SEIRI vs Coming

Facts
 SEIRI is a domestic corp engaged in the manufacturing and
exporting of furnitures
 Agbay- the president and general manager of seiri
 Coming- filed a complaint for
1. ID
2. Underpayment of wages
3. Non payment of holiday pay
4. Reinstatement
5. Backwages
6. Damages
7. Attorney’s fee
Coming’s arguments
- pet hired him a sizing machine operator
- worked from 5 am to 8am
- his compensation at first was on pakiao basis but sometime
in it was fixed at 150 per day to him on a weekly basis
- his employment was interrupted without apparent reason,
told by petitioner to resume work after 2 mos
- was persuaded by his brother and management not to complain
- reported back to work after 2 mos
- work was dismissed without lawful case
o was told to be terminated because the company was not
doing well financially and that he would be called
back to work only if they need his services again
o waited almost a year, no call back
o file a complaint before the regional arbitration
branch
Petitioner Contention:
- denied having hired respondent
- seiri was incorporated only in 1986
- respondent not included in the list of employees submitted
to the SSS
- Vicente coming, executed an affidavit in support of
petitioner’s position
Issue:
WON there was an er-ee rel?

Held:
Yes, 4 fold test. Substantial evidence or that amount of relevant
evidence, which a reasonable mind might accept, as adequate to
justify a conclusion. The fact that a worker was not reported as
an employee to the SS is not a conclusive proof of the absence of
er-ee. For a payroll to be utilized to disproved the employment
of a person, it must contain a true and complete list of the
employee. Exhibits offered by petitioners before the NLRC do not
covr the entire 18 yr period during which respondent supposedly
worked for seiri.
Control test is shown in the said case as follows:
1. required him to work within the company premises
2. obliged pet to report everyday of the week and tasked him
to perform the same job
3. enforced the observance of definite hours of work from 8 am
to 5pm
4. mode of payment of petitioner’s salary was under their
discretion at first paying him on pakiao basis then
thereafter on a daily basis
5. implemented company rules and regulations
6. agbay directly paid petitioner’s salaries and controlled
all aspects of his employment
7. petitioner rendered work necessary and desirable in the
business of the company