Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 309 views

    Vicente Sy Et Al Vs Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 142293. February 27, 2003)

    Uploaded by

    Balaod Maricor
    1) Jaime Sahot worked for 36 years as a truck driver for Vicente Sy's family trucking business. 2) In 1994, at age 59, Sahot began taking medical leaves due to various ailments and requested an extension of his leave, which was denied and his employment was terminated. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that an employee-employer relationship existed between Sahot and the trucking business based on the employer's control over Sahot's work.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Vicente Sy Et Al Vs Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 142293. February 27, 2003)

    Uploaded by

    Balaod Maricor
    309 views2 pages
    1) Jaime Sahot worked for 36 years as a truck driver for Vicente Sy's family trucking business. 2) In 1994, at age 59, Sahot began taking medical leaves due to various ailments and requested an extension of his leave, which was denied and his employment was terminated. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that an employee-employer relationship existed between Sahot and the trucking business based on the employer's control over Sahot's work.

    Original Description:

    Vicente Sy et Al vs Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 142293. February 27, 2003)

    Original Title

    Vicente Sy et Al vs Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 142293. February 27, 2003)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Jaime Sahot worked for 36 years as a truck driver for Vicente Sy's family trucking business. 2) In 1994, at age 59, Sahot began taking medical leaves due to various ailments and requested an extension of his leave, which was denied and his employment was terminated. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that an employee-employer relationship existed between Sahot and the trucking business based on the employer's control over Sahot's work.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    309 views2 pages

    Vicente Sy Et Al Vs Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 142293. February 27, 2003)

    Uploaded by

    Balaod Maricor
    1) Jaime Sahot worked for 36 years as a truck driver for Vicente Sy's family trucking business. 2) In 1994, at age 59, Sahot began taking medical leaves due to various ailments and requested an extension of his leave, which was denied and his employment was terminated. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that an employee-employer relationship existed between Sahot and the trucking business based on the employer's control over Sahot's work.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    29

    Vicente Sy, Trinidad Paulino, 6b’s Trucking Corporation, And Sbt1 Trucking
    Corporation
    versus
    Hon. Court Of Appeals And Jaime Sahot
    G.R. No. 142293, February 27, 2003

    FACTS:

    Jaime Sahot started working as a truck helper for Vicente Sy’s family-owned trucking
    business named Vicente Sy Trucking. Years later, he became a truck driver of the same
    family business for 36 years. During the entire course of his employment he did not have
    the freedom to determine where he would go, what he would do, and how he would do it.
    He merely followed instructions of the compant and was content to do so, as long as he
    was paid his wages.

    In April 1994, Sahot was already 59 years old. He had been incurring absences due to
    various ailments. Bodily pains greatly affected the performance of his task as a driver. He
    inquired about his medical and retirement benefits with the Social Security System (SSS)
    on April 25, 1994, but discovered that his premium payments had not been remitted by
    his employer.

    Sahot had filed a week-long leave. He was medically examined and treated for
    various conditions. On said grounds, Belen Paulino of the SBT Trucking Service
    management told him to file a formal request for extension of his leave. At the end of his
    week-long absence, Sahot applied for extension of his leave for the whole month of June,
    1994. At this time the company allegedly threatened to terminate his employment should
    he refuse to go back to work.

    He remained unable to work. Then the company carried out their threat and dismissed
    him from work. He ended up sick, jobless and penniless. Thereafter, he filed a complaint
    for illegal dismissal.

    The company denied employing helpers and drivers. They contend that private
    respondent was not illegally dismissed as a driver because he was in fact an industrial
    partner. There was no written agreement, no proof that he received a share in business
    profits, nor was there anything to show he had any participation with respect to the
    running of the business.

    They added that due to Sahot’s refusal to work after the expiration of his authorized
    leave of absence, he should be deemed to have voluntarily resigned from his work. They
    contended that Sahot had all the time to extend his leave or at least inform them of his
    health condition.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between the Company and


    Sahot.
    30

    SUPREME COURT RULING:

    Employee-employer relationship exists.

    The Court used the following elements to determine the existence of an employment
    relationship: (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 employees
    conduct. The most important element is the employer’s control of the employee’s
    conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and
    methods to accomplish it.

    Control test
    The Court found that had Sahot worked as a truck helper and driver of the family’s
    business not for his own pleasure but under the latter’s control. The employer determined
    his work, including the wages and rest days.

    He is not an industrial partner, but an employee.

    Article 1767 of the Civil Code states that in a contract of partnership two or more
    persons bind themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund,
    with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. Not one of these
    circumstances is present in this case.

    You might also like