SY V CA

-Priv respo, Jaime Sahot worked as truck helper in 1958 for ptr family owned
trucking business, Vicente Sy Trucking
-eventually became truck driver, trucking business kept renaming
-Apr 1994, 59 yrs old started incurring absences because of being sick: left thigh
was hurting, affecting performance
-asked about his benefits and found out employer did not remit his premium payments
-filed week long leave for treatment, at end of it asked for extension of leave for
whole month of June
-ptrs threatened to terminate him --> dismissed, so filed illegal dismissal
PTR: not employee, only industrial partner until Jan 1994 + never filed extension
to leave, never reported to work

LA: no illegal dismissal, Sahot was industrial partner of ptr before Jan 1994, only
employee after so financial assistance from that point only + failed to report to
work
NLRC: he was employee from the start, terminated due to his illness --> 2080 for 29
yrs of service
CA: modified it. employee from 1958 to 1994, 2080 for 36 yrs
ISSUE: w/n employer employee relation? YES w/n valid dismissal NO

1) 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 employees conduct < most
impt
-age at start was 23. how could he be industrial partner?
-ptrs owned trucking business, determined respo's wages and rest day/ determined
where he would go, what he would do, etc
No written agreement exists to prove the partnership between the parties.
no proof that he was receiving a share in the profits

2) during conciliation proceedings, ptr offered to give easier job to respo but he
demanded sep pay instead
-burden on employer to prove valid cause for dismissal
-Art 284 LC, authorizes employer to terminate on ground of disease: needs med cert
>no med cert from public health authority done by employer
-no due process(2 notices) --> only threatened then actually dismissed INVALID
DISMISSAL

CHAVEZ V NLRC
respo company, Supreme Packaging Inc, manufactures cartons and other pckging
materials for export/distribution, ptr was truck driver Oct 1984
-would deliver from factory in Bataan to Metro Manila, normally nighttime trips
6pm, returning afternoon 2-3 days later. 350 per trip then became 480 then 900 at
time of dismissal
-he asked Alvin Lee, respo company plant mgr for benefits of regular employees: OT
pay, nightshift differential pay, 13th month pay, etc => promised it but never got
it
-he filed complaint for regularization at Regional Arbitration Branch of NLRC in
pampanga, dismissed before case could be heard so filed illegal dismissal

RESPO: no E-E relationship. independent contractor: contract of service (Dec 12

1984, renewed twice July 1989 and Sept 1992) same contract except for rate of pay
-he had control over methods to do work + paid wages of his helpers,controlled
them. + he was not dismissed but terminated contract with him for violation of
terms: failed to observe the minimum degree of diligence in the proper maintenance
of the truck he was using

LA: illegal dismissal coz no due process/reg employee + worked for uninterrupted
period of 10+ yrs. contract violative of security of tenure
NLRC: dismissed appeal, affirmed LA, respo took advantage of ptrs unfamiliarity w
English language for contract
>in MR, reversed, said no E-E relationship. contract valid(silent to time of
deliveries/could hire own helpers) + respo no control over ptr
CA: reinstated LA. same reason as LA + cant be independent contractor since ptr has
no capital for tools/machinery + routing slips issued by company showed control:
routing slips indicated the chronological order and priority of delivery, the
urgency of certain deliveries and the time when the goods were to be delivered to
the customers
-also did not abandon, just filed for regularization. company failed to prove valid
cause for dismissal
>in MR, reversed => only control over results, no say on methods etc. 10 yrs
negligible. contract not contrary to morals good custom etc
ISSUE: w/n E-E relation? YES
all 4 elements in test are present
1) respo engaged svcs of ptr w/o 3rd party intervention
2) wages = remuneration or earnings, however designated, payable by employer to
employee under contract for work to be done/ service to be rendered --> ptr
received compensation from respondent
-every employer is required to pay his employees by means of payroll (LC), employer
did not present payroll
3) respo had power to dismiss, guised in contractual breach in this case
4) respo had control over the driver: owned the truck, express instruction on use
of truck for delivery, directed ptr where to park truck, routing slips
-prove control over ptr ==> established E-E relation
VALID DISMISSAL?: - respo failed to prove cause for dismissal
-there was no abandonment. ptr only filed regularization complaint
-also not gross negligence = single act of negligence in proper maintenance is not
sufficient

