FILOMENA BARCENAS, PETITIONER, VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), REV. SIM DEE, THE PRESENT HEAD MONK OF THE MANILA BUDDHA TEMPLE, MANUEL CHUA, IN HIS CAPACITY …

This petition for review on certiorari (which We treat as
a special civil action for certiorari) seeks to annul the decision of
the National Labor Relations Commission dated November 29, 1988, which reversed
the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated February 10, 1988 in NLRC-NCR Case No.
12-4861-86 (Filomena Barcenas
v. Rev. Sim See, etc., et al.) on the ground that no employer-employee relationship exists between
the parties.

Petitioner alleged in her position paper the following facts:

In 1978, Chua Se Su (Su, for short) in his capacity as the Head
Monk of the Buddhist Temple of Manila and Baguio City
and as President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Poh Toh Buddhist Association of
the Phils. Inc. hired the petitioner who speaks the
Chinese language as secretary and interpreter. 
Petitioner’s position required her to
receive and assist Chinese visitors to the temple, act as tourist guide
for foreign Chinese visitors, attend to the callers of the Head Monk as well as
to the food for the temple visitors, run errands for the Head Monk such as
paying the Meralco, PLDT, MWSS bills and act as liaison in some government offices.  Aside from her pay and allowances under the
law, she received an amount of P500.00 per month plus free board and lodging in
the temple.  In December, 1979, Su assumed the responsibility
of paying for the education of petitioner’s nephew.  In 1981, Su and petitioner had amorous
relations.  In May, 1982, or five months
before giving birth to the alleged son of Su on October 12, 1982, petitioner was sent home to Bicol.  Upon the
death of Su in July, 1983, complainant remained and continued in her job.  In 1985, respondent Manuel Chua (Chua, for
short) was elected President and Chairman of the Board of the Poh Toh Buddhist Association of
the Philippines, Inc. and Rev. Sim Dee (Dee,
for short) was elected Head Buddhist
Priest.  Thereafter, Chua and Dee
discontinued payment of her monthly allowance and the additional P500.00
effective 1983.  In addition, petitioner
and her son were evicted forcibly from their quarters in the temple by six
police officers.  She was brought first
to the Police precinct in Tondo and then brought to
Aloha Hotel where she was compelled to sign a written undertaking not to return
to the Buddhist temple in consideration of the sum of P10,000.00.  Petitioner refused and Chua shouted threats
against her and her son.  Her personal
belongings including assorted jewelries were never returned by respondent Chua.

Chua and Dee, on the other hand, claimed that petitioner was
never an employee of the Poh
Toh Temple
but a servant who confined herself to the temple and to the personal needs of
the late Chua Se Su and thus, her position is co-terminous
with that of her master.

On February 10, 1988,
the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision, the dispositive
portion of which states:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
in favor of the complainant Filomena Barcenas, and the respondent corporation is hereby ordered
to pay her the following:

“1.     P26,575.00
backwages from August
9, 1986 up to date hereof;

“2.     P14,650.00
as separation pay;

“3.     P18,000.00
as unpaid wages from August, 1983 up to August
8, 1986; and

“4.     P10,000.00
moral damages.

“Complainant’s charge of
unfair labor practice is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

“SO ORDERED.”^[1]

Respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission
which, as earlier stated, reversed the above decision of the Labor
Arbiter.  Hence, this
instant petition.

A painstaking review of
the records compels Us to dismiss the petition.

At the outset, however, We agree with
the petitioner’s claim that she was a regular employee of the Manila
Buddhist Temple
as secretary and interpreter of its Head Monk, Su.  As Head Monk, President and Chairman of the
Board of Directors of the Poh Toh
Buddhist Association of the Philippines,
Su was empowered to hire the petitioner under Article V of the By-laws of the
Association which states:

“x x x (T)he President or in his absence, the Vice President shall
represent the Association in all its dealings with the public, subject to the
Board, shall have the power to enter into any contract or agreement in the name
of the Association, shall manage the active business operation of the
Association, shall deal with the bank or banks x x x.”^[2]

Respondent NLRC represented by its Legal Officer^[3]
argues that since petitioner was hired without the approval of the Board of
Directors of the Poh Toh
Buddhist Association of the Philippines, Inc., she was not an employee of
respondents.  This argument is
specious.  The required Board approval
would appear to relate to the acts of the President in representing the
association “in all its dealings with the public.” And, even granting
that prior Board approval is required to confirm the hiring of the petitioner,
the same was already granted, albeit, tacitly. 
It must be noted that petitioner was hired in 1978 and no whimper of
protest was raised until this present controversy.

