GR 95845; (February, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 95845 ; February 21, 1996
WILLIAM L. TIU, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and HERMES DELA CRUZ, respondents.
FACTS
Hermes dela Cruz filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and various monetary claims against William L. Tiu, operator of D’Rough Riders Transportation. Tiu denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship, contending that dela Cruz was merely one of several “standbys” who loitered at his bus terminals, assisting passengers with their baggage as a “dispatcher” without his supervision. Tiu alleged these individuals, in league with local “bad elements,” forced their services upon bus operators under threat of damaging property and scaring away passengers. He claimed he paid a daily P20.00 sum ex gratia, not as a wage, merely to preserve his business.
The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC ruled in favor of dela Cruz, finding him to be Tiu’s employee. They based their decision on the four-fold test, noting Tiu’s admission of regular payment, which constituted remuneration, and the existence of a disciplinary memorandum (Exhibit “A”) issued to dela Cruz, which unequivocally exercised the power to dismiss. Furthermore, the agencies considered the role of Regino dela Cruz, Hermes’s father and Tiu’s admitted “Chief Dispatcher,” as indicative of a supervisory structure within the operation.
ISSUE
Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between William L. Tiu and Hermes dela Cruz.
RULING
Yes, an employer-employee relationship existed. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, applying the four-fold test. The element of payment of wages was established by Tiu’s own admission of regularly paying a fixed daily rate of P20.00, which the Court deemed remuneration for services rendered, not a gratuitous payment. The power to dismiss was conclusively proven by the disciplinary memorandum (Exhibit “A”) served on dela Cruz, which used the explicit language of dismissal. Regarding the power of selection and control, the Court held that while Regino dela Cruz, as Chief Dispatcher, engaged the complainant and exercised day-to-day supervision, this power was merely delegated by the petitioner. Tiu, as the business operator, inherently possessed the primary power of control. The Court further ruled that even if Regino were considered a contractor, the arrangement would constitute prohibited “labor-only” contracting, as he lacked substantial capital or investment and did not carry an independent business. In such a case, the principal employer, Tiu, is directly responsible to the workers as if they were his own employees. Consequently, Hermes dela Cruz was illegally dismissed, and Tiu was liable for the awarded monetary claims. The petition was denied.