G.R. No. 195167 ; November 16, 2011
FERNANDO CO (formerly doing business under the name “Nathaniel Mami House”), Petitioner, vs. LINA B. VARGAS, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Lina B. Vargas filed a complaint against Nathaniel Bakeshop and its owner Fernando Co for underpayment/non-payment of wages, holiday pay, service incentive leave, and later amended to include illegal dismissal. She alleged she started working in October 1994 as a baker, working from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., Monday to Saturday, with a salary of ₱220 per day. Her duties included baking, serving customers, supervising other workers, and occasionally cooking or doing housemaid chores. On April 6, 2003, petitioner’s wife, Nely Co, instructed her to cook lunch. Being busy with customer orders, respondent failed to cook on time, leading Nely Co to curse her, tell her to leave, and state she was no longer needed. Humiliated, respondent took her salary and left that day. Petitioner denied she was a baker, claiming she was hired as a housemaid who voluntarily left after being reprimanded for failing to cook lunch on time. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent, finding her a regular employee illegally dismissed. The NLRC reversed, finding her a housemaid who left voluntarily. The Court of Appeals set aside the NLRC decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that respondent Lina B. Vargas was a regular employee of petitioner Fernando Co and not a housemaid, and consequently, that she was illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that the findings of the Court of Appeals, which reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, were supported by substantial evidence. The evidence showed respondent worked within the premises of petitioner’s business, which was also his residence, and performed tasks necessary and desirable to the bakeshop trade, such as taking customer orders, baking, and other clerical work. This made her a regular employee entitled to security of tenure. The Court found the alleged abandonment unsubstantiated, as petitioner failed to prove the clear intention to sever the employment relationship. The recanted affidavit of a witness was viewed with caution and did not negate the initial testimony. Therefore, respondent was illegally dismissed and entitled to reinstatement, backwages, and other monetary awards.