Phillipine Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs Philippine
Blooming Mills Held:
G. R. No. L-31195
June 5, 1973
J. Makasiar
Doctrine: Hierarchy of Rights; Collective Bargaining Agreement; Unfair
labor practice
Facts:
1. That Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO)
decided to stage a mass demonstration in front of Malacañang to
express their grievances against the alleged abuses of the Pasig
Police
2. Philippine Blooming Mills (PBM) called for a meeting with the
PBMEO leaders, during the meeting:
a. PBMEO leaders confirmed the planned registration
i. That the demonstration was not against the
company but was in fact an exercise of the
worker’s inalienable constitutional right to freedom
of expression, freedom of speech and freedom for
petition to redress grievances
3. PBM asked them to cancel the demonstration for it would interrupt
the normal course of their business and may result to loss of revenue
a. With a threat of the possibility to lose their jobs
4. PBM through their counsel warned the PBMEO representatives that
workers who belong to the first shift, without previous leave of
absence approved by the company, particularly the officers present
a. who shall fail to report the following morning shall be
dismissed;
b. failure is a violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
(No Strike No lockout clause);
c. amounting to illegal strike
5. Petitioners and their members amounting to 400 in numbers
proceeded with the demonstration
6. Lower court decided in favor of PBM and the PBMEO (8) were found
guilty of bargaining in bad faith. Their MR was subsequently denied
by the Court of Industrial Relations because they filed it 2 days late
Issue:
W/N they were in violation of CBA, NO
W/N Constitutional/Substantial Right is greater than Procedural Right, YES
W/N the respondent is guilty of unfair labor practice, YES
W/N they were in violation of CBA, NO
W/N Constitutional/Substantial Right is greater than Procedural Right,
YES
To regard the demonstration against the police officers, not against the
employer, as evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining and hence a
violation of the CBA and cause for dismissal from employment of the
demonstrating employees, stretching unduly the compass of the CBA, is “a
potent means of inhibiting speech” and therefore conflicts a moral as well as
moral ound on the constitutional guarantees of free expression of peaceful
assembly and of petition.
Hierarchy of (rights) civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of
assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation
and vitality of our civil and political institutions and such priority gives these
liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions.
While Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights
over property rights is recognized. Because these freedoms are “delicate
vulnerable, as well as supremely precious in our society” and the “threat of
sanctions may deter their exercise almost potently as the actual application of
sanctions” they “need breathing space to survive” permitting government
regulation only “with narrow specificity.”
W/N the respondent is guilty of unfair labor practice, YES
The obvious purpose of the mass demonstration staged by the workers of the
respondent firm, was for their mutual aid and protection against alleged police
abuses, denial of which was interference with or restraint on the right of the
employees to engage in such a common action to better shield themselves
against alleged police indignities.
The most that could happen to them was to lose a day’s wage by reason of
their absence form work on the day of the demonstration. One day’s pay
means much to a laborer, more especially if he has a family to support. Yet,
they were willing to forego their one-day salary hoping that their demonstration
would bring about the desired relief from police abuses. But management was
adamant in refusing to recognize the superior legitimacy of their right of free
speech, free assembly and the right to petition for redress.
Petition GRANTED.
1
 Philippine Association of Service Exporter Inc. (PASEI) Vs Hon. limitation on the Bill of Rights. However, police power is not without its own
Franklin Drilon as DOLE Sec limitations. It may not be exercise arbitrarily or unreasonably.
G. R. No.81958
June 30, 1988 D. O. No. 1 applies only to female contract workers but it does not thereby
J. Sarmiento make an undue discrimination between sexes. “Equality before the law”
admits it classifications, provided that:
Doctrine: The concept of police power is well-established in this jurisdiction.
It has been defined as the "state authority to enact legislation that may 1. Such classifications rest on substantial distinctions
interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general 2. They are germane to the purposes of the law
welfare." As defined, it consists of (1) an imposition of restraint upon liberty or 3. They are not confined to existing conditions
property, (2) in order to foster the common good. It is not capable of an exact 4. They apply equally to all members of the same class
definition but has been, purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its
all-comprehensive embrace. It is the avowed objective of D. O. No. 1 to “enhance the protection for Filipino
female overseas workers. Discrimination in this case is justified. Police power
is the domain of the legislature but it does not mean that such an authority
Facts: may no t be lawfully delegated. The Labor Code itself vests the DOLE with
rulemaking powers in the enforcement whereof. Hence it is a valid exercise of
1. That the Petitioner, PASEI is engaged primarily in the recruitment of police power.
Filipino workers, male and female of overseas employment.
2. PASEI challenges the constitutional validity of Department Order No. Petition DENIED
1 of DOLE “Guidelines Governing the Temporary Suspension of
Deployment of Filipino Domestic and Household Workers”
3. It claims that such order discriminates males against females
a. The order does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to
domestic helpers and females with similar skills, and
b. that it is in violation of the right to travel
c. invalid exercise of the law making power
4. Further, PASEI invokes Sec 3 of Art 13 of the Constitution, providing
for worker participation in policy and decision-making process
affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law
5. The Sol Gen on behalf of DOLE submitting the validity of the
challenged guidelines involving the police power of the State and
informed the court that the respondent have lifted the deployment
ban in some states where there exist bilateral agreement with the
Philippines and existing mechanism proving for sufficient safeguards
to ensure welfare and protection of the Filipino workers.

Issue: W/N D. O. No. 1 of DOLE is Constitutional as it is an exercise of police

power, YES

Held:

It is a valid exercise of power. Police power has been defined as the “State
authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or
property in order to promote the general welfare.” It constitutes an implied

2
 EMS Manpower and Placement Services vs NLRC and Luisa Manuel Held:
G. R. No. 107723
July 24, 1997 The argument of EMS was not persuasive. NLRC was correct that the telex
J. Romero could hardly be recognized as sufficient, let alone substantial evidence of
Luisa’s purported misconduct. It was a single document, totally
Doctrine: Just Cause; Substantial Evidence Rule (needed to justify uncorroborated and easily concocted or fabricated to suit one’s personal
employee dismissal); Separation pay interest and purpose. The best supporting evidence would have been a
statement from the child's teacher who allegedly witnessed the incident, but
none was presented.
Facts:
This Court is convinced that Luisa was dismissed from her employment
1. That private respondent, Luisa Manuel was hired as a domestic without any valid or just cause, in contravention of her security of tenure, as
helper in HK, for 2 years guaranteed by the Constitution and the Labor Code, as amended. Under
2. Under her contract secured through EMS Manpower the following Article XIII, Section 3 of the Charter, "(t)he State shall afford full protection to
are stated: labor, local and overseas," and all workers "shall be entitled to security of
a. HK$2,500 salary per month tenure." In basically the same tenor, the Labor Code provides in Article 279
b. 2-year contract that "(i)n cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the
3. she worked from August 1989 to October 1989, when she was services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this
dismissed and repatriated to the Philippines, after she made the Title (on termination of employment)."
following demands:
a. weekly rest day – in violation of sec 6 of her contract Petition DISMISSED
b. not allowed to see fellow Filipinos
c. only received 2,500 as separation pay and return ticket
4. EMS argues that the pre-termination of Luisa Manuel’s employment
was due to the fact that the latter apparently hit her employer’s child
a. Evidenced by a photocopy of a telex – amounting to serious
misconduct
5. Respondent filed a complaint before the Adjudication Department of
the POEA for illegal dismissal and illegal exaction
a. POEA Administrator Sarmiento dismissed the complaint for
lack of merit, to wit:
i. That was given separation pay
ii. Employer paid for her repatriation expenses as
required by the POEA
iii. Concluded the employer Yee complied has
complied with the contract of employment
iv. Therefore, not illegally dismissed
6. NLRC reversed POEA Administrator Sarmiento, stating that there
was no just cause for her dismissal, to wit:
a. No substantial evidence given by the employer and EMS

