G.R. No. 243414 - GDI Lightning Solutions vs. Unating

In May 2012, petitioner GDI Lighting Solutions, a company engaged in selling and supplying lighting lamps, bulbs, and LED lighting technology, hired respondent Jasmin Bacalangco Unating as a Marketing Assistant.
GDI Lighting promised Unating a daily salary of P1,000 along with additional food and transportation allowances.

Unating was subsequently promoted to the position of Manager/Supervisor, thereby assuming greater responsibilities within the company.
In November 2014, Unating requested financial support from petitioner Yehuda Ortal, the President and CEO of GDI Lighting, to assist her during her impending maternity leave because she was not enrolled in the Social Security System (SSS).
The request was ignored, and even her repeated plea in December 2014—made in light of a scheduled Caesarian section—went unheeded.

In the last week of December 2014, Ortal directed Unating to turn over company records that were then in her possession, an act witnessed by her two daughters and the office secretary.
On January 2, 2015, Unating was advised to go home as she was due to give birth.
Feeling aggrieved by the company’s lack of assistance and support, Unating filed a formal complaint on January 29, 2015, alleging illegal dismissal and nonpayment of numerous benefits and forms of compensation, including backwages, overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, separation pay, and maternity benefits.

In her complaint and subsequent Position Paper, Unating asserted that during her almost three-year stint with the company, she received no salary or other forms of compensation aside from meal allowances; she also highlighted the absence of payments for overtime, holiday work, rest day premiums, and other statutory benefits.
GDI Lighting, conversely, argued in its Position Paper that Unating was not an employee but an independent contractor. They presented a Manpower Service Agreement to support their claim, which purportedly evidenced that she was hired for installation work and remunerated on a weekly basis through a package that included transportation allowance, daily manpower crew salary, meal allowance, and provisions for uniform, safety shoes, and identification cards.
In response, Unating challenged the authenticity of the Manpower Service Agreement—pointing out that it was undated, unnotarized, and that the signature it bore differed from her genuine signature—insisting she was a regular employee with an established role and long service record.

Labor Arbiter Mona Lisa M. Vargas rendered a decision on November 25, 2015, in favor of GDI Lighting, ruling that Unating failed to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship; this dismissal precluded the need to examine her specific monetary claims.
Subsequently, Unating appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which, in its Resolution dated April 20, 2016, partially granted her award. The NLRC recognized the existence of an employer-employee relationship and accordingly modified the earlier decision, awarding unpaid wages, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay based on evidence submitted.
During these proceedings, discrepancies arose regarding her date of hiring and the credibility of the Manpower Service Agreement submitted by GDI Lighting.

GDI Lighting filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) with the NLRC, which was denied on May 31, 2016.
The matter then advanced to the Court of Appeals (CA) under a Petition for Certiorari by GDI Lighting.
On March 12, 2018, the CA affirmed the NLRC’s decision, and a further MR by GDI Lighting was denied by the CA on November 28, 2018, leading to the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.

Unating presented a company-issued identification card that explicitly identified her as a “Supervisor” and an employee of GDI Lighting.
She also produced various electronic mail correspondences with buyers and suppliers, which evidenced her direct involvement in activities pertinent to the company’s core business operations and indicated control and supervision by GDI Lighting.
GDI Lighting’s sole evidence to counter this—the disputed Manpower Service Agreement—was rendered insufficient due to its lack of notarization, absence of a date, and questionable authenticity.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that an employer-employee relationship existed between Unating and GDI Lighting.
Whether, based on the evidence presented, Unating should be considered a regular employee entitled to backwages, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and attorney’s fees despite the existence of a purported Manpower Service Agreement purporting to establish her status as an independent contractor.