G.R. No. 145402 - MERALCO INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING SERVICES CORPORATION, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, OFELIA P. LANDRITO GENERAL SERVICES and/or OFELIA P. LANDRITO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, at the end of the business hours on 31 January 1990, the complainants were pulled out from their work at the petitioners Rockwell Thermal Plant. Thus, on 27 February 1990, complainants amended their Complaint to include the charge of illegal dismissal and to implead the petitioner as a party respondent therein. Since the parties failed to settle amicably before the Labor Arbiter, they submitted their respective position papers and other pleadings together with their documentary evidence. Thereafter, a Decision was rendered by the Labor Arbiter on 26 March 1991, dismissing the Complaint against the petitioner for lack of merit, but ordering the private respondents to pay the complainants the total amount of P487,287.07 representing unpaid wages, separation pay and overtime pay; as well as attorneys fees in an amount equivalent to 10% of the award or P48,728.70. All other claims of the complainants against the private respondents were dismissed. [9] Feeling aggrieved, private respondents appealed the aforesaid Decision to the NLRC. Private respondents alleged, among other things, that: (1) 48 of the 49 complainants had executed affidavits of desistance and they had never attended any hearing nor given any authority to anyone to file a case on their behalf; (2) the Labor Arbiter erred in not conducting a full-blown hearing on the case; (3) there is only one complainant in that case who submitted a position paper on his own; (4) the complainants were not constructively dismissed when they were not given assignments within a period of six months, but had abandoned their jobs when they failed to report to another place of assignment; and (5) the petitioner, being the principal, was solidarily liable with the private respondents for failure to make an adjustment on the wages of the complainants. [10] On 28 May 1993, the NLRC issued a Resolution [11] affirming the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 26 March 1991 with the modification that the petitioner was solidarily liable with the private respondents, ratiocinating thus: We, however, disagree with the dismissal of the case against [herein petitioner]. Under Art. 107 [12] of the Labor Code of the Philippines, [herein petitioner] is considered an indirect employer and can be held solidarily liable with [private respondents] as an independent contractor. Under Art. 109, [13] for purposes of determining the extent of its liability, [herein petitioner] is considered a direct employer, hence, it is solidarily liable for complainants (sic) wage differentials and unpaid overtime. We find this situation obtaining in this case in view of the failure of [private respondents] to pay in full the labor standard benefits of complainants, in which case liability is limited thereto and does not extend to the establishment of employer-employee relations. [14] [Emphasis supplied]. Both private respondents and petitioner separately moved for reconsideration of the aforesaid Resolution of the NLRC. In the