Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Sy v CA

FACTS:
Private respondent, Jaime Sahot, has been a truck driver for herein Petitioners trucking business
for 36 years. Sahot, at age 59, incurred absences because of his various ailments which gravely
affects his job. Moreover, he could not obtain medical and retirement benefits because his
premium payments had not been remitted by his employer. And, on the other hand, his employers
are threatening to terminate his employment if he stopped working.
Thus, after Sahots leave, the petitioners dismissed him from work due to his inability to work.
This paved way to Sahots filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter.
The Labor Arbiter, ruled that there was no illegal dismissal since they regarded as were industrial
partners. Upon appeal to the NLRC however, it declared that private respondent was an
employee, not an industrial partner, since the start. The CA affirmed the NLRCs decision thus
rendering this case before the SC.
PETITIONERS CONTENTION:
Petitioners invoke the decision of the Labor Arbiter which found that respondent Sahot was not
an employee but was in fact, petitioners industrial partner.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
Private respondent, on the other hand, insists that there was no written agreement, no proof that
he received a share in petitioners profits, nor was there anything to show he had any participation
with respect to the running of the business.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioners and respondent
RULING:
YES, there exists an employer-employee relationship between the parties. The elements to
determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of
the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employers
power to control the employees conduct. The most important element is the employers control
of the employees conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to the
means and methods to accomplish it.
During the entire course of his employment Suhat did not have the freedom to determine where
he would go, what he would do, and how he would do it. He merely followed instructions of
petitioners and was content to do so, as long as he was paid his wages.

Neither could Suhat be regarded as an industrial partner since a partnership as defined in Article
1767 of the Civil Code is:
A contract of partnership two or more persons bind themselves to contribute
money, property or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the
profits among themselves.
As correctly contended by the private respondent, none of these circumstances are present in this
case since there is no: written agreement, proof that he received a share in petitioners profits, or
was there anything to show he had any participation with respect to the running of the business.
Wherefore, the petition is DENIED.

Вам также может понравиться