Lopez, Katrina Margarita D.

BERNARD TENAZAS v. R. VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT G.R. No. 192998

02 APRIL 2014 REYES, J.

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 R. VILLEGAS TAXIS CLAIM
Company admits that Tenazas is an employee
regular driver
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
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 Dismissed because of the unfounded
suspicion that he was organizing a
labor union
Company denies that Francisco is an
employee
Company admits that Endraca is an employee
spare driver
ENDRACA Dismissed after falling short of the
required boundary for his taxi unit; fell
short because of P700 spent on an
urgent repair
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 Security
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 sufficiently established the existence of
employer-employee relationship and illegal dismissal (for all three)
CA: Tenazas and Endraca were indeed employees and were illegally dismissed, but
Francisco failed to establish his relationship with the company

ISSUES: WON there was an employer-employee relationship (re: Francisco) NO

HELD:
The burden of proof rests upon the party 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 security 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 security 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.)