View full case

RODRIGO A. UPOD v. ONON TRUCKING

FACTS:

Rodrigo Upod, the petitioner in this case, filed a complaint against Onon Trucking and Marketing Corporation and Aimardo Interior for illegal dismissal with money claims. Upod alleged that he was hired by Onon Trucking in 2004 as a hauler/driver and was paid on a per trip basis. He claimed that he was continuously employed by the company until February 2017 when he was no longer given any delivery assignments. On the other hand, Onon Trucking denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship and asserted that Upod was an independent freelance driver.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Upod, declaring him as a regular employee of Onon Trucking and ordering the company to pay him separation pay, 13th month pay, and attorney's fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision, stating that Upod failed to prove his employment with the company and that based on the terms of the per trip contract, there was no employer-employee relationship.

Upod appealed to the Court of Appeals, which agreed that there was an employer-employee relationship between the parties. However, it ruled that Upod, as a fixed-term employee, was validly dismissed. Upod filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing that he was a regular employee and his dismissal was illegal. The Supreme Court granted the petition, stating that Upod had sufficiently established an employment relationship with Onon Trucking.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner sufficiently established an employment relationship with the respondent company.

  2. Whether the petitioner attained regular status of employment with the respondent company and was later illegally dismissed.

  3. Whether the petitioner's dismissal was valid for just or authorized causes and with compliance to procedural due process.

  4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to backwages, separation pay, 13th month pay, and attorney's fees.

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled that the petitioner sufficiently established an employment relationship with the respondent company. The determinative factors of employment under the four-fold test were present, including the selection and engagement of the employee, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and power to control the employee's conduct.

  2. The Court reinstated the finding of the labor arbiter that the petitioner attained regular status of employment with the respondent company. The Court interpreted Article 295 of the Labor Code, which states that an employment shall be deemed regular if the employee has been engaged to perform activities that are usually necessary or desirable in the employer's trade or business. Since the petitioner had been engaged in such activities for a considerable period of time, he attained regular employee status. Therefore, his subsequent dismissal was deemed illegal.

  3. The petitioner's dismissal was not valid for just or authorized causes and was not accompanied by compliance to procedural due process. The respondent company did not provide a valid reason for the dismissal and did not follow the proper procedures. Hence, the dismissal was declared illegal.

  4. The petitioner is entitled to the following monetary awards:

  5. a) Backwages from February 2017 until the finality of the decision.

  6. b) Separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service from 2014 until the finality of the decision.

  7. c) 13th-month pay limited to three years prior to the filing of the complaint.

  8. d) Ten percent attorney's fees.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The determinative factors of employment under the four-fold test include the selection and engagement of the employee, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and power to control the employee's conduct.

  • An employment shall be deemed regular if the employee has been engaged to perform activities that are usually necessary or desirable in the employer's trade or business, regardless of written or oral agreements to the contrary.

  • An employee's dismissal should be for just or authorized causes and should comply with procedural due process.

  • An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, full backwages, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent.

  • Separation pay is awarded as an alternative if reinstatement is no longer viable or if the dismissed employee chooses not to be reinstated.

  • The exclusive and original jurisdiction of labor arbiters does not include non-payment of SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG benefits. Separate complaints should be filed with the proper agencies concerned.

  • Attorney's fees may be awarded if a party is compelled to litigate to protect their rights.

  • Monetary awards shall earn six percent legal interest per annum from the finality of the decision until fully paid.

  • A corporation is a juridical entity separate and distinct from those acting on its behalf, and officers may only be held liable for labor obligations if they acted with evident malice or bad faith.