LABREL DELIGHT NOTES 2020 – CASES ONLY
GR NO. 192558; FEBRUARY 15, 2012
JAVIER V. FLY ACE CORPORATION
FACTS: On 23 May 2008, Javier filed a
complaint before the NLRC for underpayment
of benefits. He alleged that he was an
employee of Fly Ace from September 2007
performing tasks in the warehouse and
working as a pahinante. He also reported to
work from Monday to Saturday from 7am to
5pm. According to him he was not given an ID
as well as payslips. On 6 May 2008, he
reported to work but was forbidden to enter;
he then approached his superior Mr. Ruben
Ong and asked the reason. Ong replied
“tanungin mo anak mo”. Apparently Ong was
courting Javier’s daughter. Thereafter, Javier
was terminated without notice.
Fly Ace on the other hand refuted the
allegations. The respondent is engaged in the
business of importation and sales of
groceries. According to them, Ong contracted
Javier from December 2007 to April 2008 as
extra helper on pakyaw basis with a rate of
300php per trip. He was only contracted
when Milmar Hauling Services was not
available. As proof, Fly Ace submitted a copy
of its agreement with Milmar as well as
acknowledgement receipts bearing the words
“daily manpower (pakyaw/piece rate pay)
with Javier’s signatures.
Labor Arbiter: Dismissed the complaint for
lack of merit on the ground that Javier failed
to present proof that he was a regular
employee.
NLRC: Javier was favored. It was their view
that a pakyaw-basis arrangement did not
preclude the existence of employee-employer
relationship.
CA: Annulled the NLRC findings.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in
holding that the petitioner was not a regular
employee of Fly Ace.
HELD: No. Generally, the Court does not
review errors that raise factual questions.
However, when there is conflict among the
1|Page
factual findings of the antecedent deciding
bodies, “it is proper, in the exercise of our
equity jurisdiction, to review and re-evaluate
the factual issues and to look into the records
of the case and re-examine the questioned
findings.
As the records bear out, the LA and CA found
Javier’s claim as wanting and deficient. No
particular form of evidence is required to
prove the existence of such e-e relationship.
Hence, while no particular form of evidence is
required a finding that such relationship
exists must still rest on some substantial
evidence.
In sum, the rule of thumb remains: the onus
probandi falls on petitioner to establish or
substantiate such claim by the requisite
quantum evidence. “Whoever claims
entitlement to the benefits provided by law
should establish his or her right thereto.” The
Court is of the considerable view that on
Javier lies the burden to pass the test on e-e
relationship:
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
In this case, Javier was not able to persuade
the Court that the above elements exist in his
case.
GR NO. 186621; MARCH 12, 2014
SOUTH EAST INTERNATIONAL RATTAN INC.
v. COMING
FACTS: SEIRI is a domestic corporation
engaged in the business of manufacturing and
exporting furniture. Petitioner Estanislao
Agbay is the President and General Manager.
On 3 November 2003, respondent Jesus
Coming filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Allegedly, he was hired as a Sizing Machine
Operator on 1984 with work schedule from
LABREL DELIGHT NOTES 2020 – CASES ONLY
8am-5pm. He was initially compensated in
pakyaw basis. In 1990, his employment was
interrupted as he was told by petitioners to
resume work in 2 months time. True enough,
he was ordered to report to work after two
months. On 1 January 2002, he was dismissed
without lawful cause and was told that he was
terminated because the company is not doing
well financially. Jesus filed a complaint before
the regional arbitration branch, his brother
Vicente was used by management to
persuade him to withdraw the case.
Petitioners denied hiring the respondent
asserting that SEIRI was only incorporated in
1986. They also stressed that Jesus is not
included in the list of employees submitted in
the SSS. As proof of his claim, respondent
submitted an affidavit signed by five former
co-workers stating that Jesus was a pioneer
employee for almost 20 years.
LA: Respondent is a regular employee of
SEIRI and that the termination of his
employment was illegal.
NLRC: Set aside the decision of LA and
dismissed the complaint.
CA: Reversed the NLRC and ruled that there
existed an e-e relationship between
petitioners and respondent.
ISSUE: Whether or not there exists an
employer-employee relationship
HELD: Yes. To ascertain the existence of an
employer-employee relationship
jurisprudence has adhered to the four-fold
test: (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.
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.
In Tan v. Lagrama, the Court held that the fact
that a worker was not reported as an
employee to the SSS is not conclusive proof of
2|Page
the absence of e-e relationship. Otherwise, an
employer would be rewarded for his failure
or even neglect to perform his obligation.
For a payroll to be utilized to disprove the
employment of a person, it must contain a
true and complete list of the employee. In this
case, the exhibits offered by petitioners
before the NLRC consisting of payrolls are
only for the years 1999 and 2000; they do not
cover the entire 18 year period which
respondent supposedly work.
In any controversy between laborer and
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 Art. 279 of
the LC and may only be dismissed for a just or
authorized 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.
GR NO. 192998; APRIL 2, 2014
TENAZAS v. R VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT
FACTS: On 4 July 2007, Bernard Tenazas, and
Jaime Francisco filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against R. Villegas Taxi Transport. A
similar case was already filed by Isidro
Endraca thus the two cases were
subsequently consolidated. In their position
paper, the petitioners alleged that they were
hired and dismissed by the respondents on
the following dates: Tenazas (1997-2007),
Franciso (2004-2007) and Endraca (2000-
2006). Tenazas alleged that the taxi assigned
to him was sideswiped by another vehicle,
causing a dent on the left fender near the
driver seat and upon reporting the incident,
he was scolded and was told to leave for he
was fired. On the other hand, Francisco
averred that his dismissal was brought about
by the company’s suspicion that he was
creating a labor union. Endraca’s allegation is
LABREL DELIGHT NOTES 2020 – CASES ONLY
that his dismissal was instigated by an
occasion when he fell short of the required
boundary for his taxi unit.
Respondents admitted that Tenazas and
Endraca were employees of the company;
however they denied Francisco’s claim.
On 29 May 2008, the petitioners by registered
mail, filed a Motion to Admit Additional
Evidence.
LA: On 03 May 2008, the labor arbiter ruled
that there was no illegal dismissal and that
Francisco failed to prove the existence of
employer-employee relationship.
NLRC: Revered the appealed decision of the
LA.
CA: The CA affirmed with modification the
decision of the NLRC and ruled that Tenazas
and Endrace were indeed employees of the
company but ruled otherwise in the case of
Francisco for failing to establish his
relationship with the company.
ISSUE: Whether or not Francisco is an
employee of the respondent.
HELD: No. Pivotal to the resolution of the
instant case is the determination of the
existence of employer-employee relationship
and whether there was an illegal dismissal.
In this case, Francisco failed to present any
proof substantial enough to establish his
relationship with the respondents. He even
failed to present documentary evidence. The
utter lack of evidence is fatal to Francisco’s
case especially in cases like his present
predicament when the law has been very
lenient in not requiring any particular form of
evidence or manner of proving the presence
of employer-employee relationship.
In Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage v. NLRC,
the court emphasized:
No particular form of evidence is
required to prove the existence of an
e-e relationship. Any competent and
relevant evidence to prove the
relationship may be admitted. For if
3|Page
only documentary evidence would be
required to show that relationship, no
scheming employer would ever be
brought before the bar of justice, as
no employer would wish to come out
with any trace of the illegality he has
authored considering that it should
take much weightier proof to
invalidate a written instrument.
GR NO. 220399
SAGUN v. ANZ GLOBAL SERVICES
AND OPERATIONS INC.
FACTS: Petitioner was employed at
HSBC-EDPI when he applied for the
position of Payments and Processing
Lead at ANZ. After passing the
interview and examination, ANZ
offered the position of Customer
Service Officer which the petitioner
accepted. In the letter of confirmation
of the offer, the terms and conditions
required satisfactory results of his
pre-employment screening which
includes a police record check etc.
Thus the initial and ongoing
employment is conditional. Two days
after, petitioner tendered his
resignation at HSBC. On the same day
he was instructed to report to ANZ
and was handed a letter of retraction
informing him that the offer had been
withdrawn on the ground that the
company found material
inconsistencies in his information.
Petitioner asserted that his contract
had already been perfected thus he
was already an employee who can
only be dismissed for cause. This led
to the filing of an illegal dismissal
complaint. Respondent countered
that the NLRC had no jurisdiction over
the complaint as they have no e-e
relationship.
LA: The LA dismissed the complaint,
holding that there was no perfected
employment contract.
NLRC: Affirmed the findings of the LA.
LABREL DELIGHT NOTES 2020 – CASES ONLY
ISSUE: WN NLRC has jurisdiction over
the case?
HELD: Yes. Relying on the Santiago
case, it clarified that even if there was
no e-e relationship, the NLRC still had
jurisdiction over the complaint since
the LA’s jurisdiction was not limited
to claims arising from such
relationship.
**Additional: An employment
contract is perfected at the moment
the parties come to agree upon its
terms and conditions, and thereafter,
concur in the essential elements
thereof. In this case, the court agrees
with the finding of the CA that there
was already a perfected contract of
employment when petitioner signed
the offer. Nonetheless, the offer had
several conditions.
Art. 1181 states that in conditional
obligations, the acquisition of rights,
as well as the extinguishment or loss
of those already acquired shall
depend upon the happening of the
event which constitutes the condition.
Here, the subject employment
contract required a satisfactory
completion of the background check
before Sagun may be deemed an
employee. Thus, until and unless the
background check is complied, there
exists no obligation on the part of ANZ
to recognize and fully accord him the
rights under the contract.
GR NO. L-12582; JANUARY 28, 1961
LVN PICTURES v. PHILIPPINE
MUSICIAN’S GUILD
FACTS: The Philippine Musicians’
Guild averred that it is a duly
registered legitimate labor
organization; that LVN Pictures,
Sampaguita Pictures and Premiere
Productions are corporations engaged
in the making of motion pictures; that
4|Page
said companies employ musicians for
the purpose of making music
recordings for title music. Premised
upon the allegations, the Guild prayed
that it will be certified as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agency for all
musicians working in the
aforementioned companies. In their
respective answers, the latter denied
that they have musician employees
but rather they were independent
contractors. The lower court however
rejected this and sustained the theory
of the Guild. Additionally, LVN
Pictures maintains that a petition for
certification cannot be entertained
when the existence of e-e relationship
between the parties is contested.
ISSUE: WN the musicians are
employees of the company.
HELD: Yes. The work of the musical
director and musicians is a functional
and integral part of the enterprise
performed at the same studio
substantially under the direction and
control of the company. In other
words, to determine whether a
person who performs work for
another is the latter’s employee or an
independent contractor, the NLRC
relies on the right to control test.
The right of control of the film
company over the musicians is shown
(1) by calling the musicians through
call slips in the name of the company;
(2) by arranging schedules in its
studio for recording sessions; (3) by
furnishing transportation and meals
to musicians; and (4) by supervising
and directing in detail the
performance of the musicians before
the camera, in order to suit the music
they are playing to the picture which
is being flashed on the screen.
It is well-settled that “an e-e
relationship exists where the person
for whom the services are performed
LABREL DELIGHT NOTES 2020 – CASES ONLY

reserves a right to control not only

the end to be achieved but also the
means to be used in reaching such
end.

5|Page