Issue: W/N there was illegal dismissal, Yes

3
 Reno Foods Inc. vs Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM)
Katipunan
G. R. No. 164016
March 15, 2010
J. Del Castillo
Doctrine: Termination of Employment – A criminal conviction is not
necessary to find just cause for employment termination; Separation
Pay - is not allowed when an employee is dismissed for just cause such
as serious misconduct
Facts:
1. Reno foods is a manufacturer of canned meat products. Vicente Khu
is the president. Nenita Capor (respondent) was an employee of
Reno for 34years.
2. As SOP, the guard on duty found 6 Reno canned goods wrapped in
nylon leggings inside Capor’s bag along with money and small
medicine container.
3. Reno gave Capor several opportunities to explain. After which they
sent her a Notice of termination, she was given opportunity for
reconsideration through a labor-management grievance conference.
However, Reno did not find reason to change its decision to
terminate her employment.
4. Afterwards, Reno filed a complaint against Capor for qualified theft.
A resolution was issued finding probable cause for the crime
charged.
5. The NLM-Katipunan filed on behalf of Capor a complaint for illegal
dismissal and prayed that she be paid her full back wages well as
moral and exemplary damages. She then alleged the following:
a. She was unaware
b. It was planted
c. Reno is avoiding to pay her retirement benefits
6. Labor Arbiter: guilty of serious misconduct – termination and not
entitled to separation pay
7. NLRC: Affirmed but added financial assistance
8. CA: Affirmed NLRC, stressed that the laborer’s welfare should be the
primordial and paramount consideration when carrying out
interpreting provisions of the Labor Code.
Issue: W/N financial assistance should be granted an employee dismissed for
theft, No
Held:
Capor’s acquittal in the criminal case – grounded on the existence of
reasonable doubt – will not preclude the determination in a labor case that she
is guilty of theft, to wit:
 Criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt while
labor disputes require only substantial evidence, which means
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify conclusion – LA and NLRC both found
substantial evidence.
Separation pay is only warranted when the cause for termination is not
attributable to the employee’s fault, as well as illegal dismissal in which
reinstatement is no longer feasible. Jurisprudence has classified theft of
company property as a serious misconduct.
It is true that there have been instances when the Court awarded financial
assistance to employees who were terminated for just causes, on grounds of
equity and social justice. But in those cases, the Court recognized “the harsh
realities faced by employees that forced them to violate company policies.”
But when the employee commits an act of dishonesty, depravity or
inequity, the grant of financial assistance is misplaced compassion. It is
tantamount not only to condoning a patently illegal or dishonest act, but
an endorsement thereof. It will be an insult to all the laborers who
despite their economic difficulties strive to maintain good values and
moral conduct
Length of service and previously clean employment record cannot simply
erase the gravity of the betrayal exhibited by a malfeasant employee.
Petition GRANTED.
4
 St. Joseph Academy of Valenzuela Faculty Association vs St. Joseph Held:
Valenzuela
G. R. No. 182957 There was no illegal dismissal:
June 13, 2013
J. Reyes In this case, the SOLE and the CA were one in ruling that there was no illegal
dismissal committed by SJAV against the non-licensees. R.A. No. 7836
Doctrine: Twin Remedies of reinstatement and payment of back wages provides that no person shall engage in teaching and/or act as professional
– entitled to employees who are illegally dismissed. teacher unless he is a duly registered professional teacher, and a holder of a
valid certificate of registration and a valid professional license or a holder of a
As a rule, payment of back wages and other benefits is justified only if the valid special/temporary permit.
employee was illegally dismissed. However, financial assistance may be
awarded to legally dismissed employees as an act of “social justice” based on Financial assistance:
equity as long as the dismissal was not due to serious misconduct, does note
reflect on the employee’s moral character, or would involve moral turpitude. On ward of financial assistance as a measure of social justice and equity, the
Court has granted financial assistance to legally dismissed employees as an
act of “social justice” or based on “equity” so long as the dismissal was
Facts: not for serious misconduct, does not reflect on the employee’s moral
character and would involve moral turpitude. In this case, the dismissal of
1. That Petitioner, St. Joseph Academy of Valenzuela Faculty the 13 non-licensees was due to their failure to possess teaching licenses. It
Association filed a notice of strike against St. Joseph Academy of was not due to any serious misconduct or infraction reflecting their moral
Valenzuela for illegal termination and union busting. character. Records also bear that the have not shown any dissatisfaction with
2. That the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) ordered their teaching services from their 5 to 9 years od employment.
reinstatement of the licensees (4 teachers) with full back wages.
3. SOLE ruled that there was no illegal dismissal, to wit: Petition, PARTIALLY GRANTED.
a. Because the non-licensees are not considered as regular
employees since they do not possess the necessary
qualification for them to be engaged in teaching and/or act
as professional teachers
4. However, SOLE ordered for them to given their back wages and be
reinstated provided that they have valid temporary or special permit,
to wit:
a. As probationary employees, the non-licensees still enjoy
security of tenure and SJAV should give them opportunity
to comply with the license requirement as mandated by law.
5. CA: reversed SOLE’s decision, to wit:
a. That SJAV cannot be deprived of its right to choose its
teachers and the positions have already been actually filled
up.
b. Also deleted the award for back wages, since it was found
by the SOLE, that there was no illegal dismissal.

