CASE NO. 2: CELIA R. ATIENZA, Petitioner vs. SALUTA Respondent G.R. No. 233413, June 17, 2019

Veronica Vera V.
Lumantas
CASE NO. 2: CELIA R. ATIENZA, petitioner vs. SALUTA respondent G.R. No. 233413, June 17, 2019
Doctrines:
I. In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that its
dismissal of an employee was for a valid cause. However, before a case for illegal dismissal
can prosper, an employer-employee relationship must first be established.
II. Family Driver’s employment rights are governed by the Civil Code and not the Labor Code.
III. Persons in the personal service of another, such as Family drivers, are excluded from the
coverage of holiday pay, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pursuant to Articles 82,
94 and 95 of the Labor Code, and Section 3(d)41 of the implementing rules of Presidential
Decree No. 851.
Facts: Noel Sacramento Saluta filed a complaint against CRV Corporation (CRV) and petitioner Celia
Atienza for illegal dismissal, non-payment of wages, overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay for work on
holidays and rest day, illegal deduction, and issuance of a certificate of employment. He alleged that he
is a company driver under the employ of CRV Corporation. He was assigned to drive for Celia Atienza,
one of the company’s top officials and received P9,000 monthly salary. As one of the company drivers,
his work was absolutely necessary and desirable to the usual business of the company. He also
contends that he received his salaries through the ATM like the other employees of the company.
For her part, Atienza contended that Saluta was not dismissed from work, rather he abandoned his job
when he refused to report for work and took a leave of absence without permission. She claimed that
Saluta was not an employee of CRV Corporation, but was hired by Atienza as her personal/family driver
with a monthly salary of P9,000.00 and free board and lodging. His duty was simply to drive for her and
her family to anywhere they wish to go.
The Labor Arbiter’s decision:

Labor Arbiter dismissed respondent's complaint except insofar as his claim for illegal deduction and
request for the issuance of a certificate of employment are concerned. LA held that respondent failed to
prove by substantial evidence that he was an employee of CRV Corporation.
NLRC decision:
The NLRC reversed and set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC held that while it may be
true that the respondent failed to present substantial evidence to prove that he was under the employ
of CRV Corporation as one of its drivers, it is also true that petitioner did not dispute that respondent
was driving for her. By alleging that the respondent was her personal driver, it becomes incumbent upon
her to prove their employer-employee relationship which she failed to do.
CA’s decision:
The appellate court affirmed the Decision of the NLRC with modification in that it imposed a 6% interest
per annum on all the monetary awards granted to the respondent from the finality of judgment until
fully paid.
Issues:
1. Whether respondent was an employee of CRV or a personal driver of the Atienza

2. Whether the respondent is covered by the Kasambahay law
3. Whether petitioner is liable for wage differentials, holiday pay, 13 th month pay and service
incentive leave pay.
Ruling:
1. Respondent is the personal/family driver of the petitioner.
Settled is the tenet that allegations in the complaint must be duly proven by competent
evidence and the burden of proof is on the party making the allegation. In an illegal dismissal
case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee was for
a valid cause. However, before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an employer-employee
relationship must first be established. Thus, in filing a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for
illegal dismissal, based on the premise that he was an employee of CRV Corporation, it is
incumbent upon the employee to prove the employer-employee relationship by substantial
evidence.
Apart from his uncorroborated statement that he was verbally terminated from work,
no other evidence was presented by the respondent.
2. No, the Civil Code shall govern the rights of family drivers
The Civil Code and not the Labor Code shall govern the rights of family drivers. Section 44 of the
RA 10361 (Kasambahay Law) expressly repealed Chapter III (employment of househelpers) of
the Labor Code, which include Articles 141 and 147 that used to govern the rights of the family
drivers under the Labor Code.
However, the Kasambahay Law, on the other hand, made no mention of family drivers in the
enumeration of those workers who are covered by the law. Section 4(d) of the Kasambahay Law
states:
SEC. 4. Definition of Terms - As used in this Act, the term: xxxx
(d) Domestic worker or "Kasambahay" refers to any person engaged in domestic work within an
employment relationship such as, but not limited to, the following: general househelp,
nursemaid or "yaya", cook, gardener, or laundry person, but shall exclude any person who
performs domestic work only occasionally or sporadically and not on an occupational basis.
Thus, Section 4(d) of the Kasambahay Law pertaining to who are included in the enumeration of
domestic or household help cannot also be interpreted to include family drivers because the
latter category of worker is clearly not included. It is a settled rule of statutory construction that
the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others —
this is expressed in the familiar maxim, expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
Moreover, Section 2 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Kasambahay Law
provides:
SEC. 2. Coverage. - This x x x [IRR] shall apply to all parties to an employment contract for the
services of the following Kasambahay, whether on a live-in or live-out arrangement, such as but
not limited to:
The following are not covered:

