ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT

Estafa
Peo v Calonzo
o Illegal recruitment + Estafa
o Elements: 1) defraud, 2) damage or prejudice
o Italy send DH (no authority or license)
o PF of 150K
Power to issue search or arrest warrants
Salazar v Achacoso and Marquez
o Recruitment agency (no license)
o POEA Closure and seizure order -> IR
o Swooped residence + dance studio = confiscate costumes
o Due process and USS?
o POEA may issue? NO. UC! (Only judge under Consti)
o POEA only cause arrest
Illegal recruitment
IR in large scale and estafa Peo v Verano
o Recruiter Verano
o Salesmen
o Bahrain promised for depart for employment
o Airport failed to deliver documents
o WPD complaint; POE no license labor recruiter
o Guilty IR in LS and estafa
IR Peo v Espanol
o 14 persons promised employment
o Rich influential relatives in USA
o Birthday Atty. Dizon work on documents never appeared
o Suspicious -> police station -> Espanol denied all
o Guilty IR
Violation of Art 32 (chargeable fees) Peo v Roxas
o FC Roxas under construction
o Licensed private recruitment agency (service contractor employer of recruits abroad)
o SC not allowed to charge fees except doc fees of 1500
o Demanded 22 sums of money 1500 to 8500 (beyond)
o Not able to work abroad -> Roxas said only for passport and ticketing
o Guilty 32
IR in large scale Peo v Remullo
o Recruit factory workers
o Malaysia
o Jamila and Co recruitment agency working
o Pay placement fee and submit reqs
o Immigration lack requirement -> Tourist visa only
o VP of JC deinied the papers and R did not submit anything and not authorized to receive
payments
o Guilty IR in LS
Only marketing consultant not recruiter
Elements: 1)recruitment activity, 2) no license or authority, 3) against 3 or more
IR Peo v Angeles
o Saudi Arabia Maria received call from sister -> S. Angeles will assist in processing travel and
employment docs to Paris -> gave money to SA
o Canada 2 more received same instructions -> All went to Jakarta
o SA returned to PH
o POEA not licensed to recruit
o SA said not represented that she could provide them work
o NOT guilty no promise or offer of employment relatives were the ones who urged/promised
EMPLOYMENT OF NON-RESIDENT ALIEN
Alien employment permit General Milling Corp v Torres
o AEP issued to Cone (sports consultant and assist coach for GMC)
o Board of Special inquiry approved application for change of admission status (visitor to prearranged employee)
o Renewal of AEP granted

Basketball coach association appealed to Sec of Labor = cancelled AEP

Why? Fail to show that there was no person in PH who was competent and willing to do such +
national interest
o Grave abuse in revoking license? NO.
o Right to choose employee is not absolute
o DOLE has power to determine question of validity of workers
Legality of limiting employment of aliens Dee chuan and sons v CIR
o Dispute Dee and union
o Hire 12 more laborers from time to time + temp basis = granted by CIR w proviso
Majority native
o Dee assails proviso (UC; right to hire)
o SC = Dee not entitled to challenge (only a prospective alien employee) + not right to hire not
absolute (reasonable and public interest)
o
o

