Dennison v. KS Wood Industries
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in January 16, 2019. The legal issue in this case is whether an employee-employer relationship was established between the petitioner, Noel J. Dennison, and the respondent, KS Wood Industries and/or Jimmy Hao. The Court ruled that no such relationship existed, as the petitioner failed to present sufficient proof beyond the Contract of Services entered into by the parties. The Court also held that the question of whether the parties are in pari delicto is a factual question and is generally not within the scope of a Rule 45 petition. Therefore, the factual findings of the NLRC and the CA are binding on this Court. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and the NLRC, denying the petition for failure to show that any reversible error was committed.
ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242470. January 16, 2019.]
NOEL J. DENNISON, petitioner,vs. KS WOOD INDUSTRIES AND/OR JIMMY HAO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 16, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242470 (Noel J. Dennison v. KS Wood Industries and/or Jimmy Hao). — After review, the Court resolved to DENY the petition for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in affirming the Decision dated August 26, 2016 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Eighth Division of Cagayan de Oro City in NLRC No. MAC-05-014447-2016. As correctly found by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by the NLRC, no employee-employer relationship was established in the present case. Aside from the Contract of Services entered into by the parties, petitioner failed to present any other competent evidence to show that he was an employee of respondent KS Wood Industries. He merely made factual allegations without offering any sufficient proof. There being no employer-employee relationship to speak of, there can be no proper determination of the issue of illegal dismissal and claim for labor benefits. Likewise, the question of whether the parties are in pari delicto is a factual question and is generally not within the scope of a Rule 45 petition. 1 Hence, the factual findings of the NLRC and the CA are binding on this Court. Consequently, neither petitioner nor respondent may expect positive relief from the courts for their illegal acts and transactions. They will be left as they were at the time the case was filed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated June 21, 2018 and the assailed Resolution dated August 30, 2018 of the Court of Appeals, Twenty-First Division of Cagayan de Oro City in CA-G.R. SP No. 07951-MIN are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Ranara, Jr. v. de los Angeles, Jr., G.R. No. 200765, August 8, 2016, 799 SCRA 581, 588.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU