FACTS:

PSI, together with Dr. Miguel Ampil (Dr. Am In May 1994, ABS-CBN signed
an agreement with the Mel and Jay Management and Development Corporation
(MJMDC). ABS-CBN was represented by its corporate officers while MJMDC was
represented by Sonza, as President and general manager, and Tiangco as its EVP and
treasurer. Referred to in the agreement as agent, MJMDC agreed to provide Sonzas
services exclusively to ABS-CBN as talent for radio and television. ABS-CBN agreed to
pay Sonza a monthly talent fee of P310, 000 for the first year and P317, 000 for the
second and third year.
On April 1996, Sonza wrote a letter to ABS-CBN's President, Eugenio Lopez III, where
he irrevocably resigned in view of the recent events concerning his program and career.
The acts of the station are violative of the Agreement and said letter will serve as notice
of rescission of said contract. The letter also contained the waiver and renunciation for
recovery of the remaining amount stipulated but reserves the right to seek recovery of
the other benefits under said Agreement.
After the said letter, Sonza filed with the Department of Labor and Employment a
complaint alleging that ABS-CBN did not pay his salaries, separation pay, service
incentive pay,13th month pay, signing bonus, travel allowance and amounts under the
Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP). ABS-CBN contended that no employeeemployer relationship existed between the parties. However, ABS-CBN continued to
remit Sonzas monthly talent fees but opened another account for the same purpose.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and found that there is no employeeemployer relationship. The LA ruled that he is not an employee by reason of his
peculiar skill and talent as a TV host and a radio broadcaster. Unlike an ordinary
employee, he was free to perform his services in accordance with his own style. NLRC
and CA affirmed the LA. Should there be any complaint, it does not arise from an
employer-employee relationship but from a breach of contract.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was employer-employee relationship between the parties.
HELD:
There is no employer-employee relationship between Sonza and ABS-CBN. Petition
denied. Judgment decision affirmed.
Case law has consistently held that the elements of an employee-employer relationship
are selection and engagement of the employee, the payment of wages, the power of
dismissal and the employers power to control the employee on the means and
methods by which the work is accomplished. The last element, the so-called "control
test", is the most important element.

A. Selection and Engagement of Employee

ABS-CBN engaged SONZAs services to co-host its television and radio programs
because of SONZAs peculiar skills, talent and celebrity status. SONZA contends that
the discretion used by respondent in specifically selecting and hiring complainant over
other broadcasters of possibly similar experience and qualification as complainant
belies respondents claim of independent contractorship.
However, independent contractors often present themselves to possess unique skills,
expertise or talent to distinguish them from ordinary employees. The specific selection
and hiring of SONZA, because of his unique skills, talent and celebrity status not
possessed by ordinary employees, is a circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of
an independent contractual relationship. If SONZA did not possess such unique skills,
talent and celebrity status, ABS-CBN would not have entered into the Agreement with
SONZA but would have hired him through its personnel department just like any other
employee.

B. Payment of Wages
ABS-CBN directly paid SONZA his monthly talent fees with no part of his fees going to
MJMDC. SONZA asserts that this mode of fee payment shows that he was an
employee of ABS-CBN. SONZA also points out that ABS-CBN granted him benefits
and privileges which he would not have enjoyed if he were truly the subject of a valid
job contract.
All the talent fees and benefits paid to SONZA were the result of negotiations that led to
the Agreement. If SONZA were ABS-CBNs employee, there would be no need for the
parties to stipulate on benefits such as SSS, Medicare, x x x and 13th month pay
which the law automatically incorporates into every employer-employee contract.
Whatever benefits SONZA enjoyed arose from contract and not because of an
employer-employee relationship. In addition, SONZAs talent fees are so huge and out
of the ordinary that they indicate more an independent contractual relationship rather
than an employer-employee relationship. ABS-CBN agreed to pay SONZA such huge
talent fees precisely because of SONZAs unique skills, talent and celebrity status not
possessed by ordinary employees.
C. Power of Dismissal
For violation of any provision of the Agreement, either party may terminate their
relationship. SONZA failed to show that ABS-CBN could terminate his services on
grounds other than breach of contract, such as retrenchment to prevent losses as
provided under labor laws.
During the life of the Agreement, ABS-CBN agreed to pay SONZAs talent fees as long
as AGENT and Jay Sonza shall faithfully and completely perform each condition of this
Agreement. Even if it suffered severe business losses, ABS-CBN could not retrench
SONZA because ABS-CBN remained obligated to pay SONZAs talent fees during the

life of the Agreement. This circumstance indicates an independent contractual

relationship between SONZA and ABS-CBN.

an independent contractor can validly provide his services exclusively to the hiring
party. In the broadcast industry, exclusivity is not necessarily the same as control.

SONZA admits that even after ABS-CBN ceased broadcasting his programs, ABS-CBN
still paid him his talent fees. Plainly, ABS-CBN adhered to its undertaking in the
Agreement to continue paying SONZAs talent fees during the remaining life of the
Agreement even if ABS-CBN cancelled SONZAs programs through no fault of SONZA.

The hiring of exclusive talents is a widespread and accepted practice in the

entertainment industry. This practice is not designed to control the means and methods
of work of the talent, but simply to protect the investment of the broadcast station. The
broadcast station normally spends substantial amounts of money, time and effort in
building up its talents as well as the programs they appear in and thus expects that said
talents remain exclusive with the station for a commensurate period of time. Normally,
a much higher fee is paid to talents who agree to work exclusively for a particular radio
or television station. In short, the huge talent fees partially compensates for exclusivity,
as in the present case.

D. Power of Control
First, SONZA contends that ABS-CBN exercised control over the means and methods
of his work. SONZAs argument is misplaced. ABS-CBN engaged SONZAs services
specifically to co-host the Mel & Jay programs. ABS-CBN did not assign any other
work to SONZA. To perform his work, SONZA only needed his skills and talent. How
SONZA delivered his lines, appeared on television, and sounded on radio were outside
ABS-CBNs control. SONZA did not have to render eight hours of work per day. The
Agreement required SONZA to attend only rehearsals and tapings of the shows, as well
as pre- and post-production staff meetings. ABS-CBN could not dictate the contents of
SONZAs script. However, the Agreement prohibited SONZA from criticizing in his
shows ABS-CBN or its interests. The clear implication is that SONZA had a free hand
on what to say or discuss in his shows provided he did not attack ABS-CBN or its
interests.
Second, SONZA urges us to rule that he was ABS-CBNs employee because ABS-CBN
subjected him to its rules and standards of performance. SONZA claims that this
indicates ABS-CBNs control not only [over] his manner of work but also the quality of
his work." The Agreement stipulates that SONZA shall abide with the rules and
standards of performance covering talents of ABS-CBN. The Agreement does not
require SONZA to comply with the rules and standards of performance prescribed for
employees of ABS-CBN. The code of conduct imposed on SONZA under the
Agreement refers to the Television and Radio Code of the Kapisanan ng mga
Broadcaster sa Pilipinas (KBP), which has been adopted by the COMPANY (ABS-CBN)
as its Code of Ethics. The KBP code applies to broadcasters, not to employees of
radio and television stations. Broadcasters are not necessarily employees of radio and
television stations. Clearly, the rules and standards of performance referred to in the
Agreement are those applicable to talents and not to employees of ABS-CBN.
In any event, not all rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party indicate that
the latter is an employee of the former. In this case, SONZA failed to show that these
rules controlled his performance. We find that these general rules are merely guidelines
towards the achievement of the mutually desired result, which are top-rating television
and radio programs that comply with standards of the industry.
Lastly, SONZA insists that the exclusivity clause in the Agreement is the most extreme
form of control which ABS-CBN exercised over him. This argument is futile. Being an
exclusive talent does not by itself mean that SONZA is an employee of ABS-CBN. Even

pil) and Dr. Juan Fuentes (Dr. Fuentes), was impleaded by Enrique
Agana and Natividad Agana (later substituted by her heirs), in a
complaint10 for damages filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Quezon City, Branch 96, for the injuries suffered by Natividad when Dr.
Ampil and Dr. Fuentes neglected to remove from her body two gauzes
which were used in the surgery they performed on her on April 11, 1984
at the Medical City General Hospital. PSI was impleaded as owner,
operator and manager of the hospital.

In a decision dated March 17, 1993, the RTC held PSI solidarily liable
with Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes for damages. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals (CA), absolved Dr. Fuentes but affirmed the liability of Dr.
Ampil and PSI, subject to the right of PSI to claim reimbursement from
Dr. Ampil.

On petition for review, this Court, in its January 31, 2007 decision,
affirmed the CA decision. PSI filed a motion for reconsideration16 but
the Court denied it in a resolution dated February 11, 2008.

With prior leave of court,1 petitioner Professional Services, Inc. (PSI)

filed a second motion for reconsideration urging referral thereof to the
Court en banc and seeking modification of the decision dated January
31, 2007 and resolution dated February 11, 2008 which affirmed its
vicarious and direct liability for damages to respondents Enrique Agana
and the heirs of Natividad Agana (Aganas).

After gathering its thoughts on the issues, this Court holds that PSI is
liable to the Aganas, not under the principle of respondeat superior for
lack of evidence of an employment relationship with Dr. Ampil but
under the principle of ostensible agency for the negligence of Dr. Ampil
and, pro hac vice, under the principle of corporate negligence for its
failure to perform its duties as a hospital.

ISSUE:

While in theory a hospital as a juridical entity cannot practice medicine,

in reality it utilizes doctors, surgeons and medical practitioners in the
conduct of its business of facilitating medical and surgical treatment.

Whether a hospital may be held liable for the negligence of physiciansconsultants allowed to practice in its premises.

What is the relationship that governs hospitals and its consultants.

HELD:

PSI cannot be liable under doctrine of corporate negligence since the

proximate cause of Mrs. Agana's injury was the negligence of Dr.
Ampil, which is an element of the principle of corporate negligence.

Within that reality, three legal relationships crisscross: (1) between the
hospital and the doctor practicing within its premises; (2) between the
hospital and the patient being treated or examined within its premises
and (3) between the patient and the doctor. The exact nature of each
relationship determines the basis and extent of the liability of the
hospital for the negligence of the doctor.