HR DEVELOPMENT
Apprenticeship needs DOLEs prior approval or apprentice becomes regular employee Nitto Enterprises v
NLRC
o NE hired Capili (apprentice machinist + agreement 6 mos)
o 75% of minimum wage = daily wage
o Asked to resign (cannot use tool + injured because of negligence)
o He signed and executed Quitclaim and release -> case of Illegal dismissal
o LA valid termination; NLRC reverse (regular employee)
o NE said no valid agreement = needs approval of DOLE (it came later)
o SC = NE not comply with law; approval by Minister of DOLE
o A agreement = no force and effect in the absence of approval by DOLE
o Thus, Capili = regular employee
Working scholar; liability of school Filamer Christian v CA
o 82 yr old retired teacher struck by jeep owned by FC and driven by Funtecha (employee)
o Filed case against employee only and reserved civil case; F = guilty
o Filed civil president, employee, school
o TC and CA liable for damages
o SC = 1st decision not liable FC because F is unauthorized driver + working scholar
o 2nd decision applied CC not LC;
o F working student (janitor and scholar)
o F took over driver = done for his employer and FC cant deny responsibility that its beyond janitorial
duties
o Not case on labor dispute bet ee = damages for injury by negligent
o A rule on LC cant be used by employer as shield to avoid liability under CC
HOURS OF WORK
4 fold test Manila Golf and CC vs IAC
o Caddies = not employees of golf club
o Must submit to supervision of conduct while enjoying privilege of occupation within premises of
club they work in
o Work for the club but free to leave any time
o Control test = only for existence of right to control manner of doing work (not exercise of right)
Economic dependence test Sevilla v CA
o No uniform test to determine existence of ee relationship
o Need to consider existing conditions between parties + right to control = determine EE relationship
2 tiered approach: economic dependence test Angelina Francisco v NLRC, Kasei Corp
o AF = accountant, corp sec, liaison officer -> Acting manager
o Performed managerial admin functions and rep the corp in dealings
o Replaced as Mgr -> consultant -> no longer connected
o LA employee and entitled to reinstatement; NLRC affirmed but no reinstatement
o CA not employee
o SC= employers power to control (means and methods) + economic realities = WON employee
o Economic dependence WON worker is dependent on alleged employer for continued
employment in that line of business
o EE depends on circumstances of economic activity (7things)
Absence of name in payroll Opulencia Ice Plant v NLRC
o Disprove as employee? NO.
o EE relationship was sufficiently proved by testimonial evidence

o Absence of time sheet, record or payroll immaterial

Pakyaw workers Zamudio v NLRC
o Pakyaw basis = not independent contractors
o P considered employees as long as there is control over them
o Cultivation farmers not continuous not everyday
o Seasonal not disprove EE relationship; hired and rehired
o No payroll not disprove EE
EE determined by LAW not contract Paguio v NLRC
o 5th time as account executive to solicit advertising for Manila times
o Agreement with Metromedia Corp you are not employeemay terminate anytime..
o Terminated pirate clients -> Illegal dismissal? Yes
o Company lease of service? No.
o SC = company X seek refuge under terms of contract
o Nature of work law defines; reinstated paguio

EE RELATIONSHIP
Salaried insurance agent Great pacific life v Judico
o Honorato = Debit agent (sales reserve)
o Canvass and collect job and report
o Bad performance = dismissal; good = promote
o Promoted then reverted
o Terminated -> illegal dismissal -> not employee?
o LA dismissed no ee; NLRC reversed regular employee
o SC = affirmed NLRC (control + dismissal)
o 2 kinds of insurance agents: 1)definite hrs and 2) commission basis- not obliged to report for work
at anytime; w/o fear of dismissal + work at own volition
o Control test result of work and methods and means to accomplish such work
o He is regular employee + illegally dismissed
School teacher Feati University v Bautista and Faculty club
o Professors and school teachers = employee not independent contractors
o IC or employee test right to control the manner of doing work
Jeep, taxi, barber Citizens League of Free workers v Abbas
o Boundary system day earnings =excess of boundary
o Owner and operator of jeepney
o EE relationship exists between owner and drivers even if BS
o Not lessor and lessee not invest, not participate in management, service only contribution
o Control test supervision and control and management
Boundary-hulog Villamaria v CA Bustamante
o Kasunduan (boundary + partial payment of purchase price; excess daily wage)
o Jeep owner (ownership) + driver (material possess)
o Fail to pay -> terminate and return jeep -> paalala -> illegal dismissal
o Kasunduan transformed to seller-buyer? NO.
o EE exists = control (failure to remit only suspend)
Truck driver: employee (not partner) Sy et al v CA and Sahot
o Truck helper -> truck driver
o Unable to work and separated from work sick e
o Never paid SSS premium -> industrial partner (not employee)? NO.
o SC = employee (no written agreement as to sharing of profits not participation in running the
business)
Piece rate workers Makati Haberdashery v NLRC
o Piecerate and monthly basis
o Tailor, sewer, planstsadora, etc
o Sandigan filed complaint for underpayment
o LA and NLRC favored workers
o EE exists suspension, control, dependent, regular hours, memorandum = reserved right to
control to results, means and methods of work
o Not entitled to receive leave and holiday pay
Street-hired cargadores Caurdanetaan Piece workers union v Laguesma and Corfarm grains
o Cargardores warehouse and ricemills
o Loaded, unloaded, carry palay
o Piece rate basis -> denied benefits -> create union -> replaced with non members of union
o Corfarm said not employee as street-hired (no in charge; no gate passes; no tools and etc)

