BERNARD TENAZAS v. R. VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT G.R. No.

192998 02 APRIL 2014

FACTS:

Bernard Tenazas, Jaime Francisco, and Isidro Endraca filed a co mp laint for illegal dismissal against R.
Villegas Taxi Transport, and/or Ro mualdo Villegas and And y Villegas.

PETITIONERS CLAIM

TENAZAS - Taxi unit was sideswiped by another vehicle (damage = P500); fired after reporting the incident, even threatened w/
physical harm if he was seen on company premises.
FRANCISCO - Dismissed because of the unfounded suspicion that he was organizing a labor union
EDRACA Dismissed after falling short of the required boundary for his taxi unit; fell short because of P700 spent on an urgent
repair

R. VILLEGAS TAXIS CLAIM

TENAZAS - Company admits that Tenazas is an employee regular driver. Tenazas was never terminated; he failed to report back
to work after being told to wait for the release of his taxi (overhauled due to mechanical defects)

FRANCISCO - Company denies that Francisco is an employee

ENDRACA - Company admits that Endraca is an employee spare driver . Endraca could not have been terminated in March 2006
because he stopped reporting for work in July 2003 (but willing to accommodate him again as he was never really dismissed)

Tenazas, Francisco, and Endraca also filed a Motion to Ad mit Additio nal Evidence:
(a) Joint Affidavit of the petitioners;
(b) Affidavit of Good Faith of Aloney Rivera (co-driver);
(c) pictures of the petitio ners wearing co mpany shirts;
(d) Tenazas Certificatio n/Record of Social Security System (SSS) contrib utio ns.

LA: No illegal dismissal because no proof of an o vert act o f dismissal co mmitted b y R. Villegas Taxi;
Francisco failed to prove he was an emplo yee

NLRC: Reversed LA; the additional e vidence sufficiently established the existence of emplo yer -emplo yee
relationship and illegal dismissal ( for all three)

CA: Tenazas and Endraca were indeed emp lo yees and were illegally dismissed, but Francisco failed to
establish his relatio nship with the co mpany

ISSUES: there was an emplo yer -emplo yee relationship (re: Francisco) NO

HELD:

The burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. As Francisco was claiming to
be an emplo yee o f R. Villegas Taxi, it is incumbent upon him to proffer evidence to prove the existence of the
relationship.

There is no hard and fast rule to establish the elements o f emplo yer -emplo yee relatio nship. Any competent and
relevant evidence may be admitted, e.g., identification cards, cash vouchers, social security registration, appointment
letters or emp lo yment co ntracts, payrolls, organization charts, personnel lists.
Francisco failed to present sub stantial evidence to establish the relationship. No documentary evidence
sub mitted, like an attendance lo gbook, payroll, SSS record, or any perso nnel file that depicts his status as an
emplo yee. He could also have at least presented his social security records stating his co ntrib utio ns, name and
address of emplo yer ( which Tenazas presented). Another taxi operator, Emmanuel Villegas, also claimed to be
his emplo yer a fact not denied or questioned b y Francisco in any o f his p leadings. Petition DENIED. SC
agreed with CAs order of reinstatement instead of separation pay. (*Strained relatio ns mu st be demonstrated
as a fact. In this case, no facts demo nstrated that the relatio ns were so strained as to make reinstatement no
longer a feasible optio n.)