FACTS:

Renato Geniston worked for Ultra Villa Food Haus as a "do it all guy" performing various roles. He started working on March 1, 1989, until May 13, 1992, when he was allegedly dismissed. Geniston received different daily wages throughout his employment. On May 11 and 12, 1992, he served as a poll watcher for a political party and did not report to work on those days. On May 12, Rosie Tio, the alleged owner of Ultra Villa Food Haus, allegedly informed Geniston's mother that he was dismissed. The next day, Geniston went to Tio's residence to plead his case but was subjected to a "browbeating" instead.

Geniston filed a complaint against Ultra Villa Food Haus and Tio seeking several payments, reinstatement, and damages. Tio denied dismissing Geniston and claimed that he abandoned his job. According to Tio, Geniston was her personal driver and was paid a daily wage that started at P65.00 in 1989 and gradually increased to P90.00.

The Labor Arbiter ruled that Geniston was indeed Tio's personal driver and dismissed his claims for various payments. However, the Labor Arbiter found that Tio failed to observe procedural due process and ordered her to indemnify Geniston with P1,000.00. Both parties appealed the Labor Arbiter's decision.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) found Geniston's arguments meritorious and ordered Tio to reinstate him. The NLRC also granted Geniston backwages and other payments. Later on, the NLRC approved Geniston's separation pay in lieu of reinstatement but denied his claims for damages and attorney's fees.

ISSUES:

1. Whether private respondent was an employee of the Ultra Villa Food Haus or the personal driver of petitioner.

2. Whether private respondent was illegally dismissed from employment.

RULING:

1. Whether private respondent was an employee of the Ultra Villa Food Haus or the personal driver of petitioner

   • The Court ruled that private respondent was indeed the personal driver of petitioner Rosie Tio and not an employee of the Ultra Villa Food Haus.

2. Whether private respondent was illegally dismissed from employment

   • The Court found that private respondent was unjustly dismissed from petitioner's employ. Accordingly, petitioner Rosie Tio was ordered to pay private respondent:

     • Thirteenth Month Pay computed according to the Rules and Regulations, and the Revised Guidelines, Implementing Presidential Decree No. 851.

     • Indemnity equal to 15 days of his salary as a personal driver at the time of his unjust dismissal.

     • Indemnity in the sum of P1,000.00 for not complying with due process in the dismissal.

PRINCIPLES:

• Employee Classification

  • Determination of whether an individual is a personal driver or an employee of an establishment considers the nature of the work performed and the compliance documents such as payrolls and affidavits.

• Security of Tenure

  • Chapter III, Title III, Book III of the Labor Code, as well as the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code, govern the terms and conditions of employment for persons rendering domestic or household services.

• Exclusion from Labor Benefits

  • Specific Labor Code provisions on overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay, and service incentive pay do not apply to domestic helpers, which include family drivers.

• Abandonment of Job

  • To constitute abandonment, there must be an absence without justifiable reason and a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. The burden of proof lies on the employer.

• Due Process in Dismissal

  • Employers are required to adhere to procedural due process in dismissing employees; failure to do so warrants indemnity.

• 13th Month Pay

  • Although household helpers are generally excluded from being mandated by law to receive 13th month pay, consistent employer practice of paying the benefit may result in its award.

• Indemnity for Unjust Dismissal

  • Article 149 of the Labor Code provides that a house helper unjustly dismissed should be compensated for earned salary plus 15 days of indemnity.