they received the order on July 8, 2003. The Voluntary Arbitrator reasoned that the Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration Proceedings (1989 Procedural Guidelines) does not provide the remedy of a motion for reconsideration to the party adversely affected by the VAs order or decision.
Respondents appealed to the CA, which ordered Petitioner to pay backwages and other monetary benefits. After denial of the MR,Teng files the case before the Supreme Court
ISSUES: Is the VA's decision not subject to a motion for reconsideration?
Is there an employer-employee relationship?
HELD: Article 262-A deleted the word"unappealable"from Article 263. The deliberate selection of the language in the amendatory act differing from that of the original act indicates that the legislature intended a change in the law, and the court should endeavor to give effect to such intent. Presumably, the decision may still be reconsidered by the Voluntary Arbitrator on the basis of a motion for reconsideration duly filed during that period. The seasonable filing of a motion for reconsideration is a mandatory requirement to forestall the finality of such decision.
The requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted is based on the doctrine that in providing for a remedy before an administrative agency, every opportunity must be given to the agency to resolve the matter and to exhaust all opportunities for a resolution under the given remedy before bringing an action in, or resorting to, the courts of justice.While Teng alleged that it was the maestros who hired the respondent workers, it was his company that issued to the respondent workers identification cards (IDs) bearing their names as employees and Tengs signature as the employer. Generally, in a business establishment, IDs are issued to identify the holder as a bona fide employee of the issuing entity. For the 13 years that the respondent workers worked for Teng, they received wages on a regular basis, in addition to their shares in the fish caught.
The element of controlis present in this case. Teng not only owned the tools and equipment, he directed how the respondent workers were to perform their job as checkers; they, in fact, acted as Tengs eyes and ears in every fishing expedition.
The dismissal of an employee, which the employer must validate, has a twofold requirement:one is substantive, the other is procedural.Not only must the dismissal be for a just or an authorized cause, as provided by law; the rudimentary requirements of due process the opportunity to be heard and to defend oneself must be observed as well. The employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a just cause; failure to show this, as in the present case, would necessarily mean that the dismissal was unjustified and, therefore, illegal. DENIED.
