Remington Industrial Sales Corporation v.
Erlinda Castaneda
November 20, 2006 | J. Puno
By: Perry
SUMMARY:
Respondent-complainant alleged that she was illegally dismissed. The
petitioners set up the defense that the complainant was not a regular employee
but was a househelp of the family of the Managing Director. The NLRC, CA and
SC all ruled in favor of the complainant.
DOCTRINE:
The mere fact that the househelper or domestic servant is working within the
premises of the business of the employer and in relation to or in connection
with its business, as in its staffhouses for its guest or even for its officers and
employees, warrants the conclusion that such househelper or domestic servant
is and should be considered as a regular employee of the employer and not as a
mere family househelper or domestic servant
FACTS:
Respondent-complainant alleged that she started working for the petitioner as a
company cook in 1983 with a salary of ₱4,000; that she worked for 6 days a
week; that she continuously worked for the petitioner until she was
unceremoniously prevented from reporting from work when the petitioner
transferred to a new site in EDSA, Caloocan City. She averred that when she
reported for work in the new site, she was informed that her services were no
longer needed, thus prompting her to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Petitioner denied the allegations and posited that Erlinda was not a regular
employee but a domestic helper of the Managing Director, Mr. Antonio Tan. The
petitioner further posited that it did not have any degree of control and/or
supervision over Erlinda’s work; that Erlinda did not have a time card; and that
she was free to roam around the company premises, hence, she was not a
regular employee.
The LA dismissed the complaint, finding that the respondent was a domestic
helper. This was reversed by the NLRC who ruled in favor of the respondent-
complainant. A Decision was rendered and a petition for certiorari was taken by
the petitioner to the CA. However, before the petition was acted upon, the NLRC
issued a Second Decision based on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the
respondent, increasing the monetary award from ₱51,747.88 to ₱62,437.50.
The CA sustained the decision of the NLRC and dismissed the petition for
certiorari filed by the petitioner. Hence, this case to the SC.
ISSUES / HELD:
Procedural Issue
WON the issuance of the Second Decision was proper. YES.
Substantive Issues
WON the respondent was a regular employee. YES.
WON the respondent was illegally dismissed. YES.
RULING:
Procedural Issue
The SC ruled that the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed
to serve the demands of substantial justice, particularly in labor cases.
Moreover, the SC ruled that the requirement of verification is formal and not
jurisdictional. Such requirement is merely a condition affecting the form of the
pleading, non-compliance with which does not necessarily render it fatally
defective.
As to the issue of late filing, the SC noted that the last day for filing of the motion
for reconsideration of the respondent fell on a Saturday. The SC has consistently
ruled that if the tenth day fell on a Saturday, the appeal shall be made on the
next working day. Moreover, the filing of the petition for certiorari does no
interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order
or writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public respondent
from further proceeding with the case.
Substantive Issues
The SC ruled in Apex Mining v. NLRC, that a househelper in the staff houses of a
company was a regular employee of the said firm. A househelper shall only be
considered as such when he/she caters to the personal comfort and
enjoyment of the family of the employer in the home of the employer. In
such a case, they are actually serving the family. However, as opposed to the
case at bar, Erlinda’s services was being rendered in the staffhouses or within
the premises of the business of the employer. Thus, she should properly be
considered as an employee of the company entitled to the privileges of a regular
employee. The mere fact that a househelper or domestic servant is working
within the premises of the business of the employer and in relation to or in
connection with its business, warrants the conclusion that such househelper or
domestic servant is a regular employee of the employer and not as a mere
family househelper or domestic servant.
Since she was found to be a regular employee, the SC further found that there
was indeed ground for her illegal dismissal. The petitioner alleges that the
respondent abandoned her work. However, the act of filing a complaint belies
the foregoing contention as the act of filing a complaint is sufficient proof of her
desire to work.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit.