LABOR

 STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

SONZA  VS.  ABS-­‐CBN  BROADCASTING  CORPORATION   SONZA  appealed  to  the  NLRC.  NLRC  affirmed  the  decision  of  the  LA.  SONZA  
G.R.  No.  138051.  June  10,  2004.
 filed   a   special   civil   action   for   certiorari   before   the   Court   of   Appeals,   CA  
CARPIO,  J.:     dismissed  the  complaint.    
     
FACTS:   ISSUE:    W/N  an  Employer-­‐Employee  relationship  exist  between  Sonza  and  
ABS-­‐CBN   Broadcasting   Corporation   signed   an   Agreement   with   the   Mel   and   ABS-­‐CBN?    
Jay  Management  and  Development  Corporation  (“MJMDC”).  ABS-­‐CBN  was    
represented   by   its   corporate   officers   while   MJMDC   was   represented   by   HELD:  
SONZA,  as  President  and  General  Manager,  and  Carmela  Tiangco,  as  EVP  and   NO.    
Treasurer.     The  elements  of  an  employer-­‐employee  relationship  are:    
  (a)  the  selection  and  engagement  of  the  employee;    
Referred   to   in   the   Agreement   as   “AGENT,”   MJMDC   agreed   to   provide   (b)  the  payment  of  wages;    
SONZA’s  services  exclusively  to  ABS-­‐CBN  as  talent  for  radio  and  television.   (c)  the  power  of  dismissal;  and    
Sonza  was  made  a  co-­‐host  for  Mel  and  Jay  radio  and  television  programs.     (d)   the   employer’s   power   to   control   the   employee   on   the   means   and  
  methods  –  CONTROL  TEST  
ABS-­‐CBN   agreed   to   pay   for   SONZA’s   services   a   monthly   talent   fee   of    
P310,000  for  the  first  year  and  P317,000  for  the  second  and  third  year  of  the   A.   Selection  and  Engagement  of  Employee    
Agreement.  ABS-­‐CBN  would  pay  the  talent  fees  on  the  10th  and  25th  days   SONZA   contends   that   the   “discretion   used   by   respondent   in   specifically  
of  the  month.     selecting   and   hiring   complainant   over   other   broadcasters   of   possibly  
  similar   experience   and   qualification   as   complainant   belies   respondent’s  
On   a   letter,   SONZA   wrote   to   Eugenio   Lopez   III,   ABS-­‐CBN   President,   it   claim  of  independent  contractorship.  
indicated   for   the   rescission   of   the   said   agreement   due   to   his   irrevocable    
resignation   resulting   from   the   acts   of   the   station   being   violative,   thus,   Independent  contractors  often  present  themselves  to  possess  unique  skills,  
constituting  a  breach  thereof.     expertise   or   talent   to   distinguish   them   from   ordinary   employees.   The  
  specific   selection   and   hiring   of   SONZA,   because   of   his   unique   skills,   talent  
SONZA  filed  a  complaint  against  ABS-­‐CBN  before  the  Department  of  Labor   and  celebrity  status  not  possessed  by  ordinary  employees,  is  a  circumstance  
and  Employment.  SONZA  complained  that  ABS-­‐CBN  did  not  pay  his  salaries,   indicative,  but  not  conclusive,  of  an  independent  contractual  relationship.  If  
separation  pay,  service  incentive  leave  pay,  13th  month  pay,  signing  bonus,   SONZA  did  not  possess  such  unique  skills,  talent  and  celebrity  status,  ABS-­‐
travel  allowance  and  amounts  due  under  the  Employees  Stock  Option  Plan.   CBN   would   not   have   entered   into   the   Agreement   with   SONZA   but   would  
ABS-­‐CBN   filed   a   Motion   to   Dismiss   on   the   ground   that   no   employer-­‐ have   hired   him   through   its   personnel   department   just   like   any   other  
employee  relationship  existed  between  the  parties     employee.    
   
The  LA  denied  the  motion  to  dismiss  and  later  on  dismissed  the  complaint   In   any   event,   the   method   of   selecting   and   engaging   SONZA   does   not  
due  to  lack  of  jurisdiction  on  the  basis  of  the  position  papers  submitted  by   conclusively  determine  his  status    
the  parties.  The  LA  ruled  that  Sonza  being  a  “talent”  cannot  be  considered    
as   an   employee   by   reason   of   the   peculiar   circumstances   surrounding   the    
engagement  of  his  services.      

