Sana Makatulong sa Labor (n.c.d.l.notes. )(Use on your own risk.
)( Not for sale )
Case
BROTHERHOOD LABOR UNITY
MOVEMENT
V. ZAMORA
SAN MIGUEL BREWERY SALES FORCE
UNION
V OPLE
SAN MIGUEL BREWERY V.
DEMOCRATIC LABOR ORGANIZATION
INTERPHHIL LABORATORIES
EMPLOYEES UNION V. INTERPHIL
LABORATORIES
PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS INC
VS.
PAN AMERICAN EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS
MERCURY DRUG v. DAYAO
NHA v. MACEDA SECURITY AGENCY
"Attribute to God every good that you have received. If you take credit for something that does not belong to you, you will be
guilty of theft."
-St Anthony
Doctrine
 EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP, the elements that are generally considered are the following:
(a) the selection and engagement of the employee;
(b) the payment of wages;
(c) the power of dismissal; and
(d) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished.
 It is the called "control test" that is the most important element
 Payment of the workers' wages is a critical factor in determining the actuality of an employer-employee relationship whether between
respondent company and petitioners or between the alleged independent contractor and petitioners.
 In independent contractor-contractee relationship, the fees are paid directly to the manpower agency in lump sum without indicating or
implying that the basis of such lump sum is the salary per worker multiplied by the number of workers assigned to the company.
 So long as a company's MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES
are exercised in good faith for the advancement
of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of
defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, this Court will uphold them.
 San Miguel Corporation's offer to compensate the members of its sales force who will be adversely affected by the implementation of the
CDS by paying them a so-called "back adjustment commission" to make up for the commissions
they might lose as a result of the CDS proves the company's good faith and lack of intention to bust their union.
 EIGHT-HOUR LABOR LAW only has application where an employee or laborer is paid on a monthly or daily basis, or is paid a
monthly or daily compensation,
in which case, if he is made to work beyond the requisite period of 8 hours, he should be paid the additional compensation prescribed by
law.
 This law has no application when the employee or laborer is paid on a piece-work, "pakiao", or commission basis, regardless of the time
employed.
 The philosophy behind this exemption is that his earnings in the form of commission based on the gross receipts of the day. His
participation depends upon his industry so that the more hours he employs in the work the greater are his gross returns and the higher his
commission.
 In labor cases before the Labor Arbiter, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling.[15]
Rules of procedure and evidence are not applied in a very rigid and technical sense in labor cases. [
 Concerted refusal to adhere to the work schedule in force for the last several years, is a slowdown, an inherently illegal activity essentially
illegal even in the absence of a no-strike clause in a collective bargaining contract, or statute or rule.
 concept of a slowdown as a strike on the installment plan; as a willful reduction in the rate of work by concerted action of workers for the
purpose of restricting the output of the employer, in relation to a labor dispute; as an activity by which workers, without a complete
stoppage of work, retard production or their performance of duties and functions to compel management to grant their demands.
 such a slowdown is generally condemned as inherently illicit and unjustifiable, because while the employees continue to work and remain
at their positions and accept the wages paid to them, they at the same time select what part of their allotted tasks they care to perform of
their own volition or refuse openly or secretly, to the employers damage, to do other work; in other words, they work on their own terms.
 For it is the basic premise under which a regime of collective bargaining was instituted by the Industrial Peace Act that through THE
PROCESS OF INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY, with both union and management equally deserving of public trust,
labor problems could be susceptible of the just solution and industrial peace attained.
 Implicit in such a concept is the confidence that must be displayed by management in the sense of responsibility of union officials to
assure that the two indispensable elements in industry and production could-work side by side, attending to the problems of each without
neglecting the common welfare that binds them together.
 The moment management displays what in this case appears to be grave but unwarranted distrust in the union officials discharging their
functions just because a strike was resorted to, then the integrity of the collective bargaining process itself is called into question.
 Payment of extra or additional pay for services rendered during Sundays and legal holidays is mandated by law.
 Even assuming that the petitioners had agreed to work on Sundays and legal holidays without any further consideration than their monthly
salaries,
they are not barred nevertheless from claiming what is due them, because such agreement is contrary to public policy and is declared nun
and void by law.
 When some terms and conditions of employment are not only onerous and inequitous but illegal. It is precisely because of this situation
that the framers of the Constitution embodied the provisions on social justice (Section 6, Article 11) and protection to labor (Section 9,
Article I I) in the Declaration of Principles And State Policies.
 It is pursuant to these constitutional mandates that the courts are ever vigilant to protect the rights of workers who are placed in
contractually disadvantageous positions and who sign waivers or provisions contrary to law and public policy.
 The term wage as used in Section 6 of RA 6727 pertains to no other than the statutory minimum wage which is defined under the Rules
Implementing RA 6727
as the lowest wage rate fixed by law that an employer can pay his worker.
The basis thereof under Section 7 of the same Rules is the normal working hours, which shall not exceed eight hours a day. Hence, the
prescribed increases or the additional liability to be borne by the principal under Section 6 of RA 6727 is the increment or amount added to
the remuneration of an employee for an 8-hour work.
 PAYMENT OF THE INCREASES IN THE WAGE RATE OF WORKERS IS ORDINARILY SHOULDERED BY THE
EMPLOYER. SECTION 6 OF RA 6727, HOWEVER, EXPRESSLY LODGED SAID OBLIGATION TO THE PRINCIPALS OR
INDIRECT EMPLOYERS IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND ESTABLISHMENTS PROVIDING SECURITY,
JANITORIAL AND SIMILAR SERVICES.
 Expresio unius est exclusio alterius. Where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or
construction, be extended to others.
 Since the increase in wage referred to in Section 6 pertains to the statutory minimum wage as defined herein, principals in service
Page 1

