G.R. No. 163700; April 18, 2012
Charlie Jao, Petitioner, vs. BCC Products Sales Inc., and Terrance Ty, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Charlie Jao claimed he was employed as comptroller by respondent BCC Products Sales Inc. starting September 1995, with a monthly salary of ₱20,000. He alleged that on October 19, 1995, he was illegally dismissed when the company’s security guards, upon instruction of respondent Terrance Ty, barred him from entering the premises. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, seeking reinstatement, backwages, and damages. Respondents countered that Jao was not their employee but was instead an employee of Sobien Food Corporation (SFC), a major creditor and supplier of BCC. They asserted that SFC had assigned Jao to oversee its financial interests within BCC, and thus no employer-employee relationship existed between Jao and BCC.
The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in Jao’s favor, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) vacated this and remanded the case. A new Labor Arbiter then dismissed the complaint for lack of an employer-employee relationship. On appeal, the NLRC reversed this dismissal, declaring Jao illegally dismissed and awarding monetary claims. Respondents then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner Charlie Jao and respondents BCC Products Sales Inc. and Terrance Ty.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that no employer-employee relationship existed. The Court applied the four-fold test: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the employer’s power of control over the employee’s conduct, with the power of control being the most determinative element.
The Court found all four elements absent. First, there was no proof that BCC engaged Jao’s services through a selection process or an employment contract. Second, Jao’s name did not appear on BCC’s payroll as a recipient of salary; it only appeared as the approving officer. The Court found it improbable that a certified public accountant would work for months without receiving his alleged ₱20,000 monthly salary. Third, and most crucially, BCC did not exercise the power of control over Jao. There was no evidence that BCC prescribed his work methods, schedule, or conduct. The evidence indicated he was assigned by SFC to protect its interests. Finally, inconsistencies in Jao’s pleadings regarding the date of his alleged dismissal further undermined his credibility. Therefore, Jao failed to substantiate his claim of employment with BCC.