xxx
(b) Family drivers;
xxx
The aforecited administrative rule clarified the status of family drivers as among those not
covered by the definition of domestic or household help as contemplated in Section 4(d) of the
Kasambahay Law. Such provision should be respected by the courts, as the interpretation of an
administrative government agency, which is tasked to implement the statute, is accorded great
respect and ordinarily controls the construction of the courts.
Due to the express repeal of the Labor Code provisions pertaining to house helpers, which
includes family drivers, by the Kasambahay Law; and the non-applicability of the Kasambahay
Law to family drivers, there is a need to revert back to the Civil Code provisions, particularly
Articles 1689, 1697 and 1699, Section 1, Chapter 3, Title VIII, Book IV thereof. The Articles
provide:
SEC. 1 — Household Service.
ART. 1689. Household service shall always be reasonably compensated. Any stipulation that
household service is without compensation shall be void. Such compensation shall be in addition
to the [house helper’s] lodging, food, and medical attendance.
xxxx
ART. 1697. If the period for household service is fixed neither the head of the family nor the
[house helper] may terminate the contract before the expiration of the term, except for a just
cause. If the [house helper] is unjustly dismissed, he shall be paid the compensation already
earned plus that for fifteen days by way of indemnity. If the [househelper] leaves without
justifiable reason, he shall forfeit any salary due him and unpaid, for not exceeding fifteen days.
xxxx
ART. 1699. Upon the extinguishment of the service relation, the [house helper] may demand
from the head of the family a written statement on the nature and duration of the service and
the efficiency and conduct of the [house helper].
3. Petitioner is not liable for wage differentials, holiday pay, 13th month pay and service incentive
leave pay
As found by the Labor Arbiter, the P9,000.00 salary Saluta receives a month is reasonable and in
accordance with Article 1689 of the Civil Code. Hence, petitioner may not be made to pay the
Saluta wage differentials.
Petitioner is not also liable to the Saluta for the payment of holiday pay, 13th month pay and
service incentive leave pay because persons in the personal service of another, such as family
drivers, are exempted from the coverage of such benefits pursuant to Articles 82, 94 and 95 of
the Labor Code, and Section 3(d)41 of the implementing rules of Presidential Decree No. 851.

CASE NO. 2: CELIA R. ATIENZA, Petitioner vs. SALUTA Respondent G.R. No. 233413, June 17, 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE NO. 2: CELIA R. ATIENZA, Petitioner vs. SALUTA Respondent G.R. No. 233413, June 17, 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE NO. 2: CELIA R. ATIENZA, Petitioner vs. SALUTA Respondent G.R. No. 233413, June 17, 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What were the issues raised in the case?

What was the ruling regarding whether the respondent was an employee of CRV or a personal driver of Atienza?

Veronica Vera V.

The Labor Arbiter’s decision:

1. Whether respondent was an employee of CRV or a personal driver of the Atienza

1. Respondent is the personal/family driver of the petitioner.

SEC. 4. Definition of Terms - As used in this Act, the term: xxxx

The following are not covered:

You might also like