BERNARD TENAZAS v. R. VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT G.R. No.

192998 02 APRIL 2014

FACTS:
Bernard Tenazas, Jaime Francisco, and Isidro Endraca filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against R.
Villegas Taxi Transport, and/or Romualdo Villegas and Andy Villegas.
 PETITIONER’S CLAIM
TENAZAS - Taxi unit was sideswiped by another vehicle (damage = P500); fired after reporting the
incident, even threatened w/ physical harm if he was seen on company premises.
FRANCISCO - Dismissed because of the unfounded suspicion that he was organizing a labor union
EDRACA – Dismissed after falling short of the required boundary for his taxi unit; fell short because of
P700 spent on an urgent repair
 R. VILLEGAS TAXI’S CLAIM
TENAZAS - Company admits that Tenazas is an employee – regular driver. Tenazas was never terminated;
he failed to report back to work after being told to wait for the release of his taxi (overhauled due to
mechanical defects)
FRANCISCO - Company denies that Francisco is an employee
ENDRACA - Company admits that Endraca is an employee – spare driver . Endraca could not have been
terminated in March 2006 because he stopped reporting for work in July 2003 (but willing to accommodate
him again as he was never really dismissed) Tenazas, 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.
• LA: No illegal dismissal because no proof of an overt act of dismissal committed by R. Villegas Taxi;
Francisco failed to prove he was an employee
• NLRC: Reversed LA; the additional evidence sufficiently established the existence of employer-employee
relationship and illegal dismissal (for all three)
• CA: Tenazas and Endraca were indeed employees and were illegally dismissed, but Francisco failed to
establish his relationship with the company
ISSUE: WON there was an employer-employee relationship (re: Francisco) – NO
HELD:
• The burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. As Francisco was
claiming to be an employee of R. Villegas Taxi, it is incumbent upon him to proffer evidence to prove the
existence of the relationship.
• There is no hard and fast rule to establish the elements of employer-employee relationship. Any
competent and relevant evidence may be admitted, e.g., identification cards, cash vouchers, social security
registration, appointment letters or employment contracts, payrolls, organization charts, personnel lists.
• Francisco failed to present substantial evidence to establish the relationship. No documentary evidence
submitted, like an attendance logbook, payroll, SSS record, or any personnel file that depicts his status as an
employee. He could also have at least presented his social security records stating his contributions, name
and address of employer (which Tenazas presented). Another taxi operator, Emmanuel Villegas, also
claimed to be his employer – a fact not denied or questioned by Francisco in any of his pleadings.
Petition DENIED. SC agreed with CA’s order of reinstatement instead of separation pay. (*Strained
relations must be demonstrated as a fact. In this case, no facts demonstrated that the relations were so
strained as to make reinstatement no longer a feasible option.)