Where an employment relationship exists, the hospital may be held

vicariously liable under Article 217634 in relation to Article 218035 of
the Civil Code or the principle of respondeat superior. Even when no
employment relationship exists but it is shown that the hospital holds
out to the patient that the doctor is its agent, the hospital may still be
vicariously liable under Article 2176 in relation to Article 143136 and
Article 186937 of the Civil Code or the principle of apparent
authority.38 Moreover, regardless of its relationship with the doctor, the
hospital may be held directly liable to the patient for its own negligence
or failure to follow established standard of conduct to which it should
conform as a corporation.

In fine, as there was no dispute over the RTC finding that PSI and Dr.
Ampil had no employer-employee relationship, such finding became
final and conclusive even to this Court.

Nonetheless, to allay the anxiety of the intervenors, the Court holds that,
in this particular instance, the concurrent finding of the RTC and the CA
that PSI was not the employer of Dr. Ampil is correct. Control as a
determinative factor in testing the employer-employee relationship
between doctor and hospital under which the hospital could be held
vicariously liable to a patient in medical negligence cases is a requisite
fact to be established by preponderance of evidence. Here, there was
insufficient evidence that PSI exercised the power of control or wielded
such power over the means and the details of the specific process by
which Dr. Ampil applied his skills in the treatment of Natividad.
Consequently, PSI cannot be held vicariously liable for the negligence
of Dr. Ampil under the principle of respondeat superior.

There is, however, ample evidence that the hospital (PSI) held out to the
patient (Natividad) that the doctor (Dr. Ampil) was its agent. Present are
the two factors that determine apparent authority: first, the hospital's
implied manifestation to the patient which led the latter to conclude that
the doctor was the hospital's agent; and second, the patients reliance
upon the conduct of the hospital and the doctor, consistent with ordinary
care and prudence.

This Court must therefore maintain the ruling that PSI is vicariously
liable for the negligence of Dr. Ampil as its ostensible agent.

The Court notes that PSI made the following admission in its Motion for
Reconsideration:

51. Clearly, not being an agent or employee of petitioner PSI, PSI [sic]
is not liable for Dr. Ampil's acts during the operation. Considering
further that Dr. Ampil was personally engaged as a doctor by Mrs.
Agana, it is incumbent upon Dr. Ampil, as "Captain of the Ship", and as
the Agana's doctor to advise her on what to do with her situation vis-avis the two missing gauzes. In addition to noting the missing gauzes,
regular check-ups were made and no signs of complications were
exhibited during her stay at the hospital, which could have alerted
petitioner PSI's hospital to render and provide post-operation services to
and tread on Dr. Ampil's role as the doctor of Mrs. Agana. The absence
of negligence of PSI from the patient's admission up to her discharge is
borne by the finding of facts in this case. Likewise evident therefrom is
the absence of any complaint from Mrs. Agana after her discharge from
the hospital which had she brought to the hospital's attention, could have
alerted petitioner PSI to act accordingly and bring the matter to Dr.
Ampil's attention. But this was not the case. Ms. Agana complained
ONLY to Drs. Ampil and Fuentes, not the hospital. How then could PSI
possibly do something to fix the negligence committed by Dr. Ampil
when it was not informed about it at all. (emphasis supplied)

The significance of the foregoing statements is critical.

First, they constitute judicial admission by PSI that while it had no

power to control the means or method by which Dr. Ampil conducted

the surgery on Natividad Agana, it had the power to review or cause the
review of what may have irregularly transpired within its walls strictly
for the purpose of determining whether some form of negligence may
have attended any procedure done inside its premises, with the ultimate
end of protecting its patients.

Second, it is a judicial admission that, by virtue of the nature of its

business as well as its prominence in the hospital industry, it assumed a
duty to "tread on" the "captain of the ship" role of any doctor rendering
services within its premises for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the
patients availing themselves of its services and facilities.

Third, by such admission, PSI defined the standards of its corporate

conduct under the circumstances of this case, specifically: (a) that it had
a corporate duty to Natividad even after her operation to ensure her
safety as a patient; (b) that its corporate duty was not limited to having
its nursing staff note or record the two missing gauzes and (c) that its
corporate duty extended to determining Dr. Ampil's role in it, bringing
the matter to his attention, and correcting his negligence.

And finally, by such admission, PSI barred itself from arguing in its
second motion for reconsideration that the concept of corporate
responsibility was not yet in existence at the time Natividad underwent
treatment; and that if it had any corporate responsibility, the same was
limited to reporting the missing gauzes and did not include "taking an
active step in fixing the negligence committed." An admission made in
the pleading cannot be controverted by the party making such admission
and is conclusive as to him, and all proofs submitted by him contrary

thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether or not

objection is interposed by a party.

To begin with, PSI could not simply wave off the problem and
nonchalantly delegate to Dr. Ampil the duty to review what transpired
during the operation. The purpose of such review would have been to
pinpoint when, how and by whom two surgical gauzes were mislaid so
that necessary remedial measures could be taken to avert any jeopardy
to Natividads recovery. Certainly, PSI could not have expected that
purpose to be achieved by merely hoping that the person likely to have
mislaid the gauzes might be able to retrace his own steps. By its own
standard of corporate conduct, PSI's duty to initiate the review was nondelegable.

While Dr. Ampil may have had the primary responsibility of notifying
Natividad about the missing gauzes, PSI imposed upon itself the
separate and independent responsibility of initiating the inquiry into the
missing gauzes. The purpose of the first would have been to apprise
Natividad of what transpired during her surgery, while the purpose of
the second would have been to pinpoint any lapse in procedure that led
to the gauze count discrepancy, so as to prevent a recurrence thereof and
to determine corrective measures that would ensure the safety of
Natividad. That Dr. Ampil negligently failed to notify Natividad did not
release PSI from its self-imposed separate responsibility.

Corollary to its non-delegable undertaking to review potential incidents

of negligence committed within its premises, PSI had the duty to take
notice of medical records prepared by its own staff and submitted to its
custody, especially when these bear earmarks of a surgery gone awry.

Thus, the record taken during the operation of Natividad which reported
a gauze count discrepancy should have given PSI sufficient reason to
initiate a review. It should not have waited for Natividad to complain.

Professional Services, Inc. is ORDERED pro hac vice to pay Natividad

(substituted by her children Marcelino Agana III, Enrique Agana, Jr.,
Emma Agana-Andaya, Jesus Agana and Raymund Agana) and Enrique
Agana the total amount of P15 million, subject to 12% p.a. interest from
the finality of this resolution to full satisfaction.

As it happened, PSI took no heed of the record of operation and

consequently did not initiate a review of what transpired during
Natividads operation. Rather, it shirked its responsibility and passed it
on to others to Dr. Ampil whom it expected to inform Natividad, and
to Natividad herself to complain before it took any meaningful step. By
its inaction, therefore, PSI failed its own standard of hospital care. It
committed corporate negligence.

Respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company

(PLDT) and the Security and Safety Corporation of the Philippines
(SSCP) entered into a Security Services Agreement (Agreement)
whereby SSCP would provide armed security guards to PLDT to be
assigned to its various offices.

It should be borne in mind that the corporate negligence ascribed to PSI

is different from the medical negligence attributed to Dr. Ampil. The
duties of the hospital are distinct from those of the doctor-consultant
practicing within its premises in relation to the patient; hence, the failure
of PSI to fulfill its duties as a hospital corporation gave rise to a direct
liability to the Aganas distinct from that of Dr. Ampil.

All this notwithstanding, we make it clear that PSIs hospital liability

based on ostensible agency and corporate negligence applies only to this
case, pro hac vice. It is not intended to set a precedent and should not
serve as a basis to hold hospitals liable for every form of negligence of
their doctors-consultants under any and all circumstances. The ruling is
unique to this case, for the liability of PSI arose from an implied agency
with Dr. Ampil and an admitted corporate duty to Natividad.

Pursuant to such agreement, petitioners Raul Locsin and Eddie

Tomaquin, among other security guards, were posted at a PLDT office.
Respondent issued a Letter terminating the Agreement. Despite the
termination of the Agreement, however, petitioners continued to secure
the premises of their assigned office. They were allegedly directed to
remain at their post by representatives of respondent. Then, petitioners'
services were terminated.
Thus, petitioners filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for
illegal dismissal and recovery of money claims such as overtime pay,
holiday pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day, service incentive
leave pay, Emergency Cost of Living Allowance, and moral and
exemplary damages against PLDT.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision finding PLDT liable for illegal
dismissal. The NLRC which rendered a Resolution affirming in toto the
Arbiter's Decision.
The CA rendered the assailed decision granting PLDT's petition and
dismissing petitioners' complaint.
Issue:

Whether petitioners became employees of respondent after the

Agreement between SSCP and respondent was terminated.CTDAaE
Ruling:
An employer-employee relationship existed between the parties.
Rule 131, Section 3 (y) of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 3.Disputable presumptions. The following presumptions are
satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by
other evidence:
xxx xxx xxx

(y)That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature

and the ordinary habits of life.
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 agency's
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.
Petitioners remained at their post under the instructions of respondent
and respondent dictated upon petitioners that the latter perform their

regular duties to secure the premises during operating hours. This is

sufficient to establish the existence of an employer-employee
relationship.) Locsin et. al. v. PLDT, October 2, 2009Jumuad was found

to have willfully breached her duties as to be unworthy of the trust and

confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a managerial employee; she
executed management policies and had the power to discipline the
employees of KFC branches in her area. She recommended actions on
employees to the head office. According to the Supreme Court, based
on established facts, the mere existence of the grounds for the loss of
trust and confidence justifies petitioners dismissal. In the present case,
the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that there were anomalies
committed in the KFC branches managed by Jumuad. On the principle
of respondeat superior or command responsibility alone, Jumuad
may be held liable for negligence in the performance of her managerial
duties. She may not have been directly involved in causing the cash
shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her involvement in not performing her duty
monitoring and supporting the day to day operations of the branches
and ensure that all the facilities and equipment at the restaurant were
properly maintained and serviced, could have prevented the whole
debacle from occurring.
Jumuad was found to have willfully breached her duties as to be
unworthy of the trust and confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a
managerial employee; she executed management policies and had the
power to discipline the employees of KFC branches in her area. She
recommended actions on employees to the head office. According to
the Supreme Court, based on established facts, the mere existence of
the grounds for the loss of trust and confidence justifies petitioners
dismissal. In the present case, the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that
there were anomalies committed in the KFC branches managed by
Jumuad. On the principle of respondeat superior or command

responsibility alone, Jumuad may be held liable for negligence in the

performance of her managerial duties. She may not have been directly
involved in causing the cash shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her
involvement in not performing her duty monitoring and supporting the
day to day operations of the branches and ensure that all the facilities
and equipment at the restaurant were properly maintained and
serviced, could have prevented the whole debacle from occurring.