LMJT   14  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

B.   Payment  of  Wages     ABS-­‐CBN  engaged  SONZA’s  services  specifically  to  co-­‐host  the  “Mel  &  Jay”  
ABS-­‐CBN  directly  paid  SONZA  his  monthly  talent  fees  with  no  part  of  his   programs.  ABS-­‐  CBN  did  not  assign  any  other  work  to  SONZA.  To  perform  his  
fees   going   to   MJMDC,   this   mode   of   fee   payment   shows   that   he   was   an   work,   SONZA   only   needed   his   skills   and   talent.   How   SONZA   delivered   his  
employee   of   ABS-­‐CBN.   Moreover,   benefits   and   privilege   were   given   to   lines,  appeared  on  television,  and  sounded  on  radio  were  outside  ABS-­‐CBN’s  
Sonza.     control.   SONZA   did   not   have   to   render   eight   hours   of   work   per   day.   The  
  Agreement   required   SONZA   to   attend   only   rehearsals   and   tapings   of   the  
All  the  talent  fees  and  benefits  paid  to  SONZA  were  the  result  of  negotiations   shows,  as  well  as  pre-­‐  and  post-­‐production  staff  meetings.  ABS-­‐CBN  could  
that  led  to  the  Agreement.  If  SONZA  were  ABS-­‐CBN’s  employee,  there  would   not   dictate   the   contents   of   SONZA’s   script.   However,   the   Agreement  
be   no   need   for   the   parties   to   stipulate   on   benefits   which   the   law   prohibited  SONZA  from  criticizing  in  his  shows  ABS-­‐CBN  or  its  interests.    The  
automatically  incorporates  into  every  employer-­‐employee  contract.   clear  implication  is  that  SONZA  had  a  free  hand  on  what  to  say  or  discuss  in  
  his  shows  provided  he  did  not  attack  ABS-­‐CBN  or  its  interests.    
SONZA’s  talent  fees  are  so  huge  and  out  of  the  ordinary  that  they  indicate    
more   an   independent   contractual   relationship   rather   than   an   employer-­‐ ABS-­‐CBN  did  not  instruct  SONZA  how  to  perform  his  job.  ABS-­‐  CBN  merely  
employee  relationship.  ABS-­‐CBN  agreed  to  pay  SONZA  such  huge  talent  fees   reserved  the  right  to  modify  the  program  format  and  air  time  schedule  “for  
precisely  because  of  SONZA’s  unique  skills,  talent  and  celebrity  status  not   more   effective   programming.”   ABS-­‐CBN’s   sole   concern   was   the   quality   of  
possessed  by  ordinary  employees.     the   shows   and   their   standing   in   the   ratings.   Clearly,   ABS-­‐CBN   did   not  
  exercise  control  over  the  means  and  methods  of  performance  of  SONZA’s  
C.   Power  of  Dismissal   work.    
SONZA  failed  to  show  that  ABS-­‐CBN  could  terminate  his  services  on  grounds    
other  than  breach  of  contract,  such  as  retrenchment  to  prevent  losses  as   Although  ABS-­‐CBN  did  have  the  option  not  to  broadcast  SONZA’s  show,  ABS-­‐
provided  under  labor  laws.  Even  if  it  suffered  severe  business  losses,  ABS-­‐ CBN  was  still  obligated  to  pay  SONZA’s  talent  fees.  Thus,  even  if  ABS-­‐CBN  
CBN  could  not  retrench  SONZA  because  ABS-­‐CBN  remained  obligated  to  pay   was   completely   dissatisfied   with   the   means   and   methods   of   SONZA’s  
SONZA’s   talent   fees   during   the   life   of   the   Agreement.   This   circumstance   performance  of  his  work,  or  even  with  the  quality  or  product  of  his  work,  
indicates  an  independent  contractual  relationship  between  SONZA  and  ABS-­‐ ABS-­‐   CBN   could   not   dismiss   or   even   discipline   SONZA.   All   that   ABS-­‐   CBN  
CBN.   SONZA   admits   that   even   after   ABS-­‐CBN   ceased   broadcasting   his   could  do  is  not  to  broadcast  SONZA’s  show  but  ABS-­‐CBN  must  still  pay  his  
programs,  ABS-­‐CBN  still  paid  him  his  talent  fees.     talent  fees  in  full.  ABS-­‐CBN  could  not  terminate  or  discipline  SONZA  even  if  
  the  means  and  methods  of  performance  of  his  work—how  he  delivered  his  
D.    Power  of  Control     lines   and   appeared   on   television—did   not   meet   ABS-­‐CBN’s   approval.   This  
Applying   the   control   test   to   the   present   case,   we   find   that   SONZA   is   not   an   proves   that   ABS-­‐CBN’s   control   was   limited   only   to   the   result   of   SONZA’s  
employee   but   an   independent   contractor.   The   control   test   is   the   most   work,  whether  to  broadcast  the  final  product  or  not.    
important   test   our   courts   apply   in   distinguishing   an   employee   from   an    
independent  contractor.     No   doubt,   ABS-­‐CBN   supplied   the   equipment,   crew   and   airtime   needed   to  
  broadcast   the   “Mel   &   Jay”   programs.   However,   the   equipment,   crew   and  
First,  SONZA  contends  that  ABS-­‐CBN  exercised  control  over  the  means  and   airtime  are  not  the  “tools  and  instrumentalities”  SONZA  needed  to  perform  
methods  of  his  work.     his   job.   What   SONZA   principally   needed   were   his   talent   or   skills   and   the  
  costumes  necessary  for  his  appearance.  
 

LMJT   15  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

Second,  SONZA  urges  us  to  rule  that  he  was  ABS-­‐CBN’s  employee  because   *Policy  Instruction  No.  40    
ABS-­‐CBN   subjected   him  to  its   rules   and   standards  of  performance.  SONZA   Policy   Instruction   No.   40   is   a   mere   executive   issuance   which   does   not   have  
claims  that  this  indicates  ABS-­‐  CBN’s  control  “not  only  [over]  his  manner  of   the   force   and   effect   of   law.   There   is   no   legal   presumption   that   Policy  
work  but  also  the  quality  of  his  work.   Instruction  No.  40  determines   SONZA’s   status.   A  mere   executive  issuance  
  cannot  exclude  independent  contractors  from  the  class  of  service  providers  
The   Agreement   does   not   require   SONZA   to   comply   with   the   rules   and   to   the   broadcast   industry.   The   classification   of   workers   in   the   broadcast  
standards  of  performance  prescribed  for  employees  of  ABS-­‐CBN.  The  code   industry  into  only  two  groups  under  Policy  Instruction  No.  40  is  not  binding  
of   conduct   imposed   on   SONZA   under   the   Agreement   refers   to   the   on  this  Court,  especially  when  the  classification  has  no  basis  either  in  law  or  
“Television  and  Radio  Code  of  the  Kapisanan  ng  mga  Broadcaster  sa  Pilipinas   in  fact.    
(KBP),  which  has  been  adopted  by  the  COMPANY  (ABS-­‐CBN)  as  its  Code  of    
Ethics.”    The  KBP  code  applies  to  broadcasters,  not  to  employees  of  radio   *Talents  as  Independent  Contractors    
and  television  stations.  Broadcasters  are  not  necessarily  employees  of  radio   The   right   of   labor   to   security   of   tenure   as   guaranteed   in   the   Constitution  
and   television   stations.   Clearly,   the   rules   and   standards   of   performance   arises   only   if   there   is   an   employer-­‐employee   relationship   under   labor   laws.  
referred   to   in   the   Agreement   are   those   applicable   to   talents   and   not   to   Not  every  performance  of  services  for  a  fee  creates  an  employer-­‐employee  
employees  of  ABS-­‐CBN.     relationship.  To  hold  that  every  person  who  renders  services  to  another  for  
  a  fee  is  an  employee—to  give  meaning  to  the  security  of  tenure  clause—will  
These  general  rules  are  merely  guidelines  towards  the  achievement  of  the   lead  to  absurd  results.    
mutually  desired  result,  which  are  top-­‐rating  television  and  radio  programs      
that  comply  with  standards  of  the  industry.     FRANCISCO  VS.  NATIONAL  LABOR  RELATIONS  COMMISSION  
  G.R.  No.  170087.  August  31,  2006  
Lastly,   SONZA   insists   that   the   “exclusivity   clause”   in   the   Agreement   is   the   YNARES-­‐SANTIAGO,  J.:  
most  extreme  form  of  control  which  ABS-­‐CBN  exercised  over  him.     FACTS:  
  Angelina  Francisco  was  hired  by  Kasei  Corporation.  She  was  designated  as  
Being  an  exclusive  talent  does  not  by  itself  mean  that  SONZA  is  an  employee   Accountant   and   Corporate   Secretary   and   was   assigned   to   handle   all   the  
of  ABS-­‐CBN.  Even  an  independent  contractor  can  validly  provide  his  services   accounting   needs   of   the   company.   She   was   also   designated   as   Liaison  
exclusively  to  the  hiring  party.  In  the  broadcast  industry,  exclusivity  is  not   Officer   to   the   City   of   Makati   to   secure   business   permits,   construction  
necessarily  the  same  as  control.     permits  and  other  licenses  for  the  initial  operation  of  the  company.    
   
