OPULENCIA ICE PLANT AND STORAGE vs NLRC GR No. L-98365 1993 Facts: - MANUEL P.

ESITA was a compressor operator of Tiongson Ice Plant in San Pablo City for !" years# - In $%&" 'e was 'ire( as compressor operator-mec'anic for t'e ice plants of petitioner Dr. Melchor Opulencia locate( in Tana)an* +atangas* an( Calamba* Lag)na. - Initially assigne( at t'e ice plant in Tana)an* Esita wo)l( wor, from se-en o.cloc, in t'e morning to fi-e o.cloc, in t'e afternoon recei-ing a (aily wage of P/0."". - In $%&1* Esita was transferre( to t'e ice plant in Calamba* w'ic' was t'en )n(ergoing o-er'a)ling* ta,ing t'e place of compressor operator Loren2o Eseta* w'o was relie-e( beca)se 'e was alrea(y ol( an( wea,. 3or less t'an a mont'* Esita helped in the construction-remodeling of Dr. Opulencia's house . - In 3ebr)ary $%&%, for demanding the correct amount of wages due him* Esita was dismissed from ser-ice. - Conse4)ently* 'e file( wit' S)b-5egional Arbitration in San Pablo City* a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment, non-payment for overtime, legal holiday, premium for holiday and rest day, 13th month, separation retirement pay and allowances against petitioners. - Petitioners (eny t'at Esita is an employee. T'ey claim t'at Esita co)l( not 'a-e been employe( in $%&" beca)se t'e Tana)an ice plant was not in operation ()e to low -oltage of electricity an( t'at Esita was merely a 'elper6peon of one of t'e contractors t'ey 'a( engage( to (o ma7or repairs an( reno-ation of t'e Tana)an ice plant in $%&1. - Petitioners f)rt'er allege t'at w'en t'ey 'a( t'e Calamba ice plant repaire( an( e8pan(e(* Esita li,ewise ren(ere( ser-ices in a similar capacity* an( t')s a(mitting t'at 'e wor,e( as a 'elper6peon in t'e repair or remo(eling of 9r. :p)lencia.s resi(ence in Tana)an. - In 9ecember $%&%* La o! A! "t#! $"%%#&a !#&'#!#' a '#c"s"o& ("&'"&) t*# #+"st#&c# o( a& #,-%o.#!-#,-%o.## !#%at"o&s*"- between petitioners an( Esita an( accor(ingly (irecte( t'em to pay 'im separation pay* )n(erpayment of wages* allowances* $/t' mont'* 'oli(ay* premi)m for 'oli(ay* an( rest (ay pays. - Almost a year after* NLRC a(("!,#' t*# '#c"s"o& of Labor Arbiter ;illena b)t re()ce( t'e monetary awar( as it was not pro-en t'at Esita wor,e( e-ery (ay incl)(ing rest (ays an( on t'e (ays before t'e legal 'oli(ays. In Marc' $%%$* petitioners. motion for reconsi(eration was (enie(. Iss/#: <6N t'ere was an employee-employer relations'ip between :p)lencia an( Esita. R/%"&): =es. !atio" No partic)lar form of e-i(ence is re4)ire( to pro-e t'e e8istence of an employer-employee relations'ip. Any competent an( rele-ant e-i(ence to pro-e t'e relations'ip may be a(mitte(. 3or* if only (oc)mentary e-i(ence wo)l( be re4)ire( to s'ow t'at relations'ip* no sc'eming employer wo)l( e-er be bro)g't before t'e bar of 7)stice* as no employer wo)l( wis' to come o)t wit' any trace of t'e illegality 'e 'as a)t'ore( consi(ering t'at it s'o)l( ta,e m)c' weig'tier proof to in-ali(ate a written instr)ment. :n t'e claim t'at Esita.s constr)ction wor, co)l( not ripen into a reg)lar employment in t'e ice plant beca)se t'e constr)ction wor, was only temporary an( )nrelate( to t'e ice-ma,ing b)siness* nee(less to say* t'e one mont' spent by Esita in constr)ction is insignificant compare( to 'is nine-year ser-ice as compressor operator in (etermining t'e stat)s of 'is employment as s)c'* an( consi(ering f)rt'er t'at it was 9r. :p)lencia w'o re4)este( Esita to wor, in t'e constr)ction of 'is 'o)se. In allowing Esita to stay in t'e premises of t'e ice plant an( permitting 'im to c)lti-ate crops to a)gment 'is income* t'ere is no (o)bt t'at petitioners s'o)l( be commen(e(> 'owe-er* in -iew of t'e e8istence of an employer-employee relations'ip as fo)n( by p)blic respon(ents* we cannot treat ')manitarian reasons as 7)stification for emasc)lating or ta,ing away t'e rig'ts an( pri-ileges of employees grante( by law. +ene-olence* it is sai(* (oes not operate as a license to circ)m-ent labor laws. If petitioners were gen)inely altr)istic in e8ten(ing to t'eir employees pri-ileges t'at are not e-en re4)ire( by law* t'en t'ere is no reason w'y t'ey s'o)l( not be re4)ire( to gi-e t'eir employees w'at t'ey are entitle( to recei-e.

Moreo-er* as fo)n( by p)blic respon(ents* Esita was en7oying t'e same pri-ileges grante( to t'e ot'er employees of petitioners* so t'at in t')s treating Esita* 'e cannot be consi(ere( any less t'an a legitimate employee of petitioners.