JOEB M. ALIVIADO et al vs PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILS., INC. and PROMM-GEM INC. DEL CASTILLO, J.

On March 9, 2010, this Court rendered a Decision[1] holding: (a) that Promm !em, "nc# (Promm !em) is a legitimate inde$endent contractor% (&) that 'ales and Promotions 'er(ices (')P') is a la&or onl* contractor conse+uentl* its em$lo*ees are considered em$lo*ees o, Procter - !am&le Phils#, "nc# (P-!)% (c) that Promm !em is guilt* o, illegal dismissal% (d) that ')P'.P-! is li/e0ise guilt* o, illegal dismissal% (e) that $etitioners are entitled to reinstatement% and (,) that the dismissed em$lo*ees o, ')P'.P-! are entitled to moral damages and attorne*1s ,ees there &eing &ad ,aith in their dismissal# 2he dis$ositi(e $ortion o, our Decision reads: 345657O65, the $etition is !6)825D# 2he Decision dated March 21, 2009 o, the Court o, )$$eals in C) !#6# 'P 8o# :20;2 and the 6esolution dated Octo&er 20, 2009 are 65<56'5D and '52 )'"D5# Procter - !am&le Phils#, "nc# and Promm !em, "nc# are O6D565D to reinstate their res$ecti(e em$lo*ees immediatel* 0ithout loss o, seniorit* rights and 0ith ,ull &ac/0ages and other &ene,its ,rom the time o, their illegal dismissal u$ to the time o, their actual reinstatement# Procter - !am&le Phils#, "nc# is ,urther O6D565D to $a* each o, those $etitioners considered as its em$lo*ees, namel* )rthur Cor$u=, 5ric )li(iado, Monchito )m$elo+uio, )&raham >asma*or, ?r#, ?onathan Mateo, @oren=o Platon, 5stanislao >uena(entura, @o$e 'alonga, 7ran= Da(id, 8estor "gnacio, 6olando 6omasanta, 6oehl )goo, >oni,acio Ortega, )rsenio 'oriano, ?r#, )rnel 5nda*a, 6o&erto 5nri+ue=, 5dgardo Auiam&ao, 'antos >acalso, 'amson >asco, )lstando Montos, 6ainer 8# 'al(ador, Pedro !# 6o*, @eonardo 7# 2alledo, 5nri+ue 7# 2alledo, ?oel >illones, )llan >alta=ar, 8oli !a&u*o, !err* !at$o, !erman !ue(ara, !il&ert B# Miranda, 6odol,o C# 2oledo, ?r#, )rnold D# @as$oCa, Phili$ M# @o=a, Mario 8# Colda*on, Orlando P# ?imene=, 7red P# ?imene=, 6estituto C# Pamintuan, ?r#, 6olando ?# De )ndres, )rtu= >ustenera, ?r#, 6o&erto ># Cru=, 6osed* O# Bordan, Orlando '# >alangue, 5mil 2a0at, Cresente ?# !arcia, Melencio Casa$ao, 6omeo <as+ue=, 6enato dela Cru=, 6omeo <iernes, ?r#, 5lias >asco and Dennis Dacasin, P2:,000#00 as moral damages $lus ten $ercent o, the total sum as and ,or attorne*1s ,ees# @et this case &e 65M)8D5D to the @a&or )r&iter ,or the com$utation, 0ithin 90 da*s ,rom recei$t o, this Decision, o, $etitioners1 &ac/0ages and other &ene,its% and ten $ercent o, the total sum as and ,or attorne*1s ,ees as stated a&o(e% and ,or immediate eDecution# 'O O6D565D#[2] P-! ,iled a Motion ,or 6econsideration,[9] an O$$osition[E] (to $etitionersF motion ,or $artial reconsideration), and 'u$$lemental O$$osition#[:] On the other hand, $etitioners ,iled a Motion ,or Partial 6econsideration[G] and Comment. O$$osition[H] (to P-!Fs motion ,or reconsideration)# On ?une 1G, 2010, 0e denied the Motion ,or 6econsideration o, P-! as 0ell as the Motion ,or Partial 6econsideration o, the $etitioners#[;] 5ntr* o, ?udgment 0as made on ?ul* 2H, 2010#[9] >e,ore an* o, the $arties recei(ed the notice o, 5ntr* o, ?udgment, P-! ,iled on )ugust 9, 2010 a Motion ,or @ea(e to 7ile Motion to 6e,er the Case to the 'u$reme Court 5n >anc 0ith 'econd Motion ,or 6econsideration and Motion ,or Clari,ication[10] and a Motion to 6e,er the Case to the 'u$reme Court 5n >anc 0ith 'econd Motion ,or 6econsideration and Motion ,or Clari,ication#[11] On Octo&er E, 2010, P-! ,iled a Motion ,or @ea(e to )dmit the )ttached 'u$$lement to the Motion to 6e,er the Case to the 'u$reme Court 5n >anc 0ith 'econd Motion ,or 6econsideration and Motion ,or Clari,ication[12] as 0ell as a 'u$$lement to the Motion to 6e,er the Case to the 'u$reme Court 5n >anc 0ith 'econd Motion ,or 6econsideration and Motion ,or Clari,ication#[19] 2herea,ter, or on 8o(em&er ;, 2010, P-! ,iled a Mani,estation and Motion[1E] $ra*ing that its Motion ,or @ea(e to 7ile Motion to 6e,er the Case to the 'u$reme Court 5n >anc 0ith 'econd Motion ,or 6econsideration and Motion ,or Clari,ication, Motion to 6e,er the Case to the 'u$reme Court 5n >anc 0ith 'econd Motion ,or 6econsideration and Motion ,or Clari,ication, Motion ,or @ea(e to )dmit the )ttached 'u$$lement to the Motion to 6e,er the Case to the 'u$reme Court 5n >anc 0ith 'econd Motion ,or 6econsideration and Motion ,or Clari,ication as 0ell as its 'u$$lement to the Motion to 6e,er the Case to the 'u$reme Court 5n >anc 0ith 'econd Motion ,or 6econsideration and Motion ,or Clari,ication, &e resol(ed as the* 0ere ,iled &e,ore it recei(ed notice o, the entr* o, Iudgment#

"n our 6esolution[1:] dated ?anuar* 1H, 2011, 0e resol(ed to note the a,oresaid $leadings and at the same time to re+uire the $etitioners to ,ile their comment thereto# 3e reiterated our directi(e ,or $etitioners to ,ile their comment (ia our 6esolution[1G] dated 7e&ruar* 2;, 2011# On March 1G, 2011, $etitioners ,iled a <er* Jrgent Mani,estation[1H] in lieu o, their comment# "n gist, the* reminded this Court o, the 5ntr* o, ?udgment made on ?ul* 2H, 2010 and argued that the motions ,iled &* P-! are ,ri(olous and dilator*# "ssuance o, 5ntr* o, ?udgment 0as Pro$er# 3e stress that the issuance o, the 5ntr* o, ?udgment on ?ul* 2H, 2010 0as $ro$er &ecause it 0as made a,ter recei$t &* P-! o, a co$* o, the 6esolution den*ing its motion ,or reconsideration# 'ection 1, 6ule 1: o, the "nternal 6ules o, the 'u$reme Court[1;] $ro(ides that: '5C2"O8 1# 7inalit* o, decisions and resolutions# ) decision or resolution o, the Court ma* &e deemed ,inal a,ter the la$se o, ,i,teen da*s ,rom recei$t &* the $arties o, a co$* o, the same su&Iect to the ,ollo0ing: (a) the date o, recei$t indicated in the registr* return card signed &* the $art* or, in case he or she is re$resented &* counsel, &* such counsel or his or her re$resentati(e, shall &e the rec/oning date ,or counting the ,i,teen da* $eriod% and (&) i, the ?udgment Di(ision is una&le to retrie(e the registr* return card 0ithin thirt* (90) da*s ,rom mailing, it shall immediatel* in+uire ,rom the recei(ing $ost o,,ice on (i) the date 0hen the addressee recei(ed the mailed decision or resolution, and (ii) 0ho recei(ed the same, 0ith the in,ormation $ro(ided &* authori=ed $ersonnel o, the said $ost o,,ice ser(ing as the &asis ,or the com$utation o, the ,i,teen da* $eriod# "t is immaterial that the 5ntr* o, ?udgment 0as made 0ithout the Court ha(ing ,irst resol(ed P-!1s second motion ,or reconsideration# 2his is &ecause the issuance o, the entr* o, Iudgment is rec/oned ,rom the time the $arties recei(ed a co$* o, the resolution den*ing the ,irst motion ,or reconsideration# 2he ,iling &* P-! o, se(eral $leadings a,ter recei$t o, the resolution den*ing its ,irst motion ,or reconsideration does not in an* 0a* &ar the ,inalit* or entr* o, Iudgment# >esides, to rec/on the ,inalit* o, a Iudgment ,rom recei$t o, the denial o, the second motion ,or reconsideration 0ould &e a&surd# 7irst, the 6ules o, Court and the "nternal 6ules o, the 'u$reme Court $rohi&it the ,iling o, a second motion ,or reconsideration# 'econd, some cra,t* litigants ma* resort to ,iling $rohi&ited $leadings Iust to dela* entr* o, Iudgment# Our ruling in 'ecurities and 5Dchange Commission (# P"COP 6esources, "nc#[19] is instructi(e, thus: "n Dinglasan (# Court o, )$$eals, this Court eD$lained the reason 0h* it is un0ise to rec/on the $eriod o, ,inalit* o, Iudgment ,rom the denial o, the second motion ,or reconsideration# K2o rule that ,inalit* o, Iudgment shall &e rec/oned ,rom the recei$t o, the resolution or order den*ing the second motion ,or reconsideration 0ould result to an a&surd situation 0here&* courts 0ill &e o&liged to issue orders or resolutions den*ing 0hat is a $rohi&ited motion in the ,irst $lace, in order that the $eriod ,or the ,inalit* o, Iudgments shall run, there&*, $rolonging the dis$osition o, cases# Moreo(er, such a ruling 0ould allo0 a $art* to ,orestall the running o, the $eriod o, ,inalit* o, Iudgments &* (irtue o, ,iling a $rohi&ited $leading% such a situation is not onl* illogical &ut also unIust to the 0inning $art*#1[20] 2he March 9, 2010 Decision has attained ,inalit*% it is there,ore immuta&le# 2he March 9, 2010 Decision had alread* attained ,inalit*# "t could no longer &e set aside or modi,ied# "t is a horn&oo/ rule that once a Iudgment has &ecome ,inal and eDecutor*, it ma* no longer &e modi,ied in an* res$ect, e(en i, the modi,ication is meant to correct an erroneous conclusion o, ,act or la0, and regardless o, 0hether the modi,ication is attem$ted to &e made &* the court rendering it or &* the highest court o, the land, as 0hat remains to &e done is the $urel* ministerial en,orcement or eDecution o, the Iudgment# 2he doctrine o, ,inalit* o, Iudgment is grounded on ,undamental considerations o, $u&lic $olic* and sound $ractice that at the ris/ o, occasional errors, the Iudgment o, adIudicating &odies must &ecome ,inal and eDecutor* on some de,inite date ,iDed &* la0# [L], the 'u$reme Court reiterated that the doctrine o, immuta&ilit* o, ,inal Iudgment is adhered to &* necessit* not0ithstanding occasional errors that ma* result there&*, since litigations must someho0 come to an end ,or other0ise, it 0ould Fe(en &e more intolera&le than the 0rong and inIustice it is designed to correct#F[21]

"n Mocorro, ?r# (# 6amire=,[22] 0e held that: ) de,initi(e ,inal Iudgment, ho0e(er erroneous, is no longer su&Iect to change or re(ision# ) decision that has ac+uired ,inalit* &ecomes immuta&le and unaltera&le# 2his +ualit* o, immuta&ilit* $recludes the modi,ication o, a ,inal Iudgment, e(en i, the modi,ication is meant to correct erroneous conclusions o, ,act and la0# )nd this $ostulate holds true 0hether the modi,ication is made &* the court that rendered it or &* the highest court in the land# 2he orderl* administration o, Iustice re+uires that, at the ris/ o, occasional errors, the Iudgments.resolutions o, a court must reach a $oint o, ,inalit* set &* the la0# 2he no&le $ur$ose is to 0rite ,inis to dis$ute once and ,or all# 2his is a ,undamental $rinci$le in our Iustice s*stem, 0ithout 0hich there 0ould &e no end to litigations# Jtmost res$ect and adherence to this $rinci$le must al0a*s &e maintained &* those 0ho eDercise the $o0er o, adIudication# )n* act, 0hich (iolates such $rinci$le, must immediatel* &e struc/ do0n# "ndeed, the $rinci$le o, conclusi(eness o, $rior adIudications is not con,ined in its o$eration to the Iudgments o, 0hat are ordinaril* /no0n as courts, &ut eDtends to all &odies u$on 0hich Iudicial $o0ers had &een con,erred# 2he onl* eDce$tions to the rule on the immuta&ilit* o, ,inal Iudgments are (1) the correction o, clerical errors, (2) the so called nunc $ro tunc entries 0hich cause no $reIudice to an* $art*, and (9) (oid Iudgments# 8unc $ro tunc Iudgments ha(e &een de,ined and characteri=ed &* the Court in the ,ollo0ing manner: 2he o&Iect o, a Iudgment nunc $ro tunc is not the rendering o, a ne0 Iudgment and the ascertainment and determination o, ne0 rights, &ut is one $lacing in $ro$er ,orm on the record, the Iudgment that had &een $re(iousl* rendered, to ma/e it s$ea/ the truth, so as to ma/e it sho0 0hat the Iudicial action reall* 0as, not to correct Iudicial errors, such as to render a Iudgment 0hich the court ought to ha(e rendered, in $lace o, the one it did erroneousl* render, nor to su$$l* nonaction &* the court, ho0e(er erroneous the Iudgment ma* ha(e &een# (3ilmerding (s# Cor&in >an/ing Co#, 2; 'outh#, GE0, GE1% 12G )la#, 2G;# ) nunc $ro tunc entr* in $ractice is an entr* made no0 o, something 0hich 0as actuall* $re(iousl* done, to ha(e e,,ect as o, the ,ormer date# "ts o,,ice is not to su$$l* omitted action &* the court, &ut to su$$l* an omission in the record o, action reall* had, &ut omitted through inad(ertence or mista/e# (Per/ins (s# 4a*0ood, 91 8# 5#, GH0, GH2) ) second motion ,or reconsideration is a $rohi&ited $leading# 'ection 2, 6ule :2 o, the 6ules o, Court eD$licitl* $ro(ides that M[n]o motion ,or reconsideration o, a Iudgment or ,inal resolution &* the same $art* shall &e entertained# Moreo(er, 'ection 9, 6ule 1: o, the "nternal 6ules o, the 'u$reme Court[29] decrees (i=: '5C# 9# 'econd motion ,or reconsideration# 2he Court shall not entertain a second motion ,or reconsideration and an* eDce$tion to this rule can onl* &e granted in the higher interest o, Iustice &* the Court en &anc u$on a (ote o, at least t0o thirds o, its actual mem&ershi$# 2here is reconsideration Fin the highest interest o, IusticeF 0hen the assailed decision is not onl* legall* erroneous &ut is li/e0ise $atentl* unIust and $otentiall* ca$a&le o, causing un0arranted and irremedia&le inIur* or damage to the $arties# ) second motion ,or reconsideration can onl* &e entertained &e,ore the ruling sought to &e reconsidered &ecomes ,inal &* o$eration o, la0 or &* the CourtFs declaration# "n the Di(ision, a (ote o, three Mem&ers shall &e re+uired to ele(ate a second motion ,or reconsideration to the Court 5n >anc# [2E] Clearl*, there,ore, P-!Fs second motion ,or reconsideration could no longer &e entertained &ased on t0o grounds: 7irst, it is a $rohi&ited $leading# 'econd, the ruling sought to &e reconsidered has alread* &ecome ,inal $er 5ntr* o, ?udgment made on ?ul* 2H, 2010# 2he ,oregoing not0ithstanding, 0e 0ill $roceed to discuss the issues raised &* P-! N not &ecause the* are o, transcendental im$ortance or that P-! $ro,,ered MeDtraordinaril* $ersuasi(e reasonsO[2:] &ut onl* to dis$el an* dou&t that it is &eing denied due $rocess# 2he Court correctl* determined that ')P' is a la&or onl* contractor# 2here is no &asis ,or P-!Fs claim that the Court erred in not a$$l*ing the M,our ,oldO test, $articularl* the Mcontrol testO in determining 0hether ')P' is a legitimate inde$endent contractor or a la&or onl* contractor# )s discussed in our March 9, 2010

