Case Summary (G.R. No. 2642)
Procedural History and Relief Sought
Respondent filed a complaint (April 7, 2015) for illegal dismissal, non-payment of wages and related money claims, illegal deductions, and issuance of a certificate of employment against petitioner and CRV Corporation before the NLRC, invoking alleged employment as a company driver since May 2012. The Labor Arbiter (October 29, 2015) largely dismissed the complaint except for illegal deduction and issuance of certificate of employment, finding respondent to be petitioner’s personal/family driver. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter (April 27, 2016), finding respondent a company driver and illegally dismissed, awarding backwages, separation pay and other benefits. The CA affirmed the NLRC with modification (April 21, 2017) and denied reconsideration (August 9, 2017). Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari.
Factual Background
Facts Relating to Employment, Accident, and Termination Claim
Respondent alleged employment as CRV Corporation company driver since May 2012 with P9,000 monthly salary and assignment to drive petitioner. On December 11, 2014, respondent caused a vehicular accident; company advanced ₱15,000 for damages to be deducted from his salary. Authorities confiscated his license and issued a Temporary Operator’s Permit (TOP). On December 23–24, 2014 respondent sought leave to claim his license; petitioner allegedly refused, respondent failed to report on December 24, 2014 and was told by petitioner that they should separate, which he interpreted as verbal dismissal. He then learned from Reyes at CRV Corporation that he had been terminated and was refused his last salary, allegedly due to the ₱15,000 advance not yet repaid.
Positions of the Parties
Parties’ Contentions
Respondent maintained he was a regular company driver for CRV Corporation and was illegally dismissed without due process; he sought backwages, separation pay and statutory benefits. Petitioner contended respondent was her personal/family driver, not a company employee; she argued respondent abandoned his job by failing to report for work and thus was not entitled to dismissal remedies or statutory benefits applicable to company employees.
Labor Arbiter’s Findings
Labor Arbiter Ruling: Personal Driver and Civil Code Remedies
The Labor Arbiter found respondent was petitioner’s personal driver, not an employee of CRV Corporation, applying Civil Code provisions on household service (Articles 1689, 1697, 1699). The Arbiter denied wage and statutory benefits premised on Labor Code coverage for employees, ruling such benefits did not extend to persons in personal service or househelpers. The Arbiter also found no illegal dismissal proved; instead, respondent had left employment without justifiable reason, resulting in forfeiture of unpaid salary under Article 1697.
NLRC and CA Decisions
NLRC and Court of Appeals Rulings: Company Driver and Illegal Dismissal
The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, concluding respondent was a company driver of CRV Corporation and was illegally dismissed; it awarded full backwages from December 2014, separation pay, wage differentials, holiday pay, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay from May 2012, but denied overtime and certain premiums for lack of proof. The CA affirmed the NLRC’s conclusion that respondent was a company driver and that dismissal was illegal, but modified by imposing 6% interest per annum on monetary awards; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Issues Raised on Review
Primary issues: (1) Whether respondent was a company driver of CRV Corporation or a personal/family driver of petitioner; (2) Whether respondent was illegally dismissed or had abandoned his employment; (3) Applicable legal regime governing rights and remedies (Labor Code/Kasambahay Law vs. Civil Code); (4) Whether petitioner should be held liable for monetary awards granted by NLRC and CA.
Burden of Proof and Standard of Review
Burden of Proof on Employer-Employee Relationship and Standard of Review
The Court reiterated that the party asserting an affirmative allegation must prove it; where a claimant alleges employment with a specific employer, the claimant must substantiate the employer-employee relationship by substantial evidence. The Court acknowledged the general rule that factual findings of labor tribunals are accorded deference, but noted that conflicting findings among the Labor Arbiter, NLRC and CA permitted Supreme Court reexamination of factual issues.
Four-Fold Test and Evidence Considered
Application of the Four-Fold Test and Evidence Assessment
The Court applied the established four-fold test for employer-employee relationship—selection and engagement, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and power of control—and required that a finding must rest on substantial evidence. The Court examined the record and found respondent failed to produce payroll documents, employment contract, company ID, pay slips, or other documents showing inclusion in CRV Corporation’s payroll; no evidence showed company control over work methods or monitoring. By contrast, evidence indicated petitioner determined respondent’s tasks, required permission for leave, and respondent himself believed petitioner had verbally terminated him—factors consistent with personal/family service.
Supreme Court’s Finding on Employment Status
Supreme Court Finding: Respondent is Petitioner’s Personal/Family Driver
Given lack of competent evidence to establish employment by CRV Corporation and the record showing petitioner’s control and direction, the Court concluded respondent was the personal/family driver of petitioner, affirming the Labor Arbiter’s finding on this issue and rejecting the NLRC and CA conclusions that respondent was a company driver.
Supreme Court’s Finding on Dismissal
Supreme Court Finding: No Proven Dismissal by Petitioner
The Court held that respondent failed to prove the fact of dismissal by clear and convincing evidence. His assertion of verbal termination was uncorroborated by impartial evidence; Reyes did not provide a statement verifying termination; refusal to release salary did not alone prove dismissal. Because respondent did not establish he was prevented from returning to work by an overt act of dismissal, the claim of illegal dismissal could not prosper.
Supreme Court’s Finding on Abandonment
Supreme Court Finding: Abandonment Not Proven
The Court held abandonment requires both absence without justifiable reason and clear intent to sever the employment relationship, with the latter shown by overt acts. Petitioner failed to prove respondent manifested intent to end employment. Moreover, respondent’s filing of the illegal dismissal complaint indicated a desire to contest termination and return to work, inconsistent with abandonment. Thus abandonment was not established.
Applicable Legal Regime for Family Drivers
Applicable Law: Kasambahay Law’s Repeal and Civil Code Governs Family Drivers
The Court explained that Article 141 and 149 of the Labor Code (employment of househelpers and family drivers) were expressly repealed by Section 44 of the Kasambahay Law (R.A. No. 10361). The Kasambahay Law, however, did not include family drivers within its enumerated coverage and its IRR explicitly excluded family drivers from coverage. Consequently, the specific Labor Code provisions were repealed and family drivers are not covered under the Kasambahay Law; therefore, Civil Code provisions on household service (Articles 1689, 1697, 1699) govern the rights and remedies of family drivers. The Court emp
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 2642)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated April 21, 2017 and Resolution dated August 9, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 147356.
- CA had affirmed with modification the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Decision dated April 27, 2016 (which reversed the Labor Arbiter), and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- Labor Arbiter rendered Decision dated October 29, 2015 in NLRC NCR Case No. 04-04089-15 dismissing respondent’s complaint except for illegal deduction and issuance of certificate of employment.
- NLRC reversed and set aside the Labor Arbiter in its April 27, 2016 Decision and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its June 21, 2016 Resolution.
- CA affirmed NLRC (with modification imposing 6% interest per annum on monetary awards) and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its August 9, 2017 Resolution.
- Supreme Court granted the petition: reversed and set aside the CA Decision and Resolution; affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s October 29, 2015 Decision insofar as petitioner Celia R. Atienza is concerned; judgment rendered June 17, 2019 (G.R. No. 233413).
Factual Summary
- Respondent Noel Sacramento Saluta alleged he was hired in May 2012 as a company driver of CRV Corporation and assigned to drive for petitioner, receiving a monthly salary of P9,000.00.
- December 11, 2014: respondent was involved in a vehicular accident (rear-ended another vehicle); authorities confiscated his driver’s license and issued a Temporary Operator’s Permit (TOP); respondent was made to answer for P15,000.00 damages, initially advanced by the company to be deducted from his salary.
- December 23–24, 2014: respondent sought leave to claim his driver’s license after TOP expired; petitioner allegedly refused and stated, "kung hindi ka makakapag-drive ngayon, mabuti pa maghiwalay na tayo," which respondent construed as verbal termination.
- Same day respondent went to CRV Corporation office and General Manager Rodolfo Reyes allegedly confirmed he was terminated and refused to release last salary because respondent had not reimbursed the P15,000.00 advance.
- Respondent filed complaint April 7, 2015 against CRV Corporation and petitioner for illegal dismissal, non-payment of wages and various wage claims, illegal deduction, and issuance of certificate of employment.
- Petitioner maintained respondent was her personal/family driver, not an employee of CRV Corporation, that respondent abandoned work by failing to report after December 23, 2014, and that he had not returned after January 7, 2015 when respondent told Reyes he would no longer return to work.
- Respondent asserted he was a company driver and regular employee of CRV Corporation, denied he resigned or abandoned his job, and alleged illegal dismissal without notice or opportunity to explain.
Issues Presented
- Whether respondent was an employee of CRV Corporation (company driver) or a personal/family driver of petitioner.
- Whether respondent was illegally dismissed by petitioner (and CRV Corporation) or whether he abandoned his employment.
- What legal regime governs family drivers and what remedies, if any, are available to respondent.
- Whether petitioner is liable for backwages, separation pay, wage differentials, holiday pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and/or other monetary claims.
- Whether reversal of the CA judgment in favor of petitioner would inure to the benefit of CRV Corporation, which did not appeal.
Rulings Below (Labor Arbiter, NLRC, Court of Appeals)
- Labor Arbiter (Oct. 29, 2015):
- Dismissed illegal dismissal claim for lack of proof respondent was an employee of CRV Corporation; held respondent was petitioner’s personal driver.
- Awarded relief only for illegal deduction (P15,000.00 not proven chargeable) and issued certificate of employment under Civil Code Article 1699.
- Denied overtime, holiday and premium pay claims based on exemption of persons in personal service from Labor Code coverage.
- Held respondent forfeited unpaid salary under Article 1697 if he left employment without justifiable reason.
- NLRC (Apr. 27, 2016):
- Reversed Labor Arbiter; found respondent was an employee of CRV Corporation and found dismissal to be illegal.
- Ordered payment of full backwages from Dec. 2014, separation pay (one month per year of service), wage differentials, holiday pay, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay from May 2012; denied overtime, night shift differential, and premium for lack of evidence.
- Agreed P15,000.00 should not be deducted absent proof of responsibility for accident.
- Court of Appeals (Apr. 21, 2017):
- Agreed respondent failed to prove by substantial evidence that he was a company driver, but, to “level the playing field,” required petitioner to present evidence disproving company employment and found petitioner failed to do so.
- Concluded respondent was an employee of CRV Corporation and was unlawfully dismissed; affirmed NLRC decision with modification imposing 6% interest per annum on awards.
- Denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Aug. 9, 2017).
Arguments of the Parties
- Petitioner:
- Respondent failed to prove employer-employee relationship with CRV Corporation; burden of proof lies with employee in this regard.
- Respondent was petitioner’s personal driver: petitioner exercised control, issued instructions, paid salary (via Reyes), and respondent was free-board-and-lodging; absence without permission amounted to abandonment; respondent forfeited unpaid salary and is not entitled to separation pay or benefits under Labor Code.
- Family drivers are excluded from Labor Code coverage and from Kasambahay Law enumeration; Civil Code applies.
- Respondent:
- Claimed regular employment with CRV Corporation since May 2012; salary paid through ATM like other employees; services necessary to company business.
- Denied resignation or abandonment; contended he was verbal