CHARLIE JAO, Petitioner, vs.BCC PRODUCTS SALES INC., and TERRANCE TY, Respondents.
G.R. No. 163700 April 18, 2012
Concept: In determining the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship, the Court has consistently looked for the following incidents, to wit: (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. The last element, the so-called control test, is the most important element.
Facts:
Petitioner Jao maintained that respondent BCC Product Sales, Inc. and its President, respondent Terrance Ty, employed him as comptroller starting from September 1995 with a monthly salary of P20,000.00, to handle the financial aspect of BCC’s business. He alleged that on October 19, 1995, the security guards of BCC, acting upon the instruction of Ty, barred him from entering the premises of BCC where he then worked; that his attempts to report to work in November and December 12, 1995 were frustrated because he continued to be barred from entering the premises of BCC; and that he filed a complaint dated December 28, 1995 for illegal dismissal, reinstatement with full backwages, non-payment of wages, damages and attorney’s fees.
Petitioner Jao maintained that respondent BCC Product Sales, Inc. and its President, respondent Terrance Ty, employed him as comptroller starting from September 1995 with a monthly salary of P20,000.00, to handle the financial aspect of BCC’s business. He alleged that on October 19, 1995, the security guards of BCC, acting upon the instruction of Ty, barred him from entering the premises of BCC where he then worked; that his attempts to report to work in November and December 12, 1995 were frustrated because he continued to be barred from entering the premises of BCC; and that he filed a complaint dated December 28, 1995 for illegal dismissal, reinstatement with full backwages, non-payment of wages, damages and attorney’s fees.
Respondents countered that petitioner was not their employee but the employee of Sobien Food Corporation (SFC), the major creditor and supplier of BCC; and that SFC had posted him as its comptroller in BCC to oversee BCC’s finances and business operations and to look after SFC’s interests or investments in BCC.; that their issuance of the ID to petitioner was only for the purpose of facilitating his entry into the BCC premises in relation to his work of overseeing the financial operations of BCC for SFC; that the ID should not be considered as evidence of petitioner’s employment in BCC; that petitioner executed an affidavit in March 1996, stating, among others, as follows:
1. I am a CPA (Certified Public Accountant) by profession but presently associated with, or employed by, Sobien Food Corporation with the same business address as abovestated;
2. In the course of my association with, or employment by, Sobien Food Corporation (SFC, for short), I have been entrusted by my employer to oversee and supervise collections on account of receivables due SFC from its customers or clients; for instance, certain checks due and turned over by one of SFC’s customers is BCC Product Sales, Inc., operated or run by one Terrance L. Ty, (President and General manager).
Petitioner counters, however, that the affidavit did not establish the absence of an employer-employee relationship between him and respondents because it had been executed in March 1996, or after his employment with respondents had been terminated on December 12, 1995; and that the affidavit referred to his subsequent employment by SFC following the termination of his employment by BCC.
LA – dismissed petitioner's complaint for want of an employer-employee relationship between the parties.NLRC – reversed the LA’s decision.CA – reversed NLRC’s decision. No employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner BCC and the private respondent.
Issues: WON there is employer-employee relationship?
Ruling:
No, there is no employer-employee relationship.
No, there is no employer-employee relationship.
The Court looked for the four elements of employment in this case and found it wanting.
For one, the Court found it unusual for the petitioner, who was a highly educated professional, to not secure a written document of the terms of his employment with BCC [Note: he was not able to present any employment contract before any of the tribunals].
The Court likewise noted of the confusion about the date of his alleged illegal dismissal which provides another indicium of the insincerity of petitioner’s assertion of employment by BCC. Petitioner’s name also did not appear in the payroll of BCC despite him having approved the payroll as comptroller.
It can also be deduced from the March 1996 affidavit of petitioner that BCC challenged his authority to deliver some 158 checks to SFC. Considering that he contested respondents’ challenge by pointing to the existing arrangements between BCC and SFC, it should be clear that respondents did not exercise the power of control over him, because he thereby acted for the benefit and in the interest of SFC more than of BCC.