Decision, the a$$lica&le rules are )rticle 10G o, the @a&or Code and 6ule <""" ), >oo/ """ o, the Omni&us 6ules "m$lementing the @a&or Code, as amended &* De$artment Order 8o# 1; 02#[2G] )rticle 10G de,ines Mla&or onl*O contracting, (i=: 2here is Mla&or onl*O contracting 0here the $erson su$$l*ing 0or/ers to an em$lo*er does not ha(e su&stantial ca$ital or in(estment in the ,orm o, tools, e+ui$ment, machineries, 0or/ $remises, among others, and the 0or/ers recruited and $laced &* such $erson are $er,orming acti(ities 0hich are directl* related to the $rinci$al &usiness o, such em$lo*er# "n such cases, the $erson or intermediar* shall &e considered merel* as an agent o, the em$lo*er 0ho shall &e res$onsi&le to the 0or/ers in the same manner and eDtent as i, the latter 0ere directl* em$lo*ed &* him# On the same (ein, 6ule <""" ), >oo/ """ o, the Omni&us 6ules "m$lementing the @a&or Code, as amended &* De$artment Order 8o# 1; 02, $ertinentl* $ro(ides: 'ection :# Prohi&ition against la&or onl* contracting# @a&or onl* contracting is here&* declared $rohi&ited# 7or this $ur$ose, la&or onl* contracting shall re,er to an arrangement 0here the contractor or su&contractor merel* recruits, su$$lies or $laces 0or/ers to $er,orm a Io&, 0or/ or ser(ice ,or a $rinci$al, and )8B o, the ,ollo0ing elements are $resent: i)2he contractor or su&contractor does not ha(e su&stantial ca$ital or in(estment 0hich relates to the Io&, 0or/ or ser(ice to &e $er,ormed and the em$lo*ees recruited, su$$lied or $laced &* such contractor or su&contractor are $er,orming acti(ities 0hich are directl* related to the main &usiness o, the $rinci$al% O6 ii) [2]he contractor does not eDercise the right to control o(er the $er,ormance o, the 0or/ o, the contractual em$lo*ee# 2here,ore, the Mcontrol testO is merel* one o, the ,actors to consider# 2his is clearl* deduced ,rom the a&o(e $ro(ision 0hich states that la&or onl* contracting eDists 0hen an* o, the t0o elements is $resent# "n our March 9, 2010 Decision, it 0as esta&lished that ')P' has no su&stantial ca$itali=ation and it 0as $er,orming merchandising and $romotional acti(ities 0hich are directl* related to P-!Fs &usiness# 'ince ')P' met one o, the re+uirements, it 0as enough &asis ,or us to hold that it is a la&or onl* contractor# Conse+uentl*, its $rinci$al, P-!, is considered the em$lo*er o, its em$lo*ees# 2his is $ursuant to our ruling in )/lan (# 'an Miguel Cor$oration[2H] 0here 0e held that M[a] ,inding that a contractor is a Kla&or onl*1 contractor, as o$$osed to $ermissi&le Io& contracting, is e+ui(alent to declaring that there is an em$lo*er em$lo*ee relationshi$ &et0een the $rinci$al and the em$lo*ees o, the su$$osed contractor, and the Kla&or onl*1 contractor is considered as a mere agent o, the $rinci$al, the real em$lo*er#O Corollaril*, 0e also decreed in Coca Cola >ottlers Phils#, "nc# (# )gito[2;] that: 2he la0 clearl* esta&lishes an em$lo*er em$lo*ee relationshi$ &et0een the $rinci$al em$lo*er and the contractorFs em$lo*ee u$on a ,inding that the contractor is engaged in Pla&or onl*P contracting# )rticle 10G o, the @a&or Code categoricall* states: P2here is Qla&or onl*F contracting 0here the $erson su$$l*ing 0or/ers to an em$lo*er does not ha(e su&stantial ca$ital or in(estment in the ,orm o, tools, e+ui$ment, machineries, 0or/ $remises, among others, and the 0or/ers recruited and $laced &* such $ersons are $er,orming acti(ities 0hich are directl* related to the $rinci$al &usiness o, such em$lo*er#P 2hus, $er,orming acti(ities directl* related to the $rinci$al &usiness o, the em$lo*er is onl* one o, the t0o indicators that Pla&or onl*P contracting eDists% the other is lac/ o, su&stantial ca$ital or in(estment# 2he Court ,inds that &oth indicators eDist in the case at &ar# 2he Court did not err in ,inding that ')P' has no su&stantial ca$ital# P-! claims that contrar* to the $rinci$le that Mno a&solute ,igure is set ,or 0hat is considered Fsu&stantial ca$italFO &ecause the same is Mmeasured against the t*$e o, 0or/ 0hich the contractor is o&ligated to $er,orm ,or the $rinci$al,O[29] the March 9, 2010 Decision used the $re(ailing economic atmos$here in the countr* and the ca$itali=ation o, another contractor engaged to $er,orm a di,,erent /ind o, ser(ice to gauge the su,,icienc* or insu,,icienc* o, the ca$itali=ation o, ')P'# 2his is misleading# Our discussion on 0hether Promm !em and ')P' ha(e su&stantial ca$itali=ation in our March 9, 2010 Decision is sel, eD$lanator*#

"n the instant case, the ,inancial statements o, Promm !em sho0 that it has authori=ed ca$ital stoc/ o, P1 million and a $aid in ca$ital, or ca$ital a(aila&le ,or o$erations, o, P:00,000#00 as o, 1990# "t also has long term assets 0orth PE92,;9:#2; and current assets o, PH19,0E2#92# Promm !em has also $ro(en that it maintained its o0n 0arehouse and o,,ice s$ace 0ith a ,loor area o, ;H0 s+uare meters# "t also had under its name three registered (ehicles 0hich 0ere used ,or its $romotional.merchandising &usiness# Promm !em also has other clients aside ,rom P-!# Jnder the circumstances, 0e ,ind that Promm !em has su&stantial in(estment 0hich relates to the 0or/ to &e $er,ormed# 2hese ,acts negate the eDistence o, the element s$eci,ied in 'ection :(i) o, DO@5 De$artment Order 8o# 1; 02# 2he records also sho0 that Promm !em su$$lied its com$lainant 0or/ers 0ith the rele(ant materials, such as mar/ers, ta$es, liners and cutters, necessar* ,or them to $er,orm their 0or/# Promm !em also issued uni,orms to them# "t is also rele(ant to mention that Promm !em alread* considered the com$lainants 0or/ing under it as its regular, not merel* contractual or $roIect, em$lo*ees# 2his circumstance negates the eDistence o, element (ii) as stated in 'ection : o, DO@5 De$artment Order 8o# 1; 02, 0hich s$ea/s o, contractual em$lo*ees# 2his, ,urthermore, negates N on the $art o, Promm !em N &ad ,aith and intent to circum(ent la&or la0s 0hich ,actors ha(e o,ten &een ti$$ing $oints that lead the Court to stri/e do0n the em$lo*ment $ractice or agreement concerned as contrar* to $u&lic $olic*, morals, good customs or $u&lic order# Jnder the circumstances, Promm !em cannot &e considered as a la&or onl* contractor# 3e ,ind that it is a legitimate inde$endent contractor# On the other hand, the )rticles o, "ncor$oration o, ')P' sho0s that it has a $aid in ca$ital o, onl* P91,2:0# 2here is no other e(idence $resented to sho0 ho0 much its 0or/ing ca$ital and assets are# 7urthermore, there is no sho0ing o, su&stantial in(estment in tools, e+ui$ment or other assets# "n <ino*a (# 8ational @a&or 6elations Commission, the Court held that M[0]ith the current economic atmos$here in the countr*, the $aid in ca$itali=ation o, PMC" amounting to PH:,000#00 cannot &e considered as su&stantial ca$ital and, as such, PMC" cannot +uali,* as an inde$endent contractor#O )$$l*ing the same rationale to the $resent case, it is clear that ')P' N ha(ing a $aid in ca$ital o, onl* P91,2:0 N has no su&stantial ca$ital# ')P'F lac/ o, su&stantial ca$ital is underlined &* the records 0hich sho0 that its $a*roll ,or its merchandisers alone ,or one month 0ould alread* total PEE,:G1#00# "t has G month contracts 0ith P-!# Bet ')P' ,ailed to sho0 that it could com$lete the G month contracts using its o0n ca$ital and in(estment# "ts ca$ital is not e(en su,,icient ,or one monthFs $a*roll# ')P' ,ailed to sho0 that its $aid in ca$ital o, P91,2:0#00 is su,,icient ,or the $eriod re+uired ,or it to generate [the] needed re(enue to sustain its o$erations inde$endentl*# 'u&stantial ca$ital re,ers to ca$itali=ation used in the $er,ormance or com$letion o, the Io&, 0or/ or ser(ice contracted out# "n the $resent case, ')P' ,ailed to sho0 su&stantial ca$ital#[90] 2he a0ards o, moral damages and attorne*Fs ,ees are $ro$er# P-! insists that to &e entitled to moral damages, Mit must &e $ro(en that the act o, dismissal 0as attended &* &ad ,aith or ,raud, or 0as o$$ressi(e to la&or, or done in a manner contrar* to morals, good customs, or $u&lic $olic*O#[91] Our March 9, 2010 Decision com$lied 0ith this re+uirement 0hen 0e ruled in this 0ise: 3e no0 go to the issue o, 0hether $etitioners are entitled to damages# Moral and eDem$lar* damages are reco(era&le 0here the dismissal o, an em$lo*ee 0as attended &* &ad ,aith or ,raud or constituted an act o$$ressi(e to la&or or 0as done in a manner contrar* to moral, good customs or $u&lic $olic*# 3ith regard to the em$lo*ees o, Promm !em, there &eing no e(idence o, &ad ,aith, ,raud or an* o$$ressi(e act on the $art o, the latter, 0e ,ind no su$$ort ,or the a0ard o, damages# )s ,or P-!, the records sho0 that it dismissed its em$lo*ees through ')P' in a manner o$$ressi(e to la&or# 2he sudden and $erem$tor* &arring o, concerned $etitioners ,rom 0or/, and ,rom admission to the 0or/ $lace, a,ter Iust a one da* (er&al notice, and ,or no (alid cause &ello0s o$$ression and utter disregard o, the right to the due $rocess o, the concerned $etitioners# 4ence, an a0ard o, moral damages is called ,or# )ttorne*Fs ,ees ma* li/e0ise &e a0arded to the concerned $etitioners 0ho 0ere illegall* dismissed in &ad ,aith and 0ere com$elled to litigate or incur eD$enses to $rotect their rights &* reason o, the o$$ressi(e acts o, P-!#[92]

