Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 98368. December 15, 1993.

P- Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage

R- NLRC, Manuel Esita

Employer-Employee Relationship; Conditions of Employment

Facts:
            In 1980, Manuel Esita was hired as a compressor operator-mechanic for the ice plants of Dr. Melchor Opulencia for a daily wage of P35.00. In 1989, he was dismissed from service because of demanding the correct amount of wages due him. So, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment, non-payment for overtime, legal holiday, premium for holiday and rest day, 13th month, separation/retirement pay and allowances against Dr. Opulencia.

            The LA declared the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties, and directed Opulencia to pay Esita his claims, except for overtime pay due to lack of basis. The NLRC affirmed the ruling but reduced the amount.

            Opulencia denied that Esita was an employee because he was merely a helper/peon of one of the contractors who did major repairs and renovation of the Tanauan ice plant. Thus, Esita’s work could not have ripened into a regular employment.

Issue:

            WoN there is no employer-employee relationship between them.

Ruling:

            No, the employer-employee relationship between the parties was clearly established.

            Moreover, no particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted.

            Furthermore, the circumstance that Esita’s presence would be required only when there was need for repair cannot affect the regular status of his employment. An employee who is required to remain on call in the employer’s premises or so close thereto that he cannot use the time effectively and gainfully for his own purpose shall be considered as working while on call.

            In sum, the determination of regular and casual employment is not affected by the fact that the employee’s regular presence in the place of work is not required, the more significant consideration being that the work of the employee is usually necessary or desirable in the business of the employer.

            Thus, the petition is denied.