) Locsin et. al. v. PLDT, October 2, 2009Jumuad was found to have

willfully breached her duties as to be unworthy of the trust and
confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a managerial employee; she
executed management policies and had the power to discipline the
employees of KFC branches in her area. She recommended actions on
employees to the head office. According to the Supreme Court, based
on established facts, the mere existence of the grounds for the loss of
trust and confidence justifies petitioners dismissal. In the present case,
the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that there were anomalies
committed in the KFC branches managed by Jumuad. On the principle
of respondeat superior or command responsibility alone, Jumuad
may be held liable for negligence in the performance of her managerial
duties. She may not have been directly involved in causing the cash
shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her involvement in not performing her duty
monitoring and supporting the day to day operations of the branches
and ensure that all the facilities and equipment at the restaurant were
properly maintained and serviced, could have prevented the whole
debacle from occurring.
Jumuad was found to have willfully breached her duties as to be
unworthy of the trust and confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a
managerial employee; she executed management policies and had the

power to discipline the employees of KFC branches in her area. She

recommended actions on employees to the head office. According to
the Supreme Court, based on established facts, the mere existence of
the grounds for the loss of trust and confidence justifies petitioners
dismissal. In the present case, the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that
there were anomalies committed in the KFC branches managed by
Jumuad. On the principle of respondeat superior or command
responsibility alone, Jumuad may be held liable for negligence in the
performance of her managerial duties. She may not have been directly
involved in causing the cash shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her
involvement in not performing her duty monitoring and supporting the
day to day operations of the branches and ensure that all the facilities
and equipment at the restaurant were properly maintained and
serviced, could have prevented the whole debacle from occurring.

) Locsin et. al. v. PLDT, October 2, 2009Jumuad was found to have

willfully breached her duties as to be unworthy of the trust and

confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a managerial employee; she
executed management policies and had the power to discipline the
employees of KFC branches in her area. She recommended actions on
employees to the head office. According to the Supreme Court, based
on established facts, the mere existence of the grounds for the loss of
trust and confidence justifies petitioners dismissal. In the present case,
the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that there were anomalies
committed in the KFC branches managed by Jumuad. On the principle
of respondeat superior or command responsibility alone, Jumuad
may be held liable for negligence in the performance of her managerial
duties. She may not have been directly involved in causing the cash
shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her involvement in not performing her duty
monitoring and supporting the day to day operations of the branches

and ensure that all the facilities and equipment at the restaurant were
properly maintained and serviced, could have prevented the whole
debacle from occurring.
Jumuad was found to have willfully breached her duties as to be
unworthy of the trust and confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a
managerial employee; she executed management policies and had the
power to discipline the employees of KFC branches in her area. She
recommended actions on employees to the head office. According to
the Supreme Court, based on established facts, the mere existence of
the grounds for the loss of trust and confidence justifies petitioners
dismissal. In the present case, the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that
there were anomalies committed in the KFC branches managed by
Jumuad. On the principle of respondeat superior or command
responsibility alone, Jumuad may be held liable for negligence in the
performance of her managerial duties. She may not have been directly
involved in causing the cash shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her
involvement in not performing her duty monitoring and supporting the
day to day operations of the branches and ensure that all the facilities
and equipment at the restaurant were properly maintained and
serviced, could have prevented the whole debacle from occurring.

) Locsin et. al. v. PLDT, October 2, 2009Jumuad was found to have

willfully breached her duties as to be unworthy of the trust and

confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a managerial employee; she
executed management policies and had the power to discipline the
employees of KFC branches in her area. She recommended actions on
employees to the head office. According to the Supreme Court, based
on established facts, the mere existence of the grounds for the loss of
trust and confidence justifies petitioners dismissal. In the present case,

the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that there were anomalies

committed in the KFC branches managed by Jumuad. On the principle
of respondeat superior or command responsibility alone, Jumuad
may be held liable for negligence in the performance of her managerial
duties. She may not have been directly involved in causing the cash
shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her involvement in not performing her duty
monitoring and supporting the day to day operations of the branches
and ensure that all the facilities and equipment at the restaurant were
properly maintained and serviced, could have prevented the whole
debacle from occurring.
Jumuad was found to have willfully breached her duties as to be
unworthy of the trust and confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a
managerial employee; she executed management policies and had the
power to discipline the employees of KFC branches in her area. She
recommended actions on employees to the head office. According to
the Supreme Court, based on established facts, the mere existence of
the grounds for the loss of trust and confidence justifies petitioners
dismissal. In the present case, the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that
there were anomalies committed in the KFC branches managed by
Jumuad. On the principle of respondeat superior or command
responsibility alone, Jumuad may be held liable for negligence in the
performance of her managerial duties. She may not have been directly
involved in causing the cash shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her
involvement in not performing her duty monitoring and supporting the
day to day operations of the branches and ensure that all the facilities
and equipment at the restaurant were properly maintained and
serviced, could have prevented the whole debacle from occurring.