8e(ertheless, P-! insists that there is no e(idence to $ro(e that it dismissed the $etitioners, much less that it 0as done in an o$$ressi(e manner#[99] "t claims that i, there 0as an* &ad ,aith in the dismissal o, the $etitioners, it could onl* &e attri&uted to ')P' and not to P-!#[9E] "t asserts that it acted in good ,aith in dealing 0ith ')P'#

2he contentions are untena&le# "t must &e em$hasi=ed that in la&or onl* contracting, Mthe la&or onl* contractor is considered merel* an agent o, the $rinci$al em$lo*er# 2he $rinci$al em$lo*er is res$onsi&le to the em$lo*ees o, the la&or onl* contractor as i, such em$lo*ees had &een directl* em$lo*ed &* the $rinci$al em$lo*er# 2he $rinci$al em$lo*er there,ore &ecomes solidaril* lia&le 0ith the la&or onl* contractor ,or all the right,ul claims o, the em$lo*ees#O[9:] P-!Fs assertions that it 0as held res$onsi&le ,or 10 em$lo*ees des$ite their ha(ing no record o, ha(ing &een assigned &* ')P' to P-! and that $etitioners could not &e reinstated &ecause there are no a(aila&le $ositions ,or them in the eDisting $lantilla o, P-! are &elatedl* raised# P-! claims that 10 out o, the :0 em$lo*ees o, ')P' ha(e ne(er &een assigned to P-!% thus, the* should not &e declared em$lo*ees o, P-!#[9G] "n $articular, P-! asserts that 6osed* Bordan, Dennis Dacasin, )llan >alta=ar, Phili$ @o=a, 5mil 2a0at, Cresente !arcia, 6omeo <as+ue=, 6enato dela Cru=, 6omeo <iernes, ?r# and 5lias >asco, 0ere ne(er assigned to it# "t 0ould a$$ear that this issue 0as raised ,or the ,irst time in P-!Fs second motion ,or reconsideration# "t 0ill &e noted that in $etitionersF Petition ,or 6e(ie0 on Certiorari,[9H] and e(en in $etitionersF $re(ious $leadings, it 0as alleged alread* that 6osed* Bordan, [9;] Dennis Dacasin,[99] )llan >alta=ar,[E0] Phili$ @o=a,[E1] 5mil 2a0at,[E2] Cresente !arcia,[E9] 6omeo <as+ue=,[EE] 6enato dela Cru=,[E:] 6omeo <iernes, ?r#[EG] and 5lias >asco[EH] 0ere em$lo*ees o, P-! through its o0n agents and salesmen# 4o0e(er, this 0as ne(er re&utted &* P-!# "n ,act, in its Comment[E;] P-! e(en alleged that Mit 0as am$l* sho0n throughout the course o, the $roceedings that the res$ondent contractors, through an assigned su$er(isor, regularl* chec/ed the attendance o, the $etitioners, monitored their on site $er,ormance, and o(ersa0 their actual da* to da* 0or/ in the areas 0here the* had &een engaged to $romote the $roducts o, res$ondent P-!#O[E9] 2his alone &elies the claim that these 10 $etitioners 0ere ne(er assigned &* ')P' to P-!# Moreo(er, this issue has not &een raised in P-!Fs Memorandum% conse+uentl* it is no0 considered as 0ai(ed or a&andoned# "n our ?anuar* 29, 200H 6esolution[:0] 0e a$$rised &oth $arties that M[n]o ne0 issues ma* &e raised &* a $art* in his.its memorandum and the issues raised in his.its $leadings &ut not included in the memorandum shall &e deemed 0ai(ed or a&andoned# >eing summations o, the $artiesF $re(ious $leadings, the Court ma* consider the memoranda alone in deciding or resol(ing this $etition#O @i/e0ise raised &elatedl* is P-!Fs claim that $etitioners could no longer &e reinstated &ecause its eDisting $lantilla does not ha(e $ositions ,or them% that there is a climate o, antagonism $er(ading &et0een the $arties% and &ecause o, the $rolonged $eriod o, time that has $assed &et0een the dismissals and the resolution o, the case# 3e note that $etitioners had &een consistentl* $ra*ing ,or reinstatement as sho0n in their Memorandum ,iled &e,ore the @a&or )r&iter, Memorandum o, )$$eal ,iled &e,ore the 8ational @a&or 6elations Commission, Motion ,or 6econsideration ,iled &e,ore the Court o, )$$eals, and their Petition ,or 6e(ie0 on Certiorari and Memorandum ,iled &e,ore this Court# 4o0e(er, in P-!Fs Memorandum ,iled &e,ore this Court, it merel* con,ined its discussion to the ,act that it 0as allegedl* not