Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Mafinco Vs Ople

    Загружено:

    ida_chua8023
    154 просмотров1 страница
    The Supreme Court ruled that Rodrigo Repomanta and Reynaldo Moralde, who had contracts to purchase and sell Como Soft drinks from trucks supplied by Mafinco Trading Corporation, were independent contractors and not employees. The contracts gave Repomanta and Moralde wide latitude over how they conducted their work, including hiring their own workers and being responsible for truck maintenance. As independent contractors, they were not subject to the control of Mafinco except as to the results of their work. Therefore, the Court found that the National Labor Relations Commission did not have jurisdiction over the dispute between Mafinco and the peddlers.

    Исходное описание:

    digest

    Оригинальное название

    17. Mafinco vs Ople

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    DOC, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    The Supreme Court ruled that Rodrigo Repomanta and Reynaldo Moralde, who had contracts to purchase and sell Como Soft drinks from trucks supplied by Mafinco Trading Corporation, were independent contractors and not employees. The contracts gave Repomanta and Moralde wide latitude over how they conducted their work, including hiring their own workers and being responsible for truck maintenance. As independent contractors, they were not subject to the control of Mafinco except as to the results of their work. Therefore, the Court found that the National Labor Relations Commission did not have jurisdiction over the dispute between Mafinco and the peddlers.

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате DOC, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    154 просмотров1 страница

    Mafinco Vs Ople

    Загружено:

    ida_chua8023
    The Supreme Court ruled that Rodrigo Repomanta and Reynaldo Moralde, who had contracts to purchase and sell Como Soft drinks from trucks supplied by Mafinco Trading Corporation, were independent contractors and not employees. The contracts gave Repomanta and Moralde wide latitude over how they conducted their work, including hiring their own workers and being responsible for truck maintenance. As independent contractors, they were not subject to the control of Mafinco except as to the results of their work. Therefore, the Court found that the National Labor Relations Commission did not have jurisdiction over the dispute between Mafinco and the peddlers.

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате DOC, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 1

    17. Mafinco Trading Corporation vs.

    Ople
    70 SCRA 139, 25 March 1976
    Facts:
    Rodrigo Repomanta and Mafinco Trading Corp. o!e ditri"#tor of Como Soft drin$, e%ec#ted a pedd!ing
    Contract &here"' Repomanta agreed to "#' and e!! (Como Soft drin$,Re' Mora!de entered into a imi!ar
    Contract the Contract )ro*ide that #ch &ere to remain in force for one 'ear #n!e ooner terminated "' either
    part' #pon 5 da' notice to the other. )#r#ant to aid Mafinco terminated the )edd!ing Contract.
    Repomanta and Mora!de fi!ed a comp!aint &ith the +,RC . Mafinco fi!ed a Motion to dimi on the gro#nd that the
    +,RC had no -#ridiction "eca#e Repomanta and Mora!de &ere not it emp!o'ee "#t &ere independent
    contractor.
    Issue.
    Are Repomanta and Mora!de emp!o'ee or independent contractor/
    Held & Rationale:
    The' are independent contractor.
    A Contract &here"' one engage to p#rchae and e!! oft drin$ on tr#c$ #pp!ied "' man#fact#rer "#t pro*iding
    that the other part' 0pedd!er1 ha!! ha*e the right to emp!o' hi o&n &or$er. Sha!! pot a "ond to protect the
    man#fact#rer againt !oe, ha!! "e reponi"!e for damage ca#ed to third peron, ha!! o"tain the necear'
    !icene and permit and "ear the e%pene inc#rred in the a!e of oft drin$ i not a contract of emp!o'ment.
    2n the Mafinco Trading the co#rt e%p!ain that an independent emp!o'ment and contractor i one &ho e%ercie
    independent emp!o'ment and contractor to do a price of &or$ according to hi method &itho#t "eing #"-ect to
    contro! of hi emp!o'er e%cept a to the re#!t of &or$.
    Additional otes:
    Thi cae i f#c$ing hard, not to mention !ong.
    The pedd!er are #ppoed to "#' and then e!! the oft drin$. The contract mentioned pro*ided the the pedd!er
    tr#c$. The pedd!er are reponi"!e for the tr#c$ and not Mafinco3 i.e. , an' pro"!em faced "' the contractor &hi!e
    dri*ing are their o&n. 4%cept for gao!ine and oi!, the pedd!er are to maintain the tr#c$. Cah "ond are a!o
    re5#ired of the pedd!er for the tr#c$, in#rance p#rpoe. The pedd!er can a!o hire dri*er and he!per #nder
    their reponi"i!it'.
    A!o, the 6 fo!d tet &a #ed. 2t fai!ed on emp!o'ment, ince the pedd!er are gi*en &ide !ee&a' on &ho to hire.
    7age &ere a!o a"ent3 there &a a (dea!er8 dico#nt9 "#t the SC didn8t "#' thi a &age. :imia! &a a!o
    !ac$ing, "eca#e of the contract. Contro! &a a!o &ea$3 the pedd!er &ere not trict!' re5#ired to report to &or$,
    #niform &a not enforced, #per*iion &a !ac$ing "eca#e of arranged ro#te, and the pedd!er &ere not
    reprimanded &hatoe*er. The' &ere free to chooe their time to &or$.

    Вам также может понравиться