View full case

BERNARD A. TENAZAS v. R. VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT

FACTS:

The petitioners, Bernard A. Tenazas, Jaime M. Francisco, and Isidro G. Endraca, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against R. Villegas Taxi Transport and/or Romualdo Villegas and Andy Villegas. Tenazas alleged that he was fired after reporting a minor accident involving the taxi unit assigned to him. Francisco alleged that he was terminated because of the company's suspicion that he was organizing a labor union. Endraca claimed that he was dismissed after falling short of his required daily boundary due to an urgent repair. The respondents admitted that Tenazas and Endraca were their employees, but denied that Francisco was ever employed by the company. They also presented a different version of events, claiming that Tenazas was not terminated but was advised to wait for his taxi unit to be fixed, and that Endraca stopped reporting for work without informing the company. The labor arbiter rendered a decision, stating that Francisco failed to prove his employment with the company, Endraca was offered immediate reinstatement but refused, and Tenazas was told to wait for the repair of his taxi unit but failed to report back to work.

The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision based on additional evidence submitted by the petitioners, establishing the existence of an employer-employee relationship and illegal dismissal. The NLRC ordered R. Transport to pay full backwages, separation pay, and attorney's fees. The CA affirmed with modification, ruling that Tenazas and Endraca were employees but Francisco failed to prove an employer-employee relationship. The CA ordered for the reinstatement of Tenazas and Endraca, but deleted the award of separation pay. The respondents filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the NLRC.

The case involves a labor dispute where the petitioner, an employee, was dismissed from employment. The petitioner argues that the dismissal was illegal and seeks reinstatement and payment of back wages. The respondent justifies the dismissal citing the petitioner's alleged violation of company policies. The labor arbiter initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding the dismissal to be without valid cause. However, on appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision and deemed the petitioner's dismissal as valid. Dissatisfied, the petitioner elevated the case to the CA. The CA then affirmed the findings of the NLRC, leading the petitioner to file a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Francisco was an employee of R. Transport.

  2. Whether or not Tenazas and Endraca were illegally dismissed.

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

  4. Whether the payment of separation pay is justified in this case when reinstatement is no longer feasible and there are strained relations between the employer and the employee.

  5. Whether there is a factual basis for the award of separation pay to the petitioners.

RULING:

  1. Francisco failed to present sufficient evidence to prove his regular employment. He did not provide company ID, SSS membership, withholding tax certificates, or similar articles to establish his employment. Therefore, Francisco was not considered an employee of R. Transport.

  2. Tenazas and Endraca were illegally dismissed. Their complaints for illegal dismissal were filed soon after the alleged dates of dismissal, indicating their intent to continue their employment. R. Transport failed to prove that their dismissal was for a just cause. As a result, Tenazas and Endraca were entitled to reinstatement and back wages.

  3. There was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondents. The Court found that the petitioner failed to present substantial evidence to prove his claim of employment with the respondents. He did not offer any documentary evidence or testimonial evidence showing the respondents' exercise of control over his work. The lack of evidence is fatal to the petitioner's case, especially when the law does not require any particular form of evidence to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

  4. The payment of separation pay is justified only when reinstatement is no longer feasible and there are strained relations between the employer and the employee. However, the existence of strained relations must be proven as a fact and must be supported by substantial evidence. It should not be based on mere impression alone.

  5. In this case, the NLRC decision did not state the facts which demonstrate that reinstatement is no longer feasible that could have justified the alternative relief of granting separation pay instead. The petitioners also failed to allege circumstances that may have rendered their reinstatement unlikely or unwise. A mere claim of strained relations by reason of termination is insufficient to warrant the granting of separation pay. Therefore, the award of separation pay has no factual basis and is not justified.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The burden of proof in establishing regular employment falls on the employee.

  • The compatibility of filing a complaint for illegal dismissal and abandonment of work.

  • Separation pay is only awarded when reinstatement is no longer feasible or appropriate.

  • In labor cases, the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence, or such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

  • The burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue.

  • In determining the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship, the Court looks for the following incidents: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished.

  • No particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Any competent and relevant evidence may be admitted.

  • Mere allegations in the position paper are not tantamount to evidence.

  • An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and payment of backwages.

  • When reinstatement is no longer viable, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service should be awarded as an alternative.

  • The payment of separation pay is in addition to payment of backwages.

  • The existence of strained relations between the employer and the employee must be demonstrated as a fact and supported by substantial evidence.

  • The filing of a complaint by the employee does not necessarily translate to strained relations between the parties.

  • The computation of backwages should be reasonable and just under the circumstances.