G.R. No. L-11362 - IN RE: Lim Ham Yong vs. Republic

Orlando Genon filed an Amended Complaint before the NLRC for various claims including non-payment of 13th month pay, illegal deductions, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees against Dynamiq Multi-Resources, Inc.
Genon asserted that he worked as a truck driver for Dynamiq from September 10, 2009 until his resignation on June 3, 2014.
During his employment, Genon claimed he was required to work from Monday to Saturday, received his salary semi-monthly, and had deductions such as cash bond, insurance, and phone bills.
He further maintained that despite his continuous service, Dynamiq did not pay him his 13th month pay, prompting him to seek relief.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision on October 14, 2015 awarding Genon specific monetary benefits: refund of cash bond, 13th month pay for various periods (with pro-rating for 2014), and attorney’s fees amounting to 10% of the monetary award.
Dynamiq appealed the Labor Arbiter's Decision before the NLRC, challenging the finding of an employer-employee relationship and the corresponding entitlements.
On January 28, 2016, the NLRC reversed and set aside the Labor Arbiter's ruling, dismissing Genon’s complaint.
After Genon’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the NLRC on March 28, 2016, he elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals through a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 (docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 145918).
The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s Decision with modifications, including ordering Dynamiq to pay interest on the monetary awards at a rate of six percent per annum, and later, upon motions for reconsideration, ultimately denied these motions in its Resolution dated May 10, 2018.

Genon contended that the factual record proved the existence of an employer-employee relationship, citing regular payment intervals and Dynamiq’s authority to control work.
Dynamiq contended that Genon was engaged as an independent contractor, paid on a commission basis per trip and that his engagement was governed by an Agreement which he had signed voluntarily, including specific deductions and a quitclaim/waiver arrangement.
Evidence such as driver itineraries, payslips, and the Agreement were submitted to support either party’s version regarding the nature of Genon’s engagement.

Whether the contractual arrangement and the facts on record substantiate that Genon was a regular employee rather than an independent contractor.
Whether the methods of payment (i.e., commission or “per trip” basis) affect the determination of an employment relationship.

Whether a worker paid on a commission basis is entitled to 13th month pay under prevailing Philippine law and jurisprudence.
Whether such entitlement persists regardless of the payment method or employment status when the employee is considered regular.

Whether all elements of the four-fold test (selection and engagement, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and the “control test”) are satisfied in establishing Genon’s regular employment.