Case Summary (G.R. No. 189255)
Issue I – Verification Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
Petitioner argued the CA should have dismissed respondents’ petition for certiorari due to improper verification—specifically, reliance on a community tax certificate (CTC) number alone as evidence of identity. The Court held that under Rule II, Section 6, and Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary need not demand “competent evidence of identity” if the affiant is personally known to the notary. The attorney-in-fact and notary were office colleagues, and the notary also served as respondents’ counsel. Moreover, the Court emphasized that procedural rules exist to promote justice, not to defeat it on trivial grounds. Citing Jandoquile v. Revilla, Jr. and Heirs of Amada Zaulda v. Isaac Zaulda, the Court concluded the minor verification defect did not impair respondents’ right to relief.
Issue II – Existence of an Employer-Employee Relationship
The core of petitioner’s illegal dismissal claim hinges on establishing an employer-employee relationship. Under Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution and the Labor Code, once this relationship is proven, the employer bears the burden to justify dismissal for valid cause and due process. Conversely, petitioner bore the burden to prove he was an employee.
Control Test
The most significant indicator is whether the employer reserves the right to control both the outcome and the means of performance. Here, petitioner drafted organizational plans subject only to board approval—an ordinary commissioning arrangement. He set his own hours, took unapproved leave for a month, and reported at will. Such freedom is inconsistent with the requisite managerial control.
Economic Reality Test
This test examines the worker’s economic dependence on the putative employer. Petitioner maintained concurrent consultancies with airport authorities and the Anti-Terrorist Task Force. He received fixed monthly “allowances,” not wages subject to statutory deductions (SSS, withholding tax). His remuneration was by results, and he lacked exclusive devotion of time. These fa
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 189255)
Procedural History
- Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC, NCR, Quezon City, after being excluded from work in April 2005 and having his salary withheld since February 2005.
- The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision on January 20, 2006 dismissing petitioner’s complaint for lack of an employer-employee relationship.
- On appeal, the NLRC reversed and set aside the LA Decision, declared petitioner illegally dismissed, and ordered reinstatement with full backwages.
- Respondents’ motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was denied on May 30, 2008.
- Respondents then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
- The CA, in its Decision dated April 20, 2009, annulled the NLRC ruling and reinstated the LA Decision; its Resolution of August 25, 2009 denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari, seeking to set aside the CA Decision and Resolution.
Factual Background
- On August 1, 2003, petitioner was engaged by respondent Glaucoma Research Foundation, Inc. as “administrator” of its Eye Referral Center (ERC), allegedly with a P20,000 monthly salary.
- He performed administrative duties and received compensation through January 2005.
- Beginning February 2005, respondents withheld his salary and 2004 14th-month pay without notice, yet petitioner continued reporting for work.
- On April 11, 2005, petitioner sent a letter to Executive Director Manuel B. Agulto, notifying him of unpaid compensation; no response was given.
- On April 21, he was informed by subordinates that he was no longer ERC administrator; his office was padlocked.
- Petitioner still reported until April 29, 2005, when he was barred entry by security.
Contentions of the Parties
- Petitioner’s Position:
• He was an appointed ERC administrator and a regular employee whose salary was withheld; his exclusion from the premises constituted illegal dismissal. - Respondents’ Position:
• Petitioner was engaged as a consultant/adviser on organizational structure.
• He designated himself administrator on a trial basis; no formal appointment was made.
• There was no employer-employee relationship—petitioner had no fixed hours, performed work at his discretion, and