) Locsin et. al. v. PLDT, October 2, 2009Jumuad was found to have

willfully breached her duties as to be unworthy of the trust and

confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a managerial employee; she
executed management policies and had the power to discipline the
employees of KFC branches in her area. She recommended actions on
employees to the head office. According to the Supreme Court, based
on established facts, the mere existence of the grounds for the loss of
trust and confidence justifies petitioners dismissal. In the present case,
the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that there were anomalies
committed in the KFC branches managed by Jumuad. On the principle
of respondeat superior or command responsibility alone, Jumuad
may be held liable for negligence in the performance of her managerial
duties. She may not have been directly involved in causing the cash
shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her involvement in not performing her duty
monitoring and supporting the day to day operations of the branches
and ensure that all the facilities and equipment at the restaurant were
properly maintained and serviced, could have prevented the whole
debacle from occurring.
Jumuad was found to have willfully breached her duties as to be
unworthy of the trust and confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a
managerial employee; she executed management policies and had the
power to discipline the employees of KFC branches in her area. She
recommended actions on employees to the head office. According to
the Supreme Court, based on established facts, the mere existence of
the grounds for the loss of trust and confidence justifies petitioners
dismissal. In the present case, the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that
there were anomalies committed in the KFC branches managed by
Jumuad. On the principle of respondeat superior or command
responsibility alone, Jumuad may be held liable for negligence in the
performance of her managerial duties. She may not have been directly

involved in causing the cash shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her

involvement in not performing her duty monitoring and supporting the
day to day operations of the branches and ensure that all the facilities
and equipment at the restaurant were properly maintained and
serviced, could have prevented the whole debacle from occurring.

) Locsin et. al. v. PLDT, October 2, 2009Jumuad was found to have

willfully breached her duties as to be unworthy of the trust and
confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a managerial employee; she
executed management policies and had the power to discipline the
employees of KFC branches in her area. She recommended actions on
employees to the head office. According to the Supreme Court, based
on established facts, the mere existence of the grounds for the loss of
trust and confidence justifies petitioners dismissal. In the present case,
the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that there were anomalies
committed in the KFC branches managed by Jumuad. On the principle
of respondeat superior or command responsibility alone, Jumuad
may be held liable for negligence in the performance of her managerial
duties. She may not have been directly involved in causing the cash
shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her involvement in not performing her duty
monitoring and supporting the day to day operations of the branches
and ensure that all the facilities and equipment at the restaurant were
properly maintained and serviced, could have prevented the whole
debacle from occurring.
Jumuad was found to have willfully breached her duties as to be
unworthy of the trust and confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a
managerial employee; she executed management policies and had the
power to discipline the employees of KFC branches in her area. She
recommended actions on employees to the head office. According to

the Supreme Court, based on established facts, the mere existence of

the grounds for the loss of trust and confidence justifies petitioners
dismissal. In the present case, the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that
there were anomalies committed in the KFC branches managed by
Jumuad. On the principle of respondeat superior or command
responsibility alone, Jumuad may be held liable for negligence in the
performance of her managerial duties. She may not have been directly
involved in causing the cash shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her
involvement in not performing her duty monitoring and supporting the
day to day operations of the branches and ensure that all the facilities
and equipment at the restaurant were properly maintained and
serviced, could have prevented the whole debacle from occurring.

) Locsin et. al. v. PLDT, October 2, 2009Jumuad was found to have

willfully breached her duties as to be unworthy of the trust and

confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a managerial employee; she
executed management policies and had the power to discipline the
employees of KFC branches in her area. She recommended actions on
employees to the head office. According to the Supreme Court, based
on established facts, the mere existence of the grounds for the loss of
trust and confidence justifies petitioners dismissal. In the present case,
the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that there were anomalies
committed in the KFC branches managed by Jumuad. On the principle
of respondeat superior or command responsibility alone, Jumuad
may be held liable for negligence in the performance of her managerial
duties. She may not have been directly involved in causing the cash
shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her involvement in not performing her duty
monitoring and supporting the day to day operations of the branches
and ensure that all the facilities and equipment at the restaurant were

properly maintained and serviced, could have prevented the whole

debacle from occurring.
Jumuad was found to have willfully breached her duties as to be
unworthy of the trust and confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a
managerial employee; she executed management policies and had the
power to discipline the employees of KFC branches in her area. She
recommended actions on employees to the head office. According to
the Supreme Court, based on established facts, the mere existence of
the grounds for the loss of trust and confidence justifies petitioners
dismissal. In the present case, the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that
there were anomalies committed in the KFC branches managed by
Jumuad. On the principle of respondeat superior or command
responsibility alone, Jumuad may be held liable for negligence in the
performance of her managerial duties. She may not have been directly
involved in causing the cash shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her
involvement in not performing her duty monitoring and supporting the
day to day operations of the branches and ensure that all the facilities
and equipment at the restaurant were properly maintained and
serviced, could have prevented the whole debacle from occurring.

