Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 120473 June 23, 1999
ULTRA VILLA FOO !AUS, "n#$o% ROSIE TIO, petitioners,
vs.
RENATO GENISTON, NATIONAL LA&OR RELATIONS COMMISSION PRESIING
COMMISSIONER '4T! IVISION(, respondents.

)APUNAN, J.:
This special civil action for certiorari stes fro a coplaint for ille!al disissal filed b"
Renato #eniston, private respondent herein, a!ainst the $ltra Villa Food %aus
restaurant and&or its alle!ed o'ner Rosie Tio. Private respondent alle!ed that he 'as
eplo"ed as a (do it all !u".( actin! as 'aiter, driver, and aintenance an, in said
restaurant. %is eplo"ent therein spanned fro March ), )*+* until he 'as disissed
on Ma" ),, )**-. For his services, private respondent 'as paid P./.// in )*+*, P0/.//
in )**/, P+/.// in )**) and P*/.// 'hen he 'as disissed in )**-.
Durin! the elections of Ma" )), )**-, private respondent acted as a Poll 1atcher for the
National $nion of 2hristian Deocrats. The countin! of votes lasted until ,3// p.. the
ne4t da", Ma" )-. Private respondent did not report for 'or5 on both da"s on account of
his poll6'atchin!.
$pon arrivin! hoe on Ma" )-, private respondent discovered that Tio had phoned his
other that ornin!. Tio alle!edl" !ave his other (an inscrutable verbal lashin!,( and
infored the latter that private respondent 'as disissed fro 'or5. On Ma" ),, )**-,
private respondent 'ent to Tio7s residence to plead his case onl" to be sub8ected to a
(bro' beatin!( b" Tio 'ho even attepted to force hi to si!n a resi!nation letter.
Private respondent pra"ed that the 9abor :rbiter order petitioner Tio to pa" hi overtie
pa", preiu pa", holida" pa", service incentive leave pa", salar" differential and ),th
onth pa". %e li5e'ise pra"ed for reinstateent plus bac5'a!es or, in the alternative,
separation pa", as 'ell as oral daa!es, e4eplar" daa!es and attorne"7s fees.
Petitioner Rosie Tio, on the other hand, aintained that private respondent 'as her
personal driver, not an eplo"ee of the $ltra Villa Food %aus. :s petitioner7s personal
driver, private respondent 'as re;uired to report for 'or5 at 03// a.. to drive petitioner
to Mandaue 2it" 'here petitioner 'or5ed as the Mana!er of the 2F2 2orporation.
:ccordin!l", private respondent 'as paid P.<.// a da" 'hich 'as !raduall" increased
to P0/.// then to P*/.//. Private respondent 'as li5e'ise !iven free eals as 'ell as
),th onth pa" at the end of the "ear. Petitioner denied disissin! private respondent
'ho she claied abandoned his 8ob.
Thou!h 'ell a'are that Ma" )-, )**- 'as a holida", petitioner called up private
respondent that da" to as5 hi to report for 'or5 as she had soe iportant atters to
attend to. Private respondent7s 'ife, ho'ever, coldl" told petitioner that private
respondent 'as helpin! in the countin! of ballots. Petitioner 'as thus forced to hire
another driver to replace private respondent. Private respondent cae bac5 a 'ee5
after but onl" to collect his salar".
The 9abor :rbiter found that private respondent 'as indeed petitioner7s personal driver.
Private respondent7s clai that he 'as an eplo"ee of the $ltra Villa Food %aus 'as
deeed b" the 9abor :rbiter to be a ere afterthou!ht, considerin! that3
. . . . In his verified coplaint, coplainant states that the nature of his
'or5 position 'as a driver. If it ='ere> true that he 'as ade to
perfor these functions as a 'aiter, it 'ould be incon!ruous 'ith the
position of a driver. The nature of the position of a 'aiter is one that
re;uires hi to be at the place of 'or5 at all ties 'hile that of a
driver, coplainant had to be a'a" fro the restaurant at all ties. :t
an" rate, an adission is ade that he 'as onl" a personal driver of
the individual respondent.
1
The (adission( referred to above is contained in the andator" conference order
issued b" the 9abor :rbiter on ?anuar" )/, )**@, to 'it3
:lso on this date, the follo'in! atters 'ere threshed out3
That coplainant started his eplo"ent 'ith the individual
respondent as the latter7s personal driver on March ), )*+* and the
last da" of his service 'as on Ma" ),, )**-A
2
1
The 9abor :rbiter concluded that private respondent, bein! a personal driver, 'as not
entitled to overtie pa", preiu pa", service incentive leave pa" and ),th onth pa".
