GR 127864; (December, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127864 December 22, 1999
TRADERS ROYAL BANK, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ROGELIO ESPAÑOLA, respondent.
FACTS
Rogelio Española was assigned as a janitor to the Iloilo branch of Traders Royal Bank (TRB) in 1974 by Agro-Commercial Security Services Agency Inc. (AGRO). In 1982, he was informed he would be absorbed by a new agency, Royal Protective and Janitorial Services Inc. (ROYAL), which was managed by the same people as AGRO, to perform the same functions. TRB and ROYAL executed a service agreement stating the assigned janitors were not TRB’s employees. In 1994, TRB terminated its contract with ROYAL, leading ROYAL to inform Española his services were no longer needed.
Española filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against both ROYAL and TRB. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case against TRB, finding no employer-employee relationship. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision, ruling Española was TRB’s employee and ordering his reinstatement with back wages and other monetary awards. TRB filed this certiorari petition, arguing the NLRC gravely abused its discretion.
ISSUE
Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Traders Royal Bank and Rogelio Española.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, affirming the NLRC’s decision with modification. The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by the “control test,” which examines the employer’s power to control the means and methods by which the work is accomplished. The Court found that TRB exercised control over Española’s conduct, as evidenced by his uncontroverted allegations that TRB managers directly supervised his janitorial duties and assigned him additional tasks like driving the bank’s armored car and the manager’s children. The service agreement’s stipulation that the janitors were not TRB’s employees is not conclusive. Since TRB had the power of control, it was Española’s true employer. His dismissal, being a mere consequence of the contract termination without just or authorized cause, was illegal. He is entitled to reinstatement and full back wages from the date of dismissal until actual reinstatement, along with the awarded salary differentials and attorney’s fees.