G.R. No. L-30773 - Sta. Maria vs. Lopez

Petitioner Reynaldo S. Geraldo was engaged by respondent The Bill Sender Corporation, a company in the business of delivering bills and mail matters on behalf of its customers.
Geraldo was employed as a delivery/messenger man and was paid on a “per-piece” basis, meaning his salary depended on the number of bills he delivered.
The manner of his compensation (piece-rate payment) became a significant point in determining the nature of his employment relationship with the company.

On August 7, 2011, without prior notice in writing, Geraldo was informed by the company’s operations manager that his employment was terminated because he allegedly failed to deliver certain bills.
Geraldo contended that he was not assigned to deliver the said bills and that the termination occurred without affording him the due process required by law.

On February 6, 2012, Geraldo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and sought monetary benefits including separation pay, service incentive leave pay, backwages, 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of Geraldo on November 29, 2012, declaring that:

The burden of proving just cause for dismissal lies with the employer irrespective of the manner of payment.
Geraldo was deemed a regular employee because he performed work necessary to the company’s business for more than one year, regardless of the intermittent or piece-rate pay arrangement.
The company failed to substantiate its claim that Geraldo abandoned his job, notably because it did not follow the twin-notice requirement mandated by law.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA ruling on May 9, 2013, with clarifications regarding the computation of backwages and the interpretation of job abandonment.

On August 7, 2014, the Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the NLRC decision, holding that:

Geraldo was hired on a per-result basis as a piece-rate worker, and thus, did not qualify as an employee entitled to security of tenure and the benefits thereof.
The absence of a traditional employer-employee relationship negated any basis for awarding separation pay, backwages, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and attorney’s fees.

In a subsequent Resolution dated September 28, 2015, the CA denied Geraldo’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Geraldo then filed a petition for review on November 26, 2015, arguing that:

The CA committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing his complaint on the ground that being paid on a piece-rate basis negates the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
The CA’s dismissal of his claim and monetary awards was without basis in fact and law.
The officers of the respondent corporation should be held personally liable due to the alleged bad faith in terminating his employment.

He asserted that the method of payment is merely a method of compensation and does not define the essence of the employment relationship.
His long service (more than fourteen years from June 20, 1997, to August 7, 2011) demonstrated that his work was necessary and indispensable to the company’s primary business of delivering bills.
The failure to comply with the dual notice requirements rendered his dismissal illegal and devoid of due process.

Geraldo was employed on a piece-rate or per-result basis and was not a full-time regular employee.
It was customary for messengers to transfer between companies based on the availability of work, and his absence (or “abandonment”) justified termination.
The burden was on Geraldo to provide evidence of an illegal dismissal, which the company claimed was not met.

Whether Geraldo, despite being paid on a piece-rate basis, should nevertheless be considered a regular employee under the law.
Whether the termination of Geraldo’s employment was illegal, particularly in light of the failure to provide the requisite twin written notices as required by law.
Whether the dismissal amounted to an illegal termination entitling Geraldo to monetary awards such as separation pay, backwages, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay.
Whether the Court of Appeals abused its discretion in setting aside the decisions of lower quasi-judicial bodies (the LA and NLRC).
Whether respondent corporate officer, Ms. Lourdes Ner Cando, should be held personally and solidarily liable for the monetary awards granted to Geraldo.