FU TENG WU AND JAIFAN WU, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ARJAY SANTOS, RESPONDENTS.
LANTION, J.A.C., J.:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED en toto.[5]
THE FACTS
(As culled from the Records)
Petitioners Fu Teng Wu and Jaifan Wu (Petitioners) are chinese businessmen engaged in the consignment and retail of various products.[6] Private Respondent Arjay C. Santos (Respondent), on the other hand, worked as an electrician and as an all around helper in Petitioners’ business.
On 30 March 2011, Respondent filed a Complaint[7] for illegal dismissal with money claims against Petitioners. Respondent alleged that he was hired by Petitioners on 14 June 2010 until he was unceremoniously terminated in March 2011.
In their defense, Petitioners argued that Respondent was not their employee, but an employee of one Claire P. Marasigan (Marasigan). Petitioners alleged that Marasigan was the store owner to whom they consign their various products for sale. Petitioners maintained that they were only assisting Marasigan to run her business; that due to their (Petitioners) suggestion to Marasigan to cease giving daily free meals to Respondent, the latter abandoned his job and retaliated by filing the subject Complaint against them.
On 15 November 2011, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision[8] in favor of the Respondent, finding the existence of employee-employer relationship between him and the Petitioners. In so ruling, the Labor Arbiter relied on Petitioners’ admission during the preliminary conference that they were the ones who hired and gave salary to Respondent. For unceremoniously terminating Respondent, the Labor Arbiter held Petitioners liable for the Respondent’s illegal dismissal.
Petitioners appealed the above Decision to the NLRC. On 15 March 2012, the NLRC rendered the herein assailed Decision affirming the Labor Arbiter’s ruling.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration[9] of the Decision of the NLRC, but the same was denied on 25 May 2012.
Thus, the instant Petition.
ISSUE
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN –
A. DECLARING PETITIONERS AS THE EMPLOYER OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT SANTOS;
B. FINDING THAT THE ADMISSIONS OF PETITIONER JAIFAN WU DURING THE PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE AS PROOF OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND PRIVATE RESPONDENT SANTOS
C. FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT SANTOS WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED; AND
D. AWARDING PRIVATE RESPONDENT SANTOS SEPARATION PAY, FULL BACKWAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY.
RULING
Petitioners contend that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in affirming the ruling of the Labor Arbiter that an employer-employee relationship existed between them and the Respondent and that the latter was illegally dismissed. Petitioners argue that their admissions during the preliminary conference (that they were the employers of Respondent who hired and gave salary to the latter) are insufficient proof that they are indeed his employer.
The petition lacks merit.
In labor cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the employee was not dismissed or if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal. However, before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an employee-employer relationship must first be established between them.[10]
In ascertaining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, jurisprudence has invariably applied the four-fold test, namely: (1) the manner of selection and engagement or power to hire; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the presence or absence of the power of dismissal; and (4) the presence or absence of the power of control.[11]
Here, the records show that Petitioners initially admitted before the Labor Arbiter, during the preliminary conference, that they were the employers of Respondent who hired and gave salary to the latter. The Labor Arbiter aptly found, viz:
“x x x this office could not give it more weight over the admission made by respondent Jaifan Wu (one of the Petitioners herein), admitting the fact that he is the employer of the complainant. x x x It does not escape notice that respondent Jaifan Wu even admitted during the May 17, 2011 conference not only to the time of the employment of complainant but likewise, admitted paying him the amount of P185.00 as his daily wage.”
It is well settled that an admission against interest is the best evidence that affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute. This is based on the presumption that no man would declare anything against himself unless such declaration is true.[12]
Here, Respondent filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal against Petitioners. Considering that a case for illegal dismissal can only prosper when an employee-employer relationship exists between a worker and a purported employer,[13] the admission made by Petitioners – that they were the employers of Respondent who hired and gave salary to the latter – was clearly an admission against their interest. Such being the case, there was reason for the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC to rely on Petitioners’ admission that they were indeed the employers of Respondent who hired and gave salary to the latter.
However, Petitioners now adopt a different view and contend that it was Marasigan, not them, who was the employer of Respondent. To prove the same, Petitioners narrate that Marasigan appeared before the Labor Arbiter who alleged that she was the employer of Respondent. In support of her allegation, Marasigan showed the BIR Registration and the DTI Certificate of Registration of her store to where Petitioners consign their products for sale. Aside from the fact that Petitioners are already estopped14 from adopting a different position from their previous stand (that they were Respondent’s employer who hired and gave salary to the latter), We cannot hold the documents adduced by Marasigan as proof of an employer-employee relationship with the Respondent, for said documents simply show that her business has complied with the registration requirements set by the BIR and the DTI. The documents do not in any way prove that she was the one who hired, gave wages and exercised power of control over the Respondent. As Marasigan failed to establish her claim that she was actually the employer of the Respondent, Petitioners’ previous admission that they were the employer of Respondent who hired and gave salary to the latter stands.
We now proceed to the determination of the validity of Respondent’s dismissal.
Petitioners also impute grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in holding them liable for illegal dismissal. Petitioners argue that Respondent was not dismissed, but had actually abandoned his work in view of his protest of the policy reducing his daily free meals.
The argument does not persuade.
The onus of proving that an employee was not dismissed or, if dismissed, his dismissal was not illegal fully rests on the employer, and the failure to discharge the onus would mean that the dismissal was not justified and was illegal.[15]
In the recent case of Concrete Solutions, Inc. vs. Cabusas[16], Cabusas filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against his employer. The employer however denied terminating the services of Cabusas and alleged that the said employee actually abandoned his work after being implicated in the case of dishonesty under the Company Code of Conduct. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employee and held the employer therein liable for illegal dismissal in view of the employer’s failure to substantiate its claim of abandonment. The Supreme Court ratiocinated:
“x x x The CA did not commit any reversible error in affirming the NLRC’s decision that respondent was illegally dismissed for petitioners’ failure to substantiate their claim that the former abandoned his work. The circumstances obtaining in this case do not indicate abandonment.”
Here, aside from their bare allegation that Respondent actually abandoned his job, Petitioners failed to adduce any evidence to prove the same. At the very least, Petitioners should have presented the following: 1) Respondent’s time record[17] to show that the latter did not anymore return to work; 2) a Letter addressed to Respondent demanding him to return to work; 3) a Notice of Abandonment[18] addressed at Respondent’s last known addresses (as required under Section 2, Rule XVI, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code); or a Notice of Termination on the ground of abandonment,[19] but there was none. Furthermore, it is well-settled that a charge of abandonment against an employee is totally inconsistent with the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal.[20] As the records show, Respondent herein immediately filed his Complaint for illegal dismissal against Petitioners on 30 March 2011 after being dismissed within the said month. These circumstances, taken together, clearly negate Petitioners’ allegation of abandonment by the Respondent. Considering that Petitioners failed to discharge their onus of proving that Respondent had indeed abandoned his job, there is premium to the NLRC’s ruling that Respondent’s dismissal was not justified.
Well-settled is the rule that the findings of the Labor Arbiter, when affirmed by the NLRC, are accorded not only great respect but even finality when supported by substantial evidence and devoid of any unfairness,[21] as in this present Petition. Thus, We find that the NLRC did not abuse its discretion in rendering the assailed Decision.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is DISMISSED and the assailed Decision dated 15 March 2012 and Resolution[22] dated 25 March 2012 of the National Labor Relations Commission, Fourth Division, in NLRC LAC Case No. 01-000476-12 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
De Leon, M.M., Chairperson and Antonio-Valenzuela, N.G., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-19.
[2] Rollo, pp. 21-27.
[3] Rollo, pp. 193-194.
[4] Rollo, pp. 29-32.
[5] Rollo, p. 26.
[6] Rollo, p. 23.
[7] Rollo, pp. 33-37.
[8] Rollo, pp. 64-68.
[9] Supra.
[10] Lopez vs. Bodega City, G.R. No. 155731, September 3, 2007.
[11] Republic Of The Philippines, Represented By The Social Security Commission And Social Security System vs. Asiapro Cooperative, G.R. No. 172101, November 23, 2007.
[12] Ayala Land, Inc., vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 178110, June 15, 2011.
[13] Lopez vs. Bodega City, G.R. No. 155731, September 3, 2007.
[14] See Spouses Hojas vs. Philippine Amanah Bank, G.R. No. 193453, June 5, 2013.
[15] Samar-Med Distribution vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 162385, July 15, 2013.
[16] G.R. No. 177812, June 19, 2013.
[17] See New Puerto Commercial vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 169999, July 26, 2010.
[18] Supra, No. 16.
[19] RBC Cable Master System And/Or Evelyn Cinense vs. Marcial Baluyot, G.R. No. 172670, January 20, 2009.
[20] Ang vs. Joaquin, Jr. G.R. No. 185549, August 7, 2013.
[21] Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc., et al. vs. Serna,G.R. No. 172086, December 3, 2012.
[22] Rollo, pp. 193-194.