GENERAL PRINCIPLES ... 1
1. Singer Sewing Machine vs. NLRC, 193 SCRA 271 ... 1
2. Manila Golf Club vs. IAC, 237 SCRA 207 ... 1
3. Encyclopedia Britanica vs. NLRC, 264 SCRA 4 [1996] ... 2
4. Carungcong vs. Sunlife, 283 SCRA 319 ... 2
5. Ramos vs CA, 380 SCRA 467 ... 3
6. Sonza vs. ABS-CBN, G.R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004 ... 3
7. Lazaro vs. Social Security Commission, 435 SCRA 472 [2004] ... 4
8. Phil. Global Communications v. De Vera, 459 SCRA 260 [2005] ... 5
9. ABS-CBN vs. Nazareno, G.R. No. 164156, Sept. 26, 2006 ... 6
10. Francisco vs. NLRC, 500 SCRA 690 [2006]... 6
11. Nogales et. al., vs. Capitol Medical Center et al., G.R. No. 142625, December 19, 2006 ... 7
12. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., vs. Dr. Climaco, G.R. No. 146881, February 15, 2007 ... 8
13. Consolidated Broadcasting System vs. Oberio, G.R. No. 168424, June 8, 2007 ... 9
14. Dumpit-Morillo vs. CA, G.R. No. 164652, June 8, 2007, citing 2004 Sonza ... 10
15. Lopez vs. Bodega City, G.R. No. 155731, Sept. 3, 2007, citing 2004 Abante & 2005 Consulta ... 10
16. Calamba Medical Center vs. NLRC et al., G.R. No. 176484, Nov. 25, 2008 ... 11
17. Escasinas et al., vs. Shangri-las Mactan Island Resort et al., G.R. No. 178827, March 4, 2009 ... 12
18. Tongko v. Manufacturer Life Insurance Co. (MANULIFE) Inc., et al., G.R. No 167622, January 25, 2011 ... 14
19. Caong, Jr. v. Begualos, G.R. No. 179428, January 26, 2011 ... 15
20. Atok Big Wedge Company vs. Gison, G.R. No. 169510, August 8, 2011 ... 16
21. Semblante vs. CA, G.R. No. 196426, August 15, 2011 ... 18
22. Bernarte vs. Phil. Basketball Assoc., G.R. No. 192084, September 14, 2011 ... 19
23. Lirio vs. Genovia, G.R. No. 169757, November 23, 2011 ... 20
24. Jao vs. BCC Product Sales Inc., G.R. No. 163700, April 18, 2012 ... 22
RIGHT TO SECURITY OF TENURE ... 23
1. ALU-TUCP vs. NLRC, 234 SCRA 678 [1994] ... 23
2. Cosmos Bottling Corp., vs NLRC, 255 SCRA 358 [1996] ... 23
3. Purefoods v. NLRC 283 SCRA 136 [1997] ... 24
4. Phil. Fruit and Vegetable Industries v. NLRC, 310 SCRA 680 [1999] ... 25
5. Philips Semiconductor vs. Fardiquela, G.R. No. 141717, April 14, 2004 ... 26
6. Alcira vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 149859, June 9, 2004 ... 28
7. Mitsubishi Motors Phils. vs. Chrysler Phil Labor Union, G.R. No. 148738, June 29, 2004 ... 29
8. Pangilinan vs. General Milling Co., G.R. No. 149329, July 2, 2004 ... 29
9. Ravago vs. Esso Eastern Marine Ltd., G.R. No. 158324, March 14, 2005 ... 30
10. Hacienda Bino/Hortencia Stark vs. Cuenca, G.R. No. 150478, April 15, 2005, citing 2003 Hacienda Fatima ... 31
11. Phil Global Communication v. De Vera, G.R. No. 157214, June 7, 2005 ... 32
12. Integrated Contractor and Plumbing Works, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Glen Solon, G.R. No. 152427.
August 9, 2005 ... 35
13. Lacuesta vs. Ateneo de Manila, G.R. No. 152777, December 9, 2005 ... 36
14. Poseidon Fishing/Terry De Jesus v. NLRC, G.R. No. 168052, February 20. 2006 ... 37
15. Abesco Construction vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. 141168, April 10, 2006 ... 38
16. Cebu Metal Corp., vs. Saliling, G.R. No. 154463, September 5, 2006 ... 38
17. Liganza v. RBL Shipyard Corp., G.R. No. 159682, October 17, 2006... 39
18. Fabeza v. San Miguel Corp., G.R. No. 150658, February 9, 2007 ... 41
19. Soriano vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 165594, April 23, 2007, citing 2005 Filipina Pre-fabricated Bldg. System (Filisystem) ... 42
20. Caseres vs. Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp., et al., G.R. No. 159343, September 28, 2007... 42
21. Pier 8 Arrastre & Stevedoring Services, Inc. vs Boclot, G.R. No. 173849, September 28, 2007 ... 44
22. Pacquing vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 157966, January 31, 2008, citing Magsalin vs. National Organization of
Workingmen, G.R. No. 148492, May 9, 2003... 46
27. Dacuital vs. L.M. Camus Engineering Corp.,G.R. No. 176748, September 1, 2010 ... 54
28. Millenium Erectors Corp. vs. Magallanes, G.R. No. 184362, November 15, 2010 ... 55
29. EXODUS INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION vs. GUILLERMO BISCOCHO et. al.G.R. No. 166109,
February 23, 2011 ... 56
30. Leyte Geothermal Power Progressive Employees Union v. Phil National Oil Co., G.R. No. 176351, March 30, 2011 ... 57
31. St. Paul College Quezon City vs. Ancheta II, G.R. No. 169905, September 7, 2011 ... 59
32. Lynvil Fishing Enterprises vs. Ariola, G.R. No. 181974, February 1, 2012... 61
33. D.M. Consunji Inc. vs. Jamin, G.R. No. 192514, April 18, 2012 citing Maraguinot ... 62
MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE ... 64
1. Dosch vs. NLRC, 123 SCRA 296 [1983] ... 64
2. PT&T v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152057, September 23, 2003 ... 65
3. Mendoza vs. Rural Bank of Lucban, G.R. No. 155421, July 7, 2004 ... 66
4. Duncan Assn. of Detailman-PTFWO vs Glaxo Wellcome Phils. G.R. 162994 ... 67
5. Norkis Trading Co., vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 168159, August 19, 2005 ... 67
6. PLDT vs. Paquio, G.R. No. 152689, October 12, 2005 ... 69
7. Star Paper Corp., vs. Simbol, G.R. No. 164774, April 12, 2006 ... 70
8. Rivera vs. Solidbank, G.R. No. 163269, April 19, 2006 ... 71
9. Tiu v. Platinum Plans, Inc., G.R. No. 163512, February 28, 2007 ... 72
10. Duldulao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164893, March 1, 2007 ... 73
11. Almario v. Philippine Airlines, G.R. No. 170928, September 11, 2007 ... 74
12. San Miguel Corp. v. Pontillas, G.R. No. 155178, May 07, 2008 ... 75
13. Bisig Manggagawa sa Tryco vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 151309, Oct. 15, 2008 ... 76
14. Coca-Cola Bottler‘s Philippines, Inc. v. Del Villar, G.R. No. 163091, October 6, 2010 ... 77
15. Manila Electric Co. vs. Lim, G.R. No. 184769, October 5, 2010 ... 80
16. Bello vs. Bonifacio Security Services, G.R. No. 188086, August 3, 2011 ... 80
17. Alert Security and Investigation Agency vs. Pasawilan, G.R. No. 182397, September 14, 2011 ... 81
18. Manila Pavilion Hotel vs. Delada, G.R. No. 189947, January 25, 2012 ... 82
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT ... 84
1. Retuya v. NLRC, G.R. No. 148848, August 5, 2003, citing Bustamante ... 84
2. Agabon vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004 ... 85
3. Jaka Food Processing vs. Pacot, G.R. No. 151378, March 28, 2005 ... 87
4. Mauricio v. NLRC, G.R. No. 164635, November 17, 2005 ... 88
5. Industrial Timber Corp. vs. Ababon, G.R. No. 164518, Janury 25, 2006 and March 28, 2007... 89
6. Equitable Bank vs Sadac, G.R. No. 164772, June 8, 2006 ... 90
7. Heirs of Sara Lee vs. Rey, G.R. No. 1499013, August 31, 2006 ... 91
8. Galaxi Steel Workers Union vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 165757, October 17, 2006, citing North Davao Mining ... 92
9. Sy vs. Metro Bank, G.R. No. 160618, November 2, 2006 ... 93
10. King of Kings Transport vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 166208, June 29, 2007 ... 94
11. Johnson & Johnson v. Johnson Office & Sales Union, G.R. No. 172799, July 6, 2007 ... 96
12. Asian Terminal vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 158458, December 19, 2007, citing Standard Electric Mfg. vs. Standard Electric
Employees Union, G.R. No. 166111, August 25, 2005 ... 97
13. Smart Communications v. Astorga, G.R. No. 148142, January 28, 2008 ... 98
14. Enriquez v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 172812, February 12, 2008 ... 100
15. RB Michael Press vs. Galit, G.R. No. 153510, February 13, 2008 ... 102
16. Cosmos Bottling Corporation v. Nagrama, G.R. No 164403, March 4, 2008 ... 104
17. School of the Holy Spirit of Q.C. vs. Taguiam, G.R. No. 165565, July 14, 2008 ... 105
18. Universal Staffing Services Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 177576, July 21, 2008 ... 106
19. Flight Attendants and Steward Association of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, G.R. No. 178083, G.R. No.
178083, July 22, 2008 ... 107
20. John Hancock Life Insurance Corp. vs. Davis, G.R. No. 169549, Sept. 3, 2008 ... 111
2007 ... 117
25. La Union Cement Workers Union et al., vs NLRC et al., G.R. No. 174621, January 30, 2009 ... 118
26. Mendros, Jr. vs. Mitsubishi Motors Phils Corp., G.R. No. 169780, Feb. 16, 2009 ... 120
27. Rosa vs. Ambassador Hotel, G.R. No. 177059, March 13, 2009 ... 121
28. Motorola Phils. v. Ambrocio, G.R. No. 173279, March 30, 2009 ... 122
29. Perez et al., vs. Phil Telegraph & Telephone Company et al., G.R. No. 152048, April 7, 2009 ... 123
30. Telecommunications Distributors Specialists Inc. et al., vs. Garriel, G.R. No. 174981, May 25, 2009, citing 2009 Perez ... 124
31. Triumph International Philippines v. Apostol, G.R. No. 164423, June 16, 2009 ... 125
32. Technological Institute of the Phils Teachers and Employees Organization vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 158703,
June 26, 2009 ... 127
33. Llamas v. Ocean Gateway Maritime and Management Services Inc., G.R. No. 179293, August 14, 2009 ... 128
34. Lowe Inc., v. CA, G.R. 164813 & 174590, August 14, 2009 ... 129
35. Estacio v. Pampanga I Electric Cooperative, G.R. No. 183196, August 19, 2009 ... 130
36. Maralit v. PNB, G.R. No. 163788, August 24, 2009 ... 131
37. Quevedo v. Benguet Electric Cooperative, G.R. No. 168927, September 11, 2009 ... 133
38. Placido et al. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 180888, September 18, 2009 ... 134
39. Martinez v. B&B Fish Broker, G.R. No. 179985, September 18, 2009 ... 135
40. Flight Attendants and Steward Association of the Phils vs. Phil Airlines, G.R. No. 178083, October 2, 2009, see July 22,
2008, main decision ... 136
41. Eats-Cetera Food Services Outlet v. Letran, G.R. No. 179507, October 2, 2009 ... 137
42. Plantation Bay Resort and Spa, et al. vs. Dubrico, G.R. No. 182216, December 4, 2009 ... 139
43. Fulache v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, G.R. No. 183810, January 21, 2010 ... 140
44. Ancheta vs. Destiny Financial Plans Inc. et al., G.R. No. 179702, Feb. 16, 2010 ... 141
45. Javellana, Jr. vs. Belen, G.R. Nos. 181913 & 182158, March 5, 2010... 142
46. WPP Marketing Communications Inc., et al., vs. Galera, G.R. No. 169207, March 25, 2010 ... 143
47. Mercado v. AMA Computer College, G.R. No. 183572, April 13, 2010 ... 144
48. Pantoja vs. SCA Hygiene Products Corp., G.R. No. 163554, April 23, 2010 ... 145
49. BPI v. NLRC, G.R. No. 179801, June 18, 2010 ... 146
50. Phil. Rural Reconstruction Movement vs. Pulgar, G.R. No. 169227, July 5, 2010 ... 147
51. Maribago Bluewater Beach Resort v. Dual, G.R. No. 180660, July 20, 2010 ... 149
52. New Puerto Commercial vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 169999, July 26, 2010 ... 151
53. Artificio vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 172988, July 26, 2010 ... 152
54. Calipay vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 166411, August 3, 2010 ... 154
55. Nacague v. Sulpicio Lines, G.R. No. 172589, August 8, 2010 ... 155
56. Century Canning Corp. vs. Ramil, G.R. No. 171630, August 8, 2010 ... 156
57. D.M Consunji vs. Gobres, G.R. No. 169170, August 8, 2010 ... 158
58. Nagkaka-sang Lakas ng Manggagawa sa Keihin vs. Keihin Phils. Corp., G.R. No. 171115, August 9, 2010 ... 159
59. Garcia v. Molina, G.R. No. 157383, August 18, 2010 ... 160
60. Escario v. NLRC, G.R. No. 160302, September 27, 2010 ... 161
61. Simizu Phils Contractors v. Callanta, G.R. No. 165923, September 29, 2010 ... 163
62. Solidbank Corporation v. Gamier, G.R. No. 159461, November 15, 2010 ... 165
63. Coca-Cola Export Corp. v. Gacayan, G.R. No. 149433, December 15, 2010 ... 166
64. Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket v. Ranchez, G.R. No. 177937, January 19, 2011 ... 168
65. Hospital Management Services v. HMSI-Medical Center Manila Employees Asso., G.R. No. 176287, January 31, 2011 ... 169
66. Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications Phils., G.R. No. 165381, February 9, 2011 ... 171
67. Plastimer Industrial Corp. v. Gopo, G.R. No. 183390, February 16, 2011 ... 172
68. St. Mary‘s Academy of Dipolog City vs. Palacio, G.R. No. 164913, September 8, 2010 ... 174
69. PLDT vs. Teves, G.R. No. 143511, November 15, 2010 ... 175
70. University of the Immaculate Concepcion vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 181146, January 26, 2011 ... 176
71. Simizu Phils Contractors v. Callanta, G.R. No. 165923, September 29, 2010 ... 177
72. Manila Mining Corp. Employees Association-FFW vs. Manila Mining Corp., G.R. No. 178222-23, September 29, 2010... 179
77. St. Paul College Quezon City vs. Ancheta II, G.R. No. 169905, September 7, 2011 ... 184
78. Jumuad vs. Hi-Flyer Food, G.R. No. 187887, September 7, 2011 ... 185
79. Nissan Motor Phils. Angelo, G.R. No. 164181, September 14, 2011 ... 186
80. Phil. National Bank vs. Padao, G.R. No. 180849, November 16, 2011 ... 187
81. Tamsons Enterprises Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 192881, November 16, 2011 ... 188
82. Concepcion vs. Minex Import Corp., G.R. No. 153569, January 24, 2012 ... 189
83. Morales vs. Harbour Centre Port Terminal Inc., G.R. No. 174208, January 25, 2012 ... 190
84. Mansion Printing Center vs. Bitara, G.R. No. 168120, January 25, 2012 ... 191
85. Manila Electric Co. vs. Beltran, G.R. No. 173774, January 30, 2012 ... 192
86. Bank of Lubao vs. Manabat, G.R. No. 188722, February 1, 2012 ... 194
87. Canadian Opportunities Unlimited vs. Dalangin, G.R. No. 172223, February 6, 2012 ... 195
88. Manila Electric Co. vs. Gala, G.R. No. 191288 & 191304, March 7, 2012 ... 196
89. Aro vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 174792, March 7, 2012 ... 197
90. Ymbong vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp., G.R. No. 184885, March 7, 2012 ... 198
91. Blue Sky Trading Co. vs. Blas, G.R. No. 190559, March 7, 2012 ... 200
92. Internation management Services vs. Logarta, G.R. No. 163657, April 18, 2012 ... 201
93. Jiao vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 182331, April 18, 2012 ... 203
94. Realda vs. New Age Graphics Inc., G.R. No. 192190, April 25, 2012 ... 204
95. Kakampi and Its Members Panuelos vs. Kingspoint Express & Logistics, G.R. No. 194813, April 25, 2012 ... 205
SUSPENSION OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS... 207
1. JPL Marketing Promotion vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 151966, July 8, 2005 ... 207
2. Pido vs NLRC, G.R. No. 169812, February 23, 2007 ... 207
3. Megaforce Security & Allied Services vs. Lactao, G.R. No. 160940, July 21, 2008 ... 208
4. National Mines and Allied Workers Union vs. Marcopper Mining Corp., G.R. No. 174641, Nov. 11, 2008 ... 210
5. Eagle Star Security Services Inc. vs. Mirando et al., G.R. No. 179512, July 30, 2009 ... 211
6. Nationwide Security & Allied Services v. Valderama, G.R. No. 186614, February 23, 2011 ... 212
7. Nippon Housing Phils. vs. Leynes, G.R. No. 177816, August 3, 2011 ... 214
DISEASE AS A GROUND FOR TERMINATION ... 216
1. Sy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142293, February 27, 2003 ... 216
2. Manly Express vs. Payong, G.R. No. 167462, October 25, 2005 ... 216
3. Duterte vs. Kingswood Trading Co., G.R. No. 160325, October 4, 2007 ... 217
4. Villaruel vs. Yeo Han Guan, G.R. No. 169191, June 1, 2011 ... 218
OTHER CAUSES OF SEVERANCE OF EMPLOYMENT RELATION ... 220
1. Pantranco North Express vs. NLRC, 259 SCRA 161 [1996] ... 220
2. Phil. Airlines vs. Airline Pilots Asso. Of Phils., G.R. No. 143686, January 15, 2002 ... 221
3. Cainta Catholic School vs. Cainta Catholic School Employees Union, G.R. No. 151021, May 4, 2006 citing 1996 Pantranco
North Express ... 221
4. Jaculbe vs. Silliman University, G.R. No. 156934, March 16, 2007 ... 223
5. Globe Telecom vs. Crisologo, G.R. No. 17644, August 10, 2007 ... 226
6. BMG Records Phils et al., vs. Aparecio, et al., G.R. No. 153290, September 5, 2007, citing Phil Today vs. NLRC, 267 SCRA
202 [1996] ... 227
7. Blue Angel Manpower and Security Services vs. CA, G.R. No. 161196, July 28, 2008 ... 228
8. Guerzon Jr et al vs. Pasig Industries Inc., et al., G.R. No. 170266, Sept. 12, 2008 ... 229
9. Suarez Jr. et al., vs. National Steel Corp., G.R. No. 150180, Oct. 17, 2008 ... 230
10. Goodrich Mfg Corp vs. Ativo et al., G.R. No. 188002, Feb. 1, 2010 ... 231
11. Korean Air Co. Ltd. v. Yuson, G.R. No. 170369, June 16, 2010 ... 232
12. Cercado v. Uniprom Inc., G.R. No. 188154, October 13, 2010 ... 233
13. Bilbao vs. Saudi Arabian Airlines, G.R. No. 183915, December 14, 2011 ... 234
14. San Miguel Properties vs. Gucaban, G.R. No. 153982, July 18, 2011 ... 235
3. Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp. vs. Panganiban, G.R. No. 151407, February 6, 2007 ... 239
4. Far East Agricultural Supply vs. Lebatique, G.R. No. 162813, February 12, 2007 ... 240
5. Victory Liner, Inc. vs. Race, G.R. No. 164820, March 28, 2007 ... 241
6. J.K. Mercado & Sons Agricultural Enterprises vs. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 158084, August 29, 2008 ... 242
7. Reyes vs. Nlrc, G.R. No. 180551, February 10, 2009 ... 243
8. LWV Construction Corp. vs. Dupo, G.R. No. 172342, July 13, 2009 ... 244
9. PLDT v. Pingol, G.R. No. 182622, September 8, 2010 ... 245
10. Medline Management Inc. vs. Roslinda, G.R. No. 168715, September 15, 2010 ... 247
Page 1
THE APPLICABLE LAWSGENERAL PRINCIPLES CASES:
1. Singer Sewing Machine vs. NLRC, 193 SCRA 271
Facts:
Singer Machine Collectors Union-Baguio filed a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all collectors of Singer Sewing Machine. The company opposed the petition mainly because the union members are not employees but independent contractors as evidenced by the collection agency agreement which they signed.
Med-Arbiter ruled that there exists an employee-employer relationship and granted the certification election which was affirmed by Sec. Drilon. The company files the present petition on the determination of the relationship. The union insists that the provisions of the Collection Agreement belie the company‘s position that the union members are independent contractors.
Ruling:
The present case calls for the application of the control test, which if not satisfied, would lead to the conclusion that no employee-employer relationship exists. If the union members are not employees, no right to organize for the purpose of bargaining or as a bargaining agent cannot be recognized. The following elements are generally considered in the determination of the relationship: the selection and engagement of the employee, payment of wages, power of dismissal and the power to control the employee‘s conduct which is the most important element. The nature of the relationship between a company and its collecting agents depends on the circumstances of each particular relationship. Not all collecting agents are employees and neither are all collecting agents independent contractors. The agreement confirms the status of the collecting agents as independent contractor. The requirement that collection agents utilize only receipt forms and report forms issued by the company and that reports shall be submitted at least once a week is not necessarily an indication of control over the means by which the job collection is to be performed. Even if report requirements are to be called control measures, any control is only with respect to the end result of the collection since the requirements regulate the things to be done after the performance of the collection job or the rendition of service. The plain language of the agreement reveals that the designation as collection agent does not create an employment relationship and that the applicant is to be considered at all times as an independent contractor. The court finds that since private respondents are not employees of the company, they are not entitled to the constitutional right to form or join a labor organization for the purposes of collective bargaining. There is no constitutional and legal basis for their union to be granted their petition for direct certification.
2. Manila Golf Club vs. IAC, 237 SCRA 207
Facts:
This is originally filed with the Social Security Commission (SSC) via petition of 17 persons who styled themselves as ― Caddies of Manila Golf and Country Club-PTCCEA‖ for the coverage and availment of benefits of the Social Security Act as amended, PTCCEA (Philippine Technical, Clerical, Commercial Employees Association) a labor organization where which they claim for membership. The same time two other proceedings were filed and pending. These are certification election case filed by PTCCEA on behalf of the same caddies of Manila Golf and Country club which was in favor of the caddies and compulsory arbitration case involving PTCCEA and Manila Golf and Country Club which was dismissed and ruled that there was no employer-employee relationship between the caddies and the club.
The question involved in the case is whether or not rendering caddying services for members of golf clubs and their guests in said clubs‘ courses or premises are the employees of such clubs and therefore within the compulsory coverage of the Social Security System (SSS).
Ruling:
The Court does not agree that the facts logically point to the employer-employee relationship. In the very nature of things, caddies must submit to some supervision of their conduct while enjoying the privilege of pursuing their occupation within the premises and grounds of whatever club
Page 2
they do work in. They work for the club to which they attach themselves on sufferance but, on the other hand, also without having to observe any working hours, free to leave anytime they please, to stay away for as long they like.
These considerations clash frontally with the concept of employment.
It can happen that a caddy who has rendered services to a player on one day may still find sufficient time to work elsewhere. Under such circumstances, the caddy may leave the premises and to go to such other place of work that he wishes. These are things beyond the control of the petitioner. The caddy (LLamar) is not an employee of petitioner Manila Golf and Country Club and the petitioner is under no obligation to report him for compulsory coverage of SSS.
3. Encyclopedia Britanica vs. NLRC, 264 SCRA 4 [1996]
Facts:
Limjoco was a Sales Divison of Encyclopaedia Britannica and was in charge of selling the products through some sales representatives. As compensation, he would receive commissions from the products sold by his agents. He was also allowed to use the petitioner‘s name, goodwill and logo. It was agreed that office expenses would be deducted from Limjoco‘s commissions. In 1974, Limjoco resigned to pursue his private business and filed a complaint against petitioner for alleged non-payment of separation pay and other benefits and also illegal deduction from sales commissions. Petitioner alleged that Limjoco was not an employee of the company but an independent dealer authorized to promote and sell its products and in return, received commissions therein. Petitioner also claims that it had no control and supervision over the complainant as to the manners and means he conducted his business operations. Limjoco maintained otherwise. He alleged he was hired by the petitioner and was assigned in the sales department.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that Limjoco was an employee of the company. NLRC also affirmed the decision and opined that there was no evidence supporting allegation that Limjoco was an independent contractor or dealer. On appeal, petitioner assails that there was no employee-employer relationship.
Ruling:
There was no employee-employer relationship. In determining the relationship, the following elements must be present: selection and engagement of the employee, payment of wages, power of dismissal and power to control the employee‘s conduct. The power of control 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 a right to control not only the end to be achieved, but also the manner and means to be employed in reaching that end. The issuance of guidelines by the petitioner was merely guidelines on company policies which sales managers follow and impose on their respective agents. Limjoco was not an employee of the company since he had the free rein in the means and methods for conducting the marketing operations. He was merely an agent or an independent dealer of the petitioner. He was free to conduct his work and he was free to engage in other means of livelihood.
In ascertaining the employee-employer relationship, the factual circumstances must be considered. The element of control is absent where a person who works for another does so more or less at his own pleasure and is not subject to definite hours or conditions of work, and in turn is compensated in according to the result of his efforts and not the amount thereof. Hence, there was no employee-employer relationship.
4. Carungcong vs. Sunlife, 283 SCRA 319
Facts:
Susan Carungcong began her career in the insurance industry in 1974 as an agent of Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. She signed an Agent Agreement with Sun Life. In virtue of which she was designated the latter‘s agent to solicit applications for its insurance and annuity policies. This contract was superseded some five years later when she signed two (2) new agreements. The first, denominated Career Agent‘s or Unit Manager‘s Agreement, dealt with such matters as the agent‘s commissions, his obligations, limitations on his authority, and termination of the agreement by death, or by written notice with or without cause. The second was titled, Manager‘s Supplementary Agreement. It explicitly described as a ―further agreement‖. Carungcong and Sun Life executed another Agreement named New Business Manager with the function generally to manage a New Business Office established. This latest Agreement stressed that the New Business Manager in performance of his
Page 3
duties defined herein, shall be considered an independent contractor and not an employee of Sun Life, and that under no circumstance shall the New Business Manager and/or his employees be considered employees of Sun Life.
Ms. Eleizer Sibayan, Manager of Sun Life‘s Internal Audit Department, commenced an inquiry into the special fund availments of Carungcong and other New Business Managers. Respondent Lance Kemp, had been receiving reports of anomalies in relation thereto from unit managers and agents. Thereafter, on January 1990, Carungcong was confronted with and asked to explain the discrepancies set out in Sibayan‘s report. She was given a letter signed by Metron V. Deveza, CLU, Director, Marketing, which advised of the termination of her relationship with Sun Life. Carungcong promptly instituted proceedings for vindication in the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commissions on January 16, 1990. There she succeeded in obtaining a favorable judgment. Labor Arbiter found that there existed an employer-employee relationship between her and Sun Life. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the Arbiter‘s judgment. It affirmed that no employment relationship existed between Carungcong and Sun Life. She contented that she was an employee subject to control and supervision by Sun Life. Ruling:
Noteworthy is that this last agreement which emphasized, like the ―Career Agent‘s or Unit Manager‘s Agreement‖ first signed by her, that in performance of her duties defined herein. Carungcong would be considered an independent contractor and not an employee of Sun Life, and that under no circumstance shall the New Business Manager and/or his employees be considered employees of Sun Life. Carungcong is an independent contractor. It was indicated in the very face of the contract. The rules and regulations of the company is not sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship. It does not necessarily create any employer-employee relationship where the employers‘ controls have to interfere in the methods and means by which employee would like employ to arrive at the desired results.
Carungcong admitted that she was free to work as she pleases, at the place and time she felt convenient for her to do so. She was not paid to a fixed salary and was mainly paid by commissions depending on the volume of her performance. She was not an employee of Sun Life Co.
5. Ramos vs CA, 380 SCRA 467
Facts:
Petitioner Erlinda Ramos was advised to undergo an operation for the removal of her stone in the gall bladder. She was referred to Dr. Hosaka, a surgeon, who agreed to do the operation. The operation was scheduled on June 17, 1985 in the De los Santos Medical Center. Erlinda was admitted to the medical center the day before the operation. On the following day, she was ready for operation as early as 7:30 am. Around 9:30, Dr. Hosaka has not yet arrived. By 10 am, Rogelio wanted to pull out his wife from the operating room. Dr. Hosaka finally arrived at 12:10 pm more than 3 hours of the scheduled operation. Dr. Guiterres tried to intubate Erlinda. The nail beds of Erlinda were bluish discoloration in her left hand. At 3 pm, Erlinda was being wheeled to the Intensive care Unit and stayed there for a month. Since the ill-fated operation, Erlinda remained in comatose condition until she died. The family of Ramos sued them for damages.
One of the issues involved was that there was an employee-employer relationship that existed between the medical center and Drs. Hosaka and Guiterrez.
Ruling:
Private Hospitals hire, fire and exercise real control over their attending and visiting consultant staff. While consultants are not technically employees, the control exercised, the hiring and the right to terminate consultants fulfill the hallmarks of an employer-employee relationship with the exception of payment of wages. The control test is determining. In applying the four fold test, DLSMC cannot be considered an employer of the respondent doctors. It has been consistently held that in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the parties, the following elements must be present: (1) selection and engagement of services; (2) payment of wages; (3) the power to hire and fire; and (4) the power to control not only the end to be achieved, but the means to be used in reaching such an end. The hospital does not hire consultants but it accredits and grants him the privilege of maintaining a clinic and/or admitting patients. It is the patient who pays the consultants. The hospital cannot dismiss the consultant but he may lose his privileges granted by the hospital. The hospital‘s obligation is limited to providing the patient with the preferred room accommodation and other things that will ensure that the doctor‘s orders are carried out. The court finds that there is no employer-employee relationship between the doctors and the hospital.
Page 4
Facts:In May 1994, ABS-CBN signed an agreement with the Mel and Jay Management and Development Corporation (MJMDC). ABS-CBN was represented by its corporate officers while MJMDC was represented by Sonza, as President and general manager, and Tiangco as its EVP and treasurer. Referred to in the agreement as agent, MJMDC agreed to provide Sonza‘s services exclusively to ABS-CBN as talent for radio and television. ABS-CBN agreed to pay Sonza a monthly talent fee of P310, 000 for the first year and P317, 000 for the second and third year. On April 1996, Sonza wrote a letter to ABS-CBN where he irrevocably resigned in view of the recent events concerning his program and career. After the said letter, Sonza filed with the Department of Labor and Employment a complaint alleging that ABS-CBN did not pay his salaries, separation pay, service incentive pay,13th month pay, signing bonus, travel allowance and amounts under the Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP).
ABS-CBN contended that no employee-employer relationship existed between the parties. However, ABS-ABS-CBN continued to remit Sonza‘s monthly talent fees but opened another account for the same purpose.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and found that there is no employee-employer relationship. NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. CA also affirmed the decision of NLRC.
Ruling:
Case law has consistently held that the elements of an employee-employer relationship are selection and engagement of the employee, the payment of wages, the power of dismissal and the employer‘s power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished. The last element, the so-called "control test", is the most important element. Sonza‘s services to co-host its television and radio programs are because of his peculiar talents, skills and celebrity status. Independent contractors often present themselves to possess unique skills, expertise or talent to distinguish them from ordinary employees. The specific selection and hiring of SONZA, because of his unique skills, talent and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees, is a circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an independent contractual relationship. All the talent fees and benefits paid to SONZA were the result of negotiations that led to the Agreement. For violation of any provision of the Agreement, either party may terminate their relationship. Applying the control test to the present case, we find that SONZA is not an employee but an independent contractor.
The control test is the most important test our courts apply in distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor. This test is based on the extent of control the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the supervision and control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an employee. The converse holds true as well – the less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is considered an independent contractor. To perform his work, SONZA only needed his skills and talent. How SONZA delivered his lines, appeared on television, and sounded on radio were outside ABS-CBN‘s control. ABS-CBN did not instruct SONZA how to perform his job. ABS-CBN merely reserved the right to modify the program format and airtime schedule "for more effective programming." ABS-CBN‘s sole concern was the quality of 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 work. A radio broadcast specialist who works under minimal supervision is an independent contractor. Sonza‘s work as television and radio program host required special skills and talent, which SONZA admittedly possesses. ABS-CBN claims that there exists a prevailing practice in the broadcast and entertainment industries to treat talents like Sonza as independent contractors. The right of labor to security of tenure as guaranteed in the Constitutionarises only if there is an employer-employee relationship under labor laws. Individuals with special skills, expertise or talent enjoy the freedom to offer their services as independent contractors. The right to life and livelihood guarantees this freedom to contract as independent contractors. The right of labor to security of tenure cannot operate to deprive an individual, possessed with special skills, expertise and talent, of his right to contract as an independent contractor.
7. Lazaro vs. Social Security Commission, 435 SCRA 472 [2004]
Facts:
Respondent Rosalina M. Laudato filed a petition before the SSC for social security coverage and remittance of unpaid monthly social security contributions against her three (3) employers. Among the respondents was herein petitioner Angelito L. Lazaro, proprietor of Royal Star Marketing (―Royal Star‖), which is engaged in the business of selling home appliances. Lazaro denied that Laudato was an employee but instead claimed that she was an agent of the company. Lazaro also maintained that she was not mandated to work of definite work hours and thus not deemed to be a regular employee of Royal Star Marketing, the company of Lazaro.
