G.R. No. 216492 - Garin vs. City of Muntinlupa

Rodrigo A. Upod, the petitioner, filed a complaint on May 19, 2017, against Onon Trucking and Marketing Corporation and Aimardo V. Interior for illegal dismissal and monetary claims.
The case stemmed from allegations that petitioner, initially hired as a hauler/driver, was treated as a regular employee despite being paid on a per trip basis and was then dismissed illegally.

Petitioner was first hired in April 2004 by Onon Trucking as a hauler/driver assigned to deliver goods from San Miguel Brewery, Inc. in San Fernando, Pampanga.
He was initially engaged until 2009, when he was suspended on grounds of alleged abandonment, and then rehired in 2014.
After his re-engagement in 2014, he continuously reported for work until February 2017, when his delivery assignments were abruptly ceased, prompting him to file the suit.

Petitioner claimed that, despite his long and continuous service—rendering him a regular employee—his dismissal was without just or authorized cause, amounting to illegal termination.
He also alleged that he was deprived of employment benefits such as SSS, PhilHealth, Pag-Ibig, as well as due 13th month pay, separation pay, and backwages.

Onon Trucking and its owner, Aimardo V. Interior, contended that there was no employer-employee relationship because petitioner was engaged on a freelance, per trip contractual basis.
They maintained that the per trip contract, which provided for 16% of the gross revenue per delivery, clearly stipulated that the engagement terminated upon completion of each delivery or once the truck was returned to the warehouse.

At the Labor Arbiter, a decision issued on February 28, 2018, declared petitioner a regular employee, holding that all elements of the employer-employee relationship were present, and declared his dismissal illegal.
The Labor Arbiter ordered Onon Trucking and Marketing Corporation (and/or Aimardo V. Interior) to pay petitioner separation pay, 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees, while dismissing claims related to the non-payment of SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-Ibig benefits.
The NLRC, however, reversed that decision on June 26, 2018, ruling that petitioner failed to prove his employment relationship with the respondent; thus, no illegal dismissal occurred.
The Court of Appeals modified the outcome in its decision dated February 14, 2019 by holding petitioner as a fixed-term employee whose dismissal was valid upon the expiration of his work contract; his motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied on July 10, 2019.

Petitioner, now before the Supreme Court, contended that he was in fact a regular employee—having performed work necessary and essential to the respondent’s business over many years—and that his dismissal was illegal because it violated both substantive and procedural due process.
He sought affirmative relief in the form of monetary awards including backwages, separation pay, 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees, in lieu of reinstatement.

Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondent, particularly in light of the per trip contractual arrangement.
Whether petitioner, having established a regular employment status by virtue of continuous engagement and fulfillment of requisite elements, was illegally dismissed.
Whether the dismissal of petitioner was effected without compliance with both substantive and procedural due process.
How the appropriate monetary awards (backwages, separation pay, 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees) should be determined and computed under applicable law, including the limitations set by the Labor Code.