G.R. No. 181284 - Unduran vs. Aberasturi

Petitioner Arnulfo M. Fernandez was hired in 1994 by Kalookan Slaughterhouse, Inc., owned by respondent Ernesto Cunanan, to work as a butcher.
He claimed to have worked continuously from Monday to Sunday, with shifts from 6:30 P.M. to 7:30 A.M., initially earning P700.00 per day, later reduced to P500.00.
In December 2013, while driving the company truck, petitioner met with an accident which resulted in wage deductions that he later questioned in July 2014.

In July 2014, petitioner confronted the wage deductions and was subsequently treated unreasonably by the management.
On July 21, 2014, petitioner experienced a headache and did not report for work.
The following day, he received only P200.00 due to a prior undertime and was informed he could no longer report for work, allegedly due to his old age.

Petitioner maintained he was an employee, substantiating his position with the submission of gate passes, log sheets, and an identification card issued by Kalookan Slaughterhouse.
Kalookan Slaughterhouse argued petitioner was an independent contractor engaged under its Operation Supervisor, Cirilo Tablit.
The slaughterhouse contended that petitioner’s payment was based on the number of hogs butchered and that he was only required to appear when customers brought hogs for slaughter, thereby implying a contractual rather than employment relationship.
The management further claimed that petitioner’s barred entry into the premises was due to his own failure to comply with established policies (such as “No ID, No Entry” and “No Uniform, No Entry”), not as a dismissal.

On August 5, 2014, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The LA ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that he had been illegally dismissed by Kalookan Slaughterhouse for lack of justification—specifically noting that dismissal on the basis of old age was arbitrary.
The LA ordered respondents to pay backwages, separation pay (computed as one month’s salary per year of service), service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and night shift differential pay.
Evidence supporting the employer-employee relationship included petitioner's submission of log sheets, gate passes, an issued I.D., and acknowledgment by a company personnel (Noelberto De Guzman) that petitioner was required to comply with company policies.

Kalookan Slaughterhouse appealed the LA decision to the NLRC.
The NLRC reversed the LA ruling, holding that there was no employer-employee relationship but rather an independent contractor relationship, arguing that petitioner's wages were paid by Tablit and that there were no payroll records or pay slips in his name.
The NLRC also maintained that petitioner was dismissed for policy violation, particularly his failure to comply with the slaughterhouse’s established entry requirements.

Petitioner questioned the NLRC finding by raising issues on the existence of an employer-employee relationship as well as the alleged illegal dismissal.
The CA denied the petition for certiorari on the ground that petitioner had failed to produce conclusive documentary evidence (e.g., salary vouchers, pay slips, work schedules) to establish an employer-employee relationship.
The CA further relied on evidence such as gate passes—which it argued did not qualify petitioner as an employee due to certain notations—and Tablit’s Sinumpaang Salaysay, which supported the claim that petitioner was engaged by Tablit, not directly by Kalookan Slaughterhouse.

Log sheets indicating his attendance on specified days in September 2012.
Multiple gate passes and an identification card clearly stating his role as a butcher.
A trip ticket from December 30, 2007, indicating his involvement in company-related activities.

The Sinumpaang Salaysay of Tablit, which suggested petitioner was hired and paid by Tablit on a contractor basis.
Photographs allegedly depicting petitioner sleeping on duty.
Photographic evidence of the various policies (e.g., “No ID, No Entry”) enforced by the slaughterhouse.
The Sinumpaang Salaysay of employee Noelberto De Guzman who testified about the company’s policies and petitioner’s repeated non-compliance.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming the NLRC decision and resolution by failing to recognize the existence of an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondents.
Whether the CA committed a reversible error in affirming the NLRC decision and resolution by not recognizing that petitioner was illegally dismissed.