ULTRA VILLA FOOD HAUS, AND/OR ROSIE TIO PETITIONERS, VS. RENATO GENISTON, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION PRESIDING COMMISSIONER (4TH DIVISION), RESPONDENTS.

Ultra Villa Food Haus versus Geniston

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari brought before the Supreme Court by Ultra Villa Food Haus and Rosie Tio against Renato Geniston and the National Labor Relations Commission. At bottom, the question is whether Geniston was an employee of the restaurant or the personal driver of Tio, and whether his dismissal was lawful. The case matters because it draws the line between an ordinary employee covered by the Labor Code's wage and benefit provisions and a domestic or household worker, including a family driver, who is expressly excluded from those benefits. It is a favorite vehicle for testing coverage under the Labor Code and the requisites of abandonment.

Procedural History

Geniston filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter, praying for overtime pay, premium pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, salary differential, thirteenth month pay, reinstatement with backwages or separation pay, damages, and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter found that Geniston was Tio's personal driver, not a restaurant employee, and dismissed the complaint, but ordered Tio to pay one thousand pesos for failure to observe procedural due process. Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. The Commission reversed, found Geniston a restaurant employee, and ordered reinstatement with backwages and monetary awards. On reconsideration, it granted separation pay in lieu of reinstatement because the establishment had closed, and denied damages and attorney's fees. Tio then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari.

Facts

Renato Geniston claimed that from March 1989 until May 1992 he worked at the Ultra Villa Food Haus restaurant as a do it all guy, serving as waiter, driver, and maintenance man, and that he was dismissed on May 13, 1992. Rosie Tio, for her part, maintained that Geniston was her personal driver, reporting at seven in the morning to drive her from her residence to Mandaue City, where she worked as branch manager of the CFC Corporation, and that he was paid a daily wage that rose over the years, given free meals, and given thirteenth month pay every December.

During the May 1992 elections, Geniston acted as a poll watcher, and the counting of votes lasted until the afternoon of the following day. He did not report for work on those two days. Tio telephoned his mother and told her that Geniston was dismissed. When Geniston went to Tio's residence the next day to plead his case, he was berated, and Tio even tried to force him to sign a resignation letter. Tio denied dismissing him and claimed instead that he had abandoned his job.

The Labor Arbiter found Geniston to be Tio's personal driver, relying on his admission during the mandatory conference and on the incongruity of a driver also serving as a waiter. The Commission disagreed and treated him as a restaurant employee.

Issues

• Whether or not Renato Geniston was an employee of the Ultra Villa Food Haus or the personal driver of Rosie Tio.
• Whether or not Geniston was illegally dismissed from employment.

Applicable Provisions

Article 141 of the Labor Code provides:

Art. 141. Coverage. - This Chapter shall apply to all persons rendering services in households for compensation. "Domestic or household service" shall mean services in the employers home which is usually necessary or desirable for the maintenance and enjoyment thereof and includes ministering to the personal comfort and convenience of the members of the employers household, including services of family drivers.

This provision governs Geniston's terms and conditions of employment once he is characterized as a family driver, and it places him under the chapter on household service.

Article 82 of the Labor Code provides:

Art. 82. Coverage. - The provision of this title shall apply to employees in all establishments and undertakings whether for profit or not, but not to government employees, managerial employees, field personnel, members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for support, domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of another, and workers who are paid by results as determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations.

This provision excludes domestic helpers and persons in the personal service of another from the title granting overtime pay, premium pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leave, which is why those claims must fail.

Article 149 of the Labor Code provides:

Art. 149. Indemnity for unjust termination of services. - If the period of household service is fixed, neither the employer nor the househelper may terminate the contract before the expiration of the term, except for a just cause. If the househelper is unjustly dismissed, he or she shall be paid the compensation already earned plus that for fifteen (15) days by way of indemnity. If the househelper leaves without justifiable reason he or she shall forfeit any unpaid salary due him or her not exceeding fifteen (15) days.

This provision supplies the remedy once the Court finds that Geniston was unjustly dismissed as a household worker.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Geniston was the personal driver of Tio and not an employee of the Ultra Villa Food Haus. Substantial evidence supported this: his admission during the mandatory conference that he was her personal driver; payroll records of the restaurant that did not include his name; affidavits of restaurant employees that he never worked there; Tio's undisputed work as branch manager of the CFC Corporation in Mandaue City, which made a driver's position incongruous with that of a waiter; and the joint affidavit of the CFC Corporation warehouseman and warehouse checker describing how Geniston drove Tio to the office, waited for her in the car, and drove her on her rounds. Against this, Geniston offered only his self-serving allegation. Because he was a family driver, his employment was governed by the chapter on household service, and the Court held that petitioner was not obliged by law to grant him overtime pay, premium pay, holiday pay, or service incentive leave. Thirteenth month pay was likewise outside the coverage of the thirteenth month pay law, but the Court deemed it just to award it because Tio admitted she had given it every December.

On the second issue, the Court held that Geniston did not abandon his job. To constitute abandonment, two requisites must concur: the failure to report to work without a valid or justifiable reason, and a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship as manifested by overt acts, with the second requisite as the more determinative factor. The burden of proving abandonment lies on the employer, and Tio failed to discharge it. The Court found it unbelievable that Geniston would leave a stable and relatively well paying job to work as an election watcher, whose functions are seasonal and temporary. His dismissal being unjust, Tio was liable for the indemnity under Article 149, and for one thousand pesos for failure to observe due process.

Doctrine

A family driver is a household worker under Article 141 of the Labor Code, and household workers are excluded by Article 82 from the title granting overtime pay, premium pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leave. The test of employment in such cases turns on substantial evidence of who the true employer is, and a worker's admission, payroll records, and the nature of his actual duties are decisive. Abandonment requires both absence without justifiable reason and a clear intention to sever the employment relationship, and the burden of proof rests on the employer. An unjustly dismissed househelper is entitled to compensation already earned plus fifteen days of salary as indemnity under Article 149.

Disposition

The Court reversed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission, declared Geniston the personal driver of Tio and not an employee of the Ultra Villa Food Haus, found his dismissal without valid cause and without due process, and ordered Tio to pay him thirteenth month pay, an indemnity equal to fifteen days of his salary, and one thousand pesos.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a family driver is a household worker under Article 141 and is excluded by Article 82 from overtime, holiday, premium, and service incentive leave benefits. Examiners use this case to test Labor Code coverage of domestic workers and the two requisites of abandonment, with the employer bearing the burden of proof.