Employee or kasambahay? (3)

In her petition, petitioner argued that she was an employee of M.I.Y. because her workplace was at the Goldrich Mansion in Makati City, which is a commercial establishment where Yu’s businesses were located and operating.

Petitioner cited and applied the cases of Apex Mining Company Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission and Remington Industrial Sales Corporation v. Castaneda, where the Court ruled that a house help in the staff houses of an industrial company was a regular employee of said firm.

To petitioner, she was a regular employee and not a domestic worker because she did not serve for the personal comfort and enjoyment of the family of Yu, but instead worked in all the businesses of Yu and/or business of M.I.Y., which were housed in the same workplace in Makati City.

Petitioner’s contentions are untenable.

Contrary to her arguments that she was not a domestic worker, we agree with the CA that petitioner’s employment with Yu as a domestic worker remained undisputed under the records.

She was hired as a house worker in the latter’s Pasig City residence then later transferred to the Makati City residence, where M.I.Y. coincidentally also held its office. Clearly, petitioner was a domestic worker of Yu and performed household work solely for Yu’s benefit.

The facts and quoted portion of the decision are from Flordivina M. Gaspar v. M.I.Y Real Estate Corp. and Melissa Ilagan Yu (G.R. No. 239385, 17 April 2024).