Barcenas vs. NLRC

An employee who abandons her position by leaving work without filing leave and failing to return after childbirth cannot revive the employer-employee relationship by returning after the employer's death under a personal arrangement with the deceased, absent any rehiring by the successor management.

Chua Se Su served as Head Monk of the Buddhist Temple of Manila and Baguio City and as President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Poh Toh Buddhist Association of the Philippines, Inc. Under Article V of the Association's By-laws, the President was empowered to represent the Association in all dealings with the public, enter into contracts in its name, and manage its active business operations. Petitioner Filomena Barcenas, proficient in the Chinese language, was hired by Su in 1978 as secretary and interpreter. After Su's death in July 1983, respondent Manuel Chua was elected President and Chairman of the Board, and Rev. Sim Dee was elected Head Buddhist Priest, leading to the discontinuation of petitioner's allowances and her eventual eviction from the temple.

In 1978, Chua Se Su, in his capacity as Head Monk of the Buddhist Temple of Manila and Baguio City and as President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Poh Toh Buddhist Association of the Philippines, Inc., hired petitioner Filomena Barcenas, who was proficient in the Chinese language, as secretary and interpreter. Her duties included receiving and assisting Chinese visitors to the temple, acting as tourist guide for foreign Chinese visitors, attending to callers of the Head Monk, supervising preparation of food for temple visitors, running errands such as paying the Meralco, PLDT, and MWSS bills, and acting as liaison in some government offices. She received P500.00 per month plus free board and lodging in the temple. In December 1979, Su assumed responsibility for paying for the education of petitioner's nephew.

In 1981, Su and petitioner developed amorous relations. In May 1982, five months before giving birth to her alleged son by Su on October 12, 1982, petitioner was sent home to Bicol. The records do not show that she filed any leave or that leave was granted. She did not return to work after the birth of her child, whom she named Robert Chua alias Chua Sim Tiong. Su died in July 1983, and it was only after his death that petitioner went back to the Manila Buddhist Temple. According to petitioner, her return was pursuant to Su's death-bed instruction for her to stay at the temple, take care of the two boys, and ensure they finish their studies to become monks and eventually take over the two temples as their inheritance from their father.

In 1985, respondent Manuel Chua was elected President and Chairman of the Board of the Poh Toh Buddhist Association of the Philippines, Inc., and Rev. Sim Dee was elected Head Buddhist Priest. Thereafter, Chua and Dee discontinued payment of petitioner's monthly allowance and the additional P500.00 effective 1983. Petitioner and her son were forcibly evicted from their quarters in the temple by six police officers. She was brought first to the police precinct in Tondo and then to the Aloha Hotel, where she was compelled to sign a written undertaking not to return to the Buddhist temple in consideration of P10,000.00. Petitioner refused, and Chua shouted threats against her and her son. Her personal belongings, including assorted jewelry, were never returned by respondent Chua.

Respondents Chua and Dee claimed that petitioner was never an employee of the Poh Toh Temple but a servant who confined herself to the temple and to the personal needs of the late Chua Se Su, making her position coterminous with that of her master. The Labor Arbiter credited petitioner's account and found in her favor, ordering payment of backwages, separation pay, unpaid wages, and moral damages. The NLRC reversed, ruling that no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties.

• Regular Employment Status: Petitioner alleged that she was hired in 1978 as secretary and interpreter of the Head Monk and performed tasks essential to the operation and religious functions of the temple, making her a regular employee rather than a domestic servant.
• Authority to Hire: Petitioner maintained that Su, as President and Chairman of the Board, was empowered under Article V of the Association's By-laws to hire her, and that any required Board approval was tacitly granted given the absence of protest from 1978 until the controversy arose.
• Continued Employment After Su's Death: Petitioner contended that she continued to work in the temple after Su died, expecting respondents to relent and permit the studies of the two boys.
• Forcible Eviction and Trust Claims: Petitioner claimed she was forcefully evicted from the temple, harassed and threatened by respondents, and that the Poh Toh Buddhist Association is a trustee corporation with the children as cestui que trust.
• Unpaid Wages: Petitioner claimed unpaid wages dating back to May 1982.

• No Employer-Employee Relationship: Respondents Chua and Dee claimed that petitioner was never an employee of the Poh Toh Temple but a servant who confined herself to the temple and to the personal needs of the late Chua Se Su, making her position coterminous with that of her master.
• Lack of Board Approval: The NLRC argued that since petitioner was hired without the approval of the Board of Directors of the Poh Toh Buddhist Association of the Philippines, Inc., she was not an employee of respondents.

• Employer-Employee Relationship: Whether petitioner was a regular employee of the Manila Buddhist Temple.
• Effect of Abandonment: Whether petitioner's employment status ended when she left for Bicol in May 1982 and returned only after Su's death in July 1983.
• Nature of Return: Whether petitioner's return to the temple after Su's death constituted a resumption of her former employment.
• Prescription of Money Claims: Whether petitioner's claim for unpaid wages since May 1982, filed only in 1986, had prescribed.
• Propriety of Trust Claims in Labor Case: Whether petitioner's claims regarding the trust corporation and hereditary rights are proper in a labor case.