BALTAZAR v. SAN MIGUEL INC.
ATOK BIG WEDGE V. ATOK BIG WEDGE
PHILIPPINE BANK OF
COMMUNICATIONS V. NLRC
SAN MIGUEL V. ABALLA
PAL EMPLOYEES SAVINGS AND LOAN
ASSOC. v. NLRC
EPARWA v. LICEO
PEOPLE’S BROADCASTING SERVICE v.
SEC. OF DOLE
"Attribute to God every good that you have received. If you take credit for something that does not belong to you, you will be
guilty of theft."
-St Anthony
Sana Makatulong sa Labor (n.c.d.l.notes. )(Use on your own risk.)( Not for sale )
contracts cannot be made to pay the corresponding wage increase in the overtime pay, night shift differential, holiday and rest day pay,
premium pay and other benefits granted to workers. While basis of said remuneration and benefits is the statutory minimum wage, the law
cannot be unduly expanded as to include those not stated in the subject provision.
 When the employment is for a fixed duration, the employer may terminate it even before the expiration of the stipulated period, should
there be a substantial breach of his obligations by the employee;
 It would, patently, be absurd to grant a right thereto to an employee guilty of the same breach of obligation, when the employment is
without a definite period, as if he were entitled to greater protection than employees engaged for a fixed duration
 if an employee does not choose to enjoy his yearly sick leave of thirty days, he may accumulate such sick leave up to a maximum of six
months and enjoy this six months sick leave at the end of the sixth year but may not commute it to cash.
 "SUPPLEMENTS", therefore, constitute extra renumeration or special privileges or benefits given to or received by the laborers over and
above their ordinary earnings or wages.
 FACILITIES, on the other hand, are items of expense necessary for the laborer's and his family's existence and subsistence, so that by
express provision of the law (sec. 2 [g]) they form part of the wage and when furnished by the employer are deductible therefrom since if
they are not so furnished, the laborer would spend and pay for them just the same.
 It is thus clear that the facilities mentioned in the agreement of October 29, 1952 do not come within the term "supplements" as used in
Art. 19 of the Minimum Wage Law.
 Under the general rule set out in the first and second paragraphs of Article 106, an employer who enters into a contract with a contractor
for the performance of work for the employer, does not thereby create an employer-employes relationship between himself and the
employees of the contractor.
Thus, the employees of the contractor remain the contractor's employees and his alone.
Nonetheless when a contractor fails to pay the wages of his employees in accordance with the Labor Code, the employer who contracted
out the job to the contractor becomes jointly and severally liable with his contractor to the employees of the latter "to the extent of the
work performed under the contract" as such employer were the employer of the contractor's employees.
 The law itself, in other words, establishes an employer-employee relationship between the employer and the job contractor's employees for
a limited purpose, i.e., in order to ensure that the latter get paid the wages due to them.
 The test to determine the existence of independent contractorship is whether one claiming to be an independent contractor has
contracted to do the work according to his own methods and without being subject to the control of the employer, except only as to
the results of the work.[49]
 In legitimate labor contracting, the law creates an employer-employee relationship for a limited purpose, i.e., to ensure that the employees
are paid their wages. The principal employer becomes jointly and severally liable with the job contractor, only for the payment of the
employees wages whenever the contractor fails to pay the same. Other than that, the principal employer is not responsible for any claim
made by the employees.[50]
