G.R. No. 186621. March 12, 2014.*

SOUTH EAST INTERNATIONAL RATTAN, INC. and/or
ESTANISLAO[1] AGBAY, petitioners, vs. JESUS J.
COMING, respondent.

Labor Law; Employer-Employee Relationships; Appeals; The

issue of whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists in
a given case is essentially a question of fact. Only errors of law are
generally reviewed by the Supreme Court. This rule is not absolute,
however, and admits of exceptions. For one, the Court may look
into factual issues in labor cases when the factual findings of the
Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),
and the Court of Appeals (CA) are conflicting.—The issue of
whether or not

_______________ 

* FIRST DIVISION.

[1] Estaneslao and Estan Eslao in some parts of the records.

659

an employer-employee relationship exists in a given case is

essentially a question of fact. As a rule, this Court is not a trier of
facts and this applies with greater force in labor cases. Only
errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court. This rule is not
absolute, however, and admits of exceptions. For one, the Court
may look into factual issues in labor cases when the factual
findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA are
conflicting. Here, the findings of the NLRC differed from those of
the Labor Arbiter and the CA, which compels the Court’s exercise
of its authority to review and pass upon the evidence presented
and to draw its own conclusions therefrom.
Same; Same; Four-Fold Test to Ascertain the Existence of an
Employer-Employee Relationship.—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.
Same; Same; The fact that a worker was not reported as an
employee to the Social Security System (SSS) is not conclusive
proof of the absence of employer-employee relationship; Nor does
the fact that respondent’s name does not appear in the payrolls
and pay envelope records submitted by petitioners negate the
existence of employer-employee relationship.—In Tan v. Lagrama,
387 SCRA 393 (2002), the Court held that the fact that a worker
was not reported as an employee to the SSS is not conclusive
proof of the absence of employer-employee relationship.
Otherwise, an employer would be rewarded for his failure or even
neglect to perform his obligation. Nor does the fact that
respondent’s name does not appear in the payrolls and pay
envelope records submitted by petitioners negate the existence of
employer-employee relationship. For a payroll to be utilized to
disprove the employment of a person, it must contain a

660

true and complete list of the employee. In this case, the exhibits
offered by petitioners before the NLRC consisting of copies of
payrolls and pay earnings records are only for the years 1999 and
2000; they do not cover the entire 18-year period during which
respondent supposedly worked for SEIRI.
Same; Same; In any controversy between a laborer and his
master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are resolved
in favor of the laborer.—In any controversy between a laborer and
his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are
resolved in favor of the laborer. As a regular employee,
respondent enjoys the right to security of tenure under Article 279
of the Labor Code and may only be dismissed for a just or
authorized cause, otherwise the dismissal becomes illegal.
Same; Illegal Dismissals; Reinstatement; Separation Pay;
Separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of
service should be awarded as an alternative in case reinstatement
in not possible.—Respondent, whose employment was terminated
without valid cause by petitioners, is entitled to reinstatement
without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full
back wages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their
monetary equivalent, computed from the time his compensation
was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
Where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, back wages
shall be computed from the time of the illegal termination up to
the finality of the decision. Separation pay equivalent to one
month salary for every year of service should likewise be awarded
as an alternative in case reinstatement in not possible.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Alfonso L. Saniel for petitioners.
  Dela Cerna, Buenviaje Law Office for respondent.

661

 
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 to reverse and set aside the Decision[2] dated
February 21, 2008 and Resolution[3] dated February 9,
2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. CEB-SP No.
02113.
Petitioner South East International Rattan, Inc. (SEIRI)
is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of
manufacturing and exporting furniture to various countries
with principal place of business at Paknaan, Mandaue
City, while petitioner Estanislao Agbay, as per records, is
the President and General Manager of SEIRI.[4]
On November 3, 2003, respondent Jesus J. Coming filed
a complaint[5] for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages,
nonpayment of holiday pay, 13th month pay and service
incentive leave pay, with prayer for reinstatement, back
wages, damages and attorney’s fees.
Respondent alleged that he was hired by petitioners as
Sizing Machine Operator on March 17, 1984. His work
schedule is from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 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 time. Being an uneducated
person, respondent 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.

_______________
 [2] Rollo, pp. 37-46. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-
Padilla with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Franchito N.
Diamante, concurring.
[3] Id., at pp. 47-48. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-
Padilla with Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Franchito N.
Diamante, concurring.
[4] Records, pp. 21, 27-37 and 56.
[5] Id., at p. 1.

662

Fearing such consequence, respondent accepted his fate.

Nonetheless, after two months he reported back to work
upon order of management.[6]
Despite being an employee for many years with his work
performance never questioned by petitioners, respondent
was dismissed on January 1, 2002 without lawful cause. He
was told that he will be terminated because the company is
not doing well financially and that he would be called back
to work only if they need his services again. Respondent
waited for almost a year but petitioners did not call him
back to work. When he finally filed the complaint before
the regional arbitration branch, his brother Vicente was
used by management to persuade him to withdraw the
case.[7]
On their part, petitioners denied having hired
respondent asserting that SEIRI was incorporated only in
1986, and that respondent actually worked for SEIRI’s
furniture suppliers because when the company started in
1987 it was engaged purely in buying and exporting
furniture and its business operations were suspended from
the last quarter of 1989 to August 1992. They stressed that
respondent was not included in the list of employees
submitted to the Social Security System (SSS). Moreover,
respondent’s brother, Vicente Coming, executed an
affidavit[8] in support of petitioners’ position while Allan
Mayol and Faustino Apondar issued notarized
certifications[9] that respondent worked for them instead.
[10]
With the denial of petitioners that respondent was their
employee, the latter submitted an affidavit[11] signed by
five former co-workers stating that respondent was one of
the

_______________
 [6] Id., at pp. 1, 47.
 [7] Id., at p. 47.
 [8] Id., at pp. 44-45.
  [9] Id., at pp. 42-43.
[10] Id., at pp. 23, 51.
[11] Id., at p. 62.

663

pioneer employees who worked in SEIRI for almost twenty

years.
In his Decision[12] dated April 30, 2004, Labor Arbiter
Ernesto F. Carreon ruled that respondent is a regular
employee of SEIRI and that the termination of his
employment was illegal. The dispositive portion of the
decision reads:
 

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered ordering the respondent South East (Int’l.) Rattan, Inc.
to pay complainant Jesus J. Coming the following:
1. Separation pay                             P114,400.00
2. Backwages                                     P 30,400.00
3. Wage differential                         P 15,015.00
4. 13th month pay                              P 5,958.00
5. Holiday pay                                   P 4,000.00
6. Service incentive leave pay        P 2,000.00
                               Total award             P171,773.00

The other claims and the case against respondent Estanislao

Agbay are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[13]

Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations

Commission (NLRC)-Cebu City where they submitted the
following additional evidence: (1) copies of SEIRI’s payrolls
and individual pay records of employees;[14] (2) affidavit[15]
of SEIRI’s Treasurer, Angelina Agbay; and (3) second
affidavit[16] of Vicente Coming.
On July 28, 2005, the NLRC’s Fourth Division rendered
its Decision,[17] the dispositive portion of which states:

_______________
[12] Id., at pp. 63-68.
[13] Id., at p. 67.
[14] Id., at pp. 101-282.
[15] Id., at pp. 283-284.
[16] Id., at p. 285.
[17] Id., at pp. 313-318.
 664

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter

is hereby SET ASIDE and VACATED and a new one entered
DISMISSING the complaint.
SO ORDERED.[18]

 
The NLRC likewise denied respondent’s motion for
reconsideration.[19]
Respondent elevated the case to the CA via a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65.
By Decision dated February 21, 2008, the CA reversed
the NLRC and ruled that there existed an employer-
employee relationship between petitioners and respondent
who was dismissed without just and valid cause. The CA
thus decreed:
 

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby

GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated July 28, 2005 issued by
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Fourth
Division, Cebu City in NLRC Case No. V-000625-2004 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter
dated April 30, 2004 is REINSTATED with MODIFICATION on
the computation of backwages which should be computed from the
time of illegal termination until the finality of this decision.
Further, the Labor Arbiter is directed to make the proper
adjustment in the computation of the award of separation pay as
well as the monetary awards of wage differential, 13th month pay,
holiday pay and service incentive leave pay.
SO ORDERED.[20]

 
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the CA
denied it under Resolution dated February 9, 2009.

_______________
[18] Id., at p. 318.
[19] Id., at pp. 345-347.
[20] Rollo, p. 46.

665

Hence, this petition raising the following issues:

 

6.1
WHETHER UNDER THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON
RECORD, THE FINDING OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS THAT THERE EXISTS EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND
RESPONDENT IS IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE
DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.
6.2
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
CORRECTLY APPRECIATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
APPLICABLE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED BY BOTH PARTIES.
6.3
WHETHER UNDER THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE
PRESENTED, THE FINDING OF THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS THAT PETITIONERS ARE LIABLE FOR
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL OF RESPONDENT IS IN ACCORD
WITH APPLICABLE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
6.4
WHETHER UNDER THE FACTS PRESENTED, THE RULING
OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE
BACKWAGES DUE THE RESPONDENT SHOULD BE
COMPUTED FROM THE TIME OF ILLEGAL TERMINATION
UNTIL THE FINALITY OF THE DECISION IS SUPPORTED
BY PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE.[21]

_______________
[21] Id., at p. 16.

 
666

Resolution of the first issue is paramount in view of

petitioners’ denial of the existence of employer-employee
relationship.
The issue of whether or not an employer-employee
relationship exists in a given case is essentially a question
of fact. As a rule, this Court is not a trier of facts and this
applies with greater force in labor cases.[22] Only errors of
law are generally reviewed by this Court.[23] This rule is
not absolute, however, and admits of exceptions. For one,
the Court may look into factual issues in labor cases when
the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and
the CA are conflicting.[24] Here, the findings of the NLRC
differed from those of the Labor Arbiter and the CA, which
compels the Court’s exercise of its authority to review and
pass upon the evidence presented and to draw its own
conclusions therefrom.[25]
 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.”[26] In resolving the
issue of whether such relationship exists in a given case,
substantial evidence — that

_______________
[22] Manila Water Co., Inc. v. Peña, 478 Phil. 68, 77; 434 SCRA 53, 58
(2004), citing Fleischer Co., Inc. v. NLRC, 407 Phil. 391, 399; 355 SCRA
105, 112 (2001).
[23] Basay v. Hacienda Consolacion, G.R. No. 175532, April 19, 2010,
618 SCRA 422, 434, citing Lopez v. Bodega City (Video-Disco Kitchen of
the Phils.) and/or Torres-Yap, 558 Phil. 666, 673; 532 SCRA 56, 64 (2007).
[24] Jao v. BCC Products Sales, Inc., G.R. No. 163700, April 18, 2012,
670 SCRA 38, 44.
[25] Id., at p. 45.
[26] Atok Big Wedge Company, Inc. v. Gison, G.R. No. 169510, August
8, 2011, 655 SCRA 193, 202, citing Philippine Global Communications,
Inc. v. De Vera, 498 Phil. 301, 308-309; 459 SCRA 260, 268 (2005).

667

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.[27]
In support of their claim that respondent was not their
employee, petitioners presented Employment Reports to
the SSS from 1987 to 2002, the Certifications issued by
Mayol and Apondar, two affidavits of Vicente Coming,
payroll sheets (1999-2000), individual pay envelopes and
employee earnings records (1999-2000) and affidavit of
Angelina Agbay (Treasurer and Human Resources Officer).
The payroll and pay records did not include the name of
respondent. The affidavit of Ms. Agbay stated that after
SEIRI started its business in 1986 purely on export
trading, it ceased operations in 1989 as evidenced by
Certification dated January 18, 1994 from the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC); that when business
resumed in 1992, SEIRI undertook only a little of
manufacturing; that the company never hired any workers
for varnishing and pole sizing because it bought the same
from various suppliers, including Faustino Apondar;
respondent was never hired by SEIRI; and while it is true
that Mr. Estanislao Agbay is the company President, he
never dispensed the salaries of workers.[28]
In his first affidavit, Vicente Coming averred that:

_______________
[27] Masing and Sons Development Corporation v. Rogelio, G.R. No.
161787, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 490, 498, citing Section 5, Rule 133 of
the Rules of Court, People’s Broadcasting (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc.) v.
Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 179652,
May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 724, 753 and Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 98368, December 15, 1993, 228 SCRA 473, 478.
[28] Records, pp. 27-43, 56, 101-287.

668

6. [Jesus Coming] is a furniture factory worker. In 1982 to

1986, he was working with Ben Mayol as round core
maker/splitter.
7. Thereafter, we joined Okay Okay Yard owned by Amelito
Montececillo. This is a rattan trader with business address near
Cebu Rattan Factory on a “Pakiao” basis.
8. However, Jesus and I did not stay long at Okay Okay Yard
and instead we joined Eleuterio Agbay in Labogon, Cebu in 1989.
In 1991, we went back to Okay Okay located near the residence of
Atty. Vicente de la Serna in Mandaue City. We were on a “pakiao”
basis. We stayed put until 1993 when we resigned and joined
Dodoy Luna in Labogon, Mandaue City as classifier until 1995. In
1996[,] Jesus rested. It was only in 1997 that he worked back. He
replaced me, as a classifier in Rattan Traders owned by Allan
Mayol. But then, towards the end of the year, he left the factory
and relaxed in our place of birth, in Sogod, Cebu.
9. It was only towards the end of 1999 that Jesus was taken
back by Allan Mayol as sizing machine operator. However, the
work was off and on basis. Not regular in nature, he was harping
a side line job with me knowing that I am now working with
Faustino Apondar that supplies rattan furniture’s [sic] to South
East (Int’l) Rattan, Inc. As a brother, I allowed Jesus to work with
me and collect the proceeds of his services as part of my
collectibles from Faustino Apondar since I was on a “pakiao”
basis. He was working at his pleasure. Which means, he works if
he likes to? That will be until 10:00 o’clock in the evening.
x x x x[29]
 The Certification dated January 20, 2004 of Allan Mayol
reads:

_______________
[29] Id., at p. 44.

669

This is to certify that I personally know Jesus Coming, the

brother of Vicente Coming. Jesus is a rattan factory worker and
he was working with me as rattan pole sizing/classifier of my
business from 1997 up to part of 1998 when he left my factory at
will. I took him back towards the end of 1999, this time as a sizing
machine operator. In all these years, his services are not regular.
He works only if he likes to.[30]

Faustino Apondar likewise issued a Certification which

states:

This is to certify that I am a maker/supplier of finished Rattan

Furniture. As such, I have several rattan furniture workers under
me, one of whom is Vicente Coming, the brother of Jesus Coming.
That sometime in 1999, Vicente pleaded to me for a side line
job of his brother, Jesus who was already connected with Allan
Mayol. Having vouched for the integrity of his brother and
knowing that the job is temporary in character, I allowed Jesus to
work with his brother Vicente. However, the proceeds will be
collected together with his brother Vicente since it was the latter
who was working with me. He renders services to his brother
work only after the regular working hours but off and on basis.
[31]

 
On the other hand, respondent submitted the affidavit
executed by Eleoterio Brigoli, Pedro Brigoli, Napoleon
Coming, Efren Coming and Gil Coming who all attested
that respondent was their co-worker at SEIRI. Their
affidavit reads:

We, the undersigned, all of legal ages, Filipino, and resident[s]

of Cebu, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law,
depose and say:

_______________
[30] Id., at p. 42.
[31] Id., at p. 43.

670
 That we are former employees of SOUTH EAST RATTAN
which is owned by Estan Eslao Agbay;
That we personally know JESUS COMING considering that we
worked together in one company SOUTH EAST RATTANT [sic];
That we together with JESUS COMING are all under the
employ of ESTAN ESLAO AGBAY considering that the latter is
the one directly paying us and holds the absolute control of all
aspects of our employment;
That it is not true that JESUS COMING is under the employ of
one person other than ESTAN ESLAO AGBAY OF SOUTH EAST
RATTAN;
That Jesus Coming is one of the pioneer employees of SOUTH
EAST RATTAN and had been employed therein for almost twenty
years;
That we executed this affidavit to attest to the truth of the
foregoing facts and to deny any contrary allegation made by the
company against his employment with SOUTH EAST RATTAN.
[32]

 
In his decision, Labor Arbiter Carreon found that
respondent’s work as sizing machine operator is usually
necessary and desirable to the rattan furniture business of
petitioners and their failure to include respondent in the
employment report to SSS is not conclusive proof that
respondent is not their employee. As to the affidavit of
Vicente Coming, Labor Arbiter Carreon did not give weight
to his statement that respondent is not petitioners’
employee but that of one Faustino Apondar. Labor Arbiter
Carreon was not convinced that Faustino Apondar is an
independent contractor who has a contractual relationship
with petitioners.
In reversing the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC reasoned as
follows:

_______________
[32] Id., at p. 62.

671

First complainant alleged that he worked continuously from

March 17, 1984 up to January 21, 2002. Records reveal however
that South East (Int’l.) Rattan, Inc. was incorporated only last
July 18, 1986 (p. 55 records)[.] Moreover, when they started to
actually operate in 1987, the company was engaged purely 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 as per Certification issued by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (p. 56 records)[.]
Second, for all his insistence that he was a regular employee,
complainant failed to present a single payslip, voucher or a copy
of a company payroll showing that he rendered service during the
period indicated therein.
xxx
From the above established facts we are inclined to give weight
and credence to the Certifications of Allan Mayol and Faustino
Apondar, both suppliers of finished Rattan Furniture (pp. 442-43,
records). It appears that complainant first worked with Allan
Mayol and later with Faustino Apondar upon the proddings of his
brother Vicente. Vicente’s affidavit as to complainant’s
employment history was more detailed and forthright. x x x
xxxx
In the case at bar, there is likewise substantial evidence to
support our findings that complainant was not an employee of
respondents. Thus:
1.            Complainant’s name does not appear in
the list of employees reported to the SSS.
2.            His name does not also appear in the
sample payrolls of respondents’ employees.
3.            The certification of Allan Mayol and
Faustino Apondar[,] supplier of finished rattan
products[,] that complainant had at one time or
another worked with them.
4.            The Affidavit of Vicente Coming,
complainant’s full brother[,] attesting that
complain-

672

ant had never been an employee of respondent. The

only connection was that their employer Faustino
Apondar supplies finished rattan products to
respondents.[33]

 
On the other hand, the CA gave more credence to the
declarations of the five former employees of petitioners that
respondent was their co-worker in SEIRI. One of said
affiants is Vicente Coming’s own son, Gil Coming. Vicente
averred in his second affidavit that when he confronted his
son, the latter explained that he was merely told by their
Pastor to sign the affidavit as it will put an end to the
controversy. Vicente insisted that his son did not know the
contents and implications of the document he signed. As to
the absence of respondent’s name in the payroll and SSS
employment report, the CA observed that the payrolls
submitted were only from January 1, 1999 to December 29,
2000 and not the entire period of eighteen years when
respondent claimed he worked for SEIRI. It further noted
that the names of the five affiants, whom petitioners
admitted to be their former employees, likewise do not
appear in the aforesaid documents. According to the CA, it
is apparent that petitioners maintained a separate payroll
for certain employees or willfully retained a portion of the
payroll.

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

_______________
[33] Id., at pp. 314-315, 317-318.

673

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.[34]

We affirm the CA.

 In Tan v. Lagrama,[35] the Court held that the fact that
a worker was not reported as an employee to the SSS is not
conclusive proof of the absence of employer-employee
relationship. Otherwise, an employer would be rewarded
for his failure or even neglect to perform his obligation.[36]
Nor does the fact that respondent’s name does not
appear in the payrolls and pay envelope records submitted
by petitioners negate the existence of employer-employee
relationship. For a payroll to be utilized to disprove the
employment of a person, it must contain a true and
complete list of the employee.[37] In this case, the exhibits
offered by petitioners before the NLRC consisting of copies
of payrolls and pay earnings records are only for the years
1999 and 2000; they do not cover the entire 18-year period
during which respondent supposedly worked for SEIRI.
In their comment to the petition filed by respondent in
the CA, petitioners emphasized that in the certifications
issued by Mayol and Apondar, it was shown that
respondent was employed and working for them in those
years he claimed to be working for SEIRI. However, a
reading of the certification by Mayol would show that while
the latter claims to have respondent under his employ in
1997, 1998 and 1999, respondent’s services were not
regular and that he works only if he

_______________
[34] Rollo, p. 43.
[35] 436 Phil. 190, 204-205; 387 SCRA 393, 402 (2002), citing Lambo v.
NLRC, 375 Phil. 855, 862; 317 SCRA 420, 427 (1999).
[36] Id., at p. 205; p. 402, citing Spouses Santos v. NLRC, 354 Phil. 918,
932; 293 SCRA 113, 126 (1998).
[37] Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage v. NLRC, supra note 27.

674

wants to. Apondar’s certification likewise stated that

respondent worked for him since 1999 through his brother
Vicente as “sideline” but only after regular working hours
and “off and on” basis. Even assuming the truth of the
foregoing statements, these do not foreclose respondent’s
regular or full-time employment with SEIRI. In effect,
petitioners suggest that respondent was employed by
SEIRI’s suppliers, Mayol and Apondar but no competent
proof was presented as to the latter’s status as independent
contractors.
In the same comment, petitioners further admitted that
the five affiants who attested to respondent’s employment
with SEIRI are its former workers whom they describe as
“disgruntled workers of SEIRI” with an axe to grind
against petitioners, and that their execution of affidavit in
support of respondent’s claim is “their very way of hitting
back the management of SEIRI after disciplinary measures
were meted against them.”[38] This allegation though was
not substantiated by petitioners. Instead, after the CA
rendered its decision reversing the NLRC’s ruling,
petitioners subsequently changed their theory by denying
the employment relationship with the five affiants in their
motion for reconsideration, thus:

x x x Since the five workers were occupying and working on a

leased premises of the private respondent, they were called
workers of SEIRI (private respondent). Such admission however,
does not connote employment. For the truth of the matter, all of
the five employees of the supplier assigned at the leased premises
of the private respondent. Because of the recommendation of the
private respondent with regards to the disciplinary measures
meted on the five workers, they wanted to hit back against the
private respondent. Their motive to implicate private respondent
was to vindicate. Definitely, they have an axe to grind against the
private respondent. Mention has to be made that despite the
dismissal of these five (5) witnesses from their service, none of
them

_______________
[38] CA Rollo, p. 205.

675

ever went to the National Labor [Relations] Commission and

invoked their rights, if any, against their employer or at the very
least against the respondent. The reason is obvious, since they
knew pretty well that they were not employees of SEIRI but
rather under the employ of Allan Mayol and Faustino Apondar,
working on a leased premise of respondent. x x x[39]

Petitioners’ admission that the five affiants were their

former employees is binding upon them. While they claim
that respondent was the employee of their suppliers Mayol
and Apondar, they did not submit proof that the latter were
indeed independent contractors; clearly, petitioners failed
to discharge their burden of proving their own affirmative
allegation.[40] There is thus no showing that the five former
employees of SEIRI were motivated by malice, bad faith or
any ill-motive in executing their affidavit supporting the
claims of respondent.
In any controversy between a laborer and his master,
doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are resolved in
favor of the laborer.[41]
As a regular employee, respondent enjoys the right to
security of tenure under Article 279[42] of the Labor Code
and may

_______________
[39] Id., at pp. 241-242.
[40] Masing and Sons Development Corporation v. Rogelio, supra note
27, at p. 502.
[41] Id.
[42]  ART. 279. Security of Tenure.—In cases of regular
employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee
except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who
is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without
loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages,
inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from
him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

676

only be dismissed for a just[43] or authorized[44] cause,

otherwise the dismissal becomes illegal.
Respondent, whose employment was terminated without
valid cause by petitioners, is entitled to reinstatement
without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to
his full back wages, inclusive of allowances and other
benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the
time his compensation was withheld from him up to the
time of his actual reinstatement. Where reinstatement is
no longer viable as an option, back wages shall be
computed from the time of the illegal termination up to the
finality of the decision. Separation pay equivalent to one
month salary for every year of service should likewise be
awarded as an alternative in case reinstatement in not
possible.[45]
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is
DENIED. The Decision dated February 21, 2008 and
Resolution dated February 9, 2009 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. No. CEB-SP No. 02113 are hereby AFFIRMED
and UPHELD.
Petitioners to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,

Bersamin  and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed and

upheld. 

_______________
[43] LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Art. 282.
[44] Id., Arts. 283 and 284.
[45] CRC Agricultural Trading v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 177664, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 138, 151,
citing RBC Cable Master System v. Baluyot, G.R. No. 172670, January 20,
2009, 576 SCRA 668, 679 and Mt. Carmel College v. Resuena, 561 Phil.
620, 644; 535 SCRA 518, 541 (2007).

677

Notes.—The existence of an employer-employee

relationship is a statutory prerequisite to and a limitation
on the power of the Secretary of Labor, one which the
 legislative branch is entitled to impose. (People’s
Broadcasting [Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc.] vs. Secretary of
Labor and Employment, 587 SCRA 724 [2009])
It is basic in jurisprudence that illegally dismissed
workers are entitled to reinstatement with backwages plus
interest at the legal rate. (Automotive Engine Rebuilders,
Inc. [AER] vs. Progresibong Unyon ng mga Manggagawa sa
AER, 688 SCRA 586 [2013])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.