Sunteți pe pagina 1din 6

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 201063. March 6, 2019.]

ROMMEL L. RIMANDO , petitioner, vs. HOMESONIC APPLIANCE


CENTER/STEVEN YONG , respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated
March 6, 2019 , which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 201063 (ROMMEL L. RIMANDO, petitioner, v. HOMESONIC
APPLIANCE CENTER/STEVEN YONG, respondents ) . — An employee who has
rendered at least a year of service, be it continuous or broken, shall be considered a
regular employee with respect to the activity in which he or she is employed. His or her
employment shall continue while that activity exists. 1
This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari 2 assailing the December 28,
2011 Decision 3 and March 9, 2012 Resolution 4 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 116146, which reversed the National Labor Relations Commission April 15, 2010
Decision. 5 The National Labor Relations Commission a rmed the Labor Arbiter's April
30, 2009 Decision 6 nding petitioner Rommel L. Rimando (Rimando) illegally
dismissed, and ordering his reinstatement and the payment of back wages.
On July 16, 2007, Rimando was hired by Homesonic Appliance Center
(Homesonic) as a motorized messenger for ve (5) months without any written
employment contract. 7 As veri ed by pay slips, 8 he was given a daily salary of
P382.00 and a motorcycle allowance of P750.00 every 15 days since he used his own
motorcycle for work. 9
When the ve (5)-month period expired, Rimando was rehired for another ve (5)
months under a contractual employment contract. When that period also lapsed, he
was again rehired, but this time as a probationary employee for five (5) months. 1 0
All in all, Rimando worked at Homesonic for three (3) employment periods, ve
(5) months each. CAIHTE

The probationary employment commenced on May 16, 2008 and was to end on
October 16, 2008.
On August 19, 2008, during o ce hours at the parking lot of Metropolis Mall in
Muntinlupa City, Rimando had a squabble with his live-in partner, Rosalie Humabad, who
was the branch supervisor of Homesonic. On October 16, 2008, Rimando's
employment was terminated for allegedly failing to meet the prescribed standards
since he violated the company rules and regulations. 1 1
Rimando, in his Reply, admitted that he signed a quitclaim as he had no other
means to support his family. The amount he received covered his last pay. 1 2
Thus, Rimando led before the Labor Arbiter a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal. He
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
stressed that the squabble with his lover happened outside the o ce premises, and
that it was merely a verbal squabble. 1 3
On the other hand, Homesonic countered that Rimando's infraction of a company
rule is su cient manifestation of his inadequacy to meet reasonable employment
norms. Thus, petitioner was not illegally dismissed, and his probationary employment
was validly terminated. 1 4 It claimed that he was adequately informed of the reasonable
standards with which his performance will be gauged. 1 5
In its April 30, 2009 Decision, 1 6 the Labor Arbiter held that Rimando was illegally
dismissed and ordered his reinstatement and the payment of back wages. It found him
to be a regular employee, and that Homesonic failed to discharge the burden of proof
required to show that the termination of Rimando's employment was valid. DETACa

The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter's Decision read:


WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered declaring the
dismissal of complainant as illegal and ordering the respondents to reinstate
complainant and pay his backwages from the date of dismissal until [his]
reinstatement computed initially at P64,160.72 (P382 x 26 x 6.46).
Respondents [are] further directed to submit a report of compliance on
the reinstatement aspect ten (10) days from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED. 1 7
In its April 15, 2010 Decision, 1 8 the National Labor Relations Commission denied
Homesonic's appeal. It ruled that Rimando was a regular employee, notwithstanding
the xed term contract and probationary employment contract that he had signed. It
further held that since the argument occurred outside the company premises, Rimando
did not violate any company rule. 1 9
The dispositive portion of the National Labor Relations Commission Decision
read: HEITAD

