South East International Rattan, Inc. vs. J.J. Coming | G.R. No.

186621 | March 12, 2014 | Ponente: Villara-

Nature of Case: Application of four-fold test in ascertaining the existence of employer-employee relationship
Plaintiff(s): South East International Rattan, Inc (SEIRI) and/or Estanislao Agbay
Defendant(s): Jesus J. Coming

SUMMARY: Jesus Coming was dismissed from his job without lawful cause. SEIRI claims that complainant is not employed with them but with their
suppliers, Mayol and Apondar. SEIRI submits evidence that complainant is not reported as an employee to the SSS and that his name does not appear
in the payrolls and pay envelope records to refute respondent’s claims of employment. SC affirms CA’s decision in that the fact that a worker was not
reported as an employee to the SSS is not conclusive proof of the absence of employer-employee relationship nor does the fact that respondent’s name
does not appear in the payrolls and pay envelope records submitted by petitioners negate the existence of employer-employee relationship. Mayol and
Apondar failed to present proof that they were independent contractors. Court ruled that As a regular employee, respondent enjoys the right to security
of tenure under Article 279 of the Labor Code and may only be dismissed for a just or authorized cause, otherwise the dismissal becomes illegal.

FACTS
• Petitioner SEIRI is a domestic cooperation who manufactures and exports furniture
- petitioner Agbay is the President and General Manager of SEIRI
• Respondent Coming filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of holiday pay, 13th
month pay and service incentive leave pay, with prayer for reinstatement, back wages, damages and attorney’s fees
• Coming was hired by SEIRI as Sizing Machine Operator on March 17, 1984
- work schedule is from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m
- compensation was on "pakiao" basis
- in June 1984, it was fixed at P150 per day which was paid weekly
• In 1990, without any apparent reason, his employment was interrupted
- was told by petitioners to resume work in after 2 months
- told by management not to complain, otherwise they might decide not to call him back for work
- resumed work after 2 months upon order of management
• Coming was dismissed on January 1, 2002 without lawful cause
- was told that he will be terminated because the company is not doing well financially; that he would be called back
to work only if they need his services again
• Respondent waited for a year to be called back for work but heard nothing
- when he filed the complaint, company used his brother (Vicente Coming) to persuade him to withdraw the case
• Petitioners:
1. denies having hired respondent
2. SEIRI was incorporated only in 1986
3. Respondent actually worked for SEIRI’s furniture suppliers — Allan Mayol and Faustino Apondar issued nota-
rized certifications that respondent worked for them instead
4. when the company started in 1987 it was engaged in buying and exporting furniture — its business operations
were suspended from the last quarter of 1989 to August 1992
5. respondent’s brother executed an affidavit in support of petitioners’ position
6. claims that Coming was not included in the list of employees submitted to the SSS
• To refute petitioner’s claims of him being not employed under them, Coming submitted an affidavit signed by 5 former
co-workers stating that respondent was one of the pioneer employees who worked in SEIRI for almost 20 years
• Labor Arbiter:
- ruled that respondent is a regular employee of SEIRI and his termination was illegal
- orders SEIRI to pay complainant Coming separation pay, backwages, wage differential, 13th month pay, holiday
pay, service incentive leave pay (total of P171,773)
• NLRC ruled for petitioner SEIRI (set aside Labor Arbiter’s ruling)
- denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration
• Court of Appeals:
- reversed NLRC and ruled that there existed an employer-employee relationship between petitioners and respon-
dent who was dismissed without just and valid cause
- computation of backwagesshould be computed from the time of illegal termination until the finality of this decision
- denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration

ISSUE(S) + RULING
1. WON an employer-employee relationship exists between SEIRI and Coming — YES
1 of 3
• To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship jurisprudence has adhered to the four-fold test:
1. the selection and engagement of the employee
2. the payment of wages
3. the power of dismissal
4. the power to control the employee’s conduct, or the so-called "control test”
- To resolve the issue of whether such relationship exists, substantial evidence (that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion) is sufficient
• Petitioner presented the following evidence:
- payroll and pay records did not include the name of respondent
- affidavit of Ms. Agbay (Treasurer and Humans Resource Officer) stated that after SEIRI started its business in
1986 on export trading, it ceased operations in 1989 as evidenced by Certification from the Securities and Ex-
change Commission (SEC)
- when business resumed in 1992, SEIRI undertook only a little of manufacturing — the company never hired any
workers for varnishing and pole sizing because it bought the same from various suppliers, including Faustino
Apondar
- respondent was never hired by SEIRI
- Mr. Estanislao Agbay, company President, never dispensed the salaries of workers
• Vicente Coming testified that:
- both he and his brother worked for Mayol and then Apondar
- respondent was working on and off basis — he worked at his pleasure
• respondent submitted the affidavits 5 people who all attested that respondent was their co-worker at SEIRI
• Labor Arbiter (ruled for respondent):
1. respondent’s work as sizing machine operator is usually necessary and desirable to the rattan furniture busi-
ness of petitioners
2. failure to include respondent in the employment report to SSS is not conclusive proof that respondent is not
their employee
3. Faustino Apondar (a supplier of SEIRI and likewise claims that the Coming brothers worked for him) is not an
independent contractor who has a contractual relationship with petitioners
• NLRC (reversed Labor Arbier, ruled for petitioner):
1. complainant alleged that he worked continuously during 1984-2002; records reveal SEIRI was only incorpo-
rated last July 18, 1986
2. when SEIRI commenced operations it was engaged purely on "buying and exporting rattan furniture" hence
no manufacturing employees were hired
3. complainant failed to present a single payslip, voucher or a copy of a company payroll showing that he ren-
dered service during the period indicated therein
4. appears that complainant first worked with Allan Mayol and later with Faustino Apondar
5. in addition, complainant was not an employee of SEIRI based on the following:
• complainant’s name does not appear in the list of employees reported to the SSS
• his name does not also appear in the sample payrolls of respondents’ employees
• certification of Allan Mayol and Fasutino Apondar, supplier of finished rattan products, that complainant had
at one time or another worked with them
• affidavit of Vicente Coming, complainant’s full brother, attesting that complainant had never been an em-
ployee of respondent
• Court of Appeals (ruled for respondent):
1. the payrolls submitted were only from 1999 to 2000 and not the entire period of 18 years when respondent
claimed he worked for SEIRI
2. as to the "control test", the following facts reveal that respondents wielded control over the work performance
of petitioner
• they required him to work within the company premises
• they obliged petitioner to report every day of the week and tasked him to usually perform the same job
• they enforced the observance of definite hours of work from 8 in the morning to 5 in the afternoon
• the mode of payment of petitioner’s salary was under their discretion, at first paying him on pakiao basis
and thereafter, on daily basis
• they implemented company rules and regulations

2 of 3
 • Agbay (SEIRI’s president) directly paid petitioner’s salaries and controlled all aspects of his employment
• petitioner rendered work necessary and desirable in the business of the respondent company
• SC affirms CA
1. Tan v. Lagrama
- the fact that a worker was not reported as an employee to the SSS is not conclusive proof of the
absence of employer-employee relationship nor does the fact that respondent’s name does not
appear in the payrolls and pay envelope records submitted by petitioners negate the existence of
employer-employee relationship
- for a payroll to be utilized to disprove the employment of a person, it must contain a true and complete list
of the employee
• in the case at bar, petitioners presented before the NLRC copies of payrolls and pay earnings records
only for the years 1999 and 2000 — they do not cover the entire 18-year period during which respon-
dent supposedly worked for SEIRI
2. Even assuming that respondent worked for Mayol and Apondar, still, it cannot dispute respondent’s claim that
he is a regular or full-time employmee of SEIRI
- a reading of the certification by Mayol would show that while the latter claims to have respondent under
his employ in 1997, 1998 and 1999, respondent’s services were not regular and that he works only if he
wants to
- Apondar’s certification likewise stated that respondent worked for him since 1999 through his brother Vi-
cente as "sideline" but only after regular working hours and "off and on" basis
- no competent proof was presented to show that Mayol and Apondar were independent contractors
3. No proof was presented that the 5 former employees of SEIRI were motivated by malice, bad faith or any ill-
motive in executing their affidavit supporting the claims of respondent
4. In any controversy between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence
are resolved in favor of the laborer
5. As a regular employee, respondent enjoys the right to security of tenure under Article 279 of the Labor
Code and may only be dismissed for a just or authorized cause, otherwise the dismissal becomes illegal
• CONCLUSION: respondent was terminated without valid cause by petitioners
- entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full back wages, inclusive of
allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time his compensation was with-
held from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement
- where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, back wages shall be computed from the time of the illegal
termination up to the finality of the decision
• separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service should be awarded as an alternative
in case reinstatement in not possible

Petition for review on certiorari is DENIED.

3 of 3