GR 210741; (October, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 210741, October 14, 2020
MARIA LEA JANE I. GESOLGON AND MARIE STEPHANIE N. SANTOS, PETITIONERS, VS. CYBERONE PH., INC., MACIEJ MIKRUT, AND BENJAMIN JUSON, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioners Gesolgon and Santos were initially hired as home-based Customer Service Representatives by CyberOne Pty. Ltd. (CyberOne AU), an Australian company. They were later promoted to Supervisors. In October 2009, they agreed to become nominal incorporators/directors of the domestic corporation CyberOne PH., Inc., upon the request of Mikrut, the CEO of both companies. Following this, they were designated as Managers and received salary increases, which were processed to appear as payments from CyberOne PH. In March 2011, Mikrut presented them with three options: an indefinite furlough, demotion to an entry-level position, or irrevocable resignation. Claiming they were forced to choose the furlough to save their jobs, they subsequently received their final salary in April 2011 and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against CyberOne PH, its officers, and CyberOne AU.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioners and respondent CyberOne PH., Inc., which is essential for a finding of illegal dismissal and for the labor tribunals to have jurisdiction over the claims.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the complaint. The Court held that no employer-employee relationship was established between petitioners and CyberOne PH. The critical element of control—the employer’s power to dictate the means and methods by which work is accomplished—was not proven. Petitioners failed to specify their duties, functions, or the manner of supervision by CyberOne PH. Their roles as incorporators and directors of the company, evidenced by their submission of resignation letters from those corporate positions—not as employees—negated their claim of being its employees. The salary payments from CyberOne PH, standing alone without proof of control, were insufficient to establish an employment relationship. Consequently, with no employment link to CyberOne PH, there could be no illegal dismissal by it. The Court also upheld that CyberOne AU, a foreign corporation, was not doing business in the Philippines through CyberOne PH under a “single employer” theory, as petitioners did not substantiate that the domestic corporation was a mere alter ego. Thus, the labor tribunals correctly lacked jurisdiction over CyberOne AU.