August 8, 2011
Ponente: Peralta, J.
FACTS:
·
In 1992, Atok Big Wedge Company, a mining
company, engaged the services of Jesus P. Gison as part-time consultant on
retainer basis. Gison was tasked to assist the company's retained legal counsel
with matters pertaining to the prosecution of cases against illegal surface
occupants within the area covered by the company's mineral claims, and to
perform liaison work with several government agencies, which he said was his
expertise.
·
As payment for his services, Gison received a
retainer fee of P3,000.00 a month, which was delivered to him either at his
residence or in a local restaurant. The parties executed a retainer agreement,
but such agreement was misplaced and can no longer be found. The company did
not require Gison to report to its office on a regular basis, except when
occasionally requested by the management to discuss matters needing his
expertise as a consultant. The said arrangement continued for the next eleven
years.
·
In 2003, Gison requested that the company
cause his registration with the Social Security System (SSS), but the company
did not accede to his request. He later reiterated his request but it was
ignored by the company on the ground that he was only a retainer/consultant.
·
In February 2003, Gison filed a complaint with
the SSS against Atok Big Wedge for the latter's refusal to cause his
registration. On the same date, he was advised by the company that his retainer
contract was being terminated within 30 days from the receipt thereof. This prompted Gison to file a complaint, this
time before the NLRC, for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice,
underpayment of wages, non-payment of 13th month pay, vacation pay, and sick leave
pay.
·
In September 2003, Labor Arbiter Rolando D.
Gambito dismissed Gison's complaint, ruling that there was no employer-employee
relationship between him and Atok Big Wedge. This was affirmed by the NLRC.
·
Gison filed an appeal before the CA, which
ruled in his favor. According to the CA, Gison can be considered a regular
employee based on Art. 280 of the Labor Code. The CA pointed out that applying
the provision to the Gison's case, he is deemed a regular employee of the
company after the lapse of one year from his employment. Considering also that
Gison had been performing services for the company for eleven years, he is
entitled to the rights and privileges of a regular employee. Hence, the instant
petition.
RULING:
Whether
Gison is a regular employee of Atok Big Wedge, and should therefore be entitled
to certain benefits. – NO.
·
Using the four-fold test, an employer-employee
relationship is apparently absent in the case at bar. Among other things, Gison
was not required to report everyday during regular office hours of Atok Big
Wedge. Gison's monthly retainer fees were paid to him either at his residence
or a local restaurant. More importantly, Atok Big Wedge did not prescribe the
manner in which Gison would accomplish any of the tasks in which his expertise
as a liaison officer was needed; Gison was left alone and given the freedom to
accomplish the tasks using his own means and method. Gison was assigned tasks
to perform, but Atok Big Wedge did not control the manner and methods by which
Gison performed these tasks. Verily, the absence of the element of control on
the part of the petitioner engenders a conclusion that he is not an employee of
the petitioner.
·
The doctrine that the existence of an
employer-employee relationship is ultimately a question of fact and that the
findings thereon by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC shall be accorded not only
respect but even finality when supported by substantial evidence.
·
Gison clearly admitted that Atok Big Wedge
hired him in a limited capacity only and that there will be no
employer-employee relationship between them. Gison was well aware of the
agreement that he was hired merely as a liaison or consultant of the petitioner
and he agreed to perform tasks for the petitioner on a temporary employment
status only.
Whether
the CA erred in using Art. 280 of the Labor Code as basis for its ruling. –
YES.
·
Art. 280 of the Labor Code is not applicable
in the case at bar. Indeed, the Court has ruled that said provision is not the
yardstick for determining the existence of an employment relationship because
it merely distinguishes between two kinds of employees, i.e., regular employees
and casual employees, for purposes of determining the right of an employee to
certain benefits, to join or form a union, or to security of tenure; it does
not apply where the existence of an employment relationship is in dispute.