• Employer-Employee Relationship: Yes, initially. Petitioner was a regular employee of the Manila Buddhist Temple as secretary and interpreter of Head Monk Su, whose authority to hire was derived from Article V of the Association's By-laws.
• Effect of Abandonment: Yes. Petitioner's status as a regular employee ended upon her return to Bicol in May 1982, as no leave was filed or granted and she did not return to work after giving birth.
• Nature of Return: No. Petitioner's return to the temple after Su's death was not a resumption of employment but was motivated by a death-bed instruction to protect the proprietary and hereditary rights of her son and nephew.
• Prescription of Money Claims: Yes. The claim for unpaid wages since May 1982, filed only in 1986, had prescribed under Article 292 of the Labor Code, which requires money claims to be filed within three years from accrual.
• Propriety of Trust Claims in Labor Case: No. Claims regarding the trust corporation and hereditary rights are not proper in a labor case and should be threshed out in the civil complaints already filed by petitioner.

• Employer-Employee Relationship: Su, as Head Monk, President and Chairman of the Board of Directors, was empowered to hire petitioner under Article V of the By-laws, which authorized the President to manage the active business operations of the Association and enter into contracts in its name. The NLRC's argument that Board approval was required was rejected as specious, because the required approval would relate to the President's acts in representing the association "in all its dealings with the public," and even if prior Board approval were required, it was tacitly granted given that petitioner was hired in 1978 and no protest was raised until the present controversy. Moreover, petitioner's tasks—attending to Chinese visitors, arranging meetings with Su, supervising food preparation, acting as tourist guide and liaison, and paying utility bills—were essential to the operation and religious functions of the temple and could not be categorized as mere domestic work.
• Effect of Abandonment: Petitioner left for Bicol in May 1982 without filing any leave or having leave granted. She did not return to work after giving birth on October 12, 1982. The NLRC found that she returned only in July 1983 after Su's death, and petitioner's pleadings failed to rebut this finding. Her abandonment of her position effectively severed the employer-employee relationship.
• Nature of Return: Petitioner herself supplied the reason for her return: it was pursuant to Su's death-bed instruction to stay at the temple, take care of the two boys, and ensure they become monks to eventually take over the two temples as their inheritance. Her return was thus as Su's mistress protecting the proprietary and hereditary rights of her son and nephew, not as a resumed employee. Furthermore, there was no proof that she was re-hired by the new Head Monk; respondents had made clear that her services and presence were no longer needed. Her persistence in working without salary, expecting respondents to relent, did not create an employer-employee relationship.
• Prescription of Money Claims: Under Article 292 of the Labor Code, all money claims arising from employer-employee relations must be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrued. Petitioner's claim for unpaid wages since May 1982, filed only in 1986, exceeded the three-year prescriptive period and was therefore barred.
• Propriety of Trust Claims in Labor Case: Petitioner's claims that she was forcefully evicted, harassed, and that the Association is a trustee corporation with the children as cestui que trust are not proper in a labor case. These matters should be appropriately threshed out in the complaints already filed by petitioner before the civil courts. The respondents' offer of P10,000.00 was viewed as indicative of their desire to evict petitioner and her son from the temple rather than an admission of an employer-employee relationship.

• Abandonment of Employment — An employee who leaves work without filing leave and fails to return after childbirth, returning only after the employer's death, is deemed to have abandoned her position, thereby severing the employer-employee relationship. Abandonment is manifested by the employee's failure to return to work without justifiable cause, and the severed relationship cannot be revived by a return motivated by personal rather than employment considerations.
• Tacit Board Approval — Where the by-laws empower the President to manage the active business operations of an association, the hiring of an employee by the President without express Board approval may be deemed tacitly approved where no protest is raised for years until a controversy arises.
• Prescription of Labor Money Claims — Under Article 292 of the Labor Code, all money claims arising from employer-employee relations must be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrues, otherwise they are forever barred.
• Nature of Employment vs. Domestic Service — Work performed for a religious institution that is essential to its operation and religious functions—such as interpreting, guiding visitors, arranging meetings, and managing utility payments—cannot be categorized as mere domestic or household work, and confers regular employee status.

• "The required Board approval would appear to relate to the acts of the President in representing the association 'in all its dealings with the public.' And, even granting that prior Board approval is required to confirm the hiring of the petitioner, the same was already granted, albeit, tacitly." — This passage establishes the doctrine of tacit Board approval in the context of corporate officers' authority to hire, negating the NLRC's argument that lack of express Board approval negated employment status.
• "Clearly, her return could not be deemed as a resumption of her old position which she had already abandoned." — This is the ratio decidendi on the abandonment issue, determining that petitioner's return after the employer's death did not revive the severed employment relationship.
• "Under Article 292 of the Labor Code, all money claims arising from employer-employee relations must be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrued, otherwise they shall forever be barred." — This passage states the controlling prescriptive period for labor money claims, applied to bar petitioner's claim for unpaid wages from 1982 filed in 1986.

• Article 292, Labor Code — Provides that all money claims arising from employer-employee relations must be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrues, otherwise they shall forever be barred. Applied to bar petitioner's claim for unpaid wages since May 1982, filed only in 1986.
• Article V, By-laws of the Poh Toh Buddhist Association of the Philippines, Inc. — Empowers the President to represent the Association in all dealings with the public, enter into contracts in its name, and manage its active business operations. Relied upon to establish Su's authority to hire petitioner as a regular employee.

Narvasa (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concurred.