 In labor-only contracting, the statute creates an employer-employee relationship for a comprehensive purpose: to prevent a circumvention
of labor laws. The contractor is considered merely an agent of the principal employer and the latter is responsible to the employees of the
labor-only contractor as if such employees had been directly employed by the principal employer. [51]
 The language of a contract is not, however, determinative of the parties relationship; rather it is the totality of the facts and surrounding
circumstances of the case.[52] A party cannot dictate, by the mere expedient of a unilateral declaration in a contract, the character of its
business, i.e., whether as labor-only contractor or job contractor, it being crucial that its character be measured in terms of and determined
by the criteria set by statute.[
 Generally speaking, contracts are respected as the law between the contracting parties, and they may establish such stipulations, clauses,
terms and conditions as they may see fit; and for as long as such agreements are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy
or public order, they shall have the force of law between them. [18] However, x x x, while it is the inherent and inalienable right of every
man to have the utmost liberty of contracting, and agreements voluntarily and fairly made will be held valid and enforced in the courts, the
general right to contract is subject to the limitation that the agreement must not be in violation of the Constitution, the statute or some rule
of law (12 Am. Jur. pp. 641-642).[19] And under the Civil Code, contracts of labor are explicitly subject to the police power of the State
because they are not ordinary contracts but are impressed with public interest.[20] Inasmuch as in this particular instance the contract is
question would have been deemed in violation of pertinent labor laws, the provisions of said laws would prevail over the terms of the
contract, and private respondent would still be entitled to overtime pay.
 Laches cannot be charged against any worker when he has not incurred undue delay in the assertion of his rights. Private respondent filed
his complaint within the three-year reglementary period. He did not sleep on his rights for an unreasonable length of time.
 This joint and several liability of the contractor and the principal is mandated by the Labor Code to assure compliance of the provisions
therein including the statutory minimum wage [Article 99, Labor Code]. The contractor is made liable by virtue of his status as direct
employer.
 The principal, on the other hand, is made the indirect employer of the contractors employees for purposes of paying the employees their
wages should the contractor be unable to pay them.
 This joint and several liability facilitates, if not guarantees, payment of the workers performance of any work, task, job or project, thus
giving the workers ample protection as mandated by the 1987 Constitution [See Article II Sec. 18 and Article XIII Sec. 3].
 The DOLE must have the power to determine whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists, and from there to decide whether
or not to issue compliance orders in accordance with Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730.
 The DOLE, in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, has a ready set of guidelines to follow, the same guide the
courts themselves use. The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are:
(1) the selection and engagement of the employee;
(2) the payment of wages;
(3) the power of dismissal;
(4) the employers power to control the employees conduct.[9]
 The use of this test is not solely limited to the NLRC. The DOLE Secretary, or his or her representatives, can utilize the same test, even in
the course of inspection, making use of the same evidence that would have been presented before the NLRC.
 If the DOLE makes a finding that there is an existing employer-employee relationship, it takes cognizance of the matter, to the exclusion
of the NLRC.
Page 2

