View full case

LEGEND HOTEL v. HERNANI S. REALUYO

FACTS:

The case involves a labor dispute between a pianist, Joey R. Roa, and a hotel, Legend Hotel. Roa filed a complaint for alleged unfair labor practices, constructive illegal dismissal, and underpayment/nonpayment of various benefits. Roa claimed that he had worked as a pianist at Legend Hotel's Tanglaw Restaurant since September 1992, with his rate increasing over time. He also stated that he was subject to the rules and regulations implemented by the restaurant manager and could not choose the time of his performance. Legend Hotel argued that there was no employer-employee relationship, asserting that Roa was merely a talent engaged to provide live music. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding no employer-employee relationship between the parties. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter, but the Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the NLRC's decision, ruling in favor of Roa. The CA found that an employer-employee relationship existed between Roa and Legend Hotel. Legend Hotel appealed the CA decision to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there is substantial evidence to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent.

  2. Whether the remuneration received by the respondent qualifies as wage under the Labor Code.

  3. Whether the petitioner exercised control over the work of the respondent.

  4. Whether respondent was an employee of petitioner.

  5. Whether respondent's termination was valid.

  6. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement, or in the alternative, separation pay and backwages.

RULING:

  1. Yes, there is substantial evidence to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. The Court reviewed the conflicting factual findings and determined that the respondent was indeed employed by the petitioner as a pianist in their establishment.

  2. The remuneration received by the respondent, even if denominated as talent fees, qualifies as wage under the Labor Code. The remuneration was fixed based on the respondent's talent and skill and the quality of the music he played, and it was paid for the services rendered by the respondent.

  3. The petitioner did exercise control over the work of the respondent. The power of selection was evident from the express written recommendation for an increase in remuneration by the petitioner's restaurant manager. The power of control is considered the most significant determinant of an employer-employee relationship.

  4. Respondent was an employee of petitioner. Even though respondent claimed to have been an independent contractor, the Court found that he performed his work under petitioner's supervision and control. Petitioner had control over when and where respondent performed, required him to perform certain music or wear certain attire, and subjected him to the same rules as other employees.

  5. Respondent's termination was not valid. Retrenchment is recognized as an authorized cause for dismissal under the Labor Code. However, there are standards that should be met to justify retrenchment and prevent abuse. The employer must prove that the expected losses are substantial, imminent, and that retrenchment is necessary to prevent such losses. Petitioner failed to provide sufficient and convincing evidence of the losses it claimed to be experiencing, thus the retrenchment was found to be without valid cause.

  6. The Court denies the petition for review on certiorari and affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals. However, if reinstatement is no longer feasible, the petitioner shall pay separation pay of one month for every year of service computed from September 1992 until the finality of the decision, and full backwages from the time his compensation was withheld until the finality of the decision.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The existence of an employer-employee relationship must rest on substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

  • The Court has the authority to review and re-evaluate factual issues when there is a conflict between the findings of the lower courts.

  • The terms of an employment relationship are not limited to those fixed in a written contract, and other factors such as the nature of the work performed are also considered.

  • An employer cannot use a service contract to deprive an employee of his security of tenure.

  • Remuneration, even if denominated as talent fees, may still be considered as wage under the Labor Code if it meets the criteria set forth in the law.

  • The power of control over the work of an employee is an important determinant in establishing an employer-employee relationship.

  • An employer-employee relationship is determined by the control exercised over the employee, regardless of the labels used by the parties.

  • The power to dismiss need not be actually exercised by the employer, it is enough that the employer has the right to wield that power.

  • Retrenchment is a management prerogative resorted to by employers to avoid or minimize business losses. However, there are standards that should be met to justify retrenchment and prevent abuse.

  • The burden of proving that the dismissal was for a valid cause rests upon the employer.

  • Not every loss incurred or expected to be incurred by an employer can justify retrenchment. The employer must prove that the losses are substantial and that retrenchment is necessary to avert such losses.

  • An employee who is illegally dismissed is entitled to reinstatement or payment of separation pay in lieu thereof. If reinstatement is no longer feasible, the employer is liable to pay separation pay at the rate of one month pay for every year of service.

  • The employee is also entitled to full backwages from the time his compensation was withheld until the finality of the decision.