The Market Monitor Minding the Nation's Business
It is a well-established rule that the party-litigant who alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary to establish his/her claim has the burden of proving the same by the amount of evidence required by law, which, in labor proceedings, is substantial evidence, or “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” (Functional, Inc., v. Granfil, 676 Phil. 279, 287 (2011). To be clear, in the hierarchy of evidentiary values, “proof beyond reasonable doubt is placed at the highest level, followed by clear and convincing evidence, preponderance of evidence, and substantial evidence, in that order.” (Spouses Manalo v. Hon. Roldan-Confesor, 290 Phil. 311, 323 (1992). Thus, in the hierarchy of evidence, it is the least demanding. (Salvador v. Philippine Mining Service Corporation, 443 Phil. 878, 889 (2003). “Corollarily, the ground for the dismissal of an employee does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt.” (Lopez v. Alturas Group of Companies, 663 Phil. 121, 131 (2011). The quantum of proof required is merely substantial evidence – which only entails evidence to support a conclusion, “even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.” (Distribution & Control Products, Inc. v. Santos, 813 Phil. 423, 433 (2017). Accordingly, requiring a quantum of proof that is over and above substantial evidence is contrary to law. (JR Hauling Services and Oscar Mapue v. Gavino L. Solamo, et al., G.R. No. 214294, September 30, 2020).
To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship, jurisprudence has invariably adhered to the four-fold test, to wit: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct, or the so-called “control test.” (South East International Rattan, Inc. v. Coming, G.R. No. 186621, March 12, 2014, 718 SCRA 658, 666, citing Atok Big Wedge Company, Inc. v. Gison, 670 Phil. 615, 626-627 (2011). Verily, the power of the employer to control the work of the employee is considered the most significant determinant of the existence of an employer-employee relationship. This is the so-called “control test,” and is premised on whether the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control both the end achieved and the manner and means used to achieve that end. (Legend Hotel (Manila) v. Realuyo, 691 Phil. 226, 240 (2012), citations omitted). It must, however, be stressed that the “control test” merely calls for the existence of the right to control, and not necessarily the exercise thereof. To be clear, the test does not require that the employer actually supervises the performance of duties by the employee. (See Tongko v. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (Phils.), Inc., 655 Phil. 384 (2011).
About the columnist:
Atty. Bernardo M. Luceres has been in the legal practice for over two decades now, and his robust experience in the law profession enabled him to author several law books, the latest of which is the Simplified Civil Procedure 2023 edition.
A proud product of Manuel L. Quezon University Law School, Atty. Luceres obtained his Master of Laws degree from University of Manila.
Apart from being a trial lawyer, he also dabbles part-time as professor-lecturer at the New Era University in Quezon City.