Myline Cordial

Alexander Vinoya vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Regent Food Corporation and/or Ricky See (President)
G.R. No. 126586, February 02, 2000

FACTS:
On May 26, 1990, Alexander Vinoya was accepted as sales representative by Regent Food Corporation (RFC), a domestic corporation principally engaged in the manufacture and sale of various food products. He was issued an identification card on the same day. His task was to deliver RFC products to various supermarkets and grocery stores where he booked sales orders and to collect payments for RFC. On 1 July 1991, he was transferred by RFC to Peninsula Manpower Company, Inc. (“PMCI”), an agency which provides RFC with additional contractual workers pursuant to a contract for the supply of manpower services. After his transfer to PMCI, petitioner was reassigned to RFC as sales representative. Subsequently, on 25 November 1991, he was informed by the personnel manager of RFC, that his services were terminated and he was asked to surrender his ID card. He was told that his dismissal was due to the expiration of the Contract of Service between RFC and PMCI.

ISSUES:

Evidence
1. Can the court take judicial notice of the country’s economic situation?
2. Is there a particular form of proof required to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship?
3. Can the court take judicial notice of the practice of employers?

Labor
1. Was petitioner an employee of RFC or PMCI?
2. Was petitioner lawfully dismissed?
RULING:

Evidence
1. Yes. The Court took judicial notice of the fact that in 1993 (the year Neri case was decided) the economic situation in the country was not as adverse as when the present case was being decided, as shown by the devaluation of the peso. With the economic atmosphere in the country, the paid-in capitalization of PMCI amounting to P75,000.00 could not be considered as substantial capital and, as such, PMCI cannot qualify as an independent contractor.

2. No, there is no particular form of proof required to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Any competent and relevant evidence may show the relationship. In the present case, petitioner presented the identification card issued to him on 26 May 1990 by RFC as proof that it was the latter who engaged his services. The ID card is enough proof that petitioner was previously hired by RFC prior to his transfer as agency worker to PMCI.

3. Yes. The Court takes judicial notice of the practice of employers who, in order to evade the liabilities under the Labor Code, do not issue payslips directly to their employees. Under the such practice, a third person, usually the purported contractor (service or manpower placement agency), assumes the act of paying the wage. For this reason, the lowly worker is unable to show proof that it was directly paid by the true employer. Nevertheless, for the workers, it is enough that they actually receive their pay, oblivious of the need for payslips, unaware of its legal implications. Applying this principle to the case at bar, even though the wages were coursed through PMCI, the funds actually came from the pockets of RFC. Thus, in the end, RFC is still the one who paid the wages of petitioner albeit indirectly.

Labor
1. The Court held that, applying the four-fold test, an employer-employee relationship exists between petitioner and RFC and found that PMCI is engaged in labor-only contracting and merely acted as a recruitment agency for RFC. RFC was the employer of petitioner for the following reasons: (a) Petitioner was originally with RFC and was merely transferred to PMCI to be deployed as an agency worker and then subsequently reassigned to RFC as sales representative; (b) RFC had direct control and supervision over petitioner; (c) RFC actually paid for the wages of petitioner although coursed through PMCI; and, (d) Petitioner was terminated per instruction of RFC.

2. No. RFC failed to prove that petitioner was validly dismissed. Due to his length of service, petitioner already attained the status of a regular employee, thus, he is entitled to the security of tenure provided under the labor laws. He may only be validly terminated from service upon compliance with the legal requisites for dismissal. The requirements for the lawful dismissal of an employee are two-fold, the substantive and the procedural aspects. Not only must the dismissal be for a valid or authorized cause, the requirements of due process – notice and hearing – must, likewise, be observed before an employee may be dismissed. The two must concur for the termination to be legal.

Full text: Vinoya vs NLRC G.R. No. 126586, February 02, 2000