Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 65 views

    SY Et - Al. Vs CA (Feb 27, 2003)

    Uploaded by

    Novi Mari Noble
    The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that Jaime Sahot was an employee, not an industrial partner, of the petitioners' trucking business. As an employee, Sahot was entitled to separation pay since his dismissal was not valid. The elements of a partnership under Article 1767 of the Civil Code were not present, as Sahot did not contribute money or property to the business, receive profits, or participate in management. The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a question of fact, and the findings of the lower courts were supported by substantial evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    SY Et - Al. Vs CA (Feb 27, 2003)

    Uploaded by

    Novi Mari Noble
    65 views1 page
    The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that Jaime Sahot was an employee, not an industrial partner, of the petitioners' trucking business. As an employee, Sahot was entitled to separation pay since his dismissal was not valid. The elements of a partnership under Article 1767 of the Civil Code were not present, as Sahot did not contribute money or property to the business, receive profits, or participate in management. The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a question of fact, and the findings of the lower courts were supported by substantial evidence.

    Original Title

    7. SY et.al. vs CA (Feb 27, 2003)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that Jaime Sahot was an employee, not an industrial partner, of the petitioners' trucking business. As an employee, Sahot was entitled to separation pay since his dismissal was not valid. The elements of a partnership under Article 1767 of the Civil Code were not present, as Sahot did not contribute money or property to the business, receive profits, or participate in management. The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a question of fact, and the findings of the lower courts were supported by substantial evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    65 views1 page

    SY Et - Al. Vs CA (Feb 27, 2003)

    Uploaded by

    Novi Mari Noble
    The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that Jaime Sahot was an employee, not an industrial partner, of the petitioners' trucking business. As an employee, Sahot was entitled to separation pay since his dismissal was not valid. The elements of a partnership under Article 1767 of the Civil Code were not present, as Sahot did not contribute money or property to the business, receive profits, or participate in management. The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a question of fact, and the findings of the lower courts were supported by substantial evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    VICENTE SY, TRINIDAD PAULINO, 6B'S TRUCKING CORPORATION, and SBT TRUCKING

    CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and JAIME SAHOT, respondents. (Sy v. Court
    of Appeals, G.R. No. 142293, [February 27, 2003], 446 PHIL 404-420)
    FACTS:

     Respondent Sahot started working as a truck helper for petitioners' family-owned trucking
    business and later on became a truck driver of the same family business. Subsequently,
    petitioners dismissed Sahot from work due to his absences as he was suffering from various
    ailments.

     Sahot filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) NCR Arbitration Branch, a
    complaint for illegal dismissal. The NLRC, through the Labor Arbiter, ruled that there was no
    illegal dismissal in Sahot's case. On appeal, the NLRC declared that Sahot was an employee
    who did not abandon his job but his employment was terminated on account of his illness.
    Petitioners assailed the decision of the NLRC before the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed
    with modification the judgment of the NLRC. Hence, the instant petition.
    ISSUE:
    1. W/N respondent Sahot is in partnership with petitioner’s trucking business or there exist an
    employee-employeer relationship. (re
    2. W/N there was a valid dismissal (not related to BusOrg). [No valid dismissal]
    3. W/N Sahot is entitled to separation pay (not related to BusOrg). [Yes. Bcoz there is an
    employee-employer relationship.
    RULING:
    Article 1767 of the Civil Code states that in a contract of partnership two or more persons bind
    themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing
    the profits among themselves. Not one of these circumstances is present in this case. No written
    agreement exists to prove the partnership between the parties. Private respondent did not contribute
    money, property or industry for the purpose of engaging in the supposed business. There is no proof
    that he was receiving a share in the profits as a matter of course, during the period when the trucking
    business was under operation. Neither is there any proof that he had actively participated in the
    management, administration and adoption of policies of the business. Thus, the NLRC and the CA did not
    err in reversing the finding of the Labor Arbiter that private respondent was an industrial partner from
    1958 to 1994.
    The SC affirm the findings of the appellate court and the NLRC. Private respondent Jaime Sahot
    was not an industrial partner but an employee of petitioners from 1958 to 1994. The existence of an
    employer-employee relationship is ultimately a question of fact and the findings thereon by the NLRC, as
    affirmed by the Court of Appeals, deserve not only respect but finality when supported by substantial
    evidence. Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
    accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
    Time and again SC said that "if doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer
    and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter." SC entertains no doubt.
    Private respondent since the beginning was an employee of, not an industrial partner in, the trucking
    business.

    You might also like