Title Valencia v.
Classique Vinyl Products Corporation
Citation GR NO 206390
Topic Quantum of evidence and burden of proof
Doctrine
Facts Petitioner Jack C. Valencia filed a complaint against Classique Vinyl Products
Corporation (Classique Vinyl), its owner Johnny Chang, and Cantingas Manpower
Services (CMS) for underpayment of salary, non-payment of benefits, regularization,
moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees with the Labor Arbiter. When he
asked to attend the hearing, Chang allegedly told him not to report to work
anymore, leading Valencia to amend his complaint to include illegal dismissal.
Petitioner Valencia stated in his sworn statement that he initially approached
Classique Vinyl for employment but was directed to CMS, where he signed a contract
and was then deployed back to Classique Vinyl. He worked from 2005 as a felitizer
operator, then as an extruder operator without a salary increase. He claimed non-
payment of benefits, irregularities with statutory deductions, and illegal deductions
by CMS.
Petitioner further averred that he worked for Classique Vinyl for four years until his
dismissal. Hence, by operation of law, he had already attained the status of a regular
employee of his true employer, Classique Vinyl, since according to him, Civ1S is a
mere labor only contractor. Valencia, therefore, argued that Classique Vinyl should
be held guilty of illegal dismissal for failing to comply with the twin-notice
requirement when it dismissed him from the service and be made to pay for his
monetary claims.
Respondent Classique Vinyl denied direct hiring, indicating CMS hired and
occasionally deployed Valencia to them, with duties under CMS’s supervision.
Classique Vinyl also argued there was no employer-employee relationship with
Valencia, and they were exempt from wage orders due to having less than 10
workers.
Respondent Classique Vinyl further contended that Valencia's performance was
exclusively and directly supervised by CMS and that his wages and other benefits
were also paid by the said agency. It likewise denied dismissing Valencia from work
and instead averred that on April 16, 2010, while deployed with Classique Vinyl,
Valencia went on a prolonged absence from work for reasons only known to him.
CMS denied an employer-employee relationship as well, asserting that after
deploying Valencia, they had no further control over him.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case for lack of merit, pointing to CMS’s
documentation indicating a legitimate placement agency, employment
intermittency, and no evidence of illegal dismissal nor underpayment.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) upheld the Labor Arbiter’s
decision, applying the four-fold test, which established CMS as Valencia’s employer.
The Court of Appeals (CA) concurred with the NLRC’s findings, denying Valencia’s
Petition for Certiorari and subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Issue Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship
Ruling No.
Quantum of proof is substantial "It is an oft-repeated rule that in labor cases, as in other administrative and quasi-
evidence or relevant evidence judicial proceedings, 'the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence, or
such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion.'
Burden of proof rests upon who 'The burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an
asserts issue'."[21]
Since it is Valencia here who is claiming to be an employee of Classique Vinyl, it is
thus incumbent upon him to proffer evidence to prove the existence of employer-
employee relationship between them. He "needs to show by substantial evidence
that he was indeed an employee of the company against which he claims illegal
dismissal."
Four-fold test
Corollary, the burden to prove the element of an employer employee
relationship, viz.: (l) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment
of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power of control, lies upon
Valencia.
Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be
admitted."[24]
In this case however, Valencia failed to present competent evidence, documentary
or otherwise, to support his claimed employer employee relationship between him
and Classique Vinyl. All he advanced were mere tactual assertions unsupported by
proof.
In fact, most of Valencia's allegations even militate against his claim that Classique
Vinyl was his true employer. For one, Valencia stated in his Sinumpaang
Salaysay that his application was actually received and processed by CMS which
required him to submit the necessary requirements for employment. Upon
submission thereof, it was CMS that caused him to sign an employment contract,
which upon perusal, is actually a contract between him and CMS. It was only after he
was engaged as a contractual employee of CMS that he was deployed to Classique
Vinyl.
Clearly, Valencia's selection and engagement was undertaken by CMS and
conversely, this negates the existence of such element insofar as Classique Vinyl is
concerned. It bears to state, in addition, that as opposed to Valencia's argument, the
lack of notarization of the said employment contract did not adversely affect its
veracity and effectiveness since significantly, Valencia does not deny having signed
the same
Aside from the afore-mentioned inconsistent allegations of Valencia, his claim that
his work was supervised by Classique Vinyl does not hold water. Again, the Court
finds the same as a self-serving assertion unworthy of credence. On the other hand,
the employment contract which Valencia signed with CMS categorically states that
the latter possessed not only the power of control but also of dismissal over
him, viz.:
2. That the employee shall observe all rules and regulations of the company during
the period of employment and [the] lawful instructions of the management or its
representatives. Failure to do so or if performance is below company standards,
management [has] the right to immediately cancel this contract.
Clearly, therefore, no error can be attributed on the part of the labor tribunals and
the CA in ruling out the existence of employer-employee relationship between
Valencia and Classique Vinyl.
