G.R. No. 221241 - MARIO N. FELICILDA, VS. MANCHESTEVE H. UY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, ordered respondent to pay the aggregate sum of P80,145.52 representing his backwages and separation pay. [14] Finding that petitioner's service as truck driver was indispensable to respondent's business operations, the LA concluded that petitioner was respondent's regular employee and, thus, may only be dismissed for just or authorized cause and with due process. Absent any showing of a clear and valid cause to terminate petitioner's employment, respondent was, therefore, guilty of illegal dismissal. [15] Aggrieved, respondent appealed [16] to the NLRC, docketed as NLRC LAC No. 08-002277-12. The NLRC Ruling In a Decision [17] dated November 16, 2012, the NLRC affirmed the LA ruling. It ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed between the parties, considering that: ( a ) respondent engaged petitioner's services without the aid of a third party or a manpower agency; ( b ) the payment of wages on a percentage basis did not negate such existence; ( c ) respondent's power to dismiss petitioner was inherent in his selection and engagement of the latter as truck driver; and ( d ) respondent exercised control and supervision over petitioner's work as shown in the former's determination of the latter's delivery areas and schedules. [18] Considering that respondent failed to show a lawful cause for petitioner's dismissal, the NLRC sustained the order of payment of monetary awards in petitioner's favor. [19] Respondent moved for reconsideration, [20] but was denied in a Resolution [21] dated February 28, 2013. Undaunted, respondent filed a petition for certiorari [22] before the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision [23] dated July 10, 2015, the CA set aside the NLRC ruling and, instead, dismissed petitioner's complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims for lack of merit. [24] Contrary to the findings of the LA and the NLRC, the CA held that the elements of payment of wages and control in determining an employer-employee relationship were absent, considering that petitioner was not paid wages, but commissions only, which amounts varied depending on the kind of cargo, length of trip, and fuel consumption. The CA observed that there was no evidence to show that respondent exercised control over the means and methods by which petitioner was to perform his duties. Further, petitioner failed to refute the claims that: ( a ) the payment of his commission was dependent on his efficiency, discipline, and industry, which factors were beyond respondent's control; ( b ) he was not required to regularly report for work and may make himself available to other companies; and ( c ) the company ID was merely issued to him for the purpose of apprising respondent's clients that he was the authorized driver. [25] Petitioner moved for reconsideration, [26] but was denied in a Resolution [27] dated October 21, 2015; hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly ascribed grav