SOUTHEAST INTL RATTAN V COMING

ptr domestic corp, manufacturing/exporting furniture to various countries, Agbay is
the president/GM
-respo filed illegal dismissal, underpay of wages, nonpayment of holiday pay, 13th
month, svc incentive
-respo was hired as Sizing Machine Operator, 1984
-pakiao basis for compensation then became fixed 150/day.
-1990, he and his brother were told to resume work in 2 months time, not to
complain or they won't be called back, went back to work eventually upon order
-in 2002, dismissed: company not doing well financially, would be called if needed
again. after year, filed complaint, bro used by mgment to try and have him drop
case
PTR: denied hiring him, incorporated 1986, said respo worked for their furniture
suppliers (only buy/sell back then) + stopped 1989-1992
-respo not in list of employees in SSS
-affidavit from brother supporting this + Mayol and Apondar notarized certs of
respo working for them instead
RESPO: affidavit signed by 5 former coworkers of working for ptr for 20 yrs

LA: employee, illegal dismissal

NLRC: reversing LA: addtl evidence by ptr-> payrolls/pay records of employees,
affidavit of treasurer and brother
CA: reversed NLRC

ISSUE: 1) w/n E-E relation? YES. ILLEGAL DISMISSAL

-Control test: ptr required respo to work in premises, gave salaries, had set time
for him to work, respo did work necessary for company
-employee not being in SSS list is not conclusive since it means employer could be
rewarded for neglect in obligation
-for payroll to be used as evidence, has to be complete list: in this case, only
1999-2000 presented
-affidavits of the 2 show respo only worked sideline for them, doesn't rule out
full employment at ptr comp
-5 workers: ptr said were disgruntled workers then later said not employed by them
but the other 2 ==> initial statement already binding + failed to prove their
claims

TESORO ET AL V MANILA RETREADERS

ptrs used to work as salesmen for respo (MNL Retreaders, Northern Luzon Retreaders,
Power Tire and Rubber corp = sister companies,"BANDAG") repair and retread svcs for
used tires
-developed franchising scheme, enable others to operate same business using its
trade name/svc system
-ptrs entered into separate service franchise agreements
-respo would provide revolving funds, expenses from funds deducted from sales to
determine income -> eventually, ptrs started to default so respo terminated SFAs
--> ptrs filed constructive dismissal
PTR: they were still employees, SFAs circumvention of this
RESPO: freely resigned as employees, no E-E

LA: no E-E
NLRC: affirmed LA
CA: dismissed petition
ISSUE: w/n still E-E even with the SFA
-Franchising - business method to market product/svc and use of patent, trademark,
tradename of owner. => SFA on their face, created arrangement like this
-Control test
-ptrs knew their relations would change: would receive money based on profits, did
not complain of constructive dismissal then
-the control that BANDAG exercised: adjust prices, imposed minimum processed tire
requirement, review and regulate credit apps, power to suspend ptr svcs ==> all
because it was a franchise, needed uniformity in prices, etc. franchise required to
follow established system
==> management policy decisions, abiding by it doesn't make them employees
-revolving funds =/= wages, more of capital advances. their wages are from profits

DISSENT: franchise agreement has to be mutually beneficial for both, in this case,
lopsided relation so should not count as a franchise
BEGINO ET AL V ABS CBN
respo had Villafuerte as manager, thru her, she engaged ptrs 1996-2002(Begino/Del
Valle = cameramen/editors, Sumayao/Llorin = reporters) thru talent contracts
regularly renewed thru the years.
-contracts specifically said nothing there established E-E relation
-ptrs said regular employees, filed for regularization
PTR: worked under direct control/supervision of respo: had to wear ID, provided
equipment needed, performed functions necessary and desirable to ABS
-also subject to annual competency assessment
RESPO: primarily broadcast tv and radio, not enough manpower to make own programs:
independent contractors for this

-terminated during pendency of case --> illegal dismissal

LA: illegal dismissal
NLRC: affirmed LA + exclusivity clause supported this
CA: reversed both, no E-E. engaged as talents. exclusivity clause =/= E-E relation.

w/n E-E relation?

-Control test
4 kinds of employees: (a) regular employees or those who have been engaged to
perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business
or trade of the employer; (b) project employees or those whose employment has been
fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which
has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee; (c) seasonal
employees or those who work or perform services which are seasonal in nature, and
the employment is for the duration of the season; and (d) casual employees or those
who are not regular, project, or seasonal employees
-contractual counts as regular employment
-they were doing functions necessary and desirable
-repeated hiring of ptrs indicate regularness
-they were also subjected to control/supervision: equipment, telling them where to
go for functions, requiring advance notice in case of not going
-they were hired like any ordinary employee
-talent fees = wages
-ptrs could be discharged anytime for unsatisfactory work