) Locsin et. al. v. PLDT, October 2, 2009Jumuad was found to have

willfully breached her duties as to be unworthy of the trust and
confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a managerial employee; she
executed management policies and had the power to discipline the
employees of KFC branches in her area. She recommended actions on
employees to the head office. According to the Supreme Court, based
on established facts, the mere existence of the grounds for the loss of
trust and confidence justifies petitioners dismissal. In the present case,
the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that there were anomalies

committed in the KFC branches managed by Jumuad. On the principle

of respondeat superior or command responsibility alone, Jumuad
may be held liable for negligence in the performance of her managerial
duties. She may not have been directly involved in causing the cash
shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her involvement in not performing her duty
monitoring and supporting the day to day operations of the branches
and ensure that all the facilities and equipment at the restaurant were
properly maintained and serviced, could have prevented the whole
debacle from occurring.
Jumuad was found to have willfully breached her duties as to be
unworthy of the trust and confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a
managerial employee; she executed management policies and had the
power to discipline the employees of KFC branches in her area. She
recommended actions on employees to the head office. According to
the Supreme Court, based on established facts, the mere existence of
the grounds for the loss of trust and confidence justifies petitioners
dismissal. In the present case, the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that
there were anomalies committed in the KFC branches managed by
Jumuad. On the principle of respondeat superior or command
responsibility alone, Jumuad may be held liable for negligence in the
performance of her managerial duties. She may not have been directly
involved in causing the cash shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her
involvement in not performing her duty monitoring and supporting the
day to day operations of the branches and ensure that all the facilities
and equipment at the restaurant were properly maintained and
serviced, could have prevented the whole debacle from occurring.

) Locsin et. al. v. PLDT, October 2, 2009Jumuad was found to have

willfully breached her duties as to be unworthy of the trust and

confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a managerial employee; she

executed management policies and had the power to discipline the
employees of KFC branches in her area. She recommended actions on
employees to the head office. According to the Supreme Court, based
on established facts, the mere existence of the grounds for the loss of
trust and confidence justifies petitioners dismissal. In the present case,
the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that there were anomalies
committed in the KFC branches managed by Jumuad. On the principle
of respondeat superior or command responsibility alone, Jumuad
may be held liable for negligence in the performance of her managerial
duties. She may not have been directly involved in causing the cash
shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her involvement in not performing her duty
monitoring and supporting the day to day operations of the branches
and ensure that all the facilities and equipment at the restaurant were
properly maintained and serviced, could have prevented the whole
debacle from occurring.
Jumuad was found to have willfully breached her duties as to be
unworthy of the trust and confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a
managerial employee; she executed management policies and had the
power to discipline the employees of KFC branches in her area. She
recommended actions on employees to the head office. According to
the Supreme Court, based on established facts, the mere existence of
the grounds for the loss of trust and confidence justifies petitioners
dismissal. In the present case, the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that
there were anomalies committed in the KFC branches managed by
Jumuad. On the principle of respondeat superior or command
responsibility alone, Jumuad may be held liable for negligence in the
performance of her managerial duties. She may not have been directly
involved in causing the cash shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her
involvement in not performing her duty monitoring and supporting the

day to day operations of the branches and ensure that all the facilities
and equipment at the restaurant were properly maintained and
serviced, could have prevented the whole debacle from occurring.

) Locsin et. al. v. PLDT, October 2, 2009Jumuad was found to have

willfully breached her duties as to be unworthy of the trust and
confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a managerial employee; she
executed management policies and had the power to discipline the
employees of KFC branches in her area. She recommended actions on
employees to the head office. According to the Supreme Court, based
on established facts, the mere existence of the grounds for the loss of
trust and confidence justifies petitioners dismissal. In the present case,
the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that there were anomalies
committed in the KFC branches managed by Jumuad. On the principle
of respondeat superior or command responsibility alone, Jumuad
may be held liable for negligence in the performance of her managerial
duties. She may not have been directly involved in causing the cash
shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her involvement in not performing her duty
monitoring and supporting the day to day operations of the branches
and ensure that all the facilities and equipment at the restaurant were
properly maintained and serviced, could have prevented the whole
debacle from occurring.
Jumuad was found to have willfully breached her duties as to be
unworthy of the trust and confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a
managerial employee; she executed management policies and had the
power to discipline the employees of KFC branches in her area. She
recommended actions on employees to the head office. According to
the Supreme Court, based on established facts, the mere existence of
the grounds for the loss of trust and confidence justifies petitioners

dismissal. In the present case, the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that
there were anomalies committed in the KFC branches managed by
Jumuad. On the principle of respondeat superior or command
responsibility alone, Jumuad may be held liable for negligence in the
performance of her managerial duties. She may not have been directly
involved in causing the cash shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her
involvement in not performing her duty monitoring and supporting the
day to day operations of the branches and ensure that all the facilities
and equipment at the restaurant were properly maintained and
serviced, could have prevented the whole debacle from occurring.