Issue: W/N there was an illegal dismissal, No

W/N they are entitled to financial assistance, Yes

5
 Dominador Malabunga Jr. vs Cathay Pacfic Steel Corporation
G. R. No. 198515
June 15, 2015
J. Del Castillo
Doctrine:
In labor cases, issues of fact are for the labor tribunals to resolve, as this
Court is not a trier of facts. However, in exceptional cases, this Court
may be urged to resolve factual issues:
1. where there is insufficient or insubstantial evidence to support the
findings of the tribunal or the court below; or
2. when too much is concluded, inferred or deduced from the bare or
incomplete facts submitted by the parties [or
3. where the [Labor Arbiter] and the NLRC came up with conflicting
positions.
"When there is a divergence between the findings of facts of the labor
tribunals and the CA, there is a need to refer to the record."
Facts:
1. That respondent Cathay Pacific Steel Corp is duly registered
domestic corporation engaged in manufacture of steel products. It
hired the Petitioner Malabunga as one of it machinists.
2. On July 9, 2004, an inventory was conducted at the company
warehouse and it was found that one aluminum level was issued to
respondent’s Fabrication unit and another was issued to the
Petitioner.
3. July 11, 2004, the Petitioner returned an aluminum level to the
warehouse
4. July 24, 2009, the Petitioner was charged with theft of an aluminum
level.
a. Respondent based it allegations on the statements of its
warehousemen alleging that the Petitioner returned an
untarnished aluminum level that was allegedly issued to
the Fabrication Unit.
b. July 22, 2004 – was the discovery of the theft, when another
machinist borrowed the aluminum level and found that it
was the lost level issued to the Fabrication Unit
i. It has dent on the side
ii. And that the Petitioner have stolen the unit from
the Fabrication Unit in order to cover up for the
theft of the aluminum level issued to the Petitioner
5. Petitioner, insists that the accusation against him was false, baseless
and unfair:
a. That he returned the same on July 11, 2004
b. Warehousemen did not find anything unusual on the level
c. That he cannot be faulted for the ineptness or inefficiency
of the Respondent in keeping tracts of it equipment
6. Respondent suspended the Petitioner (December 2, 2004) for 30
days and require him to return the value of the lost aluminum level or
there will be a salary deduction of 280php
7. March 2, 2004, the Petitioner filed a complaint for Illegal Suspension
with the NLRC, arguing:
a. He should not be blamed for the loss of the aluminum level
b. Blame should be pointed at the Respondent’s
warehousemen – failure to maintain system of tracking
equipment
c. Prayed that his suspension be illegal and he must be paid
his salary from January 10 to February 13, 2005
8. LA: dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal – giving credits to the
statements of the warehousemen
9. NLRC: Reversed the LA decision on the ground that:
a. Statements of the warehousemen do not prove that an
aluminum level was lost and that the theft was discovered
only when another machinist sought to borrow an aluminum
level
b. It was absurd for a thief to return the thing stolen as it would
be entirely illogical and contrary to ordinary human
experience
10. CA: Affirmed findings of LA and ruled that based on the statements
of the warehousemen, petitioner did steal aluminum lever. CA held
that the Petitioner’s defense of alibi and denial could not be given
credence in the face of positive identification of the other witnesses.
Issue: W/N the CA erred when it did not appear the decision of NLRC
W/N the SC may be urged to resolve factual issues, Yes
Held:
In labor cases, issues of fact are for the labor tribunals to resolve, as this Court
is not a trier of facts. However, in exceptional cases, this Court may be urged
to resolve factual issues:
1. where there is insufficient or insubstantial evidence to support the
findings of the tribunal or the court below; or
2. when too much is concluded, inferred or deduced from the bare or
incomplete facts submitted by the parties [or
6
 3. where the [Labor Arbiter] and the NLRC came up with conflicting
positions.

