Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82853:56690&catid=1581&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:14:38+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 186621, March 12, 2014 - SOUTH EAST INTERNATIONAL RATTAN, INC. AND/OR ESTANISLAO1 AGBAY, Petitioners, v. JESUS J. COMING, Respondent.
SOUTH EAST INTERNATIONAL RATTAN, INC. AND/OR ESTANISLAO1 AGBAY, Petitioners, v. JESUS J. COMING, Respondent.
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to reverse and set aside the Decision2 dated February 21, 2008 and Resolution3 dated February 9, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA–G.R. CEB–SP No. 02113.
On November 3, 2003, respondent Jesus J. Coming filed a complaint5 for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non–payment of holiday pay, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay, with prayer for reinstatement, back wages, damages and attorney’s fees.
With the denial of petitioners that respondent was their employee, the latter submitted an affidavit11 signed by five former co–workers stating that respondent was one of the pioneer employees who worked in SEIRI for almost twenty years.
The other claims and the case against respondent Estanislao Agbay are dismissed for lack of merit.
Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)–Cebu City where they submitted the following additional evidence: (1) copies of SEIRI’s payrolls and individual pay records of employees;14 (2) affidavit15 of SEIRI’s Treasurer, Angelina Agbay; and (3) second affidavit16 of Vicente Coming.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby SET ASIDE and VACATED and a new one entered DISMISSING the complaint.
Respondent elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated July 28, 2005 issued by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Fourth Division, Cebu City in NLRC Case No. V–000625–2004 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated April 30, 2004 is REINSTATED with MODIFICATION on the computation of backwages which should be computed from the time of illegal termination until the finality of this decision.
Further, the Labor Arbiter is directed to make the proper adjustment in the computation of the award of separation pay as well as the monetary awards of wage differential, 13th month pay, holiday pay and service incentive leave pay.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the CA denied it under Resolution dated February 9, 2009.
WHETHER UNDER THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THE FINDING OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THERE EXISTS EMPLOYER–EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT IS IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY APPRECIATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY BOTH PARTIES.
WHETHER UNDER THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED, THE FINDING OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS THAT PETITIONERS ARE LIABLE FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL OF RESPONDENT IS IN ACCORD WITH APPLICABLE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
Resolution of the first issue is paramount in view of petitioners’ denial of the existence of employer–employee relationship.
6. [Jesus Coming] is a furniture factory worker. In 1982 to 1986, he was working with Ben Mayol as round core maker/splitter.
7. Thereafter, we joined Okay Okay Yard owned by Amelito Montececillo. This is a rattan trader with business address near Cebu Rattan Factory on a “Pakiao” basis.
8. However, Jesus and I did not stay long at Okay Okay Yard and instead we joined Eleuterio Agbay in Labogon, Cebu in 1989. In 1991, we went back to Okay Okay located near the residence of Atty. Vicente de la Serna in Mandaue City. We were on a “pakiao” basis. We stayed put until 1993 when we resigned and joined Dodoy Luna in Labogon, Mandaue City as classifier until 1995. In 1996[,] Jesus rested. It was only in 1997 that he worked back. He replaced me, as a classifier in Rattan Traders owned by Allan Mayol. But then, towards the end of the year, he left the factory and relaxed in our place of birth, in Sogod, Cebu.
9. It was only towards the end of 1999 that Jesus was taken back by Allan Mayol as sizing machine operator. However, the work was off and on basis. Not regular in nature, he was harping a side line job with me knowing that I am now working with Faustino Apondar that supplies rattan furniture’s [sic] to South East (Int’l) Rattan, Inc. As a brother, I allowed Jesus to work with me and collect the proceeds of his services as part of my collectibles from Faustino Apondar since I was on a “pakiao” basis. He was working at his pleasure. Which means, he works if he likes to? That will be until 10:00 o’clock in the evening.
This is to certify that I am a maker/supplier of finished Rattan Furniture. As such, I have several rattan furniture workers under me, one of whom is Vicente Coming, the brother of Jesus Coming.
In his decision, Labor Arbiter Carreon found that respondent’s work as sizing machine operator is usually necessary and desirable to the rattan furniture business of petitioners and their failure to include respondent in the employment report to SSS is not conclusive proof that respondent is not their employee. As to the affidavit of Vicente Coming, Labor Arbiter Carreon did not give weight to his statement that respondent is not petitioners’ employee but that of one Faustino Apondar. Labor Arbiter Carreon was not convinced that Faustino Apondar is an independent contractor who has a contractual relationship with petitioners.
Complainant’s name does not appear in the list of employees reported to the SSS.
is name does not also appear in the sample payrolls of respondents’ employees.
The certification of Allan Mayol and Fasutino Apondar[,] supplier of finished rattan products[,] that complainant had at one time or another worked with them.