the em$lo*er o, the herein $etitioners and $roceeded to argue that there &eing no em$lo*er em$lo*ee relationshi$ &et0een it and the $etitioners, then $etitionersF Mclaims ,or &ac/0ages, monetar* claims, damages and.or attorne*Fs ,eesO[:1] are 0ithout &asis# "t omitted to mention the issue o, reinstatement 0hich is one o, $etitionersF causes o, action# 5(en a,ter the rendition o, our March 9, 2010 Decision 0here 0e ordered the reinstatement o, the $etitioners, P-! still ,ailed to raise the non ,easi&ilit* o, the same# "n its Motion ,or 6econsideration,[:2] P-! onl* tersel* stated that there is no &asis ,or $etitionersF reinstatement or $a*ment o, &ac/0ages &ecause the* are not its em$lo*ees# "t is onl* no0 that it is raising the issue that no similar or e+ui(alent $osition eDists in its $lantilla and that there is eDisting antagonism &et0een the $arties#[:9] "t is li/e0ise in its second motion ,or reconsideration and in its su$$lement thereto that P-! is raising the issue that reinstatement is no longer ,easi&le &ecause o, the Mlength o, time that has $assed ,rom the date o, their dismissal to the ,inal resolution o, the case#O[:E] P-! ,ailed to raise this matter in its ,irst motion ,or reconsideration# "t 0as onl* a,ter the Decision &ecame ,inal and eDecutor* that it &rought this issue to the attention o, the Court# 7or the orderl* administration o, Iustice, the rules o, court $ro(ide ,or onl* one motion ,or reconsideration so errors committed &* the Court ma* &e &rought to its attention and the Court &e gi(en a chance to timel* correct its mista/e# "t 0rea/s ha(oc on the administration o, Iustice to allo0 $arties to mo(e ,or a reconsideration o, a decision in a $iecemeal manner and 0ith no time limit# 5(en

P-! concedes to this $rinci$le 0hen it stated in its 'u$$lemental O$$osition[::] (to $etitionersF motion ,or $artial reconsideration) that Mto allo0 ,resh issues on a$$eal is (iolati(e o, the rudiments o, ,air $la*, Iustice and due $rocessO#[:G] M3ell settled is the rule that issues or grounds not raised &elo0 cannot &e resol(ed on re(ie0 &* the 'u$reme Court, ,or to allo0 the $arties to raise ne0 issues is antithetical to the s$orting idea o, ,air $la*, Iustice and due $rocess# "ssues not raised during the trial cannot &e raised ,or the ,irst time on a$$eal and more es$eciall* on motion ,or reconsideration# @itigation must end at some $oint% once the case is ,inall* adIudged, the $arties must learn to acce$t (ictor* or de,eat#O[:H] 7inall*, 0e 0ish to reiterate our discussion a&o(e that a second motion ,or reconsideration is a $rohi&ited $leading and that the instant Decision had alread* attained ,inalit* hence it is alread* immuta&le# 5(er* case must end at some some $oint# 5(er* Decision &ecomes ,inal and eDecutor* at some $oint# "n the $resent case, the 5ntr* o, ?udgment states that the Decision &ecame ,inal and eDecutor* on ?ul* 2H, 2010# )CCO6D"8!@B, $remises considered, 0e D58B 0ith 7"8)@"2B res$ondent Procter - !am&le Phils#, "nc#Fs Motion to 6e,er the Case to the 'u$reme Court 5n >anc 0ith 'econd Motion ,or 6econsideration and Motion ,or Clari,ication and its 'u$$lement to the Motion to 6e,er the Case to the 'u$reme Court 5n >anc 0ith 'econd Motion ,or 6econsideration and Motion ,or Clari,ication considering that the assailed March 9, 2010 Decision has alread* attained ,inalit* in (ie0 o, the 5ntr* o, ?udgment made on ?ul* 2H, 2010# 8o ,urther $leadings shall &e entertained# 'O O6D565D#

Al!v!ad" v. P#"$te# & Ga%&le P'!l!((!nes, In$., GR N". )*+,+*, - Ma#$' .+)+ /Del Cast!ll"0

Facts: P-! is $rinci$all* engaged in the manu,acture and $roduction o, di,,erent consumer and health $roducts, 0hich it sells on a 0holesale &asis to (arious su$ermar/ets and distri&utors# 2o enhance consumer a0areness and acce$tance o, the $roducts, P-! entered into contracts 0ith Promm !em and ')P' ,or the $romotion and merchandising o, its $roducts# )li(iado and other $etitioners 0or/ed as P-!1s merchandisers, and indi(iduall* signed em$lo*ment contracts 0ith either Promm !em or ')P' ,or $eriods o, more or less ,i(e months at a time# 2he* 0ere assigned at di,,erent outlets, su$ermar/ets, and stores 0here the* handled all the $roducts o, P-!, and recei(ed their 0ages ,rom Promm !em or ')P'# Promm !em and ')P' im$osed disci$linar* measures on erring merchandisers# "n Decem&er 1991, $etitioners ,iled a com$laint against P-! ,or regulari=ation, ser(ice incenti(e lea(e $a*, and other &ene,its, 0ith damages# 2he @) dismissed the case ,or lac/ o, merit and ruled that there 0as no em$lo*er em$lo*ee relationshi$ &et0een the $etitioners and P-!# 4e ,ound that the selection and engagement o, the $etitioners, the $a*ment o, their 0ages, the $o0er o, dismissal and control 0ith res$ect to the means and methods &* 0hich their 0or/ 0as accom$lished, 0ere all done &* Promm !em.')P'# 4e ,urther ,ound that Promm !em and ')P' 0ere legitimate inde$endent Io& contractors# 2he 8@6C and the C) su&se+uentl* a,,irmed the @)1s ,indings# Issue: 3.8 Promm !em and ')P' are legitimate Io& contractors#

