Title: MARTICIO SEMBLANTE and DUBRICK PILAR (Petitioners) vs COURT OF APPEALS
(Respondents)
Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, assailing and seeking to set aside
the Decision and of the Court of Appeals (CA)
Keyword COCK-PIT
s: Labor Arbiter> NLRC> CA > Supreme Court
Summar
y:
Facts: Petitioners Marticio Semblante (Semblante) and Dubrick Pilar (Pilar) assert
that they were hired by respondents-spouses Vicente and Maria Luisa Loot,
the owners of Gallera de Mandaue (the cockpit), as the official masiador and
sentencador, respectively, of the cockpit sometime in 1993.
As the masiador, Semblante calls and takes the bets from the gamecock
owners and other bettors and orders the start of the cockfight. He also
distributes the winnings after deducting the arriba, or the commission for the
cockpit. Meanwhile, as the sentenciador, Pilar oversees the proper gaffing of
fighting cocks, determines the fighting cocks physical condition and
capabilities to continue the cockfight, and eventually declares the result of the
cockfight.
For their services as masiador and sentenciador, Semblante receives PhP
2,000 per week or a total of PhP 8,000 per month, while Pilar gets PhP 3,500 a
week or PhP 14,000 per month. They work every Tuesday, Wednesday,
Saturday, and Sunday every week, excluding monthly derbies and cockfights
held on special holidays. Their working days start at 1:00 p.m. and last until
12:00 midnight, or until the early hours of the morning depending on the
needs of the cockpit. Petitioners had both been issued employees
identification cards that they wear every time they report for duty. They
alleged never having incurred any infraction and/or violation of the cockpit
rules and regulations.
On November 14, 2003, however, petitioners were denied entry into the
cockpit upon the instructions of respondents, and were informed of the
termination of their services effective that date. This prompted petitioners to
file a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents.
Respondents denied that petitioners were their employees and alleged
that they were associates of respondents independent contractor, Tomas
Vega. Respondents claimed that petitioners have no regular working time or
day and they are free to decide for themselves whether to report for work or
not on any cockfighting day. In times when there are few cockfights in Gallera
de Mandaue, petitioners go to other cockpits in the vicinity. Lastly, petitioners,
so respondents assert, were only issued identification cards to indicate that
they were free from the normal entrance fee and to differentiate them from
the general public.
Decision of the Labor Arbiter: Julie C. Rendoque found petitioners to be
regular employees of respondents as they performed work that was necessary
and indispensable to the usual trade or business of respondents for a number of
years. The Labor Arbiter also ruled that petitioners were illegally dismissed, and
so ordered respondents to pay petitioners their backwages and separation pay.
The respondents appeal with the NLRC on September 24, 2004, but without
posting a cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award granted by
the Labor Arbiter. It was only on October 11, 2004 that respondents filed an
appeal bond dated October 6, 2004. Hence, in a Resolution dated August 25,
2005, the NLRC denied the appeal for its non-perfection.
The NLRC, acting on respondents Motion for Reconsideration, reversed its
Resolution. The NLRC held that there was no employer-employee relationship
between petitioners and respondents, respondents having no part in the
selection and engagement of petitioners, and that no separate individual contract
with respondents was ever executed by petitioners.
Petitioners went to the CA on a petition for certiorari.
Petitioners argued that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in entertaining
an appeal that was not perfected in the first place. On the other hand,
Respondents argued that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion,
since they eventually posted their appeal bond and that their appeal was so
meritorious warranting the relaxation of the rules in the interest of justice.
Court of Appeals
The appellate court found for respondents, noting that referees and bet-takers in
a cockfight need to have the kind of expertise that is characteristic of the game
to interpret messages conveyed by mere gestures. Hence, petitioners are akin to
independent contractors who possess unique skills, expertise, and talent to
distinguish them from ordinary employees. Further, respondents did not supply
petitioners with the tools and instrumentalities they needed to perform work.
Petitioners only needed their unique skills and talents to perform their job as
masiador and sentenciador.
Issues: Whether or not there was an employee-employer relationship
Ratio:
Ruling: The petitioners are NOT employees of respondents, since their relationship
fails to pass muster the four-fold test of employment. We have repeatedly
mentioned in countless decisions: (1) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the
power to control the employees conduct, which is the most important element.
As found by both the NLRC and the CA, respondents had no part in petitioners
selection and management; petitioners compensation was paid out of the arriba
(which is a percentage deducted from the total bets), not by petitioners; and
petitioners performed their functions as masiador and sentenciador free from the
direction and control of respondents. In the conduct of their work, petitioners
relied mainly on their expertise that is characteristic of the cockfight gambling,
and were never given by respondents any tool needed for the performance of
their work.
Doctrine
:
