You are on page 1of 7

Universal Robina Sugar Milling vs Acibo

FERDINAND ACIBO, et al. were employees of


UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION
(URSUMCO). Acibo, et al. signed contracts of
employment for a given period and after its
expiration, URSUMCO repeatedly hired these
employees to perform the same duties and
obligations.

The plantation workers or the mill employees do not


work continuously for 1 whole year but only for the
duration of the growing or the sugarcane or the
milling season. Their seasonal work, however, does
not detract from considering them in regular
employment.

Gapayao vs Fulo
Acibo, et al. filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter
for regularization however it was denied because the
LA argued that they were seasonal employees. Seven FACTS
of the 22 complainants filed an appeal to the NLRC. Jaime Fulo died of "acute renal failure secondary to
The latter reversed the LAs ruling claiming that they 1st degree burn 70% secondary electrocution" while
were regular employees. The CA affirmed NLRCs
doing repairs at the residence and business
decision but excluded the Acibo, et al. from monetary establishment of Gapayao. Gapayao extended some
benefits under the CBA.
financial assistance to Rosario Fulo, the wife of the
deceased and the latter executed an Affidavit of
ISSUE:
Desistance stating that she was not holding them
liable for the death of her late husband.Thereafter,
Whether or not Acibo, et al. are regular
private respondent filed a claim for social security
employees of URSUMCO.
benefits with the Social Security System (SSS)
Sorosogon Branch. However, upon verification and
HELD:
evaluation, it was discovered that the deceased was
not a registered member of the SSS.Upon Rosario's
Plantation workers or mill employees only work on
insistence that her late husband had been employed
seasonal basis. This, however, does not exclude them by petitioner from January 1983 up to his untimely
from the benefits of regularization. Being in such
death on 4 November 1997, the SSS conducted a
nature, Acibo, et al. are considered to be regular
field investigation to clarify his status of employment.
employees.
The findings revealed that Mr. Jaime Fulo was an
employee of Jaime Gapayao as farm laborer from
Regular employment means that there was an
1983 to 1997 and that Mr. Jaime Fulo receives
arrangement between the employee and the
compensation on a daily basis ranging from P5.00 to
employer that the former will be engaged to perform P60.00 from 1983 to 1997.As per interview, Mrs.
activities which are necessary or desirable to the
Estela Gapayao contends that Jaime Fulo is an
usual business or trade of the latter. On the other
employee of Mr. & Mrs. Jaime Gapayao on an extra
hand, a project employment is an arrangement for a basis. the SSS demanded that petitioner remit the
specific project or undertaking whose termination is social security contributions of the deceased.
determined by the completion of the project.
Gapayao denied that the deceased was his employee
but was rather an independent contractor whose
The nature of the employment does not depend
tasks were not subject to his control and supervision.
solely on the will or word of the employer or on the
Assuming arguendo that the deceased was his
procedure for hiring and the manner of designating employee, he was still not entitled to be paid his SSS
the employee. Rather, the nature of the employment premiums for the intervening period when he was not
depends on the nature of the activities to be
at work, as he was an "intermittent worker who was
performed by the employee, considering the nature only summoned every now and then as the need
of the employers business, the duration and scope to arose." Hence, Gapayao insisted that he was under
be done. Accordingly, Acibo, et al. are neither project no obligation to report the formers demise to the SSS
nor seasonal employees.
for social security coverage.Rosario alleges that her
late husband had been in the employ of petitioner for
Acibo, et al. were made to perform tasks that does
14 years, from 1983 to 1997. During that period, he
not pertain to milling operations of URSUMCO.
was made to work as a laborer in the agricultural
However, their duties are regularly and habitually
landholdings, a harvester in the abaca plantation, and
needed in URSUMCOs operation. Moreover, they
a repairman/utility worker in several business
were regularly and repeatedly hired to perform the
establishments owned by petitioner. The considerable
same tasks. Being repeatedly hired for the same
length of time during which [the deceased] was given
purpose makes them regularized employees.
diverse tasks by Gapayao was a clear indication of

the necessity and indispensability of her late


husband s services to Gapayao's business.

