G.R. No. 250987 . March 29, 2022
NOEL G. GUINTO, PETITIONER, VS. STO. NIÑO LONG-ZENY CONSIGNEE, ANGELO SALANGSANG, AND ZENAIDA SALANGSANG, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Noel G. Guinto filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees against respondents Sto. Niño Long-Zeny Consignee, its owner Angelo Salangsang, and manager Zenaida Salangsang. Petitioner claimed he was employed as a warehouseman and later as a “sizer” from August 1997 until his termination in November 2015, when Zenaida told him not to report for work and a representative sent a confirming text message. He presented evidence including a Certification from Angelo stating his employment, a work schedule, affidavits from co-workers and porters, and payslips. Respondents denied an employer-employee relationship, asserting petitioner was a porter/sizer at the Orani Fishport who worked for multiple fishpond owners and was not their employee. They presented affidavits from porters, including petitioner’s relatives, and business permits showing only two regular employees. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, finding illegal dismissal and awarding backwages, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees. The NLRC reversed, finding petitioner was a regular employee but was not illegally dismissed due to lack of corroborating evidence for his dismissal claim; it ordered reinstatement without backwages, awarded service incentive leave pay and attorney’s fees, but deleted the separation pay and 13th month pay awards. The Court of Appeals sustained the NLRC’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s findings that: (1) petitioner was a regular employee of respondents; (2) petitioner was not illegally dismissed; and (3) petitioner was not entitled to 13th month pay.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed CA decision. The Court held:
1. On the existence of an employer-employee relationship: The NLRC and CA correctly found petitioner to be a regular employee based on the four-fold test, particularly the element of control. The Certification issued by Angelo, coupled with petitioner’s long period of service (18 years) performing tasks necessary to respondents’ business, established regular employment. Respondents’ claim that the Certification was an “accommodation” lacked credible proof.
2. On the legality of dismissal: The NLRC and CA correctly found that petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of illegal dismissal. His bare allegations, without corroborative evidence, were insufficient to prove that respondents dismissed him. The burden of proof rests on the employee to show dismissal; petitioner’s self-serving testimony and the alleged text message (which was not presented) did not meet this burden. Therefore, the remedy was reinstatement without backwages.
3. On the monetary claims:
* Service Incentive Leave Pay: The award of service incentive leave pay was proper as respondents failed to prove payment.
* 13th Month Pay: Petitioner was not entitled to 13th month pay. The law requires its payment to employees receiving basic salary. Petitioner admitted he was paid on a commission or “pakiao” basis, and he did not provide evidence of any basic salary. Thus, this claim was correctly deleted.
* Attorney’s Fees: The award of attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the monetary award was proper under Article 111 of the Labor Code, as petitioner was compelled to litigate to protect his rights.
The Court modified the interest rate on the monetary award to 6% per annum from finality of judgment until full payment.