SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 221539. September 11, 2017.]
DAI-ICHI ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION AND/OR PABLO TOBIANO, petitioners, vs.RIZALINA L. VALDEZ, JUANERO Q. TORRES, JR., AND RAMIL C. BAUTISTA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated11 September 2017which reads as follows: aScITE
"G.R. No. 221539 (Dai-Ichi Electronics Manufacturing Corporation and/or Pablo Tobiano v. Rizalina L. Valdez, Juanero Q. Torres, Jr., and Ramil C. Bautista)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the March 30, 2015 Decision 1 and October 30, 2015 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 120771 for failure of petitioners Dai-Ichi Electronics Manufacturing Corporation (Dai-Ichi) and/or Pablo Tobiano (Tobiano) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in setting aside the March 17, 2011 Decision and May 30, 2011 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission, reinstating the April 30, 2008 Decision of the Labor Arbiter, finding respondents Rizalina L. Valdez, Juanero Q. Torres, Jr., and Ramil C. Bautista (respondents) to have been illegally dismissed with modifications, absolving Tobiano from liability, deleting the award of moral and exemplary damages, and ordering Dai-Ichi to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum computed from the date of finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the application of the four-fold test would show that the respondents are Dai-Ichi's employees, and that their termination from work was illegal as it was done both without procedural due process and just cause. Records show that Dai-Ichi engaged and hired respondents, paid their salaries/wages, exercised control and supervision over their work and conduct within the company premises for more than two (2) years and eventually, illegally dismissed them from employment. While respondents signed certain contracts for Arrowhead Manpower Services and SBB Technical Services, there was no proof to show that these "contractors" exercised control and supervision over respondents' work. 3 On the contrary, it appears that it was Dai-Ichi which exercised the same.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 53-69. Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez with Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam (now a member of this Court) and Ramon A. Cruz concurring.
2.Id. at 71-72.
3. "This Court has constantly adhered to the 'four-fold test' to determine whether there exists an employer-employee relationship between the parties. The four elements of an employment relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the power to control the employee's conduct.
Of these four elements, it is the power to control which is the most crucial and most determinative factor, so important, in fact, that, the other elements may even be disregarded." (Alilin v. Petron Corporation, 735 Phil. 509, 527 [2014])