AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION CORPORATION; et. al. v. LIM, G.R. No. 214291 | 2018
823 Phil. 635
G.R. No. 214291. January 11, 2018
AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION CORPORATION;
AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION SINGAPORE PTE. LTD.;
AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (A.P.C.), B.V.;
AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (PHILS.) B.V.;
DAVID W. PLUMER, JR.;
GEORGE KONG; AND ALICIA HENDY,
PETITIONERS,
V.
JASON YU LIM,
RESPONDENT.
Full text:
Ponente: DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Nature of petition: This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to set aside the April 23, 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R SP No. 110142 setting aside the June 17, 2008 Decision and June 10, 2009 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. 10-002807-07 and reinstating the July 27, 2007 Decision of the Labor Arbiter, as well as the CA's September 11, 2014 Resolution denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The April 23, 2014 Decision and September 11, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 110142 are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION, in that the decree to reinstate respondent to his former position and the award of P45,771.50 covering vehicle insurance for the years 2006 and 2007 and vehicle registration for the year 2006 are DELETED.
Let the Office of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue be furnished a copy of this Decision for appropriate action.
Doctrines:
To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, four elements generally need to be considered, namely:
(1) the selection and engagement of the employee;(2) the payment of wages;(3) the power of dismissal; and(4) the power to control the employee's conduct.
These elements or indicators comprise the so-called 'four-fold' test of employment relationship. x x x
From the above, it would seem that all of the petitioners are for all practical purposes respondent's employers. He was selected and engaged by APCC. His salaries and benefits were paid by APCP BV. And he is under the supervision and control of APCS and APC Japan. But of course, there is no such thing in legitimate employment arrangements. This bizarre labor relation was made possible and necessary only by the petitioners' common objective: to enable APCC to skirt the law. For all legal purposes, APCC is respondent's employer. Therefore, this Court declares the subject redundancy scheme a sham, the same being an integral part of petitioners' illegitimate scheme to defraud the public - including respondent - and the State. It is null and void for being contrary to law and public policy as it is in furtherance of an illegal scheme perpetrated by APCC with the aid of its co-petitioners.
Quae ab initio non valent, ex post facto convalescere non possunt. Things that are invalid from the beginning are not made valid by a subsequent act.
Synopsis:
American Power Conversion Corporation (APCC) hired Jason Yu Lim as the Country Manager for American Power Conversion Philippine Sales Office (APCPSO). APCPSO was not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) but acted as a liaison office for APCC. When APCPSO was acquired by American Power Conversion (Phils.), Inc. (APCPI), Lim was included in the payroll of APCPI. Later, Lim was promoted as Regional Manager for APC North ASEAN and reported to petitioner George Kong. While working with Kong, Lim discovered irregularities committed by him and reported it to David Plumer, Vice President for Asia Pacific of APC Japan. When Kong learned of this, he sent e-mails to Lim and other members of the team indicating his displeasure. Later, Lim was informed of a supposed company restructuring which rendered his position as Regional Manager for North ASEAN redundant, and he was handed a Termination Letter. Lim contested his dismissal for redundancy, and it was held that his dismissal was invalid.
The court found that all the petitioners, for all practical purposes, were Lim's employers. However, this labor relationship was made possible and necessary only to enable APCC to skirt the law. Hence, for all legal purposes, APCC is Lim's employer. The redundancy program in issue that was used to justify his dismissal from work was implemented by employees of APC Japan, APCS, APCP BV, but since APCC is Lim's true employer, these employees had no authority to devise a redundancy scheme. Therefore, their supposed redundancy scheme, as against Lim, is ineffective.
While Lim may no longer be reinstated to his former position on account of strained relations, all the petitioners are liable to pay back wages, damages, and attorney's fees for their gross violation of the fundamental policy of the Labor Code, as a result of their concerted acts of fraud and misrepresentation upon Lim.