Before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, it must first be established that an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondent.[27]
The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (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 employee’s 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.[28]
It is settled that no particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship.[29] Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted.[30]
In this case, the documentary evidence presented by respondent to prove that he was an employee of petitioner are as follows: (a) a document denominated as "payroll" (dated July 31, 2001 to March 15, 2002) certified correct by petitioner,[31] which showed that respondent received a monthly salary of P7,000.00 (P3,500.00 every 15th of the month and another P3,500.00 every 30th of the month) with the corresponding deductions due to absences incurred by respondent; and (2) copies of petty cash vouchers,[32] showing the amounts he received and signed for in the payrolls.
The said documents showed that petitioner hired respondent as an employee and he was paid monthly wages of P7,000.00. Petitioner wielded the power to dismiss as respondent stated that he was verbally dismissed by petitioner, and respondent, thereafter, filed an action for illegal dismissal against petitioner. The power of control refers merely to the existence of the power.[33] It is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee, as it is sufficient that the former has a right to wield the power.[34] Nevertheless, petitioner stated in his Position Paper that it was agreed that he would help and teach respondent how to use the studio equipment. In such case, petitioner certainly had the power to check on the progress and work of respondent.
On the other hand, petitioner failed to prove that his relationship with respondent was one of partnership. Such claim was not supported by any written agreement. The Court notes that in the payroll dated July 31, 2001 to March 15, 2002,[35] there were deductions from the wages of respondent for his absence from work, which negates petitioner’s claim that the wages paid were advances for respondent’s work in the partnership. In Nicario v. National Labor Relations Commission,[36] the Court held:
It is a well-settled doctrine, that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. It is a time-honored rule that in controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in the former’s favor. The policy is to extend the doctrine to a greater number of employees who can avail of the benefits under the law, which is in consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and protection of labor. This rule should be applied in the case at bar, especially since the evidence presented by the private respondent company is not convincing. x x x[37]
Based on the foregoing, the Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the evidence presented by the parties showed that an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondent.
In termination cases, the burden is upon the employer to show by substantial evidence that the termination was for lawful cause and validly made.[38] Article 277 (b) of the Labor Code[39] puts the burden of proving that the dismissal of an employee was for a valid or authorized cause on the employer, without distinction whether the employer admits or does not admit the dismissal.[40] For an employee’s dismissal to be valid, (a) the dismissal must be for a valid cause, and (b) the employee must be afforded due process.[41] Procedural due process requires the employer to furnish an employee with two written notices before the latter is dismissed: (1) the notice to apprise the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, which is the equivalent of a charge; and (2) the notice informing the employee of his dismissal, to be issued after the employee has been given reasonable opportunity to answer and to be heard on his defense.[42] Petitioner failed to comply with these legal requirements; hence, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s finding that respondent was illegally dismissed, and entitled to the payment of backwages, and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.
x x x."
