DENNIS RODRIGUEZ, JIMMY BRAVO, ALLEN MINOZA, JOHNRAY ACEBES, MILICIO RENDON, ERIC RODRIGUEZ, VICENTE RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH DELA CONCEPCION, RAMIL RODRIGUEZ, RUSTICO CADUNGOG AND LUC…

Rodriguez versus Paint Works Enterprises

The Case

This is a labor case in which a group of painters, led by Dennis Rodriguez, sued Paint Works Enterprises, Inc. for illegal dismissal and money claims, insisting that they were its employees who were dismissed in retaliation for filing a labor standards complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment. Paint Works denied being their employer, and a third party, Dionisio Mabano, appeared and claimed the workers as his own, hired on a project-to-project basis. The case matters because it is a compact lesson on two things every labor reviewee must master: how an employer-employee relationship is proved through the four-fold test, and how narrow and demanding the remedy of certiorari is when a labor tribunal's factual findings are challenged.

Procedural History

The painters first filed a complaint with the Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment for violations of labor standards, and an inspection of the premises followed, though no results were given because the complaint was withdrawn. They then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims before the Labor Arbiter, who rendered a decision declaring that no employer-employee relationship existed between the painters and Paint Works, that such a relationship existed instead between the painters and Dionisio Mabano as proprietor of PWA Construction Services, and dismissing the complaint and all money claims. The painters appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision. They moved for reconsideration, and the Commission denied it. Aggrieved, the painters went up to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to nullify the Commission's decision and resolution.

Facts

The painters alleged that they were employees of Paint Works, hired on various dates beginning in 2005 and mostly in May 2007, all working as painters at daily wages ranging from 175 pesos to 260 pesos. They claimed they were underpaid, and that they were not given holiday pay, thirteenth month pay, service incentive leave pay, rest day pay, and premium pay for work on rest days.

On April 30, 2009, they filed a complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment for violations of labor standard laws. When Paint Works learned of the complaint, the painters said, it retaliated by dismissing them on May 6, 2009. They then filed the complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims.

Paint Works answered that it was not the employer of the painters and was not engaged in the business of contracting paint jobs. It claimed the painters confused it with Dionisio Mabano, the actual owner, who frequently bought paints and other paraphernalia from Paint Works for his contracted paint projects, so that their relationship was that of vendor and vendee. Mabano appeared voluntarily and said he was the proprietor of PWA Construction Services, that he hired workers on a project-to-project basis, and that he hired the painters in April 2009 to augment his usual pool of workers for the Quest Homes project in Mandaue City. The Labor Arbiter found the painters were employees of Mabano, not of Paint Works, and the Commission affirmed, applying the four-fold test and noting that the identification cards relied upon stated on their back portion that they were issued for access of the clientele per project basis only.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in not ruling that the petitioners are employees of Paint Works Enterprises, Inc.
• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in relying on the Lopez versus Bodega City case in rejecting the identification cards issued to the petitioners by Paint Works.
• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in not finding that the private respondents are guilty of illegal dismissal and liable for the petitioners' money claims.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as the decision frames the remedy, provides:

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a pleading limited to correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

This defines the only ground on which the Court could disturb the Commission's rulings, and it is the standard the painters failed to meet.

The decision also states the settled rule on factual findings of labor tribunals:

The factual findings by quasi-judicial agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Commission, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great respect in view of their expertise in their respective field.

This is why the Court declined to re-examine the finding that no employer-employee relationship existed with Paint Works.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition must fail because the painters did not substantiate their allegation of grave abuse of discretion. The burden is on the petitioner to prove not merely reversible error but grave abuse of discretion, and mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave, meaning a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. The painters offered only a sweeping allegation and never showed how or why the Commission's conclusions were made with grave abuse of discretion; they simply reiterated their version of the case, which both the Labor Arbiter and the Commission had already rejected.

On the second issue, the Court found no grave abuse in the rejection of the identification cards. The Labor Arbiter found the painters failed to prove an employer-employee relationship with Paint Works, and the identification cards, the only proof offered, were found wanting because their back portion stated that they were issued for access of the clientele per project basis only. The Commission affirmed and applied the four-fold test, finding no substantial evidence that Paint Works recruited or hired the painters, paid their wages, or had the power of dismissal and control over them.

On the third issue, the Court held that the painters were really raising a question of fact, and questions of fact cannot be raised in an original action for certiorari. The Court stressed that its task was not to determine whether the Commission erred in its judgment but whether it acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Abuse of discretion does not arise simply because the agency ruled against the petitioner, and the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies supported by substantial evidence are entitled not only to great respect but even to finality, unless the petitioner clearly shows arbitrary disregard or misapprehension of evidence, or conflicting findings between the Labor Arbiter and the Commission, none of which appeared.

Doctrine

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is confined to errors of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; the petitioner must prove not mere reversible error but grave abuse, meaning a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. Questions of fact cannot be raised in an original action for certiorari. The factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies such as the National Labor Relations Commission, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great respect and even finality in view of their expertise, and are binding on the Court absent a clear showing of arbitrary disregard or misapprehension of evidence, or conflicting findings between the Labor Arbiter and the Commission. The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a question of fact established by substantial evidence under the four-fold test of selection and engagement, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and power of control.

Disposition

The petition for certiorari was dismissed, and the decision and resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission stand, so Paint Works and Mabano prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: abuse of discretion does not arise simply because the agency ruled against the petitioner, and factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission supported by substantial evidence are entitled to great respect and even finality. Examiners use this case to test the narrow scope of Rule 65 against labor tribunal rulings and the four-fold test as a question of fact.