BERNARD TENAZAS v. R. VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT G.R. No.

192998 02
APRIL 2014
FACTS:
Bernard Tenazas, Jaime Francisco, and Isidro Endraca filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against R.
Villegas Taxi Transport, and/or Romualdo Villegas and Andy Villegas.
PETITIONERS CLAIM
TENAZAS - Taxi unit was sideswiped by another vehicle (damage = P500); fired
after reporting the incident, even threatened w/
physical harm if he was seen on company premises.
FRANCISCO - Dismissed because of the unfounded suspicion that he was
organizing a labor union
EDRACA Dismissed after falling short of the required boundary for his taxi unit; fell
short because of P700 spent on an urgent repair
R. VILLEGAS TAXIS CLAIM
TENAZAS - Company admits that Tenazas is an employee regular driver. Tenazas
was never terminated; he failed to report back to work after being told to wait for the
release of his taxi (overhauled due to mechanical defects)
FRANCISCO - Company denies that Francisco is an employee
ENDRACA - Company admits that Endraca is an employee spare driver . Endraca
could not have been terminated in March 2006 because he stopped reporting for
work in July 2003 (but willing to accommodate him again as he was never really
dismissed)
Tenazas, Francisco, and Endraca also filed a Motion to Admit Additional Evidence:
(a) Joint Affidavit of the petitioners; (b) Affidavit of Good Faith of Aloney Rivera (codriver); (c) pictures of the petitioners wearing company shirts;
(d) Tenazas Certification/Record of Social Security System (SSS) contributions.
LA: No illegal dismissal because no proof of an overt act of dismissal committed by
R. Villegas Taxi;

Francisco failed to prove he was an employee

NLRC: Reversed LA; the additional evidence sufficiently established the existence
of employer-employee relationship and illegal dismissal (for all three)
CA: Tenazas and Endraca were indeed employees and were illegally dismissed,
but Francisco failed to establish his relationship with the company
ISSUES: WON there was an employer-employee relationship (re: Francisco) NO
HELD:
The burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. As
Francisco was claiming to be an employee of R. Villegas Taxi, it is incumbent upon
him to proffer evidence to prove the existence of the relationship.
There is no hard and fast rule to establish the elements of employer-employee
relationship. Any competent and relevant evidence may be admitted, e.g.,
identification cards, cash vouchers, social security registration, appointment letters
or employment contracts, payrolls, organization charts, personnel lists.
Francisco failed to present substantial evidence to establish the relationship. No
documentary evidence submitted, like an attendance logbook, payroll, SSS record,
or any personnel file that depicts his status as an employee. He could also have at
least presented his social security records stating his contributions, name and
address of employer (which Tenazas presented). Another taxi operator, Emmanuel
Villegas, also claimed to be his employer a fact not denied or questioned by
Francisco in any of his pleadings. Petition DENIED. SC agreed with CAs order of
reinstatement instead of separation pay. (*Strained relations must be demonstrated
as a fact. In this case, no facts demonstrated that the relations were so strained as
to make reinstatement no longer a feasible option.)

G.R. No. 167622, January 25, 2011

GREGORIO V. TONGKO, petitioner, vs. THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE
INSURANCE CO. (PHILS.), INC. and RENATO A. VERGEL DE DIOS,
respondents.
BRION, J.:

FACTS:
Taking from the November 2008 decision, the facts are as follows:
Manufacturers Life Insurance, Co. is a domestic corporation engaged in life
insurance business. De Dios was its President and Chief Executive Officer.
Petitioner Tongko started his relationship with Manulife in 1977 by virtue of a Career
Agent's Agreement.
Pertinent provisions of the agreement state that:
It is understood and agreed that the Agent is an independent contractor and nothing
contained herein shall be construed or interpreted as creating an employeremployee relationship between the Company and the Agent.
a) The Agent shall canvass for applications for Life Insurance, Annuities, Group
policies and other products offered by the Company, and collect, in exchange for
provisional receipts issued by the Agent, money due or to become due to the
Company in respect of applications or policies obtained by or through the Agent or
from policyholders allotted by the Company to the Agent for servicing, subject to
subsequent confirmation of receipt of payment by the Company as evidenced by an
Official Receipt issued by the Company directly to the policyholder.
b) The Company may terminate this Agreement for any breach or violation of any of
the provisions hereof by the Agent by giving written notice to the Agent within fifteen
(15) days from the time of the discovery of the breach. No waiver, extinguishment,
abandonment, withdrawal or cancellation of the right to terminate this Agreement by
the Company shall be construed for any previous failure to exercise its right under
any provision of this Agreement.
c) Either of the parties hereto may likewise terminate his Agreement at any time
without cause, by giving to the other party fifteen (15) days notice in writing.
Sometime in 2001, De Dios addressed a letter to Tongko, then one of the Metro
North Managers, regarding meetings wherein De Dios found Tongko's views and
comments to be unaligned with the directions the company was taking. De Dios also
expressed his concern regarding the Metro North Managers' interpretation of the
company's goals. He maintains that Tongko's allegations are unfounded. Some
allegations state that some Managers are unhappy with their earnings, that they're

earning less than what they deserve and that these are the reasons why Tonko's
division is unable to meet agency development objectives. However, not a single
Manager came forth to confirm these allegations. Finally, De Dios related his worries
about Tongko's inability to push for company development and growth.
De Dios subsequently sent Tongko a letter of termination in accordance with
Tongko's Agents Contract. Tongko filed a complaint with the NLRC against Manulife
for illegal dismissal, alleging that he had an employer-employee relationship with De
Dios instead of a revocable agency by pointing out that the latter exercised control
over him through directives regarding how to manage his area of responsibility and
setting objectives for him relating to the business. Tongko also claimed that his
dismissal was without basis and he was not afforded due process. The NLRC ruled
that there was an employer-employee relationship as evidenced by De Dios's letter
which contained the manner and means by which Tongko should do his work. The
NLRC ruled in favor of Tongko, affirming the existence of the employer-employee
relationship.
The Court of Appeals, however, set aside the NLRC's ruling. It applied the four-fold
test for determining control and found the elements in this case to be lacking, basing
its decision on the same facts used by the NLRC. It found that Manulife did not exert
control over Tongko, there was no employer-employee relationship and thus the
NLRC did not have jurisdiction over the case.
The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals and ruled in favor of
Tongko. However, the Supreme Court issued another Resolution dated June 29,
2010, reversing its decision. Tongko filed a motion for reconsideration, which is now
the subject of the instant case.
ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court erred in issuing the June 29, 2010 resolution,
reversing its earlier decision that an employer-employee relationship existed.
HELD: The petition is unmeritorious.
LABOR LAW Agency; Employer-employee relationships
The Supreme Court finds no reason to reverse the June 29, 2010 decision. Control
over the performance of the task of one providing service both with respect to the
means and manner, and the results of the service is the primary element in
determining whether an employment relationship exists. The Supreme Court ruled

petitioners Motion against his favor since he failed to show that the control Manulife
exercised over him was the control required to exist in an employer-employee
relationship; Manulifes control fell short of this norm and carried only the
characteristic of the relationship between an insurance company and its agents, as
defined by the Insurance Code and by the law of agency under the Civil Code.
In the Supreme Courts June 29, 2010 Resolution, they noted that there are built-in
elements of control specific to an insurance agency, which do not amount to the
elements of control that characterize an employment relationship governed by the
Labor Code.The Insurance Code provides definite parameters in the way an agent
negotiates for the sale of the companys insurance products, his collection activities
and his delivery of the insurance contract or policy. They do not reach the level of
control into the means and manner of doing an assigned task that invariably
characterizes an employment relationship as defined by labor law.
To reiterate, guidelines indicative of labor law "control" do not merely relate to the
mutually desirable result intended by the contractual relationship; they must have
the nature of dictating the means and methods to be employed in attaining the
result. Tested by this norm, Manulifes instructions regarding the objectives and sales
targets, in connection with the training and engagement of other agents, are among
the directives that the principal may impose on the agent to achieve the assigned
tasks.They are targeted results that Manulife wishes to attain through its agents.
Manulifes codes of conduct, likewise, do not necessarily intrude into the insurance
agents means and manner of conducting their sales. Codes of conduct are norms or
standards of behavior rather than employer directives into how specific tasks are to
be done.
In sum, the Supreme Court found absolutely no evidence of labor law control.
Petition is DENIED.
Television and Production Exponents, Inc. vs Roberto Servaa

Servaa started out as a security for the Agro-Commercial Security Agency (ACSA) since
1987. The agency had a contract with TV network RPN 9.
On the other hand, Television and Production Exponents, Inc (TAPE). is a company in
charge of TV programming and was handling shows like Eat Bulaga! Eat Bulaga! was then
with RPN 9.

