Professional Documents
Culture Documents
What is the
business of the
company?
COCA COLA
BOTTLERS VS.
DR. DEAN
CLIMACO
514 SCRA 164
manufacturer,
and distributor
soft drink
beverages
Is he the
Final disposition
employee
of the
company?
No
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, or the so-called control test, considered to be
the most important element.[18]
The Court agrees with the finding of the Labor Arbiter and the
NLRC that the circumstances of this case show that no employeremployee relationship exists between the parties. The Labor Arbiter
and the NLRC 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 [petitioner] company, in each case. He likened this
case to that of Neri v. National Labor Relations Commission,
[19]
which held:
Page | 1
Food Service
Corporation
Respondent offered to
the petitioner a
concessionaire/contract
to provide
independently,
No
customer comfort
services to assist users
of the ladies comfort
room of the Club to
further enhance its
business
Hotel business
Registered nurses
No
and life/death insurance[14] for the staff with minimum benefit payable
at 12 times the employees last drawn salary, as well as value added
taxes and withholding taxes, sourced from her P60,000.00 monthly
retainer fee and 70% share of the service charges from Shangri-las
guests who avail of the clinic services. It is unlikely that respondent
doctor would report petitioners as workers, pay their SSS premium as
well as their wages if they were not indeed her employees.
With respect to the supervision and control of the nurses and
clinic staff, it is not disputed that a document, Clinic Policies and
Employee Manual[16] claimed to have been prepared by respondent
doctor exists, to which petitioners gave their conformity[17] and in
which they acknowledged their co-terminus employment status. It is
thus presumed that said document, and not the employee manual
being followed by Shangri-las regular workers, governs how they
perform their respective tasks and responsibilities.
Contrary
to
petitioners contention,
the
various
office directives issued by Shangri-las officers do not imply that
it is Shangri-las management and not respondent doctor who
exercises control over them or that Shangri-la has control over how
the doctor and the nurses perform their work. The letter[18] addressed
to respondent doctor dated February 7, 2003 from a certain Tata L.
Reyes giving instructions regarding the replenishment of emergency
kits is, at most, administrative in nature, related as it is to safety
Page | 9
matters; while the letter[19] dated May 17, 2004 from Shangri-las
Assistant Financial Controller, Lotlot Dagat, forbidding the clinic
from receiving cash payments from the resorts guests is a matter of
financial policy in order to ensure proper sharing of the proceeds,
considering that Shangri-la and respondent doctor share in the guests
payments for medical services rendered. In fine, as Shangri-la does
not control how the work should be performed by petitioners, it is not
petitioners employer.
ABS- CBN VS.
MARILYN
NARAZENO
GR NO.
164156, SEPT.
26, 2006
Television
network
Production Assistants
They
were
made to perform the
following tasks and
duties:
a)
Prepare,
arrange airing of
commercial
broadcasting
based on the daily
operations log and
digicart
of
respondent ABSCBN;
b)
Coordinate,
arrange
personalities for air
Petitioner employed
Yes
respondents Nazareno,
Gerzon, Deiparine, and
Lerasan as production
assistants (PAs) on
different dates. They
were assigned at the
news and public affairs,
for various radio
programs in the Cebu
Broadcasting Station,
with a monthly
compensation
of P4,000.
ART.
280. REGULAR
AND
CASUAL
EMPLOYMENT.The
provisions of written
agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and
regardless of the oral agreement of the parties,
an employment shall be deemed to be regular
Page | 10
interviews;
c)
Coordinate,
prepare schedule
of reporters for
scheduled news
reporting
and
lead-in
or
incoming reports;
d)
Facilitate,
prepare
and
arrange
airtime
schedule
for
public
service
announcement and
complaints;
e)
Assist,
anchor
program
interview, etc; and
f)
Record, log
clerical reports, man
based control radio
Not
considered
regular
employees
are
project
Page | 13
First. In
the
selection
and
engagement
of
respondents, no peculiar or unique skill, talent or celebrity
status was required from them because they were merely
hired through petitioners personnel department just like
any ordinary employee.
correspond to wages given as a result of an employeremployee relationship. Respondents did not have the power
to bargain for huge talent fees, a circumstance negating
independent contractual relationship.
