Tenazas Vs R Villegas Transport

AMBOY, Ronrei Don N.
2D1
Tenazas vs. R. Villegas Transport

G.R. No. 192998; April 2, 2014
FACTS: Complainants, Tenazas, Francisco, and Endraca, filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against R. Villegas Taxi Transport, and/or Romualdo Villegas and Andy
Villagas, alleging that: complainant Tenazas’ taxi unit was sideswiped by another
vehicle resulting in damages worth P500 which subsequently led to his immediate
dismissal and was even threatened with physical harm if he was to return to the
company premises; complainant Francisco was illegally dismissed on the basis of an
unfounded suspicion that he was organizing a labor union; and complainant Endraca
was illegally dismissed after falling short of the required boundary for his taxi unit due
to an urgent repair required on his taxi unit.
Defendant company claims that: complainant Tenazas and Endraca were indeed
employees of the company, and were working as a regular driver and spare driver,
respectively. With regard to complainant Francisco, defendant company denies any
employee-employer relationship between them; and Defendant company further claims
that complainant Tenazas was never terminated, the latter failed to report back to work
after being told to wait for the release of his taxi (overhauled due to mechanical defects)
and that complainant Endraca was also not terminated because the latter had already
stopped reporting from work since July 2003.
Complainants filed a Motion to Admit Additional Evidence: (a)Joint Affidavit of the
petitioners, (b) Affidavit of Good Faith of Aloney Rivera, co-driver, (c) pictures of the
petitioners wearing company shirts, and (d) Tenazas’ Certification/Record of Social
Security Systems (SSS) Contributions.
enazas, Francisco, and Endraca also

filed a Motion to Admit Additional
Evidence: (a) Joint Affidavit of the
petitioners; (b) Affidavit of Good
Faith of Aloney Rivera (co
-driver); (c) pictures of the
petitioners wearing
company shirts; (d) Tenazas’
Certification/Record of Social
Security System (SSS) contributions
petitioners wearing
petitioners wearing
petitioners wearing
petitioners wearing
The Labor Arbiter ruled that there was no illegal dismissal because there was no proof
of an overt act of dismissal by defendant company and that complainant Francisco
failed to prove that he was indeed an employee of the company. On appeal, the NLRC
reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter arguing that the additional evidence
sufficiently established the existence of employer-employee relationship and that such
dismissal was illegal. On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that complainant Tenazas
and Endraca were indeed employeed and were illegally dismissed, but complainant
Francisco failed to prove his relationship as an employee to the company.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship between
complainant Francisco and the defendant company?
HELD: NO. The Court held that the burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts
the affirmative of an issue. Being that complainant Francisco is claiming to be an
employee of defendant company, it is incumbent upon him to proffer evidence to prove
his claim.
The Court further explains that there is no hard and fast rule to establish the elements of
employer-employee relationship. Any competent and relevant evidence may be
admitted (i.e. identification cards, cash vouchers, SSS registration, appointment letters
or employment contracts, payroll, organization charts, personnel lists)
Complainant Francisco failed to present substantial evidence to establish the
relationship. No documentary evidence submitted that depicts his status as an
employee of the company. Complainant Francisco, at the very least, could have
presented his social security records stating his contributions, name and address of
employer (which Tenazas submitted). Another taxi operator, Emmanuel Villegas, also
claimed to be his employer, a fact neither denied nor questioned by complainant
Francisco in any of his pleadings. Thus, petition is DENIED. The Court agrees with the
CA’s order of reinstatement instead of separation pay.

Tenazas Vs R Villegas Transport

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tenazas Vs R Villegas Transport

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tenazas Vs R Villegas Transport

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AMBOY, Ronrei Don N.

Tenazas vs. R. Villegas Transport

enazas, Francisco, and Endraca also

You might also like