G.R. No. L-98368 December 15, 1993
OPULENCIA ICE PLANT AND STORAGE AND/OR DR. MELCHOR OPULENCIA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION), LABOR ARBITER NUMERIANO VILLENA AND MANUEL P. ESITA, respondents.

FACTS

Manuel P. Esita worked for twenty years as a compressor operator at Tiongson Ice Plant. In 1980, he was hired by petitioner Dr. Melchor Opulencia as a compressor operator-mechanic for his ice plants in Tanauan, Batangas, and Calamba, Laguna. He initially worked in Tanauan from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM with a daily wage of P35.00. In 1986, he was transferred to the Calamba ice plant, replacing an old and weak operator. For less than a month, he also helped in the construction-remodeling of Dr. Opulencia’s house. On February 6, 1989, Esita was dismissed from service after demanding the correct amount of his wages. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and various monetary claims. Petitioners denied an employer-employee relationship, claiming Esita was not employed in 1980 due to the ice plant’s non-operation, that he was merely a helper/peon for contractors repairing the plants in 1986, and that he was only allowed to stay on the premises for free, collect fees from customers, cultivate crops, and occasionally help clean the premises. The Labor Arbiter found an employer-employee relationship and awarded monetary benefits. The NLRC affirmed but reduced the award. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioners and Manuel P. Esita, thereby vesting jurisdiction in the Labor Arbiter and NLRC over his complaint.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the findings of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC. The employer-employee relationship was sufficiently established through testimonial evidence, making the absence of documentary evidence like time sheets or payrolls inconsequential. The Court held that unscrupulous employers could not avoid labor jurisdiction by merely denying the relationship. Esita’s work as a compressor operator for nine years made him a regular employee under Article 280 of the Labor Code, as his work was necessary and desirable in the ice-making business. His one-month construction work did not alter his regular status. The Court also noted that petitioners’ payrolls were incomplete and did not cover the entire period, giving rise to the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse. The humanitarian reasons cited by petitioners for allowing Esita to stay on the premises did not justify depriving him of his statutory labor rights. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.