Danilo ‘Bitoy’ Javier v. Fly Ace Corporation/Flordelyn Castillo GR no.

192558 February 15, 2012| CASE FLOW

March 23, 2008 November 28, 2008 On appeal, NLRC ruled in favor of Javier and ordered that March 28, 2010
Javier filed a complaint Labor Arbiter dismissed the Fly ace is guilty of illegal dismissal and non-payment of The CA annulled NLRC’s findings. According to CA,
before NLRC for complaint for lack of merit 13th month pay. It ordered Fly ace to pay Javier in an illegal dismissal case the onus probandi rests
underpayment of salaries on the ground that Javier backwages/separationpay, unpaid 13th month pay. on the employer to prove that dismissal was for a
and other labor standard failed to present proof that NLRC contend that pakyaw-basis arrangement dos not valid cause. However, before a case can prosper, an
benefits. he was a regular employee. preclude existence of employment relationship It ruled employer-employee relationship must first be
that Javier was a regular employee established. Javier failed to present proof of
evidence that he was an employee of fly ace; that
his allegations did not pass the control test;; and he
JAVIER’S ALLEGATION Fly Ace contend that Javier was contracted by its Javier filed a works outside fly ace
1. On September, 2007 Javier was employed employee as an extra helper on pakyaw basis. It petition to
by Fly Ace for performing various tasks at contracted Javier whenever the vehicle of its
Fly Ace warehouse such as cleaning and review under
contracted hauler was not available. On April 30,
arranging the canned items before their Rule 45 of
2008, Fly Ace no longer needed Javier’s services. One final note. The Court’s decision
delivery to certain locations and Fly Ace submitted a copy of its agreement with Rules of Civil does not contradict the settled rule
sometimes he would be ordered to Milmar Hauling services and copies of Procedure that "payment by the piece is just a
accompany the company’s delivery vehicle. method of compensation and does
acknowledgement receipts evidencing payment to assailing CA’s not define the essence of the
2. Javier reported for work from Monday to Javier for his service bearing the words ‘daily decision relation." Payment on a piece-rate
Saturday: 7 am to 5 pm manpower/pakyaw’ basis does not negate regular
3. He was not issued an ID and payslips by Fly employment. "The term ‘wage’ is
Ace broadly defined in Article 97 of the
4. On May 6, 2008 he reported for work but Labor Code as remuneration or
Issue: WON an employer-employee relationship exists. earnings, capable of being expressed
was no longer allowed to enter Fly Ace in terms of money whether fixed or
premises by the security guard upon Ruling: NO. In this case, Javier was not able to persuade the Court that the above elements exist in
ascertained on a time, task, piece or
instruction of Ruben Ong his case. He could not submit competent proof that Fly Ace engaged his services as a regular commission basis. Payment by the
5. He asked Ong why he was barred from employee; that Fly Ace paid his wages as an employee, or that Fly Ace could dictate what his conduct piece is just a method of
entering but was answered tanungin mo should be while at work. In other words, Javier’s allegations did not establish that his relationship compensation and does not define
with Fly Ace had the attributes of an employer-employee relationship on the basis of the above- the essence of the relations. Nor does
anak mo the fact that the petitioner is not
6. AfterEd he Javier'
went home, Javier discovered that mentioned four-fold test. Worse, Javier was not able to refute Fly Ace’s assertion that it had an covered by the SSS affect the
his son is courting Annalyn (daughter of agreement with a hauling company to undertake the delivery of its goods. It was also baffling to employer-employee relationship.
Ong) after meeting at a fiesta realize that Javier did not dispute Fly Ace’s denial of his services’ exclusivity to the company. In short, However, in determining whether the
all that Javier laid down were bare allegations without corroborative proof. relationship is that of employer and
7. That Annalyn convinced Ong to spare employee or one of an independent
Javier but Ongrefused to accede Fly Ace does not dispute having contracted Javier and paid him on a "per trip" rate as a stevedore,
contractor, each case must be
8. Javier was terminated from his albeit on a pakyaw basis. The Court cannot fail to note that Fly Ace presented documentary proof determined on its own facts and all
employment without notice and neither that Javier was indeed paid on a pakyaw basis per the acknowledgment receipts admitted as the features of the relationship are to
given opportunity to refute the case of his competent evidence by the LA. Unfortunately for Javier, his mere denial of the signatures affixed be considered." Unfortunately for
therein cannot automatically sway us to ignore the documents because "forgery cannot be presumed Javier, the attendant facts and
dismissal circumstances of the instant case do
To support his allegations, Javier presented an and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the not provide the Court with sufficient
affidavit of Bengie Valenzuela who alleged that party alleging forgery." reason to uphold his claimed status as
Javier was a stevedore or pahinente employee of Fly Ace.