Javier v. Fly Ace (G.R. No. 192558; February 15, 2012)

CASE DIGEST: BITOY JAVIER (DANILO P. JAVIER), Petitioner, v. FLY ACE CORPORATION and FLORDELYN CASTILLO, Respondents. Javier v. Fly Ace (G.R. No. 192558; February 15, 2012).

FACTS: Javier an employee of Fly Ace performing various work for the latter filed a complaint before the NLRC for underpayment of salaries and other labor standard benefits.

He alleged that he reported for work from Monday to Saturday from 7:00 oclock in the morning to 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon; that during his employment, he was not issued an identification card and pay slips by the company; that he reported for work but he was no longer allowed to enter the company premises by the security guard upon the instruction of Ruben Ong (Mr. Ong), his superior; that after several minutes of begging to the guard to allow him to enter, he saw Ong whom he approached and asked why he was being barred from entering the premises; that Ong replied by saying, Tanungin mo anak mo;that he discovered that Ong had been courting his daughter Annalyn after the two met at a fiesta celebration in Malabon City; that Annalyn tried to talk to Ong and convince him to spare her father from trouble but he refused to accede; that thereafter, Javier was terminated from his employment without notice; and that he was neither given the opportunity to refute the cause/s of his dismissal from work.

Fly Ace denied the existence of employer-employee relationship between them and Javier as the latter was only called roughly 5 to 6 times only in a month whenever the vehicle of its contracted hauler, Milmar Hauling Services, was not available. Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint ruling that respondent Fly Ace is not engaged in trucking business but in the importation and sales of groceries. Since there is a regular hauler to deliver its products, we give credence to Respondents claim that complainant was contracted on pakiao basis.

On appeal, NLRC reversed the decisin of the LA. It was of the view that a pakyaw-basis arrangement did not preclude the existence of employer-employee relationship. Payment by result is a method of compensation and does not define the essence of the relation. It is a mere method of computing compensation, not a basis for determining the existence or absence of an employer-employee relationship. The NLRC further averred that it did not follow that a worker was a job contractor and not an employee, just because the work he was doing was not directly related to the employers trade or business or the work may be considered as extra helper as in this case; and that the relationship of an employer and an employee was determined by law and the same would prevail whatever the parties may call it. Finding Javier to be a regular employee, the NLRC ruled that he was entitled to a security of tenure. For failing to present proof of a valid cause for his termination, Fly Ace was found to be liable for illegal dismissal of Javier who was likewise entitled to backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. However, on appeal, CA reversed the ruling of NLRC.The CA ruled that Javier's failure to present salary vouchers, payslips, or other pieces of evidence to bolster his contention, pointed to the inescapable conclusion that he was not an employee of Fly Ace. Further, it found that Javiers work was not necessary and desirable to the business or trade of the company, as it was only when there were scheduled deliveries, which a regular hauling service could not deliver, that Fly Ace would contract the services of Javier as an extra helper. Lastly, the CA declared that the facts alleged by Javier did not pass the control test.

He contracted work outside the company premises; he was not required to observe definite hours of work; he was not required to report daily; and he was free to accept other work elsewhere as there was no exclusivity of his contracted service to the company, the same being co-terminous with the trip only. Since no substantial evidence was presented to establish an employer-employee relationship, the case for illegal dismissal could not prosper. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Does an employer-employee relationship exist between Javier and Fly Ace, thereby holding the latter guilty of illegal dismissal?

HELD: The LA and the CA found Javier's claim of employment with Fly Ace as wanting and deficient. The Court is constrained to agree. Labor officials are enjoined to use reasonable means to ascertain the facts speedily and objectively with little regard to technicalities or formalities but nowhere in the rules are they provided a license to completely discount evidence, or the lack of it. The quantum of proof required, however, must still be satisfied. Hence, when confronted with conflicting versions on factual matters, it is for them in the exercise of discretion to determine which party deserves credence on the basis of evidence received, subject only to the requirement that their decision must be supported by substantial evidence.Accordingly, the petitioner needs to show by substantial evidence that he was indeed an employee of the company against which he claims illegal dismissal.

In sum, the rule of thumb remains: the onus probandi falls on petitioner to establish or substantiate such claim by the requisite quantum of evidence. Whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his or her right thereto. Sadly, Javier failed to adduce substantial evidence as basis for the grant of relief.

By way of evidence on this point, all that Javier presented were his self-serving statements purportedly showing his activities as an employee of Fly Ace. Clearly, Javier failed to pass the substantiality requirement to support his claim.

While Javier remains firm in his position that as an employed stevedore of Fly Ace, he was made to work in the company premises during weekdays arranging and cleaning grocery items for delivery to clients, no other proof was submitted to fortify his claim. The lone affidavit executed by one Bengie Valenzuela was unsuccessful in strengthening Javiers cause.

The Court is of the considerable view that on Javier lies the burden to pass the well-settled tests to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship.