Tiu

vs.
NLRC and de la Cruz
GR No 95845, 21.02.1996
By Richard Troy A. Colmenares
USA College of Law
6/17/14 11:04:10 AM
Nature of the Case
A petition for certiorari seeking reversal of NLRC decision which upheld in toto the decision of labor arbiter.

Facts
Private respondent, a dispatcher, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Petitioner, a land transportation operator, denied private respondent
as his employee, but the labor arbiter ruled the private respondent was an employee of the petitioner, and thus awarded differentials, 13
th

month pay and separation pay. On appeal, NLRC affirmed the labor arbiters decision in toto. Thus, the petition for certiorari citing NLRC for
reckless disregard of the applicable facts and law which amounts to grave abuse of discretion.

Issue(s)
(1). Whether private respondent is an employee petitioner?

Held
(1). Yes.

The petitioners denial that private respondent [de la Cruz] was not his employee for security reasons is countered by the
agreement entered into between private respondents father, Chief Dispatcher, and petitioner. As Chief Dispatcher, de la Cruz
(father) was acting under supervisory powers in behalf of the petitioner, which therefore negates the fact that he is an independent
contractor providing labor only to the petitioner. As Chief Dispatcher, de la Cruz (father) was also tasked in keeping daily time
records (DTR) of the private respondent de la Cruz (son). Private respondent is indeed an employee by petitioner, as correctly
ruled by the labor arbiter and affirmed by the NLRC. The higher court cannot interfere with questions of fact based on substantial
evidence, as the same rule has been satisfied in the lower tribunals.