J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2017-0002: NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. BENNY A. PUEDAN, JR., ET AL. (G.R. NO. G.R. No. 220617, 30 JAN 2017, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) SUBJECT/S: (LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING; CASE WHEN ALLEGED PRINCIPAL/CONTRACTOR  IS NOT LIABLE)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 26, 2015 and the Resolution dated September 17, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 132686 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Decision dated May 30, 2013 and the Resolution dated August 30, 2013 of the National Labor Relations Commission in LAC No. 02-000699-13/ NCR-03-04761-12 are MODIFIED, DELETING petitioner Nestle Philippines, Inc.’s solidary liability with Ocho de Septiembre, Inc. (ODSI) for the latter’s monetary obligations to respondents Benny A. Puedan, Jr., Jayfer D. Limbo, Brodney N. Avila, Arthur C. Aquino, Ryan A. Miranda, Ronald R. Alave, Johnny A. Dimaya, Marlon B. Delos Reyes, Angelito R. Cordova, Edgar S. Barruga, Camilo B. Cordova, Jr., Jeffry B. Languisan, Edison U. Villapando, Jheimey S. Remolin, Mary Luz A. Macatalad, Jenalyn M. Gamurot, Dennis G. Bawag, Raquel A. Abellera, and Ricandro G. Guatno, Jr..

SO ORDERED.”

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“However, a closer examination of the Distributorship Agreement reveals that the relationship of NPI and ODSI is not that of a principal and a contractor (regardless of whether labor-only or independent), but that of a seller and a buyer/re-seller. As stipulated in the Distributorship Agreement, NPI agreed to sell its products to ODSI at discounted prices,52 which in tum will be re-sold to identified customers, ensuring in the process the integrity and quality of the said products based on the standards agreed upon by the parties. 53 As aptly explained by NPI, the goods it manufactures are distributed to the market through various distributors, e.g., ODSI, that in tum, re-sell the same to designated outlets through its own employees such as the respondents. Therefore, the reselling activities allegedly performed by the respondents properly pertain to ODSI, whose principal business consists of the “buying, selling, distributing, and marketing goods and commodities of every kind” and “[entering] into all kinds of contracts for the acquisition of such goods [and commodities].”54

Thus, contrary to the CA’s findings, the aforementioned stipulations in the Distributorship Agreement hardly demonstrate control on the part of NPI over the means and methods by which ODSI performs its business, nor were they intended to dictate how ODSI shall conduct its business as a distributor. Otherwise stated, the stipulations in the Distributorship Agreement do not operate to control or fix the methodology on how ODSI should do its business as a distributor of NPI products, but merely provide rules of conduct or guidelines towards the achievement of a mutually desired result55 -which in this case is the sale ofNPI products to the end consumer. In Steelcase, Inc. v. Design International Selections, Inc., 56 the Court held that the imposition of minimum standards concerning sales, marketing, finance and operations are nothing more than an exercise of sound business practice to increase sales and maximize profits, to wit:

‘Finally, both the CA and DISI rely heavily on the Dealer Performance Expectation required by Steelcase of its distributors to prove that DISI was not functioning independently from Steelcase because the same imposed certain conditions pertaining to business planning, organizational structure, operational effectiveness and efficiency, and financial stability. It is actually logical to expect that Steelcase, being one of the major manufacturers of office systems furniture, would require its dealers to meet several conditions for the grant and continuation of a distributorship agreement. The imposition of minimum standards concerning sales, marketing, finance and operations is nothing more than an exercise of sound business practice to increase sales and maximize profits for the benefit of both Steelcase and its distributors. For as long as these requirements do not impinge on a distributor’s independence, then there is nothing wrong with placing reasonable expectations on them. 57 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)’

Verily, it was only reasonable for NPI -it being a local arm of one of the largest manufacturers of foods and grocery products worldwide -to require its distributors, such as ODSI, to meet various conditions for the grant and continuation of a distributorship agreement for as long as these conditions do not control the means and methods on how ODSI does its distributorship business, as shown in this case. This is to ensure the integrity and quality of the products which will ultimately fall into the hands of the end consumer.