In 1995, RPN 9 severed its relations with ACSA. TAPE retained the services of Servaa as
a security guard and absorbed him.
In 2000, TAPE contracted the services of Sun Shield Security Agency. It then notified
Servaa that he is being terminated because he is now a redundant employee.
Servaa then filed a case for illegal Dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Servaas
dismissal is valid on the ground of redundancy but though he was not illegally dismissed he
is still entitled to be paid a separation pay which is amounting to one month pay for every
year of service which totals to P78,000.00.
TAPE appealed and argued that Servaa is not entitled to receive separation pay for he is
considered as a talent and not as a regular employee; that as such, there is no employeeemployer relationship between TAPE and Servaa. The National Labor Relations
Commission ruled in favor of TAPE. It ruled that Servaa is a program employee. Servaa
appealed before the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and affirmed the LA. The CA further ruled that
TAPE and its president Tuviera should pay for nominal damages amounting to P10,000.00.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is an employee-employer relationship existing between TAPE
and Servaa.
HELD: Yes. Servaa is a regular employee.
In determining Servaas nature of employment, the Supreme Court employed the Four
Fold Test:
1. Whether or not employer conducted the selection and engagement of the
employee.
Servaa was selected and engaged by TAPE when he was absorbed as a talent in 1995.
He is not really a talent, as termed by TAPE, because he performs an activity which is
necessary and desirable to TAPEs business and that is being a security guard. Further, the
primary evidence of him being engaged as an employee is his employee identification card.
An identification card is usually provided not just as a security measure but to mainly
identify the holder thereof as a bona fide employee of the firm who issues it.
2. Whether or not there is payment of wages to the employee by the employer.

Servaa is definitely receiving a fixed amount as monthly compensation. Hes receiving

P6,000.00 a month.
3. Whether or not employer has the power to dismiss employee.
The Memorandum of Discontinuance issued to Servaa to notify him that he is a redundant
employee evidenced TAPEs power to dismiss Servaa.
4. Whether or not the employer has the power of control over the employee.
The bundy cards which showed that Servaa was required to report to work at fixed hours
of the day manifested the fact that TAPE does have control over him. Otherwise, Servaa
could have reported at any time during the day as he may wish.
Therefore, Servaa is entitled to receive a separation pay.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled that Tuviera, as president of TAPE, should not
be held liable for nominal damages as there was no showing he acted in bad faith in
terminating Servaa.
Regular Employee Defined:
One having been engaged to perform an activity that is necessary and desirable to a
companys business.
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 87098, November 4, 1996; 264
SCRA 1
Posted by Pius Morados on November 10, 2011
(Labor Standards Inexistence of employer-employee relationship)
Facts: Private respondent was a sales division manager of private petitioner and
was in charge of selling the latters products through sales representatives. As
compensation, private respondent receive commissions from the products sold by
his agents. After resigning from office to pursue his private business, he filed a
complaint against the petitioner, claiming for non-payment of separation pay and
other benefits.
Petitioner alleged that complainant was not its employee but an independent dealer
authorized to promote and sell its products and in return, received commissions
therefrom. Petitioner did not have any salary and his income from petitioner was
dependent on the volume of sales accomplished. He had his own office, financed

the business expense, and maintained his own workforce. Thus petitioner argued
that it had no control and supervision over the complainant as to the manner and
means he conducted his business operations.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that complainant was an employee of the petitioner
company. Petioner had control over the complainant since the latter was required to
make periodic reports of his sales activities to the company.
Issue: Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship.
Held: No. Control of employees conduct is commonly regarded as the most crucial
and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee
relationship. Under this, an employer-employee relationship exists where the person
for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end
to be achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end.
The fact that petitioner issued memoranda to private respondent and to other
division sales managers did not prove that petitioner had actual control over them.
The different memoranda were merely guidelines on company policies which the
sales managers follow and impose on their respective agents.

Atok Big Wedge Company vs. Jesus P. Gison [GR No. 169510,
August 8, 2011]
Post under case digests, labor law at Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind

FACTS: Gison was engaged as part-time consultant on retainer basis by Atok Big Wedge Company
(Atok), Inc. through its then AVP and Acting Resident Manager, Rutillo A. Torres. As a consultant on
retainer basis, Gison assisted petitioner's retained legal counsel with matters pertaining to the prosecution
of cases against illegal surface occupants within the area covered by the company's mineral claims.
Gison was likewise tasked to perform liaison work with several government agencies, which he said was
his expertise.

Atok did not require respondent to report to its office on a regular basis. As payment for his services,
respondent received a retainer fee of Php3,000 a month, which was delivered to him either at his
residence or in a local restaurant. The parties executed a retainer agreement, but such agreement was
misplaced and can no longer be found. The said arrangement continued for the next eleven years.

Sometime thereafter, Gison requested that petitioner cause his registration with SSS. Atok did not accede
to his request as he was only a retainer/consultant. Subsequent events led to a complaint for illegal
dismissal among others with the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision ruling in favor of the
petitioner company. Finding no employee-employer relationship between petitioner and respondent, the
Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.

ISSUE: Whether or not there exist an employee-employer relationship between the parties

RULING: No. The so-called control test is commonly regarded as the most crucial and determinative
indicator of the presence or absence of an employee-employer relationship. Under the control test, an
employee-employer relationship exists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves
the right to control not only the end achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in reaching the
end.

Applying the aforementioned test, an employee-employer relationship is apparently absent in the case at
bar. More importantly, petitioner did not prescribe the manner in which respondent would accomplish any
of the tasks in which his expertise as a liaison officer was needed; respondent was left alone and given
the freedom to accomplish the tasks using his own means and method. Respondent was assigned tasks
to perform, but petitioner did not control the manner and methods by which respondent performed these
tasks. Verily, the absence of element of control on the part of the petitioner engenders a conclusion that
he is not an employee of the petitioner.

Thelma Dumpit-Murillo vs Court of Appeals

Thelma Dumpit-Murillo was hired by ABC as a newscaster in 1995. Her contract with the TV
station was repeatedly renewed until 1999. She then wrote Jose Javier (VP for News and
Public Affairs of ABC) advising him of her intention to renew the contract.
Javier did not respond.

Dumpit then demanded reinstatement as well as her backwages, service incentive leave
pays and other monetary benefits.
ABC said they could only pay her backwages but her other claims had no basis as she was
not entitled thereto because she is considered as a talent and not a regular employee.
Dumpit sued ABC. The Labor Arbiter ruled against Dumpit. The National Labor Relations
Commission reversed the LA. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and ruled that as
per the contract between ABC and Dumpit, Dumpit is a fixed term employee.
ISSUE: Whether or not Dumpit is a regular employee.
HELD: Yes. Dumpit was a regular employee under contemplation of law. The practice of
having fixed-term contracts in the industry does not automatically make all talent contracts
valid and compliant with labor law. The assertion that a talent contract exists does not
necessarily prevent a regular employment status.
The duties of Dumpit as enumerated in her employment contract indicate that ABC had
control over the work of Dumpit. Aside from control, ABC also dictated the work
assignments and payment of petitioners wages. ABC also had power to dismiss her. All
these being present, clearly, there existed an employment relationship between Dumpit and
ABC.
In addition, her work was continuous for a period of four years. This repeated engagement
under contract of hire is indicative of the necessity and desirability of the Dumpits work in
ABCs business.

G.R. No.192084 : September 14, 2011

JOSE MEL BERNARTE, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION
(PBA), JOSE EMMANUEL M. EALA, and PERRY MARTINEZ, Respondents
CARPIO,J.:
FACTS:
Complainants (Jose Mel Bernarte and Renato Guevarra) aver that they were invited
to join the PBA as referees. During the leadership of Commissioner Emilio
Bernardino, they were made to sign contracts on a year-to-year basis. During the
term of Commissioner Eala, however, changes were made on the terms of their
employment.

Complainants were not illegally dismissed because they were not employees of the
PBA. Their respective contracts of retainer were simply not renewed. PBA had the
prerogative of whether or not to renew their contracts, which they knew were fixed.\
The Labor Arbiter declared petitioner an employee whose dismissal by respondents
was illegal.Tthe NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's judgment. The Court of Appeals,
which overturned the decisions of the NLRC and Labor Arbiter. The Court of Appeals
found petitioner an independent contractor since respondents did not exercise any
form of control over the means and methods by which petitioner performed his work
as a basketball referee.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner is an employee of respondents, which in turn determines whether
petitioner was illegally dismissed.
HELD: The petitioners are not employees of respondents.
LABOR LAW:
The existence of an employer-employee relationship is ultimately a question of fact.
As a general rule, factual issues are beyond the province of this Court. However, this
rule admits of exceptions, one of which is where there are conflicting findings of fact
between the Court of Appeals, on one hand, and the NLRC and Labor Arbiter, on the
other, such as in the present case.
To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, case law has
consistently applied the four-fold test, to wit:
(a) the selection and engagement of the employee;
(b) the payment of wages;
(c) the power of dismissal; and
(d) the employer's power to control the employee on the means and methods by
which the work is accomplished.
The so-called"control test"is the most important indicator of the presence or absence
of an employer-employee relationship.
The fact that PBA repeatedly hired petitioner does not by itself prove that petitioner
is an employee of the former. For a hired party to be considered an employee, the
hiring party must have control over the means and methods by which the hired party
is to perform his work, which is absent in this case. The continuous rehiring by PBA
of petitioner simply signifies the renewal of the contract between PBA and petitioner,
and highlights the satisfactory services rendered by petitioner warranting such

contract renewal. Conversely, if PBA decides to discontinue petitioner's services at

the end of the term fixed in the contract, whether for unsatisfactory services, or
violation of the terms and conditions of the contract, or for whatever other reason,
the same merely results in the non-renewal of the contract, as in the present case.
The non-renewal of the contract between the parties does not constitute illegal
dismissal of petitioner by respondents.
Angeles Jardin, et al. vs. NLRC and PHILJAMA INTERNATIONAL, INC.
GR NO. 119268

FEBRUARY 23, 2000

ANGELES JARDIN, ET AL. (petitioners)

vs.
NLRC and PHILJAMA INTERNATIONAL, INC.
FACTS:
Petitioners were the drivers of a taxi owned by Philjama International Inc. under
the boundary system. Petitioners decided to form a labor union to protect their
rights and interests against illegal deduction of private respondent for the washing
of taxi units. Upon the knowledge of the private respondent about the plan of the
petitioners, He refused to let them drive the taxi when they reported to work.
The petitioners bring the complaint before the court against private respondent.
ISSUE:
Whether or not employer-employee relationship exists.
HELD:
No relationship exists, Under the boundary system the driver takes out his unit
and pays the owner/operator a fee commonly called "boundary" for the use of unit.
The four fold test must apply in determining the employer-employee relationship,
these are:
1) the selection and engagement of the employee;
2) the payment of wages;
3) the power of dismissal; and
4) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the means and
methods by which the work
is to be accomplished.
The Supreme Court stresses that the fourth requisites are the most important
that the others may be even disregarded Under the control test, an employeremployee relationship exists if the "employer" has reserved the right to control the
"employee" not only as to the result of the work done but also as to the means and
methods by which the same is to be accomplished. Otherwise, no such relation

exists.
In the case at bar, it is clear that they are free to choose whatever manner they
conduct their trade and beyond the physical control of the owner/operator; they
themselves determine the amount of revenue they would want to earn in driving a
taxi. But the SC decided that it is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between
them from that o f employer-employee. Hence, petitioners are undoubtedly
employees of private respondent because as taxi drivers they perform activities
which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of trade of their
employer, Thus the petitioners are entitled to reinstatement and other benefits loss.
Coca Cola Bottlers Inc. v. Climaco February 5, 2007 G.R. No. 146881 514
SCRA 164

Facts:
Respondent Dr. Dean N. Climaco is a medical doctor who was hired by
petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc (Coca-Cola), by virtue of a Retainer
Agreement. The Retainer Agreement, which began on January 1, 1988, was renewed
annually. The last one expired December 31, 1993. Despite the non-renewal of the
Retainer Agreement, respondent continued to perform his functions as company
doctor to Coca-Cola until he received a letter from petitioner company concluding
their retainership agreement. It is noted that as early as September 1992, petitioner
was already making inquiries regarding his status with petitioner company.
Petitioner company, however, did not take any action. Respondent inquired from the
management of petitioner company whether it was agreeable to recognize him as a
regular employee. The management refused to do so.
Respondent filed a Complaint before the NLRC seeking recognition as a
regular employee of petitioner company and prayed for the payment of all benefits
of a regular employee. While the complaint was pending before the Labor Arbiter,
respondent received a letter from petitioner company concluding their retainership
agreement effective 30 days from receipt thereof. This prompted respondent to file
a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner company. Respondent contend .
The Labor Arbiter and NLRC declared that there is no employer-employee
relationship existed between the parties. However, the Court of Appeals declared
that respondent should be classified as a regular employee having rendered 6 years
of service as plant physician by virtue of several renewed retainer agreements.

Issue: WON there exist an employer-employee relationship between the parties

Ruling:
The court, in determining the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, has invariably adhered to the four-fold test: (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 employees conduct.
The Court agrees with the finding of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that
the circumstances of this case show that no employer-employee relationship exist
between the parties, they correctly found that petitioner company lacked the power
of control over the performance by respondent of his duties. The Labor Arbiter
reasoned that the Comprehensive Medical Plan, which contains the
respondents objectives, duties and obligations, does not tell respondent how to
conduct his physical examination, how to immunize, or how to diagnose and treat
his patients, employees of company, in each case.
In effect, the Labor Arbiter held that petitioner company, through the
Comprehensive Medical Plan, provided guidelines merely to ensure that the end
result was achieved, but did not control the means and methods by which
respondent performed his assigned tasks.
The NLRC affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter and stated that it is
precisely because the company lacks the power of control that the contract provides
that respondent shall be directly responsible to the employee concerned and their
dependents for any injury, harm or damage caused through professional
negligence, incompetence or other valid causes of action.
In addition, the Court finds that the schedule of work and the requirement
to be on call for emergency cases do not amount to such control, but are necessary
incidents to the Retainership Agreement. The Court agrees that there is nothing
wrong with the employment of respondent as a retained physician of petitioner
company and upholds the validity of the Retainership Agreement which clearly
stated that no employe-employee relationship existed between the parties.
Considering that there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties,
the termination of the Retainership Agreement , which is accordance with the
provisions of the Agreement, does not constitute illegal dismissal of respondent.
Melencio Gabriel vs Nelson Bilon

Nelson Bilon, Angel Brazil and Ernesto Pagaygay were jeepney drivers of jeepneys owned
by Melencio Gabriel. They are paying P400/day for their boundary. Later, the drivers were
required to pay an additional P50.00 to cover police protection, car wash, deposit fee, and
garage fees.

The three drivers refused to pay the additional P50.00. On April 30, 1995, when the drivers
reported to work, they were not given any jeepney to drive. Eventually, they were dismissed.
The three drivers sued Gabriel for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the drivers and ordered Gabriel to pay the drivers their
backwages and their separation pay amounting to about a total of P1.03M.
On April 18, 1997, the LA promulgated its decision and on the same day sent a copy thereof
to Gabriel but Flordeliza (wife of Gabriel) refused to receive the copy. Apparently, Gabriel
died on April 4, 1997. The copy was re-sent via registered mail on May 28, 1997. Flordeliza
appealed to the LA on June 5, 1997.
The LA dismissed the appeal; it ruled that the appeal was not on time because the
promulgation was made on April 18, 1997 and that the appeal on June 5, 1997 was already
beyond the ten day period required for appeal.
The National Labor Relations Commission reversed the LA. It ruled that there was no
employee-employer relationship between the drivers and Gabriel. The Court of Appeals
reversed the NLRC but it ruled that the separation pay should not be awarded but rather,
the employees should be reinstated.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the appeal before the LA was made on time.
2. Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship between the drivers and
Gabriel.
3. Whether or not there was a strained relation between Gabriel and the drivers.
HELD:
1. Yes. The appeal was made on time because when the promulgation was made Gabriel is
already dead. The ten day requirement to make an appeal is not applicable in this situation
because Gabriel was not yet properly substituted by the wife. The counting of the period
should be made starting from the date when the copy was sent via registered mail.
Therefore, the appeal filed on June 5 was made on time.
2. Yes. There exists an employer-employee relationship between the drivers and Gabriel.
The fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages but get only whatever exceeds the so-

called boundary [that] they pay to the owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the
relationship between them from that of employer and employee.
3. No. The award of the separation pay is not proper. It was not shown that there was a
strained relationship between Gabriel and the drivers so as to cause animosity if they are
reinstated. The Strained Relations Principle is only applied if it is shown that reinstatement
would only cause antagonism between the employer and the employee; and that the only
solution is separation and the payment of separation pay.

Auto Bus Transport Systems vs Bautista

Antonio Bautista was employed by Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. in May 1995. He was
assigned to the Isabela-Manila route and he was paid by commission (7% of gross income
per travel for twice a month).
In January 2000, while he was driving his bus he bumped another bus owned by Auto Bus.
He claimed that he bumped the he accidentally bumped the bus as he was so tired and that
he has not slept for more than 24 hours because Auto Bus required him to return to Isabela
immediately after arriving at Manila. Damages were computed and 30% or P75,551.50 of it
was being charged to Bautista. Bautista refused payment.
Auto Bus terminated Bautista after due hearing as part of Auto Bus management
prerogative. Bautista sued Auto Bus for Illegal Dismissal. The Labor Arbiter Monroe
Tabingan dismissed Bautistas petition but ruled that Bautista is entitled to P78,117.87
13th month pay payments and P13,788.05 for his unpaid service incentive leave pay.
The case was appealed before the National Labor Relations Commission. NLRC modified
the LAs ruling. It deleted the award for 13 th Month pay. The court of Appeals affirmed the
NLRC.
Auto Bus averred that Bautista is a commissioned employee and if that is not reason
enough that Bautista is also a field personnel hence he is not entitled to a service incentive
leave. They invoke:
Art. 95. RIGHT TO SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE
(a) Every employee who has rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled to a
yearly service incentive leave of five days with pay.

Book III, Rule V: SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE

SECTION 1. Coverage. This rule shall apply to all employees except:
(d) Field personnel and other employees whose performance is unsupervised by the
employer including those who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely commission
basis, or those who are paid in a fixed amount for performing work irrespective of the time
consumed in the performance thereof; . . .
ISSUE: Whether or not Bautista is entitled to Service Incentive Leave. If he is, Whether or
not the three (3)-year prescriptive period provided under Article 291 of the Labor Code, as
amended, is applicable to respondents claim of service incentive leave pay.
HELD: Yes, Bautista is entitled to Service Incentive Leave. The Supreme Court emphasized
that it does not mean that just because an employee is paid on commission basis he is
already barred to receive service incentive leave pay.
The question actually boils down to whether or not Bautista is a field employee.
According to Article 82 of the Labor Code, field personnel shall refer to non-agricultural
employees who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business or
branch office of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be
determined with reasonable certainty.
As a general rule, field personnel are those whose performance of their job/service is not
supervised by the employer or his representative, the workplace being away from the
principal office and whose hours and days of work cannot be determined with reasonable
certainty; hence, they are paid specific amount for rendering specific service or performing
specific work. If required to be at specific places at specific times, employees including
drivers cannot be said to be field personnel despite the fact that they are performing work
away from the principal office of the employee.
Certainly, Bautista is not a field employee. He has a specific route to traverse as a bus
driver and that is a specific place that he needs to be at work. There are inspectors hired by
Auto Bus to constantly check him. There are inspectors in bus stops who inspects the
passengers, the punched tickets, and the driver. Therefore he is definitely supervised
though he is away from the Auto Bus main office.
On the other hand, the 3 year prescriptive period ran but Bautista was able to file his suit in
time before the prescriptive period expired. It was only upon his filing of a complaint for

illegal dismissal, one month from the time of his dismissal, that Bautista demanded from his
former employer commutation of his accumulated leave credits. His cause of action to claim
the payment of his accumulated service incentive leave thus accrued from the time when
his employer dismissed him and failed to pay his accumulated leave credits.
Therefore, the prescriptive period with respect to his claim for service incentive leave pay
only commenced from the time the employer failed to compensate his accumulated service
incentive leave pay at the time of his dismissal. Since Bautista had filed his money claim
after only one month from the time of his dismissal, necessarily, his money claim was filed
within the prescriptive period provided for by Article 291 of the Labor Code.
Definition of Service Incentive Leave
Service incentive leave is a right which accrues to every employee who has served within
12 months, whether continuous or broken reckoned from the date the employee started
working, including authorized absences and paid regular holidays unless the working days
in the establishment as a matter of practice or policy, or that provided in the employment
contracts, is less than 12 months, in which case said period shall be considered as one
year. It is also commutable to its money equivalent if not used or exhausted at the end of
the year. In other words, an employee who has served for one year is entitled to it. He may
use it as leave days or he may collect its monetary value.
NELSON V. BEGINO, GENER DEL VALLE, MONINA A VILA-LLORIN AND MA. CRISTINA SUMAYAO,
Petitioners, vs. ABS-CBN CORPORATION (FORMERLY, ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION)
AND AMALIA VILLAFUERTE, Respondents.
G.R. No. 199166, 20 April 2015.
PEREZ, J.:
Respondent ABS-CBN, through Respondent Villafuerte, engaged the services of Petitioners as
cameramen, editors or reporters for TV Broadcasting. Petitioners signed regularly renewed Talent
Contracts (3 months - 1 year) and Project Assignment Forms which detailed the duration, budget and
daily technical requirements of a particular project. Petitioners were tasked with coverage of news items
for subsequent daily airings in Respondents TV Patrol Bicol Program.
The Talent Contract has an exclusivity clause and provides that nothing therein shall be deemed or
construed to establish an employer-employee relationship between the parties.
Petitioners filed against Respondents a complaint for regularization before the NLRC's Arbitration branch.
In support of their complaint, Petitioners claimed that they worked under the direct control of Respondent
Villafuerte - they were mandated to wear company IDs, they were provided the necessary equipment,
they were informed about the news to be covered the following day, and they were bound by the

companys policy on attendance and punctuality.

Respondents countered that, pursuant to their Talent Contracts and Project Assignment Forms,
Petitioners were hired as talents to act as reporters, editors and/or cameramen. Respondents further
claimed they never imposed control as to how Petitioners discharged their duties. At most, they were
briefed regarding the general requirements of the project to be executed.
While the case was pending, Petitioners contracts were terminated, prompting the latter to file a second
complaint for illegal dismissal.
The Arbitration Branch ruled that Petitioners were regular employees, and ordered Respondents to
reinstate the Petitioners.
The NLRC affirmed the ruling, but the CA overturned the decision.
ISSUE: W/N Petitioners are regular employees of Respondents.
RULING: Yes.
Of the criteria to determine whether there is an employer-employee relationship, the so-called "control
test" is generally regarded as the most crucial and determinative indicator of the said relationship.
Under this test, an employer-employee relationship is said to exist where the person for whom the
services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end result but also the manner and
means utilized to achieve the same.
Notwithstanding the nomenclature of their Talent Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms and the
terms and condition embodied therein, petitioners are regular employees of ABS-CBN.
As cameramen, editors and reporters, it appears that Petitioners were subject to the control and
supervision of Respondents which provided them with the equipment essential for the discharge of their
functions. The exclusivity clause and prohibitions in their Talent Contract were likewise indicative of
Respondents' control over them, however obliquely worded.
Also,the presumption is that when the work done is an integral part of the regular business of the
employer and when the worker does not furnish an independent business or professional service, such
work is a regular employment of such employee and not an independent contractor.