Unsigned paper with deficient details = no probative value
FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 235616, July 04, 2018 ] DOMINADOR G. DELANTAR AND BENEDICTO GERVACIO PIDO, JR. V. PP BUS INC./PAQUITO PELIPEL, JR.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioners' Motion for Time seeking an additional period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file the Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari of the January 16, 2017 Decision and November 10, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 147451, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for: (1) lack of proper affidavit of service as required by Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court in that it was notarized on December 29, 2017, prior to the actual date of posting of copies of the Petition to the CA and the adverse party on January 4, 2018; and (2) failure to show that the CA committed any reversible error in issuing the said assailed Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the finding of the CA that there was no employer-employee relationship between petitioners and respondents. As aptly ruled by the CA, no substantial evidence was proffered by petitioners to prove that they were employees of respondents. The commission slips have no probative value as these were unsigned and deficient in details indicative of a genuine pay slip or payroll. Neither can the identification card of petitioner Dominador G. Delantar constitute an adequate proof of petitioners' claim that they were respondents' employees.[1] Note that respondents presented copies of official payrolls for the years 2013 and 2014 which showed that petitioners were not in the list of their employees. Due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship, petitioners' complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents cannot prosper.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed January 16, 2017 Decision and November 10, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP NO. 147451.
SO ORDERED. Leonardo-De Castro, J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2562 dated June 20, 2018; Tijam, J., no part; Reyes, Jr., J., designated as acting member relative to this case per Special Order No. 2560-A dated May 11, 2018. Gesmundo, J., designated as acting member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
[1]Bazar v. Ruizol, G.R. No. 198782, October 19, 2016, 806 SCRA 496, 510; Reyes v. Glaucoma Research Foundation, Inc., 760 Phil. 779, 794 (2015).
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioners' Motion for Time seeking an additional period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file the Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari of the January 16, 2017 Decision and November 10, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 147451, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for: (1) lack of proper affidavit of service as required by Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court in that it was notarized on December 29, 2017, prior to the actual date of posting of copies of the Petition to the CA and the adverse party on January 4, 2018; and (2) failure to show that the CA committed any reversible error in issuing the said assailed Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the finding of the CA that there was no employer-employee relationship between petitioners and respondents. As aptly ruled by the CA, no substantial evidence was proffered by petitioners to prove that they were employees of respondents. The commission slips have no probative value as these were unsigned and deficient in details indicative of a genuine pay slip or payroll. Neither can the identification card of petitioner Dominador G. Delantar constitute an adequate proof of petitioners' claim that they were respondents' employees.[1] Note that respondents presented copies of official payrolls for the years 2013 and 2014 which showed that petitioners were not in the list of their employees. Due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship, petitioners' complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents cannot prosper.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed January 16, 2017 Decision and November 10, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP NO. 147451.
SO ORDERED. Leonardo-De Castro, J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2562 dated June 20, 2018; Tijam, J., no part; Reyes, Jr., J., designated as acting member relative to this case per Special Order No. 2560-A dated May 11, 2018. Gesmundo, J., designated as acting member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
[1]Bazar v. Ruizol, G.R. No. 198782, October 19, 2016, 806 SCRA 496, 510; Reyes v. Glaucoma Research Foundation, Inc., 760 Phil. 779, 794 (2015).
