Case Digest (G.R. No. 126586)
Facts:
- Alexander Vinoya is the petitioner against the National Labor Relations Commission, Regent Food Corporation (RFC), and Ricky See (President of RFC).
- Vinoya was dismissed from his role as a sales representative at RFC.
- He filed a complaint with a labor arbiter, which ruled in his favor, ordering RFC to reinstate him and pay back wages and benefits.
- RFC acknowledged the Supreme Court's finding of Vinoya as its employee but claimed he was technically employed by Peninsula Manpower Company, Inc. (PMCI) due to an employment contract.
- RFC argued that PMCI, being a labor-only contractor, should be liable for Vinoya's payments.
- RFC later requested separation pay instead of reinstatement, citing strained relations.
- The Supreme Court required Vinoya to comment on RFC's motion, which he opposed, stating it raised previously resolved issues.
- The Court confirmed RFC as Vinoya's true employer and recognized the impracticality of reinstatement due to strained relations.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court affirmed that Regent Food Corporation is the true employer of Alexander Vinoya.
- The Court partially granted RFC's motion for reconsideration, modifying the previous decision to award Vinoya separation pay equivalent to one month's...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The Supreme Court's ruling was based on the four-fold test to determine the employer-employee relationship: selection and engagement of the employee, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and control over...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 126586)
Facts:
The case involves Alexander Vinoya as the petitioner and the National Labor Relations Commission, Regent Food Corporation (RFC), and Ricky See (President of RFC) as respondents. The events leading to this case began when Vinoya was dismissed from his position as a sales representative at RFC. Following his dismissal, he filed a complaint with the labor arbiter, which ruled in his favor, ordering RFC to reinstate him and pay back wages and other benefits. RFC, in its motion for partial reconsideration filed on March 8, 2000, acknowledged the Supreme Court's finding that it was Vinoya's employer but contended that he was technically an employee of Peninsula Manpower Company, Inc. (PMCI) due to an existing employment contract. RFC argued that since PMCI was a labor-only contractor, it should be held liable for any payments to Vinoya. Subsequently, RFC filed a supplemental motion on March 24, 2000, requesting that if the court upheld the decision, it should instead grant Vinoya separation pay rather than reinstatement, citing strained relations between the parties. The Supreme Court, in its resolution dated April 5, 2000, required Vinoya to comment on RFC's motion. Vinoya opposed the motion, asserting that it raised issues already resolved by the Court. After reviewing the case, the Court maintained that RFC was...