DAVAO INTEGRATED STEVEDORING V.
RUBEN ABARQUEZ
ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS v. CA and
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
NASIPIT INTEGRRATED ARRASTRE v.
NASIPIT EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION
TSPIC CORPORATION v. TSPIC
EMPLOYEES UNION
LOCSIN v. PLLDT
NESTLE PHILIPPINES V. NLRC
UNIVERSAL CORN PRODUCTS v. NLRC
NAVARETTE v. MANILA
INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT
"Attribute to God every good that you have received. If you take credit for something that does not belong to you, you will be
guilty of theft."
-St Anthony
Sana Makatulong sa Labor (n.c.d.l.notes. )(Use on your own risk.)( Not for sale )
 The DOLE would have no jurisdiction only if the employer-employee relationship has already been terminated, or it appears, upon review,
that no employer-employee relationship existed in the first place.
 While the terms and conditions of a CBA constitute the law between the parties, it is not, however, an ordinary contract to which is
applied the principles of law governing ordinary contracts. A CBA, as a labor contract within the contemplation of Article 1700 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines which governs the relations between labor and capital, is not merely contractual in nature but impressed with
public interest, thus, it must yield to the common good. As such, it must be construed liberally rather than narrowly and technically, and
the courts must place a practical and realistic construction upon it, giving due consideration to the context in which it is negotiated and
purpose which it is intended to serve.
 Reasonable and practical interpretation must be placed on contractual provisions. Interpetatio fienda est ut res magis valeat quam pereat.
Such interpretation is to be adopted, that the thing may continue to have efficacy rather than fail.
 Sick leave benefits, like other economic benefits stipulated in the CBA such as maternity leave and vacation leave benefits, among others,
are by their nature, intended to be replacements for regular income which otherwise would not be earned because an employee is not
working during the period of said leaves. They are non-contributory in nature, in the sense that the employees contribute nothing to the
operation of the benefits. By their nature, upon agreement of the parties, they are intended to alleviate the economic condition of the
workers.
 Well-settled is it that the said privilege of commutation or conversion to cash, being an existing benefit, the petitioner-company may not
unilaterally withdraw, or diminish such benefits.
 a judgment lien over the subject properties has not legally attached and that Art. 110[15] of the Labor Code, in relation to Arts. 2242, 2243,
and 2244 of the Civil Code on concurrence and preference of credits, does not cover the subject properties. Art. 110 of the Labor Code
applies only to cases of bankruptcy and liquidation.
 Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.[6] The express mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others. The beneficent,
operative provision of WO RXIII-02 is specific enough to cover only minimum wage earners. Necessarily excluded are those receiving
rates above the prescribed minimum wage. The only situation when employees receiving a wage rate higher than that prescribed by the
WO RXIII-02 may still benefit from the order is, as indicated in Sec. 1 (c) of the IRRs, through the correction of wage distortions.
 only employees receiving salaries below the prescribed minimum wage are entitled to the wage increase set forth under WO RXIII-02,
without prejudice, of course, to the grant of increase to correct wage distortions consequent to the implementation of such wage order.
 While it behooves the Court to accord protection to the working class, tilting the balance of justice in its favor whenever appropriate,
it is not possible to resolve every dispute to further the cause of labor. In every case, justice is to be granted to the deserving and
dispensed in the light of established facts and the applicable law and doctrine, [11] as here.
 It is familiar and fundamental doctrine in labor law that the CBA is the law between the parties and they are obliged to comply with its
provisions.
 if the terms of a contract, as in a CBA, are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of
their stipulations shall control.[1
 Thus, it may be reasonably concluded that TSPIC granted the salary increases under the condition that any wage order that may be
subsequently issued shall be credited against the previously granted increase. The intention of the parties is clear: As long as an employee
is qualified to receive the 12% increase in salary, the employee shall be granted the increase; and as long as an employee is granted the
12% increase, the amount shall be credited against any wage order issued after WO No. 7.
 Diminution of benefits is the unilateral withdrawal by the employer of benefits already enjoyed by the employees. There is diminution of
benefits when it is shown that:
(1) the grant or benefit is founded on a policy or has ripened into a practice over a long period;
(2) the practice is consistent and deliberate;
(3) the practice is not due to error in the construction or application of a doubtful or difficult question of law; and
(4) the diminution or discontinuance is done unilaterally by the employer.[
 As a last word, it should be reiterated that though it is the states responsibility to afford protection to labor, this policy should not be used
as an instrument to oppress management and capital. [29] In resolving disputes between labor and capital, fairness and justice should always
prevail.
 in the resolution of labor cases, we have always been guided by the State policy enshrined in the Constitution: social justice and
protection of the working class.
 Social justice does not, however, mandate that every dispute should be automatically decided in favor of labor. In any case, justice
is to be granted to the deserving and dispensed in the light of the established facts and the applicable law and doctrine. [3
 In the ordinary course of things, responsible business owners or managers would not allow security guards of an agency with whom the
owners or managers have severed ties with to continue to stay within the business premises. This is because upon the termination of the
owners or managers agreement with the security agency, the agencys undertaking of liability for any damage that the security guard would
cause has already been terminated. Thus, in the event of an accident or otherwise damage caused by such security guards, it would be the
business owners and/or managers who would be liable and not the agency. The business owners or managers would, therefore, be opening
themselves up to liability for acts of security guards over whom the owners or managers allegedly have no control.
 control is the most important element in the determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship
 The petitioner's contention, that employees have no vested or demandable right to a non-contributory retirement plan, has no merit for
employees do have a vested and demandable right over existing benefits voluntarily granted to them by their employer. The latter may not
unilaterally withdraw, eliminate or diminish such benefits
 A bonus under the CBA is an obligation created by the contract between the management and workers while the 13th month pay is
mandated by the law

