BITOY JAVIER (DANILO P. JAVIER), Petitioner. FLY ACE CORPORATION/FLORDELYN CASTILLO, Respondents. MENDOZA, J: February 15, 2012 FACTS (On May 28, 2008, Javier filed a complaint before the NLRC for underpayment of salaries and other labor standard benefits. He alleged thai he was an employee of Fly Ace since September 2007, performing various tasks at the respondent's warehouse such as clearing and arranging the canned items before their delivery Io certain locations, except in instances when he would be ordered to accompany the company's delivery vehicles, aspahinante; thal he reporied for work from Monday to Saturday {rom 7:00 o'cock in the moming to 5:00 o'ciockin the afternoan; that during his employment, he was nat issued an identification card and payslps by the company; that on May 6, 2008, he reported for work but he was no longer allowed to enter the company promises by the security suard upon the instruction of Ruben Ong (Mr. Ong), his superior: that after several minutes, of begging Io the guard to allow him to enter, he saw Ong whom he approached and asked why he was being barred from entering the premises: that Ong replied by saying, "Tanungin mo anak mo." * that he then went home and discussed the matter with his family; that he discovered that Org had been courting his daughter Annalyn after the two mot ala fiesta celebration in Malabon City: that Annalyn ried to talk to Ong and convince him to spare her fathor from trouble but he refused to accede; that thereafter, Javier was terminated from his employment without notice: and thal he was neither given the opporturity 10 refute the cause’s of his dismissal from work. Fly Ace averted that it was engaged inthe business of importation and sales of groceries. Sometime in December 2007, Javier was coniracted by its employee, Mr. Ong, as extra helper on a pakyawbasis at an agreed rate of P 300,00 por trip. which was, later inereased to P 828.00 in January 2008. Mr. Ong contracted Javier roughly § 10 6 times ony in a month whenever the vehicle ofits contracted hauler, Milmar Hauling Services, was not available, On Apri 30, 2008, Fly Ace no longer needed the services of Javier. Dering that he was their employee, Fly Ace insisted that there was ro illegal dismissal Fly Ace submitted a copy of ts agreement with Milmar Hauling Services and copies of acknowledgment receipts evidencing payment to Javier fr his contracted services bearing the words, “daily manpower (pakyawipiece rate pay)” ard the lallr’ssigraturesiinial. Labor Arbiter LA dismissed the complaint. Javier failed to present proof that he was a regular employee of Fly Ace. [no ID. documents, paysiips. Fly Age is nol engaged in trucking business bul in the importalion and sales of groceries. Singe there Is a regular hatier to dalver is produets, we give credence to Respondents’ cai tnat complainant was contracted an “paklao™ basis. NLRC It was of the view that apakyan-basis arrangement did not preclude the existence of emplayer-employee celationship. “Payment by result x x xis a method of compensation and does not define the essence af the relation. itis amere method of computing compensation, not a basis for determining the existence or absence of an employer-omployee relationship." The NLRC further averred that it id no follow that a worker was a job contractor and not an employee. just because the work he was doing was not direct related tothe emplayer’s trade or business or the work may be considered as “exira” helper asin this case: and thal the relationship of an employer and an employee was determined by law and the same would prevail whalever the pares may calli Finding Javior to be a regular employee, the NLRC ruled that he was entitled te a security ef tenure. For failing to present proof ofa valid eause for his termination, Fly Ace was found tobe liable for llegal disrissal of Javier who was likewise eniiled to backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement Court of Appeals Reinstated dismissal of complaint. Javior failed to prove by substantial evidence er-ce relationship, Did not pass the contol test Issul evidence. JON Javier was regular employee of Fly Ace, NO, onus prabandi was on Javier and he failed to provide substantial RATIO: In an legal dismissal case, he onus probandiresis on the employer to prove that is dismissal of an employee was fora valid cause. However, before a case for ilegal dismissal can prosper. an employer-errployee relationship musi fist be estabished. Existonge of an emplayer-employee relationship between him and Fly Ace is esseriialy a question of fact. In dealing with factual issues in labor cases, “substantial evidence ~ that amount of relevant evidence wich a reasonable mind right accept as adequate to jusiy a conchision —is sufficientAlthough Seetion 10, Rule VIl of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC* allows a relaxation of the rules of procedure and evidence in labor cases. tis rule of liberality does not mean a complete dispensation of proof. Labor officials are enjoined to use reasonable means to ascerain the facts speedily and objectively with litle regard 1otechnicalites ar formalities but nowhere in the rules are they provided a license to completely discount evidence, or the lack of. The quantum of proof required, however, ‘must sill be satisfied. Hence, “when confronted with conficting version on factual matters, itis for them inthe exercise of tlscretion to determine whieh pary deserves credence