Royale Homes Marketing Corporation v. Fidel P. Alcantara(deceased), instituted by his heirs GR no.

195190 July 28, 2014| CASE FLOW

1994 Royale Home reappointed Alcantara December 17, 2003

Royal Homes appointed for several consecutive years, the last Alcantara filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Royale Homes and its Executives. Alcantara alleged
Alcantara as its of which covered the period of January that he is a regular employee; that in the November 2003 Royale executives told him why he had the gall
MARKETING DIRECTOR 1 to December 31, 2003, where he to come to the office; the acts of the executives constituted his dismissal from work without any valid
for a fixed period of 1 held the position of division 5-VP-Sales cause and in gross disregard of the proper procedure for dismissing employees.
year. Alcantara prayed for his reinstatement with backwages, moral and exemplary damages.

Alcantara filed a petition
for certiorari with CA
imputing that NLRC
committed grave abuse of
discretion.
June 23, 2010
CA granted Alcantara’s
petition. Royale Homes
filed for MR and a
supplemental MR which
was denied
On appeal by both parties
February 23, 2009
NLRC ruled that Alcantara
is not an employee but a
mere independent
contractor of Royale
Homes. It reversed the LA’s
decision
Royale Homes filed for a
petition for review on
certiorari assailing CA’s
decision
September 7, 2005
Labor Arbiter ruled that
Alcantara is an employee of
Royal Homes with a fixed-
term employment and that
the pre-termination was
against the law. Alcantara
was entitled to an amount
which he may have earned
on the average for the
unexpired portion of the
contract. It ordered Royal
Homes to pay 277,000
representing commission for
the unexpired term.
Royale Homes denied that Alcantara is an employee.
1. It argued that the appointment paper of Alcantara is clear that it
engaged his services as an independent contractor; that he was not
paid of monetary benefits as he was paid on commission basis;
2. that Royale Homes do not have control on how he would accomplish
his tasks and free to solicit sales.
3. Royale Homes alleged that Alcantara left the company after his wife
had formed a brokerage company that directly competed with its
business and even recruited some of its sales agents
4. Alcantara announced public that he would leave the company by the
end of October 2003 and would no longer finish his contract.
5. Alcantara joined his wife and pursue their brokerage business.
6. Royale Homes accepted Alcantara’s decision and even threw a
despedida party
7. After two months, Alcantara submitted a letter claiming that he was
illegal dismissed.

Issue: WON an employer-employee relationship exists.

Ruling: NO.

This Court is,,convinced that Alcantara is not an employee of Royale Homes, but a mere independent contractor. The NLRC is, therefore, correct in concluding that the Labor Arbiter has no
jurisdiction over the case and that the same is cognizable by the regular courts.

The juridical relationship of the parties based on their written contract. The primary evidence of the nature of the parties’ relationship in this case is the written contract that they signed and
executed in pursuanceof their mutual agreement. While the existence of employer-employee relationship is a matter of law, the characterization made by the parties in their contract as to the
nature of their juridical relationship cannot be simply ignored, particularly in this case where the parties’ written contract unequivocally states their intention at the time they entered into it. In this
case, the contract, duly signed and not disputed by the parties, conspicuously provides that "no employer-employee relationship exists between" Royale Homes and Alcantara, as well as his sales
agents. It is clear that they did not want to be bound by employer-employee relationship at the time of the signing of the contract.