On the other hand, the CA gave more credence to the declarations of the five former employees of petitioners that respondent was their co–worker in SEIRI. One of said affiants is Vicente Coming’s own son, Gil Coming. Vicente averred in his second affidavit that when he confronted his son, the latter explained that he was merely told by their Pastor to sign the affidavit as it will put an end to the controversy. Vicente insisted that his son did not know the contents and implications of the document he signed. As to the absence of respondent’s name in the payroll and SSS employment report, the CA observed that the payrolls submitted were only from January 1, 1999 to December 29, 2000 and not the entire period of eighteen years when respondent claimed he worked for SEIRI. It further noted that the names of the five affiants, whom petitioners admitted to be their former employees, likewise do not appear in the aforesaid documents. According to the CA, it is apparent that petitioners maintained a separate payroll for certain employees or willfully retained a portion of the payroll.
Nor does the fact that respondent’s name does not appear in the payrolls and pay envelope records submitted by petitioners negate the existence of employer–employee relationship. For a payroll to be utilized to disprove the employment of a person, it must contain a true and complete list of the employee.37 In this case, the exhibits offered by petitioners before the NLRC consisting of copies of payrolls and pay earnings records are only for the years 1999 and 2000; they do not cover the entire 18–year period during which respondent supposedly worked for SEIRI.
In their comment to the petition filed by respondent in the CA, petitioners emphasized that in the certifications issued by Mayol and Apondar, it was shown that respondent was employed and working for them in those years he claimed to be working for SEIRI. However, a reading of the certification by Mayol would show that while the latter claims to have respondent under his employ in 1997, 1998 and 1999, respondent’s services were not regular and that he works only if he wants to. Apondar’s certification likewise stated that respondent worked for him since 1999 through his brother Vicente as “sideline” but only after regular working hours and “off and on” basis. Even assuming the truth of the foregoing statements, these do not foreclose respondent’s regular or full–time employment with SEIRI. In effect, petitioners suggest that respondent was employed by SEIRI’s suppliers, Mayol and Apondar but no competent proof was presented as to the latter’s status as independent contractors.
Petitioners’ admission that the five affiants were their former employees is binding upon them. While they claim that respondent was the employee of their suppliers Mayol and Apondar, they did not submit proof that the latter were indeed independent contractors; clearly, petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proving their own affirmative allegation.40 There is thus no showing that the five former employees of SEIRI were motivated by malice, bad faith or any ill–motive in executing their affidavit supporting the claims of respondent.
As a regular employee, respondent enjoys the right to security of tenure under Article 27942 of the Labor Code and may only be dismissed for a just43 or authorized44 cause, otherwise the dismissal becomes illegal.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated February 21, 2008 and Resolution dated February 9, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA–G.R. No. CEB–SP No. 02113 are hereby AFFIRMED and UPHELD.
Petitioners to pay the costs of suit.
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo–De Castro, Bersamin, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
1 Estaneslao and Estan Eslao in some parts of the records.
2Rollo, pp. 37–46. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar–Padilla with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Franchito N. Diamante concurring.
3 Id. at 47–48. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar–Padilla with Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Franchito N. Diamante concurring.
4 Records, pp. 21, 27–37 and 56.
6 Id. at 1, 47.
10 Id. at 23, 51.
22Manila Water Co., Inc. v. Pena, 478 Phil. 68, 77 (2004), citing Fleischer Co., Inc. v. NLRC, 407 Phil. 391, 399 (2001).
23Basay v. Hacienda Consolacion, G.R. No. 175532, April 19, 2010, 618 SCRA 422, 434, citing Lopez v. Bodega City (Video–Disco Kitchen of the Phils.) and/or Torres–Yap, 558 Phil. 666, 673 (2007).
24Jao v. BCC Products Sales, Inc., G.R. No. 163700, April 18, 2012, 670 SCRA 38, 44.
26 Atok Big Wedge Company, Inc. v. Gison, G.R. No. 169510, August 8, 2011, 655 SCRA 193, 202, citing Philippine Global Communications, Inc. v. De Vera, 498 Phil. 301, 308–309 (2005).
27Masing and Sons Development Corporation v. Rogelio, G.R. No. 161787, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 490, 498, citing Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, People’s Broadcasting (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc.) v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 179652, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 724, 753 and Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage v. NLRC, G.R. No. 98368, December 15, 1993, 228 SCRA 473, 478.
28 Records, pp. 27–43, 56, 101–287.
33 Id. at 314–315, 317–318.
35 436 Phil. 190, 204–205 (2002), citing Lambo v. NLRC, 375 Phil. 855, 862 (1999).
36 Id. at 205, citing Spouses Santos v. NLRC, 354 Phil. 918, 932 (1998).
37Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage v. NLRC, supra note 27.
38 CA rollo, p. 205.
40 Masing and Sons Development Corporation v. Rogelio, supra note 27, at 502.
42ART 279. Security of Tenure. — In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
43 LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Art. 282.
44 Id., Arts. 283 and 284.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 282