Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
vs Coming
G.R. No. 186621, March 12, 2014
VILLARAMA, JR., J.
FACTS: November 3, 2003, JESUS J. COMING (medyo NKKLK yung name) filed a complaint
of illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of holiday pay, 13 th month pay and
service incentive leave pay, with prayer of reinstatement back wages, damages and attorneys
fee. Coming alleged that he was hired by petitioners as Sizing Machine Operator on March 17,
1984. Initially, his compensation was on pakiao basis but sometime in June 1984, it was fixed
at P150.00 per day which was paid weekly.
In 1990, without any apparent reason, his employment was interrupted as he was told by
petitioners to resume work in two months. Being an uneducated person, Coming was persuaded
by the management as well as his brother not to complain, as otherwise petitioners might decide
not to call him back for work. Fearing such consequence, he decided to stay quiet and reported
back to work upon order of the management. However, Coming was dismissed on January 1,
2002 despite being an employee for many years and his work performance never questioned. He
was told that he will be terminated because the company is not doing well financially and the
company will call him if the needed his services again, Coming waited for almost a year but the
petitioners did not call him back for work.
On the other hand, Rattan denied that Coming was their employee since he failed to present a
single payslip, voucher or a copy of the company payroll showing that he rendered service
during the said period. Rattan likewise contends that Comings name does not appear in the list
of the employees reported to the SSS and even his brother attested that Coming had never been
an employee of Rattan (the only connection was that their employer, FAUSTINO APONDAR,
supplies finished rattan products to SEIRI.). Records also reveal that their company was
incorporated only last July 18, 1986, moreover, when they started to actually operate in 1987, the
company was purely engaged on buying and exporting rattan furniture hence no manufacturing
employees were hired. Furthermore, from the last quarter of 1989 up to August of 1992, the
company suspended operations due to economic reverses per certification issued by SEC.
The Labor Arbiter rendered decision in favour of Coming. NLRC revered the decision of the
Labor Arbiter. CA overturned the NLRC decision in favour of Coming. SEIRI now raised the
issue to the SC.
ISSUE: W/N THERE IS AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
COMPANY AND COMG.
RULING: There is an e-e relationship between Coming and SEIRI. In resolving the issue if such
relationship exists, substantial evidence that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion is sufficient. Although no particular form
of evidence is required to prove the existence of the relationship, and any competent and relevant
evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted, a finding that the relationship exists must
nonetheless rest on substantial evidence.