G.R. No. 229326 - ROMINA N. BISMONTE, JENNIFER P. DACILLO, ERWIN C. FORMENTOS, JOHNNY M. NARZOLES, LANIE L. LATOMBO, ENRIQUE C. HERNANDEZ, NELSON G. BISMONTE, AND MICHAEL S. VILLANUEVA, V. GOLDEN SUNSET RESORT AND SPA AND RICARDO "RICKY" REYES.

Ruling

accordingly, reinstated the Decision [8] dated March 14, 2014 of the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissing petitioners' complaint for, inter alia , illegal dismissal against respondents Golden Sunset Resort and Spa and Ricardo "Ricky" Reyes (respondents). The Facts Petitioners alleged that on different dates, respondents hired them as resort staff, specifically as housekeepers, maintenance personnel, waiters, spa and massage attendants, cooks, dishwashers, and concierges. Three (3) of the petitioners asserted that they were dismissed without any just or authorized cause and without affording them due process; while five (5) of them claimed that they were constructively dismissed when their work schedule was unjustifiably reduced from six (6) to three (3) working days a week, resulting in a substantial reduction of their income. Furthermore, petitioners also accused respondents of not paying them their entitled benefits, such as holiday pay, overtime pay, service incentive leave pay, and their share from the service charge. [9] Thus, petitioners, along with several others, filed several complaints [10] for, inter alia , illegal dismissal against respondents. For their part, respondents maintained that they did not hire petitioners as regular employees, but merely as seasonal employees. They explained that during the lean seasons, i.e. , rainy seasons, they either reduce their workers' duties to just thrice a week, or even do not require them to report for work, in which case, they are allowed to find employment elsewhere. Further, respondents posited that their engagement to their staff is akin to an "independent contractorship" in that they neither have the power to dismiss nor control the performance of their staff, and that they are free to perform their assigned tasks as long as they accomplish them within the time that they were contracted for work. [11] The LA Ruling In a Decision [12] dated March 14, 2014, the LA dismissed petitioners' complaints. [13] The LA concluded that there was no employer-employee relationship between petitioners and respondents given that the former failed to prove that the latter: ( a ) had the power to control petitioners' work performances; and ( b ) were interested in the means and methods on how to perform their respective jobs. [14] Dissatisfied, petitioners appealed [15] to the NLRC. The NLRC Ruling In a Decision [16] dated May 30, 2014, the NLRC set aside the LA ruling, and accordingly entered a new one: ( a ) dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal; and ( b ) ordering respondents to pay petitioners the aggregate amount of P1,076,833.50, representing their salary differentials, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, and 13 th month pay. [17] The NLRC deemed petitioners as regular employees of respondents, considering that: ( a ) petitioners were issued company identification cards, signifying that they were bona fide employees of respondents; ( b ) respondents issued various certifications explicitly stati