South East International Rattan, Inc.

vs Coming
G.R. No. 186621, March 12, 2014
VILLARAMA, JR., J.
FACTS: November 3, 2003, JESUS J. COMING (medyo NKKLK yung name) filed a complaint
of illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of holiday pay, 13 th month pay and
service incentive leave pay, with prayer of reinstatement back wages, damages and attorneys
fee. Coming alleged that he was hired by petitioners as Sizing Machine Operator on March 17,
1984. Initially, his compensation was on pakiao basis but sometime in June 1984, it was fixed
at P150.00 per day which was paid weekly.
In 1990, without any apparent reason, his employment was interrupted as he was told by
petitioners to resume work in two months. Being an uneducated person, Coming was persuaded
by the management as well as his brother not to complain, as otherwise petitioners might decide
not to call him back for work. Fearing such consequence, he decided to stay quiet and reported
back to work upon order of the management. However, Coming was dismissed on January 1,
2002 despite being an employee for many years and his work performance never questioned. He
was told that he will be terminated because the company is not doing well financially and the
company will call him if the needed his services again, Coming waited for almost a year but the
petitioners did not call him back for work.
On the other hand, Rattan denied that Coming was their employee since he failed to present a
single payslip, voucher or a copy of the company payroll showing that he rendered service
during the said period. Rattan likewise contends that Comings name does not appear in the list
of the employees reported to the SSS and even his brother attested that Coming had never been
an employee of Rattan (the only connection was that their employer, FAUSTINO APONDAR,
supplies finished rattan products to SEIRI.). Records also reveal that their company was
incorporated only last July 18, 1986, moreover, when they started to actually operate in 1987, the
company was purely engaged on buying and exporting rattan furniture hence no manufacturing
employees were hired. Furthermore, from the last quarter of 1989 up to August of 1992, the
company suspended operations due to economic reverses per certification issued by SEC.
The Labor Arbiter rendered decision in favour of Coming. NLRC revered the decision of the
Labor Arbiter. CA overturned the NLRC decision in favour of Coming. SEIRI now raised the
issue to the SC.
ISSUE: W/N THERE IS AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
COMPANY AND COMG.
RULING: There is an e-e relationship between Coming and SEIRI. In resolving the issue if such
relationship exists, substantial evidence that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion is sufficient. Although no particular form
of evidence is required to prove the existence of the relationship, and any competent and relevant
evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted, a finding that the relationship exists must
nonetheless rest on substantial evidence.

To ascertain the existence of an employeremployee relationship jurisprudence has invariably

adhered to the fourfold test, to wit: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the
payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employees
conduct, or the socalled control test.
In this case, SEIRI denied the relationship by arguing that Coming was not reported as their
employee in SSS and his name does not appear in the payrolls. In Tan v. Lagrama, the Court
held that the fact that a worker was not reported as an employee to the SSS is not conclusive
proof of the absence of employeremployee relationship. Otherwise, an employer would be
rewarded for his failure or even neglect to perform his obligation. Nor does the fact that
respondents name does not appear in the payrolls and pay envelope records submitted by
petitioners negate the existence of employeremployee relationship. For a payroll to be utilized
to disprove the employment of a person, it must contain a true and complete list of the employee.
In this case, the exhibits offered by petitioners before the NLRC consisting of copies of payrolls
and pay earnings records are only for the years 1999 and 2000; they do not cover the entire 18
year period during which respondent supposedly worked for SEIRI.
As to the control test, the following facts indubitably reveal that respondents wielded control
over the work performance of petitioner, to wit: (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 (president and general
manager of SEIRI) 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.
In any controversy between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the
evidence are resolved in favor of the laborer.
As a regular employee, respondent enjoys the right to security of tenure under Article 27942 of
the Labor Code and may only be dismissed for a just or authorized cause, otherwise the dismissal
becomes illegal.