Frances Claire R. Caceres Case No.

23
Labor I - Block A

JIMENEZ, ET. AL. vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 116960 April 2, 1996

FACTS:

Private respondents Pedro and Fredelito Juanatas were hired by petitioner Bernardo
Jimenez as driver, mechanic and helper in his trucking firm, JJ Trucking. They were assigned to
a ten-wheeler truck to haul soft drinks of Coca-Cola Bottling Company and were paid on
commission basis. On June 29, 1990, private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
as well as a claim for unpaid wages/commissions, separation pay and damages against JJ
Trucking. In disagreement with the complaint, petitioners contend that Fredelito was not an
employee of the firm but was merely a helper of his father, Pedro; that all commissions were
duly paid; and that the truck driven by Pedro was sold to Winston Flores, and therefore, private
respondents were not illegally dismissed.

After the conduct of hearings, the Labor Arbiter ordered for the payment of Pedros
separation pay and dismissed the complaint of Fredelito for lack of merit. This was later on
modified by the NLRC declaraing Fredelito as an employee of the JJ Trucking, therefore,
entitled to unpaid commissions. Petitioner appealed, hence, the case.

ISSUE:

Did the NLRC err in ruling that Fredelito Juanatas was an employee of petitioners?

RULING:

Yes. The agreement was between JJ Trucking and Pedro Juanatas and the hiring of a
helper was discretionary on the part of Pedro. Under their contract, should he employ a helper,
he would be responsible for the latters compensation. Fredelito was hired by his father, Pedro,
and the compensation he received was paid by his father out of the latters commission.
Furthermore, Fredelito was not subject to the control and supervision of and dismissal by
petitioners but of and by his father.

It has been consistently ruled that in determining the existence of an employer-employee

relationship, the elements to be considered are the following: (1) the selection and engagement of
the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control
the employees conduct, with the control test assuming primacy in the overall consideration. In
the case at bar, the aforementioned elements are not present.