 A fundamental principle in Philippine labor law is the application of the four-fold test in determining the existence of an employer-
employee relationship, thus:
Page 3
 Sana Makatulong sa Labor (n.c.d.l.notes. )(Use on your own risk.)( Not for sale )

FORWARDERS (1) selection and engagement;

(2) payment of wages;
(3) power to dismiss; and
(4) power of control over the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished.[8]
 There are, however, instances when these elements are not exercised by a single person or entity. There are cases where one or more of the
said factors are assumed by another entity, for which reason, the Court made it clear that of the four tests mentioned, it is the power of
control that is determinative. One such instance is whenever an employer supplies workers to another pursuant to a contracting agreement,
i.e., job contracting.
 contracting or subcontracting whenever an employer, referred to as the principal, farms out the performance of a part of its business to
another, referred to as the contractor or subcontractor, and for the purpose of undertaking the principal's business that is farmed out, the
contractor or subcontractor then employs its own employees. In such an arrangement, the four-fold test must be satisfied by the contractor
or subcontractor.[10] Otherwise, it is the principal that shall be considered as the employer.

 Labor-only contracting exists when:

(1) the person supplying workers to the purported principal does not have substantial capital or investments in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries, work premises, among others; and
(2) the workers recruited and placed by such person/entity perform activities which are directly related to the principal business of the
alleged principal.[
 Finding that a contractor is engaged in labor-only contracting is then equivalent to declaring that there exists an employer-employee
relationship between the supposed principal and the employee of the purported contractor.[12]
It also results in the following:
(1) the subcontractor will be treated as the agent of the principal whose acts and representations bind the latter;
(2) the principal, being the employer, will be responsible to the employees for all their entitlements and benefits under labor laws; and
(3) the principal and the subcontractor will be solidarity treated as the employer.

NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERIES
CORPORTATION V. NLRC
 Managerial employees are ranked as Top managers, Middle managers and First Line Managers.
Top and Middle Managers have the authority to devise, implement and control strategic and operational policies while the task of First-
Line Managers is simply to ensure that such policies are carried out by the rank-and-file employees of an organization.
 the mere fact that an employee is designated “manager” does not ipso facto make him one. Designation should be reconciled with the
actual job description of the employee, for it is the job description that determines the nature of employment.

JIMENEZ v. NLRC  In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the elements that are generally considered are the following:
(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, with the control test assuming primacy in the overall consideration. In the case at bar, the
aforementioned elements are not present.

