Case Digest (G.R. No. 169757)
Facts:
Cesar C. Lirio, doing business under the name and style of Celkor Ad Sonicmix, Petitioner, vs. Wilmer D. Genovia, Respondent, G.R. No. 169757, November 23, 2011, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.On July 9, 2002, Wilmer D. Genovia filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non‑payment of commission, and moral and exemplary damages against Cesar Lirio and/or Celkor Ad Sonicmix Recording Studio. Genovia alleged he was hired on August 15, 2001 as studio manager, paid a monthly salary of P7,000 and entitled to P100 per hour commission when acting as recording technician. He claimed duties included managing and operating the studio, promoting its services, composing and arranging songs for petitioner’s daughter’s album (work done during his spare time), and performing digital editing and mixing in his capacity as studio manager. Genovia alleged he was verbally terminated on March 14, 2002 without a hearing.
At the labor level, respondent submitted documentary proof consisting of a payroll (July 31, 2001 to March 15, 2002) certified correct by petitioner and petty cash vouchers evidencing receipt. The Labor Arbiter (Decision dated October 31, 2003) found an employer‑employee relationship, ruled the dismissal illegal for lack of procedural due process, and ordered backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, unpaid commission and moral and exemplary damages.
Petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC, in a Resolution dated October 14, 2004 (denied in a December 14, 2004 resolution on reconsideration), reversed the Labor Arbiter, holding that respondent failed to prove selection/engagement, employer’s power to dismiss, and employer control — elements essential to establish an employment relationship.
Respondent sought relief from the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. SP No. 88899 (Decision dated August 4, 2005; Resolution denying reconsideration September 21, 2005) reversed the NLRC, reinstated the Labo...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals’ exercise of certiorari under Rule 65 proper in reviewing the NLRC’s factual finding for grave abuse of discretion?
- Did an employer‑employee relationship exist between petitioner and respondent?
- If so, was respondent’s dismissal illegal for lack of due process, an...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)