"When there is a divergence between the findings of facts of the labor tribunals
and the CA, there is a need to refer to the record."

The petition, presented a situation where the LA, the NLRC and the CA differ
in their assessment of the Petitioner’s case, but also one where the evidence
miserably fails to support a finding that the petitioner committed theft. All –
ignored one material piece of evidence which should have exonerated the
petitioner from the theft charge.

 As records show what was returned by the Petitioner was

untarnished but the Respondent claims that what was returned
has dents on the side.

There was a contradiction to the statements of the warehousemen.

The Court cannot sustain its view that petitioner is guilty of theft of company
property. It could simply be that due to the ineffective system within the
warehouse and its inefficient personnel, there was a mix up of records.

Petition GRANTED.

7
 Philippines National Oil Company – Energy Development Corporation undet the Corporation law and registered under the
vs Hon. Vicente Leogardo, Deputy Minister of Labor and Vicente Decurities and Exchange Commission
Ellelina b. Petitioner is estopped from assailing Labor Dept’s
G. R. No. 58494 jurisdiction
July 5, 1989 c. Dismissal is too harsh a penalty
J. Melencio-Herrera
Issue: W/N PNOC-EDC is under the Jurisdiction of the Labor Code, Yes
Doctrine: Test of determining whether a GOCC is subject to Civil Service
Law or Labor Code Held:

“Under the present state of the law, the test in determining whether a 1. That the PNOC-EDC having been incorporated under the general
government-owned or controlled corporation is subject to the Civil Service Corporation Law, is a government-owned or controlled
Law is the manner of its creation such that government corporations created corporation whose employees are subject to the provisions of
by special charter are subject to its provisions while those incorporated under the Labor Code.
the general Corporation Law are not within its coverage.” 2. The dismissal ordered by the petitioner was a bit too harsh
considering the nature of the act which he had commtted and that it
was his first offense
Facts:
The 1973 Constitution provided:
1. That PNOC-EDC seeks to declare null and void, for lack of
jurisdiction the order of public respondent, Deputy Minister of Labor,
The Civil Service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision and
sustaining his jurisdiction over the instant controversy.
instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled
a. That PNOC-EDC is a subsidiary of the the PNOC
corporations.
b. On January 20, 1978 filed with the Ministry of Labor and
Employment (MOLE) a clearance application to
dismiss/terminate the services of Respondent Vicente HOWEVER, the above doctrine has been supplanted by the present
Ellelina – a contractual employee Constitution, which provides:
2. That respondent Ellelina’s alleged commission of a crime Alarm or
Public Scandal druing a Christmas Party when the raffle committee The Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and
refused to give him the price corresponding to his lost wining ticket, agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled
he tried to grab the armalite rifle of the PC officer outside the building corporations with original charters. (Article IX-B, Section 2 [1])
despite the warning shots fired by the latter.
3. MOLE granted clearance to dismiss but was revoked and petitioner Under the present state of the law, the test in determining whether a
was ordered to reinstate Respondent without loss of seniority rights government-owned or controlled corporation is subject to the Civil Service
and back wages. Law is the manner of its creation such that government corporations created
4. Petitioner argues the ff: by special charter are subject to its provisions while those incorporated under
a. Under Art 277 of the LC, MOLE has no jurisdiction over the general Corporation Law are not within its coverage.
petitioner because it is a GOCC
b. Respondent’s dismissal is valid because it is based upon Petition GRANTED.
the commission of a crime
5. Respondent Argues the ff:
a. The petitioner is a subsidiary of the PNOC, it is still covered
by the LC – therefore within the jurisdiction of the MOLE –
as the petitioner was organized as a private corporation

