You are on page 1of 2

CASE: PEDRO CHAVEZ, petitioner,

ALVIN LEE, respondent
(G.R. 146530 January 17, 2005)
FACTS:The Labor arbiter once affirmed the Petitioner in his claim that he had been illegally
dismissed by respondents Supreme Pacakaging, Inc., and Mr. Alvin Lee. The petitioner then
worked for Supreme Packaging as a truck driver for 10 years. He delivers packaging materials
from the factory in Mariveles, Bataan to various customers in Metro Manila and was receiving
Php 900 per trip. Sometime in 1992, the petitioner expressed to Alvin Lee, the plant manager
his desire to avail himself his benefits of a regular employee like the overtime pay, nightshift
differential pay, and 13th month pay. Although the respondent promised to extent these benefits
to the petitioner, he failed to do so. Petitioner then filed a complaint submitting all the evidence
necessary including the contract of service between the Supreme Packaging Inc., and the
petitioner and found himself allegedly dismissed from work, through this, the petitioner filed a
case for illegal dismissal. Upon filing of the petitioner in court, the respondent insisted that the
petitioner had the sole control over the means and methods by which his work was
accomplished, that he pays for wages of his helpers and exercise control over them, and
asserted that he is not entitled for regularization because he is not even an employer of the
company but instead do his work in a contractual basis. The respondents then were held guilty
of illegal dismissal as the employer- employee relationship was proven. The respondents
appealed to the NLRC to dismiss the complaint of the petitioners for illegal dismissal and reiterated that they have no employer- employee relationship with the petitioner that make the
latter not eligible for regularization and the benefits of a regular employees like the. overtime
pay, nightshift differential pay, and 13th month pay.
ISSSUE: a. Whether or not there was an employer- employee relationship between the
petitioner and the respondent?
b. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled for the benefits a regular employee (e.g
overtime pay, nightshift differential pay, and 13th month pay)
RULING: a. YES. According to the law, the elements to determine the existence of an
employment relationship are: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the
payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the employers power to control the
employees conduct. The most important element is the employers control of the employees
conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods
to accomplish it. The court erred that all the four elements are present in this case. The work of
the petitioner is dependent upon the supervision of the respondent. Thus, there was a contract
of service existing between the petitioner which makes an evidence of contractual agreement
and relationship.

b. YES. Amidst the decision of the court which was bound by the employee- employer
relationship, the petitioner has the right to acquire such privileges but be only limited conditions
which are not contrary to law, good morals, or good customs. According to Art 6 of the Labor
Code, Employer- employee relationship is not a pre-condition to the applicability of the court