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED, for lack of merit and the
Labor Arbiter's Decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 2 0
Undaunted, Homesonic led before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari,
21 alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations
Commission. It argued that Rimando had not attained regular employment and that the
dismissal was valid. 2 2
In its December 28, 2011 Decision, 2 3 the Court of Appeals granted Homesonic's
Petition and dismissed the Complaint for Illegal Dismissal. In nullifying both labor
tribunals' decisions, it held that Rimando was indeed a probationary employee who had
never attained the status of a regular employee. 2 4
The Court of Appeals further held that there was no evidence that Rimando's
employment status had ripened into regular employment. It found that Rimando had
been properly informed of the company rules. The verbal squabble with his lover during
o ce hours, it added, su ciently manifested his inadequacy to meet reasonable
employment norms. 2 5
On January 12, 2012, Rimando led a Motion for Reconsideration, 2 6 maintaining
that he was a regular employee, and thus, was illegally dismissed. 2 7 In its March 9,
2012 Resolution, 2 8 however, the Court of Appeals denied Rimando's Motion. ATICcS

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com


Aggrieved, Rimando led before this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari, 2 9
emphasizing that the factual ndings of the Court of Appeals differ from those of the
Labor Arbiter and National Labor Relations Commission.
Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that he was a mere
probationary employee, and thus, was not illegally dismissed. He claims that he was a
regular employee because he has rendered services necessary and desirable to
respondents' business for over a year, or a total of 16 months. 3 0
In their Comment, 3 1 respondents argue that the contract shows that petitioner
was only a probationary employee who failed to meet the company standards. They
claim that petitioner himself admitted that the altercation he had with his live-in partner
was considered by the management as a company infraction. As such, respondents
had the legal right to terminate his employment. 3 2
In his Reply, 3 3 petitioner reiterates that he was already a regular employee of
respondents, having rendered 16 months of service at the time of his dismissal on
October 16, 2008. 3 4
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not petitioner Rommel L.
Rimando is a regular employee due to respondents Homesonic Appliance Center and
Steven Yong's (impleaded as managing director) act of hiring and re-hiring petitioner
from July 16, 2007 to October 16, 2008.
The Petition is meritorious.
The Court of Appeals incorrectly held that the dismissal was valid and justified.
The Labor Code provides: TIADCc

ARTICLE 295. [ 2 8 0 ] Regular and casual employment. — The


provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and
regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall
be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to
perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer , except where the employment has
been xed for a speci c project or undertaking the completion or termination of
which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or
where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the
employment is for the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the
preceding paragraph: Provided, That any employee who has rendered at
least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or
broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the
activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue
while such activity exists. (Emphasis supplied)
Here, petitioner worked as a motorized messenger for 15 months, or a year and
four (4) months, making him a regular employee based on the Labor Code's definition.
The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission correctly found
that he was a regular employee, and not merely probationary. In Goma v. Pamplona
Plantation Incorporated: 3 5
We stress herein that the law overrides such conditions which are
prejudicial to the interest of the worker whose weak bargaining position
necessitates the succor of the State. What determines whether a certain
employment is regular or otherwise is not the will or word of the employer, to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
which the worker oftentimes acquiesces. Neither is it the procedure of hiring the
employee nor the manner of paying the salary or the actual time spent at work.
It is the character of the activities performed by the employer in relation to the
particular trade or business of the employer, taking into account all the
circumstances, including the length of time of its performance and its continued
existence. Given the attendant circumstances in the case at bar, it is obvious
that one year after he was employed by the respondent, petitioner became a
regular employee by operation of law. 3 6 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
The different nomenclature of the contracts, from training, to contractual, to
probationary, all show that respondents attempted to circumvent the laws on employee
regularization. Obviously, it was a mere ploy to prevent petitioner from attaining regular
status and should not be tolerated. In San Miguel Corporation v. National Labor
Relations Commission: 3 7 AIDSTE