) Locsin et. al. v. PLDT, October 2, 2009Jumuad was found to have

willfully breached her duties as to be unworthy of the trust and

confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a managerial employee; she
executed management policies and had the power to discipline the
employees of KFC branches in her area. She recommended actions on
employees to the head office. According to the Supreme Court, based
on established facts, the mere existence of the grounds for the loss of
trust and confidence justifies petitioners dismissal. In the present case,
the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that there were anomalies
committed in the KFC branches managed by Jumuad. On the principle
of respondeat superior or command responsibility alone, Jumuad
may be held liable for negligence in the performance of her managerial
duties. She may not have been directly involved in causing the cash
shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her involvement in not performing her duty
monitoring and supporting the day to day operations of the branches
and ensure that all the facilities and equipment at the restaurant were
properly maintained and serviced, could have prevented the whole
debacle from occurring.

Jumuad was found to have willfully breached her duties as to be

unworthy of the trust and confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a
managerial employee; she executed management policies and had the
power to discipline the employees of KFC branches in her area. She
recommended actions on employees to the head office. According to
the Supreme Court, based on established facts, the mere existence of
the grounds for the loss of trust and confidence justifies petitioners
dismissal. In the present case, the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that
there were anomalies committed in the KFC branches managed by
Jumuad. On the principle of respondeat superior or command
responsibility alone, Jumuad may be held liable for negligence in the
performance of her managerial duties. She may not have been directly
involved in causing the cash shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her
involvement in not performing her duty monitoring and supporting the
day to day operations of the branches and ensure that all the facilities
and equipment at the restaurant were properly maintained and
serviced, could have prevented the whole debacle from occurring.

) Locsin et. al. v. PLDT, October 2, 2009Jumuad was found to have

willfully breached her duties as to be unworthy of the trust and
confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a managerial employee; she
executed management policies and had the power to discipline the
employees of KFC branches in her area. She recommended actions on
employees to the head office. According to the Supreme Court, based
on established facts, the mere existence of the grounds for the loss of
trust and confidence justifies petitioners dismissal. In the present case,
the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that there were anomalies
committed in the KFC branches managed by Jumuad. On the principle
of respondeat superior or command responsibility alone, Jumuad
may be held liable for negligence in the performance of her managerial

duties. She may not have been directly involved in causing the cash
shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her involvement in not performing her duty
monitoring and supporting the day to day operations of the branches
and ensure that all the facilities and equipment at the restaurant were
properly maintained and serviced, could have prevented the whole
debacle from occurring.
Jumuad was found to have willfully breached her duties as to be
unworthy of the trust and confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a
managerial employee; she executed management policies and had the
power to discipline the employees of KFC branches in her area. She
recommended actions on employees to the head office. According to
the Supreme Court, based on established facts, the mere existence of
the grounds for the loss of trust and confidence justifies petitioners
dismissal. In the present case, the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that
there were anomalies committed in the KFC branches managed by
Jumuad. On the principle of respondeat superior or command
responsibility alone, Jumuad may be held liable for negligence in the
performance of her managerial duties. She may not have been directly
involved in causing the cash shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her
involvement in not performing her duty monitoring and supporting the
day to day operations of the branches and ensure that all the facilities
and equipment at the restaurant were properly maintained and
serviced, could have prevented the whole debacle from occurring.

) Locsin et. al. v. PLDT, October 2, 2009Jumuad was found to have

willfully breached her duties as to be unworthy of the trust and
confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a managerial employee; she
executed management policies and had the power to discipline the
employees of KFC branches in her area. She recommended actions on

employees to the head office. According to the Supreme Court, based

on established facts, the mere existence of the grounds for the loss of
trust and confidence justifies petitioners dismissal. In the present case,
the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that there were anomalies
committed in the KFC branches managed by Jumuad. On the principle
of respondeat superior or command responsibility alone, Jumuad
may be held liable for negligence in the performance of her managerial
duties. She may not have been directly involved in causing the cash
shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her involvement in not performing her duty
monitoring and supporting the day to day operations of the branches
and ensure that all the facilities and equipment at the restaurant were
properly maintained and serviced, could have prevented the whole
debacle from occurring.
Jumuad was found to have willfully breached her duties as to be
unworthy of the trust and confidence of Hi-Flyer. First, Jumuad was a
managerial employee; she executed management policies and had the
power to discipline the employees of KFC branches in her area. She
recommended actions on employees to the head office. According to
the Supreme Court, based on established facts, the mere existence of
the grounds for the loss of trust and confidence justifies petitioners
dismissal. In the present case, the CERs reports of Hi-Flyer show that
there were anomalies committed in the KFC branches managed by
Jumuad. On the principle of respondeat superior or command
responsibility alone, Jumuad may be held liable for negligence in the
performance of her managerial duties. She may not have been directly
involved in causing the cash shortages in KFC-Bohol, but her
involvement in not performing her duty monitoring and supporting the
day to day operations of the branches and ensure that all the facilities
and equipment at the restaurant were properly maintained and
serviced, could have prevented the whole debacle from occurring.