The   hiring   of   exclusive   talents   is   a   widespread   and   accepted   practice   in   the   In  1996,  petitioner  was  designated  Acting  Manager.    She  was  assigned  to  
entertainment  industry.  This  practice  is  not  designed  to  control  the  means   handle   recruitment   of   all   employees   and   perform   management  
and  methods  of  work  of  the  talent,  but  simply  to  protect  the  investment  of   administration   functions;   represent   the   company   in   all   dealings   with  
the   broadcast   station.   The   broadcast   station   normally   spends   substantial   government   agencies,   especially   with   the   BIR   and   SSS   of   Makati   and   to  
amounts  of  money,  time  and  effort  “in  building  up  its  talents  as  well  as  the   administer  all  other  matters  for  the  operation  of  Kasei  Restaurant.      
programs  they  appear  in  and  thus  expects  that  said  talents  remain  exclusive    
with  the  station  for  a  commensurate  period  of  time.”   In   January   2001,   petitioner   was   replaced   by   Liza   R.   Fuentes   as   Manager.  
  Petitioner  alleged  that  she  was  required  to  sign  a  prepared  resolution  for  
  her  replacement  but  she  was  assured  that  she  would  still  be  connected  with  

LMJT   16  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

Kasei   Corporation.   Thereafter,   Kasei   Corporation   reduced   her   salary   by   This   is   especially   appropriate   in   this   case   where   there   is   no   written  
P2,500.00     agreement  or  terms  of  reference  to  base  the  relationship  on;  and  due  to  the  
  complexity   of   the   relationship   based   on   the   various   positions   and  
On  October  15,  2001,  petitioner  asked  for  her  salary  from  Acedo  and  the   responsibilities   given   to   the   worker   over   the   period   of   the   latter’s  
rest  of  the  officers  but  she  was  informed  that  she  is  no  longer  connected   employment.    
with  the  company.  Since  she  was  no  longer  paid  her  salary,  petitioner  did    
not  report  for  work  and  filed  an  action  for  constructive  dismissal  before  the   The   determination   of   the   relationship   between   employer   and   employee  
labor  arbiter.     depends  upon  the  circumstances  of  the  whole  economic  activity,  such  as:  
  (1)  the  extent  to  which  the  services  performed  are  an  integral  part  of  the  
Private  respondents  averred  that  petitioner  is  not  an  employee  of  Kasei   employer’s  business;    
Corporation.   They   alleged   that   petitioner   was   hired   in   1995   as   one   of   its   (2)  the  extent  of  the  worker’s  investment  in  equipment  and  facilities;  
technical   consultants   on   accounting   matters   and   act   concurrently   as   (3)  the  nature  and  degree  of  control  exercised  by  the  employer;    
Corporate  Secretary.  As  technical  consultant,  petitioner  performed  her  work   (4)  the  worker’s  opportunity  for  profit  and  loss;    
at  her  own  discretion  without  control  and  supervision  of  Kasei  Corporation.   (5)   the   amount   of   initiative,   skill,   judgment   or   foresight   required   for   the  
Petitioner  had  no  daily  time  record  and  she  came  to  the  office  any  time  she   success  of  the  claimed  independent  enterprise;    
wanted.  The  company  never  interfered  with  her  work  except  that  from  time   (6)  the  permanency  and  duration  of  the  relationship  between  the  worker  
to  time,  the  management  would  ask  her  opinion  on  matters  relating  to  her   and  the  employer;  and    
profession.  Petitioner  did  not  go  through  the  usual  procedure  of  selection   (7)   the   degree   of   dependency   of   the   worker   upon   the   employer   for   his  
of  employees,  but  her  services  were  engaged  through  a  Board  Resolution   continued  employment  in  that  line  of  business.    
designating  her  as  technical  consultant.  The  money  received  by  petitioner    
from  the  corporation  was  her  professional  fee.  Petitioner’s  designation  as   By  applying  the  control  test,  there  is  no  doubt  that  petitioner  is  an  employee  
technical  consultant  depended  solely  upon  the  will  of  management.  As  such,   of   Kasei   Corporation   because   she   was   under   the   direct   control   and  
her  consultancy  may  be  terminated  any  time.   supervision  of  Seiji  Kamura,  the  corporation’s  Technical  Consultant.    
   
The   Labor   Arbiter   found   that   petitioner   was   illegally   dismissed,   the   NLRC   Based  on  the  foregoing,  there  can  be  no  other  conclusion  that  petitioner  is  
affirmed  LA’s  decision  and  was  reversed  by  the  CA.     an   employee   of   respondent   Kasei   Corporation.   She   was   selected   and  
  engaged  by  the  company  for  compensation,  and  is  economically  dependent  
ISSUE:   upon  respondent  for  her  continued  employment  in  that  line  of  business.  Her  
W/N  an  Er-­‐Ee  relationship  exists?   main   job   function   involved   accounting   and   tax   services   rendered   to  
  respondent   corporation   on   a   regular   basis   over   an   indefinite   period   of  
HELD:   engagement.    
YES.    
Two-­‐tiered  test  involving:     Under  the  broader  economic  reality  test,  the  petitioner  can  likewise  be  said  
(1)   the   putative   employer’s   power   to   control   the   employee   with   respect   to   to  be  an  employee  of  respondent  corporation  because  she  had  served  the  
the  means  and  methods  by  which  the  work  is  to  be  accomplished;  and     company   for   six   years   before   her   dismissal,   receiving   check   vouchers  
(2)  the  underlying  economic  realities  of  the  activity  or  relationship.     indicating   her   salaries/wages,   benefits,   13th   month   pay,   bonuses   and  
  allowances,   as   well   as   deductions   and   Social   Security   contributions   from  