Employment a complaint alleging that ABS-CBN did


not pay his salaries, separation pay, service incentive
pay,13th month pay, signing bonus, travel allowance
ISSUE:
and amounts under the Employees Stock Option Plan
Whether or not there exists between the deceased
(ESOP). ABS-CBN contended that no employeeJaime Fulo and Gapayao an employer-employee
employer relationship existed between the parties.
relationship that would merit an award of benefits in However, ABS-CBN continued to remit Sonzas
favor of Rosario Fulo under social security laws.
monthly talent fees but opened another account for
the same purpose.
DECISIONYes. Farm workers may be considered
regular seasonal employees. Farm workers generally The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and found
fall under the definition of seasonal employees. Court that there is no employee-employer relationship.
held that seasonal employees may be considered as NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. CA
regular employees. Regular seasonal employees are also affirmed the decision of NLRC.
those called to work from time to time. The nature of
their relationship with the employer is such that
Issue: Whether or not there was employer-employee
during the off season, they are temporarily laid off;
relationship between the parties.
but reemployed during the summer season or when
their services may be needed. They are in regular
Ruling: Case law has consistently held that the
employment because of the nature of their job, and elements of an employee-employer relationship are
not because of the length of time they have
selection and engagement of the employee, the
worked.The other tasks allegedly done by the
payment of wages, the power of dismissal and the
deceased outside his usual farm work only bolster the employers power to control the employee on the
existence of an employer-employee relationship. It
means and methods by which the work is
only proves that even during the off season, the
accomplished. The last element, the so-called
deceased was still in the employ of Gapayao. The
"control test", is the most important element.
most telling indicia of this relationship is the
Compromise Agreement executed by Gapayao and
Sonzas services to co-host its television and radio
Rosario. Gapayao entered into the agreement with
programs are because of his peculiar talents, skills
full knowledge that he was described as the employer and celebrity status. Independent contractors often
of the deceased.Pakyaw workers are considered
present themselves to possess unique skills,
employees for as long as their employers exercise
expertise or talent to distinguish them from ordinary
control over them. In this case, Gapayao wielded
employees. The specific selection and hiring of
control over the deceased in the discharge of his
SONZA, because of his unique skills, talent and
functions. The right of an employee to be covered by celebrity status not possessed by ordinary
the Social Security Act is premised on the existence employees, is a circumstance indicative, but not
of an employer-employee relationship.73 That having conclusive, of an independent contractual
been established, the Court ruled in favor of Rosario. 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
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN
relationship. Applying the control test to the present
case, we find that SONZA is not an employee but an
Facts: In May 1994, ABS-CBN signed an agreement
independent contractor.
with the Mel and Jay Management and Development
Corporation (MJMDC). ABS-CBN was represented by The control test is the most important test our courts
its corporate officers while MJMDC was represented
apply in distinguishing an employee from an
by Sonza, as President and general manager, and
independent contractor. This test is based on the
Tiangco as its EVP and treasurer. Referred to in the
extent of control the hirer exercises over a worker.
agreement as agent, MJMDC agreed to provide
The greater the supervision and control the hirer
Sonzas services exclusively to ABS-CBN as talent for exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an
radio and television. ABS-CBN agreed to pay Sonza a employee. The converse holds true as well the less
monthly talent fee of P310, 000 for the first year and control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker
P317, 000 for the second and third year.
is considered an independent contractor. To perform
his work, SONZA only needed his skills and talent.
On April 1996, Sonza wrote a letter to ABS-CBN where How SONZA delivered his lines, appeared on
he irrevocably resigned in view of the recent events television, and sounded on radio were outside ABSconcerning his program and career. After the said
CBNs control. ABS-CBN did not instruct SONZA how
letter, Sonza filed with the Department of Labor and to perform his job. ABS-CBN merely reserved the right

to modify the program format and airtime schedule


"for more effective programming." ABS-CBNs sole
concern was the quality of the shows and their
standing in the ratings.

damages. CIGLA filed with the trial court a motion to


dismiss the complaint alleging among others that the
the Court had no jurisdiction, this being labor dispute.
ISSUE: WON the case involves a labor dispute?
HELD: No.
Clearly, ABS-CBN did not exercise control over the
Article 212, paragraph l of the Labor Code provides
means and methods of performance of Sonzas work. the definition of a "
A radio broadcast specialist who works under minimal labor dispute
supervision is an independent contractor. Sonzas
". It "includes any controversy or matter concerning
work as television and radio program host required
terms or conditions of employment or the association
special skills and talent, which SONZA admittedly
or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,
possesses.
maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and
conditions of employment, regardless of whether the
ABS-CBN claims that there exists a prevailing practice disputants stand in the proximate relation of
in the broadcast and entertainment industries to treat employer and employee." El Toro was an independent
talents like Sonza as independent contractors. The
contractor. Thus, no EER existed between Citibank
right of labor to security of tenure as guaranteed in and the security guard members of the union in the
the Constitution arises only if there is an employersecurity agency who were assigned to secure the
employee relationship under labor laws. Individuals bank's premises and property. Hence, there was no
with special skills, expertise or talent enjoy the
labor dispute and no right to strike against the bank.
freedom to offer their services as independent
The dispute involved is a civil one and the jurisdiction
contractors. The right to life and livelihood
over the subject matter of the complaint lies with the
guarantees this freedom to contract as independent regional trial court.
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.
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES vs. NLRC et al
CITIBANK VS. COURT OF APPEALS,

FACTS: Private respondent Dr. Fabros was employed


as flight surgeon at petitioner company. He was
assigned at the PAL Medical Clinic and was on duty
from 4:00 in the afternoon until 12:00 midnight.

FACTS:
Citibank and El Toro Security Agency, Inc. (hereafter
El Toro) entered into a contract for the latter to
On Feb.17, 1994, at around 7:00 in the evening, Dr.
provide security and protective services to safeguard FAbros left the clinic to have his dinner at his
and protect the bank's premises. Under the contract, residence, which was abou t5-minute drive away. A
El Toro obligated itself to provide the services of
few minutes later, the clinic received an emergency
security guards to safeguard and protect the
call from the PAL Cargo Services. One of its
premises and property of Citibank against theft,
employeeshad suffered a heart attack. The nurse on
robbery or any other unlawful acts committed by any duty, Mr. Eusebio, called private respondent at home
person or persons, and assumed responsibility for
to inform him of the emergency. The patient arrived
losses and/or damages that may be incurred by
at the clinic at 7:50 in the evening and Mr. Eusebio
Citibank due to or as a result of the negligence of El immediately rushed him to the hospital. When Dr.
Toro or any of its assigned personnel. Citibank
Fabros reached the clinic at around 7:51 in the
renewed the security contract with El Toro yearly until evening, Mr. Eusebio had already left with the patient
it expired. Then, Citibank Integrated Guards Labor
to the hospital. The patient died the following day.
Alliance-SEGA-TUPAS/FSM (hereafter CIGLA) filed with
the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) Upon learning about the incident, PAL Medical
a request for
Director ordered the Chief Flight Surgeon to conduct
preventive mediation
an investigation. In his explanation, Dr. Fabros
based on Unfair labor practice; Dismissal of union
asserted that he was entitled to a thirty-minute meal
officers/members; and Union busting. CIGLA
break; that he immediately left his residence upon
converted its request for preventive mediation into a being informed by Mr. Eusebio about the emergency
notice of strike for failure of the parties to reach a
and he arrived at the clinic a few minutes later; that
mutually acceptable settlement of the issues, which it Mr. Eusebio panicked and brought the patient to the
followed with a supplemental notice of strike alleging hospital without waiting for him.
as supplemental issue the mass dismissal of all union
officers and members. Citibank filed with the Regional Finding private respondents explanation
Trial Court, Makati, a complaint for injunction and
unacceptable, the management charged private

respondent with abandonment of post while on duty.


He denied that he abandoned his post on February
17, 1994. He said that he only left the clinic to have
his dinner at home. In fact, he returned to the clinic
at 7:51 in the evening upon being informed of the
emergency.
After evaluating the charge as well as the answer of
private respondent, he was given a suspension for
three months effective December 16, 1994.
Private respondent filed a complaint for illegal
suspension against petitioner.
On July 16, 1996, the Labor Arbiter rendered a
decision declaring the suspension of private
respondent illegal. It also ordered petitioner to pay
private respondent the amount equivalent to all the
benefits he should have received during his period of
suspension plus P500,000.00 moral damages.
Petitioner appealed to the NLRC.
The NLRC, however, dismissed the appeal after
finding that the decision of the Labor Arbiter is
supported by the facts on record and the law on the
matter. The NLRC likewise denied petitioners motion
for reconsideration.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
1.
WON the nullifying of the 3-month suspension
by the NLRC erroneous.
2.
WON the awarding of moral damages is
proper.
HELD: The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The
portion of the assailed decision awarding moral
damages to private respondent is DELETED. All other
aspects of the decision are AFFIRMED
1.

The legality of private respondents


suspension: Dr. Fabros left the clinic that
night only to have his dinner at his house,
which was only a few minutes drive away
from the clinic. His whereabouts were
known to the nurse on duty so that he
could be easily reached in case of
emergency. Upon being informed of Mr.
Acostas condition, private respondent
immediately left his home and returned to
the clinic. These facts belie petitioners
claim of abandonment. Petitioner argues
that being a full-time employee, private
respondent is obliged to stay in the
company premises for not less than eight

(8) hours. Hence, he may not leave the


company premises during such time, even
to take his meals. We are not impressed.
Art. 83 and 85 of the Labor Code read: Art.
83. Normal hours of work. The normal
hours of work of any employee shall not
exceed eight (8) hours a day. Health
personnel in cities and municipalities with
a population of at least one million
(1,000,000) or in hospitals and clinics with
a bed capacity of at least one hundred
(100) shall hold regular office hours for
eight (8) hours a day, for five (5) days a
week, exclusive of time for meals, except
where the exigencies of the service require
that such personnel work for six (6) days
or forty-eight (48) hours, in which case
they shall be entitled to an additional
compensation of at least thirty per cent
(30%) of their regular wage for work on the
sixth day. For purposes of this Article,
health personnel shall include: resident
physicians, nurses, nutritionists, dieticians,
pharmacists, social workers, laboratory
technicians, paramedical technicians,
psychologists, midwives, attendants and
all other hospital or clinic personnel.
(emphasis supplied) Art. 85. Meal periods.
Subject to such regulations as the
Secretary of Labor may prescribe, it shall
be the duty of every employer to give his
employees not less than sixty (60) minutes
time-off for their regular meals. Sec. 7,
Rule I, Book III of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code further
states: Sec. 7. Meal and Rest Periods.
Every employer shall give his employees,
regardless of sex, not less than one (1)
hour time-off for regular meals, except in
the following cases when a meal period of
not less than twenty (20) minutes may be
given by the employer provided that such
shorter meal period is credited as
compensable hours worked of the
employee; (a) Where the work is nonmanual work in nature or does not involve
strenuous physical exertion; (b) Where the
establishment regularly operates not less
than sixteen hours a day; (c) In cases of
actual or impending emergencies or there
is urgent work to be performed on
machineries, equipment or installations to
avoid serious loss which the employer
would otherwise suffer; and (d) Where the
work is necessary to prevent serious loss
of perishable goods. Rest periods or coffee
breaks running from five (5) to twenty (20)
minutes shall be considered as
compensable working time. Thus, the

