CESAR C. LIRIO, doing business under the name and style of CELKOR AD SONICMIX, Petitioner, vs. WILMER D. GENOVIA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 169757 November 23, 2011
Facts: Respondent Genovia was hired as studio manager by petitioner Lirio, owner of Celkor Ad Sonicmix Recording Studio, to manage and operate Celkor and to promote and sell the recording studio's services to music enthusiasts and other prospective clients. He was to receive a monthly salary of P7,000 and an additional commission of P100.00 per hour as recording technician. His work was from Monday to Friday, 9am-6pm.
Later, Lirio approached Genovia to produce an album for his daughter, Celine Mei, a former talent of ABS-CBN Star Records. Lirio asked Genovia to compose and arrange songs for Celine and promised that he would draft a contract to assure respondent of his compensation for such services. The album was completed, and the carrier single Genovia composed and arranged was finally aired, but he was denied his compensation by Lirio despite several demands.
Lirio then verbally dismissed Genovia from work. Genovia filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and prayed for his reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, or, in the alternative, that he be paid separation pay, backwages and overtime pay; and that he be awarded unpaid commission in the amount of P2,000.00 for services rendered as a studio technician as well as moral and exemplary damages.
As a defense, Lirio insists that Genovia could not have been hired as a studio manager, since the recording studio has no personnel except petitioner and that Genovia verbally agreed with petitioner to co-produce the album. Under the said agreement, Lirio was to provide all the financing, equipment and recording studio and that they would share the net profits of the album sales. Additionally, Genovia shall be entitled to draw advances of P7,000.00 a month, which shall be deductible from his share of the net profits and only until such time that the album has been produced [this was his explanation for the alleged “salary” that Genovia received from him].
Accordingly, petitioner Lirio claims that their relationship was an informal partnership under Article 1767 of the Civil Code because (1) they agreed to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves; and (2) he had no control over the time and manner by which respondent Genovia composed or arranged the songs, except on the result thereof.
Labor Arbiter – there was an employee-employer relationship and Genovia was illegally dismissed.
NLRC – reversed the ruling of the LA for failure of respondent to prove with substantial evidence the four elements to determine employee-employer relationship.
CA – set aside the ruling of NLRC.
Issue: WON there is employee-employer relationship between petitioner and respondent.
Ruling: Yes, there is employee-employer relationship.
The doctrine that "if doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter," was applied here. Respondent Genovia was able to prove the four elements of employee-employer relationship through documentary evidence, i.e., he was able to provide a document denominated as "payroll" certified correct by petitioner which showed that respondent received a monthly salary of P7,000 with the corresponding deductions due to absences incurred by respondent; and copies of petty cash vouchers showing the amounts he received and signed for in the payrolls. [Note: no particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted.]
Petitioner Lirio wielded the power to dismiss as respondent stated that he was verbally dismissed by petitioner, and respondent, thereafter, filed an action for illegal dismissal against petitioner.
The power of control refers merely to the existence of the power. It is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee, as it is sufficient that the former has a right to wield the power. Lirio certainly had the power to check on the progress and work of respondent as stated in his Position Paper and that it was agreed that he would help and teach respondent how to use the studio equipment.
On the other hand, petitioner failed to prove that his relationship with respondent was one of partnership since such relationship was not supported by any written agreement.