CELIAR. ATIENZA, PETITIONER, VS. NOEL SACRAMENTO SALUTA, RESPONDENT.

Atienza versus Saluta

The Case

This is a labor case about who the employer really was. Celia Atienza, a top official of CRV Corporation, was sued by Noel Saluta, who claimed he was the company's driver and had been illegally dismissed. Atienza insisted he was her personal or family driver, not a company employee. The case matters because it fixes where the burden of proof lies in an illegal dismissal complaint: the worker who claims to be an employee must first prove the employer-employee relationship by substantial evidence before the employer is ever obliged to justify a dismissal. It also reminds us that a claim of dismissal must rest on clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and that abandonment is a matter of intention that cannot lightly be inferred.

Procedural History

Saluta filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint except as to the illegal deduction and the certificate of employment, holding that Saluta was Atienza's personal driver and had left his work without justifiable reason. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed, found Saluta to be a company employee who had been illegally dismissed, and awarded backwages, separation pay, and other money claims. Atienza's motion for reconsideration was denied. Atienza then went to the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission with modification, adding interest on the monetary awards, and denied reconsideration. Atienza then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Saluta alleged that CRV Corporation hired him as a company driver in May 2012, assigned to drive for Atienza, and paid him nine thousand pesos a month. In December 2014 he hit the rear of the vehicle in front of him along the North Luzon Expressway, and fifteen thousand pesos was advanced by the company to answer for the damage, to be deducted from his salary. His license was confiscated and he was issued a temporary operator's permit.

On December 23, 2014, Saluta told Atienza he had to claim his license because the permit had expired. She refused to excuse him, and since driving without a license was illegal, he went the next day and failed to report for work, after first asking another driver to take his place. When Atienza learned he was not around, she called him and said that if he could not drive that day, they might as well part ways. Saluta took this as verbal termination, and when he went to the company office the general manager confirmed it. His request for his last salary was refused on the ground that he had not yet reimbursed the fifteen thousand pesos.

Atienza countered that Saluta was her personal and family driver, paid nine thousand pesos with free board and lodging, with salary coursed through the general manager. She claimed he simply stopped reporting for work, asked for his remaining salary, and later told the general manager he would no longer return. Saluta filed his complaint in April 2015.

Issues

• Whether or not Saluta was the personal or family driver of Atienza rather than a company driver of CRV Corporation.
• Whether or not Saluta was dismissed from employment, and if so, whether the dismissal was illegal.
• Whether or not Saluta abandoned his work.
• Whether or not Saluta is entitled to full backwages, separation pay, and the other monetary awards.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the settled rule that the burden of proof rests on the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue, and that in illegal dismissal cases the employer bears the burden of proving a valid cause only after the employment relationship is established. The Court states the rule thus:

In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee was for a valid cause. However, before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an employer-employee relationship must first be established.

This fixes the sequence: relationship first, dismissal second.

The Court also relies on the definition of abandonment, quoted from its earlier ruling in Protective Maximum Security Agency versus Fuentes:

Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. It is a form of neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the employer.

This governs the third issue, because abandonment requires a deliberate intent to sever the relationship.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Saluta was Atienza's personal or family driver. It applied the four-fold test: the selection and engagement of the employee, the payment of wages, the power of dismissal, and the power of control. The burden was on Saluta, who claimed to be a company employee, to prove the relationship by substantial evidence, and he failed. He presented no employment contract, company identification card, pay slip, or payroll entry, and proof of automated teller machine salaries did not show the company paid him as its employee. By contrast, Atienza decided when she needed his services, he needed her permission to take leave, and he himself believed she had terminated him. The Court rejected the approach of the Commission and the Court of Appeals, which had shifted the burden to Atienza:

It must be emphasized that the rule of thumb remains: the onus probandi falls on the respondent to establish or substantiate his claim by the requisite quantum of evidence given that it is axiomatic that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his or her right thereto.

On the second issue, the Court held that no dismissal was established. The employee must first prove the fact of dismissal by substantial evidence before the employer must prove its legality. Saluta's bare claim of verbal termination, uncorroborated by the general manager, was self-serving and conjectural, and the withholding of his salary did not prove termination, since salaries may be withheld for many reasons. The evidence of dismissal must be clear, positive, and convincing.

On the third issue, the Court held that abandonment was not proven, since it is a matter of intention that cannot lightly be inferred from equivocal acts. On the fourth issue, because there was no dismissal and no proven company employment, the monetary awards could not stand.

Doctrine

• In an illegal dismissal case, the worker who claims to be an employee must first prove the employer-employee relationship by substantial evidence; only then does the burden shift to the employer to prove a valid cause for dismissal.
• The four-fold test governs: selection and engagement, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and power of control.
• The fact of dismissal must be established by clear, positive, and convincing evidence; bare allegations have no probative value.
• Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be inferred or legally presumed from equivocal acts.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the Court set aside the rulings of the Court of Appeals and the National Labor Relations Commission, reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision, and held that Saluta was Atienza's personal driver who was not dismissed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the burden of proving the employer-employee relationship rests on the one who claims it, and only after that is shown does the employer answer for the dismissal. Examiners use this case to test burden of proof in illegal dismissal and the rules on abandonment.