Private respondent7s clai for salar" differential 'as li5e'ise denied since he (received
a dail" salar" of P*/.// 'hich is ore than that set b" la'.(
3
Neither 'as private respondent a'arded separation pa". 1hile the hirin! of a substitute
driver aounted to a constructive disissal, the 9abor :rbiter ruled that the sae 'as
8ustified in vie' of petitioner7s (dire need( for the services of a driver.
The 9abor :rbiter, ho'ever, noted that petitioner failed to copl" 'ith procedural due
process in disissin! private respondent and thus ordered the forer to indenif" the
latter the aount of P),///.//. The dispositive portion of the 9abor :rbiter7s decision
states3
1%BRBFORB in the li!ht of the fore!oin! preises, 8ud!ent is
rendered findin! coplainant7s disissal for a valid cause. 2oplaint
is hereb" ordered disissed. %o'ever, respondent is directed to
indenif" coplainant the aount of P),///.// for failure to observe
the due process re;uireent before disissin! the coplainant.
SO ORDBRBD.
4
Coth parties appealed the decision of the 9abor :rbiter to the National 9abor Relations
2oission DN9R2E.
Petitioner ;uestioned the 9abor :rbiter7s decision insofar as it re;uired her to pa"
private respondent the aount of P).///.//. Petitioner aintained that private
respondent abandoned his 8ob, and 'as not constructivel" disissed as found b" the
9abor :rbiter. Petitioner concluded that she could not be held liable for failin! to observe
procedural due process in disissin! private respondent, there bein! no disissal to
spea5 of.
On the other hand, private respondent denied adittin! that he 'as eplo"ed as
petitioner7s personal driver. %e alle!ed that 'hat 'as aditted durin! the andator"
conference 'as that he 'as ade to drive for the ana!er and his 'ife DpetitionerE on
top of his other duties 'hich 'ere necessar" and desirable to petitioner7s business.
Private respondent li5e'ise aintained his clai that he 'as un8ustl" disissed,
contendin! that his absence on Ma" )) and )-, )**- did not 'arrant disissal since
those da"s 'ere official holida"s.
The N9R2 found private respondent7s ar!uents eritorious, and ordered petitioner to
reinstate private respondent and to pa" hi the su of P@<,,)).<< in bac5'a!es,
overtie pa", preiu pa" for holida" and rest da"s, ),th onth pa", and service
incentive pa". Thus3
1%BRBFORB, the respondents are hereb" ordered to reinstate the
coplainant 'ith bac5'a!es fi4ed for . onths as he dela"ed in filin!
this case.
The respondents are li5e'ise ordered to pa" the coplainant his
overtie pa", holida" pa", preiu pa" for holida" and rest da", ),th
onth pa", and service incentive leave coverin! the period fro
October -+, )**/ to Ma" )/, )**-.
2oplainant7s bac5'a!es up to the tie of this Decision and his
other onetar" clais as coputed b" NaFarina 2. 2abahu!, Fiscal
B4ainer II of the 2oission are the follo'in!3
444 444 444
S$MM:RG
)E Cac5'a!es P )@,),/.//
-E Overtie Pa" P --,/././/
,E %olida" Pa"A Preiu pa" for %olida" P
),<<@.//
@E Preiu Pa" for Rest Da" P ),.+,.//
<E ),th Month Pa" P <,@+@.<<
.E Service Incentive 9eave P @//.//
HHHHHH
TOT:9 P @<,,)).<<
SO ORDBRBD.
*
2
:ctin! on the parties7 respective otions for reconsideration, the N9R2 !ranted private
respondent separation pa" in lieu of reinstateent on account of the establishent7s
closure but denied his pra"er for oral, actual and e4eplar" daa!es, and attorne"7s
fees. The N9R2 also denied petitioner7s otion, reiteratin! its earlier rulin! that private
respondent 'as an eplo"ee of the $ltra Villa Food %aus.
T'o issues are thus presented before this 2ourt3
D)E 1hether private respondent 'as an eplo"ee
of the $ltra Villa Food %aus or the personal driver
of petitionerA and
D-E 1hether private respondent 'as ille!all"
disissed fro eplo"ent.
I
The Solicitor #eneral, in his (Manifestation and Motion In 9ieu of 2oent,( a!rees
'ith petitioner7s subission that private respondent 'as her personal driver.
