Dusol v. Lazo, G.R. No. 200555, [January 20, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Dusol v. Lazo

G.R. No. 200555, [January 20, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Illegal Dismissal; Employer-employee Relationship; Proof of employment

 

The elements of an employer-employee relationship, such as selection and engagement, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and control over work conduct, are important to establish the employment status and the nature of the relationship between parties involved in labor disputes. 

Pedro and Maricel Dusol (the petitioners) filed a complaint against Emmarck A. Lazo (the respondent), owner of Ralco Beach, alleging illegal dismissal, underpayment of benefits, and deprivation of procedural due process. Pedro had worked as the beach resort's caretaker since January 6, 1993, while Maricel was employed as a store manager starting January 28, 2007. They were compensated through allowances and commissions from the resort's rentals and sales. However, on July 31, 2008, Emmarck notified them of the resort's closure as he will be leasing out Ralco Beach, leading to their termination. The petitioners claimed that they were illegally dismissed. Whereas Emmark countered that they are partners and not employees, hence no illegal dismissal may took place. 

 

Whether Pedro and Maricel were employees or partners of Emmarck. 

NO. The court found merit in Pedro and Maricel's petition, as it was established that they were employees, not partners, of Emmarck. While Emmarck claimed a partnership existed, no documentary evidence supported this, and the mere receipt of profits does not establish a partnership when those profits are akin to wages. The court concluded that Emmarck had control over Pedro and Maricel's work, evidenced by his admission that he entrusted the resort's operation to them. Despite the absence of written guidelines, Emmarck exercised control, as demonstrated by his imposition of a mark-up on store items. Consequently, the lack of procedural due process in their dismissal rendered it illegal. As the resort's closure was not due to serious business losses, Pedro and Maricel were entitled to separation pay, nominal damages, wage differentials, 13th-month pay, and attorney's fees.

 

 

CLICK HERE TO VIEW FULL TEXT

Junio v. Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc., G.R. No. 220657 (Resolution), [March 16, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

Junio v. Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc.

G.R. No. 220657 (Resolution), [March 16, 2022]

THIRD, LOPEZ, M.

 

Collective Bargaining Agreement; Permanent Total Disability Benefits; Damages 

The court reaffirms the reciprocal obligations outlined in Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, emphasizing that while the seafarer must submit to a post-employment medical examination within three working days of repatriation, the employer is duty-bound to conduct a meaningful and timely examination of the seafarer. Failure to fulfill these obligations, particularly the employer's refusal to refer the seafarer to a company-designated physician, may result in the seafarer's entitlement to total disability benefits being upheld by law, even in the absence of a formal assessment by the company-designated physician.

 

Celestino had been employed by Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc. (Pacific Manning) for 16 years when he entered into a nine-month employment contract with Pacific Manning on behalf of its foreign principal, Mega Chemical Tanker (Mega Tanker), to serve as a Fitter onboard MCT Monte Rosa. Before deployment, Celestino underwent a pre-medical employment examination and boarded the vessel on January 30, 2011. On June 15, 2011, while performing maintenance, Celestino sustained an eye injury when a hose detached and hit his left eye. He reported the incident, but his request for a medical examination was denied as the vessel was departing. On September 11, 2011, Celestino collapsed while working and was referred to an offshore physician, Dr. Daniel Jenkins III. Celestino underwent medical tests, which revealed several health issues, including a partial tear in his posterior retina. He was repatriated on September 21, 2011, and sought medical treatment upon his return. Despite his requests, Celestino was not referred to a company-designated physician by Pacific Manning. He filed a complaint on February 10, 2012, seeking disability benefits and damages.

 

Whether Celestino is entitled to permanent total disability benefits, sickness allowance, damages, and attorney's fees. 

YES. The Court found in favor of Celestino. It determined that Celestino's repatriation was due to medical reasons and not the completion of his contract. Celestino complied with the three-day mandatory reporting requirement by reporting to Pacific Manning within two days of repatriation. Despite this, Pacific Manning failed to refer Celestino to a company-designated physician. The Court concluded that Celestino's medical condition was work-related and compensable. Since no valid post-employment medical examination was conducted, Celestino's disability was deemed total and permanent by operation of law. Consequently, the Court reinstated the decision awarding permanent total disability benefits, sickness allowance, and attorney's fees in favor of Celestino.

 

 CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

Skanfil Maritime Services, Inc. v. Centeno, G.R. No. 227655, [April 27, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

SSkanfil Maritime Services, Inc. v. Centeno

 G.R. No. 227655, [April 27, 2022]

THIRD, LOPEZ, M.

 

Collective Bargaining Agreement; Permanent Total Disability Benefits; Damages 

A seafarer who suffered permanent total disability due to a work-related accident is granted disability benefits and attorney's fees after the company-designated physicians failed to issue a valid medical assessment within the prescribed period, while the awards for moral and exemplary damages were deleted due to insufficient evidence of bad faith or fraud.

