JESUS G. REYES,
petitioner, vs. GLAUCOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC., EYE REFERRAL CENTER and
MANUEL B. AGULTO, respondents
G. R. No. 189255 June 17, 2015
FACTS:
On August 1, 2003, Reyes was hired as administrator of the
Eye Referral Center of Glaucoma Research Foundation, Inc. He performed his
duties as administrator and continuously received his monthly salary of P20,000
until the end of January 2005. However, beginning February 2005, respondent
withheld his monthly salary without notice but he still continued to report for
work. On April 11, 2005 he wrote a letter to the Executive Director, Manuel
Agulto, informing him that he has not been receiving his salaries since
February 2005 and his 14th month pay for 2004. Petitioner did not
receive any response from Agulto and on April 21, 2005 the Assistant to the
Executive Director as well as the Assistant Administrative Officer informed him
that he is no longer the Administrator of the ERC. His office was padlocked and
closed without notice but he still continued to report for work until April 19,
2005 when he was no longer allowed by the security guard to enter the premises
of the ERC.
On the other hand, respondent contended that there is no
employer-employee relationship between them. Petitioner was hired as a
consultant or adviser in the formulation of an updated organizational setup and
employee’s manual, upon his representation that he is an expert in corporate
organization structure and management affairs. Based on his claim that there is
a need for an administrator for the ERC, he later designated himself as such on
trial basis. According to the respondents, they had no control over petitioner
in terms of working hours as he reports for work at anytime of the day and
leaves as he pleases; they also had no control as to the manner in which he
performs his alleged duties as consultant. He became overbearing and his
relationship with the employees and officers of the company soured leading to
the filing of 3 complaints against him and he was not dismissed as he was the
one who voluntarily severed his relations with the respondents.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner was hired as a consultant or an
employee of the respondent corporation
RULING:
The test for determining on whom the burden of proof lies is
found in the result of an inquiry as to which party would be successful if no
evidence of such matters were given. In an illegal dismissal case, the onus
probandi rests on the employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee was
for a valid cause. However, before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an
employer-employee relationship must first be established. Thus, it is incumbent
upon petitioner to prove, by substantial evidence, the existence of
employer-employee relationship in filing for an illegal dismissal complaint
based on the premise that he was an employee of the respondent.
The four standards in determining the existence of an
employer-employee relationship are: (a) the manner of selection and engagement
of the putative employee; (b) the mode of payment of wages; (c) the presence or
absence of power of dismissal; and (d) the presence or absence of control of
the putative employee’s conduct. The most determinative among these factors is
the so-called “factor test.”
This test is premised on whether the person for whom the
services are preformed reserves the right to control both the end achieved and
the manner and means used to achieved that end.
In the present case, respondent’s power to approve or reject
the organizational plans drawn by petitioner cannot be the control contemplated
in the “control test.” It is only logical that the one who commissions another
to do a piece of work should have the right to accept or reject the product.
What was glaring in the present case is the undisputed fact that petitioner was
never subject to definite working hours. The Court held that there is no
employer-employee relationship where the supposed employee is not subject to a
set of rules and regulations governing the performance of his duties under the
agreement with the company and is not require to report for work at any time,
nor devote his time exclusively to working for the company.
In addition, the designation of the payments to petitioner
as salaries is not determinative of the existence of an employer-employee
relationship.
The fact alone that petitioner was designated as an
administrator does not necessarily mean that he is an employee of respondents.
Mere title or designation in a corporation will not, by itself, determine the
existence of an employer-employee relationship.
Comments
Post a Comment