Jao vs. BCC Products Sales Inc.

G.R. No. 163700, April 18, 2012

Facts:
Charlie Jao filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against BCC Product Sales Inc. (BCC). He
maintains that the company and its president, Terrance Ty, employed him as comptroller with a
monthly salary of P20,000. He alleges that on the very same year he was hired, he was barred
by the security guards at the instruction of Ty from entering the premises of BCC after being
accused of illegally appropriating some checks.
BCC countered that Jao was not their employee but the employee of Sobien Food Corporation
(SFC), the major creditor and supplier of BCC. SFC had posted him as its comptroller in BCC to
oversee BCC's finances and business operations and to look after SFC's interests or
investments in BCC.
Although Labor Arbiter Pati ruled in favor of petitioner, the NLRC vacated the ruling and
remanded the case for further proceedings. Thereafter, Labor Arbiter Mayor rendered a new
decision dismissing petitioner's complaint for want of an employer-employee relationship
between the parties. Jao appealed the decision of Labor Arbiter Mayor, and the NLRC rendered
a decision reversing Labor Arbiter Mayor's decision, and declaring that petitioner had been
illegally dismissed.
BCC assailed the NLRC decision on certiorari in the CA. CA ruled that no employer-employee
relationship existed between BCC and Jao. Applying the four-fold test, it found that all the four
elements were absent. There was no proof that Jao's services was engaged by the company.
He was not included in BCC's payroll during the time of his alleged employment. And records
reveal that BCC did not exercise the power of control over Jao. It did not prescribe the manner
by which the work is to be carried out or time by which the private respondents has to report for
and leave from work.
Jao filed a petition for certiorari before the SC.
Issue:
WON an employer-employee relationship existed between Jao and BCC.
Ruling:
No, as their relationship fails to pass the four-fold-test.
In determining the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship, the Court has
consistently looked for the following incidents, to wit:
(a) the selection and engagement of the employee;
(b) the payment of wages;
(c) the power of dismissal; and
(d) the employer's power to control the employee on the means and methods by which
the work is accomplished.
The last element, the so-called control test, is the most important element.
An affidavit, executed by Jao himself to refute Ty's allegations that he had illegally delivered
some 158 checks to SFC without authority from BCC, was presented by BCC as proof. In the
said affidavit, Jao pointed to the existing arrangements between BCC and SFC. It is clear that
BCC did not exercise the power of control over him, because he acted for the benefit and in the
interest of SFC more than BCC.
In addition, petitioner presented no document setting forth the terms of his employment by BCC.
The failure to present such agreement on terms of employment may have been understandable
and expected if he was a common or ordinary laborer who would not jeopardize his employment
by demanding such document from the employer. But it does not square well with his actual
status as a highly educated professional.
CA's decision is affirmed.