If you find yourself in a situation where the other party denies having an employer-employee relationship with you, make sure that you prove the following:
- it had the power to select you to be an employee;
- it paid your wages;
- it had the power to dismiss you; and
- it exercised control of the methods and results by which the your work is accomplished.
In one case, the Supreme Court did not grant the claims of the complainants because they were not able to prove the existence of the mentioned elements. It said:
“It must be recalled that when Belleza was the canteen concessionaire from 1993 to 1996, herein petitioners Daisog and Dimalanta were and continuously working thereat. When Catalan took over the management thereof in May 1997 they also continued their employment thereat.“However, when private respondent Ma. Theresa Ayuson took over the canteen management on April 29, 1999, she offered to Daisog and Dimalanta to continue working under her new management but the latter refused and they did not accept the separation pay being offered to them.
“Based on the foregoing factual backdrop, it could be deduced that petitioners Daisog and Dimalanta’s employers if at all were Belleza and Catalan and not herein private respondent Ma. Theresa Ayuson.
“However, Belleza and Catalan could not be held liable since they were not impleaded to the complaint. Neither was there evidence which directly established that petitioners Daisog and Dimalanta were employees of private respondent Cainta Coliseum which is managed by co-private respondent Ken K.C. Yu. Likewise, the record is bereft of any evidence which showed that private respondents Cainta Coliseum and/or Ken K.C. Yu and Maria Theresa Ayuson were the one who hired petitioners Daisog and Dimalanta; neither did it prove that private respondents have the power to control the conduct of petitioners. As also found out by public respondent which read:
“‘Contrary to the allegation of complainants, the alleged payrolls do not bear the name of respondent Kenneth Yu, their alleged employer. Respondents denied that there was a signature of Kenneth Yu on the supposed payrolls. What is established in the records is that complainants are employees of canteen concessionaires operating in the respondent coliseum.’ x x xx x x
“Admittedly petitioners Daisog and Dimalanta miserably failed to show by convincing evidence that there exists an employer-employee relationship between them and private respondents.”
(Emphasis, mine.)
Further reading:
- Carmelita V. Dimalanta and Arturo C.
Daisog v.Caita Coliseum, Inc. Ken K.C.Yu , Owner/President/General Manager, and Maria TheresaAyuson as responsible officers, and National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 161058, July 30, 2014.
