Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 353 views

    Tenazas vs. R Villegas Taxi

    Uploaded by

    pja_14
    This case involved three petitioners - Bernard Tenazas, Jaime Francisco, and Isidro Endraca - who filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against R. Villegas Taxi Transport. Tenazas and Endraca were able to establish they were employees who were illegally dismissed, but Francisco failed to prove he had an employment relationship with the company. Specifically, Francisco did not provide documentary evidence such as attendance records, payrolls, social security contributions, or personnel files to support his claim that he was an employee. Therefore, the Supreme Court denied Francisco's petition and found he did not prove there was an employer-employee relationship with R. Villegas Taxi Transport.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tenazas vs. R Villegas Taxi

    Uploaded by

    pja_14
    353 views1 page
    This case involved three petitioners - Bernard Tenazas, Jaime Francisco, and Isidro Endraca - who filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against R. Villegas Taxi Transport. Tenazas and Endraca were able to establish they were employees who were illegally dismissed, but Francisco failed to prove he had an employment relationship with the company. Specifically, Francisco did not provide documentary evidence such as attendance records, payrolls, social security contributions, or personnel files to support his claim that he was an employee. Therefore, the Supreme Court denied Francisco's petition and found he did not prove there was an employer-employee relationship with R. Villegas Taxi Transport.

    Original Description:

    Labor Rev

    Original Title

    4. Tenazas vs. r Villegas Taxi

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved three petitioners - Bernard Tenazas, Jaime Francisco, and Isidro Endraca - who filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against R. Villegas Taxi Transport. Tenazas and Endraca were able to establish they were employees who were illegally dismissed, but Francisco failed to prove he had an employment relationship with the company. Specifically, Francisco did not provide documentary evidence such as attendance records, payrolls, social security contributions, or personnel files to support his claim that he was an employee. Therefore, the Supreme Court denied Francisco's petition and found he did not prove there was an employer-employee relationship with R. Villegas Taxi Transport.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    353 views1 page

    Tenazas vs. R Villegas Taxi

    Uploaded by

    pja_14
    This case involved three petitioners - Bernard Tenazas, Jaime Francisco, and Isidro Endraca - who filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against R. Villegas Taxi Transport. Tenazas and Endraca were able to establish they were employees who were illegally dismissed, but Francisco failed to prove he had an employment relationship with the company. Specifically, Francisco did not provide documentary evidence such as attendance records, payrolls, social security contributions, or personnel files to support his claim that he was an employee. Therefore, the Supreme Court denied Francisco's petition and found he did not prove there was an employer-employee relationship with R. Villegas Taxi Transport.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    BERNARD TENAZAS v. R. VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT G.R. No.

    192998 02 APRIL 2014


    FACTS:
    Bernard Tenazas, Jaime Francisco, and Isidro Endraca filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against R.
    Villegas Taxi Transport, and/or Romualdo Villegas and Andy Villegas.
    PETITIONERS CLAIM
    TENAZAS - Taxi unit was sideswiped by another vehicle (damage = P500); fired after reporting the incident, even threatened w/
    physical harm if he was seen on company premises.
    FRANCISCO - Dismissed because of the unfounded suspicion that he was organizing a labor union
    EDRACA Dismissed after falling short of the required boundary for his taxi unit; fell short because of P700 spent on an urgent
    repair
    R. VILLEGAS TAXIS CLAIM
    TENAZAS - Company admits that Tenazas is an employee regular driver. Tenazas was never terminated; he failed to report back
    to work after being told to wait for the release of his taxi (overhauled due to mechanical defects)
    FRANCISCO - Company denies that Francisco is an employee
    ENDRACA - Company admits that Endraca is an employee spare driver . Endraca could not have been terminated in March 2006
    because he stopped reporting for work in July 2003 (but willing to accommodate him again as he was never really dismissed)
    Tenazas, Francisco, and Endraca also filed a Motion to Admit Additional Evidence: (a) Joint Affidavit of the
    petitioners; (b) Affidavit of Good Faith of Aloney Rivera (co-driver); (c) pictures of the petitioners wearing company shirts;
    (d) Tenazas Certification/Record of Social Securit y System (SSS) contributions.
    LA: No illegal dismissal because no proof of an overt act of dismissal committed by R. Villegas Taxi;
    Francisco failed to prove he was an employee
    NLRC: Reversed LA; the additional evidence sufficientl y established the existence of employer-employee
    relationship and illegal dismissal (for all three)
    CA: Tenazas and Endraca were indeed employees and were illegall y dismissed, but Francisco failed to
    establish his relationship with the compan y
    ISSUES: WON there was an employer-employee relationship (re: Francisco) NO
    HELD:
    The burden of proof rests upon the part y who asserts the affirmative of an issue. As Francisco was claiming to
    be an employee of R. Villegas Taxi, it is incumbent upon him to proffer evidence to prove the existence of the
    relationship.
    There is no hard and fast rule to establish the elements of employer-employee relationship. Any competent and
    relevant evidence may be admitted, e.g., identification cards, cash vouchers, social securit y registration, appointment
    letters or employment contracts, payrolls, organization charts, personnel lists.
    Francisco failed to present substantial evidence to establish the relationship. No documentary evidence
    submitted, like an attendance logbook, payroll, SSS record, or any personnel file that depicts his status as an
    employee. He could also have at least presented his social securit y records stating his contributions, name and
    address of employer (which Tenazas presented). Another taxi operator, Emmanuel Villegas, also claimed to be
    his employer a fact not denied or questioned by Francisco in any of his pleadings. Petition DENIED. SC
    agreed with CAs order of reinstatement instead of separation pay. (*Strained relations must be demonstrated as
    a fact. In this case, no facts demonstrated that the relations were so strained as to make reinstatement no longer
    a feasible option.)

    You might also like