You are on page 1of 2

Lirio v.

Genovia
G.R. No. 169757; 23 November 2011; Peralta, J.
FACTS:
1. Respondent Genovia was hired as a studio manager by Petitioner Lirio, owner of Celkor
Recording Studio. He received a monthly salary of P7,000 and an additional commission of
P100/hour as recording technician. He was made to report to work from Monday to Friday
9am-6pm and half day on Saturday. Lirio never kept a daily time record of his employees.
2. A few days after respondent started working as a studio manager, he was asked by Lirio to
compose and arrange songs for his 15-year old daughter; Lirio assured him that he will be
fully compensated.
3. After Genovia finished the job and after the album was released (and aired over the radio), he
reminded Lirio about the contract on his compensation. However, Lirio told him that he
doesnt deserve a high compensation and was only entitled to 20% of the net profit and not of
the gross sales of the album. Genova insisted that he be properly compensated. Lirio then
verbally terminated his services.
4. Genova filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. He claimed that since he has worked for 6
months, he was already a regular employee. Lirio, in his defense, said that his relationship
with respondent is one of informal partnership under Article 1767 NCC (as a co-producer of
his daughters album).
5. Labor Arbiter found that theres an employer-employee relationship and respondent was
illegally dismissed. LA awarded respondent separation pay and backwages. NLRC reversed
the LA decision. CA reversed the NLRC resolution and reinstated the LA decision. Hence, this
petition.
ISSUES:
WON there was an employer-employee relationship YES (Genova was illegally dismissed. Lirio
failed to show valid cause for termination)
HELD:
Petition denied.
RATIO
1. 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 employers power of control.
2. The most important element is the employers control of the employees conduct, not only as
to the result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it.
No particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of an employer-employee
relationship. Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be
admitted.
3. Documents adduced in the present case are: payroll showing the respondents monthly salary
with corresponding deductions for absences incurred, and copies of the amounts he received
and signed for in the payrolls.
4. The power of control refers merely to the existence of the power. 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. Petitioner himself sad in his position paper
that he would help teach respondent how to use the studio equipment. This shows his power
to check on the progress and work of respondent. Petitioners power to dismiss is clear from
the fact that he verbally dismissed respondent.
5. Regarding the claim of an informal partnership, it was not proved in this case. The payroll
indicating deductions from the wages for respondents absences negates his claim that the
7,000 monthly payments were mere advances for respondents work in the partnership.

You might also like