Moreover, the work that petitioner performed in the temple could
not be categorized as mere domestic work. 
Thus, We find that
petitioner, being proficient in the Chinese language, attended to the visitors,
mostly Chinese, who came to pray or seek advice before Buddha for personal or
business problems; arranged meetings between these visitors and Su and
supervised the preparation of the food for the temple visitors; acted as
tourist guide of foreign visitors; acted as liaison with some government
offices; and made the payment for the temple’s Meralco,
MWSS and PLDT bills.  Indeed, these tasks
may not be deemed activities of a household helper.  They were essential and important to the
operation and religious functions of the temple.

In spite of this finding, her status as a regular employee ended
upon her return to Bicol in May, 1982 to await the
birth of her lovechild allegedly by Su. 
The records do not show that petitioner filed any leave from work or
that a leave was granted her.  Neither
did she return to work after the birth of her child on October 12, 1982, whom she named Robert Chua
alias Chua Sim Tiong.  The NLRC found that it was only in July, 1983
after Su died that she went back to the Manila
Buddhist Temple.  Petitioner’s pleadings failed to rebut this
finding.  Clearly, her return could not
be deemed as a resumption of her old position which she had already abandoned.  Petitioner herself supplied the reason for
her return.  She stated:

“… (I)t was the death-bed instruction to her by Chua Se Su
to stay at the temple and to take care of the two boys and to see to it that they finish their studies to become
monks and when they are monks to eventually take over the two temples as their
inheritance from their father Chua Se Su.”^[4]

Thus, her return to the temple was no
longer as an employee but rather as Su’s mistress who is bent on protecting the
proprietary and hereditary rights of her son and nephew.  In her pleadings, the petitioner claims that
they were forcefully evicted from the temple, harassed
and threatened by respondents and that the Poh Toh Buddhist Association is a trustee corporation with the
children as cestui que
trust.  These claims are not proper in
this labor case.  They should be
appropriately threshed out in the complaints already filed by the petitioner
before the civil courts.  Due to these
claims, We view the respondents’ offer of P10,000.00
as indicative more of their desire to evict the petitioner and her son from the temple rather than an
admission of an employer-employee relations.

Anent the petitioner’s claim for unpaid wages since May, 1982
which she filed only in 1986, We hold that the same
has already prescribed.  Under Article
292 of the Labor Code, all money claims arising from employer-employee
relations must be filed within three years from the time the cause of action
accrued, otherwise they shall forever be barred.

Finally, while petitioner contends that she continued to work in
the temple after Su died, there is, however, no proof that she was re-hired by
the new Head Monk.  In fact, she herself
manifested that respondents made it clear to her in no uncertain terms that her
services as well as her presence and that of her son were no longer needed.^[5]
However, she persisted and continued to work in the temple without receiving
her salary because she expected Chua and Dee to relent and permit the studies
of the two boys.^[6]
Consequently, under these circumstances, no employer-employee relationship
could have arisen.

ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission dated November 29, 1988 is hereby AFFIRMED for the reasons aforestated.  No
costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 20.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 90.

^[3]
In the resolution of August 9, 1989,
the Office of the Solicitor General was granted leave to be excused from
representing NLRC as he maintains a position different from that taken by
it.  (Rollo, pp. 76 and 81).

^[4]
Memorandum for the petitioner, Rollo,
p. 114.

^[5]
See petition, Rollo, p. 7.

^[6]
Rollo, p. 114.