APEX MINING COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND SINCLITICA CANDIDO, RESPONDENTS.

Apex Mining versus National Labor Relations Commission and Sinclitica Candido

The Case

This is a petition for review by certiorari brought by Apex Mining Company, Inc. against the National Labor Relations Commission and Sinclitica Candido. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to reverse the finding that Candido, a laundrywoman assigned to the company's staff house, is a regular employee rather than a mere househelper or domestic servant. The case matters because it draws the dividing line between domestic service, governed by the Labor Code's rules on househelpers, and regular employment in a business establishment. The answer turns on one criterion: whose personal comfort and enjoyment the worker ministers to.

Procedural History

Candido filed a request for assistance with the Department of Labor and Employment. After the parties submitted their position papers, the labor arbiter rendered a decision ordering Apex Mining to pay salary differential, emergency living allowance, thirteenth month pay differential, and separation pay, for a total of 55,161 pesos and 42 centavos. Apex Mining appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. The Fifth Division dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the labor arbiter's decision. A motion for reconsideration was denied. Apex Mining then filed this petition for review by certiorari. The Supreme Court noted that the petition should properly be a special civil action for certiorari, and in the interest of justice treated it as such.

Facts

Apex Mining Company, Inc. employed Sinclitica Candido on May 18, 1973 to perform laundry services at its staff house in Masara, Maco, Davao del Norte. She was initially paid on a piece rate basis. On January 17, 1982, she was shifted to a monthly wage of 250 pesos, which was later increased to 575 pesos a month.

On December 18, 1987, while hanging her laundry, she accidentally slipped and hit her back on a stone. She reported the accident to her immediate supervisor, Mila de la Rosa, and to the personnel officer, Florendo D. Asirit. She could not continue working and was allowed to go on leave for medication. De la Rosa offered her 2,000 pesos, later raised to 5,000 pesos, to persuade her to quit, but she refused and chose to return to work.

Apex Mining did not allow her to return and dismissed her on February 4, 1988. She then sought assistance from the Department of Labor and Employment, which led to the labor arbiter's award and, on appeal, to the National Labor Relations Commission's affirmance. Apex Mining elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that Candido was a mere househelper or domestic servant, not a regular employee.

Issues

• Whether or not a laundrywoman working in the staff house of an industrial company is a househelper or domestic servant within the meaning of the Labor Code, rather than a regular employee of the company.
• Whether or not Candido was illegally dismissed, or whether she abandoned her work.
• Whether or not Candido is entitled to the monetary awards granted by the labor arbiter and affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission.

Applicable Provisions

Rule XIII, Section 1(b), Book 3 of the Labor Code, as amended, defines the terms househelper and domestic servant:

The term househelper as used herein is synonymous to the term domestic servant and shall refer to any person, whether male or female, who renders services in and about the employer's home and which services are usually necessary or desirable for the maintenance and enjoyment thereof, and ministers exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of the employer's family.

This definition controls the threshold question, because it limits domestic service to work rendered in the employer's home and ministering exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of the employer's family.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the definition of househelper or domestic servant cannot be interpreted to include househelp or laundrywomen working in staff houses of a company, like Candido, who attends to the needs of the company's guests and other persons availing of the facilities. The same rule applies to a driver, houseboy, or gardener exclusively working in the company's staff houses and premises. The criterion is the personal comfort and enjoyment of the family of the employer in the employer's home. While the nature of the work may be similar, the circumstances differ: in a home, the worker actually serves the family; in a company staff house, service is rendered within the premises of the business of the employer. In that instance, the worker is an employee of the company, entitled to the privileges of a regular employee.

The Court rejected the petitioner's contention that a househelper becomes an employee only when assigned to certain aspects of the employer's business. It found no merit in that distinction, holding that the mere fact that the househelper or domestic servant works within the premises of the employer's business and in relation to or in connection with that business, as in its staff houses for its guests or even for its officers and employees, warrants the conclusion that the worker is a regular employee, not a mere family househelper.

On the second issue, the Court found sufficient evidence that because of the accident while performing her laundry services, Candido could not work and was ultimately separated from the service. She was therefore entitled to appropriate relief as a regular employee. Since she appeared not interested in returning to work for valid reasons, payment of separation pay was in order.

On the third issue, the Court affirmed the monetary awards, the petition being devoid of merit.

Doctrine

A househelper or domestic servant, as defined by Rule XIII, Section 1(b), Book 3 of the Labor Code, is one who renders services in and about the employer's home, services that minister exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of the employer's family. The controlling criterion is the personal comfort and enjoyment of the employer's family in the employer's home. A laundrywoman, driver, houseboy, or gardener who works in the staff houses or premises of a company, in relation to or in connection with its business, is not a househelper or domestic servant but a regular employee of the company, entitled to the privileges of regular employment. The similarity of the work does not control; the place and purpose of the service do.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed and the appealed decision and resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission were affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs. Apex Mining lost; Candido was upheld as a regular employee entitled to the awarded reliefs.

Remember This

Memorize the criterion: domestic service ministers exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of the employer's family in the employer's home; service in a company staff house for its guests, officers, and employees makes the worker a regular employee. Examiners use this case to test the househelper-versus-regular-employee distinction and the rule that work within the employer's premises and in connection with its business confers regular employment status.