Vinoya v.

NLRC
G.R. 126586.
August 25, 2000.

FACTS: This case involves a motion for reconsideration filed by private respondent
Regent Food Corporation (RFC), of the decision ordering RFC to reinstate petitioner
Alexander Vinoya to his former position and pay him backwages. The Court found that
RFC was the rightful employer of petitioner under the four-fold test of employer-employee
relations, contrary to RFC’s claim that Vinoya was actually an employee of the PMCI.
RFC now claims that reinstatement is no longer feasible due to the parties’ strained
relations.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Vinoya is entitled to reinstatement?

HELD: No. As a general rule, strained relations is an issue factual in nature and should
be raised and proved before the Labor Arbiter. In this case, the strained relations arose
only after the filing of the case. The issue of strained relations was never dealth with in
the decision being reconsidered. The Court finds that it would be impractical to reinstate
petitioner to his former position as such position as sales representative involves the
handling of accounts and other property of RFC. Therefore, in lieu of reinstatement,
payment of separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service is
granted.

Vinoya vs. National Labor Relation Commission

FACTS:
- Vinoya applied and was accepted onmay 1990, as a sales representative by
RFC on the same date was issued an i.d vinoya alleges that he was under direct
control and supervision plant manager and senior salesman of PRC.
- On july 1991, vinoya was transferred by RFC to PMCI, an agency which provides
RFC with additional contractual workers pursuant to a contract for supply of
manpower services after his transfer. He was re assigned to RFC as sales
representative. Subsequently on nov. 1991, he was informed by RFC that his
services were terminated and he was asked to surrender his i.d. card.
- Dec, 1991, vinoya filed a case of illegal dismissal and non.payment of 13th moth
pay before the labor arbiter.
- PMCI was initial imp leaded as one of the respondents, but vinoya withdrew his
charge against PMCI and bought/pursued his claim solely against RFC.
Subsequently, RFC filed a 3rd party complaint against PMCI.
Labor - RFC is guilty of illegal dismissal but denied 13th m. pay
 RFC is the employer
NLRC - PMCI is an independent contractor, guilty of illegal dismissal. Ordered
payment of 13th month pay.
ISSUES:
I. Whether petitioner was an employment of RFC or PMCI.
A. Status of PMCI (whether it is a independent contractor or labor-only contractor
Elements of labor-only
 1. Have substantial capital to perform the job work or service on its own acct. and
responsibility
- 1,000,000 – stock
75,000 – in paid
= not enough
2.
- Workers assigned by PMCI to RFC, the ______ has the control
3. Doesn’t perform and specific job or service
- Merely supplies RFC with EES
4. Sales reps are directly related to the business of RFC
5. Granting PMCI is an independent contractor
- Petitioner is not included in the list to be assigned to RFC
C. RFC carried out the 4 _____ test.
1.) Power to hire
- I.D. issued is sufficient for a proof
- PET is with RFC prior contract
2.) Payment of wages
- funds came from RFC
- although coursed through PMCI
3.) Power of control
- RFC admitted
- PET is under the direct control of RFC personnel
4.) Power to Dismiss
- Contract states that RFC has the power to dismiss
II. Whether petitioner was illegally dismissed?
- Due to his length of service, acquired _ tams of reg EE.
 Thus may only be dismissed upon compliance of legal reqs: for dismissal.
Two fold reqs:
1. Substantial
2. Procedural

1. Expiration of contracts is not one of the

The grounds allowed by law
1. No notice of impending dismissal

DISPO

- Decision and reso of NLRC are annulled and set aside

- Labor arbiter decision is reinstated