Manila Golf and Country Club

8/20/2019 Manila Golf and Country Club

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/manila-golf-and-country-club 1/5

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 64948 September 27, 1994

MANILA GOL ! COUNTR" CLU#, INC., petitioner,

vs.

INTERME$IATE APPELLATE COURT %&' ERMIN LLAMAR, respondents.

Bito, Misa & Lozada for petitioner.

Remberto Z. Evio for private respondent.

NAR(ASA, C.J.:

he !uestion before the Court here is "hether or not persons renderin# cadd$in#

services for %e%bers of #olf clubs and their #uests in said clubs& courses or pre%ises

are the e%plo$ees of such clubs and therefore "ithin the co%pulsor$ covera#e of the

Social Securit$ S$ste% 'SSS(.

hat !uestion appears to have been involved, either directl$ or peripherall$, in three

separate proceedin#s, all initiated b$ or on behalf of herein private respondent and his

fello" caddies. hat "hich #ave rise to the present petition for revie" "as ori#inall$ filed

"ith the Social Securit$ Co%%ission 'SSC( via petition of seventeen ')*( persons "ho

st$led the%selves +Caddies of Manila olf and Countr$ Club-PCCE+ for covera#e

and avail%ent of benefits under the Social Securit$ ct as a%ended, +PCCE+ bein#

the acron$% of a labor or#ani/ation, the +Philippine echnical, Clerical, Co%%ercial

E%plo$ees ssociation,+ "ith "hich the petitioners clai%ed to be affiliated. he petition,

doc0eted as SSC Case No. 1223, alle#ed in essence that althou#h the petitioners "ere

e%plo$ees of the Manila olf and Countr$ Club, a do%estic corporation, the latter had

not re#istered the% as such "ith the SSS.

t about the sa%e ti%e, t"o other proceedin#s bearin# on the sa%e !uestion "ere filed

or "ere pendin#4 these "ere5

')( a certification election case filed "ith the 6abor Relations Division

of the Ministr$ of 6abor b$ the PCCE on behalf of the sa%e

caddies of the Manila olf and Countr$ Club, the case bein# titled

+Philippine echnical, Clerical, Co%%ercial ssociation vs. Manila

olf and Countr$ Club+ and doc0eted as Case No. R2-6RD7-M-)8-

182-*94 it appears to have been resolved in favor of the petitioners

therein b$ Med-rbiter Orlando S. Ro:o "ho "as thereafter upheld b$

Director Car%elo S. Noriel, den$in# the Club&s %otion for

reconsideration4 1

';( a co%pulsor$ arbitration case initiated before the rbitration<ranch of the Ministr$ of 6abor b$ the sa%e labor or#ani/ation, titled

+Philippine echnical, Clerical, Co%%ercial E%plo$ees ssociation

'PCCE(, =er%in 6a%ar and Ra$%undo >o%o0 vs. Manila olf and

Countr$ Club, Inc., Mi#uel Celdran, ?enr$ 6i% and eroni%o le:o4+ it

"as dis%issed for lac0 of %erit b$ 6abor rbiter Cornelio .

6insan#an, a decision later affir%ed on appeal b$ the National 6abor

Relations Co%%ission on the #round that there "as no e%plo$er-

e%plo$ee relationship bet"een the petitionin# caddies and the

respondent Club. 2

In the case before the SSC, the respondent Club filed ans"er pra$in# for the dis%issal

of the petition, alle#in# in substance that the petitioners, caddies b$ occupation, "ereallo"ed into the Club pre%ises to render services as such to the individual %e%bers

and #uests pla$in# the Club&s #olf course and "ho the%selves paid for such services4

that as such caddies, the petitioners "ere not sub:ect to the direction and control of the

Club as re#ards the %anner in "hich the$ perfor%ed their "or04 and hence, the$ "ere

not the Club&s e%plo$ees.

Subse!uentl$, all but t"o of the seventeen petitioners of their o"n accord "ithdre" their

clai% for social securit$ covera#e, avo"edl$ co%in# to reali/e that indeed there "as no

e%plo$%ent relationship bet"een the% and the Club. he case continued, and "as

1



eventuall$ ad:udicated b$ the SSC after protracted proceedin#s onl$ as re#ards the t"o

holdouts, =er%in 6la%ar and Ra$%undo >o%o0. he Co%%ission dis%issed the

petition for lac0 of %erit, ) rulin#5

. . . that the cadd$&s fees "ere paid b$ the #olf pla$ers the%selves

and not b$ respondent club. =or instance, petitioner Ra$%undo>o%o0 averred that for their services as caddies a cadd$&s Clai% Stub

'E@h. +)-+( is issued b$ a pla$er "ho "ill in turn hand over to

%ana#e%ent the other portion of the stub 0no"n as Cadd$ ic0et

'E@h. +)+( so that b$ this arran#e%ent %ana#e%ent "ill 0no" ho"

%uch a cadd$ "ill be paid 'SN, p. 98, >ul$ ;3, )A98(. 6i0e"ise,

petitioner =er%in 6la%ar ad%itted that cadd$ "or0s on his o"n in

accordance "ith the rules and re#ulations 'SN, p. ;2, =ebruar$ ;B,

)A98( but petitioner >o%o0 could not state an$ polic$ of respondent

that directs the %anner of cadd$in# 'SN, pp. *B-**, >ul$ ;3, )A98(.

hile respondent club pro%ul#ates rules and re#ulations on the

assi#n%ent, deport%ent and conduct of caddies 'E@h. +C+( the sa%e

are desi#ned to i%pose personal discipline a%on# the caddies but not

to direct or conduct their actual "or0. In fact, a #olf pla$er is at libert$

to choose a cadd$ of his preference re#ardless of the respondent

club&s #roup rotation s$ste% and has the discretion on "hether or not

to pa$ a cadd$. s testified to b$ petitioner 6la%ar that their inco%e

depends on the nu%ber of pla$ers en#a#in# their services and

liberalit$ of the latter 'SN, pp. )8-)), =eb. ;B, )A98(. his lends

credence to respondent&s assertion that the caddies are never their

e%plo$ees in the absence of t"o ele%ents, na%el$, ')( pa$%ent of

"a#es and ';( control or supervision over the%. In this connection,

our Supre%e Court ruled that in the deter%ination of the e@istence of

an e%plo$er-e%plo$ee relationship, the +control test+ shall beconsidered decisive 'Philippine Manufacturin# Co. vs. eroni%o and

arcia, AB Phil. ;*B4 Mansal vs. P.P. Coheco 6u%ber Co., AB Phil.

A2)4 Viana vs.

l-la#adan, et al., AA Phil. 2894 Vda, de n#, et al. vs. he Manila

?otel Co., )8) Phil. 319, 6VN Pictures Inc. vs. Phil. Musicians uild,

et al.,

6-);19;, >anuar$ ;9, )AB), ) SCR )3;. . . . 'reference bein# %ade

also to Invest%ent Plannin# Corporation Phil. vs. SSS ;) SCR A;1(.

Records sho" the respondent club had reported for SS covera#e

raciano "it and Daniel ui:ano, as bat unloader and helper,

respectivel$, includin# their #round %en, house and ad%inistrative

personnel, a situation indicative of the latter&s concern "ith the ri#hts

and "elfare of its e%plo$ees under the SS la", as a%ended. he

unrebutted testi%on$ of Col. eneroso . le:o 'Ret.( that the IDcards issued to the caddies %erel$ intended to identif$ the holders as

accredited caddies of the club and privile#e'd( to pl$ their trade or

occupation "ithin its pre%ises "hich could be "ithdra"n an$ti%e for

loss of confidence. his #ives us a reasonable #round to state that

the defense posture of respondent that petitioners "ere never its

e%plo$ees is "ell ta0en. 4

=ro% this Resolution appeal "as ta0en to the Inter%ediate appellate Court b$ the union

representin# 6la%ar and >o%o0. fter the appeal "as doc0eted * and so%e %onths

before decision thereon "as reached and pro%ul#ated, Ra$%undo >o%o0&s appeal "as

dis%issed at his instance, leavin# =er%in 6la%ar the lone appellant. 6

he appeal ascribed t"o errors to the SSC5

')( refusin# to suspend the proceedin#s to a"ait :ud#%ent b$ the

6abor Relations Division of National Capital Re#ional Office in the

certification election case 'R-2-6RD-M-)8-182-*9( supra, on the

precise issue of the e@istence of e%plo$er-e%plo$ee relationship

bet"een the respondent club and the appellants, it bein# contended

that said issue "as +a function of the proper labor office+4 and

';( ad:udicatin# that self sa%e issue a %anner contrar$ to the rulin# of

the Director of the <ureau of 6abor Relations, "hich +has not onl$beco%e final but 'has been( e@ecuted or 'beco%e( res adjudicata.+ 7

he Inter%ediate ppellate Court #ave short shirt to the first assi#ned error, dis%issin#

it as of the least i%portance. Nor, it "ould appear, did it find an$ #reater %erit in the

second alle#ed error. lthou#h said Court reserved the appealed SSC decision and

declared =er%in 6la%ar an e%plo$ee of the Manila old and Countr$ Club, orderin#

that he be reported as such for social securit$ covera#e and paid an$ correspondin#

benefits, 8 it conspicuousl$ i#nored the issue of res adjudicata raised in said second

assi#n%ent. Instead, it dre" basis for the reversal fro% this Court&s rulin# in Investment

2



Plannin !orporation of t"e P"ilippines vs. #ocial #ecurit$ #$stem, supra 9 and

declared that upon the evidence, the !uestioned e%plo$er-e%plo$ee relationship

bet"een the Club and =er%in 6la%ar passed the so-called +control test,+ establish%ent

in the case i .e., +"hether the e%plo$er controls or has reserved the r i#ht to control

the e%plo$ee not onl$ as to the result of the "or0 to be done but also as to the %eans

and %ethods b$ "hich the sa%e is to be acco%plished,+ the Club&s control over thecaddies enco%passin#5

'a( the pro%ul#ation of no less than t"ent$-four ';2( rules and

re#ulations :ust about ever$ aspect of the conduct that the cadd$

%ust observe, or avoid, "hen servin# as such, an$ violation of an$

"hich could sub:ect hi% to disciplinar$ action, "hich %a$ include

suspendin# or cuttin# off his access to the club pre%ises4

'b( the devisin# and enforce%ent of a #roup rotation s$ste% "hereb$

a cadd$ is assi#ned a nu%ber "hich desi#nates his turn to serve a

pla$er4

'c( the club&s +su##estin#+ the rate of fees pa$able to the caddies.

Dee%ed of title or no %o%ent b$ the ppellate Court "as the fact that the caddies "ere

paid b$ the pla$ers, not b$ the Club, that the$ observed no definite "or0in# hours and

earned no fi@ed inco%e. It !uoted "ith approval fro% an %erican decision 1+ to the

effect that5 +"hether the club paid the caddies and after"ard collected in the f irst

instance, the caddies "ere still e%plo$ees of the club.+ his, no %atter that the case

"hich produced this rulin# had a sli#htl$ different factual cast, apparentl$ havin#

involved a clai% for "or0%en&s co%pensation %ade b$ a cadd$ "ho, about to leave the

pre%ises of the club "here he "or0ed, "as hit and in:ured b$ an auto%obile then

ne#otiatin# the club&s private drive"a$.

hat sa%e issue of res adjudicata, i#nored b$ the IC be$ond bare %ention thereof, as

alread$ pointed out, is no" a%on# the %ain"a$s of the private respondent&s defenses

to the petition for revie". Considered in the perspective of the incidents :ust recounted, it

illustrates as "ell as an$thin# can, "h$ the practice of foru%-shoppin# :ustl$ %erits

censure and punitive sanction. <ecause the sa%e !uestion of e%plo$er-e%plo$ee

relationship has been dra##ed into three different fora, "ill$-nill$ and in !uic0

succession, it has birthed controvers$ as to "hich of the resultin# ad:udications %ust

no" be reco#ni/ed as decisive. On the one hand, there is the certification case FR2-

6RD7-M-)8-182-*9(, "here the decision of the Med-rbiter found for the e@istence of

e%plo$er-e%plo$ee relationship bet"een the parties, "as affir%ed b$ Director Car%elo

S. Noriel, "ho ordered a certification election held, a disposition never thereafter

appealed accordin# to the private respondent4 on the other, the co%pulsor$ arbitration

case 'NCR Case No. <-2-)**)-*A(, instituted b$ or for the sa%e respondent at about

the sa%e ti%e, "hich "as dis%issed for lac0 of %erit b$ the 6abor rbiter, "hich "asafter"ards affir%ed b$ the N6RC itself on the #round that there e@isted no such

relationship bet"een the Club and the private respondent. nd, as if %atters "ere not

alread$ co%plicated enou#h, the sa%e respondent, "ith the support and assistance of

the PCCE, sa" fit, also conte%poraneousl$, to initiate still a third proceedin# for

co%pulsor$ social securit$ covera#e "ith the Social Securit$ Co%%ission 'SSC Case

No. 1223(, "ith the result alread$ %entioned.

<efore this Court, the petitioner Club no" contends that the decision of the Med-rbiter

in the certification case had never beco%e final, bein# in fact the sub:ect of three

pendin# and unresolved %otions for reconsideration, as "ell as of a later %otion for

earl$ resolution. 11 Gnfortunatel$, none of these %otions is incorporated or reproduced in

the record before the Court. nd, for his part, the private respondent contends, not onl$

that said decision had been appealed to and been affir%ed b$ the Director of the <6R,

but that a certification election had in fact been held, "hich resulted in the PCCE

bein# reco#ni/ed as the sole bar#ainin# a#ent of the caddies of the Manila olf and

Countr$ Club "ith respect to "a#es, hours of "or0, ter%s of e%plo$%ent, etc. 12

hatever the truth about these opposin# contentions, "hich the record before the Court

does not ade!uatel$ disclose, the %ore controllin# consideration "ould see% to be that,

ho"ever, final it %a$ beco%e, the decision in a certification case, b$ the

ver$ nature of that proceedin#s, is not such as to foreclose all further dispute bet"een

the parties as to the e@istence, or non-e@istence, of e%plo$er-e%plo$ee relationship

bet"een the%.

It is "ell settled that for res adjudicata, or the principle of bar b$ prior :ud#%ent, to appl$,

the follo"in# essential re!uisites %ust concur5 ')( there %ust be a final :ud#%ent or

order4 ';( said :ud#%ent or order %ust be on the %erits4 '3( the court renderin# the

sa%e %ust have :urisdiction over the sub:ect %atter and the parties4 and '2( there %ust

be bet"een the t"o cases identit$ of parties, identit$ of sub:ect %atter and identit$ of

cause of action. 1)

Clearl$ i%plicit in these re!uisites is that the action or proceedin#s in "hich is issued the

+prior >ud#%ent+ that "ould operate in bar of a subse!uent action bet"een the sa%e

3



parties for the sa%e cause, be adversarial , or contentious, +one havin# opposin#

parties4 'is( contested, as distin#uished fro% an e% parte hearin# or proceedin#. . . . of

"hich the part$ see0in# relief has #iven le#al notice to the other part$ and afforded the

latter an opportunit$ to contest it+ 14 and a certification case is not such a proceedin#, as

this Court alread$ ruled5

certification proceedin#s is not a +liti#ation+ in the sense in "hich

the ter% is co%%onl$ understood, but %ere investi#ation of a non-

adversar$, fact-findin# character, in "hich the investi#atin# a#enc$

pla$s the part of a disinterested investi#ator see0in# %erel$ to

ascertain the desires of the e%plo$ees as to the %atter of their

representation. he court en:o$s a "ide discretion in deter%inin# the

procedure necessar$ to insure the fair and free choice of bar#ainin#

representatives b$ the e%plo$ees. 1*

Indeed, if an$ rulin# or :ud#%ent can be said to operate as res adjudicata on the

contested issue of e%plo$er-e%plo$ee relationship bet"een present petitioner and the

private respondent, it "ould lo#icall$ be that rendered in the co%pulsor$ arbitration case

'NCR Case No. <-2-**)-*A, supra(, petitioner havin# asserted, "ithout dispute fro%

the private respondent, that said issue "as there s!uarel$ raised and liti#ated, resultin#

in a rulin# of the rbitration <ranch 'of the sa%e Ministr$ of 6abor( that such relationship

did not e@ist, and "hich rulin# "as thereafter affir%ed b$ the National 6abor Relations

Co%%ission in an appeal ta0en b$ said respondent. 16

In an$ case, this Court is not inclined to allo" private respondent the benefit of an$

doubt as to "hich of the conflictin# rulin# :ust adverted to should be accorded pri%ac$,

#iven the fact that it "as he "ho activel$ sou#ht the% si%ultaneousl$, as it "ere, fro%

separate fora, and even if the #raver sanctions %ore latel$ i%posed b$ the Court for

foru%-shoppin# %a$ not be applied to hi% retroactivel$.

ccordin#l$, the IC is not to be faulted for i#norin# private respondent&s invocation of

res adjudicata4 on contrar$, it acted correctl$ in doin# so.

Said CourtHs holdin# that upon the facts, there e@ists 'or e@isted( a relationship of

e%plo$er and e%plo$ee bet"een petitioner and private respondent is, ho"ever, another

%atter. he Court does not a#ree that said facts necessaril$ or lo#icall$ point to such a

relationship, and to the e@clusion of an$ for% of arran#e%ents, other than of

e%plo$%ent, that "ould %a0e the respondent&s services available to the %e%bers and

#uest of the petitioner.

s lon# as it is, the list %ade in the appealed decision detailin# the various %atters of

conduct, dress, lan#ua#e, etc. covered b$ the petitioner&s re#ulations, does not, in the

%ind of the Court, so circu%scribe the actions or :ud#%ent of the caddies concerned as

to leave the% little or no freedo% of choice "hatsoever in the %anner of carr$in# out

their services. In the ver$ nature of thin#s, caddies %ust sub%it to so%e supervision of

their conduct "hile en:o$in# the privile#e of pursuin# their occupation "ithin the

pre%ises and #rounds of "hatever club the$ do their "or0 in. =or all that is %ade to

appear, the$ "or0 for the club to "hich the$ attach the%selves on sufference but, on the

other hand, also "ithout havin# to observe an$ "or0in# hours, free to leave an$ti%e

the$ please, to sta$ a"a$ for as lon# the$ li0e. It is not pretended that if found re%iss in

the observance of said rules, an$ discipline %a$ be %eted the% be$ond barrin# the%

fro% the pre%ises "hich, it %a$ be supposed, the Club %a$ do in an$ case even absent

an$ breach of the rules, and "ithout violatin# an$ ri#ht to "or0 on their part. ll these

considerations clash frontall$ "ith the concept of e%plo$%ent.

he IC "ould point to the fact that the Club su##ests the rate of fees pa$able b$ the

pla$ers to the caddies as still another indication of the latter&s status as e%plo$ees. It

see%s to the Court, ho"ever, that the intend%ent of such fact is to the contrar$,

sho"in# that the Club has not the %easure of control over the incidents of the caddies&

"or0 and co%pensation that an e%plo$er "ould possess.

he Court a#rees "ith petitioner that the #roup rotation s$ste% so-called, is less a%easure of e%plo$er control than an assurance that the "or0 is fairl$ distributed, a

cadd$ "ho is absent "hen his turn nu%ber is called si%pl$ losin# his turn to serve and

bein# assi#ned instead the last nu%ber for the da$. 17

<$ and lar#e, there appears nothin# in the record to refute the petitioner&s clai% that5

'Petitioner( has no %eans of co%pellin# the presence of a cadd$.

cadd$ is not re!uired to e@ercise his occupation in the pre%ises of

petitioner. ?e %a$ "or0 "ith an$ other #olf club or he %a$ see0

4



e%plo$%ent a cadd$ or other"ise "ith an$ entit$ or individual "ithout

restriction b$ petitioner. . . .

. . . In the final anal$sis, petitioner has no "as of co%pellin# the

presence of the caddies as the$ are not re!uired to render a definite

nu%ber of hours of "or0 on a sin#le da$. Even the #roup rotation ofcaddies is not absolute because a pla$er is at libert$ to choose a

cadd$ of his preference re#ardless of the cadd$&s order in the rotation.

It can happen that a cadd$ "ho has rendered services to a pla$er on

one da$ %a$ still find sufficient ti%e to "or0 else"here. Gnder such

circu%stances, he %a$ then leave the pre%ises of petitioner and #o

to such other place of "or0 that he "ishes 'sic (. Or a cadd$ "ho is on

call for a particular da$ %a$ deliberatel$ absent hi%self if he has %ore

profitable cadd$in#, or another, en#a#e%ent in so%e other place.

hese are thin#s be$ond petitioner&s control and for "hich it i%poses

no direct sanctions on the caddies. . . . 18

?ERE=ORE, the Decision of the Inter%ediate ppellant Court, revie" of "hich is

sou#ht, is reversed and set aside, it bein# hereb$ declared that the private respondent,

=er%in 6la%ar, is not an e%plo$ee of petitioner Manila olf and Countr$ Club and thatpetitioner is under no obli#ation to report hi% for co%pulsor$ covera#e to the Social

Securit$ S$ste%. No pronounce%ent as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

5

Documents

Manila Golf and Country Club