G.R. No. 194765, April 23, 2018 averred that the MOA effectively transferred Sta.

averred that the MOA effectively transferred Sta. Rita's employment from Marsman
MARSMAN & COMPANY, INC. v. RODIL C. STA. RITA and Company, Inc. to CPDSI.
Facts: LA: Found Marsman as [Link]’s employer and declared it guilty of illegal dismissal.
Petitioner Marsman, a domestic corporation, which was engaged in the business of NLRC: On the contrary, found that using the four-fold test, there is no employee-
distribution and sale of pharmaceutical and consumer products for different employer relationship.
manufacturers within the country, temporarily hired Sta. Rita on as a warehouse CA: Held that Marsman was Sta. Rita's employer because Sta. Rita was allegedly not
helper and paid him monthly wage. After the contract expired, Marsman rehired Sta. part of the integration of employees between Marsman and CPDSI.
Rita as a warehouseman and placed him on probationary status with pay. Marsman Issue:
then confirmed Sta. Rita’s status as a regular employee and adjusted his monthly Whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between Marsman and
wage. Later, Sta. Rita joined Marsman Employees Union (MEU), the recognized sole Sta. Rita at the time of Sta. Rita's dismissal?
and exclusive bargaining representative of Marsman's employees. Marsman Ruling:
administered Sta. Rita's warehouse assignments. Initially, Marsman assigned her to Sta. Rita failed to satisfy the four-fold test which determines the existence of an
work in its GMA warehouse, later then transferred to the Warehouses C and E of Kraft employer-employee relationship. The elements of the four-fold test are: 1) the
General Foods, Inc. Sometime in July 1995; Marsman purchased Metro, a company selection and engagement of the employees; 2) the payment of wages; 3) the power
that was also engaged in the distribution and sale of pharmaceutical and consumer of dismissal; and 4) the power to control the employee's conduct. There is no hard and
products, from Metro Pacific, Inc. The similarity in Marsman's and Metro Drug's fast rule designed to establish the aforesaid elements. Any competent and relevant
business led to the integration of their employees which was formalized in a evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted. Identification cards, cash
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Concomitant to the integration of employees is vouchers, social security registration, appointment letters or employment contracts,
the transfer of all office, sales and warehouse personnel of Marsman to Metro Drug payrolls, organization charts, and personnel lists, serve as evidence of employee
and the latter’s assumption of obligation with regard to the affected employees' labor status.
contracts and Collective Bargaining Agreement. The integration and transfer of A labor contract merely creates an action in personam and does not create any real
employees ensued out of the transitions of Marsman and CPDSI into, respectively, a right which should be respected by third parties. This conclusion draws its force from
holding company and an operating company. Thereafter, on November 7, 1997, Metro the right of an employer to select his/her employees and equally, the right of the
Drug amended its Articles of Incorporation by changing its name to "Consumer employee to refuse or voluntarily terminate his/her employment with his/her new
Products Distribution Services, Inc." (CPDSI)- which was approved by the SEC. In the employer by resigning or retiring. That CPDSI took Sta. Rita into its employ and
meantime, on an unspecified date, CPDSI contracted its logistic services to EAC assigned him to one of its clients signified the former's acquiescence to the transfer.
Distributors (EAC). CPDSI and EAC agreed that CPDSI would provide warehousemen to The MOA clearly reflected Marsman's intention to transfer all employees to CPDSI.
EAC's tobacco business which operated in EAC-Libis Warehouse. A letter issued by It is clear under the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement that Marsman may
Marsman confirmed Sta. Rita’s appointment as one of the warehousemen for EAC- continue to negotiate and address issues with the Union even after the signing and
Libis Warehouse. Parenthetically, EAC's use of the EAC-Libis Warehouse was execution of said agreement in the course of fully implementing the transfer to, and
dependent upon the lease contract between EAC and Valiant Distribution (Valiant), the integration of operations with, CPDSI. To prove the element on the payment of
owner of the EAC-Libis Warehouse. Hence, EAC's operations were affected when wages, Sta. Rita submitted forms for leave application, with either Marsman's logo or
Valiant decided to terminate their contract of lease on January 31, 2000. In response CPDSI's logo. In any event, the forms for leave application did not sufficiently establish
to the cessation of the contract of lease, EAC transferred their stocks into their own that Marsman paid Sta. Rita's wages. Sta. Rita could have presented pay slips salary
warehouse and decided to operate the business by themselves, thereby ending their vouchers, payrolls, certificates of withholding tax on compensation income or
logistic service agreement with CPDSI. This sequence of events left CPDSI with no testimonies of his witnesses. The submission of his SSS ID only proved his membership
other option but to terminate the employment of those assigned to EAC-Libis in the social insurance program. Sta. Rita should have instead presented his SSS
Warehouse, including Sta. Rita. According to CPDSI, she was terminated due to records which could have reflected his contributions, and the name and address of his
redundancy. Aggrieved, Sta. Rita filed a complaint in the NLRC against Marsman for employer. Thus, Sta. Rita fell short in his claim that Marsman still had him in its payroll
illegal dismissal with damages. Sta. Rita alleged that his dismissal was without just or at the time of his dismissal. As to the power of dismissal, the letter dated January 14,
authorized cause and without compliance with procedural due process. Marsman filed 2000 clearly indicated that CPDSI, and not Marsman, terminated Sta. Rita's services by
a Motion to Dismiss on the premise that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the reason of redundancy. Finally, Sta. Rita failed to prove that Marsman had the power of
complaint for illegal dismissal because Marsman is not Sta. Rita's employer. Marsman control over his employment at the time of his dismissal. The power of an employer to
control the work of the employee is considered the most significant determinant of
the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Control in such relationships
addresses the details of day to day work like assigning the particular task that has to
be done, monitoring the way tasks are done and their results, and determining the
time during which the employee must report for work or accomplish his/her assigned
task. The Court likewise takes notice of the company IDs attached in Sta. Rita's
pleading. The "old" ID bore Marsman's logo while the "new" ID carried Metro Drug's
logo. The Court has held that in a business establishment, an identification card is
usually provided not only as a security measure but mainly to identify the holder
thereof as a bona fide employee of the firm that issues it. Thus the "new" ID
confirmed that Sta. Rita was an employee of Metro Drug, which, to reiterate, later
changed its name to CPDSI.