G.R. No.

186621

March 12, 2014

SOUTH EAST INTERNATIONAL RATTAN, INC. and/or ESTANISLAO AGBAY, Petitioners,

vs.
JESUS J. COMING, Respondent.
Facts:

South East International Rattan, Inc. (SEIRI) hired Jesus Coming (Coming) as Sizing Machine Operator. His
compensation was on pakiao basis but later on he was paid weekly.
Coming was dismissed from work after many years of service without lawful cause. He was told that the company is
not doing well and he will be called back to work only if they need his services again. He did not receive any call from
the company almost a year after his termination.
He filed a complaint before the regional arbitration branch.
SEIRI denied existence of employer-employee relationship with Coming and stressed that he was not included in the
list of employees submitted to Social Security System (SSS) and his name does not appear in the payrolls and pay
envelope records.

Issue:
Does employer-employee relationship exist?
Law applicable:

Control Test
Jurisprudence in the case of Tan vs. 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. Otherwise, an employer would be rewarded for
his failure or even neglect to perform his obligation.

Case History

April 30, 2004 - Labor Arbiter ruled that Coming is a regular employee of SEIRI and that the termination of his
employment was illegal.
July 28, 2005 NLRC set aside and vacated Labor Arbiter ruling and dismissed the complaint.
February 21, 2008 Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and ruled that there existed an employer-employee
relationship between petitioners and respondent who was dismissed without just and valid cause.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

Employer-employee relationship exists.
The Court affirmed the control test applied by the Court of Appeals. The SEIRIs control over the work of Coming was manifested
on the following facts:
1. they required him to work within the company premises;
2. they obliged petitioner to report every day of the week and tasked him to usually perform the same job;
3. they enforced the observance of definite hours of work from 8 oclock in the morning to 5 oclock in the afternoon;
4. the mode of payment of petitioners salary was under their discretion, at first paying him on pakiao basis and thereafter,
on daily basis;
5. they implemented company rules and regulations;
6. Agbay directly paid petitioners salaries and controlled all aspects of his employment and
7. Petitioner rendered work necessary and desirable in the business of the respondent company.

Non-reporting of a worker as an employee to the SSS or the fact that Comings name does not appear in the payrolls and
pay envelopes records negate existence of employer-employee relationship.