Barcenas V NLRC
Barcenas V NLRC
Barcenas V NLRC
FACTS
Chua Se Su (Su for short) in his capacity as the 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 Phils. Inc. hired the petitioner who speaks the
Chinese language as secretary and interpreter.
Petitioner's position required her to receive and assist Chinese visitors to the temple, act
as tourist guide for foreign Chinese visitors, attend to the callers of the Head Monk as
well as to the food for the temple visitors, run errands for the Head Monk such as paying
the Meralco, PLDT, MWSS bills and act as liaison in some government offices.
Aside from her pay and allowances under the law, she received an amount of P500.00
per month plus free board and lodging in the temple. In December, 1979, Su assumed
the responsibility of paying for the education of petitioner's nephew. Upon the death of
Su in July, 1983, complainant remained and continued in her job.
In 1985, respondent Manuel Chua (Chua, for short) was elected President and
Chairman of the Board of the Poh Toh Buddhist Association of the Philippines, Inc. and
Rev. Sim Dee for short) was elected Head Buddhist Priest. Thereafter, Chua and Dee
discontinued payment of her monthly allowance and the additional P500.00 effective
1983. In addition, petitioner and her son were evicted forcibly from their quarters in the
temple by six police officers. She was brought first to the Police precinct in Tondo and
then brought to Aloha Hotel where she was compelled to sign a written undertaking not
to return to the Buddhist temple in consideration of the sum of P10,000.00.
Chua and DEE on the other hand, 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 and thus, her position is coterminous with that of her
master.
LA rendered in favor of the complainant Filomena Barcena. Respondents appealed to
the National Labor Relations Commission which, as earlier stated, reversed the above
decision of the Labor Arbiter. Hence, this instant petition.
ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner is a household helper.
HELD
No.
The court agreed with the petitioner's claim that she was a regular employee of the
Manila Buddhist Temple as secretary and interpreter of its Head Monk, Su As Head
Monk, President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Poh Toh Buddhist
Association of the Philippines, Su was empowered to hire the petitioner under Article V
of the By-laws of the Association.
Moreover, the work that petitioner performed in the temple could not be categorized as
mere domestic work. Thus, We find that petitioner, being proficient in the Chinese
language, attended to the visitors, mostly Chinese, who came to pray or seek advice
before Buddha for personal or business problems; arranged meetings between these
visitors and Su and supervised the preparation of the food for the temple visitors; acted
as tourist guide of foreign visitors; acted as liaison with some goverment offices; and
made the payment for the temple's Meralco, MWSS and PLDT bills. Indeed, these tasks
may not be deemed activities of a household helper. They were essential and important
to the operation and religious functions of the temple.