REYNALDO S. GERALDO,
petitioner, vs.
THE BILL SENDER
CORPORATION/MS. LOURDES NER CANDO, respondents
G. R. No. 222219 October 3, 2018
FACTS:
Petitioner Reynaldo S. Geraldo has been employed by The Bill
Sender Corporation as a delivery/messenger man to deliver the bills of its
client since June 20, 1987. He was paid on a “per piece basis,” the amount of
his salary depending on the number of bills he delivered. On August 2, 2011,
the company’s operations manager suddenly informed him that his employment was
being terminated because he failed to deliver certain bills. He explained that
he was not the messenger assigned to deliver the said bills but the manager
refused to reconsider and proceeded with his termination. Thus, he claims that
his dismissal was illegal for being done without the required due process under
the law.
The company countered that Geraldo was only a piece-rate
worker not a full-time employee and that he reported to work only as he pleased
and that it was a usual practice for messengers to transfer from one company to
another to similarly deliver bills and mail matters. As such, he would only be
given bills to deliver if he reports to work, otherwise, the bills would be
assigned to other messengers. Moreover, contrary to Geraldo’s claims, the
company asserts that he was not illegally dismissed for he was the one who
abandoned his job when he no longer reported for work. Thus, the burden was on
him to substantiate his claims for illegal dismissal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a piece-rate employee is not an employee of
the respondent company and is not entitled to security of tenure.
RULING:
Art. 280 of the Labor Code describes a regular employee as
one who is either (1) engaged to perform activities which are necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and (2) those casual
employees who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or
broken, with respect to the activity in which he is employed. The test to
determine whether employment is regular or not is the reasonable connection
between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the
usual business or trade of the employer. If the employee has been performing
the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or
merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its
performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability,
of that activity to the business.
In this case, the company cannot deny the fact that Geraldo
was performing activities necessary or desirable in its usual business or trade
for without his service, for without his services, its fundamental purpose of
delivering bills and other mail matters in behalf of its customers cannot be
accomplished. On this basis alone, the law deems Geraldo as a regular employee
of the company.
But even considering that he is not a full-time employee as
the company insists, the law still deems his employment as regular due to the
fact that he had been performing the activities for more than one year. In
fact, Geraldo has been working as a messenger man for the company for more than
14 years. While length of time may not be the controlling test to determine if
an employee is indeed a regular employee, it is vital in establishing if he was
hired to perform tasks which are necessary and indispensable to the usual
business or trade of the employer.
The payment on a piece-rate basis does not negate regular
employment. Payment by the piece is just a method of compensation and does not
define the essence of the relations. Thus, the fact that Geraldo is paid on the
basis of his productivity does not render his employment as contractual.
Notwithstanding any agreements to the contrary, what
determines whether a certain employment is regular is not the will and word of
the employer, much less the procedure of hiring the employee or the manner of
paying his salary, but the nature of the activities performed in relation to
the particular business or trades considering all circumstances, and in some
cases the length of time of its performance and its continued existence.
Comments
Post a Comment