Case Summary (G.R. No. 192999)
Burden of Proof on Employment Relationship
In an illegal dismissal suit, the complainant must first prove by substantial evidence that an employer-employee relationship existed with the defendant. Here, respondent bore the onus to demonstrate selection and engagement, payment of wages, power of control, and power of dismissal by CRV Corporation.
Factual Findings on Relationship
Respondent failed to present any employment contract, company identification, payroll entries, timesheet, or other documentary evidence establishing him on CRV Corporation’s payroll. Salary withdrawals via ATM were not linked to corporate disbursements. No proof showed the corporation exercised control, monitored hours, or formally dismissed him; conversely, petitioner instructed him on work assignments, leave requests, and the accident loan.
Conclusion on Employment Status
Absent substantial evidence of corporate employment, respondent is deemed the personal/family driver of petitioner. The Labor Arbiter’s finding on this point is affirmed, and the NLRC and CA rulings to the contrary are reversed as to petitioner.
Fact of Dismissal or Abandonment
Respondent alleged verbal termination but offered no independent or documentary corroboration. There was likewise no clear overt act evincing petitioner’s intent to dismiss. Conversely, petitioner’s unrefuted evidence indicates respondent simply ceased reporting for work. Filing an illegal dismissal complaint further negates any intent to abandon employment.
Governing Statute for Family Drivers
Family drivers fall under “household service,” which under the Labor Code was repealed by the Kasambahay Law. That law excludes family drivers from its coverage. Consequently, Civil Code Articles 1689, 1697, and 1699 now apply to family drivers’ compensation, termination indemnity, and certificate of service.
Indemnity and Benefits
Under Civil Code Article 1697, unjust dismissal by a household service worker’s head of family warrants fifteen days’ indemnity, and forfeiture up to fifteen days’ salary if the worker abandons without just cause. Here, neither dismissal nor abandonment was established; thus, neither party is entitled to indemnity. Articles 82, 94, 95 of the Labor Code and PD 851 IRR exempt family drivers from wage differentials, holiday pay, thirteenth-month p
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 192999)
Procedural History
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed before the Supreme Court to reverse the CA Decision (April 21, 2017) and Resolution (August 9, 2017) in CA-G.R. SP No. 147356.
- CA affirmed with modification the NLRC Decision (April 27, 2016) and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter Decision (October 29, 2015) and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (June 21, 2016).
- Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint, except for illegal deduction and issuance of certificate of employment.
- Respondent filed before NLRC (April 7, 2015) a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of various benefits, illegal deduction, and issuance of certificate of employment.
Facts
- Respondent was hired in May 2012 as a driver, assigned to petitioner, paid ₱9,000/month by CRV Corporation.
- December 11, 2014: respondent’s vehicle hit a car on NLEX; company advanced ₱15,000 for repairs to be deducted from salary.
- Driver’s license confiscated; issued Temporary Operator’s Permit (TOP) which expired December 2014.
- December 23–24, 2014: respondent absent to renew license; petitioner refused leave due to appointments; respondent believed he was verbally terminated.
- General Manager Reyes confirmed purported termination and refused to release respondent’s salary for December 16–22, 2014 due to unpaid loan.
- April 7, 2015: respondent filed NLRC complaint against CRV Corporation and petitioner.
Issues
- Whether respondent was an employee of CRV Corporation or petitioner’s personal/family driver.
- Whether respondent was illegally dismissed or had abandoned his job.
- Entitlement to backwages, separation pay, wage differentials, holiday pay, 13th-month pay, service incentive leave pay.
- Applicable legal regime: Labor Code, Kasambahay Law, or Civil Code provisions on household service.
Labor Arbiter’s Findings
- Respondent was not proven a CRV Corporation employee but petitioner’s personal driver.
- Personal drivers are exempt from Labor Code benefits (overtime, holiday, rest-day premiums).
- ₱15,000 vehicle repair cannot be deducted absent proof of respondent’s fault.
- Illegal dismissal claim dismissed: respondent deemed to have abandoned work; forfeited unpaid salary under Civil Code; awarded refund of illegal deduction and certificate of employment.
NLRC’s Findings
- Though respondent failed to prove employment with CRV Corporation, petitioner did no