VICENTE SY, TRINIDAD PAULINO, 6B’S TRUCKING CORPORATION, and SBT1 TRUCKING CORPORATION vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and JAIME SAHOT

G.R. No. 142293 February 27, 2003

Industrial Partner vs. Employee

Facts: Sometime in 1958, private respondent Jaime Sahot started working as a truck helper for petitioners’ trucking business. In April 1994, Sahot inquired about his medical and retirement benefits with the Social Security System (SSS) but discovered that his premium payments had not been remitted by his employer. Sahot had filed a week-long leave sometime in May 1994. He was medically examined and treated for various illnesses. 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. It was at this time when petitioners allegedly threatened to terminate his employment should he refuse to go back to work. Petitioners dismissed him from work, effective June 30, 1994. Sahot filed with the NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissa. Petitioners contend that private respondent was not illegally dismissed as a driver because he was in fact petitioners’ industrial partner. 

Issue: Whether respondent is petitioners’ industrial partner

Held: No. A computation of the age of complainant shows that he was only twenty-three (23) years when he started working with respondent as truck helper. How can we entertain in our mind that a twenty-three (23) year old man, working as a truck helper, be considered an industrial partner. Hence we rule that complainant was only an employee, not a partner of respondents from the time complainant started working for the petitioners. No written agreement exists to prove the partnership between the parties. Private respondent did not contribute money, property or industry for the purpose of engaging in the supposed business. There is no proof that he was receiving a share in the profits as a matter of course, during the period when the trucking business was under operation. Neither is there any proof that he had actively participated in the management, administration and adoption of policies of the business. Thus, the NLRC and the CA did not err in reversing the finding of the Labor Arbiter that private respondent was an industrial partner from 1958 to 1994.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 29, 2000 is AFFIRMED. Petitioners must pay private respondent Jaime Sahot his separation pay for 36 years of service at the rate of one-half monthly pay for every year of service, amounting to P74,880.00, with interest of six per centum (6%) per annum from finality of this decision until fully paid.