Employee vs. Stockholder: Misclassification & Illegal Dismissal in Philippine Labor Law

Misclassifying Employees as Stockholders Can Lead to Illegal Dismissal Claims

TLDR: Philippine labor law strongly protects employees. Misclassifying employees as stockholders to avoid labor obligations, like proper dismissal procedures and notices to DOLE, can backfire. This case highlights that failing to prove stockholder status and neglecting due process in termination, even for business closure, can result in illegal dismissal findings and significant penalties for employers, including backwages and damages.

G.R. NO. 157133, January 30, 2006

INTRODUCTION

Imagine losing your job and then being told you weren’t an employee at all, but a business partner, despite never seeing any ownership paperwork. This is the predicament faced by the Veruasa spouses in this Supreme Court case. In the Philippines, the line between employee and business owner is crucial, especially when jobs are on the line. This case, Business Services of the Future Today, Inc. v. Veruasa, unpacks the critical distinction between an employee and a stockholder, particularly in the context of business closure and termination. The central legal question: Were the Veruasa spouses employees entitled to labor law protections, or were they stockholders, as the company claimed, thus exempting the company from certain obligations during their termination?

LEGAL CONTEXT: EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP AND ILLEGAL DISMISSAL

Philippine labor law heavily favors the protection of employees. A cornerstone of this protection is the concept of illegal dismissal. For an illegal dismissal claim to prosper, the first and foremost requirement is the existence of an employer-employee relationship. This relationship is determined by the four-fold test, established in numerous Supreme Court decisions. This test examines:

The selection and engagement of the employee: How was the worker hired?

The payment of wages: Who pays the worker’s salary?

The power of dismissal: Who has the authority to fire the worker?

The employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct: Does the employer dictate not just the result of the work, but also the means and methods of achieving it?

If these elements are present, an employer-employee relationship exists, and the employee is entitled to the protections of the Labor Code. One such protection is the requirement for due process in termination, especially in cases of business closure. Article 283 of the Labor Code explicitly addresses closure of establishment and reduction of personnel:

ART. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. – The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the worker and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof.

This provision mandates a written notice to both the employee and the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at least one month before closure. This notice to DOLE is not merely procedural; it’s designed to allow DOLE to investigate and ensure the closure is legitimate and not a guise to circumvent labor laws. Failure to provide this notice can taint the dismissal, even if the business closure itself is valid. While exceptions exist, such as when an employee explicitly consents to termination due to closure, the burden of proving such consent rests heavily on the employer.

CASE BREAKDOWN: VERUASA SPOUSES VS. BUSINESS SERVICES OF THE FUTURE TODAY, INC.

The Veruasa spouses were hired by Business Services of the Future Today, Inc. (BSFTI), operating as Mailboxes, Etc. (Davao), with Gilbert Veruasa as manager and Ma. Celestina Veruasa as assistant manager. They received a monthly salary of P15,000. After some time, they went unpaid for several months. Then, on January 8, 1998, Ramon Allado, a BSFTI stockholder, personally handed them termination notices, citing negative cash flow and lack of capital infusion. The office was padlocked, business records seized, and no notice of closure was given to DOLE.

The spouses filed an illegal dismissal complaint. BSFTI countered that Gilbert Veruasa was not just an employee but also a stockholder, claiming he invested assets from a previous business as equity. They alleged a Shareholders’ Agreement existed, though they couldn’t produce a copy, blaming Gilbert for its disappearance. BSFTI argued that as a stockholder and manager, Gilbert was aware of and involved in the decision to close the business, negating the need for DOLE notice.

The Labor Arbiter sided with the Veruasa spouses, finding an employer-employee relationship based on the four-fold test and ruling the dismissal illegal due to lack of DOLE notice and proof of valid closure. The NLRC initially reversed this, accepting BSFTI’s stockholder argument and finding valid business closure. However, the Court of Appeals overturned the NLRC, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision but modifying the monetary awards.

The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the Court of Appeals, emphasizing the failure of BSFTI to convincingly prove Gilbert Veruasa’s stockholder status. The Court highlighted the lack of a Shareholders’ Agreement copy and the absence of the spouses’ names in BSFTI’s articles of incorporation. Crucially, the Court stated:

“The evidence shows that he did not. Although only his correspondences with the petitioners suggest that he was a stockholder of BSFTI, there is no showing that he participated in the alleged stockholders’ meeting where the company’s closure was discussed. The self-serving Joint Affidavit of Allado and Dominguez attesting that Gilbert participated in the meeting discussing the closure is insufficient. The minutes of such meeting would have been better.”

The Court further noted the lack of SEC records indicating BSFTI’s closure. While acknowledging the company’s financial losses as a valid reason for closure, the Supreme Court stressed the procedural lapse: the failure to notify DOLE. Referencing Agabon v. NLRC, the Court clarified that while lack of procedural due process doesn’t invalidate dismissal for an authorized cause, it warrants nominal damages. The Court awarded each spouse P40,000 in nominal damages for this procedural lapse, while denying backwages and 13th-month pay due to the valid business closure. However, surprisingly, the Court also ordered the spouses to refund P48,587.02 to BSFTI, representing overpaid advances against their salaries.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: LESSONS FOR EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES

This case delivers several crucial lessons for both employers and employees in the Philippines.

For Employers:

Document Everything: If you claim an employee is also a stockholder, have solid documentation – a Shareholders’ Agreement, SEC registration reflecting their ownership, and minutes of meetings showing their participation as owners, not just employees. Verbal agreements or flimsy evidence won’t suffice.

Strictly Adhere to DOLE Notice Requirements: Even in legitimate business closures due to financial losses, failing to provide DOLE with the mandatory 30-day written notice is a procedural violation that carries consequences, including nominal damages.

Distinguish Roles Clearly: Avoid blurring the lines between employee and stockholder, especially for managerial positions. If someone is performing primarily employee functions and receiving a salary, they are likely an employee in the eyes of the law, regardless of any purported stockholder status not firmly established.

For Employees:

Understand Your Employment Status: Clarify your role and status upon hiring. If you are offered stock options or told you are a part-owner, ensure this is properly documented and reflected in official company records. Don’t rely on verbal assurances alone.

Keep Records: Maintain records of your employment contract, pay slips, and any communications related to your job and company status. This documentation can be vital in case of disputes.

Know Your Rights: Be aware of your rights as an employee under the Labor Code, particularly regarding termination and due process. If you believe you have been illegally dismissed, seek legal advice promptly.

Key Lessons:

Substance Over Form: Courts prioritize the actual nature of the relationship over labels. Calling someone a

ASG Law