 

Almario was hired by Skanfil as a mess person on board M/V "DIMI" POS TOPAS in March 2013. On September 26, 2013, Almario fell from a ladder while working and suffered injuries. Almario was brought to a hospital in Japan and was diagnosed with a blunt head injury, blunt back injury, lacerated scalp wound, and brain concussion. Almario was repatriated to the Philippines on October 2, 2013, and was referred to the company-designated physicians for medical assessment and treatment. The physicians assessed Almario's injury as "S/P Suturing of Lacerated Wound on the Scalp, Fracture S3; Mild L3-L4 Disc Bulge." Almario was also treated by other specialists. After weeks of treatment and rehabilitation, Almario was cleared by the company-designated physicians and signed a 10th and Final Report and Certificate of Fitness for Work stating that he was "fit for duty” issued on February 7, 2014, or eight days beyond the prescribed period. However, Almario consulted another physician who declared him permanently unfit to resume sea duties. Almario filed a complaint for permanent disability benefits against Skanfil. 

 

Whether Almario is entitled to permanent total disability benefits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. 

YES. The court ruled in favor of Almario, granting him permanent total disability benefits and attorney's fees. The seafarer's entitlement to disability benefits is governed by the law, the parties' contracts, and the medical findings. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total.

 

 

Here, the company-designated physicians failed to issue a valid medical assessment within the prescribed period of 120 days from Almario's repatriation. In this case, the 10th and Final Report and the Certificate of Fitness for Work are not final and valid assessments. They are incomplete and not definitive of Almario's state of health and capacity to resume work. Most importantly, they were issued beyond the prescribed period. Therefore, it was not a valid assessment. Consequently, Almario's disability is considered permanent and total. 

Skanfil was adjudged solidarily liable to pay Almario Centeno his total disability benefits under the CBA. The court deleted the awards for moral and exemplary damages, as there was insufficient evidence to show bad faith or fraud on the part of Skanfil. However, the award of attorney's fees was retained. The court also imposed a legal interest of 6% per annum on the total monetary awards until complete payment.

 

 

 

 

 CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT OF THE CASE

Knutson v. Sarmiento-Flores, G.R. No. 239215, [July 12, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

Knutson v. Sarmiento-Flores

 G.R. No. 239215, [July 12, 2022]

EN BANC, LOPEZ, M.V

 

VAWC Law; Father can apply for protection orders; Mothers can be offenders under RA 9262 

It is the legislative intent of RA 9262 to protect both women and children from violence, and the use of the gender-neutral term "person" in the law includes offenders of either sex. RA No. 9262 covers a situation where the mother committed violent and abusive acts against her own child.

 

In 2005, Randy Michael Knutson (Randy), an American citizen, married Rosalina Sibal Knutson (Rosalina) in Singapore, and they had a daughter named Rhuby Sibal Knutson (Rhuby). Randy and Rosalina became estranged after he discovered her extra-marital affairs, but Randy supported Rosalina and Rhuby. 

Rosalina got hooked in casinos and incurred large debts from casino financiers prompting her to sell the house and lot, condominium unit, and vehicles that Randy provided for the family. Rosalina rented an apartment and got herself a boyfriend. Randy advised Rosalina to be discreet in her illicit affairs because it is not good for Rhuby to see her mother with another man. Randy discovered later that Rosalina hurt Rhuby by pulling her hair, slapping her face and knocking her head. One time, Rosalina pointed a knife at Rhuby and threatened to kill her. Rosalina even texted Randy about her plan to kill their daughter and commit suicide. The neighbors of Rosalina complained about noisy parties and pot sessions in her apartment. The lessor even terminated the lease after marijuana plants were confiscated in the premise. Randy reported these incidents to the police, but no assistance was provided for domestic issues. 

On December 7, 2017, Randy, on behalf of minor Rhuby, filed against Rosalina a petition under RA No. 9262 for the issuance of Temporary and Permanent Protection Orders before the RTC. Randy averred that Rosalina placed Rhuby in a harmful environment deleterious to her physical, emotional, moral, and psychological development. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Randy's petition for protection and custody orders under RA No. 9262, reasoning that the law did not cover a situation where a mother committed violence against her child. 

 

Whether the father can avail remedies under RA No. 9262, on behalf of his minor child, against the mother's violent and abusive acts.

YES. The law criminalizes acts of violence against women and their children perpetrated by women’s intimate partners, i.e., husband; former husband; or any person who has or had sexual or dating relationship with the woman, or with whom the woman has a common child. However, the Court in Garcia emphasized that the law does not single out the husband or father as the culprit. The statute used the gender-neutral word “person” as the offender which embraces any person of either sex. Logically, a mother who maltreated her child resulting in physical, sexual, or psychological violence defined and penalized under RA No. 9262 is not absolved from criminal liability notwithstanding that the measure is intended to protect both women and their children.