SSC promulgated a decision rendering that Laudato is a regular employee of Royal Star Marketing and entitled to social security contributions. Lazaro filed a petition for review before the CA where CA ruled that Laudato was an employee of Royal Star Marketing. This petition before the Court assails same arguments raised by Lazaro in SSC. She raised that Laudato was not an employee of Royal Star Marketing since Royal Star had no control over the activities of Laudato. For the purpose of determining whether the respondent is entitled to social security contributions, it
Page 5
must be shown that Laudato was a regular employee of Royal Star Marketing. Ruling:It is an accepted doctrine that for the purposes of coverage under the Social Security Act, the determination of employer-employee relationship warrants the application of the ―control test,‖ that is, whether the employer controls or 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 accomplished. The SSC, applying the control test found that Laudato was an employee of Royal Star. The Court agrees with the findings of the SSC and the CA. The fact that Laudato was paid by way of commission does not preclude the establishment of an employer-employee relationship.
In the case of Grepalife v. Judico, the Court upheld the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the insurance company and its agents, despite the fact that the compensation that the agents on commission received was not paid by the company but by the investor or the person insured. The relevant factor remains, as stated earlier, whether the "employer" controls or has reserved the right to control the "employee" not only as to the result of the work to be done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished. Neither does it follow that a person who does not observe normal hours of work cannot be deemed an employee.
In the case of Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Maalat, the employer similarly denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship, as the claimant according to it, was a ―supervisor on commission basis‖ who did not observe normal hours of work. This Court declared that there was an employer-employee relationship, noting that ―[the] supervisor, although compensated on commission basis, [is] exempt from the observance of normal hours of work for his compensation is measured by the number of sales he makes.‖
8. Phil. Global Communications v. De Vera, 459 SCRA 260 [2005]
Facts:
Philippine Global Communications inc. is a corporation engaged in the business of communication services and allied activities while Ricardo de Vera is a physician by profession whom petitioner enlisted to attend to the medical needs of its employees. The controversy rose when petitioner terminated his engagement.
In 1981, Dr. de Vera offered his services to petitioner. The parties agreed and formalized the respondent‘s proposal in a document denominated as retainership contract which will be for a period of one year, subject to renewal and clearly stated that respondent will cover the retainership the company previously with Dr. Eulau. The agreement went until 1994, in the years 1995-1996, it was renewed verbally. The turning point of the parties‘ relationship was when petitioner, thru a letter bearing the subject TERMINATION – RETAINERSHIP CONTRACT, informed Dr. de Vera of its decision to discontinue the latter‘s retainer contract because the management has decided that it would be more practical to provide medical services to its employees through accredited hospitals near the company premises.
On January 1997, de Vera fileda complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC, alleging that he had been actually employed by the company as its company physician since 1991. The commission rendered decision in favor of Philcom and dismissed the complaint saying that de Vera was an independent contractor. On appeal to NLRC, it reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter stating that de Vera is a regular employee and directed the company to reinstate him. Philcom appealed to the CA where it rendered decision deleting the award but reinstating de Vera. Philcom filed this petition involving the difference of a job contracting agreements from employee-employer relationship.
Issue:
Whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship between the parties. SC Ruling:
The elements of an employer-employee relationship is wanting in this case. The record are replete with evidence showing that respondent had to bill petitioner for his monthly professional fees. It simply runs against the grain of common experience to imagine that an ordinary employee has yet to bill his employer to receive his salary.
The power to terminate the parties‘ relationship was mutually vested on both. Either may terminate the arrangement at will, with or without cause. Remarkably absent is the element of control whereby 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.
Page 6
Petitioner had no control over the means and methods by which respondent went about performing his work at the company premises. In fine, the parties themselves practically agreed on every terms and conditions of the engagement, which thereby negates the element of control in their relationship.
9. ABS-CBN vs. Nazareno, G.R. No. 164156, Sept. 26, 2006
Facts:
Petitioner ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN) is engaged in the broadcasting business and owns a network of television and radio stations, whose operations revolve around the broadcast, transmission, and relay of telecommunication signals. It sells and deals in or otherwise utilizes the airtime it generates from its radio and television operations. It has a franchise as a broadcasting company, and was likewise issued a license and authority to operate by the National Telecommunications Commission. Petitioner employed 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. On December 19, 1996, petitioner and the ABS-CBN Rank-and-File Employees executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to be effective during the period from December 11, 1996 to December 11, 1999. However, since petitioner refused to recognize PAs as part of the bargaining unit, respondents were not included to the CBA. On October 12, 2000, respondents filed a Complaint for Recognition of Regular Employment Status, Underpayment of Overtime Pay, Holiday Pay, Premium Pay, Service Incentive Pay, Sick Leave Pay, and 13th Month Pay with Damages against the petitioner before the NLRC.
The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of the respondents, and declared that they were regular employees of petitioner as such, they were awarded monetary benefits. NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but CA dismissed it. The issue involved is whether the respondents were considered regular employees of ABS-CBN.
Ruling:
The respondents are regular employees of ABS-CBN. It was held that where a person has rendered at least one year of service, regardless of the nature of the activity performed, or where the work is continuous or intermittent, the employment is considered regular as long as the activity exists, the reason being that a customary appointment is not indispensable before one may be formally declared as having attained regular status. In Universal Robina Corporation v. Catapang, the Court states that 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 employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The connection can be determined by considering the nature of work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety. Also, if the employee has been performing the job for at least a year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely intermittent, the law deems repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists.
Additionally, respondents cannot be considered as project or program employees because no evidence was presented to show that the duration and scope of the project were determined or specified at the time of their engagement. In the case at bar, however, the employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondents has been proven. 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 petitioner‘s personnel department just like any ordinary employee. Respondents did not have the power to bargain for huge talent fees, a circumstance negating independent contractual relationship. Respondents are highly dependent on the petitioner for continued work. The degree of control and supervision exercised by petitioner over respondents through its supervisors negates the allegation that respondents are independent contractors.
The presumption is that when the work done is an integral part of the regular business of the employer and when the worker, relative to the employer, does not furnish an independent business or professional service, such work is a regular employment of such employee and not an independent contractor. As regular employees, respondents are entitled to the benefits granted to all other regular employees of petitioner under the CBA . Besides, only talent-artists were excluded from the CBA and not production assistants who are regular employees of the respondents. Moreover, under Article 1702 of the New Civil Code: ―In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living of the laborer.‖
10. Francisco vs. NLRC, 500 SCRA 690 [2006]
Page 7
Petitoner was hired by Kasei Corporation during the incorporation stage. She was designated as accountant and corporate secretary and was assigned to handle all the accounting needs of the company. She was also designated as Liason Officer to the City of Manila to secure permits for the operation of the company.In 1996, Petitioner was designated as Acting Manager. She was assigned to handle recruitment of all employees and perform management administration functions. In 2001, she was replaced by Liza Fuentes as Manager. Kasei Corporation reduced her salary to P2,500 per month which was until September. She asked for her salary but was informed that she was no longer connected to the company. She did not anymore report to work since she was not paid for her salary. She filed an action for constructive dismissal with the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter found that the petitioner was illegally dismissed. NLRC affirmed the decision while CA reversed it.
The following issue is to be discussed, whether there was an employer-employee relationship. Ruling:
The court held that in this jurisdiction, there has been no uniform test to determine the existence of an employer-employee relation. Generally, courts have relied on the so-called right of control test where the person for whom the services are performed reserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end. In addition to the standard of right-of-control, the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties, like the inclusion of the employee in the payrolls, can help in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The better approach would therefore be to adopt a two-tiered test involving: (1) the putative employer‘s power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished; and (2) the underlying economic realities of the activity or relationship. In Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, the court observed the need to consider the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties, in addition to the standard of right-of-control like the inclusion of the employee in the payrolls, to give a clearer picture in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship based on an analysis of the totality of economic circumstances of the worker.
Thus, the determination of the relationship between employer and employee 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 employer‘s business; (2) the extent of the worker‘s investment in equipment and facilities; (3) the nature and degree of control exercised by the employer; (4) the worker‘s opportunity for profit and loss; (5) the amount of initiative, skill, judgment or foresight required for the success of the claimed independent enterprise; (6) the permanency and duration of the relationship between the worker and the employer; and (7) the degree of dependency of the worker upon the employer for his continued employment in that line of business. The proper standard of economic dependence is whether the worker is dependent on the alleged employer for his continued employment in that line of business.
By applying the control test, there is no doubt that petitioner is an employee of Kasei Corporation because she was under the direct control and supervision of Seiji Kamura, the corporation‘s Technical Consultant. It is therefore apparent that petitioner is economically dependent on Respondent Corporation for her continued employment in the latter‘s line of business. There can be no other conclusion that petitioner is an employee of respondent Kasei Corporation. She was selected and engaged by the company for compensation, and is economically dependent upon respondent for her continued employment in that line of business. Her main job function involved accounting and tax services rendered to Respondent Corporation on a regular basis over an indefinite period of engagement. Respondent Corporation hired and engaged petitioner for compensation, with the power to dismiss her for cause. More importantly, Respondent Corporation had the power to control petitioner with the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished.
11. Nogales et. al., vs. Capitol Medical Center et al., G.R. No. 142625, December 19, 2006
Facts:
Pregnant with her fourth child, Corazon Nogales, who was then 37 years old, was under the exclusive prenatal care of Dr. Oscar Estrada. While Corazon was on her last trimester of pregnancy, Dr. Estrada noted an increase in her blood pressure and development of leg edema indicating preeclampsia, which is a dangerous complication of pregnancy. Around midnight of 25 May 1976, Corazon started to experience mild labor pains prompting Corazon and Rogelio Nogales ("Spouses Nogales") to see Dr. Estrada at his home. After examining Corazon, Dr. Estrada advised her immediate admission to the Capitol Medical Center ("CMC"). Due to the inclement weather then, Dr. Espinola, who was fetched from his residence by an ambulance, arrived at the CMC about an hour later or at 9:00 a.m. He examined the patient and ordered some resuscitative measures to be administered. Despite Dr. Espinola's efforts, Corazon died at 9:15 a.m. The cause of death was "hemorrhage, post partum." Issue in this case is whether CMC is vicariously liable for the negligence of Dr. Estrada.
Page 8
The resolution of this issue rests, on the other hand, on the ascertainment of the relationship between Dr. Estrada and CMC. The Court also believes that a determination of the extent of liability of the other respondents is inevitable to finally and completely dispose of the present controversy. After a thorough examination of the voluminous records of this case, the Court finds no single evidence pointing to CMC's exercise of control over Dr. Estrada's treatment and management of Corazon's condition. It is undisputed that throughout Corazon's pregnancy, she was under the exclusive prenatal care of Dr. Estrada. At the time of Corazon's admission at CMC and during her delivery, it was Dr. Estrada, assisted by Dr. Villaflor, who attended to Corazon. There was no showing that CMC had a part in diagnosing Corazon's condition. While Dr. Estrada enjoyed staff privileges at CMC, such fact alone did not make him an employee of CMC. CMC merely allowed Dr. Estrada to use its facilities when Corazon was about to give birth, which CMC considered an emergency. Considering these circumstances, Dr. Estrada is not an employee of CMC, but an independent contractor. The question now is whether CMC is automatically exempt from liability considering that Dr. Estrada is an independent contractor-physician. In general, a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor-physician. There is, however, an exception to this principle. The hospital may be liable if the physician is the "ostensible" agent of the hospital. This exception is also known as the "doctrine of apparent authority."In the instant case, CMC impliedly held out Dr. Estrada as a member of its medical staff. Through CMC's acts, CMC clothed Dr. Estrada with apparent authority thereby leading the Spouses Nogales to believe that Dr. Estrada was an employee or agent of CMC. CMC cannot now repudiate such authority. In the present case, there is no evidence of Nurse Dumlao's alleged failure to follow Dr. Estrada's specific instructions. Even assuming Nurse Dumlao defied Dr. Estrada's order, there is no showing that side-drip administration of hemacel proximately caused Corazon's death. No evidence linking Corazon's death and the alleged wrongful hemacel administration was introduced. Therefore, there is no basis to hold Nurse Dumlao liable for negligence. The Court finds respondent CMC vicariously liable for the negligence of Dr. Oscar Estrada.
12. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., vs. Dr. Climaco, G.R. No. 146881, February 15, 2007
Facts:
Dr. Dean N. Climaco is a medical doctor who was hired by Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. by virtue of a Retainer Agreement. The Retainer Agreement, which began on January 1, 1988, was renewed annually. The last one expired on 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 letterdated March 9, 1995 from the company concluding their retainership agreement effective 30 days from receipt thereof. Dr. Climaco inquired from the management of the company whether it was agreeable to recognizing him as a regular employee. The management refused to do so. On February 24, 1994, respondent filed a Complaint before the NLRC, Bacolod City, seeking recognition as a regular employee of the 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 dated March 9, 1995 from Petitioner Company concluding their retainership agreement effective thirty (30) days from receipt thereof. Issue:
Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship.
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 employee‘s conduct, or the so-called "control test," considered to be the most important element. No employer-employee relationship exists between the parties. The…company lacked the power of control over the performance by respondent of his duties. The…Comprehensive Medical Plan, which contains the respondent‘s 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."
Neri v. National Labor Relations Commission
―…It is admitted that FEBTC issued a job description which detailed her functions as a radio/telex operator. However, a cursory reading of the job description shows that what was sought to be controlled by FEBTC was actually the end result of the task, e.g., that the daily incoming and outgoing telegraphic transfer of funds received and relayed by her, respectively, tallies with that of the register. The guidelines were laid down merely to ensure that the desired end result was achieved. It did not, however, tell Neri how the radio/telex machine should be operated.‖ 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. Likewise, the allegation of complainant that since he is on call at anytime of the day and night makes him a regular employee is off-tangent. Complainant does not dispute the fact that outside of the two (2) hours that he is required to be at respondent company‘s premises, he is not at all further required to just sit around in the premises and wait for an emergency to occur so as to enable him from using such hours for his own benefit and advantage. In fact, complainant maintains his own private clinic
Page 9
attending to his private practice in the city, where he services his patients, bills them accordingly -- and if it is an employee of respondent company who is attended to by him for special treatment that needs hospitalization or operation, this is subject to a special billing. More often than not, an employee is required to stay in the employer‘s workplace or proximately close thereto that he cannot utilize his time effectively and gainfully for his own purpose. Such is not the prevailing situation here. The Retainership Agreement granted to both parties the power to terminate their relationship upon giving a 30-day notice. Hence, Petitioner Company did not wield the sole power of dismissal or termination. Considering that there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties, the termination of the Retainership Agreement, which is in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, does not constitute illegal dismissal of respondent. Consequently, there is no basis for the moral and exemplary damages granted by the Court of Appeals to respondent due to his alleged illegal dismissal.
