ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237229. June 21, 2021.]
LEOPOLDO DELA PUERTA SALCEDO, petitioner, vs.MANPOWER RESOURCES OF ASIA, SAIPEM COMPANY, INC., and GLOBAL PETROPROJECTS SERVICES, A.G., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated21 June 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237229 (Leopoldo Dela Puerta Salcedo v. Manpower Resources of Asia, Saipem Company, Inc., and Global Petroprojects Services, A.G.). — Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 are the Resolutions dated September 13, 2017 2 and February 5, 2018, 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 148696, which dismissed Leopoldo Dela Puerta Salcedo's (Salcedo) certiorari petition for lack of merit.
ANTECEDENTS
The case stemmed from a complaint for illegal dismissal and a claim for backwages, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, damages, and attorney's fees filed by Salcedo against Manpower Resources of Asia, Inc. (Manpower Resources) and Saipem Company, Inc. (Saipem Company). 4
Salcedo alleged that he started working as a seaman-pipeline welder for Manpower Resources and its principal Saipem Company, Inc. in 1979. He was initially assigned in Saudi Arabia, then in Algeria from March 1980 to February 1981, 5 with Saipem Company's sister company — Global Petroprojects Services A.G. (Global Petroprojects) — from 1980, 1986, 1989 to 1997, and to 2004, and in Nigeria on various dates in 2007 to 2014. 6 On February 18, 2015, Salcedo was deployed to Nigeria, through Manpower Resources, to work for Global Petroprojects as a welder supervisor and welder. However, on April 15, 2015, he was suddenly given an airline ticket and ordered repatriated to the Philippines. 7 Salcedo considered his undue repatriation as illegal dismissal, and prayed Manpower Resources be held solidarily liable with Saipem Company.
In its defense, Manpower Resources claimed that Salcedo was last deployed in 2007 for a one-year contract. After his contract ended, Manpower Resources no longer had contact with Salcedo. It was impossible for Manpower Resources to redeploy Salcedo to Nigeria because of the deployment ban which took effect in 2008. 8 Manpower Resources also argued that Salcedo directly coordinated with his foreign employer, and that he was a fixed term employee, thus, not entitled to payment of length of service, separation pay, and service incentive leave pay. 9
On February 29, 2016, Executive Labor Arbiter (LA) Jenneth B. Napiza dismissed Salcedo's complaint for lack of merit. 10 The LA held that there is no proof that it was Manpower Resources which deployed Salcedo in 2015. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)-Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) Information, dated November 5, 2015, showed that Salcedo directly dealt with Saipem Company. This same arrangement happened in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2014 when Salcedo entered into employment contracts with Saipem Company by himself, with no participation of Manpower Resources. 11 CAIHTE
On appeal, Salcedo submitted documents to prove Manpower Resources and Saipem Company's liabilities, such as his POEA-OFW Information from the POEA database, Exit Passes issued by the Department of Labor and Employment, and Overseas Employment Certificates for the years 2012 to 2014. 12 In a Decision, 13 dated September 30, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA's ruling, and confirmed that, based on the pieces of evidence submitted by Salcedo, he applied directly with Saipem Company without any assistance from Manpower Resources. Hence, without proof that Manpower Resources participated in Salcedo's contracts with Saipem Company, no liability can be attached to Manpower Resources. Lastly, Salcedo did not produce his overseas employment contracts as basis for the solidary liability of Saipem Company as the principal, and Manpower Resources as the local agent. Aggrieved, Salcedo moved for reconsideration, but was denied in a Resolution 14 dated November 24, 2016.
Before the CA, Salcedo filed a petition for certiorari, which was dismissed for lack of merit. 15 The CA upheld the labor tribunals' findings that there is no basis to hold Manpower Resources liable because there is no evidence that Manpower Resources deployed Salcedo after the 2007 contract. 16 Salcedo then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA. 17 Hence, this petition. 18
Salcedo maintains that Manpower Resources, Saipem Company and Global Petroprojects (collectively, respondents) are jointly and severally liable for his monetary claims. The CA erred in holding that he had no valid and existing contract with Manpower Resources and its foreign principal, Saipem Company. 19 On the other hand, respondents claim that the consistent rulings of the CA, NLRC and LA should be accorded great respect. 20
THE COURT'S RULING
The petition is unmeritorious.
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. 21 It is axiomatic that the Court is not a trier of facts. 22 We are not tasked to review the evidence on record and reassess its probative weight, especially in view of the well-entrenched rule that findings of fact of administrative officials, such as labor arbiters, who have acquired expertise on account of their specialized jurisdiction are accorded by the courts not only respect but, most often, with finality, particularly when affirmed on appeal. 23
A question of fact requires this Court to review the truthfulness or falsity of the allegations of the parties, and includes an assessment of the probative value of the evidence presented. There is also a question of fact when the issue presented before the Court is the correctness of the lower courts' appreciation of the evidence presented by the parties. 24 Here, the questions raised by Salcedo essentially asks this Court to review the evidence presented. Clearly, this is not the role of this Court because the issue presented is factual in nature.
We emphasize that, in labor cases, our power of review is limited to the determination of whether the CA correctly resolved the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. 25 Guided by this basic precept, we now resolve whether the CA erred in its determination of lack of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC.
Salcedo's insistence on the solidary liability of respondents for his claims of payment of length of service, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees is misplaced. To hold respondent's liable for Salcedo's monetary claims, it must be proved that he entered into employment contracts with Manpower Resources to be deployed to Saipem Company and/or Global Petroprojects. Notably, the LA, NLRC, and the CA unanimously held that Salcedo failed to produce the contracts where Manpower Resources served as his local agent in obtaining overseas employment from Saipem Company and Global Petroprojects. On the contrary, the POEA-OFW Information, dated November 5, 2015, stated that Salcedo himself directly contracted with Saipem Company, and did not indicate Manpower Resources as the local agent. In addition, the addenda and extensions to Salcedo's employment agreements in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2014, and his employment agreement with Saipem Company for 2013, show that he entered into the contracts with Saipem Company by himself, with no participation of Manpower Resources. Thus, we find that the CA was correct in its determination that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
FOR THESE REASONS, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Resolutions dated September 13, 2017 and February 5, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 148696 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J. Y., J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.) DETACa
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 14-44. Filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2.Id. at 49-53. Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Maria Elisa Sempio Diy and Renato C. Francisco.
3.Id. at 8-9.
4.Id. at 108-109.
5.Id. at 111.
6.Id. at 50.
7.Id. at 112.
8.Id. at 112-113.
9.Id. at 51.
10.Id. at 110.
11.Id. at 51-52.
12.Id. at 115.
13.Id. at 110-118. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez, with the concurrence of Commissioners Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. and Cecilio Alejandro C. Villanueva.
14.Id. at 120-121.
15.Id. at 53.
16.Id. at 51.
17.Id. at 9.
18.Rollo, pp. 14-44.
19.Id. at 25.
20.Id. at 268-269.
21.Aboitiz Power Renewables, Inc./Tiwi Consolidated Union (APRI-TCU) on Behalf of Fe R. Rubio v. Aboitiz Power Renewables, Inc., G.R. No. 237036, July 8, 2020, citing Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., Inc., 809 Phil. 106 (2017).
22.Doctor v. NII Enterprises, 821 Phil. 251, 264 (2017).
23.Negros Metal Corporation v. Lamayo, 643 Phil. 675, 682 (2010).
24.Arrivas v. Bacotoc, G.R. No. 228704, December 2, 2020.
25.Paragele v. GMA Network, Inc., G.R. No. 235315, July 13, 2020.