Ruling: Promm !em is a legitimate Io& contractor, 0hile ')P' is a la&or onl* contractor# 2here,ore, the em$lo*ees o, ')P' are the em$lo*ees o, P-!, ')P' &eing merel* the agent o, P-!# Promm !em has sho0n e(idence that it has su&stantial in(estment 0hich relates to the 0or/ to &e $er,ormed, such as authori=ed stoc/ o, P1M and a $aid in ca$ital, or ca$ital a(aila&le ,or o$erations, o, P:00/% it has long term assets 0orth o(er PE00/ and current assets 0orth o(er PH00/% it maintained its o0n 0arehouse and o,,ice s$ace 0ith a ,loor area o, ;H0 s+uare meters% it had under its name three registered (ehicles 0hich 0ere used ,or its $romotional.merchandising &usiness% and it has clients aside ,rom P-!# Promm !em also su$$lied its com$lainant 0or/ers 0ith the rele(ant materials, such as mar/ers, ta$es, liners, and cutters, necessar* ,or them to $er,orm their 0or/# Promm !em also issued them uni,orms# )lso, Promm !em alread* considered the com$lainants 0or/ing under it as its regular, not merel* contractual or $roIect, em$lo*ees# 2his negates, on the $art o, Promm !em, &ad ,aith and intent to circum(ent la&or la0s 0hich ,actors ha(e o,ten &een ti$$ing $oints that lead the Court to stri/e do0n the em$lo*ment $ractice or agreement concerned as contrar* to $u&lic $olic*, morals, good customs, or $u&lic order# On the other hand, ')P'1 )rticles o, "ncor$oration sho0s that it has a $aid in ca$ital o, onl* little o(er P91/# 2here is no other e(idence $resented to sho0 ho0 much its 0or/ing ca$ital and assets are# 7urthermore, there is no sho0ing o, su&stantial in(estment in tools, e+ui$ment, or other assets# "t ,ailed to sho0 that its $aid in ca$ital is su,,icient ,or its G month contract $eriod 0ith P-! to generate its needed re(enue to sustain its o$erations inde$endentl*# "nstead, it could &e readil* seen that its ca$ital is not e(en su,,icient ,or one month1s $a*roll, 0hich is $egged at little o(er PEE/# 7urthermore, $etitioners ha(e &een charged 0ith the merchandising and $romotion o, the $roducts o, P-!, an acti(it* that has alread* &een considered &* the Court as dou&tlessl* directl* related to the manu,acturing &usiness, 0hich is the $rinci$al &usiness o, P-!# Considering that ')P' has no su&stantial ca$ital or in(estment and the 0or/ers it recruited are $er,orming acti(ities 0hich are directl* related to the $rinci$al &usiness o, P-!, ')P' is engaged in Mla&or onl*O contracting# Petition granted# @a&or la0s eD$ressl* $rohi&it Mla&or onl*O contracting# 2o $re(ent its circum(ention, the @a&or Code esta&lishes an em$lo*er em$lo*ee relationshi$ &et0een the em$lo*er and the em$lo*ees o, the la&or onl* contractor# 2here is la&or onl* contracting 0hen the contractor or su& contractor merel* recruits, su$$lies, or $laces 0or/ers to $er,orm a Io&, 0or/, or ser(ice ,or a $rinci$al and an* o, the ,ollo0ing elements are $resent: (i) 2he contractor or su&contractor does not ha(e su&stantial ca$ital or in(estment 0hich relates to the Io&, 0or/, or ser(ice to &e $er,ormed and the em$lo*ees recruited, su$$lied, or $laced &* such contractor or su&contractor are $er,orming acti(ities 0hich are directl* related to the main &usiness o, the $rinci$al% or (ii) 2he contractor does not eDercise the right to control o(er the $er,ormance o, the 0or/ o, the contractual em$lo*ee# 3here la&or onl* contracting eDists, the @a&or Code itsel, esta&lishes an em$lo*er em$lo*ee relationshi$ &et0een the em$lo*er and the em$lo*ees o, the la&or onl* contractor# 2he statute esta&lishes this relationshi$ ,or a com$rehensi(e $ur$ose: to $re(ent a circum(ention o, la&or la0s# 2he contractor is considered merel* an agent o, the $rinci$al em$lo*er and the latter is res$onsi&le to the em$lo*ees o, the la&or onl* contractor as i, such em$lo*ees had &een directl* em$lo*ed &* the $rinci$al em$lo*er# "n termination cases, the &urden o, $roo, rests u$on the em$lo*er to sho0 that the dismissal is ,or Iust and (alid cause#