Gaspar v. M.I.Y. Real Estate Corp. [G.R. No. 239385 | April 17, 2024]

 CASE DIGEST

Gaspar v. M.I.Y. Real Estate Corp.

G.R. No. 239385 | April 17, 2024

FIRST DIVISION, HERNANDO, J.

 

Illegal Dismissal; Control Test; Employer-employee relationship; Kasambahay

 

The power to control is the most significant among the four factors. Under this test, an employer-employee relationship exists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end. 

 

Petitioner Flordivina Gaspar filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against M.I.Y. Real Estate Corporation (M.I.Y.) and its director, Melissa Ilagan Yu. Gaspar alleged that she was employed by M.I.Y. as Facilities Maintenance and Services (FM&S) personnel at Goldrich Mansion, where she performed cleaning, maintenance, and monitoring tasks for various establishments within the building, including Yu's office and residence. 

Gaspar claimed that M.I.Y. forced her to sign resignation letters every six months to prevent her from attaining regular employment status. She further alleged that she was dismissed on July 2, 2014, when she was barred from entering the building and was pressured to sign a notice of termination in exchange for her final salary. 

M.I.Y. denied that Gaspar was its employee, asserting that she was a domestic worker (kasambahay) of Yu, initially hired to perform household tasks in Yu’s Pasig residence before being transferred to her penthouse in Goldrich Mansion. The company presented documentary evidence, including payroll records, which did not include Gaspar’s name. The Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and the Court of Appeals all ruled that Gaspar was not an employee of M.I.Y. but a domestic worker of Yu, dismissing her claims for illegal dismissal and labor benefits.

  

Whether Gaspar was an employee of M.I.Y. or a domestic worker of Yu, and consequently, whether she was illegally dismissed. 

NO. The Supreme Court upheld the rulings of the lower tribunals and dismissed the petition. It ruled that Gaspar failed to establish an employer-employee relationship with M.I.Y. under the four-fold test, which requires: 

• 1.    Selection and engagement – No evidence showed that M.I.Y. hired Gaspar.
• 2.    Payment of wages – M.I.Y.’s payroll and government contributions did not include Gaspar’s name.
• 3.    Power to dismiss – The alleged notice of termination was unsigned and unverified.
• 4.    Power to control – M.I.Y. did not control the manner and means of Gaspar’s work.

Gaspar was found to be a domestic worker of Yu under Republic Act No. 10361 (Batas Kasambahay), as she was primarily engaged in cleaning and maintaining Yu’s private residence, regardless of its location within a commercial building. He was not an employee of M.I.Y. Since Gaspar did not establish an employment relationship with M.I.Y., her claims for illegal dismissal and labor benefits were denied.




CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT