8/10/2019 Labor 4 Cases

1/3

1. Bitoy Javier vs. Fly Ace Corp./Flordelyn Castillo, G.R.

No. 192558, Fe. 15, 2!12

PETITIONER Bitoy Javier alleged that he was an employee of

respondent Fly Ace orp!" performing vario#s tas$s at its

wareho#se s#ch as cleaning and arranging the canned items%efore their delivery to certain locations" e&cept in instances

when he wo#ld %e ordered to accompany the company's

delivery vehicles as pahinante! To s#pport his claim" Javier

add#ced no other evidence e&cept an affidavit e&ec#ted %y oneBengie (alen)#ela" who only attested that he wo#ld fre*#ently

see Javier at the wor$place where he was also hired as

stevedore! +oes Javier's evidence s#ffice to esta%lish

employer,employee relationship %etween Fly Ace and him-

R#ling. No!

E&pectedly" opposing parties wo#ld stand poles apart and

proffer allegations as different as chal$ and cheese! It is"therefore" inc#m%ent #pon the o#rt to determine whether the

party on whom the %#rden to prove lies was a%le to h#rdle the

same! /No partic#lar form of evidence is re*#ired to prove the

e&istence of s#ch employer,employee relationship! Any

competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may%e admitted! 0ence" while no partic#lar form of evidence is

re*#ired" a finding that s#ch relationship e&ists m#st still rest

on some s#%stantial evidence! 1oreover" the s#%stantiality ofthe evidence depends on its *#antitative as well as its

*#alitative aspects!2 Altho#gh s#%stantial evidence is not a

f#nction of *#antity %#t rather of *#ality" the & & &

circ#mstances of the instant case demand that something moresho#ld have %een proffered! 0ad there %een other proofs of

employment" s#ch as & & & incl#sion in petitioner's payroll" or

a clear e&ercise of control" the o#rt wo#ld have affirmed the

finding of employer,employee relationship!2

In s#m" the r#le of th#m% remains. the on#s pro%andi falls onpetitioner to esta%lish or s#%stantiate s#ch claim %y the

re*#isite *#ant#m of evidence! /3hoever claims entitlement

to the %enefits provided %y law sho#ld esta%lish his or her

right thereto & & &!2

In this case" the la%or ar%iter and the o#rt of Appeals 4A5

%oth concl#ded that Javier failed to esta%lish his employmentwith Fly Ace! All that Javier presented were his self,serving

statements p#rportedly showing his activities as an employee

of Fly Ace! 0e failed to pass the s#%stantiality re*#irement to

s#pport his claim! 0ence" the o#rt sees no reason to departfrom the findings of the A!

3hile Javier remains firm in his position that as an employedstevedore of Fly Ace" he was made to wor$ in the company

premises d#ring wee$days arranging and cleaning grocery

items for delivery to clients" no other proof was s#%mitted!

The lone affidavit e&ec#ted %y one Bengie (alen)#ela was#ns#ccessf#l in strengthening Javier's ca#se! All (alen)#ela

attested to was that he wo#ld fre*#ently see Javier at the

wor$place where the latter was also hired as stevedore! Tthe

o#rt cannot ignore the inescapa%le concl#sion that Javier'smere presence at the wor$place falls short in proving

employment therein! The affidavit co#ld have %olstered

Javier's claim of %eing tas$ed to clean grocery items when

there were no sched#led delivery trips" %#t no information was

offered simply %eca#se the witness had no personal

$nowledge of Javier's employment stat#s! The o#rt cannotaccept Javier's statements" hoo$" line and sin$er!

2. "i#ca$lan vs. %ec$rity and Credit

anoy and Pigca#lan were %oth employed %y 6II as sec#rity

g#ards and were assigned to 6II's different clients!6#%se*#ently" however" anoy and Pigca#lan filed with the

7a%or Ar%iter separate complaints89: for #nderpayment ofsalaries and non,payment of overtime" holiday" rest day"

service incentive leave and ;that the salaries they received were a%ove the stat#toryminim#m wage and the rates provided %y the Philippine

Association of +etective and Protective Agency Operators

4PA+PAO5 for sec#rity g#ards> that their holiday pay were

already incl#ded in the comp#tation of their monthly salaries>that they were paid additional premi#m of

8/10/2019 Labor 4 Cases

2/3

0enrichsen informing him that his employment had %een

terminated for the reason that PIJ and PPI had not %een

s#ccessf#l in the water and sanitation sector in the Philippines!Respondent filed with PPI several money claims! PPI partially

settled some of his claims" %#t ref#sed to pay the rest!

Respondent filed a omplaint for Illegal +ismissal! Petitioners

aver that since respondent is a anadian citi)en" the A erredin ignoring their claim that the principles of for#m non

conveniens and le& loci contract#s are applica%le! They also

point o#t that the contract of employment of respondent was

e&ec#ted in To$yo! 1oreover" #nder 6ection ; of the eneral

onditions for Employment incorporated in respondent's letter

of employment" the disp#te %etween respondent and PIJ

sho#ld %e settled %y the co#rt of ar%itration of 7ondon!Petitioners insist that the !6! 7a%or,1anagement Act applies

only to !6! wor$ers and employers" while the 7a%or ode

applies only to Filipino employers and Philippine,%ased

employers and their employees" not to PIJ!

In fine" the =#risdictions of the N7R and 7a%or Ar%iter do

not e&tend to foreign wor$ers who e&ec#ted employmentagreements with foreign employers a%road" altho#gh

GsecondedG to the Philippines! 6. The petition is denied forlac$ of merit! The settled r#le on stip#lations regarding ven#e"

as held %y this o#rt in the vintage case of Philippine Ban$ingorporation v! Tens#an" is that while they are considered valid

and enforcea%le" ven#e stip#lations in a contract do not" as a

r#le" s#persede the general r#le set forth in R#le H of the

Revised R#les of o#rt in the a%sence of *#alifying orrestrictive words! They sho#ld %e considered merely as an

agreement or additional for#m" not as limiting ven#e to the

specified place! They are not e&cl#sive %#t" rather permissive!

If the intention of the parties were to restrict ven#e" there m#st%e accompanying lang#age clearly and categorically

e&pressing their p#rpose and design that actions %etween them

%e litigated only at the place named %y them!

Petitioners' insistence on the application of the principle of

for#m non conveniens m#st %e re=ected! The %are fact that

respondent is a anadian citi)en and was a repatriate does not

warrant the application of the principle for the followingreasons. First! The 7a%or ode of the Philippines does not

incl#de for#m non conveniens as a gro#nd for the dismissal of

the complaint! 6econd! The propriety of dismissing a case

%ased on this principle re*#ires a fact#al determination> hence"it is properly considered as defense! Third! In Ban$ of

America" NT6A" Ban$ of America International" 7td! v!

o#rt of Appeals" this o#rt held that. 8a: Philippine o#rt

may ass#me =#risdiction over the case if it chooses to do so>

provided" that the following re*#isites are met. 4;5 that thePhilippine o#rt is one to which the parties may conveniently

resort to> 45 that the Philippine o#rt is in a position to ma$e

an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts> and" 4

8/10/2019 Labor 4 Cases

3/3

On appeal to the N7R" respondents raised the iss#e

of employer,employee relationship and s#%mitted the

following to prove the e&istence of s#ch relationship" to wit.time cards" identification cards" payroll" a show ca#se order of

the station manager to respondent +anny O%erio and

memoranda either noted or iss#ed %y said manager! Petitioner"

on the other hand" did not present any doc#mentary evidencein its %ehalf and merely denied the allegations of

respondents! It claimed that the radio station pays for the

drama recorded %y piece and that it has no control over the

cond#ct of respondents! The N7R rendered a decisionholding that respondents were reg#lar employees of petitioner

who were illegally dismissed %y the latter!

0E7+.

Finally" we find that respondents were illegally dismissed! Inla%or cases" the employer has the %#rden of proving that the

dismissal was for a =#st ca#se> fail#re to show this wo#ld

necessarily mean that the dismissal was #n=#stified and"

therefore" illegal! To allow an employer to dismiss anemployee %ased on mere allegations and generalities wo#ld

place the employee at the mercy of his employer> and the right

to sec#rity of ten#re" which this o#rt is %o#nd to protect"

wo#ld %e #nd#ly emasc#lated!8H: In this case" petitioner

merely contended that it was respondents who ceased to reportto wor$" and never presented any s#%stantial evidence to

s#pport said allegation! Petitioner therefore failed to discharge

its %#rden" hence" respondents were correctly declared to have%een illegally dismissed!

F#rthermore" if do#%ts e&ist %etween the evidence

presented %y the employer and the employee" the scales of=#stice m#st %e tilted in favor of the latter the employer m#st

affirmatively show rationally ade*#ate evidence that the

dismissal was for a =#stifia%le ca#se!

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/168424.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/168424.htm#_ftn24