CACHO, Julian Paul S. 2013-0623 Labor Standards Cases assigned: 202-214 202. Angelina Francisco vs.

NLRC, Kasei Corp. etc. G.R. No. 170087, August 31, 2006 Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J.

FACTS: Petitioner was hired by Kasei Corporation during the incorporation stage. She was designated as accountant and corporate secretary and was assigned to handle all the accounting needs of the company. She was also designated as Liason Officer to the City of Manila to secure permits for the operation of the company. In 1996, Petitioner was designated as Acting Manager. She was assigned to handle recruitment of all employees and perform management administration functions. In 2001, Liza Fuentes replaced her as Manager. Kasei Corporation reduced her salary toP2,500 per month which was until September. She asked for her salary but was informed that she was no longer connected to the company. She did not anymore report to work since she was not paid for her salary. She filed an action for constructive dismissal with the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter found that the petitioner was illegally dismissed. NLRC affirmed the decision while CA reversed it.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was employer-employee relationship. HELD: Petitioner is an employee of Kasei Corporation. The court held that in this jurisdiction, there has been no uniform test to determine the existence of an employer-employee relation. Generally, courts have relied on the socalled right of control test where the person for whom the services are performed reserves aright to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end. In addition to the standard of right-of-control, the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties, like the inclusion of the employee in the payrolls, can help in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The better approach would therefore be to adopt a two-tiered test involving: (1) the putative employers power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished; and (2) the underlying economic realities of the activity or relationship. Petitioner was selected and engaged by the company for compensation, and is economically dependent upon respondent for her continued employment in that line of business. There is no doubt that petitioner is an employee of Kasei Corporation because she was under the direct of it.

203. Opulencia Ice Plant vs. NLRC G.R. No. 98368, December 15, 1993 Ponente: Bellosillo, J.

FACTS: Manuel P. Esita was a compressor operator of Tiongson Ice Plant in San Pablo City (for 20 years). In 1980 he was hired as compressor operator-mechanic for the ice plants of petitioner Dr. Melchor Opulencia located in Tanauan, Batangas, and Calamba, Laguna. Initially assigned at the ice plant in Tanauan, Esita would work from seven o'clock in the morning to five o'clock in the afternoon receiving a daily wage of P35.00. In 1986, Esita was transferred to the ice plant in Calamba, which was then undergoing overhauling, taking the place of compressor operator Lorenzo Eseta, who was relieved because he was already old and weak. For less than a month, Esita helped in the construction-remodeling of Dr. Opulencia's house. In February 1989, for demanding the correct amount of wages due him, Esita was dismissed from service. Consequently, he filed with Sub-Regional Arbitration in San Pablo City, a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment, non-payment for overtime, legal holiday, premium for holiday and rest day, 13th month, separation/retirement pay and allowances against petitioners. ISSUE: Whether or not there was an employee-employer relationship between Opulencia and Esita. HELD: Yes. Because no particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted. For, if only documentary evidence would be required to show that relationship, no scheming employer would ever be brought before the bar of justice, as no employer would wish to come out with any trace of the illegality he has authored considering that it should take much weightier proof to invalidate a written instrument. On the claim that Esita's construction work could not ripen into a regular employment in the ice plant because the construction work was only temporary and unrelated to the ice-making business, needless to say, the one month spent by Esita in construction is insignificant compared to his nine-year service as compressor operator in determining the status of his employment as such, and considering further that it was Dr. Opulencia who requested Esita to work in the construction of his house. In allowing Esita to stay in the premises of the ice plant and permitting him to cultivate crops to augment his income, there is no doubt that petitioners should be commended; however, in view of the existence of an employer-employee relationship as found by public respondents, we cannot treat humanitarian reasons as justification for emasculating or taking away the rights and privileges of employees granted by law. Benevolence, it is said, does not operate as a license to circumvent labor laws. If petitioners were genuinely altruistic in extending to their employees privileges that are

not even required by law, then there is no reason why they should not be required to give their employees what they are entitled to receive. Moreover, as found by public respondents, Esita was enjoying the same privileges granted to the other employees of petitioners, so that in thus treating Esita, he cannot be considered any less than a legitimate employee of petitioners.

204. Domasig vs. NLRC G.R. No. 118101, September 16, 1996 Ponente: Padilla, J.

FACTS: Domasig filed a complained against CATA Garments Corporation for illegal dismissal, unpaid commission and other monetary claimed. He alleged that he was dismissed when CATA learned that a rival company pirated him. CATA claimed that he is not a regular employee but a mere commission agent who receives commission (no regular time schedule). Petitioner submitted his ID and cash vouchers reflecting salary payments. Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Domasig but NLRC reversed such ruling. ISSUE: Whether or not there exist an employee-employer relationship. HELD: Yes. Substantial evidences: 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. Together with the cash vouchers covering petitioners salaries for the months stated therein. Petitioner employed by CATA for more than 1 year.

205. Equitable Banking Corporation vs. NLRC and R.L Sadac G.R. No. 102467, June 13, 1997 Ponente: Vitug, J.

FACTS: Atty. Sadac was appointed as VP for the Legal Department of Equitable. Nine lawyers, members of the said department, filed a letter-petition for Sadacs abusive conduct, mismanagement, ineffectiveness and indecisiveness. They warned that they would resign en masse if Atty. Sadac were retained in his position. The Board asked Sadac to voluntarily resign rather than conduct a formal hearing to terminate him. Atty. Sadac filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages. ISSUE: Whether or not there is employee-employer relationship. HELD: Yes. Aside from his work as VP, he was also working under the supervision of the President and Board of Directors. As employed for 8 years, Atty. Sadac received pay slips for monthly salaries. The bank withheld his taxes with BIR. The bank also enrolled him as employee under the SSS and Medicare programs. He contributed to Equitables Employees Provident Fund. A lawyer, like any other professional, may work in a company and be employed as a regular employee. The Court resolved first the issue of employee-employer relationship and ruled in the affirmative on the ground that private respondent participated as part of management and is one of its senior officers holding the position of Vice-President. Upon finding that private respondent is an employee of petitioner, the latter violated the right to due process of private respondent when the latter's request of full hearing was not granted. While it is true that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied in administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side, meetings in the nature of consultation and conferences such as the case here, however, may not be valid substitutes for the proper observance of notice and hearing. However, reinstatement, which is the consequence of illegal dismissal, has markedly been rendered undesirable. Private respondent shall, instead, be entitled to back wages from the time of his dismissal until reaching sixty years of age and, thereupon, to retirement benefits in accordance with Article 287 of the Labor Code and Sec 14, Rule 1, Book VI of the Implementing rules of the Labor Code.

206. Zamudio vs. NLRC G.R. No. 76723, March 25, 1990 Ponente:

FACTS: Petitioners rendered services essential for the cultivation of respondent s farm. While the services were not continuous in the sense that they were not rendered everyday throughout the year, as is the nature of farm work, petitioners had never stopped working for respondent from year to year from the time he hired them to the time he dismissed. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners are considered employees so that employeeemployer relationship may exist. HELD: The nature of their employment, i.e. Pakyao basis, does not make petitioner independent contractors. Pakyao workers are considered employees as long as the employer exercises control over the means by which such workers are to perform their work inside private respondents farm, the latter necessarily exercised control over the performed by petitioners. The seasonal nature of petitioners work does not detract from the conclusion that employer employee relationship exits. Seasonal workers whose work is not merely for the duration of the season, but who are rehired every working season are considered regular employees. The circumstances that petitioners do not appear in respondents payroll do not destroy the employer employee relationship between them. Omission of petitioners in the payroll was not within their control; they had no hand in the preparation of the payroll. This circumstance, even if true, cannot be taken against petitioners.

207. Paguio vs. NLRC G.R. No. 147816, May 9, 2003 Ponente: Vitug, J.

FACTS: Metro Times Corporation, publisher of "The Manila times" hired petitioner as account executive tasked to solicit advertisements for the said newspaper. In return he will receive commission equivalent to 15% on direct advertisements subject to tax deductions. Furthermore he receives a monthly allowance of 2000 if he meets the quota. On August 15, 1992 barely 2 months after the fifth renewal of his contract with the company he was informed about his termination based on accusations not clearly established. In their contract, there is a stipulation, which states that petitioner in not an employee of the company. Moreover, it states that either party may terminate the contract after 30 days notice. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Labor Arbiter found respondent company liable for illegal dismissal and ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner. On appeal NLRC reversed the decision affirmed in toto by CA, hence the appeal. ISSUES: Whether or not petitioner is an employee of the said company. Whether or not the dismissal was proper. HELD: The prime question here is whether petitioner is a regular employee or not. A regular employee is one who is engaged to perform activities, which are necessary and desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer as against those which are undertaken for a specific project or are seasonal. Even in these latter cases, where such person has rendered at least one year of service, regardless of the nature of the activity performed or of whether it is continuous or intermittent, the employment is considered regular as long as the activity exists, it not being indispensable that he be first issued a regular appointment or be formally declared as such before acquiring a regular status. Admittedly, company's president acceded that petitioners work is of great importance in the survival of the company being the advertisements solicited by the petitioner are the lifeblood of the company.

208. Great Pacific Life Assurance Corp. vs. Judico G.R. No. 73887, December 21, 1989 Ponente: Paras, J.

FACTS: On August 27, 1982, the private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioner. The private respondent was a debit agent, defined as an insuranc e agent selling/servicing industrial life plans and policyholders. He had definite work assignments including but not limited to selling insurance and collection of premiums from policyholders. As compensation, he was initially paid PHP200.00 as allowance for thirteen weeks regardless of production and later a certain commission from his total collections. He was promoted to the position of Zone Supervisor and was given additional allowance fixed atPHP110.00 per week. However, he was reverted back to his former position after two months for unknown reasons and was finally dismissed by way of termination of agency contract. The petitioner contended that the private respondent was not an employee of the company entitled to the protection of the law against illegal dismissal. The latters compensation, in the form of commissions and bonuses, was based on actual production. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on the ground that the employeremployee did not exist between the parties. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the ruling stating that the private respondent was a regular employee as defined under Article 281 of the Labor Code. ISSUE: Whether or not an employee-employer relationship existed between the petitioner and the private respondent. HELD: One salient point in the determination of employer-employee relationship which cannot be easily ignored is the fact that the compensation that these agents on commission received is not paid by the insurance company but by the investor (or the person insured). The test is whether the employer controls or has reserved the right to control the employee not only as to the result of the work to be done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished. The private respondent received a definite minimum amount per week as his wage known as sales reserve. He was assigned a definite place in the office to work on when he is not in the field; and in addition to his canvassing work he was burdened with the job of collection. Conversely, he was promoted to Zone Supervisor with additional allowance of a definite amount aside from the regular weekly allowance. His contract of services was neither for a piece of work nor for a definite period. The private respondent was controlled by the petitioner not only as to the kind of work; the amount of results, the kind of performance but also the power of dismissal. Thus, he was an employee of the petitioner. The appealed decision is AFFIRMED.

209. FEATI University vs. Hon. Jose S. Bautista and FEATI University Faculty Club G.R. No. L-21278, December 27, 1966 Ponente: Zaldivar, J.

FACTS: A strike was declared by the members of Feati Unity Faculty Club resulting in the disruption of the classes. Despite further efforts from Department of Labor, the dispute between the union and management of Feati was not settled. The President of the PH certified the dispute to the Court of Industrial Relations. Cases were filed with CIR. CIR ordered that striking faculty members would return to work and the University to admit them under status quo agreement. The latter prayed for dismissal of the case on the ground that CIR has no jurisdiction. It contended that the Industrial Peace Act is not applicable to the university and the members of the Faculty club are mere independent contractors. ISSUE: Whether FEATI is an employer within the purview of the Industrial Peace Act. HELD: The Supreme Court denied the petition. Based on RA 875 Section 2(c) The term employer include any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly, but shall not include any labor organization (otherwise than when acting as an employer) or any one acting in the capacity or agent of such labor organization. In this case, the University is operated for profit hence included in the term of employer. Professors and instructors, who are under contract to teach particular courses and are paid for their services, are employees under the Industrial Peace Act. Professors and instructors are not independent contractors. University controls the work of the members of its faculty; that a university prescribes the courses or subjects that professors teach, and when and where to teach; that the professors work is characterized by regularity and continuity for a fixed duration; that professors are compensated for their services by wages and salaries, rather than by profits; that the professors and/or instructors cannot substitute others to do their work without the consent of the university; and that the professors can be laid off if their work is found not satisfactory. All these indicate that the university has control over their work; and professors are, therefore, employees and not independent contractors. The principal consideration in determining whether a workman is an employee or an independent contractor is the right to control the manner of doing the work, and it is not the actual exercise of the right of interfering with the work, but the right to control, which constitutes the test.