Thus, the foregoing circumstances show that ODSI was not a laboronly contractor of NPI; hence, the latter cannot be deemed the true employer of respondents. As a consequence, NPI cannot be held jointly and severally liable to ODSI’ s monetary obligations towards respondents.”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 scd-2016-0097-nestle-philippines-inc-vs-benny-a-puedan-jr-et-al

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0096: HON. PHILIP A. AGUINALDO, ET AL. VS. HIS EXCELLENCY PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, ET AL. (G.R. NO. 224302, 29 NOV 2016, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.) (TOPIC/S: SUPERVISION OF SC OVER JBC; SELECTION OF JUDGES BY JBC)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court DISMISSES the instant Petition for Quo Warranto and Certiorari and Prohibition for lack of merit. The Court DECLARES the clustering of nominees by the Judicial and Bar Council UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and the appointments of respondents Associate Justices Michael Frederick L. Musngi and Geraldine Faith A. Econg, together with the four other newly-appointed Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan, as VALID. The Court further DENIES the Motion for Intervention of the Judicial and Bar Council in the present Petition, but ORDERS the Clerk of Court En Banc to docket as a separate administrative matter the new rules and practices of the Judicial and Bar Council which the Court took cognizance of in the preceding discussion as Item No. 2: the deletion or non-inclusion in JBC No. 2016-1, or the Revised Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council, of Rule 8, Section 1 of JBC-009; and Item No. 3: the removal of incumbent Senior Associate Justices of the Supreme Court as consultants of the Judicial and Bar Council, referred to in pages 35 to 40 of this Decision. The Court finally DIRECTS the Judicial and Bar Council to file its comment on said Item Nos. 2 and 3 within thirty (30) days from notice.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“Without notice, warning, or explanation to the Supreme Court En Banc, Chief Justice Sereno recently unceremoniously relieved Supreme Court Associate Justices Presbiterio J. Velasco, Jr. and Teresita J. LeonardoDe Castro as JBC consultants, and in their stead, the Chief Justice appointed retired Chief Justices Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Artemio V. Panganiban, and Reynato S. Puno as JBC consultants. The experience and wisdom of the three retired Chief Justices are undisputed. However, practicality and prudence also dictate that incumbent Associate Justices of the Court should be retained as JBC consultants since their interest in the Judiciary is real, actual, and direct. Incumbent Associate Justices of the Court are aware of the present state, needs, and concerns of the Judiciary, and consultants from the Court, even if they have no right to vote, have served, from the organization of the JBC, as the only link to the supervisory authority of the Court over the JBC under the 1987 Constitution. Moreover, Hon. Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez already sits as a regular member of the JBC representing the Retired Supreme Court Justices, pursuant to Article VIII, Section 8(1) of the 1987 Constitution, which expressly describes the composition of the JBC, as follows:

Sec. 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector. (Emphasis supplied.)

These changes in settled rules and practices recently adopted by the JBC under Chief Justice Sereno are disconcerting. There appears to be a systematic move by the JBC, under Chief Justice Sereno to arrogate to itself more power and influence than it is actually granted by the Constitution and this Court, and at the same time, to ease out the Court from any legitimate participation in the nomination process for vacancies in the Judiciary, specifically, in the Supreme Court. This behooves the Court, through the exercise of its power of supervision over the JBC, to take a closer look into the new rules and practices of the JBC and ensure that these are in accord with the 1987 Constitution, the pertinent laws, and the governmental policies of transparency and accountability in the nomination process for vacancies in the Judiciary.”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

scd-2016-0096-hon-philip-a-aguinaldo-et-al-vs-his-excellency-president-benigno-simeon-c-aquino-iii-et-al

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2017-0002: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. EXECUTIVE JUDGE ILLUMINADA P. CABATO ET AL (A.M. No. RTJ-14-2401, 25 JAN 2017, VELASCO, JR., J. (BRIEF TITLE: OCA VS JUDGE CABATO ET AL.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court rules as follows:

