Title
Valeroso vs. Skycable Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 202015
Decision Date
Jul 13, 2016
Workers claimed regular employment with Skycable, alleging illegal dismissal; SC ruled them independent contractors, affirming no employer-employee relationship.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 202015)

Antecedent Facts

The petitioners were employed as account executives by the respondent, starting their employment in 1998. They were responsible for soliciting cable subscriptions and, over the years, received varying commissions and allowances. However, in 2007, they were transferred to a manpower agency, Skill Plus Manpower Services, which the respondent utilized for staffing. In early 2009, the petitioners' commissions were reduced, leading them to file a complaint against the respondent, alleging unfair labor practices among other claims.

Claims by Petitioners and Respondent's Defense

The petitioners argued that they were under the direct employment of the respondent and provided evidence such as payslips and certifications to substantiate their claims. In contrast, the respondent contended there was no employer-employee relationship, insisting the petitioners worked as independent contractors under a Sales Agency Agreement. The respondent claimed it had streamlined its workforce and that the petitioners were transferred to another agency that would engage them as independent contractors.

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the petitioners' complaint on August 26, 2009, stating they failed to provide substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship. The Arbiter noted the absence of specific identification of the individual responsible for hiring, supervising, or terminating the petitioners.

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission

On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision on May 24, 2010, ruling that the petitioners were regular employees of the respondent. It cited that their continuous performance of essential functions in the business created an employer-employee relationship. The NLRC ordered their reinstatement and the payment of back wages and 13th month pay differentials.

Court of Appeals' Review

The respondent sought a review from the Court of Appeals, which granted the petition on November 11, 2011. The appellate court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the existence of an employer-employee relationship and reinstated the Labor Arbiter's dismissal of the petitioners’ case.

Issues Raised in the Petition

The issues for resolution included whether the Court of Appeals erred in its decision and whether the petitioners were regular employees of the respondent subject to illegal dismissal.

Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit, emphasizing that conflicting findings regarding the existence of the employer-employee relationship necessitated a re-examination of the facts. The Court reite

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.