G.R. Nos. 117936-37 - FRANCISCO U. NAGUSARA, MARQUITO L. PAMILARA, AND DIOSCORO D. CRUZ, VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LORENZO DY AND OTHERS, AND ISAYAS AMURAO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY, respondents Dynasty Steel Works and/or Lorenzo Dy are hereby ordered to reinstate within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, herein complainants Francisco Nagasora, Marquito Pamilara and Dioscoro D. Cruz to their former positions without loss of seniority right and privileges but with one (1) year backwages at (P45.00, P38.00, P36.00 x 26 days), considering the nature of the business of respondent (construction business) which may not be continuous, with at least an additional one (1) month pay as separation pay in case respondents business ceased operation. All other money claims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit. [8] On appeal, the NLRC set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter. It dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship between petitioners and respondent Dy. It held that respondent Dy was only an indirect employer of petitioners as they were actually employed by respondent Amurao whom respondent Dy sub-contracted to provide labor for his construction project. It also declared that petitioners were not illegally dismissed. [9] The dispositive portion of the resolution reads: WHEREFORE, let the decision appealed from be, as it is hereby, SET ASIDE and another one ENTERED dismissing the instant cases for lack of merit. [10] Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the NLRC for lack of merit. [11] Hence, this petition. Petitioners and private respondents presented conflicting versions of the circumstances which led to the severance of petitioners employment. Petitioners alleged that in 1981, they were hired as carpenters by Dynasty Steel Works owned by respondent Dy. Dynasty was engaged in the business of making steel frames, windows, doors and other construction works. It was contracted by Solmac Marketing to construct its building in Balintawak, Caloocan City. On November 25, 1982, petitioners went to the Social Security System (SSS) office to inquire about their benefits under the system. They were informed that they were not reported as employees either by Dynasty or by respondent Dy. Petitioners filed a complaint against Dynasty and respondent Dy for violation of SSS laws and regulations. On December 20, 1982, petitioners were prohibited from entering the work site at the Solmac compound. The security guard showed them an order/notice dated December 18, 1982 issued by respondent Dy instructing him not to allow petitioners to enter the premises as they were already dismissed from work. Petitioners sought the help of P/Cpl. Alexander Licuan of the Caloocan Police Department. P/Cpl. Licuan accompanied petitioners to the work site and inquired about the reason for the prohibition. Respondent Amurao who introduced himself as supervisor told P/Cpl. Licuan that petitioners services were terminated upon the order of respondent Dy. Traversing petitioners allegations, respondent Dy claimed in his comment that petitioners were not his employees but that of r