LMJT   17  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

August   1,   1999   to   December   18,   2000.   It   is   therefore   apparent   that    

petitioner   is   economically   dependent   on   respondent   corporation   for   her   The  LA  rendered  a  decision  finding  Pelobello  and  Zapata  illegally  dismissed.  
continued  employment  in  the  latter’s  line  of  business.     It  denied  claims  for  underpaymet  but  found  that  petitioner  failed  to  pay  cost  
  of  living  allowance,  service  incentive  leave  pay  and  the  13th  Month  Pay.    
MAKATI  HABERDASHERY,  INC.  VS.  NLRC      
G.R.  Nos.  83380-­‐81.  November  15,  1989     The  NLRC  affirmed  the  decision  but  limited  the  backwages  awarded  the  
FERNAN,  C.J.:     Dioscoro  Pelobello  and  Casimiro  Zapata  to  only  one  (1)  year.  
FACTS:    
Private  respondents  have  been  working  for  petitioner  Makati  Haberdashery,   ISSUES:  
Inc.  as  tailors,  seamstress,  sewers,  basters  (manlililip)  and  “plantsadoras”.   1.   W/N  an  Er-­‐Ee  relationship  exists?  
They   are   paid   on   a   piece-­‐rate   basis   except   Maria   Angeles   and   Leonila   2.   W/N  respondents  workers  are  entitled  to  monetary  claims  despite  the  
Serafina  who  are  paid  on  a  monthly  basis.  In  addition  to  their  piece-­‐  rate,   finding  that  they  are  not  entitled  to  minimum  wage?  
they  are  given  a  daily  allowance  of  three  (P3.00)  pesos  provided  they  report    
for  work  before  9:30  a.m.  everyday.     HELD:  
   
Private  respondents  are  required  to  work  from  or  before  9:30  a.m.  up  to   1.   YES.  
6:00  or  7:00  p.m.  from  Monday  to  Saturday  and  during  peak  periods  even   The   facts   at   bar   indubitably   reveal   that   the   most   important   requisite   of  
on  Sundays  and  holidays.     control   is   present.   As   gleaned   from   the   operations   of   petitioner,   when   a  
  customer  enters  into  a  contract  with  the  haberdashery  or  its  proprietor,  the  
The   Sandigan   ng   Manggagawang   Pilipino,   a   labor   organization   of   the   latter   directs   an   employee   who   may   be   a   tailor,   pattern   maker,   sewer   or  
respondent   workers,   filed   a   complaint   for   (a)   underpayment   of   the   basic   “plantsadora”  to  take  the  customer’s  measurements,  and  to  saw  the  pants,  
wage;   (b)   underpayment   of   living   allowance;   (c)   non-­‐   payment   of   overtime   coat  or  shirt  as  specified  by  the  customer.  Supervision  is  actively  manifested  
work;  (d)  non-­‐payment  of  holiday  pay;  (e)  non-­‐  payment  of  service  incentive   in  all  these  aspects—the  manner  and  quality  of  cutting,  sewing  and  ironing.    
pay;  (f)  13th  month  pay;  and  (g)  benefits  provided  for  under  Wage  Orders    
Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4  and  5
   Furthermore,   the   presence   of   control   is   immediately   evident   in   this  
  memorandum   issued   by   Assistant   Manager   Cecilio   B.   Inocencio,   Jr.   it   is  
During  the  pendency  of  the  case,  private  respondent  Dioscoro  Pelobello  left   evident  that  petitioner  has  reserved  the  right  to  control  its  employees  not  
with  Salvador  Rivera,  a  salesman  of   Haberdashery,   an   open   package   which   only  as  to  the  result  but  also  the  means  and  methods  by  which  the  same  are  
was   discovered   to   contain   a   “jusi”   barong   tagalog.   When   confronted,   to   be   accomplished.   That   private   respondents   are   regular   employees   is  
Pelobello  replied  that  the  same  was  ordered  by  respondent  Casimiro  Zapata   further   proven   by   the   fact   that   they   have   to   report   for   work   regularly   from  
for   his   customer.   Zapata   allegedly   admitted   that   he   copied   the   design   of   9:30  a.m.  to  6:00  or  7:00  p.m.  and  are  paid  an  additional  allowance  of  P3.00  
petitioner   Haberdashery.   But   in   the   afternoon,   when   again   questioned   daily  if  they  report  for  work  before  9:30  a.m.  and  which  is  forfeited  when  
about   said   barong,   Pelobello   and   Zapata   denied   ownership   of   the   same.   they  arrive  at  or  after  9:30  a.m.    
Consequently,  a  memorandum  was  issued  to  each  of  them  to  explain.  Both    
respondents  allegedly  did  not  submit  their  explanation  and  did  not  report   2.   YES  except  SIL  
for  work.  Hence,  they  were  dismissed  by  petitioners.  They  filed  a  case  for   As  a  consequence  of  their   status   as   regular  employees   of   the  petitioners,  
th
illegal  dismissal.       they  can  claim  cost  of  living  allowance  and  can  also  claim  13  month  pay.  

LMJT   18  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

On   the   other   hand,   while   private   respondents   are   entitled   to   Minimum   terminated  his  services.    Petitioners  thus  sued  for  illegal  dismissal  before  the  
Wage,  COLA  and  13th  Month  Pay,  they  are  not  entitled  to  service  incentive   Labor  Arbiter.    
leave  pay  because  as  piece-­‐rate  workers  being  paid  at  a  fixed  amount  for    
performing  work  irrespective  of  time  consumed  in  the  performance  thereof,   On  the  other  hand,  private  respondents  claim  that  Viva  Films  (hereafter  
they   fall   under   one   of   the   exceptions   stated   in   Section   1(d),   Rule   V,   VIVA)  is  the  trade  name  of  Viva  Productions,  Inc.,  and  that  it  is  primarily  
Implementing  Regulations,  Book  III,  Labor  Code.  For  the  same  reason  private   engaged  in  the  distribution  and  exhibition  of  movies—but  not  in  the  
respondents   cannot   also   claim   holiday   pay   (Section   1(e),   Rule   IV,   business  of  making  movies;  in  the  same  vein,  private  respondent  Vic  del  
Implementing  Regulations,  Book  III,  Labor  Code).     Rosario  is  merely  an  executive  producer.  
   
