6 Chavez v Nlrc

8/13/2019 6 Chavez v Nlrc

1/8

.R. No. 146530 January 17, 2005

PEDRO CHAVEZ, petitioner,vs.NATIONA A!OR REATION" CO##I""ION, "$PRE#E PAC%A&IN&, INC. an'AVIN EE, P(an) #ana*+r,respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CAEJO, "R., J.:

Before the Court is the petition for review on certiorari of the Resolution1dated Decemer1!, "### of the Court of $ppeals %C$& reversin' its Decision dated $pril "(, "### in C$)*.R. S+ No. !"(!. -he assailed resolution reinstated the Decision dated ul/ 1#, 100(of the National aor Relations Commission %NRC&, dismissin' the complaint for ille'aldismissal filed / herein petitioner +edro Chave2. -he said NRC decision similarl/reversed its earlier Decision dated anuar/ "3, 100( which, affirmin' that of the aor

$riter, ruled that the petitioner had een ille'all/ dismissed / respondents Supreme+ac4a'in', Inc. and 5r. $lvin ee.

-he case stemmed from the followin' facts6

-he respondent compan/, Supreme +ac4a'in', Inc., is in the usiness of manufacturin'cartons and other pac4a'in' materials for e7port and distriution. It en'a'ed the servicesof the petitioner, +edro Chave2, as truc4 driver on Octoer "!, 10(. $s such, thepetitioner was tas4ed to deliver the respondent compan/8s products from its factor/ in5ariveles, Bataan, to its various customers, mostl/ in 5etro 5anila. -he respondentcompan/ furnished the petitioner with a truc4. 5ost of the petitioner8s deliver/ trips weremade at ni'httime, commencin' at 96## p.m. from 5ariveles, and returnin' thereto in the

afternoon two or three da/s after. -he deliveries were made in accordance with theroutin' slips issued / respondent compan/ indicatin' the order, time and ur'enc/ ofdeliver/. Initiall/, the petitioner was paid the sum of +:!#.## per trip. -his was laterad;usted to +(#.## per trip and, at the time of his alle'ed dismissal, the petitioner wasreceivin' +0##.## per trip.

Sometime in 100", the petitioner e7pressed to respondent $lvin ee, respondentcompan/8s plant mana'er, his %the petitioner8s& desire to avail himself of the enefits thatthe re'ular emplo/ees were receivin' such as overtime pa/, ni'htshift differential pa/,and 1:th month pa/, amon' others. $lthou'h he promised to e7tend these enefits to thepetitioner, respondent ee failed to actuall/ do so.

On


2/8

service ;os, accepts the services to e rendered to the +rincipal, under the followin'terms and covenants heretofore mentioned6

1. -hat the inland transport deliver/@haulin' activities to e performed / thecontractor to the principal, shall onl/ cover travel route from 5ariveles to 5etro5anila. Otherwise, an/ chan'e to this travel route shall e su;ect to furthera'reement / the parties concerned.

". -hat the pa/ment to e made / the +rincipal for an/ haulin' or deliver/transport services full/ rendered / the Contractor shall e on a per trip asisdependin' on the si2e or classification of the truc4 ein' used in the transportservice, to wit6

a& If the haulin' or deliver/ service shall re=uire a truc4 of si7 wheeler, thepa/ment on a per trip asis from 5ariveles to 5etro 5anila shall e-AREE ANDRED +ESOS %+:##.##& and E


3/8

and conditions of their contract. -he petitioner alle'edl/ failed to oserve the minimumde'ree of dili'ence in the proper maintenance of the truc4 he was usin', there/e7posin' respondent compan/ to unnecessar/ si'nificant e7penses of overhaulin' thesaid truc4.

$fter the parties had filed their respective pleadin's, the aor $riter rendered theDecision dated


4/8

-he respondents sou'ht reconsideration of the anuar/ "3, 100( Decision of the NRC.$ctin' thereon, the NRC rendered another Decision9dated ul/ 1#, 100(, reversin' itsearlier decision and, this time, holdin' that no emplo/er)emplo/ee relationship e7istedetween the respondent compan/ and the petitioner. In reconsiderin' its earlier decision,the NRC stated that the respondents did not e7ercise control over the means andmethods / which the petitioner accomplished his deliver/ services. It upheld the validit/

of the contract of service as it pointed out that said contract was silent as to the time /which the petitioner was to ma4e the deliveries and that the petitioner could hire his ownhelpers whose wa'es would e paid from his own account. -hese factors indicated thatthe petitioner was an independent contractor, not an emplo/ee of the respondentcompan/.

-he NRC ruled that the contract of service was not intended to circumvent $rticle "(# ofthe aor Code on the re'ulari2ation of emplo/ees. Said contract, includin' the fi7edperiod of emplo/ment contained therein, havin' een 4nowin'l/ and voluntaril/ enteredinto / the parties thereto was declared valid citin' Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora.3-heNRC, thus, dismissed the petitioner8s complaint for ille'al dismissal.

-he petitioner sou'ht reconsideration of the ul/ 1#, 100( Decision ut it was denied /the NRC in its Resolution dated Septemer 3, 100(. Ae then filed with this Court apetition for certiorari, which was referred to the C$ followin' the rulin' in St. MartinFuneral Home v. NLRC.(

-he appellate court rendered the Decision dated $pril "(, "###, reversin' the ul/ 1#,100( Decision of the NRC and reinstatin' the decision of the aor $riter. In the saiddecision, the C$ ruled that the petitioner was a re'ular emplo/ee of the respondentcompan/ ecause as its truc4 driver, he performed a service that was indispensale tothe latter8s usiness.


5/8

Aowever, on motion for reconsideration / the respondents, the C$ made a completeturn around as it rendered the assailed Resolution dated Decemer 1!, "### upholdin'the contract of service etween the petitioner and the respondent compan/. Inreconsiderin' its decision, the C$ e7plained that the e7tent of control e7ercised / therespondents over the petitioner was onl/ with respect to the result ut not to the meansand methods used / him. -he C$ cited the followin' circumstances6 %1& the respondents

had no sa/ on how the 'oods were to e delivered to the customers %"& the petitionerhad the ri'ht to emplo/ wor4ers who would e under his direct control and %:& thepetitioner had no wor4in' time.

-he fact that the petitioner had een with the respondent compan/ for more than ten/ears was, accordin' to the C$, of no moment ecause his status was determined not /the len'th of service ut / the contract of service. -his contract, not ein' contrar/ tomorals, 'ood customs, pulic order or pulic polic/, should e 'iven the force and effectof law as etween the respondent compan/ and the petitioner. Conse=uentl/, the C$reinstated the ul/ 1#, 100( Decision of the NRC dismissin' the petitioner8s complaintfor ille'al dismissal.

Aence, the recourse to this Court / the petitioner. Ae assails the Decemer 1!, "###Resolution of the appellate court alle'in' that6

%$&

-AE COR- O< $++E$S CO55I--ED $ *R$E $BSE O

Documents

6 Chavez v Nlrc