CONTRACT TALENTS, INC., Appellant v. TEXAS EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION and SANDY G. MARCELENO, Appellee s

Reversed and Remanded and Opinion filed December 21, 1989.
 
 
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-89-00342-CV
............................
CONTRACT TALENTS, INC., Appellant
V.
TEXAS EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION and SANDY G. MARCELENO, Appellee
s
 
 
.................................................................
On Appeal from the 162nd District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 88-2276-I
.................................................................
O P I N I O N
Before Justices Howell, Baker, and Burnett
Opinion By Justice Baker
        Contract Talents, Inc. appeals from the trial court's order granting the Texas Employment Commission's plea to the jurisdiction. The only issue before this Court is whether the trial court erred by granting the Commission's plea. We hold that it did and reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this cause for further proceedings.
        CTI's petition alleged that Sandy G. Marceleno was an independent contractor who performed services for CTI. CTI alleged that she was terminated for unsatisfactory performance, and in 1985 Marceleno filed a benefits claim with the Commission. Marceleno's claim was initially denied, but this determination was reversed by an appeal tribunal of the Commission. CTI alleges that it appealed the appeal tribunal decision to grant benefits to Marceleno to the Commission itself. CTI's petition further alleged that on February 8, 1988, the Commission issued a final decision on the appeal which concluded Marceleno and other individuals, who CTI asserted were independent contractors, were employees for the purposes of the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act, that these individuals were entitled to benefits, and that CTI was liable for payment of unemployment compensation taxes. CTI further alleged that these conclusions were erroneous and that it sought a review of the Commission decision and a de novo trial pursuant to the provisions of article 522lb-4(i) of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes. FN:1
        The Commission's plea to the jurisdiction alleged that the trial court did not have jurisdiction because although CTI's action was brought under article 5221b-4(i), its remedy or authority to sue the Commission was bound and restricted by article 5221b-12(j).
        Article 5221b-4, subsections (a) through (h), establish a procedure to appeal a decision adverse to an interested party approving or denying benefits under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act for either that individual or the organization for whom that individual works. Included in this procedure is the right of an appeal to the Commission itself. See art. 5221b-4(e). This article further provides that if a party to the proceedings is aggrieved by the Commission's decision, that party has the right to secure judicial review of the Commission's decision if the suit is filed within fourteen days after the decision of the Commission has become final. See art. 5221b-4(i). The Commission argues that CIT's action falls under the provisions of article 5221b-12(j) involving an appeal of tax assessments. Article 5221b-12 provides that if an employer contests tax assessments, the employer must file suit against the Commission in Travis County.
        In determining the jurisdiction of the trial court, the allegations of the plaintiff's petition made in good faith are determinative of the cause of action. Brannon v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 148 Tex. 289, 294, 224 S.W.2d 466, 469 (1949). The plaintiff's pleadings are to be construed as favorably as possible for the pleader, and the reviewing court must look to the pleader's intent. Paradissis v. Royal Indemnity Co., 496 S.W.2d 146, 148 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1973), aff'd, 507 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. 1974). Every fact will be supplied that can reasonably be inferred from what is specifically stated. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Bliss, 368 S.W.2d 594, 599 (Tex. 1963).        
        CTI's suit is not a suit involving a contest of tax assessments but is a suit based upon an appeal from an adverse decision concerning the benefits claimed by Marceleno. Since CTI's allegations are to be taken as true on their face, we hold that the trial court has jurisdiction to hear CTI's suit under the provisions of article 5221b-4(i).
        The trial court's judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          JAMES A. BAKER
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 90
890342F.U05
 
FN:1 All references are to Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated article 5221b (Vernon 1987) and (Vernon Supp. 1989).
File Date[12-21-89]
File Name[890342F]