Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
8. Fuente v. NLRC
There is no question that an employer may reduce its work force to prevent
losses. However, these losses must be serious, actual and real. Otherwise,
this ground for termination of employment would be susceptible to abuse by
scheming employers who might be merely feigning losses in their business
ventures in order to ease out employees.
We agree with the conclusion of the Labor Arbiter that the termination of the
services of petitioners was illegal as there was no valid retrenchment. This
Court firmly holds that measures should be strictly implemented to ensure
that such constitutional mandate on protection to labor is not rendered
meaningless by an erroneous interpretation of applicable laws.
9. Jamer v. NLRC
The cause of social justice is not served by upholding the interest of
petitioners in disregard of the right of private respondents. Social justice
ceases to be an effective instrument for the "equalization of the social and
economic forces" by the State when it is used to shield wrongdoing. While it
is true that compassion and human consideration should guide the
disposition of cases involving termination of employment since it affects
one's source or means of livelihood, it should not be overlooked that the
benefits accorded to labor do not include compelling an employer to retain
the services of an employee who has been shown to be a gross liability to
the employer. It should be made clear that when the law tilts the scale of
justice in favor of labor, it is but a recognition of the inherent economic
inequality between labor and management. The intent is to balance the scale
of justice; to put the two parties on relatively equal positions. There may be
cases where the circumstances warrant favoring labor over the interests of
management but never should the scale be so tilted if the result is an
injustice to the employer, Justicia remini regarda est (Justice is to be denied
to none).
10. Nitto Enterprises v. NLRC
The apprenticeship agreement between petitioner and private respondent
was executed on May 28, 1990 allegedly employing the latter as an
apprentice in the trade of "care maker/molder. However, the apprenticeship
Agreement was filed only on June 7, 1990. Notwithstanding the absence of
approval by the Department of Labor and Employment, the apprenticeship
agreement was enforced the day it was signed. The act of filing the proposed
apprenticeship program with the Department of Labor and Employment is a
preliminary step towardsits final approval and does not instantaneously give
rise to an employer-apprentice relationship. Nitto Enterprises did not comply
with the requirements of the law. It is mandated that apprenticeship
agreements entered into by the employer and apprentice shall be entered
only in accordance with the apprenticeship program duly approved by the
Minister of Labor and Employment. Thus, the apprenticeship agreement has
no force and effect; and Capili is considered to be a regular employee of the
company.
11. LVN v. Philippine Musicians Guild
Under the control test an employer-employee relationship exists where the
person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not
only the end to be achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in
reaching the end. The work of the musical director and musicians is a
functional and integral part of the enterprise performed at the same studio
substantially under the direction and control of the company.
The right of control of the film company over the musicians is shown (1) by
calling the musicians through 'call slips' in 'the name of the company; (2) by
arranging schedules in its studio for recording sessions; (3) by furnishing
transportation and meals to musicians; and (4) by supervising and directing
in detail, through the motion picture director, the performance of the
musicians before the camera, in order to suit the music they are playing to
the picture which is being flashed on the screen.
12. Rosario Brothers v. Ople
An independent contractor is the one who exercises independent
employment and contracts to do a piece of work according to his own
methods without being subjected to control of his employer except as to the
result of his work. In the case at bar, the selection and hiring of respondents
was done by petitioner through the master cutter. Respondents received
their weekly wages from petitioner on piece-work basis within the meaning
of the term wage under the Labor Code. Petitioner also had the power to
dismiss respondents, thus, the latters conduct was controlled by petitioner.
13. Manila Golf v. NLRC
In the very nature of things, caddies must submit to some supervision of
their conduct while enjoying the privilege of pursuing their occupation within
the premises and grounds of whatever club they do their work in without
having to observe any working hours, free to leave anytime they please, to
stay away for as long they like, without violating any right to work on their
part. A caddy is not required to exercise his occupation in the premises of
petitioner. He may work with any other golf club or he may seek employment
a caddy or otherwise with any entity or individual without restriction by
petitioner. There is no Em-Er relationship.
14. La Suerte v. Director of BLR
Dealership agreement at bar established an independent contractual
relationship not employment. Considering the terms and stipulations of the
dealership contracts which are clear and leave no doubt upon the intentions
of the parties,pursuant to the rule in interpretation of contracts, the literal
meaning of the stipulations shall control. The employees were free to enter
into the new status, to sign or not to sign the new agreement. 14 local union
members voluntarily executed the formal dealership agreements which
indicate the distribution and sale of La Suerte cigarettes and signifying that
they were acting as independent businessmen. In the dealership
agreements, the dealer purchases and sells the cigarettes manufactured by
the company under and for his own account.
15. Tabas vs. CMC
The record show that petitioners had been given an initial six month contract
renewed for another six months. Accordingly, under 281 of the code, they
had become regular employees of California and had acquired a secure
tenure. Hence they cannot be separated without due process of law. Hence
the court orders the reinstatement of the promodizer with full status of a
regular employees. And had Livi and California jointly and severally liable for
backwages etc.
persons who may be insured. None of these really invades the agents
contractual prerogative to adopt his own selling methods or to sell insurance
at his own time and convenience, hence cannot justifiable be said to
establish an employer-employee relationship between Basiao and the
company. The respondents limit themselves to pointing out that Basiaos
contract with the company bound him to observe and conform to such rules.
No showing that such rules were in fact promulgated which effectively
controlled or restricted his choice of methods of selling insurance. Therefore,
Basiao was not an employee of the petitioner, but a commission agent, an
independent contract whose claim for unpaid commissions should have been
litigated in an ordinary civil action.
17. Sonza v. ABS-CBN
There was no employer-employee relationship that existed, but that of an
independent contractor. 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.
As for the payment of the workers wages, the contention that the
independent contractors were paid a lump sum representing only the
salaries the workers where entitled to have no merit. The amount paid by
San Miguel to the contracting firm is no business expense or capital outlay of
the latter. What the contractor receives is a percentage from the total
earnings of all the workers plus an additional amount from the earnings of
each individual worker.
The power of dismissal by the employer was evident when the petitioners
had already been refused entry to the premises. It is apparent that the
closure of the warehouse was a ploy to get rid of the petitioners, who were
then agitating the company for reforms and benefits.
The inter-office memoranda submitted in evidence prove the companys
control over the workers. That San Miguel has the power to recommend
penalties or dismissal is the strongest indication of the companys right of
control over the workers as direct employer.
19. CMC v. NLRC
Where the claim to the principal relief sought is to be resolved not by
reference to the Labor Code or other labor relations statute or a collective
bargaining agreement but by the general civil law, the jurisdiction over the
dispute belongs to the regular courts of justice and not to the labor arbiter
and the NLRC but rather having recourse to our law on contracts.
20. Pepsi v. Galang
The case involving a complaint for damages for malicious prosecution file
with the RTC by the employees does not appear to have a reasonable causal
connection between the complaint and the relations of the parties as
employer and employees. No such relationship or any unfair labor practice is
asserted. What the employees are alleging is that petitioners acted with bad
faith when they filed the criminal complaint with the MTC said was intended
to harass the poor employees and dismissal affirmed by prosecutor for lack
of evidence to establish even a slightest probability that all respondents
have committed the crime imputed to them. This is a matter which the Labor
arbiter has no competence to resolve as the applicable law is the revised
penal code.
21. Medina v. Castro Bartolome
It is obvious from the complaint that the plaintiffs have not alleged any unfair
labor practice. Theirs is a simple action for damages for tortuous acts
allegedly committed by the defendants. Such being the case the governing
statute is the Civil code and not the labor code.
22. Philippine National Bank v. Cabansag
1. Labor arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising
from employer-employee relations including termination disputes involving
all workers, including OFWs. Here, Cabansag applied for and secured an OEC
from the POEA through the Philippine Embassy. The OEC authorized her
working status in a foreign country and entitled her to all benefits and
processes under our statutes. Although she may been a direct hire at the
commencement of her employment, she became an OFW who was covered
by Philippine labor laws and policies upon certification by the POEA. When
she was illegally terminated, she already possessed the POEA employment
certificate.
2. A migrant worker refers to a person who is to be engaged, is engaged or
has been engaged in a remunerated activity in a state of which he or she is
not a legal resident; to be used interchangeably with overseas Filipino
worker. Here, Cabansag was a Filipino, not a legal resident of Singapore, and
employed by petitioner in its branch office in Singapore. She is clearly an
OFW/migrant worker. Thus, she has the option where to file her Complaint for
illegal dismissal. She can either file at the Regional Arbitration Branch where
she resides or the RAB where the employer is situated. Thus, in filing her
Complaint before the RAB office in Quezon City, she has made a valid choice
of proper venue.
23. Urbanes v. Secretary of Labor
The present petition is dismissed and the complaint before the regional
director is also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action. While
the resolution of the issue involves the application of the labor laws,
reference to the labor code was only for the determination of the solidary
liability of the petitioner to the respondent where no employer-employee
relation exist. In the case at bar, even if petitioner filed the complaint on
behalf of the security guards, the relief sought has to do with the
enforcement of the contract between him and SSS which was deemed
amended by Wage Order. The controversy subject of the case at bar is thus
civil dispute, the proper forum for the resolution of which is the civil courts.
as sales rep is directly related to the business of RFC. Petitioner due to his
length of service, already attained the status of a regular employee, he is
entitled to security of tenure. Actual reinstatement.
30. SMC Employee Union v. Bersamira
A labor dispute as defined in Art. 212 (l) of the Labor Code includes any
controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment or the
association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
changing, or arranging the terms and conditions of employment regardless
of whether the disputable stand in the proximate relation of employer and
employee.
A labor dispute can nevertheless exist regardless of whether the disputants
stand in the proximate relationship relationship of employer and employee.
As defined by law the existence of a labor dispute is not negatived by the
fact that the plaintiffs and defendants do not stand in the proximate relations
of employer and employee.
A labor dispute does exist herein is evident. As the case is indisputably
linked with a labor dispute, jurisdiction belongs to the labor tribunals.
31. PT&T v. NLRC
Labor Code provisions governing the rights of women workers are found in
Art. 130-138 thereof. Article 130 involves the right against particular kinds of
night work while Art. 132 ensures the right of women to be provided with
facilities and standards which the Sec. of labor may establish to ensure their
health and safety. Art 136 explicitly prohibits discrimination merely by reason
of the marriage of a female employee. While it is true that the parties to a
contract may establish any agreements, terms and conditions that they may
deem convenient, the same should not be contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order, or public policy. Carried to its logical consequences, it
may even be said that petitioners policy against legitimate marital bonds
would encourage illicit or common law relations and subvert the sacrament
of marriage.
32. Biboso v. Victorias Milling
The employer may terminate the employment of teachers on probationary
status after their contracts have expired. In the case at bar, petitioners were
well aware all the that their tenure was for a limited duration. Upon its
termination, both parties were free to renew it or to let it lapse. It was the
than 6 months before they were given regular appointments. They had been
hired on various dates starting from 1984.
Articles 280-281 put an end to the pernicious practice of making permanent
casuals of our lowly employees by the simple expedient of extending to them
probationary appointments, ad infinitum. Thus a ceiling of 6 months is
provided. On the other hand, 280 supra, defined when an employment shall
be regular notwithstanding any written agreement to the contrary.
In the collective bargaining agreement, it only excludes three classed to
those performing managerial functions, temporary or probationary
employees, casuals and extras. Private respondents do not belong to any of
those as they had been regularized. There is no reason to deny them of the
benefits granted in the collective bargaining agreement.
39. De Leon v. NLRC
The primary standard therefore of determining regular employment is the
reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the
employee in relation t the usual business or trade of the employer. The test
is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business
or trade of the employer. The connection can be determined by considering
the nature of the work performed and its relation t the scheme of the
particular business or trade in its entirety.
In the case at bar, it was shown that during petitioners period of
employment the tasks assigned to him included not only painting of
company buildings but also the cleaning and oiling of machines even
operating a drilling machines and other odd jobs which lasted for more than
one year. By this fact he is a regular employee and considering that he was
rehired by the company through a labor agency to perform the same
activities that he used to do, his activities as a regular painter and
maintenance personnel still exist.
40. Kimberly Independent Union v. Drilon
While the actual regularization of these employees entails the mechanical
act of issuing regular appointment papers and compliance with such other
operating procedures as may be adopted by the employer, it is more in
keeping with the intent and spirit of the law to rule that the status of regular
employment attaches to the casual worker on the day immediately after the
end of his first year of service.
The law is explicit. As long as the employee has rendered at least one year of
service, he becomes a regular employee with respect to the activity in which
he is employed. The law does not provide the qualification that the employee
must first be issued a regular appointment or must first be formally declared
as such before he can acquire a regular status. Obviously, where the law
does not distinguish, no distinction should be drawn.
41. Ferrochrome Phils. v. NLRC
Under the law, an employment shall be deemed regular if the employee
performs activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business and
trade of the employer or if the employee has rendered at least one year of
service whether the service be continuous or broken. Applying these two
tests, we find that contrary to the suppositions of petitioner, Bartsch was a
regular employee of the latter.
The term consultant is merely more of a matter of nomenclature as he is
required under the contract to observe regular office hours . It therefore
precludes the hiring of a mere consultant who is supposed to render part
time service to the principal employer. His service was extended for an
indefinite period which lasted until his termination because they were in dire
need of his expertise. The services substantially covered a period of 1 year,
being a regular employee he is entitled to security of tenure.
42. Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Drilon
The agreement confirms the status of the collecting agent in this case as an
independent contractor not only because the provisions permit him to
perform collection services for the company without being subject to the
control of the latter except only as to the result of his work. The monthly
collection quota is a normal requirement found in similar contractual
agreements and is stipulated to encourage a collecting agent to report at
least the minimum amount of proceeds. It is clear that the company and
each collecting agent intended that the former take control only over the
amount of collection which is a result of the job performed. The manner and
method of effecting collections are left solely to the discretion of the
collection agents without an interference on the part of singer. The plain
language of the agreement reveals that the designation as collection agent
does not create an employment relationship and that the applicant is an
independent contractor. The literal meaning of the stipulations in the
contract controls. No such words as to hire and employ are present.
the selfish desire of the employer to reap undeserved profits at the expense
of its employees. The fact that the drivers are on the whole practically
unlettered only makes the imposition more censurable and the avarice more
execrable.
While it may be true that private respondents were initially hired for specific
projects or undertakings, the repeated re-hiring and continuing need for their
services over a long span of time-the shortest being two years and the
longest being eight-have undeniably made them regular employees. This
Court has held that an employment ceases to be co-terminus with specific
projects when the employee is continuously rehired due to the demands of
the employer's business and re-engaged for many more projects without
interruption.
Moreover, in the proceedings before the SSC and the Court of Appeals, the
petitioner was unable to show that private respondents were appraised of
the project nature of their employment, the specific projects themselves or
any phase thereof undertaken by petitioner and for which private
respondents were hired. He failed to show any document such as private
respondents' employment contracts and employment records that would
indicate the dates of hiring and termination in relation to the particular
construction project or phases in which they were employed.[49] Moreover, it
is peculiar that petitioner did not show proof that he submitted reports of
termination after the completion of his construction projects, considering
that he alleges that private respondents were hired and rehired for various
projects or phases of work therein.
50. Cartagenas v. Romago Electric
The fact that the complainants worked for the respondent under different
project employment contracts for so many years could not be made a basis
to consider them as regular employees for they remain project employees
regardless of the number of projects in which they have worked.
As an electrical contractor, the private respondent depends for its business
on the contracts it is able to obtain from real estate developers and builders
of buildings. Since its work depends on the availability of such contracts or
"projects," necessarily the duration of the employment of its work force is not
permanent but coterminus with the projects to which they are assigned and
from whose payrolls they are paid. It would be extremely burdensome for
their employer who, like them, depends on the availability of projects, if it
would have to carry them as permanent employees and pay them wages
even if there are no projects for them to work on. We hold, therefore, that the
NLRC did not abuse its discretion in finding, based on substantial evidence in
the records, that the petitioners are only project workers of the private
respondent.
conditions of their hiring reveal that the petitioners were required to perform
phases of agricultural work for a definite period, after which their services
are available to any farm owner. We cannot share the arguments of the
petitioners that they worked continuously the whole year round for twelve
hours a day. This, we feel, is an exaggeration which does not deserve any
serious consideration inasmuch as the planting of rice and sugar cane does
not entail a whole year operation, the area in question being comparatively
small.
54. Hacienda Fatima v. NFSW-Food and General Trade
Although the employers have shown that respondents performed work that
was seasonal in nature, they failed to prove that the latter worked only for
the duration of one particular season. In fact, petitioners do not deny that
these workers have served them for several years already. Hence, they are
regular -- not seasonal -- employees.
The CA did not err when it ruled that Mercado v. NLRC was not applicable to
the case at bar. In the earlier case, the workers were required to perform
phases of agricultural work for a definite period of time, after which their
services would be available to any other farm owner. They were not hired
regularly and repeatedly for the same phase/s of agricultural work, but on
and off for any single phase thereof. On the other hand, herein respondents,
having performed the same tasks for petitioners every season for several
years, are considered the latter's regular employees for their respective
tasks. Petitioners' eventual refusal to use their services -- even if they were
ready, able and willing to perform their usual duties whenever these were
available -- and hiring of other workers to perform the tasks originally
assigned to respondents amounted to illegal dismissal of the latter.
55. PEFTOK Integrated Services v. NLRC
Pacta privata juri publico derogare non possunt. Private agreements
(between parties) cannot derogate from public right. It is decisively clear that
they (guards) affixed their signatures to subject waivers and/or quitclaims for
fear that they would not be paid their salaries on pay day or worse, still, their
services would be terminated if they did not sign those papers. In short,
there was no voluntariness in the execution of the quitclaim or waivers in
question. It should be borne in mind that in this jurisdiction, quitclaims,
waivers or releases are looked upon with disfavor. "Necessitous men are not
free men." "They are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy
and ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of the workers' legal rights."
commission with guaranteed wage inasmuch as the bottom line is that they
receive a guaranteed wage.
In the instant case, while the bus drivers and conductors of respondent
company are considered by the latter as being compensated on a
commission basis, they are not paid purely by what they receive as
commission. The bus drivers and conductors are automatically entitled to the
basic minimum pay mandated by law in case the commissions they earned
be less than their basic minimum for eight (8) hours work. Evidently
therefore, the commissions form part of the wage or salary of the bus drivers
and conductors.
What is controlling is not the label attached to the remuneration that the
employee receives but the nature of the remuneration and the purpose for
which the 13th month pay was given to alleviate the plight of the working
masses who are receiving low wages.
66. LMG Chemicals Corporation v. Secretary
It was only the Inorganic division of the petitioner that was sustaining losses.
Such incident does not justify the withholding of any salary increase as
petitioners income from all sources are collated for the determination of its
true financial position.
Petitioners actuation is actually a discrimination against respondent Union
members/ If it could grant a wage increase to its supervisors, there is no
valid reason why it should deny the same to respondent Union members.
67. Special Steel Products, Inc. v. Villarreal
The employer cannot withhold respondents 13th month pay and other
monetary benefits.6
Indeed, petitioner has no legal authority to withhold respondents 13th
month pay and other benefits. What an employee has worked for, his
employer must pay. Thus, an employer cannot simply refuse to pay the
wages or benefits of its employee because he has either defaulted in paying
a loan guaranteed by his employer; or violated their memorandum of
agreement; or failed to render an accounting of his employers property.
68. Mayon Hotel & Restaurant v. Adana
Respondents have set out with particularity in their complaint, position
paper, affidavits and other documents the labor standard benefits they are
entitled to, and which they alleged that petitioners have failed to pay them.
It was therefore petitioners' burden to prove that they have paid these
money claims. One who pleads payment has the burden of proving it, and
even where the employees must allege nonpayment, the general rule is that
the burden rests on the defendant to prove nonpayment, rather than on the
plaintiff to prove non payment. This petitioners failed to do.
The documents petitioners submitted, i.e., affidavits executed by some of
respondents during an ocular inspection conducted by an inspector of the
DOLE; notices of inspection result and Facility Evaluation Orders issued by
DOLE, are not sufficient to prove payment. Despite repeated orders from the
Labor Arbiter, petitioners failed to submit the pertinent employee files,
payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents which would
show that respondents rendered work entitling them to payment for
overtime work, night shift differential, premium pay for work on holidays and
rest day, and payment of these as well as the COLA and the SILP
documents which are not in respondents' possession but in the custody and
absolute control of petitioners. By choosing not to fully and completely
disclose information and present the necessary documents to prove payment
of labor standard benefits due to respondents, petitioners failed to discharge
the burden of proof. Indeed, petitioners' failure to submit the necessary
documents which as employers are in their possession, in spite of orders to
do so, gives rise to the presumption that their presentation is prejudicial to
its cause.
69. DBP v. NLRC (1994)
Article 110 of the Labor Code , as amended, must be viewed and read in
conjunction with the provisions of the 7 Civil Code on concurrence and
preference of credits.
The aforesaid provisions of the Civil Code (concurrence and preference of
credits), Insolvency Law, and Art. 110 of the Labor Code, require judicial
proceedings in rem in adjudication of creditors claims against the debtors
assets to become operative.
70. DBP v. NLRC (1995)
In the present case, there is as yet no declaration of bankruptcy nor judicial
liquidation of TPWII. Hence, it would be premature to enforce the workers
preference.
The DBP anchors its claims on a mortgage credit. A mortgage directly and
immediately subjects the property upon which it is imposed, whoever the
possessor may be, to the fulfillment of the obligation for whose security it
was constituted (Article 2176, Civil Code). It creates a real right which is
enforceable against the whole world. It is a lien on an identified immovable
property, which a preference is not. A recorded mortgage credit is a special
preferred credit under Article 2242 (5) of the Civil Code on classification of
credits. The preference given by Article 110, when not falling within Article
2241 (6) and Article 2242 (3) of the Civil Code and not attached to any
specific property, is an ordinary preferred credit although its impact is to
move it from second priority in the order of preference established by Article
2244 of the Civil Code.