210. Citizens League of Free Workers et. al., vs. Abbas G.R. No. L-21212, September 23, 1966 Ponente: Dizon, J.

FACTS: The petitioners used to lease the auto-calesas operated by the private respondents on a daily rental basis. After sometime, the petitioners tried to get the private respondents to recognize them as employees instead of lessees and to bargain on that basis. The private respondents refused to negotiate. On February 20, 1963, the petitioners declared a strike and since then paralyzed the auto-calesa operations through threats, intimidation and violence. On March 11, 1963, the private respondents filed a complaint with the CFI to restrain the petitioners and to recover damages. The complaint also prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary junction ex-parte restraining defendants therein from committing said acts of violence and intimidation during the pendency of the case. Consequently, the petitioners filed a complaint of unfair labor practice against the private respondents on the ground, among others, of the latters refusal to bargain with them. They also filed a motion to declare the writ of preliminary injunction void since the same had expired by virtue of Section 9 (d) of Republic Act 875 wherein there cannot be any ex parte grant of a restraining order in a case involving a labor dispute. In his order of March 21, 1963, however, the respondent judge denied said motion on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and private respondents. ISSUE: Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship between the parties. HELD: Stating the case of Isabelo Doce vs. Workmen' s Compensation Commission, et al., the Court held that a driver of a jeep who operates the same under the boundary system is considered an employee within the meaning of the law and as such the case comes under the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations. The lessor-lessee relationship cannot be sustained between an operator and his drivers for the sole ground that the latter were not paid any fixed wage and that their compensation was the excess of the total amount of fares earned. The drivers did not have any interest in the business because they did not invest anything in the acquisition of the jeeps and did not participate in the management thereof, their service as drivers of the jeeps being their only contribution to the business. There was a labor dispute between the parties from the beginning. The writ of preliminary injunction was set aside.

211. Villamaria vs. CA and Bustamante G.R. No. 165881, April 19, 2006 Ponente: Callejo, Sr., J.

FACTS: Petitioner was the owner of the jeepneys, which the private respondent is the one who is driving in a boundary basis. Villamaria and Bustamante entered into a contract were the petitioner agreed to sell the jeepney entitled Kasunduan ng Bilihan ng Sasakayan sa Pamamagitan ng Boundary-Hulog were Bustamante would remit to Villamaria P550.00 a day for a period of four years. Both parties agreed in such terms and stipulations of the contract. When the private respondent failed to pay the boundaryhulog, Villarama took back the jeepney driven by Bustamante and barred the latter from driving the vehicle. Due to the action of petitioner, Bustamante files a complaint before the court. ISSUE: Whether or not there exist an employee-employer relationshop. HELD: Yes. The juridical relationship of employer-employee between petitioner and respondent was not negated by the foregoing stipulation in the Kasunduan, considering that petitioner retained control of respondents conduct as driver of the vehicle. Even if the petitioner was allowed to let some other person drive the unit, it was not shown that he did so; that the existence of an employment relation is not dependent on how the worker is paid but on the presence or absence of control over the means and method of the work; that the amount earned in excess of the boundary hulog is equivalent to wages; and that the fact that the power of dismissal was not mentioned in the Kasunduan did not mean Villamaria never exercised such power, or could not exercise such power. Hence, the employer- employee relationship exists.

212. Sy et. al., vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and J. Sahot G.R. No. 142293, February 27, 2003 Ponente: Quizumbing, J.

