Jack C.

Valencia vs Classic Vinyl

G.R. No. 206390

January 30, 2017

Facts:

The case was about an employee who was allegedly illegally dismissed by its employer.

Valencia, allegedly stated that he was an employee of Vinyl. Valencia, once filed against vinyl a labor
case, claiming his unpaid holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, regularization, moral
and exemplary damages. When he ask if he could attend the hearing of his case, the respondent replied
with anger and stated that he can no longer work for them and not to report to its office anymore.
Thereafter, petitioner added illegal dismissal on his complaint.

However, during trial, it was discovered that Valencia was not an employee of Vinyl.

It was found out that Valencia was an employee of a service only contractor.

LA, upon the discovery that Valencia was not an employee of the petitioner, dismissed the petition.

NLRC Affirmed LA’s decision.

Issue:

WON Valencia’s petition has merit.

Held:

Court ruled in the negative and affirmed the decision of LA and NLRC.

The failure of Valencia to provide sufficient evidence that he was and employee of the respondent was
crucial in determining the case.

When the court applied the Four fold test, it was found out that Valencia is not an employee of Vinyl.

Therefore, Vinyl has no obligation to pay the claims of the petitioner.