COCA-COLA
BOTTLERS
VS. ALAAN
AGITO 579
SCRA 445
Manufacturer
and distributor
soft drink
beverages
salesmen assigned at
the Lagro Sales
Office of petitioner
No
Ice
manufacturer
compressor operator
of Tiongson Ice Plant
he was hired as
compressor operatormechanic for the ice
plants of petitioner Dr.
Melchor Opulencia
located in Tanauan,
Batangas, and
Calamba, Laguna.
Yes
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.
AFP MUTUAL
BENEFIT VS.
NLRC 267
SCRA 47
insurance
underwriter of
petitioner AFP
Mutual Benefit
Association
Duties and
Obligations:
1.
During the
lifetime of this
Agreement, the
SALES AGENT
(private respondent)
shall solicit
exclusively for
AFPMBAI
(petitioner), and shall
be bound by the
No
Well-settled is the doctrine that the existence of an employeremployee relationship is ultimately a question of fact and that the
findings thereon by the labor arbiter and the National Labor
Relations Commission shall be accorded not only respect but even
finality when supported by substantial evidence.[8] The determinative
factor in such finality is the presence of substantial evidence to
support said finding, otherwise, such factual findings cannot bind
this Court.
Respondent Commission concurred with the labor arbiter's
Page | 22
x x x
xxx
x x
findings that:[9]
"x x x The complainant's job as sales insurance agent is usually
necessary and desirable in the usual business of the respondent
company. Under the Sales Agents Agreement, the complainant was
required to solicit exclusively for the respondent company, 'and he
was bound by the company policies, memo circulars, rules and
regulations which were issued from time to time. By such
requirement to follow strictly management policies, orders,
circulars, rules and regulations, it only shows that the respondent
had control or reserved the right to control the complainant's work as
solicitor. Complainant was not an independent contractor as he did
not carry on an independent business other than that of the
company's x x x."
To this, respondent Commission added that the Sales Agent's
Agreement specifically provided that petitioner may assign private
respondent a specific area of responsibility and a production
quota. From there, it concluded that apparently there is that exercise
of control by the employer which is the most important element in
determining employer-employee relationship.[10]
We hold, however, that respondent Commission misappreciated
the facts of the case. Time and again, the Court has applied the
"four-fold" test in determining the existence of employer-employee
relationship. This test considers the following elements: (1) the
power to hire; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power to dismiss;
and (4) the power to control, the last being the most important
Page | 23
C.
Commission
1.
The SALES
AGENT shall be
entitled to the
commission due for
all premiums actually
due and received by
AFPMBAI out of life
insurance policies
solicited and obtained
by the SALES
AGENT at the rates
set forth in the
applicant's
commission schedules
hereto attached.
element.[11]
The difficulty lies in correctly assessing if certain factors or
elements properly indicate the presence of control. Anent the issue
of exclusivity in the case at bar, the fact that private respondent was
required to solicit business exclusively for petitioner could hardly be
considered as control in labor jurisprudence. Under Memo Circulars
No. 2-81[12] and 2-85, dated December 17, 1981 and August 7, 1985,
respectively, issued by the Insurance Commissioner, insurance
agents are barred from serving more than one insurance company, in
order to protect the public and to enable insurance companies to
exercise exclusive supervision over their agents in their solicitation
work. Thus, the exclusivity restriction clearly springs from a
regulation issued by the Insurance Commission, and not from an
intention by petitioner to establish control over the method and
manner by which private respondent shall accomplish his
work. This feature is not meant to change the nature of the
relationship between the parties, nor does it necessarily imbue such
relationship with the quality of control envisioned by the law.
So too, the fact that private respondent was bound by company
policies, memo/circulars, rules and regulations issued from time to
time is also not indicative of control. In its Reply to Complainant's
Position Paper,[13]petitioner alleges that the policies, memo/circulars,
and rules and regulations referred to in provision B(1) of the Sales
Agent's Agreement are only those pertaining to payment of agents'
accountabilities, availment by sales agents of cash advances for
sorties, circulars on incentives and awards to be given based on
Page | 24
a quasi-judicial
body authorized
by law to resolve
disputes arising
under Republic
Act No. 1161, as
amended by
Republic Act No.
8282.
Its primary
objectives are to
provide savings
and credit
facilities and to
develop other
livelihood
services for its
owners-
Asiapro Cooperative
(Asiapro) is a multipurpose cooperative
created pursuant to
Republic Act No.