FACTS: Complainant started working with respondent SBT Trucking in 1958 at age 23, first as a fire truck helper and later as truck driver, until 1994 when at age 59 he was separated for his inability to work due to sickness. When he inquired with the SSS, he learned that the trucking company never paid his SSS premiums. The company contended that he was never an employee but an industrial partner and that he would not have been separated if he returned to his work after his sick leave; it was he, rather, that could not resume his work. ISSUE: Whether or not an employee-employer relationship existed between the parties. HELD: It shows that the complainant was only 23 years old when he started working with respondent as truck helper. SC questioned how a 23 year old man, working as a truck helper, be considered an industrial partner. Hence the Court ruled that complainant was only an employee, not a partner of respondents from the time complainant started working for respondent. There was no written agreement, no proof that the complainant received a share in petitioners profits, nor was there anything to show he had any participation with respect to the running of the business. The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employers power to control the employees conduct. The most important element is the employers control of the employees conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it. As found by the appellate court, petitioners owned and operated a trucking business since the1950s and by their own allegations, they determined private respondents wages and rest day. Records of the case show that private respondent actually engaged in work as an employee. During the entire course of his employment he did not have the freedom to determine where he would go, what he would do, and how he would do it. He merely followed instructions of petitioners and was content to do so, as long as he was paid his wages. Indeed, said the CA, private respondent had worked as a truck helper and driver of petitioners not for his own pleasure but under the latters control.

213. Makati Haberdashery Inc. vs. NLRC G.R. Nos. 83380-81, November 15, 1989 Ponente: Fernan, C.J.,

FACTS: Individual complainants have been working for Makati Haberdashery Inc. as tailors, seamsters, sewers, basters and plantsadoras. They were paid on a piece-rate basis except two who were paid on a monthly basis. In addition to their piece-rate, they were given daily allowance of P3.00 provided they report for work before 9:30am everyday. They were required to work from or before 9:30am up to 6-7pmfrom Monday to Saturday and during peak periods even on Sundays and holidays. The Sandigan ng Manggagawang Pilipino filed a complaint for underpayment of the basic wage, underpayment of living allowance, nonpayment of overtime work, nonpayment of holiday pay and other money claims. The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of complainants, which the NLRC affirmed. Petitioner urged that the NLRC erred in concluding that an employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioners and the workers. ISSUE: Whether or not employee-employer relationship existed between petitioners and its workers. HELD: The test of employer-employee relationship is four-fold: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee's conduct. It is the so-called "control test" that is the most important element. This simply means the determination of whether the employer controls or has reserved the right to control the employee not only as to the result of the work but also as to the means and method by which the same is to be accomplished. The facts at bar indubitably reveal that the most important requisite of control is present. As gleaned from the operations of petitioner, when a customer enters into a contract with the haberdashery or its proprietor, the latter directs an employee who may be a tailor, pattern maker, sewer or "plantsadora" to take the customer's measurements, and to sew the pants, coat or shirt as specified by the customer. Supervision is actively manifested in all these aspects the manner and quality of cutting, sewing and ironing.

214. Caurdanetaan Piece Workers Union vs. Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma G.R. No. 113542, February 24, 1998 Ponente: Panganiban, J.

FACTS: Complainants worked as cargador at the warehouse and rice mills of Private Respondent Corfarm. As cargadores, they loaded, unloaded and piled sacks of palay from the warehouse to the cargo trucks and those brought by cargo trucks for delivery to different places. They were paid by Corfarm on a piece-rate basis. When Corfarm denied them some benefits, they formed their union. Corfarm replaced them with non-members of the union. Respondent Corfarm denies that it had the power of control over the complainants rationalizing that they were street-hired workers engaged from time to time to do loading and unloading work; there was no superintendent-in-charge to give orders; and there were no gate passes issued, nor tools, equipment and paraphernalia issued by Cofarm for loading and unloading. It attributes error to the Solicitor General's reliance on Art. 280 of the Labor Code. Citing Brent School, Inc. vs. Zamora, private respondent asserts that a literal application of such article will result in absurdity, where petitioners members will be regular employees not only of respondents but also of several other rice mills, where they were allegedly also under service. Finally, Corfarm submits that the OSGs position is negated by the fact that petitioners members contracted for loading and unloading services with respondent company when such work was available and when they felt like it. ISSUE: Whether or not the street-hired cargadores are considered as regular emplyoyees. HELD: The court considers the cargadores as regular employee. It is undeniable that petitioner's members worked as cargadores for private respondent. They loaded, unloaded and piled sacks of palay from the warehouses to the cargo trucks and from the cargo trucks to the buyers. This work is directly related, necessary and vital to the operations of Cofarm. Moreover, Cofarm did not even allege, much less prove, that petitioner's members have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, and work premises among others. Furthermore, said respondent did not contradict petitioner's allegation that it paid wages directly to these workers without the intervention of any third party independent contractor. It also wielded the power of dismissal over the petitioners. Clearly, the workers are not independent contractors.