GR 124551; (August, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 124551 August 28, 1998
USHIO MARKETING, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and SEVERINO ANTONIO, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Severino Antonio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits against petitioner Ushio Marketing, a car accessory shop. Petitioner moved to dismiss, alleging Antonio was not an employee but a “free lance operator” who waited on shop customers needing electrical services. Petitioner claimed it did not select, pay a fixed wage to, or exercise control over Antonio; it merely collected his service fees from customers and remitted them weekly. Antonio, in his appeal, claimed he was hired as an electrician in 1981 (later stated as 1988), received a daily wage of P132.00 from the owner, Mrs. Tan, could not be absent without her permission, and performed additional tasks like bank errands and deliveries. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint based on petitioner’s motion. The NLRC reversed, holding Antonio was an employee and was illegally dismissed, ordering reinstatement with backwages. Petitioner filed this petition.
ISSUE
Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Ushio Marketing and Severino Antonio.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the NLRC and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal order. The Court found no employer-employee relationship. The “control test” is decisive. The evidence showed petitioner did not control the means and methods of Antonio’s work. Antonio used his own tools, determined how to perform electrical jobs, was free to offer services to other shops (which petitioner allowed), and dealt directly with customers who hired and supervised him. The arrangement where petitioner collected fees from customers and paid Antonio weekly was a peculiar industry practice but did not, by itself, establish employment, as similar arrangements in other cases (e.g., Besa v. Trajano) were not deemed indicative of employment. Antonio’s admission that he worked for other shops and that Mrs. Tan referred jobs directly to him negated the element of control. The burden of proof was on Antonio to establish the relationship, which he failed to do.