RA No. 9262 allows the father of the offended party to apply for protection and custody orders. In Garcia vs. Drilon, Section 9(b) of RA No. 9262 explicitly allows “parents or guardians of the offended party” to file a petition for protection orders. The statute categorically used the word “parents” which pertains to the father and the mother of the woman or child victim. There is no question that the offended party is Rhuby, a minor child, who allegedly experienced violence and abuse. Thus, Randy may assist Rhuby in filing the petition as the parent of the offended party.

 

 

 

 CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT HERE

Turalba y Villegas v. People, G.R. No. 216453, [March 16, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

Turalba y Villegas v. People

 G.R. No. 216453, [March 16, 2022]

THIRD, LOPEZ, M.V

 

Carnapping; Psychosis as Mitigating Circumstance; Insanity Defense 

Anyone who pleads insanity bears the burden to prove it with clear and convincing evidence since the accused invoking the affirmative defense admits to have committed the crime, but claims that he or she is not guilty because of insanity. The burden of proof on the issue of insanity rests on the accused, and mere abnormality of mental faculties is insufficient to exclude imputability. With respect to mitigating circumstance, insanity was recognized only when there was a showing of some impairment of mental faculties but not a complete loss of intelligence or consciousness.

 

Oligario was charged with carnaping for stealing a 1996 model CRV Honda Wagon belonging to Gregorio Calimag. The incident occurred on November 20, 2007, in Olongapo City. Oligario pleaded not guilty, and during the trial, the prosecution presented evidence, including testimonies establishing the elements of the crime. Oligario raised the defense of insanity, supported by the testimony of Dr. Ma. Lourdes Labarcon Evangelista, who assessed him with psychosis due to alcohol and methamphetamine use. In defense, Dr. Evangelista testified and narrated that she first met Oligario on October 24, 2007 at the Mariveles Mental Hospital for evaluation and management of his mental condition. After tests, Dr. Evangelista assessed Oligario with psychosis ("nawawala sa sarili") due to use of alcohol and methamphetamine. She prescribed medication and scheduled a follow-up checkup, but Oligario was not able to come back as he was already detained for the carnapping incident. Oligario contends that his mental condition should either completely absolve him of criminal liability or, at the very least, be considered as a mitigating circumstance. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Oligario, finding all elements of carnaping present, while the CA affirmed the conviction, rejecting the insanity defense. The case involves the petition for review on certiorari challenging the decision in convicting Oligario for Carnapping. 

 

Whether or not Oligario's alleged insanity is a valid defense for Carnapping in this case. 

NO. The Supreme Court denied Oligario's petition for lack of merit. The Court held that Oligario failed to establish his mental state, particularly his insanity, with clear and convincing evidence. The burden of proof on the issue of insanity rests on the accused, and mere abnormality of mental faculties is insufficient to exclude imputability. Thus, the accused must prove the following: first, that the insanity constitutes a complete deprivation of intelligence, reason, or discernment; and second, the insanity existed at the time of, or immediately preceding, the commission of the crime.

The Court stressed that Oligario did not present witnesses or evidence to demonstrate his abnormal or bizarre behavior immediately before or simultaneous with the commission of the crime. The Court rejected Oligario's insanity defense considering that the manner by which he perpetrated the offense suggests full consciousness of his criminal act. Dr. Evangelista's medical assessment was rendered inconclusive and insufficient proof of the mental condition of Oligario. While Oligario asserted insanity, the Court found it insufficient to warrant exemption from criminal liability.

Regarding the argument for considering insanity as a mitigating circumstance, Oligario failed to establish his mental state, much less his insanity. As held in jurisprudence, insanity was recognized as a mitigating circumstance only when there was a showing of some impairment of mental faculties but not a complete loss of intelligence or consciousness. While it can be true that there was some impairment of Oligario's mental faculties, due to psychosis, the Court held that such impairment was not so complete as to deprive him of his intelligence or the consciousness of his acts.

Moreover, Oligario was charged with violation of RA No. 6539, a special law, which is not governed by the rules of penalties under the RPC. The penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, based on the Indeterminate Sentence Law, was deemed correct. Consequently, Oligario was found guilty of Carnapping and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, as maximum. 

 

 

 

 CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

 

 

 

People v. Begino y Rogero, G.R. No. 251150, [March 16, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

People v. Begino y Rogero

 G.R. No. 251150, [March 16, 2022]

THIRD, LOPEZ, M.V 

large-scale Illegal recruitment; Estafa 

For an offense to be considered large scale illegal recruitment, the prosecution must establish that: (1) The offender has no valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (2)The offender undertakes recruitment activities or practices prohibited by law; (3) The offender commits acts of recruitment and placement against three or more persons, individually or as a group.

