Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

Birthday Case 1.

WON private respondent was an employee of Ultra Villa Food Haus or the
Personal Driver of Petitioner
Ultra Villa Food House vs NLRC
2. WON Private respondent was illegally dismissed

Renato Geniston was employed as a “do it all guy”, he acted as a waiter,

driver, and maintenance man for Ultra Villa Food Haus. During the elections Ruling
of May 11, 1992, Geniston acted as a poll watcher for the National Union of
1. Private respondent is indeed the personal driver of petitioner. The
Christian Democrats which lasted until the next day. Private responded did
evidence presented by the petitioner states that the private respondent is
not report for work on both days on account of his poll-watching. Upon
not in Ultra Villa Food Haus’ payroll, private respondent admitted that he is a
arriving home on May 12, private respondent discovered that he was
personal driver, Ultra Villa Food Haus’ affidavit that private respondent is not
terminated. He then went to Tio’s residence to plead his case, but it was to
their employee, Mrs. Tio works in the office in Mandaue City, therefore,
no avail, he was forced to sign a resignation letter. Geniston then prayed to
incongruent with Geniston’s statement that he was a waiter, and lastly the
the Labor Arbiter to pay him overtime pay, premium pay, holiday pay, service
joint affidavit of the warehouseman and warehouse checker of CFC
incentive leave pay, salary differential pay and 13 th month pay, and for him to
Corporation states otherwise. Therefore, it is indubitable that private
be reinstated plus backwages, or separation pay with moral and exemplary
respondent is a personal driver of the petitioner.
damages, with attorney’s fees. Rosie Tio then contended that Geniston was
her personal driver and not an employee of Ultra Villa Food Haus and that 2. Yes, private respondent was illegally dismissed. To constitute
he abandoned his work, therefore, illegal dismissal could not have abandonment as what the petitioner is alleging, two requisites must concur:
transpired. Labor Arbiter then found out that the private respondent was failure to report to work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and a
truly Mrs. Tio’s personal driver, therefor he is not entitled to the benefits he clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship as manifested
prayed for. However, the labor arbiter ruled that Mrs. Tio failed to observe by some overt acts. The burden of proof is on the employer, however,
due process in dismissing private respondent and thus ordered her to petitioner failed to discharge this burden. It is also quite unbelievable that
indemnify the latter the amount of P1,000. private respondent would leave a stable and relatively well-paying job to
work as an election watcher which is seasonal in nature. Thus, having been
Both parties then appealed to the NLRC. Private respondent admitted that
illegally dismissed, he is entitled to be indemnified.
he was the petitioner’s personal driver and that he was made to drive for
the manager and his wife (petitioner) on top of his other duties which were Wherefore, the decision of the NLRC was reversed.
necessary and desirable to petitioner;s business. He also contended that he
was unjustly dismissed since his absences were official holidays.

The NLRC favored private respondent and ordered petitioner to reinstate the
former and to pay him his backwages and benefits. Hence, this petition.