Reyes v. Glaucoma Research Foundation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Jesus G. Reyes filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents Glaucoma Research Foundation, Inc., Eye Referral Center (ERC), and Manuel B. Agulto. Reyes alleged that he was hired as administrator of the ERC on August 1, 2003, and was paid a monthly salary of P20,000.00 until January 2005. He claimed his salary was withheld starting February 2005, and he was subsequently informed on April 21, 2005, that he was no longer the Administrator, with his office being padlocked without notice. Respondents, however, contended that Reyes was engaged as a consultant to formulate an organizational structure and employee manual. They asserted that Reyes designated himself as administrator on a trial basis and that no employer-employee relationship existed because they lacked control over his working hours and the manner of his work. They also claimed Reyes became overbearing, leading to complaints, and that he voluntarily severed his ties with them. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Reyes's complaint, finding that he failed to establish an employer-employee relationship, noting his lack of proof of appointment as administrator, his concurrent consultancy roles, and the absence of control over his work and working hours. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA's decision, declaring Reyes an employee who was illegally dismissed and ordering reinstatement with backwages. The NLRC found that respondents failed to prove the dismissal was for cause and that due process was observed. Respondents' motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA annulled the NLRC's decision and reinstated the LA's ruling, holding that no employer-employee relationship existed based on the control test and economic reality test. The CA denied Reyes's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner Jesus G. Reyes filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the CA's decision. He raised two grounds: first, that the CA erred in not dismissing respondents' petition for certiorari due to a defective verification, arguing that a community tax certificate is not competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Second, he argued that the CA erred in ruling that no employer-employee relationship existed between him and the respondents, asserting that the evidence on record supported such a relationship.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing respondents' petition for certiorari due to a defective verification. Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondents.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the defective verification: The Court held that the CA did not err in not dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of a defective verification. The Court reiterated its ruling that competent evidence of identity is not required if the affiant is personally known to the notary public. In this case, the attorney-in-fact of the respondents, who executed the verification, was personally known to the notary public, as they both held office at the respondents' place of business and the notary public was also the legal counsel of the respondents. The Court emphasized that the disjunctive "or" in the rules allows for personal knowledge as an alternative to competent evidence of identity. Furthermore, even if there was a procedural lapse, the Court stressed that procedural rules should not impair the proper administration of justice and that litigations should be decided on the merits rather than on technicalities, citing previous cases where minor defects were overlooked in the interest of justice. On the existence of an employer-employee relationship: The Court found no employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondents, affirming the CA's ruling. The Court reiterated the four-element test: manner of selection and engagement, mode of payment of wages, power of dismissal, and power of control, with the control test being the most determinative. The Court agreed with the CA that respondents' power to approve or reject petitioner's organizational plans did not constitute control over the manner and means of his work, only the end result. Petitioner was not subject to definite working hours and performed his job at his pleasure, as evidenced by his unapproved leave and his letter informing respondents of his absence and suggesting a replacement. The economic reality test also showed petitioner was not wholly dependent on respondents, as he concurrently held consultancy positions with other government agencies. The alleged pay slips lacked deductions for SSS and withholding tax, and payments were sometimes labeled as allowances, not salaries. Affidavits from corporate officers, though hearsay, were given evidentiary value and corroborated other evidence showing lack of control and definite working hours. Petitioner's designation as administrator did not, by itself, establish an employer-employee relationship.
Main Doctrine
The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by the presence of the four elements: (1) the manner of selection and engagement; (2) the mode of payment of wages; (3) the presence or absence of the power of dismissal; and (4) the presence or absence of the power of control. The control test is the most determinative. Furthermore, the validity of a verification in a petition for certiorari is not impaired if the affiant is personally known to the notary public, even if the identification presented is not among those listed as competent evidence of identity.