GR 180045; (November, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 180045 ; November 17, 2010
Government Service Insurance System, Petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Dionisio Banlasan, Alfredo T. Tafalla, Telesforo D. Rubia, Rogelio A. Alvarez, Dominador A. Escobal, and Rosauro Panis, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents were security guards employed by DNL Security Agency, assigned to petitioner GSIS under a service contract. In February 1993, DNL Security terminated its contract with GSIS but instructed the guards to continue reporting for work until April 20, 1993, during which period they received no wages. Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter found no illegal dismissal but ordered DNL Security to pay separation pay and unpaid wages. The LA also ordered GSIS to be solidarily liable with DNL Security for salary differentials and 13th month pay.
GSIS appealed to the NLRC, which dismissed the appeal for being filed one day late. The NLRC ruled that the date stamped on the envelope by the post office, October 28, 1997, controlled over GSIS’s registry receipt showing October 27, 1997. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s dismissal. GSIS filed this petition, arguing its appeal was timely and that it should not be solidarily liable for the monetary awards.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing GSIS’s appeal as filed out of time; and (2) whether GSIS can be held solidarily liable for the respondents’ monetary claims.
RULING
The Supreme Court partly granted the petition. On the procedural issue, the Court upheld the NLRC and CA. The date of mailing is deemed the date of filing, but this is subject to proof. The registry receipt presented by GSIS was insufficient to overturn the post office’s stamped date on the envelope, which constituted the best evidence of the mailing date. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in strictly applying the procedural rule on timeliness.
On the substantive issue, the Court modified the CA decision regarding GSIS’s liability. Applying the rule on solidary liability of the indirect employer under Article 106 of the Labor Code, GSIS, as the principal, was correctly held solidarily liable with DNL Security for the wage differentials, 13th month pay, and unpaid wages covering the period respondents continued to work after the contract termination. This liability arises from the fact that respondents rendered service for GSIS’s benefit. However, the Court exonerated GSIS from solidary liability for separation pay. Separation pay is awarded due to the employer’s act of dismissal, and since the employment relationship was solely between respondents and DNL Security, only the direct employer (DNL Security) should be liable for this particular award. The Court also rejected GSIS’s claim of immunity from execution, stating that when it enters into contracts, it sheds its governmental character and can be sued.