1. Dominador B. Remiendo, Clerk III, Branch 7, Regional Trial Court, Baguio City, is hereby found LIABLE for Falsification of Official Document and Serious Dishonesty, and is hereby meted the penalty of SUSPENSION for a period of six (6) months without pay and other benefits during the said period, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely;

2. Manolo V. Mariano III, Utility Worker, Branch 6, Regional Trial Court, Baguio City, is found LIABLE for Falsification of Official Document and Serious Dishonesty and is hereby meted the penalty of SUSPENSION for a period of three (3) months without pay and other benefits during the said period, with a stem warning that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely;

3. Jerico G. Gay-ya, Clerk of Court, Branch 61, Regional Trial Court, Baguio City, is found LIABLE for Falsification of Official Document and Simple Negligence and is hereby meted the penalty of FINE in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely;

4. The following employees are found LIABLE for Falsification of Official Document and are hereby meted the penalty of FINE in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) each, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely:

          a.  Eduardo B. Rodrigo (Process Server, Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City)

          b.   Elizabeth M. Lockey (Court Stenographer III, Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City)

          c.   Analiza G. Madronio (Court Stenographer III, Branch 59, Baguio City)

          d.   Evangeline N. Gonzales (Clerk III, Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City)

          e.   Marilou M. Tadao (Court Stenographer, Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City)

          f.   Agnes P. Maca-ey (Court Stenographer, Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City)

          g.   Marani S. Bacolod (Sheriff IV, Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City)

          h.   Edgardo R. Orate (Clerk III, Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City)

          i.   Victoria J. Derasmo (Court Stenographer III, Branch 6, R TC, Baguio City)

           j.   Rowena C. Pasag (Clerk III, Branch 6, RTC, Baguio City)

          k.   George Henry A. Manipon (Court Interpreter III, Branch 7, R TC, Baguio City)

          l.   Perla B. Dela Cruz (Court Stenographer II, Branch 2, MTCC, Baguio City)

          m.   Dolores M. Eserio (Court Stenographer III, Branch 7, RTC, Baguio City)

          n.   Dolores G. Romero (Clerk III, Branch 7, RTC, Baguio City)

          o.   Reynaldo R. Ramos (Clerk III, Branch 4, RTC, Baguio City)

          p.   Lourdes G. Caoili (Clerk of Court III, Branch 1, MTCC, Baguio City)

          q.   Lourdes F. Wangwang (Clerk IV, Branch 2, MTCC, Baguio City);

5. Ruth B. Bawayan, Clerk of Court, Branch 4, Regional Trial Court, Baguio City, is found LIABLE for Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations and Simple Negligence and is hereby meted the penalty of REPRIMAND, with a stem warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely;

6. The following employees are found LIABLE for Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations and are hereby meted the penalty of REPRIMAND, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely:

          a.   Jonathan R. Geronimo (Utility Worker, Branch 5, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Leo P. Valdez (Utility Worker, Branch 60, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Concepcion Soliven Vda. Pulmano (Clerk III, Branch 61, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Samuel P. Vidad (Clerk III, Branch 60, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Carolyn B. Dumag (Court Stenographer II, Branch 2, MTCC, Baguio City)

1. Grace F. Desierto (Court Stenographer II, Branch 2, MTCC, Baguio City)

1. Francisco D. Siapno (Utility Worker I, OCC, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Gilbert L. Evangelista (Utility Worker, Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Ruben L. Atijera (Sheriff IV, OCC, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Romeo R. Florendo (Sheriff IV, OCC, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Mary Rose Virginia 0. Matic (Court Stenographer, Branch 2, MTCC, Baguio City)

1. Antino M. Wakit (Utility Worker II, Branch I, MTCC, Baguio City)

1. Anita A. Mendoza (Court Stenographer III, Branch 7, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Edna P. Castillo (Court Stenographer III, Branch 7, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Romeo E. Barbachano (Process Server, Branch 7, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Leonila P. Fernandez (Court Stenographer III, Branch 4, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Maria Esperanza N. Jacob (Process Server I, Branch 4, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Melita C. Salinas (Court Interpreter III, Branch 4, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Wilma M. Tamang (Clerk III, Branch 4, RTC, Baguio City);