6938
Yes
members. In the
discharge of the
aforesaid
primary
objectives,
respondent
cooperative
entered into
several Service
Contracts
Page | 32
PURIFICACIO
N TABANG VS.
NLRC 266
SCRA 462
non-stock
corporation
engaged in
extending medical
and surgical
services
Purificacion
Tabang was a
founding
member, a
member of the
Board of
Trustees, and
the corporate
secretary of
private
respondent
Pamana Golden
Care Medical
Center
Foundation, Inc.
As medical director
and hospital
administrator,
petitioner was tasked
to run the affairs of
the aforesaid medical
center and perform all
acts of administration
relative to its daily
operations.
No
GREAT
PACIFIC LIFE
VS. NLRC 187
SCRA 694
Insurance
company
Trainee agents
Yes
Is the job a JC or
LOC
Labor only
contracting
Reasons
Final dispositon
Labor only
contracting
PHILIPPINE
AIRLINES,
INC., PETITIONE
R, VS. NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
STELLAR, a domestic
corporation engaged, among
others, in the business of job
contracting janitorial services
Job contracting
COMMISSION
G.R. NO.
125792. NOVEMB
ER 9, 1998
PHILIPPINE FUJI
XEROX
CORPORATION
VS.NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION G.
R. NO.
111501. MARCH 5,
1996
Labor only
contracting
JANG
LIMVS. NATIONA
L LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION
G.R. NO.
124630. FEBRUA
Labor only
contracting
RY 19, 1999
ROSEWOOD
PROCESSING,
INC.
VS. NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION
G.R. NOS. 11647684. MAY 21, 1998
Job contracting
7K
CORPORATION
VS.
NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION
G.R. NO. 148490
NOVEMBER
22, 2006
Labor only
contracting
COCA-COLA
BOTTLERS
PHILS., INC VS.
ALAN M.
AGITO G.R.
NO. 179546
FEBRUARY 13,
2009
Respondents
worked
for
petitioner as salesmen, with the
exception of respondent Gil Francisco
whose job was designated as
leadman. In
the
Delivery
Agreement between petitioner and
TRMD Incorporated, it is stated that
petitioner
is
engaged
in
the
manufacture, distribution and sale of
softdrinks
and
other
related
products. The work of respondents,
constituting distribution and sale of
Coca-Cola
products,
is
clearly
indispensable to the principal business
of petitioner. The repeated re-hiring of
some of the respondents supports this
finding. Petitioner also does not
contradict respondents allegations that
the former has Sales Departments and
Sales Offices in its various offices,
plants, and warehouses; and that
petitioner
hires
Regional
Sales
Supervisors
and
District
Sales
Supervisors who supervise and control
the salesmen and sales route helpers.
Sunflower Multi-Purpose
Cooperative the cooperative shall
employ the necessary personnel
and provide adequate equipment,
materials, tools and apparatus
The cooperative shall have the
entire charge, control and
supervision of the work and
services
Labor only
contracting
Page | 49
MARITES
BERNARDO VS.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION G.R.
NO. 122917. JULY 12,
1999
What is the
business of the
employee
Banking
corporation
Final disposition
Regular employee
The primary standard,
therefore, of determining
regular employment is
the reasonable
connection between the
particular activity
performed by the
employee in relation to
the usual trade or
business of the
Page | 51
HIGHWAY COPRA
Copra traders
TRADERS VS. NATI
ONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION G.R.
NO. 108889. JULY 30,
1998
General utility
man He was
likewise a
multi-purpose
handyman
since he
worked as a
driver of
petitioners
trucks, a
mechanic and a
messenger to
follow-up
petitioners
contracts with
other
companies, to
register their
vehicles, to pay
their taxes, and
to collect and
receive
payments in
their behalf
POSEIDON FISHING
V. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION G.R.
NO. 168052
FEBRUARY 20, 2006
fishing
company
engaged in the
deep-sea
fishing industry
boat crew
Regular employee
ALU-TUCP, VS.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION G.R.
NO. 109902 AUGUST
2, 1994
Producer of
steels
Engineers,
utility man
service aide,
surveyman
employed by respondent
NSC in connection with its
Five Year Expansion
Program for varying
lengths of time
Project employees
Thus, the particular
component projects
embraced in the Five
Year Expansion
Program, to which
petitioners were
assigned, were
distinguishable from the
regular or ordinary
business of NSC which,
of course, is the
production or making
and marketing of steel
products. During the
time petitioners rendered
services to NSC, their
work was limited to one
or another of the specific
component projects
which made up the
FAYEP I and II. There is
nothing in the record to
show that petitioners
were hired for, or in fact
assigned to, other
D. M. CONSUNJI,
INC. VS. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION
G.R. NO.
116572. DECEMBER
18, 2000
Real estate
company
Laborers and
carpenters
Project employees
the length of service of a
project employee is not
the controlling test of
employment tenure but
whether or not the
employment has been
fixed for a specific
project or undertaking
the completion or
termination of which has
been determined at the
time of the engagement
of the employee.
VIVIAN Y.
IMBUIDO, VS.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION G.R.
NO. 114734. MARCH
31, 2000
corporation
engaged in the
business of data
encoding and
keypunching
Data encoder
BRENT SCHOOL,
INC VS.
RONALDO
ZAMORA G.R. NO.
L-48494 FEBRUARY
5, 1990
School
Athletic
director
service to be performed
is seasonal in nature and
the employment is for
the duration of the
season
Seasonal employee It is
plain then that when the
employment contract
was signed between
Brent School and Alegre
on July 18, 1971, it was
perfectly legitimate for
them to include in it a
stipulation fixing the
duration thereof
Stipulations for a term
were explicitly
recognized as valid by
this Court
JAIME D. VIERNES
VS. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION
Electric
cooperative
Meter reader
Complainants services as
meter readers were
contracted for hardly a
months duration
Regular employees
there are two separate
instances whereby it can
be determined that an
employment is regular:
(1)
The
particular
activity performed by the
employee is necessary or
desirable in the usual
business or trade of the
employer; or (2) if the
employee
has
been
performing the job for at
least a year.
Herein
fall under
category
petitioners
the first
PHILEX MINING
CORPORATION
VS. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION G.R.
NO.
125132. AUGUST 10,
1999
Mining
company
Chemical
engineers
Contract of Temporary
Employment.
regular employees
petitioner has not shown
that private respondents
were informed that they
were to be assigned to a
specific undertaking;
neither has it been
established that they
were informed of the
duration and scope of
such project or
undertaking at the time
of their engagement
as probationary.
Petitioners contention that privaterespondents
are project employees likewise lacks merit.
Project employees are those workers hired (1)
for a specific project or undertaking, and (2) the
completion or termination of such project has
been determined at the time of the engagement
of the employee. The principal test for
determining whether particular employees as
project employees as distinguished from
regular employees, is whether or not the
project employees were assigned to carry out a
specific project or undertaking, the duration
and scope of which were specified at the time
the employees were engaged for that project. In
this case, petitioner has not shown that private
respondents were informed that they were to be
assigned to a specific project or undertaking.
Neither has it been established that they were
informed of the duration and scope of such
project or undertaking at the time of their
engagement, that is, on June 1988 on the part of
Austria and Tamondong and on January 1989 in
the case of Borja and de la Cruz. Private
respondents were informed thereof only much
later on April 1989. We likewise agree with the
Solicitor General when he notes that: x x x while
the subject contracts purport to be for a specific
project or undertaking only, the record is bereft
Page | 59
Food
corporation
he was hired by
respondent in its
Maintenance/Projects/Engi
neering Department during
the periods and at
respective rates
Regular employee
To expound further, granting arguendo that
petitioner was regarded as a temporary
employee, he had been converted into a regular
employee by virtue of the proviso in the second
paragraph of Article 280 for having worked with
PILMICO for more than one (1) year. We held
in Baguio Country Club Corporation vs.
NLRC that:
x x x if the employee has been performing the
job for at least one year, even if the performance
is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law
deems the repeated and continuing need for its
Page | 60
Sugarcane
plantation
PHILIPPINE FRUIT
& VEGETABLE
governmentowned and
seeders,
operators,
Regular employees
the work of complainants as seeders,
Page | 61
INDUSTRIES, INC
G.R. NO.
122122. JULY 20,
1999
JENNIFER
FABELLO
PASAMBA VS.
