Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This case involving a labor dispute has dragged on for over a decade
now. Petitioners have waited too long for what is due them under
the law. One of the original petitioners, Judith Cotecson, died last
September 28, 2003 and has been substituted by her heirs. It is time
to write finis to this controversy. The Labor Code was promulgated
to promote the welfare and well-being of the working man. Its spirit
and intent mandate the speedy administration of justice, with least
attention to technicalities but without sacrificing the fundamental
requisites of due process.
Clearly, the Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 50531 had long become final
and executory. The Labor Arbiter computed the monetary awards
due to petitioners corresponding to the period from June 1994 to
October 28, 1999, in accordance with the Decision of the Court of
Appeals (Special Sixteenth Division). The award for backwages and
money claims is in the total sum of P912,086.15.
Commonwealth Act No. 548 gives the Director of Public Works the
authority to promulgate rules and regulations to regulate and
control the use of and traffic on national roads.
Maximo Calalang, in his capacity as private citizen and as a taxpayer
of Manila, filed a petition for a writ of prohibition against the
Chairman of NTC, Director of PW, Acting Secretary of PWC, Mayor
of Manila and Acting Chief of Police of Manila.
ISSUE: WON the rules and regulations complained of infringe the
constitutional precept regarding the promotion of social justice to
insure the well-being of all the people?
Held:
Held:
Facts:
reminded him that he and Bettsy should decide which one of them
would resign from their jobs, although they told him that they
wanted to retain him as much as possible because he was
performing his job well.
Tecson requested for time to comply with the company policy
against entering into a relationship with an employee of a
competitor company. He explained that Astra, Bettsys employer,
was planning to merge with Zeneca, another drug company; and
Bettsy was planning to avail of the redundancy package to be
offered by Astra. With Bettsys separation from her company, the
potential conflict of interest would be eliminated. At the same time,
they would be able to avail of the attractive redundancy package
from Astra.
In November 1999, Glaxo transferred Tecson to the Butuan CitySurigao City-Agusan del Sur sales area. Tecson asked Glaxo to
reconsider its decision, but his request was denied.
Tecson sought Glaxos reconsideration regarding his transfer and
brought the matter to Glaxos Grievance Committee. Glaxo,
however, remained firm in its decision and gave Tescon until
February 7, 2000 to comply with the transfer order. Tecson defied
the transfer order and continued acting as medical representative in
the Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte sales area.
Issue: W/N the policy of a pharmaceutical company prohibiting its
employees from marrying employees of any competitor company is
valid
Held:
Glaxo argues that the company policy prohibiting its employees
from having a relationship with and/or marrying an employee of a
Case No 14
Sevilla v CA
On the strength of a contract entered into on Oct. 19, 1960 by and
between Mrs. Segundina Noguera; the Tourist World Service, Inc.,
represented by Mr. Eliseo Canilao as party of the second part, and
hereinafter referred to as appellants. Mrs. Sevilla was signatory to a
lease agreement dated 19 October 1960 covering the premises at
A. Mabini St., she expressly warranting and holding herself
'solidarily' liable with appellee Tourist World Service, Inc. for the
prompt payment of the monthly rentals thereof to other appellee
Mrs. Noguera.
Appellant Mrs. Sevilla did not receive any salary from appellee
Tourist World Service, Inc., which had its own, separate office
located at the Trade & Commerce Building; nor was she an
employee thereof, having no participation in nor connection with
said business at the Trade & Commerce Building.
Appellant Mrs. Sevilla earned commissions for her own passengers,
her own bookings her own business (and not for any of the business
of appellee Tourist World Service, Inc.) obtained from the airline
companies. She shared the 7% commissions given by the airline
companies giving appellee Tourist World Service, Lic. 3% thereof
aid retaining 4% for herself.
Appellant Mrs. Sevilla likewise shared in the expenses of
maintaining the A. Mabini St. office, paying for the salary of an
office secretary, Miss Obieta, and other sundry expenses, aside
from desicion the office furniture and supplying some of fice
furnishings (pp. 15,18 tsn. April 6,1965), appellee Tourist World
Service, Inc. shouldering the rental and other expenses in
Held:
No. In this jurisdiction, there has been no uniform test to determine
the evidence of an employer-employee relation. In general, we 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." 10 Subsequently, however, we have
considered, 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, in determining the
existence of an employer-employee relationship.
