1. G.R. No. 186621 (12 March 2014) - South East v.

Coming

FACTS:

Petitioner South East International Rattan is a domestic corporation engaged in the

business of manufacturing and exporting furniture to various countries. Respondent
Coming was hired by petitioner as Sizing Machine Operator whose work is initially
compensated on ‘pakiao basis’ but sometime was fixed per day and a work schedule of
8:00am to 5:00pm. Without any apparent reason, his employment was interrupted as he
was told by petitioners to resume work in 2 months time but was never called back.
Respondent thus filed a complaint before the regional arbitration branch. The Labor
Arbiter ruled respondent as a regular employee of petitioner SEIRI but on appeal, was
reversed by the NLRC. CA then reversed the NLRC decision and ruled that there existed an
employer-employee relationship between petitioners and respondent.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is employer-employee relationship between petitioner and
respondent.

HELD:

YES.
The court affirms the CA.
To ascertain the existence of employer-employee relationship jurisprudence has invariably
adhered to the four-fold test, to wit: (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, or the so-called “control test.”
x x x As to the “control test”, the following facts indubitably reveal that respondents
wielded control over the work performance of petitioner, to wit: (1) they required him to
work within the company premises; (2) they obliged petitioner to report every day of the
week and tasked him to usually perform the same job; (3) they enforced the observance of
definite hours of work from 8 o’clock in the morning to 5 o’clock in the afternoon; (4) the
mode of payment of petitioner’s salary was under their discretion, at first paying him on
pakiao basis and thereafter, on daily basis; (5) they implemented company rules and
regulations; (6) [Estanislao] Agbay directly paid petitioner’s salaries and controlled all
aspects of his employment and (7) petitioner rendered work necessary and desirable in the
business of the respondent company.

2. G.R. No. 227734 (9 August 2017) - Romeo Alba v. Conrado G. Espinosa, et al.

FACTS:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court by
petitioner Romeo Alba that declared Alba guilty of illegal dismissal and liable for monetary
claims.

There were two complaints for illegal dismissal and monetary claims filed against Alba
Construction and its owner, Alba by respondents Conrado , et, al and Noli et al.
It was alleged by the respondents that on various dates, Alba hired them as construction
workers for his projects in several residential villages within Metro Manila and nearby
provinces. The respondents were Alba's regular employees who were paid different wage
rates that ranged from P350.00 to P500.00 a day, but were deprived of some statutorily-
mandated benefits such as their overtime pay, 13 month pay, holiday pay, and service
incentive leave (SIL) pay. On different dates in 2013, some of the respondents confronted
Alba regarding their benefits, but such action eventually resulted in their dismissal. [11]

In 2014, the other respondents again questioned Alba for his non-payment of their benefits.
Alba still took it against them and began treating them harshly, as he would shout at them
while at the job site, and would find scheming ways to extend their working hours. The
foregoing prompted these respondents to seek the assistance of media personality Raffy
Tulfo (Tulfo) in his Radyo Singko Program. As he addressed the respondents' dilemma,
Tulfo personally called Alba, who was reminded to pay the respondents their full benefits.
The action, however, proved to create more harm than good for the respondents because
when they reported back for work the following day, they were informed of their
dismissal. Feeling aggrieved, all the respondents filed their complaints for illegal dismissal
and monetary claims with the NLRC. The two complaints were later consolidated before
the Labor Arbiter (LA).

Alba argued that the respondents could not be deemed his regular employees. He claimed
to be a mere taker of small-scale construction projects for house repairs and renovations.
In the construction industry, he was deemed a mere mamamakyaw, who would pool a team
of skilled and semi-skilled carpenters and masons for specific projects that usually lasted
from one to two weeks. The respondents were paid daily wages ranging from P600.00 to
P1,000.00, depending on their skill, and could take on projects with their own clients after
Alba's projects had terminated. For succeeding projects, Alba would only take in
construction workers who were still available for the duration of the new work.

As he denied any liability for the respondents' claims, Alba likewise presented certifications
from clients indicating that the latter directly paid the salaries of the workers provided by
Alba for the projects. He also argued that the respondents used their own tools at work,
and received instructions from either the architect or foreman engaged by the project
owner.

The respondents were displeased by Alba's explanations. To disprove Alba's claim that he
was a mere mamamakyaw, they presented gate passes, issued by the villages where Alba
had construction projects, which indicated that Alba was a "contractor."

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint of the respondent stating that there was no
employer-employee relationship existed between Alba and the respondents. The LA
referred to the circumstances affecting the parties' payment of wages and the element of
control, and which negated the claim that the respondents should be deemed employees of
Alba.
Dissatisfied, the respondents appealed to the NLRC.
The respondents' appeal was partly granted by the NLRC.
The NLRC justified the dismissal of Jaime, Jr.'s complaint by citing sufficient evidence that
Alba engaged him as an independent contractor, specifically as excavation
contractor.[23] Conrado's complaint, on the other hand, was dismissed given his admission
that he was employed as a tanod in Barangay Almanza Dos, Las Piñas City.[24]

As to the remaining respondents, the NLRC rejected the LA's finding on the lack of
employer-employee relationship. The association between Alba and the respondents was
established after Alba readily proclaimed that the respondents were part of his pool of
workers. Alba had the power to determine who would remain in or be terminated from his
projects. He also admitted that he paid the respondents their wages on a daily basis.

The NLRC ordered the payment of 13th month pay and SIL pay, in view of Alba's failure to
prove that the said benefits had been paid to his employees. Nilo, however, was declared
not entitled to SIL pay because he worked as a personal driver who, pursuant to Article 82
of the Labor Code, was not entitled to the benefit.

Undaunted, Alba sought relief with the CA through a Petition for Certiorari, as he imputed
grave abuse of discretion upon the NLRC and reiterated the arguments that he presented
during the proceedings with the LA.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not there exist an employer employee relationship.
2. Whether or not respondents are regular employees.

HELD:
1. Yes.

At the outset, the Court explains that it shall no longer delve on the correctness of the
NLRC's and CA's ruling to, first, dismiss the complaints of Conrado and Jaime, Jr. for illegal
dismissal and monetary claims, and, second, deny Nilo of his claim for SIL pay. The NLRC's
pronouncements thereon did not appear to have been assailed by said parties, making the
pronouncements on the matter already final.

Contrary to Alba's contention, the existence of an employer-employee relationship between

him and the respondents was sufficiently established. The Court reiterates its ruling
in South East International Rattan, Inc., et al. v. Coming on the established measure for such
determination, particularly:

To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship, jurisprudence has

invariably adhered to the four-fold test, to wit: (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, or the so-called "control test." In resolving the issue of
whether such relationship exists in a given case, 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.

he presence of the first element is beyond dispute. Alba himself admitted that he was the
one who selected and engaged the workers that comprised his pool of semi-skilled and
skilled workers, for placement in his several construction projects obtained from various
clients. It was equally significant that Alba determined to which projects the respondents
were to be assigned, or whether they would be assigned at all. As it established Alba's
power to select and engage, the circumstance likewise rendered concomitant the power of
Alba to dismiss any of the respondents. Notwithstanding the length of time that his
workers had been working for his projects, he could opt to simply drop them off any
assignment, effectively dismissing them from employment, albeit with necessary
consequences if the dismissal was proved to be illegal.

Alba's payment of the respondents' wages was likewise established by his plain admission.
As the LA cited in its decision, "[Alba] would pay the [respondents] a daily fee ranging from
[P]600.00 to [P]1,000.00. They were also given bonuses from savings that [Alba and Alba
Construction] made."[37] As against this statement from Alba and the certifications that he
later presented to dispute his direct payment of the wages, the latter deserves nil
consideration. The evidentiary weight of the supposed certifications on this issue even
remained questionable. While the documents appeared to have been subscribed before a
Notary Public, the requirements for a valid notarization were not satisfied because proof of
each affiant's identity was not indicated in the jurat. Taken in light of Alba's declaration, it
could be reasonably deduced that the arrangement on his clients' direct payment of the
workers' wages was by a mere concession between Alba and the clients in order to
facilitate payment, yet it was still Alba who ultimately bore liability for the payment of the
wages.

Specifically on the "control test," this power to control is oft-repeated in jurisprudence as

the most important and crucial among the four tests.

it is clear that Alba possessed this power to control, and had in fact freely exercised it over
the respondents. Alba failed to satisfactorily rebut the respondents' direct assertions that
Alba frequented the work sites, and would reprimand his workers whom he believed were
idle or sluggish. He even controlled the time when they had to stay at work. [41] The
respondents relied upon instructions coming from Alba, as their work was for projects
obtained by the latter. He controlled the results of the work that the respondents had to
perform, along with the means and methods by which to accomplish them. His control was
not negated by any instructions that came from a foreman or an architect, as directives that
came from them, if there were at all, were understandably limited. The respondents
worked for Alba who held the project, and the latter was the one who exercised authority
over them.

2. Yes.
The respondents were regular employees, and not project employees as Alba asserts. The
mere fact that the respondents worked on projects that were time-bound did not
automatically characterize them as project employees. The nature of their work was
determinative, as the Court considers its ruling in DM. Consunji, Inc., et al. v. Jamin[46] that
"[o]nce a project or work pool employee has been: (1) continuously, as opposed to
intermittently, rehired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and (2)
these tasks are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the
employer, then the employee must be deemed a regular employee."

As construction workers, the respondents performed tasks that were crucial and necessary
in Alba's business. Their work was the core of his trade. His enterprise could not have
thrived through the years without their service. The fact that the respondents had been
engaged to work for long periods of time, and across several construction projects, further
substantiate the finding that their work was vital in the business. Most respondents were
separately employed beginning way back to the 1990s to 2006. An employment ceases to
be co-terminus with specific projects when the employee is continuously rehired due to the
demands of the employer's business and re-engaged for many more projects without
interruption."

Given the respondents' regular employment, their employment could not have been validly
terminated by Alba without just or valid cause, and without affording them their right to
due process. In cases affecting an employee's dismissal, the burden is on the employer to
prove that the dismissal was legal, a matter that in this case, Alba miserably failed to
establish. There were no adequate explanations from Alba as to why the respondents had
ceased obtaining assignments in his construction projects. In view of the illegal dismissal,
the respondents were rightfully entitled to the ordered reinstatement and award of
backwages, or separation pay in case of strained relations.

3. G.R. No. 206390 (30 January 2017) - Jack Valencia v. Classique Vinyl

FACTS:
Valencia applied for work with Classique Vinyl through the intervention of CMS, a local
manpower agency. The CMS made him sign a contract of employmentand thereafter, he
then proceeded to work for Classique Vinyl as afertilizeroperator and extruder operator.
He alleged that he was neither paid his holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, and 13th
month pay and that his benefits were either not paid or not properly remitted. He further
averred that he worked for Classique Vinyl for four years until his dismissal. Hence, by
operation of law, he had already attained the status of a regular employee of Classique
Vinyl. Valencia, therefore, argued that Classique Vinyl should be held guilty of illegal
dismissal for failing to comply with the twin-notice requirement when it dismissed him
from the service and be made to pay for his monetary claims.
On the other hand, Classique Vinyl asserted that there was no employer-employee
relationship between it and Valencia, hence, it could not have illegally dismissed the latter
nor can it be held liable for Valencia’s monetary claims. Classique Vinyl insisted that
Valencia’s true employer was CMS. However, any employer-employee relationship between
CMS and Valencia was also being denied by CMS on the ground that it was Classique Vinyl
which exercised full control and supervision over him.
Petitioner Valencia filed with the Labor Arbiter (LA) a Complaint for Underpayment of
Salary and Overtime Pay; Non-Payment of Holiday Pay, Service Incentive Leave Pay, 13th
Month Pay; Regularization; and illegal dismissal against respondents. The LAdismissed the
said complaint on the ground that there is no substantial evidence to prove the petitioner’s
complaint. Valencia promptly appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), which held lack of basis for Valencia to hold Classique Vinyl liable for his alleged
illegal dismissal as well as for his money claims. NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor
Arbiter.Valencia appealed to the CA which, however, alsoaffirmed the ruling of the NLRC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between Valencia and
Classique Vinyl?
HELD:
No. In labor cases, the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence.The burden of
proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. Since Valencia is
claiming to be an employee of Classique Vinyl, it is thus incumbent upon him to proffer
evidence to prove the existence of employer-employee relationship between them. He
needs to show by substantial evidence that he was indeed an employee of the company
against which he claims illegal dismissal. In order to determine the existence of an
employer-employee relationship, the following elements had been consistently applied: (1)
the selection and engagement; (2) payment of wages; (3) power of dismissal and; (4) the
power of control. The burden to prove such elements lies upon Valencia.
Valencia was first engaged as a contractual employee of CMS before he was deployed to
Classique Vinyl. Petitioner’s selection and engagement was undertaken by CMS and
conversely, this negates the existence of such element insofar as Classique Vinyl is
concerned. Moreover, Valencia failed to present competent evidence, documentary or
otherwise, to support his claimed employer-employee relationship between him and
Classique Vinyl. Also, the employment contract which Valencia signed with CMS
categorically states that the latter possessed not only the power of control but also of
dismissal over him.

The presentation of CMS’s Certificate of Registration with the DTI and, License as private
recruitment and placement agency from the DOLE prevented the legal presumption of it
being a mere labor-only contractor from arising. In any event, it must be stressed that “in
labor-only contracting, the statute creates an employer-employee relationship for a
comprehensive purpose: to prevent a circumvention of labor laws. The contractor is
considered merely an agent of the principal employer and the latter is responsible to the
employees of the labor-only contractor as if such employees had been directly employed by
the principal employer. The principal employer therefore becomes solidarily liable with the
labor-only contractor for all the rightful claims of the employees.” The facts of this case,
however, failed to establish that there is any circumvention of labor laws as to call for the
creation by the statute of an employer-employee relationship between Classique Vinyl and
Valencia.

4. G.R. No. 221241 (14 September 2016) - Mario N. Felicilda v. Manchesteve H. Uy

FACTS:
Petitioner Mario N. Felicilda was hired last Oct. 29, 2010 by respondent Manchesteve H. Uy
as a truck driver for his trucking service under the business name Gold Pillars Trucking
(GPT). He was issued a company identification card, assigned in one of GPT’s branches in
Manila, and paid on percentage basis.

Last Dec. 9, 2011, he took a nap at the work station while waiting for his truck to be loaded
with cargoes to be delivered to the respondent’s client on schedule. The next day, the
respondent’s helper told him that his employment was already terminated due to his act of
sleeping while on the job. Claiming he was dismissed without just cause and due process,
he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against respondent.

Respondent denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship between him and

petitioner, considering that petitioner was: (a) paid merely on per trip “percentage” basis
and was not required to regularly report for work; (b) free to offer his services to other
companies; and (c) not under respondent’s control with respect to the means and methods
by which he performed his job.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is an employer- employee relationship?

HELD:
Yes.
In order to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the following
elements had been consistently applied: (1) the selection and engagement; (2) payment of
wages; (3) power of dismissal and; (4) the power of control.
Contrary to respondent’s submission, which the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld, the Supreme
Court agrees with the labor tribunals that all the four elements are present in this case:

First: It is undisputed that respondent hired petitioner to work as a truck driver for his
private enterprise, GPT.
Second: Petitioner received compensation from respondent for the services he rendered.
Contrary to the findings of the CA, while the wages paid were determined on a “per trip” or
commission basis, it has been constantly ruled that such does not negate employment
relationship. Article 97 (f) of the Labor Code broadly defines the term “wage” as “the
remuneration or earnings, however designated, capable of being expressed in terms of
money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or other
method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an employee under a
written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done, or for services
rendered or to be rendered x x x.” That petitioner was paid on a “per trip” or commission
basis is insignificant as this is merely a method of computing compensation and not a basis
for determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

Third: Respondent’s power to dismiss was inherent in the selection and engagement of
petitioner as truck driver.

Fourth: The presence of the element of control, which is the most important element to
determine the existence or absence of employment relationship, can be safely deduced
from the fact that: (a) respondent owned the trucks that were assigned to petitioner; (b)
the cargoes loaded in the said trucks were exclusively for respondent’s clients; and (c) the
schedule and route to be followed by petitioner were exclusively determined by
respondent.

The latter’s claim that petitioner was permitted to render service to other companies was
not substantiated. While petitioner was free to carry out his duties as truck driver, it cannot
be pretended that respondent, nonetheless, exercised control over the means and methods
by which the former was to accomplish his work.
The power of control refers merely to the existence of the power. It is not essential for the
employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee, as it is sufficient
that the former has a right to wield the power.