G.R. No. 244206. March 16, 2022
GEROME P. GINTA-ASON, PETITIONER, VS. J.T.A. PACKAGING CORPORATION AND JON TAN ARQUILLA, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Gerome Ginta-Ason filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims against respondents J.T.A. Packaging Corporation (JTA) and Jon Tan Arquilla. Petitioner alleged he was hired by JTA as an all-around driver on December 26, 2014, until his constructive dismissal on September 5, 2016. He claimed that on that date, after driving company officers home and parking the car, he was assaulted by Arquilla, who was under the influence of alcohol. Arquilla allegedly hit him with a gun, kicked him, and later detained him and his live-in partner overnight. Out of fear, petitioner did not report for work thereafter. Respondents denied petitioner was ever an employee of JTA. They submitted documentary evidence including BIR alpha lists, payroll reports, SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG contribution reports from 2014-2016, none of which contained petitioner’s name. They also presented JTA’s articles of incorporation showing Arquilla was neither a stockholder nor connected to the company. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, finding constructive dismissal. The NLRC reversed the decision, finding no employer-employee relationship. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s ruling.
ISSUE
Whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and JTA at the time of petitioner’s alleged dismissal.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that no employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and JTA. The burden of proving such a relationship rested on petitioner, which he failed to discharge. Applying the four-fold test (selection and engagement, payment of wages, power of dismissal, power of control), the Court found petitioner’s evidence insufficient. The pay slips he submitted were unreliable as they bore no issuer identification and contained dates (March 2014) inconsistent with his claimed hiring date (December 2014). In contrast, respondents presented competent and consistent documentary evidence—official BIR, SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG records—which did not list petitioner as an employee. The sworn statement of a former employee identifying Arquilla as owner/manager was deemed insufficient to establish an employment relationship between petitioner and JTA. The Court affirmed the findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals.