Labor Relations: Cases
Tenezas
Continuation of facts
The respondents admitted that tenezas and endraca were employees the former being a regular driver and the latter being the spare driver but denied the employment of Francisco
Tenezas not terminated-overhaul but did not report to work
Endraca stopped reporting to work and therefore cannot be terminated
LA- Francisco failed to present sufficient evidence to prove regulat employment such as company ID, SSS mem and not considered as an employee. Ten and End could not be dismissed since there was no overt act of dismissal committed by the respondents
NLRC- reversed the ruling and premised the conclusion on the additional pieces of evidence belatedly submitted by petitioners
CA- held that there was an illegal dismissal on the part of tenazas and enraca but not with francisci because he failed to prove that he was an employee of the respondents
Issue: Ee rel
Held:
There is no hard and fast rule to establish the elements for EE rel, in this case however, Francisco failed to present substantial evidence to establish the EE rel. He failed to present documentary evidence and testimonial evidence showing the respondents exercise control over the means and methods of his work. A mere position paper that indicates that he is an employee in not tantamount to evidence
Illegally dismissed-two reliefs 1. Backwages, 2. Reinstatement
Citibank vs CA
Facts:
Citibank and el toro security agency (el toro) entered into contract for the latter to provide security to the premises of the bank. Citibank renews the contract evry year. However on 1990 the bank notified EL toro that the bank would not renew anymore the service agreement and instead hired another security agency (golden pyramid security agency). On same date, El toro notified the bank of strike if the parties do not reach a settlement of the issues filed in NCMB. Thereafter, the former security guards loitered around the bank and so the bank filed with RTC a complaint enjoining CIGLA
Continuation of facts
The respondents admitted that tenezas and endraca were employees the former being a regular driver and the latter being the spare driver but denied the employment of Francisco
Tenezas not terminated-overhaul but did not report to work
Endraca stopped reporting to work and therefore cannot be terminated
LA- Francisco failed to present sufficient evidence to prove regulat employment such as company ID, SSS mem and not considered as an employee. Ten and End could not be dismissed since there was no overt act of dismissal committed by the respondents
NLRC- reversed the ruling and premised the conclusion on the additional pieces of evidence belatedly submitted by petitioners
CA- held that there was an illegal dismissal on the part of tenazas and enraca but not with francisci because he failed to prove that he was an employee of the respondents
Issue: Ee rel
Held:
There is no hard and fast rule to establish the elements for EE rel, in this case however, Francisco failed to present substantial evidence to establish the EE rel. He failed to present documentary evidence and testimonial evidence showing the respondents exercise control over the means and methods of his work. A mere position paper that indicates that he is an employee in not tantamount to evidence
Illegally dismissed-two reliefs 1. Backwages, 2. Reinstatement
Citibank vs CA
Facts:
Citibank and el toro security agency (el toro) entered into contract for the latter to provide security to the premises of the bank. Citibank renews the contract evry year. However on 1990 the bank notified EL toro that the bank would not renew anymore the service agreement and instead hired another security agency (golden pyramid security agency). On same date, El toro notified the bank of strike if the parties do not reach a settlement of the issues filed in NCMB. Thereafter, the former security guards loitered around the bank and so the bank filed with RTC a complaint enjoining CIGLA