GR 96191; (March, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 96191 ; March 4, 1991
PAN PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL SALES, CO., INC., petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION), and ESTEBAN C. COMILANG, SR., as substituted by ILUMINADA COMILANG, respondents.
FACTS
Esteban C. Comilang, Sr. was hired by Pan Pacific Industrial Sales Co., Inc. (PANPISCO) as a “Safety Consultant” on September 1, 1975. His services were terminated in November 1981 on the ground of depressed market conditions. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. He died during the proceedings and was substituted by his wife, Iluminada Comilang. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Comilang, ordering PANPISCO to pay various monetary awards. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision.
PANPISCO denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship, arguing that Comilang was a retained consultant for multiple firms, had no fixed hours or work itinerary, and was not under the company’s control. It appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between PANPISCO and Comilang, Sr.
RULING
Yes, an employer-employee relationship existed. The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC’s findings, emphasizing that the determination of such a relationship is based on the evidence of record and the established “four-fold test,” with the right of control being the most decisive element.
The Court found that the terms of Comilang’s appointment letters from PANPISCO, signed by its Vice-President, belied the claim of a mere consultancy. The letters revealed he was tasked to coordinate with company officers, work with a sales representative, cover a specific sales territory, and promote the sale of PANPISCO’s exclusive “Protector” safety products for a monthly salary plus sales commission. This setup demonstrated that he was integrated into the company’s sales force. The title “Safety Consultant” was a euphemism; his primary duty was sales promotion. The absence of fixed office hours was consistent with the nature of field sales work. The Court also noted that his alleged consultancy for other mining firms was not incompatible with his sales role for PANPISCO and could have even facilitated it.
Given the established employment relationship, Comilang was entitled to security of tenure. PANPISCO failed to substantiate its claim of financial losses as a valid ground for termination, as it presented no evidence, such as a notice of retrenchment filed with the Department of Labor. The burden of proof in dismissal cases rests on the employer. The Court deferred to the factual findings of the NLRC regarding the unpaid monetary claims, noting no grave abuse of discretion in its resolution. The petition was dismissed.