SC = regular employee (load, carry palay = vital to corfarm + pay wages directly) not independent
contractors
Movie projects Maraguinot and Enero V NLRC and Viva films
o 2 employed as filming crew by viva films
o Loading, unload, arrange equipment and other task
o Adjust salary to minimum -> no -> terminated -> illegal dismissal
o VF denied being employer engaged in distribution of movies not making + 2 men were producers
(make movies) = project employees of producers who act as independent contractors
o LA employees + ID; NLRC specific movie projects only
o SC = Agency relationship (viva and producers)
control test + appointment slip: petitioners = employees of VIVA (not employees of
producers)
Labor union and unregistered association as employee Orlando Farm growers v NLRC
o Landowners produce banana + unregistered association -> OFG (not registered + authorized to
transact in the interest of individual LO members)
o Assoc workers as packers and harvesters hired by ILO + paid SSS
o 20 dismissed by Assoc -> Illegal dismissal
o Assoc denied EE and hired by individual LO as they paid SSS
o SC = Employee acts in interest of employer directly or indirectly; law does not require it to be
registered to be employer
o Ee exists 4 fold test + EE between Assoc and employees (not ILO)
Rights of employer over conditions of employee San Miguel brewery v Ople
o Marketing scheme complimentary distribution system -> route salesman -> direct sales
o Union: violate CB? No.
o SC = SM offered back adjustment commission to make up for the lose = GF and lack of intention
to bust the union
Supervisions, managers: not entitled to overtime pay National sugar v NLRC and union
o WON supervisory employees = managerial staff under Article 82
o Not entitled to overtime, rest, holiday pay -> only form unions
o Discharge duties and responsibilities of manager effective and efficient operation of departments
Shift engineer or foreman or boilder head = managerial staff Penaranda v Baganga plywood corp
o Shift engineer supervise and oversee; foreman representative of department
o Managerial staff = no overtime and premium pay for rest days
Outside or field sales personnel San Miguel brewery v democratic labor org
o Field sales personnel = piecework, pakyaw, commission
o 8 hr law not apply = not entitled to overtime pay (only apply to monthly or daily basis)
o Commission based on gross receipts of day
o FP not supervised by employer or rep; workplace is away; hours of work cant be determined with
reasonable certainty
o Fishermen, bus drivers and conductors not FP
Outside or field sales personnel (driver conductor) Auto Bus Transport System v Bautista
o FP location and unsupervised and undetermined # hrs of work
o Driver conductor constant supervision while in performance = NOT FP
o Employees engaged in commission not automatically exempted from grant of service incentive
leave (EXC: fall under classification of field personnel)
o WON entitled to service incentive = WON FP -> Not FP (driver conductor)
Outside or field sales personnel Union of Filipro employees v Vivar
o Sales personnel = field personnel
o Field work + come and go to office
o Law required that actual work hours can be determined w reasonable certainty
o Company has no way to determine such
o Entitlement to overtime pay of piecework employees -> re-examined
o

NORMAL HRS OF WORK

12 hr workshift with overtime Interphil case
o Workshift may exceed 8 hrs with corresponding overtime pay valid and binding
o 24 hr work schedule nature of business and client demands
o Schedule is validated by consent and 4 hr overtime work with overtime pay contractual
commitment
o Boycott of such illegal strike
HOURS WORKED

Semestral break - University of Pangasinan Faculty union v UP

o Fulltime professors, instructor, teacher monthly basis
o Sembreak (not paid of ecola pay) = hours worked!
o No work no pay (not apply) = forced to go on leave (not voluntary)
o Breaks not = to absences
o Sembreak, holiday entitled!