Author: Daniel Urdaneta, Attorney-at-Law.

RULING NO. 634, SOCIAL CASSATION CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME TRIBUNAL OF JUSTICE (TSJ). DATE: 12.08.2025. CASE FILE NO. AA60-S-2024-000621

In the lawsuit filed by citizen JEAN PAÚL CANEVESE VILLARROEL against the commercial entity FRUTO SANTO, C.A. for the collection of severance benefits and other labor-related entitlements, the plaintiff filed a recourse in cassation against the judgment dated November 5, 2024, issued by the First Superior Labor Court of the Judicial District of the State of Mérida. Said judgment dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant and, consequently, declared the claim WITHOUT MERIT, confirming the ruling issued by the Second Court of First Instance for Trial Matters of the aforementioned Judicial District.

In this regard, the Chamber has established in this ruling that the receipt of wages constitutes an essential element, among other circumstances, to determine the existence of an employment relationship. In the present case, the defendant asserts as a defense the existence of a commercial relationship between itself and the plaintiff-appellant, submitting sufficient evidence before the Judge to determine such status. For its part, the plaintiff-appellant alleges the existence of an employment relationship as the central ground to support the claim for severance benefits and other labor entitlements inherent to the termination of the alleged employment bond; however, the Chamber finds that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of any monetary consideration received from the company that could be characterized as wages.

Accordingly, the Chamber ratifies the parameters comprising the Control Test  consistently and settledly applied by this Court, which emphasizes that, for a relationship between two parties to be determined as labor-related, the principles of subordination, displacement of risk, and wages must be met. The latter was emphasized by the Social Cassation Chamber in the present case to determine the lack of merit of the argument presented by the plaintiff regarding the nature of the legal relationship between the parties.

In this regard, we proceed to cite an excerpt of the aforementioned ruling as follows:

“(…) Based on the partially transcribed opinion, this Court notes that the court below—given the facts and circumstances of the case—found that the defendant’s denial of an employment relationship and its assertion of the commercial nature of the services shifted the focus to the evidence of record. The purpose was to verify whether the service provided met the legal standards of an employment relationship. The court below concluded that, while the plaintiff indeed rendered services, there was no evidence of the coexistence of the essential elements required to establish an employment relationship: subordination, displacement of risk, and wages.Furthermore, the Court finds it highly compelling that no payments qualifying as wages were made throughout the duration of the parties’ relationship. This is particularly significant given that the claim specifically seeks fifteen (15) months of back pay, confirming that monetary consideration is the gravamen of an employment relationship.

In light of the foregoing, it is evident that although a presumption of employment initially favored the plaintiff, the defendant successfully rebutted said presumption through the evidence of record. Consequently, the appellate judge correctly held that the case lacked the hallmarks of an employment relationship.

Finding that the ad quem court did not err in its application of the law, the present challenge is hereby dismissed. So ordered. (…)”

To consult the full judgment (available in Spanish), click the following link: http://historico.tsj.gob.ve/decisiones/scs/diciembre/351534-634-81225-2025-24-621.HTML