FACTS:

The facts of this case revolve around a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by the petitioner against the respondents. The petitioner alleged that he was hired by the respondent corporation as an administrator but was later withheld salary without notice. He continued to report for work but was eventually informed that he was no longer the administrator and was not allowed to enter the premises. The respondents, on the other hand, claimed that there was no employer-employee relationship and that the petitioner voluntarily severed his relationship with them.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed and declared the petitioner as an employee who was illegally dismissed. The NLRC ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner with full backwages. The respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the NLRC. They then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which annulled and set aside the NLRC's decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision. The CA held that no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties based on the control test and the economic reality test. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the CA. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

The case involves the issue of whether a community tax certificate is considered competent evidence of identity in notarized documents. The Court disagrees with the argument that a community tax certificate is not competent evidence of identity. The Court cites previous rulings where it was held that competent evidence of identity is not required if the affiant is personally known to the notary public. The definition of a "jurat" in the Rules on Notarial Practice supports this notion. Section 2(b) of Rule IV prohibits performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally known to the notary public or identified through competent evidence of identity. The Court interprets the use of "or" in the Rule to allow for personal knowledge of the affiant to be a valid alternative to presenting evidence of identity. In the case at hand, the attorney-in-fact of the respondents, who executed the verification and certificate against forum shopping, is personally known to the notary public. The Court also highlights the importance of not being overly strict with procedural rules when they do not impair the proper administration of justice. The objective should be to protect the substantive rights of the parties, and minor defects in verification should not defeat the petition. The Court warns against an excessive focus on technicalities to the detriment of justice.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the non-compliance with the verification requirement should be strictly applied.

2. Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists between the petitioner and respondents.

3. Whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the petitioner and respondent corporation.

4. Whether the designation and title of the petitioner as an administrator is sufficient proof of an employer-employee relationship.

5. Whether the affidavits executed by the Medical Records Custodian and Administrative Officer of respondent corporation should be given evidentiary value.

6. Whether or not petitioner has established that he is an employee of the respondents.

7. Whether or not petitioner's designation as an administrator disproves respondents' contention that he was engaged only as a consultant.

RULING:

1. The court should not be strict about procedural lapses that do not impair the proper administration of justice. Procedural rules should ensure that the substantive rights of the parties are protected. The minor defect in the verification requirement can be overlooked in the interest of justice.

2. The burden of proof rests on the employer to prove that the dismissal of an employee was for a valid cause. However, before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an employer-employee relationship must first be established. The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by factors such as the power to select, payment of wages, power to dismiss, and control over the employee's conduct. The power of control over the work of the employee is the most significant factor. In this case, the petitioner failed to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

3. No, an employer-employee relationship does not exist between the petitioner and respondent corporation. The control test and economic reality test were applied to determine the existence of an employment relationship. The petitioner performed his job at his own pleasure and was not subject to definite working hours. He was compensated based on the result of his efforts, not the amount thereof. The petitioner was also not wholly dependent on respondent corporation, as evidenced by his concurrent consultancy positions with other organizations.

4. No, the designation and title of the petitioner as an administrator does not necessarily prove that he is an employee of respondent corporation. Mere title or designation in a corporation is not determinative of an employer-employee relationship.

5. Yes, the affidavits executed by the Medical Records Custodian and Administrative Officer of respondent corporation should be given evidentiary value. The affiants need not appear and testify, be cross-examined by counsel for the adverse party, or be presented to affirm the contents of their affidavits. The affidavits are corroborated by other evidence showing that the petitioner does not have definite working hours and is not subject to the control of respondents.

6. The Court held that petitioner failed to present adequate proof that he is an employee of the respondents. The mere fact that he received remuneration does not automatically make him an employee. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that he was subject to the control and supervision of the respondents.

7. The Court ruled that petitioner's designation as an administrator does not disprove respondents' claim that he was engaged only as a consultant. The designation itself does not necessarily change his status, and there is no evidence to support that he performed the functions and duties of an administrator.

PRINCIPLES:

• Courts should not be strict about procedural lapses that do not impair the proper administration of justice.

• Litigations should be decided on the merits and not on technicalities.

• The law abhors technicalities that impede the cause of justice.

• Court's primary duty is to render or dispense justice.

• Procedural rules should facilitate the attainment of justice and their strict application should be avoided if it frustrates substantial justice.

• Parties should be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of their case.

• Each party must prove their affirmative allegation.

• Burden of proof rests on the employer to prove valid cause for dismissal.

• Existence of employer-employee relationship is determined by several factors, with the power of control being the most significant.

• The control test is used to determine the existence of an employment relationship, focusing on the element of control over how the work is done, not just the end result.

• The economic reality test examines the economic realities prevailing within the activity or between the parties to determine the true nature of the relationship.

• An employer-employee relationship does not exist when the supposed employee is not subject to a set of rules and regulations governing the performance of his duties and is not required to report for work at any time or devote his time exclusively to working for the company.

• Mere title or designation in a corporation does not determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

• Affidavits may be given evidentiary value, even without the affiants being presented to affirm the contents of their affidavits and be cross-examined.

• The Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, but every labor dispute will not automatically be decided in favor of labor. Management also has rights that are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of fair play.

• Justice is to be dispensed in every case based on established facts and applicable law and doctrine. The Court's inclination toward the worker does not blind it to the rule that justice is for the deserving.