Tezanas et al v. R.
Villegas Taxi (2014)  Labor Arbiter: (1) ​Respondents denied the existence of an
Reyes, ​J.
I. FACTS: 
July 4, 2007 - Bernard Tenazas and Jaime Francisco filed
a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents R.
Villegas Taxi Transport and/or Romulado Villegas and
Andy Villegas. Isidro Endraca had already filed a similar
case as well, consolidating this with the complaint of
Tenazas and Francisco.
Tenazas, Francisco, and Endraca alleged in their position
paper, that they were all hired and dismissed by the
respondents.
Tenazas alleged that the taxi unit assigned to him was
sideswiped by another vehicle, causing a dent on the left
fender near the driver's seat. Due to this incident, he was
scolded and fired by the petitioners. He was also
threatened physical harm if he ever came back to the
company’s premises again. He returned the following day
but was told that he was fired.
Francisco, on the other hand, averred that his dismissal
was because the company has a suspicion that he was
organizing a labor union.
Endraca alleged that his dismissal was instigated by an
occasion when he was short for the required boundary for
his unit.
Respondents answered admitting that Tenazas (regular
driver) and Endraca (spare driver) were employees of the
company. They, however, denied that Francisco was an
employee or that he was able to drive any of their units at
any point in time.
Furthermore, they alleged that Tenaza was not really
terminated. His unit was meant to be overhauled so they
asked him to wait for further notice. Upon notice that the
unit was ready for release, Tenaza did not report back to
work anymore.
As for Endraca, respondents alleged that they hired him as
a spare driver, but he also stopped reporting to work
without informing them of his reason.
employee-employer relationship with Jaime Francisco. The
burden of proof now shifts to Francisco to prove the
existence of his employment. He failed to present such
evidence, therefore, the relationship cannot be proved.
Hence, the illegal dismissal complaint cannot prosper. ​(2) 
Respondents offered Isidro Endraca immediate
reinstatement but he refused. ​(3) ​Respondents offered
immediate reinstatement for Bernard Tenazas, but he also
refused.
LA ruled that there were no formal investigations, show
cause memos, suspension memos or termination memos
that were issued. There seems to be no proof that the
respondents committed any overt act of dismissal. The
complaints of Tezanas et al are dismissed.
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC): ​NLRC
reversed the decision of the LA on the merit of the
additional pieces of evidence belatedly submitted by the
petitioners. The NLRC held that these sufficed to establish
the existence of employer-employee relationship and their
alleged dismissal.
Court of Appeals: ​CA agreed with the NLRC ruling that
Tenazas and Endraca were employees of the company,
but ruled otherwise in the case of Francisco for failing to
establish his relationship with the company. It also deleted
the award of separation pay and ordered for reinstatement
of Tenazas and Endraca.
II. ISSUES (relevant to the topic): 
Who has the initial burden of proving the existence of an
EE-ER relationship? ​Initially, the employee carries this 
burden.  
W/N Francisco is an employee of Villegas Taxi. ​No, he 
was not able to prove the existence of his employment 
with the company. 
III. RATIONALE: 
The consolidated complaints are all issues of illegal
dismissals among Tenazas, Endraca, and Francisco.
Pivotal to the resolution of these cases is the determination
of the existence of employer-employee relationship. With
Tenazas and Endraca, there was no question of whether or
not they were employed by Villegas, as the respondent
admitted and confirmed their employment. With Francisco,
however, the respondent outrightly denied the existence of
an employer-employe relationship.

The SC believes that with this denial, the burden of proof

then shifts to Francisco. It is now his responsibility to
provide documentary evidence or any evidence to establish
his employment. Unfortunately, Francisco failed to provide
sufficient evidence.

SC discussed that in determining the presence or absence

of an employer-employee relationship, the following
elements: (a) selection and engagement of the employee;
(b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and
(d) the employer’s power to control the employee on
the means and methods by which the work is
accomplished.

“There is no hard and fast rule designed to establish

the aforesaid elements. Any competent and relevant
evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted.
Identification cards, cash vouchers, social security
registration, appointment letters or employment
contracts, payrolls, organization charts, and personnel
lists, serve as evidence of employee status.”

In the instant case, Francisco failed to present any

substantial proof to establish his relationship with the
respondents.

IV. DISPOSITIVE: ​WHEREFORE, petition is

DENIED. CA decision is AFFIRMED.