9.

JIMENEZ ET AL VS NLRC, GR NO 116960, APRIL 2, 1996

BERNARDO JIMENEZ and JOSE JIMENEZ, as Operators of JJ's TRUCKING, petitioners, vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PEDRO JUANATAS and FREDELITO
JUANATAS, respondents.
REGALADO, J.:

FACTS:
Private respondent Pedro and Fredelito Juanatas, father and son, filed a claim for unpaid
wages/commissions, separation pay and damages against JJ's Trucking alleging that they were hired by
herein petitioner as driver/mechanic and helper, and were assigned to a ten-wheeler truck to haul soft drinks
and paid on commission basis, initially fixed at 17% but later increased to 20%. They further alleged that
they were illegally terminated.
On the other hand, petitioner contend that respondent Fredelito was not an employee of the firm and
that all commissions alleged not paid were duly paid.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling
a. that private respondents were not paid their commissions in full, and
b. that private respondent Fredelito Juanatas was an employee of JJ's Trucking.

RULING:
As a rule, this Court does not review supposed errors in the decision of the NLRC which raise factual
issues, because factual findings of agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions are accorded not only respect
but even finality, aside from the consideration that the Court is essentially not a trier of facts. However, in
the case at bar, a review of the records thereof with an assessment of the facts is necessary since the factual
findings of the NLRC and the labor arbiter are at odds with each other.
a. Yes. The entire amount of commissions was not paid, this by reason of the evident failure of herein
petitioners to present evidence that full payment thereof has been made. It is a basic rule in evidence
that each party must prove his affirmative allegation. Since the burden of evidence lies with the party
who asserts an affirmative allegation, the plaintiff or complainant has to prove his affirmative
allegations in the complaint and the defendant or respondent has to prove the affirmative allegations
in his affirmative defenses and counterclaim. Considering that petitioners herein assert that the
disputed commissions have been paid, they have the bounden duty to prove that fact. As a general
rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it.
b. No. the NLRC erred in holding that the son, Fredelito, was an employee of petitioners.
In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the elements
that are generally considered are the following: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee;
(2) the Payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee's
conduct, with the control test assuming primacy in the overall consideration.
In the case at bar, the aforementioned elements are not present. The agreement was between
petitioner JJ's Trucking and respondent Pedro Juanatas. The hiring of a helper was discretionary on
the part of Pedro. Under their contract, should he employ a helper, he would be responsible for the
latter's compensation. With or without a helper, respondent Pedro Juanatas was entitled to the same
percentage of commission. Respondent Fredelito Juanatas was hired by his father, Pedro, and the
compensation he received was paid by his father out of the latter's commission. Further, Fredelito
was not subject to the control and supervision of and dismissal by petitioners but of and by his father.