TENAZAS v. R.

VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT

G.R. No. 192998 02 APRIL 2014

FACTS:

Bernard Tenazas, Jaime Francisco, and Isidro Endraca filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against R. Villegas Taxi Transport, and/or Romualdo Villegas and Andy
Villegas.

PETITIONERS CLAIM R. VILLEGAS TAXIS CLAIM

TENAZAS Taxi unit was sideswiped by
another vehicle causing damage
equivalent to P500; he was
subsequently fired after reporting
the incident, even threatened w/
physical harm if he was seen on
company premises.
FRANCISCO Dismissed because of the
unfounded suspicion that he was
organizing a labor union
EDRACA Company admits that Endraca is
an employee spare driver .
Endraca could not have been
terminated in March 2006
because he stopped reporting for
work in July 2003 (but willing to
accommodate him again as he
was never really dismissed)
Company admits that Tenazas is an
employee regular driver. Tenazas was
never terminated; he failed to report
back to work after being told to wait for
the release of his taxi (overhauled due to
mechanical defects)
Company denies that Francisco is an
employee
Company admits that Endraca is an
employee spare driver .
Endraca could not have been terminated
in March 2006 because he stopped
reporting for work in July 2003 (but
willing to accommodate him again as he
was never really dismissed)

Tenazas, Francisco, and Endraca filed a Motion to Admit Additional Evidence:

(a) Joint Affidavit of the petitioners;
(b) Affidavit of Good Faith of Aloney Rivera (co-driver);
(c) pictures of the petitioners wearing company shirts;
(d) Tenazas Certification/Record of Social Security System (SSS) contributions.

Labor Arbiter:

No illegal dismissal because no proof of an overt act of dismissal committed by R.

Villegas Taxi; Francisco failed to prove he was an employee as he was not able to
provide sufficient evidence.

The petitioners appealed the decision of the LA to the NLRC.

NLRC:

Reversed LA decision; the additional evidence sufficiently established the existence of

employer-employee relationship and illegal dismissal (for all three)
Respondent Villegas doing business under the name and style Villegas Taxi Transport is hereby
ordered to pay the complainants the following:

(1) full backwages from the date of their dismissal (July 3, 2007 for Tenazas, June 4, 2004 for
Francisco, and March 6, 2006 for Endraca) up to the date of the finality of this decision
(2) Separation pay equivalent to one month for every year of service; and
(3) attorneys fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total judgment awards.

The respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.

CA:

Tenazas and Endraca were indeed employees and were illegally dismissed, but
Francisco failed to establish his relationship with the company

ISSUE before the SC: Whether there was an employer-employee relationship

HELD:

It is an oft-repeated rule that in labor cases, as in other administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings,
"the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence, or such amount of relevant evidence which
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion."

The burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. As
Francisco was claiming to be an employee of R. Villegas Taxi, it is incumbent upon him
to proffer evidence to prove the existence of the relationship.

In determining the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship, the Court has

consistently looked for the following incidents, to wit:

(a) the selection and engagement of the employee;

(b) the payment of wages;
(c) the power of dismissal; and
(d) the employers power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is
accomplished. The last element, the so-called control test, is the most important element.

There is no hard and fast rule to establis h the elements of employer-employee

relationship. Any competent and relevant evidence may be admitted, e.g., identification cards,
cash vouchers, social security registration, appointment letters or employment
contracts, payrolls, organization charts, per sonnel lists.

Francisco failed to present substantial evidence to establish the relationship. No

documentary evidence submitted, like an attendance logbook, payroll, SSS record, or
any personnel file that depicts his status as an employee. He could also have at least
presented his social security records stating his contributions, name and address of
employer (which Tenazas presented). Another taxi operator, Emmanuel Villegas, also
claimed to be his employer a fact not denied or questioned by Francisco in any of his
pleadings.

Petition DENIED. SC agreed with CAs order of reinstatement instead of separation pay.