8
Bitoy Javier (Danilo P. Javier) vs Fly Ace Corporation/Flordelyn Castillo
G. R. No. 192558
February 15, 2012
J. Medoza
Doctrine: Onus Probandi – Burden of Proof
In an illegal dismissal case the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove
that its dismissal was for a valid cause. However, before a case for illegal
dismissal can prosper, an employer-employee relationship must first be
established. It is incumbent upon private respondent to prove the employee-
employer relationship by substantial evidence.
Employer-Employee Relationship – no particular form of evidence is
required to prove the existence of such employer-employee relationship (such
relationship exists must still rest on some substantial evidence)
Tests to determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, viz:
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.
Of these elements, the most important criterion is whether the employer
controls or has reserved the right to control the employee not only as to the
result of the work but also as to the means and methods by which the result
is to be accomplished.
Facts:
1. Petitioner Javier filed a complaint against the Respondent Fly Ace
for underpayment of salaries and other labor standard benefits
2. That the Petitioner worked for the company since September 2007
a. All around worker
b. “pahinante”
c. Worked 7am to 5pm, Monday to Saturday
d. But was never issued an ID nor any pay slip
3. On May 6, 2008 the Petitioner was barred from entering the premises
and despite repeated pleading – he was still not allowed
4. Petitioner further claims that when he asked for the reason why he
cannot work, he was directed to his superior, Ruben Ong who
deliberately stated “Tanungin mo anak mo”
a. Ong had been courting his daughter and it was the apparent
cause of him being terminated
b. To support such allegations, he presented an affidavit of
one Bengie Valenzuela who alleged that the Petitioner was
indeed a stevedore/pahinante at Fly Ace
5. Fly Ace on the other hand claims that the Petitioner was contracted
by it employee Ong as pahinante in a pakyaw or per work basis
a. Petitioner was contracted by Ong only roughly 5 to 6 times
per month whenever Fly Ace’s hauler was not available
(Milmar Hauling Services)
6. Fly Ace submitted a copy of their contract as well as
acknowledgement receipts with Milmar to prove that the petitioner
was not one of their employees.
7. LA: dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, to wit:
a. Petitioner has no:
i. ID
ii. No pay slips
iii. No proof of benefits received like any other regular
employee
b. Fly Ace is not engaged in trucking business
c. Fly Ace presented pay rolls of the per work basis with the
signature of the Respondent
8. NLRC: Javier was favored because he only failed to show proof.
Pakyaw basis did not preclude the existence of employer-employee
relationship
9. CA: Annulled NLRC ruling
Issue: W/N there was an existing Employer-Employee Relationship, No
[Illegal dismissal, No; Entitlement to money claims, No]
Held: The Court affirms CA, to wit:
1. Alleged illegal dismissal is anchored on the existence of employer-
employee relationship – this must be proven by the Petitioner.
(Question of Fact)
2. In this case Javier failed to persuade the Court that the elements of
the Employer-Employee Relationship exist:
o Tests to determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, viz:
i. the selection and engagement of the employee;
ii. the payment of wages;
iii. the power of dismissal; and
iv. the power to control the employee’s conduct.
3. Fly Ace does not dispute having contracted Javier and paid him on a
per trip basis. The Court cannot fail to note that Fly Ace presented
documentary proof that Javier was indeed paid on pakyaw basis –
he then denied his signature – BUT forgery cannot be presumed and
9
 must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the
burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.
4. One final note. The Court’s decision does not contradict the settled
rule that "payment by the piece is just a method of compensation
and does not define the essence of the relation."

Payment on a piece-rate basis does not negate regular

employment. "The term ‘wage’ is broadly defined in Article 97 of the
Labor Code as remuneration or earnings, capable of being
expressed in terms of money whether fixed or ascertained on a time,
task, piece or commission basis. Payment by the piece is just a
method of compensation and does not define the essence of the
relations. Nor does the fact that the petitioner is not covered by the
SSS affect the employer-employee relationship. However, in
determining whether the relationship is that of employer and
employee or one of an independent contractor, each case must be
determined on its own facts and all the features of the relationship
are to be considered." Unfortunately for Javier, the attendant
facts and circumstances of the instant case do not provide the
Court with sufficient reason to uphold his claimed status as
employee of Fly Ace.

Petition DENIED.

10