Traveno v. Bobongon Banana Growers
Traveno v. Bobongon Banana Growers
Traveno v. Bobongon Banana Growers
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES , J : p
Petitioners asseverated that while they worked under the direct control of
supervisors assigned by TACOR and DFI, these companies used different schemes to
make it appear that petitioners were hired through independent contractors, including
individuals, unregistered associations, and cooperatives; that the successive changes
in the names of their employers notwithstanding, they continued to perform the same
work under the direct control of TACOR and DFI supervisors; and that under the last
scheme adopted by these companies, the nominal individual contractors were required
to, as they did, join a cooperative and thus became members of respondent Bobongon
Banana Growers Multi-purpose Cooperative (the Cooperative). 2
Continued petitioners: Sometime in 2000, above-named respondents began
utilizing harassment tactics to ease them out of their jobs. Without rst seeking the
approval of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), they changed their
compensation package from being based on a daily rate to a pakyawan rate that
depended on the combined productivity of the "gangs" they had been grouped into.
Soon thereafter, they stopped paying their salaries, prompting them to stop working. 3
One after another, three separate complaints for illegal dismissal were led by
petitioners, individually and collectively, with the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) against said respondents including respondent Dole Asia Philippines as it then
supposedly owned TACOR, 4 for unpaid salaries, overtime pay, 13th month pay, service
incentive leave pay, damages, and attorney's fees. 5
In nding for petitioners, the Labor Arbiter relied heavily on the following Orders
submitted by DFI which were issued in an earlier case led with the DOLE, viz.: (1) Order
dated July 11, 1995 of the Director of DOLE Regional Of ce No. XI declaring the
Cooperative as the employer of the 341 workers in the farms of its several members;
(2) Order dated December 17, 1997 of the DOLE Secretary af rming the Order dated
July 11, 1995 of the Director of DOLE Regional Of ce No. XI; and (3) Order dated June
23, 1998 of the DOLE Secretary denying the Cooperative's Motion for Reconsideration.
IcTaAH
On partial appeal to the NLRC, petitioners questioned the Labor Arbiter's denial
of their money claims and the dropping of their complaints against TACOR, DFI, and
Dole Asia Philippines.
By Resolution dated July 30, 2003, 9 the NLRC sustained the Labor Arbiter's
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
ruling that the employer of petitioners is the Cooperative, there being no showing that
the earlier mentioned Orders of the DOLE Secretary had been set aside by a court of
competent jurisdiction. It partially granted petitioners' appeal, however, by ordering the
Cooperative to pay them their unpaid wages, wage differentials, service incentive leave
pay, and 13th month pay. It thus remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter for
computation of those awards.
Their Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by Resolution of September
30, 2003, 1 0 petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals via certiorari. 1 1
By Resolution dated February 20, 2004, 1 2 the appellate court dismissed
petitioners' petition for certiorari on the ground that the accompanying veri cation and
certi cation against forum shopping was defective, it having been signed by only 19 of
the 22 therein named petitioners. Their Motion for Reconsideration having been denied
by Resolution of May 13, 2004, 1 3 petitioners lodged the present Petition for Review on
Certiorari.
Petitioners posit that the appellate court erred in dismissing their petition on a
mere technicality as it should have, at most, dismissed the petition only with respect to
the non-signing petitioners. CacHES
Dwelling on the merits of the case, petitioners posit that the Labor Arbiter and
the NLRC disregarded evidence on record showing that while the Cooperative was their
employer on paper, the other respondents exercised control and supervision over them;
that the Cooperative was a labor-only contractor; and that the Orders of the DOLE
Secretary relied upon by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are not applicable to them as
the same pertained to a certi cation election case involving different parties and
issues. 1 4
DFI, commenting for itself and TACOR, maintains that, among other things, it was
not the employer of petitioners; and that it cannot comment on their money claims
because no evidence was submitted in support thereof. 1 5
It appears that respondent Cooperative had been dissolved. 1 6
As respondent Dole Asia Philippines failed to le a comment, the Court, by
Resolution of November 29, 2006, 1 7 required it to (1) show cause why it should not be
held in contempt for its failure to heed the Court's directive, and (2) le the required
comment, within 10 days from notice.
Dole Philippines, Inc. (DPI) promptly led an Urgent Manifestation 1 8 stating that,
among other things, while its division located in Davao City received the Court's
Resolution directing Dole Asia Philippines to le a comment on the present petition, DPI
did not le a comment as the directive was addressed to "Dole Asia Philippines", an
entity which is not registered at the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Commenting on DPI's Urgent Manifestation, petitioners contend that DPI cannot
be allowed to take advantage of their lack of knowledge as to its exact corporate name,
DPI having raised the matter for the rst time before this Court notwithstanding its
receipt of all pleadings and court processes from the inception of this case. 1 9
Upon review of the records, the Court nds that DPI never ever participated in the
proceedings despite due notice. Its posturing, therefore, that the court processes it
received were addressed to "Dole Asia Philippines", a non-existent entity, does not lie.
That DPI is the intended respondent, there is no doubt.
Respecting the appellate court's dismissal of petitioners' appeal due to the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
failure of some of them to sign the therein accompanying veri cation and certi cation
against forum-shopping, the Court's guidelines for the bench and bar in Altres v.
Empleo, 2 0 which were culled "from jurisprudential pronouncements", are instructive:
For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in capsule form the
jurisprudential pronouncements already re ected above respecting non-
compliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective,
verification and certification against forum shopping :
1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement
on or submission of defective veri cation, and non-compliance with the
requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping.
6) Finally, the certi cation against forum shopping must be executed by the
party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justi able reasons,
the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney
designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
The crucial element of control refers to the authority of the employer to control
the employee not only with regard to the result of the work to be done, but also to the
means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. 3 0 While it suf ces that
the power of control exists, albeit not actually exercised, there must be some
evidence of such power. In the present case, petitioners did not present any.
There being no employer-employee relationship between petitioners and the
Cooperative's co-respondents, the latter are not solidarily liable with the Cooperative
for petitioners' illegal dismissal and money claims.
While the Court commiserates with petitioners on their loss of employment,
especially now that the Cooperative is no longer a going concern, it cannot simply, by
default, hold the Cooperative's co-respondents liable for their claims without any
factual and legal justi cation therefor. The social justice policy of labor laws and the
Constitution is not meant to be oppressive of capital.
En passant, petitioners are not precluded from pursuing any available remedies
against the former members of the defunct Cooperative as their individual
circumstances may warrant.
WHEREFORE , the petition is DISMISSED .
SO ORDERED .
Quisumbing, Corona, * Del Castillo and Abad, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
*Additional member vice Justice Arturo D. Brion, due to prior participation in the Court of
Appeals.
1.Vide Position Papers of Petitioners, NLRC records, Vol. I, pp. 37-54; 67-86.
2.Id.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 38, 68.
5.Id. at 1-13.
6.Id. at 30-36.
8.Id. at 103-115.
9.NLRC records, Vol. II, pp. 89-93.
10.Id. at 142.
11.CA rollo, pp. 2-24.
12.Penned by Associate Justice Eloy R. Bello, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justice
Amelita G. Tolentino and then Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, now Associate
Justice of this Court, Arturo D. Brion; CA rollo, pp. 174-175.
13.Id. at 187.
14.Vide Petition, rollo, pp. 12-44.
30.Almeda v. Asahi Glass Philippines, Inc. , G.R. No. 177785, September 3, 2008, 564 SCRA 115,
127-128.