  Private  respondents  assert  that  they  contract  persons  called  “producers”—  
MARAGUINOT,  JR.  VS.  NLRC   to   “produce”   or   make   movies   and   contend   that   petitioners   are   project  
G.R.  No.  120969.  January  22,  1998     employees   of   the   associate   producers   who,   in   turn,   act   as   independent  
DAVIDE,  JR.,  J.:     contractors.  As  such,  there  is  no  employer-­‐  employee  relationship  between  
FACTS:   petitioners   and   private   respondents.   It   further   contends   that   it   was   the  
Alejandro   Maraguinot,   Jr.   maintains   that   he   was   employed   by   private   associate  producer  of  the  film  “Mahirap  Maging  Pogi,”  who  hired  petitioner  
respondents  on  18  July  1989  as  part  of  the  filming  crew.  About  four  months   Maraguinot.   Anent   petitioner   Enero,   he   was   hired   for   the   movie   entitled  
later,  he  was  designated  Assistant  Electrician  in  May  1990.  In  June  1991,  he   “Sigaw  ng  Puso,”  later  re-­‐  titled  “Narito  ang  Puso.”  He  went  on  vacation  on  
was   promoted   to   the   rank   of   Electrician.   Petitioner   Paulino   Enero,   on   his   8  June  1992,  and  by  the  time  he  reported  for  work  on  20  July  1992,  shooting  
part,   claims   that   private   respondents   employed   him   in   June   1990   as   a   for  the  movie  had  already  been  completed.  
member  of  the  shooting  crew.    
  The   LA   rendered   a   decision   finding   complainants   as   employees   of  
Petitioners’   tasks   consisted   of   loading,   unloading   and   arranging   movie   respondent   and   that   they   are   illegally   dismissed.   The   NLRC   reversed   LA’s  
equipment  in  the  shooting  area  as  instructed  by  the  cameraman,  returning   ruling  and  held  that  based  on  the  circumstances  they  are  project  employees.    
the   equipment   to   Viva   Films’   warehouse,   assisting   in   the   “fixing”   of   the    
lighting   system,   and   performing   other   tasks   that   the   cameraman   and/or   ISSUE:  
director  may  assign.   W/N  Er-­‐Ee  relationship  exist?  
   
Sometime  in  May  1992,  petitioners  sought  the  assistance  of  their  supervisor,   HELD:  
Mrs.   Alejandria   Cesario,   to   facilitate   their   request   that   private   respondents   YES.  
adjust  their  salary  in  accordance  with  the  minimum  wage  law.  Mrs.  Cesario    
informed   petitioners   that   Mr.   Vic   del   Rosario   would   agree   to   increase   their   The   relationship   between   VIVA   and   its   producers   or   associate   producers  
salary   only   if   they   signed   a   blank   employment   contract.   As   petitioners   seems  to  be  that  of  agency,  as  the  latter  make  movies  on  behalf  of  VIVA,  
refused   to   sign,   private   respondents   forced   Enero   to   go   on   leave   then   whose  business  is  to  “make”  movies.  As  such,  the  employment  relationship  
refused   to   take   him   back   when   he   reported   for   work.   Meanwhile,   between  petitioners  and  producers  is  actually  one  between  petitioners  and  
Maraguinot  was  dropped  from  the  company  payroll  from  8  to  21  June  1992,   VIVA,  with  the  latter  being  the  direct  employer.    
but   was   returned   on   22   June   1992.   He   was   again   asked   to   sign   a   blank    
employment   contract,   and   when   he   still   refused,   private   respondents  

LMJT   19  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

The  employer-­‐employee  relationship  between  petitioners  and  VIVA  can   DE  LEON  VS.  NATIONAL  LABOR  RELATIONS  COMMISSION  
further  be  established  by  the  “control  test.”  The  four  elements  are  present.       G.R.  No.  70705.  August  21,  1989    
  FERNAN,  C.J.:
  
VIVA’s  control  is  evident  in  its  mandate  that  the  end  result  must  be  a  “quality    
film  acceptable  to  the  company.”  The  means  and  methods  to  accomplish  the   FACTS:  
result   are   likewise   controlled   by   VIVA,   viz.,   the   movie   project   must   be   Moises  de  Leon  was  employed  by  private  respondent  La  Tondeña,  Inc.  at  
finished   within   schedule   without   exceeding   the   budget,   and   additional   the  Maintenance  Section  of  its  Engineering  Department  in  Tondo,  Manila.  
expenses  must  be  justified;  certain  scenes  are  subject  to  change  to  suit  the   His  work  consisted  mainly  of  painting  company  building  and  equipment,  
taste  of  the  company;  and  the  Supervising  Producer,  the  “eyes  and  ears”  of   and  other  odd  jobs  relating  to  maintenance.  He  was  paid  on  a  daily  basis  
VIVA  and  del  Rosario,  intervenes  in  the  movie-­‐making  process  by  assisting   through  petty  cash  vouchers.    
the  associate  producer  in  solving  problems  encountered  in  making  the  film.      
It  may  not  be  validly  argued  then  that  petitioners  are  actually  subject  to  the   In  the  early  part  of  January,  1983,  after  a  service  of  more  than  one  (1)  year,  
movie   director’s   control,   and   not   VIVA’s   direction.   The   director   merely   petitioner  requested  from  respondent  company  that  he  be  included  in  the  
instructs  petitioners  on  how  to  better  comply  with  VIVA’s  requirements  to   payroll   of   regular   workers,   instead   of   being   paid   through   petty   cash  
ensure   that   a   quality   film   is   completed   within   schedule   and   without   vouchers.   Private   respondent’s   response   to   this   request   was   to   dismiss  
exceeding  the  budget.  At  bottom,  the  director  is  akin  to  a  supervisor  who   petitioner  from  his  employment.    
merely   oversees   the   activities   of   rank-­‐and-­‐file   employees   with   control    
ultimately  resting  on  the  employer.     Petitioner  filed  a  complaint  for  illegal  dismissal,  reinstatement  and  payment  
  of  backwages  before  the  Office  of  the  Labor  Arbiter.    
The   words   “superiors”   and   “Top   Management”   can   only   refer   to   the    
“superiors”   and   “Top   Management”   of   VIVA.   By   commanding   crew   Petitioner  alleged  that  he  was  dismissed  following  his  request  to  be  treated  
members   to   observe   the   rules   and   regulations   promulgated   by   VIVA,   the   as   a   regular   employee;   that   his   work   consisted   of   painting   company  
appointment  slips  only  emphasize  VIVA’s  control  over  petitioners.     buildings   and   maintenance   chores   like   cleaning   and   operating   company  
  equipment,  assisting  Emiliano  Tanque,  Jr.,  a  regular  maintenance  man;  and  
Notably,   nowhere   in   the   appointment   slip   does   it   appear   that   it   was   the   that  weeks  after  his  dismissal,  he  was  re-­‐hired  by  the  respondent  company  
producer  or  associate  producer  who  hired  the  crew  members;  moreover,  it   indirectly  through  the  Vitas-­‐  Magsaysay  Village  Livelihood  Council,  a  labor  
is  VIVA’s  corporate  name  which  appears  on  the  heading  of  the  appointment   agency   of   respondent   company,   and   was   made   to   perform   the   tasks   which  
slip.  What  likewise  tells  against  VIVA  is  that  it  paid  petitioners’  salaries  as   he   used   to   do.   On   the   other   hand,   private   respondent   claimed   that  
evidenced  by  vouchers,  containing  VIVA’s  letterhead,  for  that  purpose.     petitioner  was  not  a  regular  employee  but  only  a  casual  worker.    
   
