Apex Mining Company, Inc., Petitioner, v. NLRC NLRC and Sinclitica Candido 1 22 April 1991 !ancayco "ige#t prepared $y %et&ro 'oon
I. Facts 1. Candido (a# employed $y Apex on May 1), 19*+ to perorm la-ndry #ervice# at it# #ta &o-#e located at Ma#ara, Maco, "avao del Norte. ◦
In t&e $eginning, #&e (a# paid on a piece rate $a#i#. /o(ever, on %an-ary 1*, 19)2, #&e (a# paid on a mont&ly $a#i# at P20. a mont& (&ic& (a# -ltimately increa#ed to P0*0. a mont&
2. n "ecem$er 1), 19)*, (&ile #&e (a# attending to &er a##igned ta#3 and #&e (a# &anging &er la-ndry, #&e accidentally #lipped and &it &er $ac3 on
a #tone. S&e reported t&e accident to &er immediate #-pervi#or "e la Ro#a and to t&e per#onnel o4cer, A#irit. +. A# a re#-lt o t&e accident #&e (a# not a$le to contin-e (it& &er (or3. S&e (a# permitted to go on leave or medication. "e la Ro#a oered &er t&e
amo-nt o P2, amo-nt P2, . . (&i (&ic& c& (a# eventevent-ally ally inc increa rea#ed #ed to P0, P0, . . to per#-ade &er to 5-it &er 6o$, $-t #&e re-#ed t&e oer and preerred to ret-rn to (or3. 7. Apex did not allo( &er to ret-rn to (or3 and di#mi##ed &er on 8e$r-ary 7, 19)). 0. n Marc& 11, 19)), Candido led a re5-e#t or a##i#tance (it& t&e "L:. ;&e LA ordered Apex to pay a total o P00,1<1.72=
1.
Salary "ierential
1 P1<,2)9. . > 2
2.
:mer :m erge genc ncy y Li Livi ving ng Al Allo lo(a (anc nce e
2. 12,7+. >
+.
1+t& Mont& Pay "ierential
+. 1,+22.+2 >
7.
Separation Pay ?n ne e@m @mon ontt& o orr ev ever ery y ye year ar o #ervice ?19*+@19))
7. 20,119.9 >
<. Not #ati#ed #ati#ed t&ere(it t&ere(it&, &, AP:B appealed appealed to t&e NLR NLRC, (&ic& di#mi##e di#mi##ed d t&e appeal or lac3 o merit and a4rming t&e appealed appealed deci#ion. A motion or recon#ider reco n#ideration ation t&ereo (a# denied denied.. /ence, t&e &ere &erein in petiti petition on or revi revie( e( $y ce cert rtior iorar arii ?(& ?(&ic& ic& app appro ropria priatel tely y #&o #&o-ld -ld $e a #pe #pecia ciall civ civil il act action ion or certiorari,, and (&ic& in t&e intere#t o 6-#tice, i# &ere$y treated a# #-c&. certiorari 1
-llet point# in a lig&ter ont are incl-ded D6-#t in ca#eE. 1F+
II. Issues G&et&er t&e &o-#e&elper in t&e #ta &o-#e# o an ind-#trial company i# a dome#tic &elper or a reg-lar employee o t&e #aid rm.2 Regular employee
III. Holding ;&e petition i# "ISMISS:" and t&e appealed deci#ion and re#ol-tion NLRC are &ere$y A88IRM:". No prono-ncement a# to co#t#.
IV. Ratio 1. Hnder R-le BIII, Section 1?$, oo3 + o t&e La$or Code, a# amended, t&e term# &o-#e&elper or dome#tic #ervant are dened a# ollo(#= ▪
;&e term J&o-#e&elperJ a# -#ed &erein i# #ynonymo-# to t&e term Kdome#tic #ervantJ and #&all reer to any per#on, (&et&er male or emale, (&o render# #ervice# in and a$o-t t&e employerJ# &ome and (&ic& #ervice# are -#-ally nece##ary or de#ira$le or t&e maintenance and en6oyment t&ereo, and mini#ter# excl-#ively to t&e per#onal comort and en6oyment o t&e employerJ# amily.
2. ;&e oregoing denition clearly contemplate# #-c& &o-#e&elper or dome#tic #ervant (&o i# employed in t&e employerJ# &ome to mini#ter excl-#ively to t&e per#onal comort and en6oyment o t&e employerJ# amily. +. ;&e denition cannot $e interpreted to incl-de &o-#e&elp or la-ndry(omen (or3ing in #ta&o-#e# o a company, li3e Candido (&o attend# to t&e need# o t&e companyJ# g-e#t# and ot&er per#on# availing o #aid acilitie#. y t&e #ame to3en, it cannot $e con#idered to extend to t&e driver, &o-#e$oy, or gardener excl-#ively (or3ing in t&e company, t&e #ta&o-#e# and it# premi#e#. 7. ;&e criteria i# t&e per#onal comort and en6oyment o t&e amily o t&e employer in t&e home of said employer . G&ile it may $e tr-e t&at t&e nat-re o t&e (or3 may $e #imilar in nat-re, t&e dierence in t&eir circ-m#tance# i# t&at in t&e ormer in#tance t&ey are act-ally #erving t&e amily (&ile in t&e latter ca#e, (&et&er it i# a corporation or a #ingle proprietor#&ip engaged in $-#ine## or ind-#try or any ot&er agric-lt-ral or #imilar p-r#-it, #ervice i# $eing rendered in t&e #ta&o-#e# or (it&in t&e premi#e# o t&e $-#ine## o t&e employer. In #-c& in#tance, t&ey are employee# o t&e company or employer in t&e $-#ine## concerned entitled to t&e privilege# o a reg-lar employee. 0. Apex contends that it is only when the househelper or domestic servant is assigned to certain aspects of the business of the employer that such 2
Apex (the employer) wants Candido to e declared a domestic ser!ant. 2F+
househelper or domestic servant may be considered as such an employee. ◦
;&e Co-rt di#agreed. ;&e mere act t&at t&e &o-#e&elper or dome#tic #ervant i# (or3ing (it&in t&e premi#e# o t&e $-#ine## o t&e employer and in relation to or in connection (it& it# $-#ine##, a# in it# #ta&o-#e# or it# g-e#t# or even or it# o4cer# and employee#, (arrant# t&e concl-#ion t&at #-c& &o-#e&elper or dome#tic #ervant i# and #&o-ld $e con#idered a# a reg-lar employee and not a# a mere amily &o-#e&elper or dome#tic #ervant.
<. Apex denies having illegally dismissed Candido and maintains that she abandoned her work. ◦
◦
;&i# arg-ment not(it&#tanding, t&ere i# eno-g& evidence to #&o( t&at $eca-#e o an accident (&ic& too3 place (&ile Candido (a# perorming &er la-ndry #ervice#, #&e (a# not a$le to (or3 and (a# -ltimately #eparated rom t&e #ervice. S&e i#, t&ereore, entitled to appropriate relie a# a reg-lar employee o petitioner. Ina#m-c& a# private re#pondent appear# not to $e intere#ted in ret-rning to &er (or3 or valid rea#on#, t&e payment o #eparation pay to &er i# in order.
+F+
