Expedition Construction Corporation V Africa

 

 

 

The CA found that all these elements were present. The records show that Expedition hired Respondents as dump truck drivers and paid them Php 620 per trip. Expedition also admitted power to dismiss when it said that when the dispatch or drivers became irregular, it tried to accommodate them by giving them trips when the need arose. The element of control also exists as Expedition determines how, where, and when Respondents would perform their tasks.

CIVIL PROCEDURE EXPEDITION

CONSTRUCTION

CORPORATION

v

AFRICA G.R. No. 228671 | 14 December 2017 Subtopic: S. Post-judgment remedies; 2. Appeals; f. Review Revi ew of judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies

Respondents are not project employees because there is no showing that they have investments nor qualified as independent contractors. They are regular employees because they perform activities which were directly related to the business of Expedition.

DOCTRINE: Only questions of law may be raised in a petition under Rule 45, but the question whether employer-employee relationship exist between the parties as a factual issue may be

However, no illegal dismissal because there was no positive or direct evidence to substantiate respondent’s claim that they were dismissed from employment.

reviewed by the Court if the factual findings of the labor tribunals are contradictory to each other. FACTS:   FACTS:

 



Since no sufficient proof was given to show that Respondents were laid off from work, the CA had no basis from ruling that Respondents were illegally terminated.

Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment, non-payment of benefits, etc. They claimed that they were regular employees and prevented from entering the premises of Expedition but they were not paid the minimum wage, and that the cost of the repair of the trucks were deducted from f rom their

Spouses Larry and Flora Davis v Spouses Florencio and Kucresia Davis

salaries. 

 

Expedition denied that Respondents were its employees, and they are only paid on a per trip basis as they entered into separate contracts with the cities of Quezon, Manadaluyong, Caloocan, and Muntinlupa.

 



Respondents countered that Expedition has control and supervision over them, and during the mandatory conciliation

proceedings,

Expedition

expressed

willingness to accept them back to work as regular employees.

 



The LA held that there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties. The NLRC affirmed the LA’s ruling that no evidence show that the parties

have ER-EE relationship but upon motion of the Respondents,

it

held

that

their

employment

simultaneously ended when Expedition’s contract with

Quezon and Caloocan ended.

 



Respondent’s MR was denied by NLRC and sustained

that there is no illegal dismissal, but instead they are merely paced on floating status.

 



Expedition appealed to the CA. The CA affirmed the NLRC Resolution recognizing the existence of ER-EE relationship.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA gravely erred in finding that there is

ER-EE relationship between the parties.

RULING:  No. The factual findings of the CA has legal basis. Respondent were regular employees of Expedition as the four-fold test is present in this case, such as: 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.

1