  The  LA  rendered  a  decision  finding  petitioner  illegally  dismissed  and  was  a  
  regular  employee.  NLRC  affirmed  the  decision.  
   
  The  private  respondent  argues  that  petitioner  was  hired  only  as  a  painter  to  
  repaint  specifically  the  Mama  Rosa  building  at  its  Tondo  compound,  which  
  painting   work   is   not   part   of   their   main   business;   that   at   the   time   of   his  
  engagement,  it  was  made  clear  to  him  that  he  would  be  so  engaged  on  a  

LMJT   20  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

casual   basis,   so   much   so   that   he   was   not   required   to   accomplish   an   employment  is  regular  or  casual  is  not  the  will  and  word  of  the  employer,  to  
application  form  or  to  comply  with  the  usual  requisites  for  employment;  and   which   the   desperate   worker   often   accedes,   much   less   the   procedure   of  
that,  in  fact,  petitioner  was  never  paid  his  salary  through  the  regular  payroll   hiring  the  employee  or  the  manner  of  paying  his  salary.  It  is  the  nature  of  
but  always  through  petty  cash  vouchers
   the   activities   performed   in   relation   to   the   particular   business   or   trade  
  considering   all   circumstances,   and   in   some   cases   the   length   of   time   of   its  
ISSUE:   performance  and  its  continued  existence.    
W/N  de  Leon  is  a  regular  employee?    
   
HELD:   SAN  MIGUEL  BREWERY  SALES  FORCE  UNION  (PTGWO)  VS.  OPLE  
YES.     G.R.  No.  53515.  February  8,  1989    
  GRIÑO-­‐AQUINO,  J.:    
An   employment   is   deemed   regular   when   the   activities   performed   by   the   FACTS:  
employee  are  usually  necessary  or  desirable  in  the  usual  business  or  trade   A  CBA  was  entered  into  by  petitioner  San  Miguel  Corporation  Sales  Force  
of   the   employer.   Not   considered   regular   are   the   so-­‐called   “project   Union  (PTGWO),  and  private  respondent,  San  Miguel  Corporation.    
employment”   the   completion   or   termination   of   which   is   more   or   less   Section  1,  Article  IV  -­‐  Employees  within  the  appropriate  bargaining  
determinable   at   the   time   of   employment,   such   as   those   employed   in   unit  shall  be  entitled  to  a  basic  monthly  compensation  plus  
connection  with  a  particular  construction  project,  and  seasonal  employment   commission  based  on  their  respective  sales.”    
which  by  its  nature  is  only  desirable  for  a  limited  period  of  time.  However,    
any   employee   who   has   rendered   at   least   one   year   of   service,   whether   The  company  introduced  a  marketing  scheme  known  as  the  
continuous  or  intermittent,  is  deemed  regular  with  respect  to  the  activity  he   “Complementary  Distribution  System”  (CDS)  whereby  its  beer  products  
performed  and  while  such  activity  actually  exists.     were  offered  for  sale  directly  to  wholesalers  through  San  Miguel’s  sales  
  offices.    
Furthermore,   the   petitioner   performed   his   work   of   painting   and    
maintenance   activities   during   his   employment   in   respondent’s   business   The  labor  union  filed  a  complaint  for  unfair  labor  practice  in  the  Ministry  of  
which   lasted   for   more   than   one   year,   until   early   January,   1983   when   he   Labor,  with  a  notice  of  strike  on  the  ground  that  the  CDS  was  contrary  to  the  
demanded  to  be  regularized  and  was  subsequently  dismissed.  Certainly,  by   existing   marketing   scheme   whereby   the   Route   Salesmen   were   assigned  
this  fact  alone  he  is  entitled  by  law  to  be  considered  a  regular  employee.   specific  territories  within  which  to  sell  their  stocks  of  beer,  and  wholesalers  
And   considering   further   that   weeks   after   his   dismissal,   petitioner   was   had  to  buy  beer  products  from  them,  not  from  the  company.  It  was  alleged  
rehired  by  the  company  through  a  labor  agency  and  was  returned  to  his  post   that  the  new  marketing  scheme  violates  Section  1,  Article  IV  of  the  collective  
in  the  Maintenance  Section  and  made  to  perform  the  same  activities  that  he   bargaining   agreement   because   the   introduction   of   the   CDS   would   reduce  
used  to  do,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  his  activities  as  a  regular  painter  and   the  take-­‐home  pay  of  the  salesmen  and  their  truck  helpers  for  the  company  
maintenance   man   still   exist.   It   is   of   no   moment   that   petitioner   was   told   would  be  unfairly  competing  with  them.    
when   he   was   hired   that   his   employment   would   only   be   casual,   that   he   was    
paid   through   cash   vouchers,   and   that   he   did   not   comply   with   regular   ISSUE:  
employment  procedure.  Precisely,  the  law  overrides  such  conditions  which   Whether  the  CDS  violates  the  collective  bargaining  agreement?  
are  prejudicial  to  the  interest  of  the  worker  whose  weak  bargaining  position   W/N  CDS  constitute  union  busting?  
needs   the   support   of   the   State.   What   determines   whether   a   certain    

LMJT   21  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

HELD:   Plant,  except  those  in  the  Warehouse  and  Quality  Assurance  Department  
NO.     working  on  shifts,  a  change  in  work  schedule  effective  14  September  1992    
   
