G.R. No. 243414, May 03, 2021
GDI Lighting Solutions and Yehuda Ortal, Petitioners, vs. Jasmin Bacalangco Unating, Respondent.

FACTS

Sometime in May 2012, petitioner GDI Lighting Solutions hired respondent Jasmin Bacalangco Unating as a Marketing Assistant, promising a daily salary and allowances. She was later promoted to Manager/Supervisor. In November 2014, Unating asked petitioner Yehuda Ortal, the President and CEO, for financial assistance for her impending maternity leave, as she was not enrolled with the SSS, but her request was ignored. She repeated her plea in December 2014 to no avail. In the last week of December 2014, Ortal directed Unating to turn over company records, which she did. On January 2, 2015, Ortal advised her to go home due to her pregnancy. On January 29, 2015, Unating filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and various monetary claims. GDI Lighting claimed Unating was an independent contractor under a Manpower Service Agreement, not an employee. Unating challenged the agreement’s authenticity, stating her signature was forged and she lacked the capitalization to be an independent contractor, insisting she was a regular employee. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding no employer-employee relationship. The NLRC reversed, partially granting Unating’s appeal and awarding unpaid wages, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay, finding an employer-employee relationship but no illegal dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that there existed an employer-employee relationship between the parties and that Unating was entitled to backwages, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and attorney’s fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision. It held that an employer-employee relationship existed between Unating and GDI Lighting. The Manpower Service Agreement presented by GDI Lighting was undated, unnotarized, and unwitnessed, making it insufficient to prove Unating was an independent contractor. In contrast, Unating presented a company ID identifying her as a Supervisor and emails showing her involvement in GDI Lighting’s main business under its control, satisfying the four-fold test for employment (selection and engagement, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and power of control). Applying the principle that doubts are resolved in favor of labor when evidence is in equipoise, the Court found Unating was an employee. Her tasks as Marketing Assistant/Manager-Supervisor were directly related to GDI Lighting’s principal business, making her a regular employee entitled to the awarded monetary claims.