EDI-STAFFBUILDERS v. NLRC
 In cases involving OFWs, the rights and obligations among and between the OFW, the local recruiter/agent, and the foreign
employer/principal are governed by the employment contract. A contract freely entered into is considered law between the parties; and
hence, should be respected. In formulating the contract, the parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they
may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. 3
 Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours.37 Thus, we
apply Philippine labor laws in determining the issues presented before us.
 In illegal dismissal cases, it has been established by Philippine law and jurisprudence that the employer should prove that the dismissal of
employees or personnel is legal and just.
 In illegal dismissal cases, it has been established by Philippine law and jurisprudence that the employer should prove that the dismissal of
employees or personnel is legal and just.

 Under the twin notice requirement, the employees must be given two (2) notices before their employment could be terminated:
(1) a first notice to apprise the employees of their fault, and
(2) a second notice to communicate to the employees that their employment is being terminated.
In between the first and second notice, the employees should be given a hearing or opportunity to defend themselves personally or by
counsel of their choice.

ASIA PACIFIC CHARTERING v.  “Before one may be properly considered a managerial employee, all the following conditions must be met:
FAROLAN (1) Their primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or subdivision
thereof;
(2) They customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more employees therein;
(3) They have the authority to hire or fire other employees of lower rank; or their suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring and
firing and as to the promotion or any other change of status of other employees are given particular weight.
 Loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for an employee’s dismissal must be based on a willful breach and founded on clearly
established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from
an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.

ALMIREZ v. INFINITE LOOP  To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship, jurisprudence has invariably applied the four-fold test, to wit:
TECHNOLOGY (1) the manner of selection and engagement;
(2) the payment of wages;
(3) the presence or absence of the power of dismissal; and
(4) the presence or absence of the power of control. Of these four, the last one, the so called “control test” is commonly regarded as the
most crucial and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship.
 Such pay slip cannot prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties.
 As for the designation of the payments to Almirez as “salaries,” it is not determinative of the existence of an employer-employee
relationship. “Salary” is a general term defined as “a remuneration for services given.”

Page 4
"Attribute to God every good that you have received. If you take credit for something that does not belong to you, you will be
guilty of theft."
-St Anthony
 Sana Makatulong sa Labor (n.c.d.l.notes. )(Use on your own risk.)( Not for sale )

TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. NLRC
DYNAMIC SIGN MAKER v. POTONGAN
 It is settled do trine that the grant of a bonus is a prerogative, not an obligation, of the employer
 Requiring the company to pay a mid-year bonus to them also would in effect penalize the company for its generosity to those workers who
remained with the company "till the end" of its days.
 Constructive Dismissal: Petitioner was simply replaced and instructed to take a leave indefinitely.
 In cases of illegal dismissal, the burden is on the employer to prove that there was a valid ground for dismissal.
 management has wide latitude to regulate, according to its own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including the freedom
to transfer and reassign employees according to the requirements of its business.[38]
 The scope and limits of the exercise of management prerogatives, must, however, be balanced against the security of tenure given to labor.
[39]
 If exercised in good faith for the purpose of advancing business interests, not of defeating or circumventing the rights of employees,[40]
the managerial prerogative to transfer personnel from one area of operation to another is justified.

MAFINCO TRADING v. OPELGR
 "In determining the existence of employer-employee relationship, the following elements are generally considered, namely:
(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-although the latter is the most important element"
 On the other hand, an independent contractor is "one who exercises independent employment and contracts to do a piece of work
according to his own methods and without being subject to control of his employer except as to the result of the work"

MANIOSO v. GSIS
CAGAYAN SUGAR v SEC. OF LABOR
 benefits due an employee due to work-related sickness shall be provided until he becomes gainfully employed, or until his recovery or
death. None of these is present in petitioners case.
 It would be an affront to justice if petitioner, a government employee who had served for thirty six (36) years, is deprived of the benefits
due him for work-related ailments that resulted in his Permanent Total Disability.
 while it is the prerogative of the management to discipline its employees, it should not be indiscriminate in imposing the ultimate penalty
of dismissal as it not only affect the employee concerned, but also those who depend on his livelihood.
 “the ends of social and compassionate justice would therefore be served if private respondent is reinstated but without backwages in view
of petitioner’s good faith.”
 To reiterate, respondents were indeed guilty of some form of misconduct and, as such, petitioner was justified in exercising disciplinary
action against them.
 Absent any evidence to the contrary, petitioner’s resort to disciplinary proceedings should be presumed to have been done in good faith.

