Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JJ COMING
G.R. No. 186621/ MAR 12, 2014 / VILLARAMA, JR., J./ LABOR-Work Relationship
Factors or Tests/ AJLCARDEO
NATURE
PETITIONERS
Agbay
RESPONDENTS
Jesus J. Coming
work only if they need his services again. JJ waited for almost a
year but petitioners did not call him back to work.
On their part, Rattan denied having hired respondent. That is,
Rattan denied that JJ was their employee:
JJ alleged that he worked continuously from March
17, 1984 up to January 21, 2002. Records reveal
however that Rattan Inc. was incorporated only last
July 18, 1986.
Moreover, when they started to actually operate in
1987, the company was engaged purely on buying
and exporting rattan furniture hence no
manufacturing employees were hired.
Furthermore, from the last quarter of 1989 up to
August of 1992, the company suspended
operations due to economic reverses as per
Certification issued by the SEC.
JJ also failed to present a single payslip, voucher or
a copy of a company payroll showing that he
rendered service during the period indicated
therein.
Also, JJs name does not appear in the list of
employees reported to the SSS.
There was also an Affidavit of Vicente Coming, JJs
full brother, attesting that JJ had never been an
employee of Rattan. The only connection was that
their employer Faustino Apondar supplies finished
rattan products to Rattan Inc.
Labor Arbiter rendered decision in favor of JJ.
NLRC reversed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter.
CA overturned NLRC decision, in favor of JJ.
Rattan Inc. now raised the issue up to the SC.
(4) The mode of payment of JJs salary was under their discretion,
at first paying him on pakiao basis and thereafter, on daily
basis;
(5) They implemented company rules and regulations;
(6) Agbay directly paid JJs salaries and controlled all aspects of
his employment; and
(7) JJ rendered work necessary and desirable in the business of
the Rattan Inc.
DECISION.
Petition is denied. The CA Decision (2008) and Resolution (2009) are
affirmed and upheld. (Setting aside the NLRC Decision and reinstating the
Labor Arbiter Decision which was in favor of JJ Coming)
NOTES.
Lines from Decision:
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.
As to the control test, the following facts indubitably reveal that Rattan
Inc. wielded control over the work performance of JJ:
(1) They required him to work within the company premises;
(2) They obliged JJ to report every day of the week and tasked
him to usually perform the same job;
(3) They enforced the observance of definite hours of work from
8am to 5am;