REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City

RODEL,
Complainant,

- versus - NLRC Case No.

For: Illegal Dismissal

RAQUEL,
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER

(FOR THE RESPONDENT)

The RESPONDENT, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully submits to this Honorable

Office this Position Paper, to wit:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Complainant’s cause of action against herein respondent is devoid of any merit both in

fact and in law, hence, the said cause of action is unfounded and frivolous, and

necessarily must fail.

THE PARTIES

The Complainant is RODEL, a skilled carpenter hired by the respondent, of legal age,

Filipino and with address at 123 B Tahimik Street, Barangay Ugong, Valenzuela City

where he could be served with summons and other legal processes of this Honorable

Office.

The Respondent is RAQUEL, of legal age, Filipino and with address at 63 Scout

Chuatoco, Roces Avenue, Quezon City where she could be served with summons and

other legal processes of this Honorable Office.

1
 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

Herein respondent (Raquel) hired herein complainant (Rodel), a skilled carpenter, to

make repairs of the former’s leaking roof. Raquel told complainant to replace the rusted

GI sheets, giving instructions that she wants the best materials to be used and to paint it

with bright-colored paint. She wanted complainant to do the repairs while she is on

vacation in Baguio from Monday to Friday. She gave Rodel 10,000Php to buy the

needed materials. Two days in to her vacation, Raquel received a call from her

housemaid that Rodel bought secondhand materials and pocketed the rest of the

amount she gave to Rodel. Raquel instructed her maid to give the phone to Rodel and

over the phone, Raquel told Rodel, “You are fired and return the rest of the money or

else I will file a criminal case against you.” Hence, case filed by the complainant to this

Honorable Office for illegal dismissal and collection of wages, damages, and attorney’s

fee against the respondent herein referred.

ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED, WITHOUT DUE

PROCESS OF LAW, HENCE, ENTITLED FOR FULL BACKWAGES AND FULL

BENEFITS AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE LABOR CODE

ARGUMENTS

There exists no employer – employee

relationship, hence, the dismissal

valid and complainant not entitled to monetary claims

Pivotal to the resolution of the instant case is the determination of the existence of

employer- employee relationship.

To ascertain the existence of an employer – employee relationship, jurisprudence has

invariably adhered to the four-fold test, to wit: (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, or the so-called “control test”.” Of these four, the last

2
one is the most important. The so-called “control test” is commonly regarded as the most

crucial and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employer –

employee relationship. Under the control test, an employer – employee relationship

exists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to

control not only the end achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in

reaching that end. (Atok Big Wedge Company, Inc. v. Jesus Gison, G.R. No. 169510,

August 8, 2011, citing Philippine Global Communication, Inc. v. De Vera, G.R. No.

157214, June 7 2005 and Abante, Jr. v. Lamadrid Bearing & Parts Corp, G.R. No.

159890, May 28, 2004)

Applying the abovementioned test, employer – employee relationship is wanting in the

instant case. Note that the instruction given by herein respondent was to repair her

leaking roof in a specified period (Monday to Friday while she was on vacation).

However, there was no requirement as to time and number of hours that complainant

should do the repairs thereof. Hence, the complainant may do the task on Monday,

Wednesday, and Friday or Tuesday and Thursday, as the case may be, at his own

election. The complainant was not required to do the repairs everyday on a fixed time.

More importantly, the respondent did not prescribe any manner in which the complainant

would accomplish the task. In fact, the complainant was left alone when the respondent

went on vacation in Baguio. Hence, the complainant was able to freely accomplish the

repair using his own means and methods. While it is true that respondent instructed

complainant to use best materials and paint the roof with bright-colored paint, those

instructions were mere guidelines of respondent’s desired result. Still, the means and

methods were in the hands of herein complainant.

The line should be drawn between rules that merely serve as guidelines toward the

achievement of the mutually desired result without dictating the means or methods to be

employed in attaining it, and those that control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict

the party hired to the use of such means. The first, which aim only to promote the result,

create no employer – employee relationship unlike the second, which address both the

result and the means used to achieve it. (Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. V. NLRC, G.R.

No. 84484, November 15, 1989)

3
Verily, the absence of the element of control of herein respondent clearly presents that

complainant (Rodel) is not an employee of respondent (Raquel). Since there is no

employer-employee relationship between the parties, the termination of complainant's

services by the respondent did not constitute illegal dismissal warranting the payment of

full backwages, and other money claims.

RELIEFS SOUGHT

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable

Office to dismiss the instant complaint for utter lack of merit.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Quezon City, December 17, 2016.

The Law Firm of:

MONTEMAYOR & LIM LAW OFFICE
No. 86 Quezon Avenue,
Brgy. Sto. Domingo, Quezon City

By:
ATTY. ELIZA M. MONTEMAYOR
Counsel for the Respondent
PTR NO. 4560388/01-03-11/Q.C.
IBP NO. 801459/01-03-11/Q.C.
Roll of Attorneys No. 36178
MCLE Compliance No. III-0017581
June 01, 2013

Copy furnished:

ATTY. JUAN C. DELA CRUZ

No 159 Maysan Road
Bgy. Malinta, Valenzuela City

EXPLANATION

Copy of this “Position Paper” was sent by registered mail to the adverse party, instead of
personal service as required by the rules, because of the lack of personnel on the part of
the undersigned counsel to effect such personal service.

ATTY. ELIZA M. MONTEMAYOR