15. Jimenez, at al. vs.

NLRC and Juanatas

G.R. No. 116960, 2 April 1996
!" am #edina
$AC%&"
Petition for certiorari assailing the decision of NLRC which denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration.
The private respondents Juantas (father and son) filed a claim for unpaid wagescommissions! separation pa" and damages against JJ s
Truc#ing andor $r. %ernardo Jimene&.
The Juantas allege that the" were hired '" herein petitioner %ernardo Jimene& as driver! mechanic and helper! respectivel"! in his truc#ing
firm! JJ Truc#ing. The" were assigned to a ten(wheeler truc# to haul soft drin#s of Coca(Cola %ottling Compan" and paid on commission
'asis! initiall" fi)ed at *+, 'ut later increased to -.,. The" further allege that the" onl" receive partial commissions and that there was an
unpaid 'alance when the" were un/ustl" terminated.
Petitioners contend that that respondent 0redelito Juanatas was not an emplo"ee of the firm 'ut was merel" a helper of his father Pedro
and that all commissions were dull" paid and that the truc# driven '" respondent Pedro Juanatas was sold to one 1inston 0lores in *22*
and! therefore! private respondents were not illegall" dismissed.
L3%4R 3R%5T6R
o ordering respondents JJs Truc#ing andor $r. %ernardo Jimene& to pa" /ointl" and severall" complainant Pedro Juanatas (father)
a separation pa" of 050T66N T74893N$ 050T: (P*;!.;....) P6949! plus attorne"s fee e<uivalent to ten percent (*.,) of
the award.
o The complaint of 0redelito Juanatas (son) is here'" dismissed for lac# of merit.
NLRC = modified the decision of the La'or 3r'iter
o 0redelito Juanatas is here'" declared respondents emplo"ee and shares in (the) commission and separation pa" awarded to
complainant Pedro Juanatas! his father.
o Respondent JJs Truc#ing and $r. %ernardo Jimene& are /ointl" and severall" lia'le to pa" complainants their unpaid
commissions in the total amount of 6ight" 0our Thousand Three 7undred 6ight" 9even Pesos and .;*.. (P>?!@>+..;).
o The award of attorne"s fees is reduced accordingl" to eight thousand four hundred thirt" eight pesos and +.*.. (P>!?@>.+.).
'&&()&"
1. 1hether or not 0redelito Juantas is an emplo"ee of JJs Truc#ing
2. 1hether or not there was a grave a'use of discretion on the part of NLRC
3. 1hether or not the private respondents were not paid their commissions in full (5AP4RT3NT 59986)
*)L+,RA%'-"
1. No! 0redelito is not an emplo"ee 'ecause his case does not fall under the four fold test
2. NLRC erred in holding that the son! 0redelito! was an emplo"ee of petitioners.
3. :69! right of respondent Pedro Juanatas to 'e paid a commission e<uivalent to *+,! later increased to -.,! of the gross income is not
disputed '" petitioners.
a. private respondents admit receipt of partial pa"ment 'ut the petitioners still have to present proof of full pa"ment! in the case the
petitioners have the 'urden of proving such full pa"ment 'ut the petitioners failed to do so.
'. The petitioners merel" su'mitted a note'oo# showing the alleged vales of private respondents for the "ear *22.!*; the same is
inadmissi'le and cannot 'e given pro'ative value considering that it is not properl" accomplished! is undated and unsigned! and
is thus uncertain as to its origin and authenticit"
J(+G#)N%"
$ecision of NLRC affirmed with a modification that 0redelito Juantas is N4T an emplo"ee of the petitioners.