on the basis of evidence received, subject orly to the requirement that their decision must be supported by substantial evidence." Accordinaly, the petitioner needs fo show by substantial evidence thal he was indeed an employee of the company against which he claims Mlegal dismissal Hence, wile no particular form of evidence is required. a fining that such relationship exists must sil rest on some substantial evidenes, Moreover, the subslantaliy ofthe evidenee depends on iis quaniitaive as well as its qualtative aspects. "Although substantial evidence is not a funetion of quantity but rather of quality, the x x x circumstances of the instant ease demand that Something more should have been proffered. Had there been ather proofs of employment, such as xxx incusion in pelitoner’s payroll or a clear exeraise of canta he Court would have affemed the finding of emplayer-emplayee relationship.” In sum, the rule of thumb remains: the onus proband! falls on petitioner to establish or substantiate such claim by the requisite quantum of evidence.” "Whoever claims enlilement tothe benefits provided by law should establish his or her right thereto xx x." Sadly. Javier failed to addice substantial evidence as basis for the grant of reli In this case, the LA and the CA both concliced that Javor failed to establish his employment with Fly Ace. By way of evidence ‘on this point, all hat Javier presented were his self-serving statements purportedly showing his acivities as an employee of Fly ‘Ace. Clearly, Javier failed lo pass the substanialty requirement to support his claim While Javior remains fim in tis position that as an employed stevesiore of Fly Ace, he was made to workin the company promises during weekdays arranging and clearing grocery toms for delivery to clients. ro other proof was submitted to fority his Claim, The lone affidavit executed by one Bengie Valenzuela was unsuccwsstul in strengthening Javier s cause. In said document, all Valonzuola attested o was that he would frequently see Javier al the workplace where the latter was also hired as slovedore.* Cenainy. in gauging the evidence presented by Javier, the Court cannatignore the inescapable conclusion that his mere presence at the workplace falls short in proving employment therein. The supporting affidavit could have. to an extent. bolstered Javier's claim of being tasked to dean grocery items wher there were no scheduled delivery trips, but no inforation was offered inthis subject simply because the witness had no personal knowledge of Javier's employment status in the compary, ‘The Court is of the considerable view that on Javier lies the burden to pass the well-settied tests to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, viz: (1) the selection ard engagement of the employee: (2) the payment of wages: (3) fhe power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee's conduct, Of these elements, the most important trllerion is whether the employer convals or has reserved the right 0 eoniral the employee nat only as tothe result ofthe work but also as io the means and methods by which the results to be accomplished.” In this case, Javier was not able to persuade the Court that the above elements exist in hs case. He could not submit competent proof that Fly Ace engaged his services as a regular employee; thal Fly Ace paid his wages as an employee, or that Fly Ace could cictate what his conduct should be while at work In other words, Javier's allegations cid not estabish that his relationship with Fly Ace had the airbutes of an omployer-omployee relaionship on the basis of the above-mentioned four-fold test Worse, Javier was rat able to refute Fly Ace's assertion tna it had an agreement with a hauling eompany to undertake the delvory of is goods. It was also baffling to realize that Javier did not cispute Fly Ace's denial of Fis Services’ exclusivity to the company. In shor, all that Javier laid down were bare allegations without corraboraive proot, Fly Ace does not dispute having contracted Javier and paid him on a per tp" rae as a stovedore, albeit on apakyaw basis. The Court cannot fail 10 rote that Fly Ace presented documentary proof that Javier was indeed paid on a pakyaw basis per the acknowledgment receipts adie as competent evidence by the LA. Unfortunately for Javier, his mere derial af the signatures affixed therein cannot automatically sway us to ignore the documents because “orgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear. positive and corwineing evidenee and the burden of proof ies onthe party alleging forgery.” (One final nate. The Court's decision dows not contradict the settied rule that “payment by the pivce is just a method of ‘compensation and does not define the essence ofthe relation” Payment on a piece-rate basis does not negate regular employment. “The tarm ‘wage’ is broadly defied in Article 97 of the Labor Code as remuneration or earrings, capable of being expressed in tems of money whether fixed or ascertained on a lime, task, piece or commission basis. Payment by the piece is Justa method of compensation and doos not define the essence ofthe relations. Nor does the fact that the petitioner is nat covered by the SSS affect the employer-emplayee relationship. However. in determining whether the relationship is that of ‘employer and employee or one of an independent contractor, each case must be determined on its own facts and all the features of the relaionship are to be considered,