The records will show that the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, was not
subject to control by the private respondent Tourist World Service,
Inc., either as to the result of the enterprise or as to the means used
in connection therewith. In the first place, under the contract of
lease covering the Tourist Worlds Ermita office, she had bound
herself insolidum as and for rental payments, an arrangement that
would be like claims of a master-servant relationship. True the
respondent Court would later minimize her participation in the
lease as one of mere guaranty that does not make her an employee
of Tourist World, since in any case, a true employee cannot be
made to part with his own money in pursuance of his employer's
business, or otherwise, assume any liability thereof. In that event,
the parties must be bound by some other relation, but certainly not
employment.
In the second place, and as found by the Appellate Court, '[w]hen
the branch office was opened, the same was run by the herein
appellant Lina O. Sevilla payable to Tourist World Service, Inc. by
any airline for any fare brought in on the effort of Mrs. Lina Sevilla.
Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that Sevilla was under
the control of Tourist World Service, Inc. "as to the means used."
Case No. 15
Francisco v NLRC
Facts: In 1995, petitioner, Angelina Francisco, was hired by Kasei
Corporation during its 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
Liaison Officer to the City of Makati to secure business permits,
construction permits and other licenses for the initial operation of
the company. Although she was designated as Corporate Secretary,
she was not entrusted with the corporate documents; neither did
she attend any board meeting nor required to do so. She never
prepared any legal document and never represented the company
as its Corporate Secretary. However, on some occasions, she was
prevailed upon to sign documentation for the company. In 1996,
petitioner was designated Acting Manager for five years. 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 Kasei Corporation. Thereafter, Kasei
Corporation reduced her salary by P2,500.00 a month beginning
January up to September 2001 for a total reduction of P22,500.00 as
of September 2001. Petitioner was not paid her mid-year bonus
allegedly because the company was not earning well. On October
2001, petitioner did not receive her salary from the company. On
October 15, 2001, petitioner asked for her salary from Acedo and
the rest of the officers but she was informed that she is no longer
connected 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 labor
arbiter.
Case No. 16
Sonza v ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
Held: No. Case law has consistently held that the elements of an
employer-employee relationship are: (a) the selection and
engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the
power of dismissal; and (d) the employers 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.
(a) 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.
(b) All the talent fees and benefits paid to SONZA were the result of
negotiations that led to the Agreement. If SONZA were ABS-CBNs
employee, there would be no need for the parties to stipulate on
benefits such as SSS, Medicare, x x x and 13th month pay which
the law automatically incorporates into every employer-employee
contract. Whatever benefits SONZA enjoyed arose from contract
and not because of an employer-employee relationship.
SONZAs talent fees, amounting to P317,000 monthly in the second
and third year, are so huge and out of the ordinary that they
indicate more an independent contractual relationship rather than
an employer-employee relationship.
(c) For violation of any provision of the Agreement, either party may
terminate their relationship. 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 provided under
labor laws. During the life of the Agreement, ABS-CBN agreed to pay
SONZAs talent fees as long as AGENT and Jay Sonza shall faithfully
and completely perform each condition of this Agreement. Even if
it suffered severe business losses, ABS-CBN could not retrench
SONZA because ABS-CBN remained obligated to pay SONZAs talent
fees during the life of the Agreement. This circumstance indicates
an independent contractual relationship between SONZA and ABSCBN.
SONZA admits that even after ABS-CBN ceased broadcasting his
programs, ABSCBN still paid him his talent fees.
(d) Applying the control test to the present case, we find that
SONZA is not an employee but 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.
ABS-CBN engaged SONZAs services specifically to co-host the Mel
& Jay programs. ABS-CBN did not assign any other work to SONZA.
How SONZA delivered his lines, appeared on television, and
sounded on radio were outside ABS-CBNs 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 shows,
as well as pre- and post-production staff meetings. ABS-CBN could
not dictate the contents of SONZAs script. ABS-CBN merely
reserved the right to modify the program format and airtime
schedule for more effective programming. Clearly, ABS-CBN did
Case No. 17
San Miguel Corp v Aballa
Facts: Petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC), and Sunflower
Multi-Purpose Cooperative (Sunflower), entered into a one-year
Contract of Services commencing on January 1, 1993, to be
renewed on a month to month basis until terminated by either
party.
The pertinent provisions of the contract read:
1. The cooperative agrees and undertakes to perform and/or
provide for the company, on a non-exclusive basis for a period of
one year the following services for the Bacolod Shrimp Processing
Plant:
A. Messengerial/Janitorial
B. Shrimp Harvesting/Receiving
C. Sanitation/Washing/Cold Storage
In legitimate labor contracting, the law creates an employeremployee relationship for a limited purpose, i.e., to ensure that the
employees are paid their wages. The principal employer becomes
jointly and severally liable with the job contractor, only for the
payment of the employees wages whenever the contractor fails to
pay the same. Other than that, the principal employer is not
responsible for any claim made by the employees.
In labor-only contracting, the statute creates an employeremployee relationship for a comprehensive purpose: to prevent a
and benefits given them and those accorded SMCs other regular
employees.
The law of course provides for two kinds of regular employees,
namely: (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer; and (2) those who have rendered at least one year of
service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity
in which they are employed.
As for those of private respondents who were engaged in janitorial
and messengerial tasks, they fall under the second category and are
thus entitled to differential pay and benefits extended to other SMC
regular employees from the day immediately following their first
year of service.
Case No. 18
Dumpit-Murillo v CA
Facts: On October 2, 1995, under Talent Contract No. NT95-1805,
private respondent Associated Broadcasting Company (ABC) hired
petitioner Thelma Dumpit-Murillo as a newscaster and co-anchor
for Balitang-Balita, an early evening news program. The contract
was for a period of three months. In addition, petitioners services
were engaged for the program Live on Five. On September 30,
1999, after four years of repeated renewals, petitioners 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.
A month later, petitioner sent a demand letter to ABC, demanding:
(a) reinstatement to her former position; (b) payment of unpaid
wages for services rendered from September 1 to October 20, 1999
and full backwages; (c) payment of 13th month pay,
vacation/sick/service incentive leaves and other monetary benefits
due to a regular employee starting March 31, 1996. ABC replied that
a check covering petitioners talent fees for September 16 to
October 20, 1999 had been processed and prepared, but that the
other claims of petitioner had no basis in fact or in law.
On December 20, 1999, petitioner filed a complaint against ABC,
Mr. Javier and Mr. Edward Tan, for illegal constructive dismissal,
nonpayment of salaries, overtime pay, premium pay, separation
pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, vacation/sick leaves
and 13th month pay in NLRC-NCR Case No. 30-12-00985-99.
Issue: Was there an employer-employee relationship?
Held:
Yes. The Court of Appeals committed reversible error when it held
that petitioner was a fixed-term employee. Petitioner was a regular
employee under contemplation of law. The practice of having fixedterm 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 instruct Sonza how to perform his job. How Sonza
delivered his lines, appeared on television, and sounded on radio
were outside the television stations control. Sonza had a free hand
on what to say or discuss in his shows provided he did not attack
the television station or its interests. Clearly, the television station
did not exercise control over the means and methods of the
performance of Sonzas work. In the case at bar, ABC had control
over the performance of petitioners work. Noteworthy too, is the
comparatively low P28,000 monthly pay of petitioner vis the
P300,000 a month salary of Sonza,[26] that all the more bolsters the
conclusion that petitioner was not in the same situation as Sonza.
In Manila Water Company, Inc. v. Pena, we said that the elements
to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (a)
the selection and engagement of the employee, (b) the payment of
wages, (c) the power of dismissal, and (d) the employers power to
control. The most important element is the employers control of
the employees conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be
done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it. 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 petitioners wages. ABC also had power to dismiss her. All these
Case No. 19
ABS CBN v Nazareno
Facts: 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. They were issued
ABS-CBN employees identification cards and were required to work
for a minimum of eight hours a day, including Sundays and holidays.
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.
Respondents alleged that they were engaged by respondent ABSCBN as regular and full-time employees for a continuous period of
more than five (5) years.
Respondents insisted that they belonged to a "work pool" from
which petitioner chose persons to be given specific assignments at
its discretion, and were thus under its direct supervision and control
regardless of nomenclature.
For its part, petitioner alleged in its position paper that the
respondents were considered in the industry as "program
employees" in that, as distinguished from regular or station
where the person for whom the services are performed reserves
the right to control not only the end achieved, but also the manner
and means to be used in reaching that end.
Petitioner failed to cite a single instance to prove that she was
subject to the control of respondents insofar as the manner in
which she should perform her job as a "lady keeper" was
concerned. It is true that petitioner was required to follow rules and
regulations prescribing appropriate conduct while within the
premises of Bodega City. However, this was imposed upon
petitioner as part of the terms and conditions in the concessionaire
agreement.
Petitioner is likewise estopped from denying the existence of the
subject concessionaire agreement. She should not, after enjoying
the benefits of the concessionaire agreement with respondents, be
allowed to later disown the same through her allegation that she
was an employee of the respondents when the said agreement was
terminated by reason of her violation of the terms and conditions
thereof. The principle of estoppel in pais applies wherein -- by one's
acts, representations or admissions, or silence when one ought to
speak out -- intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces
another to believe certain facts to exist and to rightfully rely and act
on such belief, so as to be prejudiced if the former is permitted to
deny the existence of those facts. Petitioner insists that her ID card
is sufficient proof of her employment. In Domasig v. National Labor
Relations Commission, this Court held that the complainant's ID
card and the cash vouchers covering his salaries for the months
indicated therein were substantial evidence that he was an
employee of respondents, especially in light of the fact that the
latter failed to deny said evidence. This is not the situation in the
present case...As to the ID card, it is true that the words
"EMPLOYEE'S NAME" appear printed below petitioner's name.
However, she failed to dispute respondents' evidence consisting of
Habitan's testimony, that he and the other "contractors" of Bodega
City such as the singers and band performers, were also issued the
same ID cards for the purpose of enabling them to enter the
premises of Bodega City.
Hence, going back to the element of control, the concessionaire
agreement merely stated that petitioner shall maintain the
cleanliness of the ladies' comfort room and observe courtesy
guidelines that would help her obtain the results they wanted to
achieve. There is nothing in the agreement which specifies the
methods by which petitioner should achieve these results.
Respondents did not indicate the manner in which she should go
about in maintaining the cleanliness of the ladies' comfort room.
Neither did respondents determine the means and methods by
which petitioner could ensure the satisfaction of respondent
company's customers. In fact, the last paragraph of the
concessionaire agreement even allowed petitioner to engage
persons to work with or assist her in the discharge of her functions.
Moreover, petitioner was not subjected to definite hours or
conditions of work. The fact that she was expected to maintain the
cleanliness of respondent company's ladies' comfort room during
Bodega City's operating hours does not indicate that her
performance of her job was subject to the control of respondents as
to make her an employee of the latter. Instead, the requirement
that she had to render her services while Bodega City was open for
business was dictated simply by the very nature of her undertaking,
which was to give assistance to the users of the ladies' comfort
room. Lastly, the Court finds that the elements of selection and
engagement as well as the power of dismissal are not present in the
instant case. It has been established that there has been no
employer-employee relationship between respondents and
petitioner. Their contractual relationship was governed by the
concessionaire agreement embodied in the 1992 letter. Thus,
petitioner was not dismissed by respondents. Instead, as shown by
the letter of Yap to her dated February 15, 1995, their contractual
relationship was terminated by reason of respondents' termination
Facts:
Members of the Private respondent union, MERALCO Employees
and Workers Association (MEWA), were dissatisfied with the terms
of a CBA with petitioner. The parties in this case were ordered by
the Sec. of Labor to execute a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
wherein. The CBA allowed for the increase in the wages of the
employees concerned. The petitioner argues that if such increase
were allowed, it would pass off such to the consumers.
Issue: W/N matters of salary are part of management prerogative
RULING: Yes. There is no need to consult the Secretary of Labor in
cases involving contracting out for 6 months or more as it is part of
management prerogative. However, a line must be drawn with
respect to management prerogatives on business operations per se
and those which affect the rights of the workers. Employers must
see to it that that employees are properly informed of its decisions
to attain harmonious labor relations and enlighten the worker as to
their rights. The contracting out business or services is an exercise
of business judgment if it is for the promotion of efficiency and
attainment of economy. Management must be motivated by good
faith and contracting out should not be done to circumvent the law.
Provided there was no malice or that it was not done arbitrarily, the
courts will not interfere with the exercise of this judgment.