View full case

ROMEO ALBA v. CONRADO G. ESPINOSA

FACTS:

The case involves multiple complaints filed by former workers of Alba Construction against their employer, Romeo Alba, for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of benefits. The respondents claimed that they were regular employees who were deprived of various statutorily-mandated benefits. Upon confronting Alba regarding their benefits, some of the respondents were dismissed. In 2014, more respondents questioned Alba and were harshly treated and eventually dismissed after seeking assistance from media personality Raffy Tulfo. The respondents filed complaints with the NLRC.

Alba argued that the respondents were hired on a project basis and presented certifications from clients indicating that they directly paid the salaries of the workers. The respondents presented gate passes identifying Alba as a "contractor."

The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaints, ruling that no employer-employee relationship existed between Alba and the respondents. The respondents appealed to the NLRC, which partly granted their appeal and found Alba guilty of illegal dismissal and liable for monetary claims.

The NLRC based its decision on the evidence presented, including Alba's control over the respondents and their continuous rehiring for several years. The NLRC also addressed the evidentiary weight of the documents presented by both parties.

Alba appealed the NLRC's decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), which upheld the NLRC's ruling, considering the four-fold test and the nature of the respondents' work.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Alba and the respondents.

  2. Whether the respondents were regular employees illegally dismissed by Alba.

  3. Whether Alba was liable to pay the monetary claims of the respondents.

  4. Whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the respondents and Alba.

  5. Whether the respondents are regular employees or project employees.

  6. Whether the dismissal of the respondents was legal.

  7. Whether the respondents are entitled to payment of the 13th month and Service Incentive Leave (SIL) pay.

  8. Whether the award of P200,000.00 as total moral and exemplary damages is reasonable.

  9. Whether attorney's fees should be awarded to the respondents.

RULING:

  1. The Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) that affirmed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Court found no cogent reason to disturb the CA's ruling.

  2. The Court held that an employer-employee relationship existed between Alba and the respondents. The four-fold test for determining this relationship was satisfied. Alba admitted that he selected and engaged the workers and determined their assignments. He also had the power to dismiss them from employment. Alba also admitted to paying the respondents' wages, despite presenting documents to dispute this. The Court considered Alba's admission as sufficient evidence of payment. Lastly, the power to control the respondents' conduct was established.

  3. Regarding the respondents' status as regular employees, the Court agreed with the lower court's finding that they were regular employees. The respondents worked for Alba for a considerable length of time and performed activities necessary and desirable for the usual business of Alba.

  4. As for the monetary claims, the Court declined to review the NLRC's and CA's ruling on the complaints of Conrado and Jaime, Jr. and Nilo's claim for SIL pay. The Court's review was confined to the issues raised in the petition, and these specific issues were not assailed.

  5. Yes, an employer-employee relationship exists between the respondents and Alba. The control test, which determines the existence of an employer-employee relationship, is satisfied as Alba had the power to control the work of the respondents. It is not necessary for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties as long as they have the right to control.

  6. The respondents are regular employees, not project employees. The fact that the respondents worked on time-bound projects does not automatically classify them as project employees. The nature and importance of their tasks are determinative. Since they were continuously rehired by Alba for the same tasks, which were vital and indispensable to his business, they should be considered regular employees.

  7. The dismissal of the respondents was illegal. Alba failed to prove that the dismissal was justified or that due process was followed. As regular employees, the respondents are entitled to just cause and due process before their employment can be terminated.

  8. The respondents are entitled to payment of the 13th month and SIL pay. The burden of proof was on Alba to prove payment of the statutory monetary benefits, but he failed to do so. Alba's argument that the respondents are not his employees is not sufficient to deny their entitlement to such benefits.

  9. The award of P200,000.00 as total moral and exemplary damages is reasonable. The dismissal of the respondents was considered a retaliatory action after they requested their benefits, which constitutes an act oppressive to labor. Moral damages are awarded when dismissal is attended by bad faith, while exemplary damages may be awarded if the dismissal is effected in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner.

  10. Attorney's fees should be awarded to the respondents. In labor cases, attorney's fees are sanctioned when the employee is illegally dismissed in bad faith and is compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect their rights due to the unjustified acts of the employer.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The four-fold test is used to ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee's conduct.

  • Substantial evidence, defined as that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, is sufficient to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

  • The power to control is the most important and crucial among the four tests in determining an employer-employee relationship.

  • Regular employees are those who have been engaged to perform activities that are necessary and desirable for the usual business of the employer.

  • The control test is the most significant determinant of the existence of an employer-employee relationship. It is based on whether the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control both the end achieved and the manner and means used to achieve that end.

  • To be deemed an independent contractor, the person claiming such status must have contracted to do the work according to their own methods and without being subject to the control of the employer, except as to the results of the work.

  • Employees continuously rehired by the same employer for the same tasks, which are vital and necessary to the employer's business, are considered regular employees.

  • An employer bears the burden of proving that a person whose services are paid for is an independent contractor rather than a regular employee.

  • In cases of dismissal, the burden is on the employer to prove that the dismissal was legal, and failure to do so would render the dismissal as illegal.

  • The burden of proof lies with the employer to prove payment of statutory monetary benefits.

  • Moral damages can be awarded in cases of dismissal attended by bad faith, acts oppressive to labor, or contrary to good morals, good customs, or public policy.

  • Exemplary damages may be awarded if the dismissal is effected in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner.

  • Attorney's fees may be awarded when the employee is illegally dismissed in bad faith and is compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect their rights due to the employer's unjustified acts.