CEBU, Philippines - The Supreme Court has affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)-7 clearing Chief Supt. Vicente Loot and his wife, Daanbantayan Mayor Maria Luisa Loot from any liability over the termination of two employees of Gallera de Mandaue.
Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, Jr. denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners Marticio Semblante and Dubrick Pilar who sought for the reversal of the CA and NLRC ruling.
Petitioners said they were hired by spouses Loot who owned the Gallera de Mandaue as official masiador and sentenciador of the cockpit sometime in 1993.
As masiador, Semblante calls and takes the bets from the gamecock owners and other bettors and orders the start of the cockfight while as sentenciador, Pilar determines the fighting cocks’ physical condition and capabilities to continue as well as declares the results of the cockfight.
Semblante received P8,000 per month while Pilar gets P14,000 per month and said they worked every Tuesday, Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday of the week excluding holidays. Petitioners said they worked from 1:00 p.m. until 12:00 midnight.
They claimed they had both been issued employees’ identification cards by the spouses and that they wore them every time they report on duty.
However, on November 14, 2003 petitioners alleged they were denied entrance into the cockpit upon instructions of the respondents and were informed of their termination of service. This prompted the petitioners to file a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC.
Spouses Loot denied the allegations of the petitioners that they were their employees saying they have no regular working time and days and are free to decide for themselves whether to report for work or not on any cockfighting day.
“In times when there are few cockfights in Gallera de Mandaue, petitioners go to other cockpits in the vicinity,” spouses said.
They added the identification cards were issued against petitioners to exempt them from the normal entrance fee.
In the decision penned by Labor Arbiter Julie Rendoque on June 16, 2004 she found “petitioners to be regular employees of respondents as they performed work that was necessary and indispensable to the usual trade or business of respondents for a number of years.”
Rendoque likewise ruled that the respondents illegally dismissed petitioners and ordered for the payment of petitioners’ backwages and separation pay.
Spouses Loot then filed an appeal on the resolution which resulted in the reversal of the ruling.
NLRC’s resolution dated October 18, 2006 stated “there was no employer-employee relationship between petitioners and respondents, respondents having no part in the selection and engagement of petitioners, and that no separate individual contract with respondents was ever executed by petitioners.”
Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration for the reversal of the earlier ruling before the NLRC but it was denied. They then went to the CA to file for a petition for certiorari citing “grave abuse of discretion” on the part of NLRC.
However, the CA affirmed the ruling of the NLRC claiming that petitioners are not employees of respondents.
The SC then affirmed the ruling of NLRC and CA stating “petitioners are not employees of respondents since their relationship fails to pass muster the four-fold test of employment namely the selection and engagement of the employee, the payment of wages, the power of dismissal and the power to control the employees’ conduct which is the most important element.”
Associate Justice Velasco said the petitioners performance of their functions as masiador and sentenciador were free from the direction and control of respondents. — (FREEMAN)