The  CDS  is  a  valid  exercise  of  management  prerogatives:     Since  private  respondent  felt  affected  adversely  by  the  change  in  the  work  
“Except  as  limited  by  special  laws,  an  employer  is  free  to  regulate,  according   schedule  and  discontinuance  of  the  30-­‐minute  paid  “on  call”  lunch  break,  it  
to   his   own   discretion   and   judgment,   all   aspects   of   employment,   including   filed  on  behalf  of  its  members  a  complaint  with  the  Labor  Arbiter  for  unfair  
hiring,   work   assignments,   working   methods,   time,   place   and   manner   of   labor  practice,  discrimination  and  evasion  of  liability    
work,   tools   to   be   used,   processes   to   be   followed,   supervision   of   workers,    
working   regulations,   transfer   of   employees,   work   supervision,   lay-­‐   off   of   However,  the  Labor  Arbiter  dismissed  the  complaint  on  the  ground  that  the  
workers  and  the  discipline,  dismissal  and  recall  of  work.”   change   in   the   work   schedule   and   the   elimination   of   the   30-­‐minute   paid  
  lunch   break   of   the   factory   workers   constituted   a   valid   exercise   of  
So   long   as   a   company’s   management   prerogatives   are   exercised   in   good   management   prerogative   and   that   the   new   work   schedule,   break   time   and  
faith   for   the   advancement   of   the   employer’s   interest   and   not   for   the   one-­‐  hour  lunch  break  did  not  have  the  effect  of  diminishing  the  benefits  
purpose   of   defeating   or   circumventing   the   rights   of   the   employees   under   granted   to   factory   workers   as   the   working   time   did   not   exceed   eight   (8)  
special  laws  or  under  valid  agreements,  this  Court  will  uphold  them.     hours.    
   
San  Miguel  Corporation’s  offer  to  compensate  the  members  of  its  sales  force   The  Labor  Arbiter  further  held  that  the  factory  workers  would  be  unjustly  
who  will  be  adversely  affected  by  the  implementation  of  the  CDS,  by  paying   enriched  if  they  continued  to  be  paid  during  their  lunch  break  even  if  they  
them   a   so-­‐called   “back   adjustment   commission”   to   make   up   for   the   were  no  longer  “on  call”  or  required  to  work  during  the  break.    
commissions  they  might  lose  as  a  result  of  the  CDS,  proves  the  company’s    
good  faith  and  lack  of  intention  to  bust  their  union.     The  NLRC  considered  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  the  Sime  Darby  case  of  
    1990   wherein   petitioner   was   ordered   to   pay   “the   money   value   of   these  
SIME  DARBY  PILIPINAS,  INC.  VS.  NLRC     covered   employees   deprived   of   lunch   and/or   working   time   breaks.”   The  
G.R.  No.  119205.  April  15,  1998     public   respondent   declared   that   the   new   work   schedule   deprived   the  
BELLOSILLO,  J.:     employees  of  the  benefits  of  a  time-­‐honored  company  practice  of  providing  
FACTS:   its  employees  a  30-­‐minute  paid  lunch  break  resulting  in  an  unjust  diminution  
Sime  Darby  Pilipinas,  Inc.,  is  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  automotive   of  company  privileges  prohibited  by  Art.  100  of  the  Labor  Code,  as  amended.    
tires,  tubes  and  other  rubber  products.  Sime  Darby  Salaried  Employees    
Association  (ALUTUCP),  private  respondent,  is  an  association  of  monthly   ISSUE:  
salaried  employees  of  petitioner  at  its  Marikina  factory.     Is  the  act  of  management  in  revising  the  work  schedule  of  its  employees  
  and  discarding  their  paid  lunch  break  constitutive  of  unfair  labor  practice?    
Prior  to  the  present  controversy,  all  company  factory  workers  in  Marikina    
including  members  of  private  respondent  union  worked  from  7:45  a.m.  to   HELD:  
3:45  p.m.  with  a  30-­‐  minute  paid  “on  call”  lunch  break.     NO.  
   
On  14  August  1992  petitioner  issued  a  memorandum  to  all  factory-­‐based   The  right  to  fix  the  work  schedules  of  the  employees  rests  principally  on  their  
employees  advising  all  its  monthly  salaried  employees  in  its  Marikina  Tire   employer.  In  the  instant  case  petitioner,  as  the  employer,  cites  as  reason  for  

LMJT   22  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

the   adjustment   the   efficient   conduct   of   its   business   operations   and   its   latter’s  operation  of  the  Tiwi,  Albay  and  the  Makiling-­‐Banahaw  Geothermal  
improved   production.   It   rationalizes   that   while   the   old   work   schedule   Projects    
included  a  30-­‐minute  paid  lunch  break,  the  employees  could  be  called  upon    
to  do  jobs  during  that  period  as  they  were  “on  call.”  Even  if  denominated  as   Private  respondents  are  employees  of  herein  petitioner  occupying  various  
lunch   break,   this   period   could   very   well   be   considered   as   working   time   positions  ranging  from  carpenter  to  Clerk  II  who  had  worked  with  petitioner  
because  the  factory  employees  were  required  to  work  if  necessary  and  were   company   under   individual   contracts,   categorized   as   contractual  
paid  accordingly  for  working.  With  the  new  work  schedule,  the  employees   employment,  for  a  period  ranging  from  fifteen  (15)  days  to  three  (3)  months.  
are   now   given   a   one-­‐   hour   lunch   break   without   any   interruption   from   their   These  contracts  were  regularly  renewed  to  the  extent  that  individual  private  
employer.  For  a  full  one-­‐hour  undisturbed  lunch  break,  the  employees  can   respondents  had  rendered  service  from  three  (3)  to  five  (5)  years  until  1983  
freely  and  effectively  use  this  hour  not  only  for  eating  but  also  for  their  rest   and   1984   when   petitioner   started   terminating   their   employment   by   not  
and  comfort  which  are  conducive  to  more  efficiency  and  better  performance   renewing   their   individual   contracts.   Subsequently   petitioner   entered   into  
in  their  work.  Since  the  employees  are  no  longer  required  to  work  during   job  contracting  agreement  with  Dra.  Generosa  Gonzales  who  supplies  it  with  
this   one-­‐hour   lunch   break,   there   is   no   more   need   for   them   to   be   skilled  manpower.    
compensated  for  this  period.  The  new  work  schedule  fully  complies  with  the    
daily   work   period   of   eight   (8)   hours   without   violating   the   Labor   Code.   Private   respondents   organized   a   separate   labor   union   in   view   of   their  
Besides,  the  new  schedule  applies  to  all  employees  in  the  factory  similarly   exclusion   in   the   bargaining   unit   of   the   regular   rank   and   file   employees  
situated  whether  they  are  union  members  or  not.     represented  by  the  Federation  of  Free  Workers.  In  August  1983,  they  filed  a  
  petition   for   certification   election   with   the   Ministry   of   Labor   and  
Every  business  enterprise  endeavors  to  increase  its  profits.  In  the  process,  it   Employment.  Because  of  this,  herein  petitioner  allegedly  started  harassing  
may   devise   means   to   attain   that   goal.   Even   as   the   law   is   solicitous   of   the   them   and   replaced   them   with   so   called   ‘contract   workers’.   Thus,  
welfare  of  the  employees,  it  must  also  protect  the  right  of  an  employer  to   complainant  union  and  herein  respondent  employees  filed  a  case  for  illegal  
exercise  what  are  clearly  management  prerogatives.     lock-­‐out  and  unfair  labor  practice.  
   
