G.R. No. 192558 - BITOY JAVIER (DANILO P. JAVIER), VS. FLY ACE CORPORATION/ FLORDELYN CASTILLO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, complainants appeal is partially GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the labor arbiter is VACATED and a new one is hereby entered holding respondent FLY ACE CORPORATION guilty of illegal dismissal and non-payment of 13th month pay. Consequently, it is hereby ordered to pay complainant DANILO Bitoy JAVIER the following: Backwages -P45,770.83 Separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement - 8,450.00 Unpaid 13th month pay (proportionate) - 5,633.33 TOTAL - P59,854.16 All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . [11] Ruling of the Court of Appeals On March 18, 2010, the CA annulled the NLRC findings that Javier was indeed a former employee of Fly Ace and reinstated the dismissal of Javiers complaint as ordered by the LA. The CA exercised its authority to make its own factual determination anent the issue of the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties. According to the CA: x x x In an illegal dismissal case the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that its dismissal was for a valid cause. However, before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an employer-employee relationship must first be established. x x x it is incumbent upon private respondent to prove the employee-employer relationship by substantial evidence. x x x It is incumbent upon private respondent to prove, by substantial evidence, that he is an employee of petitioners, but he failed to discharge his burden. The non-issuance of a company-issued identification card to private respondent supports petitioners contention that private respondent was not its employee. [12] The CA likewise added that Javiers 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. [13] Since no substantial evidence was presented to establish an employer-employee relationship, the case for illegal dismissal could not prosper. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but to no avail. Hence, this appeal anchored on the following grounds: I. WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER WAS NOT A REGULAR EMPLOYEE OF FLY ACE. II. WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER IS NOT E