Scribd
Upload
989 views

MARSMAN & COMPANY, INC. v. RODIL C. STA. RITA

1) Marsman originally employed Sta. Rita but later integrated its employees and transferred them to its subsidiary CPDSI. 2) CPDSI then contracted with EAC to provide warehousemen, including appointing Sta. Rita, but EAC's contract was later terminated, leaving CPDSI no choice but to terminate Sta. Rita. 3) Sta. Rita filed a case for illegal dismissal against Marsman but failed to prove an employer-employee relationship existed between them, as Marsman had transferred its employees and obligations to CPDSI after integrating the companies. The case was therefore dismissed.

Uploaded by

Lara Cacal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
989 views

MARSMAN & COMPANY, INC. v. RODIL C. STA. RITA

1) Marsman originally employed Sta. Rita but later integrated its employees and transferred them to its subsidiary CPDSI. 2) CPDSI then contracted with EAC to provide warehousemen, including appointing Sta. Rita, but EAC's contract was later terminated, leaving CPDSI no choice but to terminate Sta. Rita. 3) Sta. Rita filed a case for illegal dismissal against Marsman but failed to prove an employer-employee relationship existed between them, as Marsman had transferred its employees and obligations to CPDSI after integrating the companies. The case was therefore dismissed.

Uploaded by

Lara Cacal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

194765, April 23, 2018


MARSMAN & COMPANY, INC. v. RODIL C. STA. RITA

FACTS:
Marsman was a regular employee of Marsman, a domestic company formerly
engaged in the business of distribution and sale of pharmaceutical and consumer
products. Later, Sta. Rita joined Marsman Employees Union (MEU), the recognized sole
and exclusive bargaining representative of Marsman's employees. Subsequently,
Marsman purchased Metro Drug, a company that was also engaged in the distribution
and sale of pharmaceutical and consumer products. The similarity in Marsman's and
Metro Drug's business led to the integration of their employees which was formalized in
a Memorandum of Agreement. Concomitant to the integration of employees is the
transfer of all office, sales and warehouse personnel of Marsman to Metro Drug and the
latter's assumption of obligation with regard to the affected employees' labor contracts
and CBA. The integration and transfer of employees ensued out of the transitions of
Marsman and CPDSI into, respectively, a holding company and an operating company.
Thereafter, Metro Drug changed its name to "Consumer Products Distribution Services,
Inc." (CPDSI).

In the meantime, CPDSI contracted its logistic services to EAC Distributors


(EAC). CPDSI and EAC agreed that CPDSI would provide warehousemen to EAC's
tobacco business which operated in EAC-Libis Warehouse. A letter issued by Marsman
confirmed Sta. Rita's appointment as one of the warehousemen for EAC-Libis
Warehouse. Parenthetically, EAC's use of the EAC-Libis Warehouse was dependent
upon the lease contract between EAC and Valiant Distribution (Valiant), owner of the
EAC-Libis Warehouse. Hence, EAC's operations were affected when Valiant decided to
terminate their contract of lease. This sequence of events left CPDSI with no other
option but to terminate the employment of those assigned to EAC-Libis Warehouse,
including Sta. Rita. CPDSI notified Sta. Rita that he was terminated due to redundancy.
Aggrieved, Sta. Rita filed an action for illegal dismissal against Marsman.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship between Marsman
and Sta. Rita.

RULING:
None. Settled is the tenet that allegations in the complaint must be duly proven
by competent evidence and the burden of proof is on the party making the allegation. In
an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that its
dismissal of an employee was for a valid cause. However, before a case for illegal
dismissal can prosper, an employer-employee relationship must first be established. In
this instance, it was incumbent upon Sta. Rita as the complainant to prove the
employer-employee relationship by substantial evidence. Unfortunately, Sta. Rita failed
to discharge the burden to prove his allegations.
In this case, Marsman hired Sta. Rita as a warehouseman when it was still
engaged in the business of distribution and sale of pharmaceutical and consumer
products. Marsman paid Sta. Rita's wages and controlled his warehouse assignments,
acts which can only be attributed to a bona fide employer. Marsman thereafter
purchased Metro Drug, now CPDSI, which at that time, was engaged in a similar
business. Marsman then entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with MEU, its
bargaining representative, integrating its employees with CPDSI and transferring its
employees, their respective employment contracts and the attendant employment
obligation to CPDSI. The planned integration was then carried out sometime in 1996, as
admitted by Sta. Rita in his pleading. Thus, there being no employer-employee
relationship, the case was dismissed.

You might also like