The act of hiring and re-hiring workers over a period of time without
considering them as regular employees evidences had faith on the
part of the employer. Where, from the circumstances, it is apparent
that periods have been imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial
security by the employee, the policy, agreement or practice should be
struck down as contrary to public policy, morals, good customs or
public order . . . .
xxx xxx xxx
The contrivances may be many and the schemes ingenious and
imaginative. But this Court will not hesitate to put pen to a line and defend the
worker's right to be secure in his (or her) proprietary right to regular employment
and his right to a secure employment, viz., one that is free from fear and doubt,
that anytime he could be removed, retrenched, his contract not renewed or he
might not be re-hired. The rami cations may seem trivial, but we cannot allow
the ordinary Filipino worker's right to tenurial security to be put in jeopardy by
recurrent but abhorrent practices that threaten the very lives of those that
depend on him. 3 8 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Here, respondent Homesonic's continued rehiring of petitioner under different
nomenclature for over a year shows that his functions were, indeed, necessary and
desirable in the usual trade of business. As a regular employee, he is entitled to security
of tenure and may only be terminated for causes provided by law. The Labor Code
provides:
ARTICLE 294. [279] Security of Tenure . — In cases of regular
employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee
except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title . An employee who
is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss
of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of
allowances, and to his other bene ts or their monetary equivalent computed
from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his
actual reinstatement. (As amended by Republic Act No. 6715 (1989), Section
34) (Emphasis supplied)
Respondents aver that petitioner was terminated for his failure to meet the
standards for regularization. This Court disagrees. Since petitioner has attained the
status of a regular employee, as this Court nds, he may only be removed for just cause
with due process of law.
In line with current jurisprudence, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
annum should be imposed on all damages awarded from the nality of this Resolution
until fully paid. 3 9
WHEREFORE , the Petition is GRANTED . The assailed Court of Appeals
December 28, 2011 Decision and March 9, 2012 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 116146
are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE . The National Labor Relations Commission April 15,
2010 Decision is REINSTATED . AaCTcI

The total monetary award shall be subject to interest at the rate of six percent
(6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until its full satisfaction. 4 0
SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN


Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. LABOR CODE, art. 295.


2. Rollo, pp. 10-34. Filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

3. Id. at 36-49. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, and
concurred in by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and
Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo of the First Division, Court of Appeals,
Manila.
4. Id. at 51-52. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, and
concurred in by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and
Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo of the Former First Division, Court of
Appeals, Manila.
5. Id. at 91-99. The Decision, in NLRC LAC No. 06-001805-09, penned by Commissioner Perlita
B. Velasco and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and Romeo
L. Go of the First Division, NLRC, Quezon City.
6. Id. at 202-207. The Decision, in NLRC-NCR-12-16908-08, was penned by Labor Arbiter
Antonio R. Macam of the National Labor Relations Commission, National Capital
Region, Quezon City.

7. Id. at 12.
8. Id. at 177-180.

9. Id. at 37-38.
10. Id. at 12 and 38.
11. Id. at 38.

12. Id. at 39.


13. Id.

14. Id. at 38-39.


CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
15. Id.

16. Id. at 202-207.


17. Id. at 206-207.
18. Id. at 91-99.

19. Id. at 94-98.


20. Id. at 98.

21. Id. at 63-90.


22. Id. at 73-81.
23. Id. at 36-49.
24. Id. at 41-44.

25. Id. at 44-46.


26. Id. at 53-62.
27. Id. at 54.
28. Id. at 51-52.

29. Id. at 10-34.


30. Id. at 17-18.
31. Id. at 256-265.
32. Id. at 257-259.
33. Id. at 267-274.

34. Id. at 267.


35. 579 Phil. 402 (2008) (Per J. Nachura, Third Division).
36. Id. at 413-414.
37. 539 Phil. 236 (2006) [Per J. Garcia, Second Division].

38. Id. at 249-250.


39. Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
40. Id.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

S-ar putea să vă placă și