FIRST DIVISION motion for reconsideration, it prays that the Court modify the award of
reinstatement of petitioner and instead order the payment of separation pay in
G.R. No. 126586 August 25, 2000 favor of the latter.
ALEXANDER VINOYA, petitioner, In a Resolution,3 dated 5 April 2000, the Court required the petitioner to file his
vs. comment to the motion for partial reconsideration filed by RFC. On 12 May
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, REGENT FOOD 2000, petitioner filed his comment/opposition 4 to the motion for partial
CORPORATION AND/OR RICKY SEE (PRESIDENT), respondents. reconsideration. Petitioner argues that the motion filed by RFC dealt with
issues already resolved and discussed by the Court in its decision. Thus,
RESOLUTION petitioner prays that the motion for partial reconsideration be dismissed for
lack of merit.
KAPUNAN, J.:
We have carefully examined and studied the records of the case but we have
This treats of a motion for reconsideration filed by private respondent Regent found no reason to modify our finding that RFC is the true employer of
Food Corporation (RFC) of our Decision, promulgated on 2 February 2000, petitioner. Indeed, despite the existence of the alleged contracts of service
which affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter ordering RFC to reinstate and employment, the status of petitioner as the employee of RFC is not
petitioner Alexander Vinoya to his former position and pay him backwages affected. As we have previously held in our 2 February 2000 Decision, RFC is
and other benefits. the rightful employer of petitioner under the four-fold test of employer-
employee relations.5 Moreover, PMCI, based on the standards set by the
In its first motion for partial reconsideration, 1 filed on 8 March 2000, RFC Labor Code, is merely a labor-only contractor and, as such, cannot be
alleges that it respects and abides by the finding of the Supreme Court that it properly considered as the employer of petitioner. On this score, we deny the
is the employer of petitioner. However, RFC points out that in view of the first motion for partial reconsideration of RFC.
existing employment contract between petitioner and Peninsula Manpower
Company, Inc. (PMCI) and the service contract between RFC and PMCI, both However, we find merit in the supplemental motion for reconsideration filed by
of which have not been declared as void by the Court, RFC claims that RFC.1âwphi1 Previously, we have held that an illegally dismissed employee
petitioner still appears to be the employee of PMCI, since petitioner was is entitled to: (1) either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if
merely assigned to it by PMCI by virtue of its own declaration in the aforesaid reinstatement is no longer viable, and (2) backwages. Private respondent
contracts. Along this line, RFC argues that since PMCI held itself out to the claims that reinstatement is no longer feasible due to the parties’ strained
public as a qualified and legitimate independent contractor which convinced relations. As a general rule, strained relations is an issue factual in nature that
RFC to enter into a contract of service with PMCI, when it truth and as held by should be raised and proved before the Labor Arbiter. 6 However, the case
the Court, it was not so, PMCI should be made to reimburse RFC of the before us presents peculiar circumstances as the strained relations arose
amount it will pay to petitioner as the adjudged employer of the latter. after the filing of the case. As pointed out by the private respondent, the
antagonistic feelings of the parties towards each other stemmed from the
Subsequently, on 24 March 2000, a supplemental motion for filing by the petitioner of the complaint before the labor arbiter and deepened
reconsideration2 was filed by RFC. In this motion, RFC pleads that in the during the eight-year pendency of the case. This fact, petitioner has failed to
event that the Court sustains its original decision and denies its first partial deny in his comment to the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner merely
opposes private respondent’s motion for reconsideration on the ground that
the same does not raise any new issues not resolved in the decision.
However, the issue of strained relations was never squarely dealt with in the
decision being reconsidered. The Court finds that it would be impractical and
not in the best interest of the parties if we insist that petitioner be reinstated to
his former position. Considering further that petitioner’s former position as
sales representatives involves the handling of accounts and other property of
RFC, it would not be equitable on the part of RFC to be forced to maintain
petitioner in its employ since it may only inspire vindictiveness on the part of
petitioner. Accordingly in lieu of reinstatement, payment of separation pay
equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service may be awarded. 7
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration is hereby
PARTIALLY GRANTED. The dispositive portion of the 2 February 2000
decision is hereby MODIFIED in that private respondent is ordered to pay
petitioner separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of
service in lieu of reinstatement, plus full backwages, without deduction or
qualification, counted from the date of dismissal until the finality of this
resolution including other benefits to which he is entitled under the law.
SO ORDERED.
