Sec 11 Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be

denied to any person by reason of poverty.

16 All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasijudicial, or administrative bodies.

1 Work Relationship
a Definition

97
a: person- individual, partner etc
B: employer person acting directly or indirectly in interest of employer
167
c: employee employed by employer
F: employer employing employee
G: employee compulsorily covered by GSIS
H: person - any individual, partnership, firm, association, trust, corporation or legal representative
thereof.
212
e: employer acting in the interest of employer
F: employee: in employ of employer even those whose work has ceased given unfair labor practices.

b Employer Employee relationship

1 Factors/ Tests
Four Fold Test of ER-EE relationship
i
Selection and engagement of EE
ii
Payment of Wages by ER
iii
Power of Dismissal is with ER
iv
Control Test: is the end achieved controlled by ER?;
manner or means it is achieved controlled by ER?
Television and Prod. Exponents Inc. v. RC Servana

Roberto Servana served as a security guard for TAPE and was terminated due to TAPEs decision to hire
a professional security agency. TAPE says that Servana is an independent contractor, a talent and part
of the support group. His termination, TAPE said, was due to redundancy. The court ruled that there is,
in fact a ER-EE relationship because the four-fold test and the ID given as well as the bundy cards of
Servana serve as proof of the employer employee relationship of TAPE and Servana (Servana was
hired, paid by and controlled by respondents) (even if program employee, already regularized, more
than 1 yr, 281). Nominal damages of 10k. POLICY INSTRUCTION 40. SHOULD BE FILED WITH
BROADCAST MEDIA COUNCIL.

Chavez v. NLRC
Pedro Chavez is a truck driver for Supreme Packaging Inc. since 1984. In 1992, he wanted to be
regularized to get the benefits of the regular employees. In 1995, this not being granted, he filed
complaint for regularization but he was terminated (due to gross negligence in proper maintenance of
truck, wanting to sever ties with the company etc) before the case was heard. ER-EE relationship is
present due to the four fold test. (Same work, paid by SPI, dismissed by SPI, his truck is owned by SPI
and his truck routes are controlled by SPI.) That he was paid on a per trip basis is not significant.
Reinstated to his work with full backwages, 279. However, separation pay instead of reinstatement is
more equitable in this case. NOT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR BECAUSE NOT ENOUGH CAPITAL

Vicente Sy v. CA

Jamie Sahot was with SB Trucking (owned by Sy) since 1965. In 1994, Sahot strated to have thigh pains
and filed for leave. He was later dismissed for failure to go to work. He found out later that his SSS
premiums were not paid by employers. Court found that an ER-EE relationship is present between SBT
and Sahot and he was not, infact, an industrial partner (he did not receive any share of the division of
profits and he was not shown to be part of any managerial duty; he was in fact content to follow the
instructions of petitioners during those years). Dismissal was not valid and it was without notice (he
was simply threatened then dismissed). Even if he was offered a job which is less strenuous is of no
matter; also, being terminated of a disease under 284 requires a medical certificate by the employer
which was not shown in the case. He is entitled to separation pay.
2 Piercing the Corporate veil See through protective shroud to distinguish a
corporaion from a seemingly separate one.

Pamplona Plantation Co., Inc. v. Tinghil

PPCI took over the operations of Hacienda Pamplona but did not absorb all of them. CA ruled that
Pamplona illegally dismissed its employees. Pamplona claimed that no relationship was formed
between them and that the non-joinder