13. Consolidated Broadcasting System vs. Oberio, G.R. No. 168424, June 8, 2007
Facts:
Respondents alleged that they were employed as drama talents by DYWB-Bombo Radyo, a radio station owned and operated by petitioner Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. They reported for work daily for six days in a week and were required to record their drama production in advance. Some of them were employed by petitioner since 1974, while the latest one was hired in 1997. Their drama programs were aired not only in Bacolod City but also in the sister stations of DYWB in the Visayas and Mindanao areas. Sometime in August 1998, petitioner reduced the number of its drama productions from 14 to 11, but was opposed by respondents. After the negotiations failed, the latter sought the intervention of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), which on November 12, 1998, conducted through its Regional Office, an inspection of DWYB station. The results thereof revealed that petitioner is guilty of violation of labor standard laws. Petitioner contended that respondents are not its employees and refused to submit the payroll and daily time records despite the subpoena duces tecum issued by the DOLE Regional Director. Petitioner further argued that the case should be referred to the NLRC because the Regional Director has no jurisdiction over the determination of the existence of employer-employee relationship which involves evidentiary matters that are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection. Vexed by the respondents' complaint, petitioner allegedly pressured and intimidated respondents. Respondents Oberio and Delta were suspended for minor lapses and the payment of their salaries were purportedly delayed. Eventually, on February 3, 1999, pending the outcome of the inspection case with the Regional Director, respondents were barred by petitioner from reporting for work; thus, the former claimed constructive dismissal.
Issues:
1. Whether respondents were employees of petitioner. 2. Whether respondents‘ dismissal was illegal. Ruling:
1. Yes, respondents‘ employment with petitioner passed the "four-fold test" on employer-employee relations, namely: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee, or the power to hire; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power to dismiss; and (4) the power to control the employee. Petitioner failed to controvert with substantial evidence the allegation of respondents that they were hired by the former on various dates from 1974 to 1997. If petitioner did not hire respondents and if it was the director alone who chose the talents, petitioner could have easily shown, being in possession of the records, a contract to such effect. However, petitioner merely relied on its contention that respondents were piece rate contractors who were paid by results.Note that under Policy Instruction No. 40, petitioner is obliged to execute the necessary contract specifying the nature of the work to be performed, rates of pay, and the programs in which they will work. Moreover, project or contractual employees are required to be apprised of the project they will undertake under a written contract. This was not complied with by the petitioner, justifying the reasonable conclusion that no such contracts exist and that respondents were in fact regular employees. Moreover, the engagement of respondents for a period ranging from 2 to 25 years and the fact that their drama programs were aired not only in Bacolod City but also in the sister stations of DYWB in the Visayas and Mindanao areas, undoubtedly show that their work is necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of petitioner. The test to determine whether employment is regular or not is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer.
2. Finally, we find that respondents were illegally dismissed. In labor cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a just cause; failure to show this would necessarily mean that the dismissal was unjustified and, therefore, illegal. In this case, petitioner merely contended that it was respondents who ceased to report to work, and never presented any substantial evidence to support said allegation. Furthermore, if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter -the employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause. It is a time-honored rule that in controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence should be resolved in the former's favor. The policy is to extend the doctrine to a greater number of employees who can avail of the benefits under the law, which is in consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and protection of labor.
Page 10
14. Dumpit-Morillo vs. CA, G.R. No. 164652, June 8, 2007, citing 2004 SonzaFacts:
Associated Broadcasting Company (ABC) hired Thelma Dumpit-Murillo under a talent contract as a newscaster and co-anchor for Balitang-Balita, an early evening news program. The contract was for a period of three months. After four years of repeated renewals, petitioner‘s talent contract expired. Two weeks after the expiration of the last contract, petitioner sent a letter to Mr. Jose Javier, Vice President for News and Public Affairs of ABC, informing the latter that she was still interested in renewing her contract subject to a salary increase. Thereafter, petitioner stopped reporting for work. She sent a demand letter to ABC, demanding reinstatement, payment of unpaid wages and full backwages, payment of 13th month pay, vacation/sick/service incentive leaves and other monetary benefits due to a regular employee. ABC replied that a check
covering petitioner‘s talent fees had been processed and prepared, but that the other claims of petitioner had no basis in fact or in law. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for illegal constructive dismissal. NLRC reversed.
Issue:
Whether or not Murillo is an employee of Associated Broadcasting Company. Ruling:
Thelma Dumpit-Murillo 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. Further, the Sonza case is not applicable. In Sonza, the television station did not exercise control over the means and methods of the performance of Sonza‘s work. In the case at bar, ABC had control over the performance of petitioner‘s work. Noteworthy too, is the comparatively low P28,000 monthly pay of petitioner vis the P300,000 a month salary of Sonza, that all the more bolsters the conclusion that petitioner was not in the same situation as Sonza. The duties of petitioner as enumerated in her employment contract indicate that ABC had control over the work of petitioner. Aside from control, ABC also dictated the work assignments and payment of petitioner‘s wages. ABC also had power to dismiss her. All these being present, clearly, there existed an employment relationship between petitioner and ABC.
Concerning regular employment, the requisites for regularity of employment have been met in the instant case. Petitioner‘s work was necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer which includes, as a pre-condition for its enfranchisement, its participation in the government‘s news and public information dissemination. 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 petitioner‘s work in private respondent ABC‘s business. As a regular employee, petitioner is entitled to security of tenure and can be dismissed only for just cause and after due compliance with procedural due process. Since private respondents did not observe due process in constructively dismissing the petitioner, there was an illegal dismissal.
15. Lopez vs. Bodega City, G.R. No. 155731, Sept. 3, 2007, citing 2004 Abante & 2005 Consulta
Facts:
Petitioner was the "lady keeper" of Bodega City tasked with manning its ladies' comfort room. In a letter signed by Yap dated February 10, 1995, petitioner was made to explain why the concessionaire agreement between her and respondents should not be terminated or suspended in view of an incident that happened on February 3, 1995, wherein petitioner was seen to have acted in a hostile manner against a lady customer of Bodega City who informed the management that she saw petitioner sleeping while on duty. In a subsequent letter dated February 25, 1995, Yap informed petitioner that because of the incident that happened on February 3, 1995, respondents had decided to terminate the concessionaire agreement between them.
Issue:
Whether or not employer-employee relationship exists Ruling: