COCA COLA BOTTLERS INC. v. DEAN CLIMACO February 5, 2007 G.R. No.

146881 514 SCRA 164

FACTS: Respondent Dr. Dean Climaco is a medical doctor who was hired by
petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc (Coca-Cola), by virtue of a Retainer
Agreement. The Retainer Agreement, which began on January 1, 1988, was renewed
annually. The last one expired 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 letter from petitioner company concluding
their retainership agreement. It is noted that as early as September 1992, petitioner
was already making inquiries regarding his status with Petitioner Company.
Petitioner company, however, did not take any action. Respondent inquired from the
management of Petitioner Company whether it was agreeable to recognize him as a
regular employee. The management refused to do so.

Respondent filed a Complaint before the NLRC seeking recognition as a regular

employee of petitioner 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 from petitioner company concluding their retainership
agreement effective 30 days from receipt thereof. This prompted respondent to file
a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner company.

The Labor Arbiter and NLRC declared that there is no employer-employee

relationship existed between the parties. However, the Court of Appeals declared
that respondent should be classified as a regular employee having rendered 6 years
of service as plant physician by virtue of several renewed retainer agreements.

ISSUE: W/N there exists an employer-employee relationship between the parties.

PROVISION: Art. 82, Labor Code

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 employees conduct.

The Court agrees with the finding of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the
circumstances of this case show that no employer-employee relationship exist
between the parties, they correctly found that petitioner company lacked the power
of control over the performance by respondent of his duties. The Labor Arbiter
reasoned that the Comprehensive Medical Plan, which contains the respondents
objectives, duties and obligations, does not tell respondent how to conduct his
physical examination, how to immunize, or how to diagnose and treat his patients,
employees of company, in each case.
In effect, the Labor Arbiter held that petitioner company, 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.

FAR EAST AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY, INC. VS JIMMY LEBATIQUE (515 SCRA

491)

FACTS: In March 1996, Lebatique was hired as a driver by FAR EAST AGRICULTURAL
SUPPLY, INC. as a driver; his duties include the delivery of animal feeds to the
clients of the company. He must report either in the morning or in the afternoon to
make the deliveries.

On January 24, 2000, Lebatique was suspended by Manuel Uy (brother of FEASIs

General Manager Alexander Uy) for allegedly using the company vehicle illegally. On
the same day, Lebatique filed a complaint for nonpayment of overtime pay against
Alexander Uy. It was alleged that Uy summoned Lebatique and asked why he was
claiming overtime pay. Lebatique said since he started working with the company
he has never been paid OT pay. Uy consulted with his brother. On January 29, 2000,
Uy told Lebatique to look for another job. In consequence to this, Lebatique then
filed an Illegal Dismissal case against the company.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Lebatique. Uy was ordered to reinstate Lebatique
and at the same time to pay Lebatique his 13th month pay, back wages, service
incentive leave pay and OT pay all amounting to P196,659.72. In his argument, Uy
avers that Lebatique was not dismissed and that he was merely suspended; that he
abandoned his job; and that Lebatique was a field personnel thus is not entitled to
overtime pay and service incentive leave pay.

ISSUE: Whether or not Lebatique is a field personnel.

PROVISION: Art. 82, Labor Code

HELD: SC rules in the negative. Lebatique is a regular employee.

Uy illegally dismissed Lebatique when he told him to look for another job. Judging at
the sequence of event, Lebatique earned the ire of Uy when he filed a complaint for
nonpayment of OT pay on the day Lebatique was suspended by Manuel Uy. Such is
not a valid reason for dismissing Lebatique; therefore Uy cannot claim that he
merely suspended Lebatique.

Furthermore, Lebatique did not abandon his job. His filing of this case is proof
enough that he had no intention to abandon his job.

To constitute abandonment as a just cause for dismissal, there must be: (a) absence
without justifiable reason; and (b) a clear intention, as manifested by some overt
act, to sever the employer-employee relationship. None of the above was proven by
Uy.
Also, Lebatique is not a field personnel as defined above for the following reasons:
(1) company drivers, including Lebatique, are directed to deliver the goods at a
specified time and place; (2) they are not given the discretion to solicit, select and
contact prospective clients; and (3) Far East issued a directive that company drivers
should stay at the clients premises during truck-ban hours which is from 5:00 to
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. As a regular employee, Lebatique is entitled to
service incentive leave and OT pay.

EMILIO M. CAPAROSO and JOEVE P. QUINDIPAN vs. CA, NLRC, COMPOSITE

ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED, and EDITH TAN (G.R. No. 155505; February
15, 2007)

FACTS: Respondent Composite Enterprises Incorporated is engaged in the

distribution and supply of confectioneries to various retail establishments within the
Philippines. Petitioners Caparoso and Quindipan were Composites deliverymen.
Caparoso alleged that he was hired on November 1998 while Quindipan alleged that
he was hired on intermittent basis since 1997. On October 1999, the petitioners
were dismissed from the service. They filed before the Labor Arbiter charging
Composite and its Personnel Manager Edith Tan with illegal dismissal.

Respondents, in their answer, alleged that petitioners were both hired on May 1999
as deliverymen, initially for three months and then on a month-to-month basis. They
also allege that petitioners termination resulted from the expiration of their
contracts of employment. The Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioners are regular
employees of respondents, holding that by the very nature of respondents business
and the nature of petitioners services, there is no doubt as to the employment
status of petitioners.

Respondents appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiters Decision,
ruling that the mere fact that the employees duties are necessary or desirable in
the business or trade of the employer does not mean that they are forbidden from
stipulating the period of employment. The NLRC further held that petitioners
contracts of employment are valid and binding between the contracting parties and
shall be considered as the law between them. Petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration. The NLRC denied the motion.

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Court of
Appeals dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRCs Decision, holding that
respondents manpower requirement varies from month to month depending on the
demand from their clients for their products. Petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration. Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration. Hence, the
petition before the SC.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners are regular employees of respondents.

PROVISION: Art. 280, Labor Code

HELD: The SC rules that the petitioners are not regular employees. Under Article
280 of the Labor Code, a regular employee is (1) one who is engaged to perform
activities that are necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the
employer, or (2) a casual employee who has rendered at least one year of service,
whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which he is employed.
However, even if an employee is engaged to perform activities that are necessary
or desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer, it does not preclude the
fixing of employment for a definite period. The Court thus laid down the criteria
under which fixed-term employment could not be said to be in circumvention of the
law on security of tenure, thus: (1) The fixed period of employment was knowingly
and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without any force, duress, or improper
pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other
circumstances vitiating his consent; or (2) It satisfactorily appears that the employer
and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral
dominance exercised by the former or the latter. The SC agrees with the Court of
Appeals that in this case, the fixed period of employment was knowingly and
voluntarily agreed upon by the parties. The Court of Appeals noted that there was
no indication of force, duress, or improper pressure exerted on petitioners when
they signed the contracts. Further, there was no proof that respondents were
regularly engaged in hiring workers for work for a minimum period of five months to
prevent the regularization of their employees. Petitioners Employment is akin to
Probationary Employment.

PNOC-EDC v NLRC

Facts: Private respondent Danilo Mercado is an employee of the petitioner Philippine

National Oil Company- Energy Development Corporation, and he was dismissed on
the grounds of serious acts of dishonesty and violation of company rules and
regulations allegedly committed as follows:

1. Withdrew Php 1680.00 from company funds, of which he appropriated Php

680.00 for personal use and paid the nipa supplier Php 1000.00.

2. Withdrew Php 28.66 as payment for the fabrication of rubber stamp but
appropriated the Php 8.66 for his own use.

3. Absence without leave and without proper turn-over, thus disrupting and
delaying company work activities.

4. Vacation leave without prior leave, which is against company policy.

Mercado filed a complaint against PNOC-EDC before the NLRC Regional Arbitration
Branch for illegal dismissal and for monetary benefits. After considerations of
position papers presented by both parties, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of
Mercado. Petitioner appeals to NLRC, but dismisses the same for lack of merit.
Issues: Whether or not matters of employment of PNOC-EDC is within the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.

Held: With regard to the issue of employment, the SC holds that the test whether a
government-owned or controlled corporation is subject to Civil Service Law is the
manner of its creation. Those created by special charter are subject to its provisions
while those created under General Corporation Law are not within its coverage. The
PNOC-EDC, having been incorporated under General Corporation Law, is subject to
the provisions of the Labor Law.

FEDERITO B. PIDO VS NLRC AND CHERUBIM SECURITY AND GENERAL

SERVICED, INC., G.R. NO. 169812, FEBRUARY 23, 2007

Facts: Federito Pido was employed by Cherubim Security and General Services, Inc.
(CSGS) as a security guard. He was assigned at the Ayala Museum, but was later
transferred to the Tower and Exchange Plaza of Ayala Center where he worked as a
computer operator at the Console Room. Like the other guards deployed by
respondent at the Ayala Center, petitioner was under the operational control and
supervision of the Ayala Security Force (ASF).

On January 21, 2000, petitioner had an altercation with Richard Alcantara of the
ASF, arising from a statement of Alcantara that petitioners security license for his
service firearm and duty detail order had already expired. Alcantara filed a
complaint for Gross Misconduct, recommending that petitioner be relieved from his
post, and that immediate disciplinary action against him be taken.

Respondent CSGS thus conducted an investigation on January 25, 2000, during

which petitioner echoed his tale in his January 21, 2000 information report.
Petitioner was later to claim that he was suspended by respondent following his
argument with Alcantara.

As more than nine months had elapsed since the investigation was conducted by
respondent with no categorical findings thereon made, petitioner filed on October
23, 2000 a complaint for illegal constructive dismissal, illegal suspension, non-
payment and underpayment of salaries and other benefits. Petitioner likewise
prayed for reinstatement and payment of full backwages, attorneys fees and other
money claims.
In their position paper, CSGS denied that it dismissed petitioner from the service,
claiming that while it was still in the process of investigating the January 21, 2000
incident, it offered petitioner another assignment which he declined, reasoning that
he will take a rest.

The Labor Arbiter ruled for separation pay. The NLRC, on appeal, ruled
reinstatement without granting the other monetary claims. The ruling of the NLRC
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, hence the petition with the Supreme Court.

Issues: Whether the petitioners nine-month suspension is tantamount to

constructive dismissal.

Provision: Sections 8 and 9 of Rule XXIII, Book V, IRR of the Labor Code.

Ruling:

It is gathered by the SC that respondent CSGS intended to put petitioner under

preventive suspension for an indefinite period of time pending the investigation of
the complaint against him. The allowable period of suspension in such a case is not
six months but only 30 days, following Sections 8 and 9 of Rule XXIII, Book V of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code (Implementing Rules), to wit:

SEC. 8. Preventive suspension. - The employer may place the worker

concerned under preventive suspension if his continued employment poses a
serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of his
co-workers.

SEC. 9. Period of suspension. - No preventive suspension shall last longer

than thirty (30) days. The employer shall thereafter reinstate the worker in
his former or in a substantially equivalent position or the employer may
extend the period of suspension provided that during the period of extension,
he pays the wages and other benefits due to the worker. In such case, the
worker shall not be bound to reimburse the amount paid to him during the
extension if the employer decides, after completion of the hearing, to dismiss
the worker.

The SC observed that respondent did not inform petitioner that it was extending its
investigation, nor did it pay him his wages and other benefits after the lapse of the
30-day period of suspension. Neither did respondent issue an order lifting
petitioners suspension, or any official assignment, memorandum or detail order for
him to assume his post or another post; respondent merely chose to dawdle with
the investigation, in absolute disregard of petitioners welfare.

At the time petitioner filed the complaint for illegal suspension and/or constructive
dismissal on October 23, 2000, petitioner had already been placed under preventive
suspension for nine months. The Supreme Court ruled that the preventive
suspension which lasted for nine months amounted to constructive dismissal.
CONSOLIDATED BROADCASTING SYSTEM VS. OBERIO ET AL., G.R. NO.
168424, JUNE 8, 2007

Facts: Respondents Oberio, et al. 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. 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 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, in answer, 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.

Issue: Whether or not respondents dismissal was illegal.

Provision: Art. 282 of the Labor Code

Ruling: The SC finds 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.

MILAGROS PANUNCILLO v. CAP PHILIPPINES, INC. 515 SCRA 323 (2007)

FACTS: Petitioner Milagros Panuncillo was hired as Office Senior Clerk by respondent
CAP Philippines Inc. In order to secure the education of her son, Panuncillo procured
an educational plan which she had fully paid but which she later sold to Josefina
Pernes for P37,000. Before the actual transfer of the plan, petitioner pledged the
plan to another person.

Having gotten wind of the transactions subsequent to her purchase of the plan,
Pernes informed respondent that petitioner had "swindled" her, but that she was
willing to settle the case amicably as long as Panuncillo will pay the amount
involved, with interest. In finding such information, CAP Philippines Inc. terminated
the services of Panuncillo. The latter sought reconsideration of her dismissal. CAP
Philippines Inc. denied the reconsideration. Panuncillo thus filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, damages and
attorneys fees against CAP Philippines Inc.

The Labor Arbiter, while finding that the dismissal was for a valid cause, found the
same too harsh. He thus ordered the reinstatement of Panuncillo to a position one
rank lower than her previous position. On appeal, NLRC reversed the decision of the
Labor Arbiter, holding that Panuncillos dismissal was illegal and accordingly ordered
her reinstatement to her former position.

Respondent appealed before the CA, which reversed the NLRC Decision, holding
that the dismissal was valid and that CAP Philippines Inc. complied with the
procedural requirements of due process. Hence, the present petition before the SC.

ISSUE: Whether or not Milagros has been illegally dismissed.

PROVISION: Article 282, Labor Code.

HELD: The SC observed that Panuncillos repeated violation of Section 8.4 of CAP
Philippines Incs Code of Discipline, she violated the trust and confidence of CAP
Philippines Inc. and its customers. To allow her to continue with her employment
puts CAP Philippines Inc. under the risk of being embroiled in unnecessary lawsuits
from customers similarly situated as Josefina, et al. Clearly, CAP Philippines Inc.
exercised its management prerogative when it dismissed Panuncillo.

Under the Labor Code, the employer may terminate an employment on the ground
of serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders
of his employer or representative in connection with his work. Infractions of
company rules and regulations have been declared to belong to this category and
thus are valid causes for termination of employment by the employer. The
employer cannot be compelled to continue the employment of a person who was
found guilty of maliciously committing acts which are detrimental to his interests. It
will be highly prejudicial to the interests of the employer to impose on him the
charges that warranted his dismissal from employment. Indeed, it will demoralize
the rank and file if the undeserving, if not undesirable, remain in the service. It may
encourage him to do even worse and will render a mockery of the rules of discipline
that employees are required to observe. This Court was more emphatic in holding
that in protecting the rights of the laborer, it cannot authorize the oppression or self-
destruction of the employer.

BARBA VS. COURT OF APPEALS [G.R. NO. 169731. MARCH 28, 2007]

Facts: Petitioner Alfredo Barba and Renato Gonzales were employees of PAL who
were terminated for violating PALs Company Code of Discipline. Barba was found
guilty of incorrectly recording 55 kilograms of baggage as 18 kilograms, while
Gonzales was guilty of soliciting USD 100 from a passenger in exchange for allowing
her to check-in USD 200 worth of excess baggage. Beth Wright, the passenger, filed
a written statement to that effect, which was corroborated by Gonzaless co-
employee, Dominique dela Rosa, in her incident report.

Issue: Were the employees validly terminated?

Provision: Art. 282, Labor Code

Held: In an analogous case, PLDT v. NLRC, the Court declared valid the dismissal of
a telephone company employee who offered to repair the telephone of one of the
companys customers in exchange for PHP 160for his personal benefit. The Court
pronounced that, "the disciplinary action of dismissal against private respondent is
legally justified considering that his continuance in the service is patently inimical to
the interest of the petitioner.

The acts of Gonzales in offering a passenger the services of the airlines, without
compensating for the same, while at the same time exacting a fee for himself, are
undoubtedly inimical to the interests of his employer PAL.

In that said case, the Court disregarded the fact that it was the employees first
offense, as well as other mitigating circumstances, when it validated the dismissal
of the employee. Although as a rule this Court leans over backwards to help
workers and employees continue with their employment or to mitigate the penalty
imposed on them, acts of dishonesty in the handling of company property are a
different matter." In the case at bar, Gonzales attempt to make a profit for himself
out of cheating his employer cannot be mitigated by the fact that it was his first
offense, or even his six years of service. Like Gonzales offense, Barbas act in
incorrectly recording the baggage weight, was clearly an act inimical to the interests
of their employer, and of manifest dishonesty and disregard of his duties, which
deserves the supreme penalty of dismissal. Section 282(c) of the Labor Code,
sanctions the dismissal of employees for fraud or the willful breach by the employee
of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative.

The offenses of both Barba and Gonzales, in compromising the integrity of company
records for their personal reasons, are made more reprehensible because of the
danger their acts pose on the safety of the passengers and the crew. The proper
recording of the weight of cargo is crucial in determining how the cargo would be
distributed in each aircraft. A resulting error could imperil valuable equipment, even
the lives of the passengers and crews. Furthermore, the blatant dishonesty of their
acts has tainted the reputations of the countless honest employees working in our
flagship airlines.