So  long  as  such  prerogative  is  exercised  in  good  faith  for  the  advancement   The   LA   rendered   a   decision   in   favor   of   respondent   ruling   that   they   are  
of   the   employer’s   interest   and   not   for   the   purpose   of   defeating   or   regular  employees  and  ordered  their  reinstatement.  The  NLRC  affirmed  the  
circumventing  the  rights  of  the  employees  under  special  laws  or  under  valid   decision.      
agreements,  this  Court  will  uphold  such  exercise.      
  ISSUE:  
  Whether  or  not  private  respondents  may  be  considered  regular  and  
PHILIPPINE  GEOTHERMAL,  INC.VS.NLRC     permanent  employees  due  to  their  length  of  service  in  the  company  
G.R.  Nos.  82643-­‐67.  August  30,  1990     despite  the  fact  that  their  employment  is  on  contractual  basis?    
PARAS,  J.:      
FACTS:   HELD:  
Philippine  Geothermal,  Inc.  is  a  U.S.  corporation  engaged  in  the  exploration   YES.  
and  development  of  geothermal  energy  resources  as  an  alternative  source    
of  energy.  It  is  duly  authorized  to  engage  in  business  in  the  Philippines  and   In   the   recent   case   of   Kimberly   Independent   Labor   Union   for   Solidarity,  
at  present  is  the  prime  contractor  of  the  National  Power  Corporation  at  the   Activism,  and  Nationalism-­‐Olalia  vs.  Hon.  Franklin  M.  Drilon,  G.R.  Nos.  77629  

LMJT   23  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

and  78791  promulgated  last  May  9,  1990,  this  Court  classified  the  two  kinds   Effective  July  12,  1986,  individual  complainants  and  Lawrence  Deguit  were  
of  regular  employees,  as:     temporarily   laid-­‐off   by   virtue   of   a   memorandum   issued   by   the   respondent.  
1)  those  who  are  engaged  to  perform  activities  which  are  usually  necessary   In  said  memorandum  they  were  also  informed  that  a  meeting  regarding  the  
or  desirable  in  the  usual  business  or  trade  of  the  employer;  and     resumption   of   operation   will   be   held   on   July   16,   1986   and   that   they   will   be  
2)   those   who   have   rendered   at   least   one   (1)   year   of   service,   whether   notified  as  to  when  they  will  resume  work.    
continuous   or   broken   with   respect   to   the   activity   in   which   they   are      
employed.   While   the   actual   regularization   of   these   employees   entails   the   Complainants   filed   the   instant   case   for   illegal   dismissal   but   before   the  
mechanical  act  of  issuing  regular  appointment  papers  and  compliance  with   respondent  could  receive  a  copy  of  the  complaint  and  the  notification  and  
such   other   operating   procedures,   as   may   be   adopted   by   the   employer,   it   is   summons  individual  complainants  re-­‐applied  with  the  respondent  and  were  
more  in  keeping  with  the  intent  and  spirit  of  the  law  to  rule  that  the  status   assigned  to  work  with  its  project  at  Robinson—EDSA.      
of   regular   employment   attaches   to   the   casual   employee   on   the   day    
immediately  after  the  end  of  his  first  year  of  service.     In  hiring  the  herein  complainants  to  be  assigned  to  a  particular  project  they  
  have  to  fill  up  an  employment  application  form  and  are  subjected  to  a  pre-­‐
Assuming   therefore,   that   an   employee   could   properly   be   regarded   as   a   hiring  examination.  If  evaluated  to  be  qualified  they  sign  at  the  end    
casual  (as  distinguished  from  a  regular  employee)  he  becomes  entitled  to  be   portion   of   their   employment   application   form.   Thereafter   the   hired  
regarded   as   a   regular   employee   of   the   employer   as   soon   as   he   has   employee  is  given  by  the  respondent  an  assignment  slip.    
completed  one  year  of  service.  Under  the  circumstances,  employers  may  not    
terminate  the  service  of  a  regular  employee  except  for  a  just  cause  or  when   The  NLRC  held  that  the  complainants  were  project  employees  because  
authorized  under  the  Labor  Code.  It  is  not  difficult  to  see  that  to  uphold  the   their  appointments  were  “co-­‐terminus  with  the  phase  or  item  of  work  
contractual  arrangement  between  the  employer  and  the  employee  would   assigned  to  them  in  said  project.”    
in  effect  be  to  permit  employers  to  avoid  the  necessity  of  hiring  regular  or    
permanent  employees  indefinitely  on  a  temporary  or  casual  status,  thus  to   ISSUE:  
deny  them  security  of  tenure  in  their  jobs.  Article  106  of  the  Labor  Code  is   Whether  the  petitioners  are  project  employees  or  regular  employees?  
precisely  designed  to  prevent  such  result.      
  HELD:  
  Project  employees.  
   
CARTAGENAS  VS.  ROMAGO  ELECTRIC  COMPANY,  INC.   As  an  electrical  contractor,  the  private  respondent  depends  for  its  business  
G.R.  No.  82973.September  15,  1989     on  the  contracts  it  is  able  to  obtain  from  real  estate  developers  and  builders  
GRIÑO-­‐AQUINO,  J.:     of   buildings.   Since   its   work   depends   on   the   availability   of   such   contracts   or  
FACTS:   “projects,”  necessarily  the  duration  of  the  employment  of  its  work  force  is  
Respondent  Romago  is  a  general  contractor  engaged  in  contracting  and   not  permanent  but  co-­‐  terminus  with  the  projects  to  which  they  are  assigned  
sub-­‐contracting  of  specific  building  construction  projects  or  undertaking   and  from  whose  payrolls  they  are  paid.  It  would  be  extremely  burdensome  
such  as  electrical,  mechanical  and  civil  engineering  aspects  in  the  repair  of   for  their  employer  who,  like  them,  depends  on  the  availability  of  projects,  if  
buildings  and  from  other  kindred  services.  Individual  complainants  are   it  would  have  to  carry  them  as  permanent  employees  and  pay  them  wages  
employed  by  the  respondent  in  connection  with  particular  construction   even  if  there  are  no  projects  for  them  to  work  on.    
projects.      

LMJT   24