View full case

CHARLIE JAO v. BCC PRODUCTS SALES INC.

FACTS:

Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents, alleging that he was an employee of respondents and was barred from entering their premises. Respondents countered that petitioner was not their employee, but the employee of Sobien Food Corporation (SFC), a major creditor and supplier of respondents. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, but the NLRC reversed the ruling. The NLRC decision was later reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA), which found no employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondents. The CA held that there was no proof of the engagement of petitioner's services, no proof of selection procedure or employment contract, and no proof of control exercised by respondents over petitioner. The CA concluded that petitioner failed to sufficiently prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari, which was initially denied for failure to render an explanation on the non-personal service of the motion for extension. The Court reinstated the petition upon reconsideration. The sole issue is whether an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondents.

ISSUES:

  1. The sole issue is whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and BCC.

  2. Whether petitioner was an employee of BCC.

  3. Whether there was an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and BCC.

  4. Whether petitioner had the authority to deliver checks to SFC.

    • Whether or not the petitioner presented enough evidence to prove his claims.
    • Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed an error in affirming the decision.

RULING:

  1. The petition lacks merit. The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a question of fact.

  2. Petitioner was not an employee of BCC.

  3. There was no employer-employee relationship between petitioner and BCC.

  4. Petitioner did not have the authority to deliver checks to SFC.

  5. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to support his claims, while the respondents were able to explain the evidence presented against them. The Court ordered the petitioner to pay the costs of the suit.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Court is not a trier of facts but reviews only questions of law.

  • The Court may look into factual issues in labor cases when the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and the Court of Appeals (CA) are conflicting.

  • The control test is the most important element in determining the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship.

  • To establish an employment relationship, there must be: (a) selection and engagement of the employee, (b) payment of wages, (c) power of dismissal, and (d) employer's power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished.

  • Failure to present a document setting forth the terms of employment may cast doubt on the assertion of employment, especially for highly educated professionals.

  • Inconsistencies and discrepancies in the details of the alleged illegal dismissal can undermine the credibility of the claim.

  • In a civil case, the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations or claims. (Imbong vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 204819, June 16, 2015)

  • The Court will not disturb the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals when supported by substantial evidence. (Ramos vs. Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services Corporation, G.R. No. 209533, September 9, 2015)