Comment
Comment
CASE
COMMENT
(To Complainants Position Paper)
1. Some facts are admitted with qualification, that Cokia Inc. is engaged in
the business of hatchery in Maramag, Bukidnon, but not as employer of
the complainants who claim to be regular workers;
2. That RY is a legitimate business as shown by the business permit
marked as Annex 2; Department of Labor and Employment marked
as Annex 3; Annual Income Tax Return marked as Annex 4;
Certificate from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) marked as
Annex 5; and Financial Statements marked as Annex 6-A to 6-I;
3. That barangay certificates as submitted by the complainant-workers do
not constitute proof of employment;
2 Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Maalat G.R. No. 86693, 187 SCRA 108, July 2, 1990
3
Before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, it must first be established that
an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and
respondent.4
Not every form of control that a hiring party imposes on the hired party is
indicative of employee-employer relationship. Rules and regulations that
merely serve as guidelines towards the achievement of a mutually desired
result without dictating the means and methods of accomplishing it do not
establish employer-employee relationship.5
Logically, the line should be drawn between rules that merely serve as
guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result without
dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining it, and those that
control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict the party hired to the use of
such means. The first, which aim only to promote the result, create no
employer-employee relationship unlike the second, which address both the
result and the means used to achieve it.6
Not every form of control is indicative of employer-employee relationship. A
person who performs work for another and is subjected to its rules,
regulations, and code of ethics does not necessarily become an employee. As
long as the level of control does not interfere with the means and methods of
accomplishing the assigned tasks, the rules imposed by the hiring party on
the hired party do not amount to the labor law concept of control that is
indicative of employer-employee relationship.7
The Court has held that repeated hiring does not prove the existence of
employer-employee relationship. As discussed, the absence of control over
the means and methods disproves employer-employee relationship. Also, the
continuous rehiring simply signifies the renewal of his contract with the
contractor, and highlights his satisfactory services warranting the renewal of
such contract.8
Further, in Consulta v. Court of Appeals, it was held that exclusivity of contract
does not necessarily result in employer-employee relationship.
4 Cesar C. Lirio, doing business under the name ad style of Celkor Ad Sonicmix vs Wilmer D. Genovia, Gr. 169757, November 23, 2011
5 Royale Homes Marketing Corportation vs Fidel V. Alcantara [deceased], substituted by his heirs [G.R. No. 195190, July 28, 2014]
citing Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd v. National Labor Relations Commission, 259 Phil. 65, 70-71 (1989)
6 Id.
7 Tongko v. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (Phils.), Inc., G.R. No. 167622, June 29, 2010
8 Royale Homes Marketing Corp (Supra)
PRAYER
Wherefore, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed before this
Honorable Office, that the instant action, including all claims the parties have
against respondent, be DISMISSED.
Other just and equitable relief are likewise prayed for.
Cagayan de Oro City, September 14, 2016.
EXPLANATION OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing Comment is served to Complainants Counsel via
Registered Mail due to lack of manpower and distance.
VINCENT K. PELAEZ