Philippine Pizza, Inc. v. Salvador
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on August 28, 2019. The case involves Philippine Pizza, Inc. (PPI) petitioning the court to reverse a decision made by the Court of Appeals, which upheld the findings of labor tribunals that classified respondent Fernando S. Salvador as a regular employee of PPI. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court found that substantial evidence supported the labor tribunals' findings, as PPI had direct control and supervision over the means, manner, and method by which Salvador performed his tasks. The court reiterated the rule that the findings of fact of labor tribunals are generally binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court, and will not be disturbed unless they fall under the recognized exceptions.
ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248144. August 28, 2019.]
PHILIPPINE PIZZA, INC., petitioner, vs.FERNANDO S. SALVADOR AND CONSOLIDATED BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 28, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248144 (Philippine Pizza Inc. v. Fernando S. Salvador and Consolidated Building Maintenance, Inc.)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the October 24, 2018 Decision 2 and the June 28, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 147315 for failure of petitioner Philippine Pizza, Inc. (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the findings of the labor tribunals that petitioner is the direct employer of respondent Fernando S. Salvador (respondent) and that he is petitioner's regular employee.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the findings of the labor tribunals that respondent is a regular employee of petitioner is based on substantial evidence, considering that it is the latter that has direct control and supervision over the means, manner, and method by which the former should perform or accomplish his tasks. 4 The control test is commonly regarded as the most important indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship. Under this test, an employer-employee relationship exists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end, 5 which obtains in this case.
Moreover, settled is the rule that the findings of fact of the labor tribunals, as affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court, 6 and are not to be disturbed unless they fall under the recognized exceptions, 7 which do not obtain in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-33.
2.Id. at 40-46. Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Ramon A. Cruz, concurring.
3.Id. at 48-50.
4. See id. at 44-45.
5.Century Properties v. Babiano, 789 Phil. 270, 284 (2016).
6.Acevedo v. Advanstar Company, Inc., 511 Phil. 279, 287 (2005).
7.Cirtek Employees Labor Union Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek Electronics, Inc., 665 Phil. 784, 789 (2011).
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU