Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bulanon V Mendco
Bulanon V Mendco
llbilipptne5'
&uprtmt QCourt
~aguio <!Citp
FIRST DIVISION
Present:
- versus -
GESMUNDO, C.J,
Chairperson,
MENDCO DEVELOPMENT HERNANDO,
CORPORATION I PINACLE ZALAMEDA,
CASTING and/or ROSARIO, and
MASTERCRAFT PHILIPPINES, MARQUEZ,JJ
INC., and/or JACQUER
INTERNATIONAL and/or ERIC
NG MENDOZA, Promulgated:
Respondents.
APR 2 6_2023
x------------------- 0
----------------------------- ---x
DECISION
HERNANDO, J.:
The instant Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 filed under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court seeks to reverse and set aside the April 30, 2014 Decision2 and
July 2, 2015 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City in CA G.R.
SP No. 05103.
4
Id. at 129.
5
Id.at!O.
6
Id.
7
Id.
8
Id.at!!.
9 Id. at 138-140.
10
Id. at 10.
11
Id. at 216.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 219637
Total Award-P375,375.00
so ORDERED. 15
Aggrieved, respondents filed an Appeal 16 before the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC).
In a Decision17 dated October 30, 2009, the NLRC reversed and set aside
the LA Decision and dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint against
respondents. The NLRC held that it was physically and legally impossible for
petitioner to be an employee of five different employers namely, Mendco,
Mastercraft, Pinnacle, Jacquer and Eric. 18 Moreover, petitioner failed to
establish the existence of employer-employee relationship between him and
respondents. Instead, petitioner was a mere neighborhood carpenter, plumber or
electrician who was engaged on a task basis as shown in the irregular nature of
his work. 19 Thefallo of the NLRC Decision reads:
SO ORDERED. 20
Petitioner argued that respondents' appeal was not perfected because they
failed to furnish him (petitioner) with a certified true copy of the Surety Bond
and its supporting documents. He further averred that it is not impossible for
him to be a regular employee of five different employers because these
employers refer to one and the same owner, Eric, who is the President of all
these companies. 24
Petitioner maintained that the Daily Time Records (DTRs) and Affidavit
that he submitted are clear evidence of his employment which respondents
failed to rebut in view of their submission of an invalid Position Paper before
theLA. 25
18 Id. at 131.
19 Id. at 13 h 132.
20 Id. at 132.
21 Id. at 135.
22 Id. at 134-137. Penned by Commissioner Julie C. Rendoque and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner
Violeta Ortiz-Bantug and Commissioner Aurelio D. Menzon.
23 _Id. at 86-126.
24 Id. at 100-121.
25
Id.
26 Id. at 7-20.
27
Id. at 15.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 219637
the NLRC which was accompanied by additional evidence gave the NLRC
sufficient grounds to reverse the LA's findings. It added that rules of evidence
prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling in labor cases. 28
Anent the merits of the case, the appellate court concurred with the NLRC.
It regarded petitioner as an independent operator or freelance service contractor
based on the evidence on record. He was akin to a "maintenance" man who
performed odd jobs and offered his services not only to one person but to
everybody who might need his skills and services. In short, the CA held that
petitioner's evidence was wanting to establish the existence of an employer-
employee relationship between him and the company. 29 The decretal portion of
the CA Decision reads:
SO ORDERED. 30
Undaunted, petitioner is now before this Court via the present Petition for
Review on Certiorari contending that the appellate court erred in holding that
he was not an employee of the respondents. 33
Issue
In a nutshell, the main issue in this case is whether petitioner was able to
prove by substantial evidence his employment with respondents.
Our Ruling
28
Id. at 16.
29 Id. at 19.
30
Id. at 20.
31
ld.at21.
32
Id. at2!-23.
33
Id. at 28-61.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 219637
At the outset, it must be noted that the issue of petitioner's alleged illegal
dismissal is anchored on the existence of an employer-employee relationship
between him and respondents. This is essentially a question of fact. It is settled
that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
generally precludes Us from resolving factual issues. However, this rule is not
absolute and admits of exceptions like in labor cases where the Court may look
into factual issues when the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC,
and the CA are conflicting. In this case, the findings of the Labor Arbiter
differed from those of the NLRC and the CA necessitating this Court to review
and to re-evaluate the factual issues and to look into the records of the case, as
well as re-examine the questioned findings. 34
Petitioner argues that the NLRC should not have considered the evidence
belatedly submitted by respondents on appeal since the same were not given
credence by the LA in view of the invalid Position Paper filed by respondents. 35
For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in capsule form the
jurisprudential pronouncements already reflected above respecting non-
compliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective, verification
and certification against forum shopping:
3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample
knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition
signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made
in good faith or are true and correct.
In the case at bench, a scrutiny of the record reveals that petitioner failed
to substantiate his claim that he was a regular employee of respondents. Hence,
there exists a compelling reason to relax the rules as it would be unjust to burden
the respondents with the claims of petitioner when he is not in fact their
employee.
Settled is the tenet that allegations in the complaint must be duly proven
by competent evidence and the burden of proof is on the party making the
allegation. In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer
to prove that its dismissal of an employee was for a valid cause. However,
before a case for illegal dismissal can .prosper, an employer-employee
relationship must first be established. 40 Thus, in filing a complaint before the
Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal, based on the premise that he was an
employee of respondents, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to prove the
employer-employee relationship by substantial evidence or such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. 41
Here, the appellate court applied the four-fold test, to wit: (a) the selection
and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; ( c) the power to
discipline and dismiss; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee
with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be
accomplished, 42 in finding that no employer-employee existed between
petitioner and respondents. The Court is constrained to agree.
,2 Id.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 219637
Likewise, the DTRs he submitted are entitled to little weight for being
dubious in nature. For one, these D1Rs are neither originals nor certified true
copies. These are plain photocopies of the originals, if the latter really do exist.
More importantly, a careful examination thereof reveals that those that allegedly
originated from Mastercraft and Jacquer bore no signatures of any of their
representatives. On the other hand, the DTRs from Pinnacle, though bearing
signatures, the signatories thereof were not duly identified nor their authority to
sign admitted. As such, the CA was correct in not giving evidentiary value to
the said DTRs as the genuineness and due execution of the same are
unverifiable.
The Court further observes that most of the DTRs46 adduced by petitioner
described the scope of work he performed as well as the corresponding
compensation he received therefor (i.e., installation of gate, hanging carpet,
trellis, fabrication of partition, chipping of concrete for steel column foundation,
etc.). In fact, petitioner was also engaged by Eric to fabricate the railings in his
(Eric's) own residence. 47 To Our minds, the foregoing circumstances are
consistent with respondents' vigorous assertion that petitioner was a handyman
whose services were engaged from time to time by Eric's family to perform
In effect, this bolsters the CA's finding that petitioner is a skilled worker
who offered diverse services to respondents when the need arose. To be sure if
petitioner was indeed a regular employee of the respondents, there would h:ve
been no need to describe the varying works that he rendered on a weekly basis
in order to justify his receipt of compensation, for the nature and scope work of
an employee is usually discussed the moment of his or her engagement. As it
is, the DTRs adduced by petitioner do not conclusively establish the existence
of an: employer-employee relationship between him and respondents.
In any case, the fact alone that respondent was subjected to definite
working hours does not necessarily mean the presence of the power of control.
Jurisprudence teaches that the power of control addresses the details of day to
48
Rollo, Vol. 2, p. 833.
49
Rollo, Vol. I, p. 130.
50
Id. at 374.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 219637
day work like assigning the particular task that has to be done, monitoring the
way tasks are done and their results, and determining the time during which the
employee must report for work or accomplish his/her assigned task. 51
In this regard, it was not shown that petitioner was subjected to a set of
rules and regulations governing the performance of his duties. Neither can it be
said that he was required to devote his time exclusively to working for any of
the respondents considering that he admittedly worked for all five respondents
concurrently. 52
Besides, it is settled that proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the
NLRC are non-litigious in nature where they are encouraged to avail of all
reasonable means to ascertain the facts of the case without regard to
technicalities of law or procedure. 55
In sum, We find that the appellate court did not err in holding that no
employer-employer relationship existed between petitioner and respondents.
51 Marsman & Company, Inc. v. Sta. Rita, 830 Phil. 4 70, 495 (2018).
52 See Reyes v. Glaucoma Research Foundation, Inc., 760 Phil. 779, 791 (2015).
53 Valencia v. Classique Vinyl Products Corporation, 804 Phil. 492, 499 (2017).
54 Rollo, Vol. !, pp. 222-243.
55 De Roca v. Dabuyan, 827 Phil. 98, 111 (2018).
Decision 11 G.R. No. 219637
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
hie/Justice
Chairperson
ROD
As ociate Justice
J~ASP.MARQUEZ
~ ~ i a t e Justice
Decision 12 G.R. No. 219637
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
fE;J!/JChiefG.Justice
GESMUNDO