GSIS v. NLRC (G.R. No. 180045; November 17, 2010)
CASE DIGEST: GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), DIONISIO BANLASAN, ALFREDO T. TAFALLA, TELESFORO D. RUBIA, ROGELIO A. ALVAREZ, DOMINADOR A. ESCOBAL, and ROSAURO PANIS, Respondent. GSIS v. NLRC (G.R. No. 180045; November 17, 2010).
FACTS: Private respondents were security guards hired by DNL Security, and they were assigned to Petitioners Tacloban office. In July 1989, GSIS voluntarily increased their salaries from 1400 to 3000 php. In February 1993, DNL Security informed respondents that its service contract with petitioner was terminated. This notwithstanding, DNL Security instructed respondents to continue reporting for work to petitioner. Respondents worked as instructed until April 20, 1993, but without receiving their wages; after which, they were terminated from employment.
Respondents filed before the NLRC a complaint against GSIS and DNL Security for illegal dismissal, which they won. The LA found that respondents were not illegally terminated from employment because the employment of security guards is dependent on the service contract between the security agency and its client. However, considering that respondents had been out of work for a long period, and consonant with the principle of social justice, the LA awarded respondents with separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service, to be paid by DNL Security. DNL Security filed a motion for reconsideration, while petitioner appealed to the NLRC.
The NLRC treated DNL Securitys motion for reconsideration as an appeal, but dismissed the same, as it was not legally perfected. It likewise dismissed petitioners appeal, having been filed beyond the reglementary period. The CA likewise affirmed the decision of the NLRC upon petition for certiorari, and GSIS institutes the instant action.
ISSUES: Was GSIS appeal seasonably filed before the NLRC.? Is GSIS liable as an indirect employer?
HELD: Under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, where the filing of pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders, judgments, and all other papers with the court/tribunal is made by registered mail, the date of mailing, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of filing. In any case, even if the appeal was filed one day late, the same should have been entertained by the NLRC. However, in exceptional cases, a belated appeal may be given due course if greater injustice will be visited upon the party should the appeal be denied. The Court has allowed this extraordinary measure even at the expense of sacrificing order and efficiency if only to serve the greater principles of substantial justice and equity.The fact that there is no actual and direct employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondents does not absolve the former from liability for the latter's monetary claims. When petitioner contracted DNL Security's services, petitioner became an indirect employer of respondents, pursuant to Article 107 of the Labor Code which states:
However, GSIS is exempt from paying separation pay because it is punitive in character, and an indirect employer cannot be held liable for this unless it conspired with the dismissal.
PARTIALLY GRANTED. GSIS is solidarily liable with DNL Security.
FACTS: Private respondents were security guards hired by DNL Security, and they were assigned to Petitioners Tacloban office. In July 1989, GSIS voluntarily increased their salaries from 1400 to 3000 php. In February 1993, DNL Security informed respondents that its service contract with petitioner was terminated. This notwithstanding, DNL Security instructed respondents to continue reporting for work to petitioner. Respondents worked as instructed until April 20, 1993, but without receiving their wages; after which, they were terminated from employment.
Respondents filed before the NLRC a complaint against GSIS and DNL Security for illegal dismissal, which they won. The LA found that respondents were not illegally terminated from employment because the employment of security guards is dependent on the service contract between the security agency and its client. However, considering that respondents had been out of work for a long period, and consonant with the principle of social justice, the LA awarded respondents with separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service, to be paid by DNL Security. DNL Security filed a motion for reconsideration, while petitioner appealed to the NLRC.
The NLRC treated DNL Securitys motion for reconsideration as an appeal, but dismissed the same, as it was not legally perfected. It likewise dismissed petitioners appeal, having been filed beyond the reglementary period. The CA likewise affirmed the decision of the NLRC upon petition for certiorari, and GSIS institutes the instant action.
ISSUES: Was GSIS appeal seasonably filed before the NLRC.? Is GSIS liable as an indirect employer?
HELD: Under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, where the filing of pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders, judgments, and all other papers with the court/tribunal is made by registered mail, the date of mailing, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of filing. In any case, even if the appeal was filed one day late, the same should have been entertained by the NLRC. However, in exceptional cases, a belated appeal may be given due course if greater injustice will be visited upon the party should the appeal be denied. The Court has allowed this extraordinary measure even at the expense of sacrificing order and efficiency if only to serve the greater principles of substantial justice and equity.The fact that there is no actual and direct employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondents does not absolve the former from liability for the latter's monetary claims. When petitioner contracted DNL Security's services, petitioner became an indirect employer of respondents, pursuant to Article 107 of the Labor Code which states:
"The provisions of the immediately preceding Article shall likewise apply to any person, partnership, association or corporation which, not being an employer, contracts with an independent contractor for the performance of any work, task, job or project."Petitioners liability covers the payment of respondents salary differential and 13thmonth pay during the time they worked for petitioner. In addition, petitioner is solidarily liable with DNL Security for respondents unpaid wages from February 1993 until April 20, 1993. While it is true that respondents continued working for petitioner after the expiration of their contract, based on the instruction of DNL Security, petitioner did not object to such assignment and allowed respondents to render service. Thus, petitioner impliedly approved the extension of respondents services.Accordingly, petitioner is bound by the provisions of the Labor Code on indirect employment.
However, GSIS is exempt from paying separation pay because it is punitive in character, and an indirect employer cannot be held liable for this unless it conspired with the dismissal.
PARTIALLY GRANTED. GSIS is solidarily liable with DNL Security.