 

In September 2011, Milagros Osila received a phone call about job opportunities in Canada from Regina Begino and Darwin Arevalo. Milagros traveled to Tabaco City, where she met Regina and Darwin, who were allegedly conducting interviews for jobs abroad. Regina and Darwin claimed to be looking for apple-pickers to be deployed in Canada. Milagros, along with her nieces Maelene Canaveral and Geraldine Ojano, and her friend Gloria Mape, attended interviews and paid various fees for the supposed job placements. Regina received payments for processing fees, terminal fee, additional processing fee, and surety bond, all recorded on index cards. However, none of them were able to leave for Canada, and they did not get their money back. 

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Regina Begino of large scale illegal recruitment and three counts of estafa. The court found that Regina represented having the authority to send the complainants abroad, and her promises never materialized. The recovered index cards with payment notes established that Regina received various fees from the complainants, causing them damage. Regina's assurances induced the victims to part with their money. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed Regina's guilt for large scale illegal recruitment.

 

Whether or not Regina Begino is guilty of large scale illegal recruitment and Estafa. 

YES. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that all elements of large scale illegal recruitment were present, as Regina engaged in recruitment activities without the required license or authority. Regina's active role in the recruitment process, her receipt of payments, and her lack of authority all contributed to her liability. The prosecution established that Regina engaged in recruitment activities and gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send them abroad for work. Regina directly transacted with the complainants regarding the job prospect in Canada and personally assisted them in completing the requirements for deployment. Regina received money from the complainants as placement fees and gave assurances that they will earn high compensation for their purported jobs abroad. Furthermore, Regina had no authority to engage in recruitment activities. Finally, there are four (4) complainants who testified against Regina which qualified the offense to economic sabotage. Thus, Regina was properly sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P5,000,000.00 for large scale illegal recruitment.

However, the Court cited errors in the computation of penalties. Nonetheless, the penalties in the three (3) counts of estafa can no longer be corrected, even if erroneous, because the judgment of conviction has become final and executory after Regina chose not to appeal these cases. An erroneous judgment, as thus understood, is a valid judgment. Whatever mistake the trial court committed in the computation of penalties was merely an error of judgment and not of jurisdiction. The mistake did not affect the intrinsic validity of the decision and can no longer be rectified on appeal no matter how obvious the error may be.

 

 

 CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT

 

 

 

 

 

Abuyo y Sagrit v. People, G.R. No. 250495, [July 6, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

Abuyo y Sagrit v. People

 G.R. No. 250495, [July 6, 2022]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V

 

Self-defense of a Relative; State of Necessity; 

In self-defense, the elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation must concur. the law does not does not require the accused to use unerring judgment when they had the reasonable grounds to believe that they were in apparent danger of losing their lives or suffering great bodily injury; recognizing the instinct for self-preservation prevailing over rational thinking in such situations.

 

On August 16, 2011, at around 7:30 p.m., petitioner Leo Abuyo and his wife were on their motorcycle heading home when they encountered Cesar Tapel and his son, Charles Tapel, armed with a fan knife and a gun, respectively. Cesar and Charles blocked Leo's way, and a confrontation ensued. Leo's father, Leonardo Abuyo, intervened, but Cesar stabbed him. Leo, in defense, confronted Cesar, and a struggle ensued. Leo, armed with a bolo, eventually stabbed Cesar, resulting in Cesar's death. Leo voluntarily surrendered to the authorities and was charged with Homicide.

 

Whether or not Leo's actions, resulting in the death of Cesar, were justified under self-defense and defense of a relative. 

YES. The court ruled in favor of Leo, stating that the means he employed were reasonably necessary to repel the unlawful aggression. The court emphasized that Leo admitted to being the cause of Cesar's death but invoked self-defense and defense of a relative as justifying circumstances. The burden of proof shifted to Leo to establish these defenses.

In self-defense, the elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation must concur. The court found that the first and third requisites were present, as Cesar attacked and pursued Leonardo without provocation from Leo. The court disagreed with the lower courts' assessment that Leo failed to prove the reasonable necessity of the means employed.The court emphasized that the law does not demand the accused to conduct themselves with the poise of a person not under imminent threat of fatal harm. Leo's actions were viewed from his standpoint at the time of the incident, considering the instinct for self-preservation outweighing rational thinking.

The court highlighted three crucial facts supporting Leo's claim of self-defense: Leo did not take advantage of opportunities to attack the disarmed Cesar, the threatening presence of Charles with a gun, and Leo's voluntary surrender after the incident. Leo's actions were deemed reasonable under the circumstances, and he was acquitted of Homicide.

 

 

 

 CLICK TO VIEW FULL TEXT