ECOP v. NWPC  there are two ways in the determination of wage,

these are floor wage method and salary ceiling method.
 he floor wage method involves the fixing of determinate amount that would be added to the prevailing statutory minimum wage
 while the salary ceiling method involves where the wage adjustment is applied to employees receiving a certain denominated salary
ceiling.

** among other relevant factors, consider the following:

(a) The demand for living wages;
(b) Wage adjustment vis-a-vis the consumer price index;
(c) The cost of living and changes or increases therein;
(d) The needs of workers and their families;
(e) The need to induce industries to invest in the countryside;
(f) Improvements in standards of living;
(g) The prevailing wage levels;
(h) Fair return of the capital invested and capacity to pay of employers;
(i) Effects of employment generation and family income; and
(j) The equitable distribution of income and wealth along the imperatives of economic and social development."

ZALCITA v. PAL  There, a policy of Philippine Air Lines requiring that prospective flight attendants must be single and that they will be automatically
separated from the service once they marry was declared void, it being violative of the clear mandate in Article 136 of the Labor Code
with regard to discrimination against married women. Thus:

 It is logical to presume that, in the absence of said standards or regulations which are as yet to be established, the policy of respondent
against marriage is patently illegal. This finds support in Section 9 of the New Constitution, which provides:

 Sec. 9. The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment and equality in employment, ensure equal work opportunities
regardless of sex, race, or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employees. The State shall assure the rights of workers to
self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work

Page 5
"Attribute to God every good that you have received. If you take credit for something that does not belong to you, you will be
guilty of theft."
-St Anthony
 Sana Makatulong sa Labor (n.c.d.l.notes. )(Use on your own risk.)( Not for sale )

BROTHERHOOD LABOR UNITY MOVEMENT

V. ZAMORA

SAN MIGUEL BREWERY SALES FORCE UNION

V OPLE

SAN MIGUEL BREWERY V. DEMOCRATIC LABOR ORGANIZATION

INTERPHHIL LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES UNION V. INTERPHIL

LABORATORIES

PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS INC

VS.
PAN AMERICAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS

MERCURY DRUG v. DAYAO

NHA v. MACEDA SECURITY AGENCY

BALTAZAR v. SAN MIGUEL INC.

ATOK BIG WEDGE V. ATOK BIG WEDGE

PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS V. NLRC

SAN MIGUEL V. ABALLA

PAL EMPLOYEES SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOC. v. NLRC

EPARWA v. LICEO

PEOPLE’S BROADCASTING SERVICE v. SEC. OF DOLE

DAVAO INTEGRATED STEVEDORING V. RUBEN ABARQUEZ

ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS v. CA and ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

NASIPIT INTEGRRATED ARRASTRE v. NASIPIT EMPLOYEES LABOR

UNION

TSPIC CORPORATION v. TSPIC EMPLOYEES UNION

LOCSIN v. PLLDT

NESTLE PHILIPPINES V. NLRC

UNIVERSAL CORN PRODUCTS v. NLRC

NAVARETTE v. MANILA INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT FORWARDERS

NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERIES CORPORTATION V. NLRC

JIMENEZ v. NLRC

EDI-STAFFBUILDERS v. NLRC

ASIA PACIFIC CHARTERING v. FAROLAN

ALMIREZ v. INFINITE LOOP TECHNOLOGY

TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. NLRC

DYNAMIC SIGN MAKER v. POTONGAN

MAFINCO TRADING v. OPELGR

MANIOSO v. GSIS

CAGAYAN SUGAR v SEC. OF LABOR

ECOP v. NWPC

ZALCITA v. PAL

Page 6
"Attribute to God every good that you have received. If you take credit for something that does not belong to you, you will be
guilty of theft."
-St Anthony