+
1e find that private respondent 'as indeed the personal driver of petitioner, and not an
eplo"ee of the $ltra Villa Food %aus. There is substantial evidence to support such
conclusion, nael"3
D)E Private respondent7s adission durin! the andator" conference
that he 'as petitioner7s personal driver.
7
D-E 2opies of the $ltra Villa Food %aus pa"roll 'hich do not contain
private respondent7s nae.
,
D,E :ffidavits of $ltra Villa Food %aus eplo"ees attestin! that private
respondent 'as never an eplo"ee of said establishent.
9
D@E Petitioner Tio7s undisputed alle!ation that she 'or5s as the branch
ana!er of the 2F2 2orporation 'hose office is located in Mandaue
2it". This 'ould support the 9abor :rbiter7s observation that private
respondent7 position as driver 'ould be (incon!ruous( 'ith his
function as a 'aiter of $ltra Villa Food %aus.
10
D<E The ?oint :ffidavit of the 'arehousean and 'arehouse chec5er
of the 2F2 2orporation statin! that3
Renato #eniston usuall" drive=s> Mrs. Tio fro her residence to the
office. Thereafter, Mr. #eniston 'ill 'ait for Mrs. Tio in her car. Most of
the tie, Renato #eniston slept in the car of Mrs. Tio and 'ill be
a'a5ened onl" 'hen the latter 'ill leave the office for lunch.
Mr. #eniston 'ill a!ain drive Mrs. Tio to the office at around -3//
o7cloc5 in the afternoon and thereafter the forer 'ill a!ain 'ait for
Mrs. Tio at the latter7s car until Mrs. Tio 'ill a!ain leave the office to
a5e her rounds at our branch office at the do'nto'n area.
11
In contrast, private respondent has not presented an" evidence other than his self6
servin! alle!ation to sho' that he 'as eplo"ed in the $ltra Villa Food %aus. On this
issue, therefore, the evidence 'ei!hs heavil" in petitioner7s favor. The 9abor :rbiter thus
correctl" ruled that private respondent 'as petitioner7s personal driver and not an
eplo"ee of the sub8ect establishent.
:ccordin!l", the ters and conditions of private respondent7s eplo"ent are !overned
b" 2hapter III, Title III, Coo5 III of the 9abor 2ode
12
as 'ell as b" the pertinent
provisions of the 2ivil 2ode.
13
Thus, :rticle )@) of the 9abor 2ode provides3
:rt. )@). 2overa!e. H This 2hapter shall appl" to all persons
renderin! services in households for copensation.
Doestic or household service( shall ean services in the eplo"ers
hoe 'hich is usuall" necessar" or desirable for the aintenance
and en8o"ent thereof and includes inisterin! to the personal
cofort and convenience of the ebers of the eplo"ers
household, including services of family drivers. DBphasis supplied.E
2hapter III, Title III, Coo5 III, ho'ever, is silent on the !rant of overtie pa", holida" pa",
preiu pa" and service incentive leave to those en!a!ed in the doestic or
household service.
Moreover, the specific provisions andatin! these benefits are found in Coo5 III, Title I
of the 9abor 2ode,
14
and :rticle +-, 'hich defines the scope of the application of these
provisions, e4pressl" e4cludes doestic helpers fro its covera!e3
:rt. +-. 2overa!e. H The provision of this title shall appl" to
eplo"ees in all establishents and underta5in!s 'hether for profit
or notA but not to !overnent eplo"ees, ana!erial eplo"ees, field
personnel, ebers of the fail" of the eplo"er 'ho are dependent
on hi for support, domestic helpers, persons in the personal service
3
of another, and 'or5ers 'ho are paid b" results as deterined b" the
Secretar" of 9abor in appropriate re!ulations. DBphasis supplied.E
The liitations set out in the above article are echoed in Coo5 III of the
Onibus Rules Ipleentin! the 9abor 2ode.
1*
2learl" then, petitioner is not obli!ed b" la' to !rant private respondent an" of these
benefits.
Bplo"in! the sae line of anal"sis, it 'ould see that private respondent is not
entitled to ),th onth pa". The Revised #uidelines on the Ipleentation of the ),th
Month Pa" 9a' also e4cludes eplo"ers of household helpers fro the covera!e of
Presidential Decree No. +<), thus3
-. B4epted Bplo"ers
The follo'in! eplo"ers are still not covered b" P.D. No. +<)3
a. . . .A
b. Bplo"ers of household helpers . . .A
c. . . .,
d. . . . .
Nevertheless, 'e dee it 8ust to a'ard private respondent ),th onth pa" in vie' of
petitioner7s practice of accordin! private respondent such benefit. Indeed, petitioner
aditted that she !ave private respondent ),th onth pa" ever" Deceber.
1+
II
1e coe no' to the issue of private respondent7s disissal. Petitioner subits that
private respondent abandoned his 8ob, referrin! to 'or5 as an election 'atcher instead.
1e do not a!ree. To constitute abandonent, t'o re;uisites ust concur3 D)E the failure
to report to 'or5 or absence 'ithout valid or 8ustifiable reason, and D-E a clear intention
to sever the eplo"er6eplo"ee relationship as anifested b" soe over acts, 'ith the
second re;uisites as the ore deterinative factor.
17
The burden of provin!
abandonent as a 8ust cause for disissal is on the eplo"er.
1,
Petitioner failed to
dischar!e this burden. The onl" evidence adduced b" petitioner to prove abandonent
is her affidavit, the pertinent portion of 'hich states3
On Ma" )-, )**-, a da" after the election, coplainant 'as a!ain
absent. Since it 'as a holida" and I have no 'or5 on that da", I 8ust
did not bother to call up coplainant. :lthou!h the follo'in! da" 'as
still a holida", I called up coplainant to infor hi that he has to
report for 'or5 as I 'ill report to the office to do soe iportant thin!s
there. $nfortunatel", coplainant7s 'ife instead coldl" told e that
coplainant 'as fetched b" the latter7s uncle to help in the countin!
of ballots. I then told his 'ife to let coplainant choose bet'een his
8ob 'ith e or that of election 'atcher. The follo'in! da", I 'as
infored a!ain b" coplainant7s 'ife that he is no lon!er interested to
'or5 'ith e as he is earnin! ore as election 'atcher. I 'as reall"
disenchanted to 5no' his respon=se> as all of a sudden, I have no
driver to drive e to " place of 'or5. Nevertheless, I have no other
choice to accept it as I can not also forced hi to continue 'or5in!
'ith e. %ence, I 'as reall" inconvenience for about a 'ee5 due to
the absence of a driver.1wphi1.nt
2oplainant then collected his salar" after one 'ee57s absence.
19
It is ;uite unbelievable that private respondent 'ould leave a stable and relativel" 'ell
pa"in! 8ob as petitioner7s fail" driver to 'or5 as an election 'atcher. Thou!h the latter
a" pa" ore in a da", elections in this countr" are so far in bet'een that it is unli5el"
that an" person 'ould abandon his 8ob to ebar5 on a career as an election 'atcher,
the functions of 'hich are seasonal and teporar" in nature. 2onse;uentl", 'e do not
find private respondent to have abandoned his 8ob. %is disissal fro petitioner7s
eplo" bein! un8ust, petitioner is entitled to an indenit" under :rticle )@* of the 9abor
2ode3
20
:rt. )@*. Indemnity for unjust termination of services. H If the period
of household service is fi4ed, neither the eplo"er nor the
househelper a" terinate the contract before the e4piration of the
ter, e4cept for a 8ust cause. If the househelper is unjustly dismissed,
he or she shall be paid the compensation already earned plus that for
fifteen (15 days by way of indemnity.
If the househelper leaves 'ithout 8ustifiable reason he or she shall
forfeit an" unpaid salar" due hi or her not e4ceedin! fifteen D)<E
da"s. DBphasis supplied.E
4
Petitioner li5e'ise concedes that she failed to copl" 'ith due process in disissin!
private respondent since private respondent had alread" abandoned his 8ob.
21
:s 'e
have sho'n earlier ho'ever, petitioner7s theor" of abandonent has no le! to stand on,
and 'ith it, her attepts to 8ustif" her failure to accord due process ust also fail.
:ccordin!l", private respondent is ordered to pa" private respondent the su of
P),///.//.
22
1%BRBFORB, the decision of the National 9abor Relations 2oission is hereb"
RBVBRSBD and a ne' one entered declarin!3
D)E Private respondent Renato #eniston, the
personal driver of petitioner Rosie Tio, and not an
eplo"ee of the $ltra Villa Food %ausA
D-E The disissal of private respondent to be
'ithout a valid cause and 'ithout due process.
:ccordin!l", petitioner Rosie Tio is ordered to pa"
private respondentA
DaE Thirteenth Month Pa" to be
coputed in accordance 'ith the
Rules and Re!ulations, and the
Revised #uidelines,
Ipleentin! Presidential
Decree No. +<)A
DbE Indenit" e;ual to )< da"s of
his salar" as personal driver at
the tie of his un8ust disissalA
and
DcE Indenit" in the su of
P),///.//.
SO ORDBRBD.
5