7. The following court officials are found LIABLE for Simple Negligence and are hereby ADMONISHED, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely:

1. Judge Roberto R. Mabalot (Branch I, MTCC, Baguio City)

1. Judge Jennifer P. Humiding (Branch 2, MTCC, Baguio City)

1. Judge Mia Joy C. Oallares-Cawed (Branch 4, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Judge Mona Lisa Tiongson-Tabora (Branch 7, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Judge Antonio C. Reyes (Branch 61, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Remedios Balderas-Reyes (Clerk of Court, OCC, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Alejandro Epifanio D. Guerrero (Clerk of Court, Branch 5, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Mylene May Adube-Cabuag (Clerk of Court, Branch 6, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Jessica D. Guansing ([Acting] Clerk of Court, Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Roger L. Nafianog (Clerk of Court, Branch 60, RTC, Baguio City);

8. The charges against the following respondents are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit:

1. Ofelia T. Mondiguing (Clerk of Court III, OCC, MTCC, Baguio City)/

1. Vilma P. Camit-Wayang (Clerk III, OCC, MTCC, Baguio City)

1. Merlin Anita N. Calica (Cash Clerk III, OCC, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Edwin V. Fangonil (Process Server, OCC, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Namnama L. Lopez (Librarian II, OCC, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Restituto A. Corpuz (Court Stenographer III, Branch 3, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Marlene A. Domaoang (Court Stenographer III, Branch 3, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Florence F. Salango (Legal Researcher, Branch 3, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Elizabeth G. Aucena (Legal Researcher II, Branch 4, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Joy P. Chilem-Aguilba (Court Stenographer III, Branch 4, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Precy T. Goze (Court Stenographer, Branch 5, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Virginia M. Ramirez (Court Stenographer, Branch 5, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Eleonor V. Ni~alga (Court Stenographer III, Branch 60, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Angelina M. Santiago (Clerk III, Branch 60, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Eleonor I. Bucaycay (Court Interpreter, Branch 61, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Sonny S. Caragay (Process Server I, OCC, MTCC, Baguio City)

1. Jose E. Orpilla (Sheriff III, OCC, MTCC, Baguio City)

1. Roberto G. Corona, Jr. (Process Server, Branch 6, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Bobby D. Galano (Sheriff IV, Branch 6, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Albert G. Tolentino (Sheriff IV, Branch 61, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Rolando G. Montes (Clerk II, OCC, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Jeffrey G. Mendoza (Clerk III, OCC, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Venus D. Saguid (Court Stenographer III, OCC, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Armando G. Y dia (Clerk of Court, OCC, MTCC, Baguio City)

1. Gail M. Bacbac-Del Isen (Clerk of Court, Branch 3, R TC, Baguio City\ and

9. Finally, the charges against Judge Antonio M. Esteves, Branch 5, RTC, Baguio City; Judge Illuminada P. Cabato, Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City; Joan G. Castillo, former Legal Researcher, Branch 61, RTC, Baguio City; and Ruth C. Lagan, former Court Stenographer III, Branch 60, RTC, Baguio City, are hereby DISMISSED for being moot and academic.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“On a final note, court personnel are reminded of their sworn duty to always act with honesty, as eloquently put by this Court in the case of Gubatanga v. Bodoy:

‘This Court will not tolerate dishonesty. Persons involved in the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the lowest employee, must live up to the strictest standards of integrity, probity, uprightness and diligence in the public service. As the assumption of public office is impressed with paramount public interest, which requires the highest standards of ethical standards, persons aspiring for public office must observe honesty, candor and faithful compliance with the law. It has been consistently stressed that even minor employees mirror the image of the courts they serve; thus, they are required to preserve the judiciary’s good name and standing as a true temple of justice.’”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

scd-2016-0095-office-of-the-court-administrator-vs-judge-iluminada-cabato-et-al

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.