LABREL DIGEST Prelim

- Labor Arbiter and NLRC: In favor of PRs (joint venture; no er-ee rel)

Corporal vs NLRC 2000

-

NLRC:

Barbers

maybe

characterized

as

INDEPENDENT

Facts:

CONTRACTORS because they are under the control of the barber

- 5 male Ps worked as barbers while the 2 female Ps worked as

shop only with respect to the result of the work but not with the

manicurists

details or manner of performance

- P Patricia alleged that she also worked as a watcher and a

Issue 1: W/N Ps are ees of Lao Enterng Company Inc.

marketer

(Former New Look Barbershop) - YES, not independent

- Ps claim that the barber shop was then a single proprietorship

contractors nor there was joint venture

which became a corporation registered with SEC

- All of them were allowed to continue working until R Ong informed

The following elements must be present for an employer-

them that they were no longer needed as the building had been

employee relationship to exist:

sold

(1) the selection and engagement of the workers; [the late Vicente
Lao engaged the services of the petitioners to work as barbers and

- Thus, Ps filed with NLRC a complaint for:

manicurists in the New Look Barber Shop]

1. Illegal dismissal

(2) power of dismissal; [respondent company retained the services

2. Illegal deduction

of all the petitioners]

3. Separation pay - /

(3) the payment of wages by whatever means; [continuously paid

4. Non-payment of 13th month pay - /

their wages] and

5. Salary differentials

(4) the power to control the workers conduct, with the latter

6. Sought refund of P1.00 that the R collected from them daily as

assuming primacy in the overall consideration

the sweeper's salary - x

- As to the "control test", the following facts indubitably

- Only P Patricia asked for payment of salary differentials as she

reveal that respondent company wielded control over the

was paid a daily wage of P25.00 throughout her payment - x

work performance of petitioners, in that:

- Ps contend that they were ees of R company because they did not

(1) they worked in the barber shop owned and operated by the

carry on an independent business

respondents; (2) they were required to report daily and observe

definite hours of work;

- PR averred that there is no er-ee rel between them because Ps

(3) they were not free to accept other employment elsewhere

were joint venture partners and were receiving 50% commission of

but devoted their full time working in the New Look Barber Shop for

the amount charged to customers

all the fifteen (15) years they have worked until April 15, 1995;

...and if there was, they are not entitled to separation pay due to
serious business losses

(4) that some have worked with respondents as early as in the

1960s;
(5)

that

petitioner

Patricia

Nas

was

instructed

by

the

respondents to watch the other six (6) petitioners in their daily task

1] P10,000.00 as penalty for non-compliance with procedural

Respondent company was clothed with the power to dismiss any or

process

all of them for just and valid cause.

2] P10,000.00 as moral damages

Petitioners were unarguably performing work necessary and

3] Refund of P1.00 per day paid to the sweeper

desirable in the business of the respondent company.

4] Salary differentials for petitioner Nas; attorneys fees

Issue 2: W/N Lao Enteng Company experienced serious

business losses YES, as found by the LA

The seven petitioners are employees of the private respondent

company and Article 283 mandates the:
1] grant of separation pay in case of closure or cessation of
employers business which is equivalent to one (1) month pay for
every year of service
2] entitled to the protection of minimum wage statutes
- hence, the separation pay due them may be computed on the
basis of the minimum wage prevailing at the time their services
were terminated by the respondent company
3] 13th month pay
- The Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of the 13th
Month Pay Law states that "all rank and file employees are now
entitled to a 13th month pay regardless of the amount of basic
salary that they receive in a month.
- Such employees are entitled to the benefit regardless of their
designation or employment status, and irrespective of the method
by which their wages are paid, provided that they have worked for
at least one (1) month during a calendar year" and so all the seven
(7) petitioners who were not paid their 13th month pay must be
paid accordingly
Anent the other claims of the petitioners, we find them
without basis: