Case Title:
JUSMAG PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division) and FLORENCIO SACRAMENTO, Union President, JPFCEA, respondents.

Citation: 239 SCRA 224

More...

1. G.R. No. 108813. December 15, 1994. [*SECOND DIVISION.] JUSMAG PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division) and FLORENCIO SACRAMENTO, Union President, JPFCEA, respondents. PETITION for review of a resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Juan, Luces, Luna and Associates for petitioner. Galutera Aguilar Law Offices for private respondent. PUNO, J.: The immunity from suit of the Joint United States Military Assistance Group to the Republic of the Philippines (JUSMAG-Philippines) is the pivotal issue in the case at bench. JUSMAG assails the January 29, 1993 Resolution of the NATIONAL

2. LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (public respondent), in NLRC NCR CASE NO. 00-03-02092-92, reversing the July 30, 1991 Order of the Labor Arbiter, and ordering the latter to assume jurisdiction over the complaint for illegal dismissal filed by FLORENCIO SACRAMENTO (private respondent) against petitioner. First, the undisputed facts. Private respondent was one of the seventy-four (74) security assistance support personnel (SASP) working at JUSMAG-Philippines. [1See Enclosure No. 3, marked as Annex “E”; Rollo, p. 47.] He had been with JUSMAG from December 18, 1969, until his dismissal on April 27, 1992. When dismissed, he held the position of Illustrator 2 and was the incumbent President of JUSMAG

3. -contractual, governmental and/or public acts. In a Resolution, dated January 29, 1993, the NLRC [8Second Division.] reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter as it held that petitioner had lost its right not to be sued. The resolution was predicated on two grounds: (1) the principle of estoppel—that JUSMAG failed to refute the existence of employer-employee relationship under the “control test”; and (2) JUSMAG has waived its right to immunity from suit when it hired the services of private respondent on December 18, 1969. The NLRC relied on the case of Harry Lyons vs. United States of America, [9No. L-11786, September 26, 1958, 104 Phil. 593.] where the “United States Government (was considered to have

4. PHILIPPINES-FILIPINO CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (JPFCEA), a labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment. His services were terminated allegedly due to the abolition of his position. [2Memorandum dated March 27, 1992.] He was also advised that he was under administrative leave until April 27, 1992, although the same was not charged against his leave. On March 31, 1992, private respondent filed a complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment on the ground that he was illegally suspended and dismissed from service by JUSMAG. [3Annex “G” of Petition; Rollo, p. 51.] He asked for his reinstatement. JUSMAG then filed a Motion to Dismiss invoking its immunity

5. from suit as an agency of the United States. It further alleged lack of employer-employee relationship and that it has no juridical personality to sue and be sued. [4Annex “H” of Petition; Rollo, p. 52.] In an Order dated July 30, 1991, Labor Arbiter Daniel C. Cueto dismissed the subject complaint “for want of jurisdiction.” [5Rollo, pp. 86-88.] Private respondent appealed [6Annex “J” of Petition; Rollo, p. 89.] to the National Labor Relations Commission (public respondent), assailing the ruling that petitioner is immune from suit for alleged violation of our labor laws. JUSMAG filed its Opposition, [7Annex “K” of Petition; Rollo, p. 121.] reiterating its immunity from suit for its non

6. ) waived its immunity from suit by entering into (a) contract of stevedoring services, and thus, it submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the local courts.” Accordingly, the case was remanded to the labor arbiter for reception of evidence as to the issue on illegal dismissal. Hence, this petition. JUSMAG contends: I THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK AND/OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION— 1. A. IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE LABOR ARBITER AND IN NOT AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IT BEING A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHICH HAD NOT GIVEN ITS CONSENT TO BE SUED; AND 2. B. IN FINDING WAIVER BY JUSMAG OF IMMUNITY FROM SUIT; II THE PUBLIC

7. RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK AND/OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION— 1. A. WHEN IT FOUND AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JUSMAG AND PRIVATE RESPONDENT; AND 2. B. WHEN IT CONSIDERED JUSMAG ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS ITS EMPLOYEE FOR FAILURE TO PRESENT PROOF TO THE CONTRARY.