CHARLIE JAO vs. BCC PRODUCTS SALES, INC [G.R. No. 163700 : April 18, 2012] BERSAMIN, J.
Facts: Petitioner maintained that respondent BCC Product Sales, Inc. (BCC) and its President, respondent
Terrance Ty (Ty), employed him as comptroller starting from September 1995 with a monthly salary of
P20,000.00 to handle the financial aspect of BCC’s business; that on October 19, 1995, the security
guards of BCC, acting upon the instruction of Ty, barred him from entering the premises of BCC where
he then worked; that his attempts to report to work in November and December 12, 1995 were
frustrated because he continued to be barred from entering the premises of BCC; and that he filed a
complaint dated December 28, 1995 for illegal dismissal, reinstatement with full backwages, non-
payment of wages, damages and attorney’s fees.
Respondents countered that petitioner was not their employee but the employee of Sobien
Food Corporation (SFC), the major creditor and supplier of BCC; and that SFC had posted him as its
comptroller in BCC to oversee BCC’s finances and business operations and to look after SFC’s interests or
investments in BCC.; that their issuance of the ID to petitioner was only for the purpose of facilitating his
entry into the BCC premises in relation to his work of overseeing the financial operations of BCC for SFC;
that the ID should not be considered as evidence of petitioner’s employment in BCC; that petitioner
executed an affidavit in March 1996, 20 stating, among others, as follows:
1.I am a CPA (Certified Public Accountant) by profession but presently associated with, or
employed by, Sobien Food Corporation with the same business address as abovestated;
2.In the course of my association with, or employment by, Sobien Food Corporation (SFC, for
short), I have been entrusted by my employer to oversee and supervise collections on account of
receivables due SFC from its customers or clients; for instance, certain checks due and turned over by
one of SFC’s customers is BCC Product Sales, Inc., operated or run by one Terrance L. Ty, (President and
General manager).
Petitioner counters, however, that the affidavit did not establish the absence of an employer-
employee relationship between him and respondents because it had been executed in March 1996, or
after his employment with respondents had been terminated on December 12, 1995; and that the
affidavit referred to his subsequent employment by SFC following the termination of his employment by
BCC.
Issue: Whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and BCC.
Ruling: In determining the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship, the Court has
consistently looked for the following incidents, to wit: (a) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power to
control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished. The last element,
the socalled control test, is the most important element.
Petitioner presented no document setting forth the terms of his employment by BCC. The failure
to present such agreement on terms of employment may be understandable and expected if he was a
common or ordinary laborer who would not jeopardize his employment by demanding such document
from the employer, but may not square well with his actual status as a highly educated professional.
Petitioner’s admission that he did not receive his salary for the three months of his employment
by BCC, as his complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages and the criminal case for estafa
he later filed against the respondents for non-payment of wages indicated, further raised grave doubts
about his assertion of employment by BCC. If the assertion was true, we are puzzled how he could have
remained in BCC’s employ in that period of time despite not being paid the first salary of
P20,000.00/month. Moreover, his name did not appear in the payroll of BCC despite him having
approved the payroll as comptroller.
Lastly, the confusion about the date of his alleged illegal dismissal provides another indicium of
the insincerity of petitioner’s assertion of employment by BCC. In the petition for review on certiorari,
he averred that he had been barred from entering the premises of BCC on October 19, 1995, 27 and
thus was illegally dismissed. Yet, his complaint for illegal dismissal stated that he had been illegally
dismissed on December 12, 1995 when respondents’ security guards barred him from entering the
premises of BCC, 28 causing him to bring his complaint only on December 29, 1995, and after BCC had
already filed the criminal complaint against him. The wide gap between October 19, 1995 and December
12, 1995 cannot be dismissed as a trivial inconsistency considering that the several incidents affecting
the veracity of his assertion of employment by BCC earlier noted herein transpired in that interval. With
all the grave doubts thus raised against petitioner’s claim, we need not dwell at length on the other
proofs he presented, like the affidavits of some of the employees of BCC, the ID, and the signed 31
checks, bills and receipts. Suffice it to be stated that such other proofs were easily explainable by
respondents and by the aforestated circumstances showing him to be the employee of SFC, not of BCC.
Decision of CA is affirmed.
