SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241898. November 12, 2018.]
RODERICK C. LAUREL, petitioner, vs. AVON WOMAN COMPANY, INC./SUPERIOR MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC./MA. IMELDA ARTAJOS/CONGRESSMAN GUSTAVO TAMBUNTING, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated12 November 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241898 (Roderick C. Laurel v. Avon Woman Company, Inc./Superior Maintenance Services, Inc./Ma. Imelda Artajos/Congressman Gustavo Tambunting)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the May 11, 2018 Decision 2 and the August 24, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 149393 for failure of petitioner Roderick C. Laurel (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion in ruling that respondent Superior Maintenance Services, Inc. (SMSI) was a legitimate independent contractor and that petitioner failed to prove the fact of his dismissal. DETACa
As correctly ruled by the CA, SMSI had sufficiently proven its status as a legitimate independent contractor by presenting the following: (a) a Certificate of Registration 4 issued by the Department of Labor and Employment as proof that it is allowed by law to supply manpower to perform services as required by its client's business; 5(b) its financial statement showing that it has a working capital of P4,621,984.00 with total assets valued at P49,047,768.00; 6 and (c) its General Services Agreement 7 with Avon Woman Company, Inc. which clearly sets forth SMSI's control over the employees' performance. 8 The CA also correctly held that petitioner failed to prove the fact of his dismissal from employment. 9 In fact, SMSI issued a notice for him to return to work but it remained unheeded and thus prevented SMSI from giving him a new assignment. 10 Jurisprudence provides that illegal dismissal must be established by positive and overt acts clearly indicative of a manifest intention to dismiss, 11 which petitioner failed to do in this case. HEITAD
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-45.
2.Id. at 340-350. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Manuel M. Barrios, concurring.
3.Id. at 363-364.
4. Not attached to the rollo.
5. See rollo, p. 346.
6. See id.
7.Id. at 200-211.
8. See id. at 346-347.
9. See id. at 349.
10. See id.
11.Carique v. Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency, Inc., 769 Phil. 754, 762 (2015).