GR 78693; (January, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 78693 ; January 28, 1991
ZOSIMO CIELO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HENRY LEI and/or HENRY LEI TRACKING, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Zosimo Cielo, a truck driver, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Henry Lei Trucking. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Cielo’s favor, ordering his reinstatement with back wages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, upholding the validity of a six-month “Agreement” between the parties which stipulated there was no employer-employee relationship and that Cielo’s engagement would terminate upon the contract’s expiration on December 31, 1984. Cielo was notified of termination on December 22, 1984. He contended he started working on June 16, 1984, and had thus become a regular employee, and that his dismissal was due to his refusal to sign an affidavit stating he had received his salary and had no further claims against the company.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the “Agreement” between Cielo and Henry Lei Trucking validly precluded an employer-employee relationship and justified Cielo’s dismissal upon the contract’s expiration.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the NLRC decision and reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. The Court found the “Agreement” to be a subterfuge designed to evade the application of labor laws. The stipulation denying an employer-employee relationship was contradicted by the company’s own actions, particularly its requirement for Cielo to sign an affidavit acknowledging receipt of “salary and allowances,” a term indicative of employment. The Court ruled that the facts demonstrated an employer-employee relationship, with the company exercising control over Cielo’s work. Consequently, Cielo attained regular employment status after six months. His dismissal, allegedly for insubordination due to his refusal to sign the affidavit, was illegal. The Court held that such refusal, aimed at protecting his statutory rights, did not constitute willful disobedience warranting termination under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The agreement was deemed a deceitful instrument to exploit workers and deprive them of constitutional and statutory protections.