Case Digest (G.R. No. 244206)
Facts:
Gerome P. Ginta-Ason v. J.T.A. Packaging Corporation and Jon Tan Arquilla, G.R. No. 244206, March 16, 2022, Supreme Court Second Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Gerome P. Ginta-Ason filed on January 30, 2017 a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary/wages, service incentive leave, 13th month pay, separation pay and ECOLA, and claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees against respondents J.T.A. Packaging Corporation (JTA) and Jon Tan Arquilla. Petitioner alleged he was hired by JTA on December 26, 2014 as an all-around driver and was constructively dismissed following an incident on September 5, 2016 in which Arquilla allegedly assaulted and unlawfully detained petitioner and his partner, rendering continued employment impossible. Petitioner relied on pay slips, driver’s itineraries and testimony to prove his employment.
Respondents denied the existence of any employer-employee relationship with petitioner. JTA submitted voluminous documentary evidence—alpha lists filed with the BIR (2014–2016), payroll monthly reports and 13th month pay records (2015–2016), SSS remittance reports (2015–2016), PhilHealth remittances (2016), and Pag-IBIG membership/remittance forms (2015–2016)—none of which contained petitioner’s name. JTA also submitted its articles of incorporation to show Arquilla was neither a stockholder nor connected with the corporation.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision on June 28, 2017 declaring petitioner constructively dismissed and ordering respondents, in solidum, to pay backwages from September 5, 2016 until finality, separation pay of one month per year of service, moral and exemplary damages (P50,000 each), proportionate 13th month pay, accumulated service incentive leave pay, and 10% attorney’s fees. The LA found an employer-employee relationship existed and credited the sworn statement of a former JTA employee identifying Arquilla as owner/manager.
On appeal the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed and set aside the LA decision in a Resolution dated September 29, 2017, finding no employer-employee relationship; it discredited petitioner’s pay slips for lacking indicia of source and having date discrepancies, and gave weight to JTA’s documentary proofs. The NLRC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on November 29, 2017.
Petitioner then filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The CA, in a Decision dated October 11, 2018 (affirming the NLRC) and a Resolution dated January 24, 2019 (den...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did an employer-employee relationship exist between petitioner and J.T.A. Packaging Corporation at the time of the alleged dismiss...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)