eight-hour work period does not include


W/N the arbitration branch of the NLRC has
the meal break. Nowhere in the law may it jurisdiction
be inferred that employees must take their W/N the arbitration of the NLRC in the NCR is the
meals within the company premises.
proper venue
Employees are not prohibited from going W/N Cabansag was illegally dismissed
out of the premises as long as they return
to their posts on time. Private respondents
act, therefore, of going home to take his
Ruling:
dinner does not constitute abandonment. Labor arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction
2. The award of moral damages: Not every over claims arising from employer-employee relations
employee who is illegally dismissed or
including termination disputes involving all workers,
suspended is entitled to damages. As a
including OFWs. Here, Cabansag applied for and
rule, moral damages are recoverable only secured an OEC from the POEA through the Philippine
where the dismissal or suspension of the Embassy. The OEC authorized her working status in a
employee was attended by bad faith or
foreign country and entitled her to all benefits and
fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to processes under our statutes. Although she may been
labor, or was done in a manner contrary to a direct hire at the commencement of her
morals, good customs or public policy In
employment, she became an OFW who was covered
the case at bar, there is no showing that
by Philippine labor laws and policies upon certification
the management of petitioner company
by the POEA. When she was illegally terminated, she
was moved by some evil motive in
already possessed the POEA employment certificate.
suspending private respondent. It
suspended private respondent on an
honest, albeit erroneous, belief that private THE MANILA HOTEL CORP. AND MANILA HOTEL
respondents act of leaving the company INTL. LTD. vs. NLRC
premises to take his meal at home
constituted abandonment of post which
During his employment with the Mazoon Printing
warrants the penalty of suspension. Under Press in the Sultanate of Oman, respondent Marcelo
the circumstances, we hold that private
Santos received a letter dated May 2, 1988 from
respondent is not entitled to moral
Mr.Gerhard R. Shmidt, General Manager, Palace Hotel,
damages.
Beijing, China informing Santosthat he was
recommended by one Nestor Buenio, a friend of his.
Mr. Shmidt offered Santos the same position as
PNB vs. Cabansag
printer, but with a higher monthly salary and
increasedbenefits. Santos was deemed resigned from
Facts:
the Mazoon Printing Press, on June 30,1988 and
Florence Cabansag went to Singapore as a tourist.
started to work at the Palace Hotel on November 5,
While she was there, she looked for a job and
1988.
eventually applied with the Singapore Branch of the
Philippine National Bank. PNB is a private banking
Subsequently,Santos signed an amended
corporation organized and existing under Philippine "employment agreement" with the Palace Hotel,
laws. She was eventually employed and was issued effective November 5, 1988. The Vice President
an employment pass. In her job offer, it was stated, (Operations and Development) of petitioner MHICL
among others, that she was to be put on probation
Miguel D. Cergueda signed the employment
for 3 months and termination of her employment may agreement under the word "noted". However, due to
be made by either party after 1 day notice while on business reverses brought about by the
probation, and 1 month notice or 1 month pay in lieu politicalupheaval in China, the Palace Hotel
of notice upon confirmation. She accepted the terms terminated the employment of respondent.
and was issued an OEC by the POEA. She was
OnFebruary 20, 1990, respondent Santos filed a
commended for her good work. However, she was
complaint for illegal dismissal with the Arbitration
informed by Ruben Tobias, the bank president, that
Branch, National Capital Region, National Labor
she would have to resign in line with some cost
Relations Commission(NLRC).
cutting and realignment measures of the company.
ISSUE:
She refused but was informed by Tobias that if she
Whether or not the NLRC is a convenient forum to
does not resign, he will terminate her instead.
hear the case.
Issues:

RULING:
Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine
court or agency may assume jurisdiction over the
case if it chooses to do so provided: (1) that the

Philippine court is one to which the parties may


and backwages plus damages. Decision was rendered
conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine court is in favor of petitioner.
in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the
law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine court
SDA appealed to the NLRC. Decision was rendered in
has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision. favor of respondent.
The conditions are unavailing in the case at bar. The
NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum given that Issue:
all the incidents of the case from the time of
recruitment, to employment to dismissal occurred
1. Whether or not the termination of the services of
outside the Philippines. The inconvenience is
the petitioner is an ecclesiastical affair, and, as such,
compounded by the fact that the proper defendants, involves the separation of church and state.
the Palace Hotel and MHICL are not nationals of the
Philippines. Neither are they "doing business in the
2. Whether or not the Labor Arbiter/NLRC has
Philippines." Likewise, the main witnesses, Mr. Shmidt jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint filed by
and Mr. Henkare non-residents of the Philippines.
petitioner against the SDA.
Austria v. NLRC

Held/Ratio:

KTA: Relationship of the church as an employer and


the minister as an employee is purely secular in
nature because it has no relation with the practice of
faith, worship or doctrines of the church, such affairs
are governed by labor laws. The Labor Code applies
to all establishments, whether religious or not.

1. No. The matter at hand relates to the church and


its religious ministers but what is involved here is the
relationship of the church as an employer and the
minister as an employee, which is purely secular
because it has no relationship with the practice of
faith, worship or doctrines. The grounds invoked for
petitioners dismissal are all based on Art. 282 of
Labor Code.

Facts:

The Seventh Day Adventists(SDA) is a religious


2. Yes. SDA was exercising its management
corporation under Philippine law. The petitioner was a prerogative (not religious prerogative) to fire an
pastor of the SDA for 28 years from 1963 until 1991, employee which it believes is unfit for the job. It
when his services were terminated.
would have been a different case if Austria was
expelled or excommunicated from the SDA.
On various occasions from August to October 1991,
Austria received several communications form
Ibesate, the treasurer of the Negros Mission, asking RURAL BANK OF CORON vs CORTES
him to admit accountability and responsibility for the
church tithes and offerings collected by his wife,
FACTS
Thelma Austria, in his district and to remit the same
to the Negros Mission.
Respondent Annalisa Cortes was hired as of the Rural
Bank of Coron. Later, she married a member of the
The petitioner answered saying that he should not be family which ran the corporation. Respondent later on
made accountable since it was Pastor Buhat and
became the Financial Assistant, Personnel Officer and
Ibesate who authorized his wife to collect the tithes Corporate Secretary of The Rural Bank of Coron and
and offerings since he was very ill to be able to do the some other sensitive positions in the sister
collecting.
companies of the Bank.
A fact-finding committee was created to investigate. On examination of the financial books of the
The petitioner received a letter of dismissal citing:
corporations by petitioner Sandra Garcia Escat, she
1) Misappropriation of denominational funds;
found out
that respondent was involved in several
2) Willful breach of trust;
anomalies, drawing petitioners to terminate
3) Serious misconduct;
respondents services on November 23, 1998 in
4) Gross and habitual neglect of duties; and
petitioner corporations.
5) Commission of an offense against the person of
employer's duly authorized representative as grounds Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and
for the termination of his services.
non-payment of salaries and other benefits with the
NLRC.
Petitioner filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for
illegal dismissal, and sued the SDA for reinstatement

Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the complaint


on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, contending that While, indeed, respondent was the Corporate
the case was an intra-corporate controversy involving Secretary of the Rural Bank of Coron, she was also its
the removal of a corporate officer, respondent being Financial Assistant and the Personnel Officer of the
the Corporate Secretary of the Rural Bank of Coron, two other petitioner corporations.
Inc., hence, cognizable by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) pursuant to Section 5 of Mainland Construction Co., Inc. v. Movilla instructs
PD 902-A.
that a corporation can engage its corporate officers to
perform services under a circumstance which would
ISSUE
make them employees.
Whether or not the NLRC had jurisdiction over the
case.

The Labor Arbiter has thus jurisdiction over


respondents complaint.

HELD

Petition is denied.

The SC held that Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over


respondents complaint.

You might also like