NATIONAL LABOR
controlled
corporation
engaged in the
manufacture
and processing
of fruit and
vegetable
purees for
export
sorters, slicers,
janitors,
drivers, truck
helpers,
mechanics and
office
personnel
Hospital
Staff nurse
Probationary employee
The services of an employee hired on
Petitioner
was
a
probationary basis may be terminated when he
probationary employee,
or she fails to qualify as a regular employee in
not
a
regular
accordance with reasonable standards made
Page | 62
RELATIONS
COMMISSION,
G.R. NO. 168421
JUNE 8, 2007
employee. A
probationary employee is
one, who, for a given
period of time, is being
observed and evaluated
to determine whether or
not he is qualified for a
permanent position. A
probationary
appointment affords the
employer an opportunity
to observe the skill,
competence, as well as
the
attitude
of
a
probationer
non-profit
organization
dedicated to
refugee service
Teacher
probationary cultural
orientation teacher with a
monthly salary of
P2,000.00
Probationary employee
STRIKE
Parties and case no.
What is the
business of the
employer, is the
issue in the strike is
of national interest?
NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF
SUGAR WORKERS
VS. OVEREJA GR.
NO. 59743
Sugar plantation
Was it legal
or illegal
illegal
Final disposition
Manufacturer of
Construction
materials
Illegal
Page | 67
TELEFUNKEN
SEMICONDUCTORS
EMPLOYEES UNIONFFW VS., THE COURT
OF APPEALS, G.R.
NOS. 14301314. DECEMBER 18,
2000
Electronic s
company
illegal
Page | 68
Hotel business
HOTEL
ENTERPRISES OF
THE PHILIPPINES,
INC.
(HEPI),
OWNER OF HYATT
REGENCY MANILA,
SAMAHAN NG MGA
MANGGAGAWA SA
HYATT-NATIONAL U
NION OF
WORKERS IN THE
HOTEL
AND
RESTAURANT AND
ALLIED
INDUSTRIES G.R.
NO. 165756
JUNE 5, 2009
COCA-COLA
Softdrinks
BOTTLERS PHILS.,
manufacturer
INC., PETITIONER,
VS. NATIONALLABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION G.R.
NO.
illegal
Illegal
123491. NOVEMBER
27, 1998
A. SORIANO
AVIATION, VS.
EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION OF A.
SORIANO AVIATION
G.R. NO. 166879
AUGUST 14, 2009
Aviation company
illegal
b)
obstruct the
free ingress to or
egress from the
employer's premises
for lawful purposes,
or
c)
obstruc
t
public
thoroughfares.
Illegal
BUKLURAN
NG
MANGGAGAWA
SA
CLOTHMAN
KNITTING
CORPORATION
SOLIDARITY
OF
UNIONS
IN
THE
PHILIPPINES
FOR
EMPOWERMENT
AND REFORMS (BMC-
establishment; preventing
the
entry
of
customers; angry and unruly behavior calculated to
cause commotion which affected neighboring
establishments within the mall; openly cursing and
shouting at the president in front of customers and
using loud and abusive language, such as "Putang
ina niyong lahat!", toward the rest of the
management as well as their co-workers who
refused to go on strike; physically preventing nonstrikers from entering the premises, as well as
deliberately blocking their movements inside the
restaurant, at times by sharply bumping into them
or through indecent physical contact; openly
threatening non-strikers with bodily harm, such as
"Pag hindi sila pumayag, upakan mo!"; and
shouting at the security guard "Granada!" which
caused panic among the customers and prompted
security to report a possible death threat to
management and the security agency
corporation engaged a)
The strikers/picketers did not conduct a
in knitting/textiles
strike vote and no cooling-off period was
observed;
b)
The strikers/picketers did not file a notice of
strike;
c)
The reasons for the strike/picket involve a
non-strikeable issue;
d)
The work slowdown/picket caused damages
to the petitioner in the sum of FIVE MILLION
PESOS (P5,000,000.00);
illegal
e petitioner union, its officers, members and
supporters staged a strike. In order for a strike to
be valid, the following requirements laid down in
paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor
Code must be complied with: (a) a notice of strike
must be filed; (b) a strike-vote must be taken; and
(c) the results of the strike-vote must be reported to
the DOLE. It bears stressing that these
requirements are mandatory, meaning, nonPage | 72
e)
The illegal acts of respondents constrained
petitioner to seek the services of undersigned
counsel for an attorneys fee of P50,000.00
and P2,000.00 per appearance
FAR EASTERN
UNIVERSITY - DR.
NICANOR REYES
MEDICAL
FOUNDATION (FEUNRMF)
VS, FEU-NRMF
EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATIONALLIANCE OF
FILIPINO WORKERS
medical institution
legal
Hotel business
Legal
Legal
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION
Parties and case no.
ALBERTO S. SILVA
VS. NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSIONG.R.
NO. 110226. JUNE
19, 1997
Facts of case
Sometime in 1985, petitioners, then rank-andfile employees and members of Philtread Workers
Union (PWU), volunteered for, and availed of, the
retrenchment program instituted by Philtread with
the understanding that they would have priority in
re-employment in the event that the company
recovers from its financial crisis, in accordance
with Section 4, Article III of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement concluded on July 5, 1983.
[2]
Final disposition
We do not find any reason why the Court
should not apply the above ruling to the case at
bar, notwithstanding the fact that a different law is
involved. Actually, this is not the first time that
the Court refused to apply RA 6715 retroactively.
[16]
Our previous decisions on whether to give it
retroactive application or not depended to a great
extent on what amended provisions were under
consideration, as well as the factual circumstances
to which they were made to apply. In Briad, the
underlying reason for applying RA 6715
retroactively was the fact that prior to its
amendment, Article 217 of the Labor Code, as
amended by then Executive Order No. 111,
created a scenario where the Labor Arbiters and
the Regional Directors of the Department of
Page | 77
MIGUELA
From 1992 to 1994, due to a serious
SANTUYO vs.
industrial dispute, the Kaisahan ng Manggagawa
REMERCO
sa Remerco Garments Manufacturing Inc. - KMM
GARMENTS
Kilusan (union) staged a strike against respondent
MANUFACTURING
Secretary of Labor
executory.
Petitioners insist that the labor arbiter had
jurisdiction inasmuch as the complaint was for
illegal dismissal. Furthermore, they claim that the
September 18, 1996 order of the Secretary of
Labor was inapplicable to them. Despite being
members of the union, they were not among those
who went on strike.
UNION OF NESTLE
WORKERS
CAGAYAN DE ORO
FACTORY vs
NESTLE
PHILIPPINES INC.
G.R. No. 148303.
October 17, 2002
Voluntary Arbitrator
MANEJA VS .
NLRC G.R. No.
124013. June 5, 1998
Labor Arbiter
a written report[5]
telephone operator,
that the offenses
concerned covered
Page | 84
VICENTE SAN
JOSE vs.
Voluntary Arbitrator
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION G.R.
No. 121227. August
17, 1998
Page | 87
Final disposition
It is true that the NLRC erroneously concluded that the
contracting- out of jobs in CCBPI Gen San was due to the GTM
system, which actually affected CCBPIs sales and marketing
departments, and had nothing to do with petitioners complaint.
However, this does not diminish the NLRCs finding that JLBP was a
legitimate, independent contractor and that CCBPI Gen San engaged
the services of JLBP to meet business exigencies created by the
freeze-hiring directive of the CCBPI Head Office.
On the other hand, the CA squarely addressed the issue of job
contracting in its assailed Decision and Resolution. The CA itself
examined the facts and evidence of the parties and found that, based
on the evidence; CCBPI did not engage in labor-only contracting and,
therefore, was not guilty of unfair labor practice.
The NLRC found and the same was sustained by the CA
Page | 88
FACULTY AND
EMPLOYEES UNION G.R.
NO. 167892
OCTOBER 27, 2006
In sum, the timing of, and the reasons for the closure of the
high school and its reopening after only one year from the time it was
closed down, show that the closure was done in bad faith for the
purpose of circumventing the Unions right to collective bargaining
and its members right to security of tenure. Consequently, SJCI is
liable for ULP and illegal dismissal.
The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a
mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in
good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect
to wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions or
employment including proposals for adjusting any grievance or
questions arising under such agreement if requested by either party
but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to
make any concession (Art. 252, Labor Code, as amended).
Procedurally, ALU sent a letter to BALMAR, attaching
therewith its proposals for collective bargaining agreement. In reply,
Page | 92
Page | 95