BASES OF LABOR LAW

Police Power
It is the inherent power of the state to restrain one's liberty and right to property to promote the
welfare of the people.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES Social Justice

Definition under Calalang vs. Williams:
IN
"Social Justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor
atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of
LABOR LAW
social and economic forces by the state so that justice at its rational and
objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.

Social Justice means the promotion of the welfare of all people,

SUBMITTED BY: the adoption by the government of measures calculated to insure the
economic stability of all the component elements of society, through the
Carino-Rebusta, Jenifer interrelations of the members of the community; constitutionally through the
adoption of measures legally justifiable, and extra-constitutionally through
Dacones. Anthony the exercise of powers underlying the time-honored principle of
saluspopuliestsupremalex."
Macapagao, Connie
II. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
Ramirez, Karen Tatiana
EFFECTIVITY
Art. 2. Date of effectivity. This Code shall take effect six (6) months after its promulgation.
Suplico, Marie Joyce May 1, 1974 PD No. 442 was signed into law.
November 01, 1974 effectivity date of the Labor Code

GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN LABOR LAW
I. IN GENERAL
COMPONENTS OF LABOR LAW
Labor Standards Law sets out the minimum terms, conditions and benefits of employment that
employers must provide or comply with and to which employees are entitled as a matter of legal
right. The laws on wages and work hours, on safety and health of employees, on employment
benefits such as paid leaves and medical services for work-connected injuries.
Labor Relations Law defines the status, rights and duties, as well as the institutional mechanisms
that govern the individual and collective interactions between employers, employees and their
representatives. Unionization, negotiation, and dispute settlements fall in the area of labor
relations.
LABOR LAW VS. SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Art. 302. Repealing clause. All labor laws not adopted as part of this Code either directly or by
reference are hereby repealed. All provisions of existing laws, orders, decrees, rules and
regulations inconsistent herewith are likewise repealed.
DECLARATION OF BASIC POLICY
Art. 3. Declaration of basic policy. The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full
employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and regulate the
relations between workers and employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-
organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work.
RELATED PROVISIONS
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
The 1987 Philippine Constitution, the supreme law of the land, mandates the protection of labor
and the promotion of their welfare. It provides the fundamental labor standards and labor relations
rights of the employees.

Labor Law is a piece of social legislation. It is broadly classified into labor standards and labor
relations. The Labor Code is the principal labor law of the country. It contains most of our labor
laws, such as those on illegal recruitment, wages of workers, rights of union members, collective
bargaining, and employment termination. It also deals with the rights of employers, such as the
right to make and enforce reasonable regulations, to reorganize and economize, and lay off lazy
and undisciplined employees.
ART II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity
and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide
adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved
quality of life for all.

Social Legislation refers to a broad category of laws that protect or promote the welfare of society Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.
or segments of it in furtherance of social justice. It is conceptually broader than labor laws. Some
examples are the social security laws, the agrarian reform, and the law on migrant workers.The Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the
aim of which is to even out the playing field for purposes of fair play between different classes. rights of workers and promote their welfare.

1|Page
 Section 20. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private
enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments.
ARTICLE III, BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 1No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Section 4No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press,
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances.
Section 8.The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to
form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
Article IX-B, THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Section 2.
3. No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except
for cause provided by law.
5. The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees.
6. Temporary employees of the Government shall be given such protection as may be provided by
law.
ARTICLE XIII, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and
negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with
law. They shall be entitled tosecurity of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living
wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and
benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and
the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce
their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of
labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to
investments, and to expansion and growth.
Section 14. The State shall protect working women by providing safe and healthful working
conditions, taking into account their maternal functions, and such facilities and opportunities that
will enhance their welfare and enable them to realize their full potential in the service of the nation.
2|Page
NEW CIVIL CODE-Art 1700
The relation between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They are so impressed with
public interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Therefore, such contracts are
subject to the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed
shops, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.
RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYEES
Seven basic constitutional rights of labor
Self-organization
Conduct collective bargaining or negotiation with management
Encourage in peaceful concerted activities including strike in accordance with the law
Enjoy security of tenure
Work under humane conditions
Receive a living wage
Practice in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as
may be provided by law
MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES
The hiring, firing, transfer, demotion, and promotion of employees has been traditionally, identified
as a management prerogative subject to limitations found in law, a collective bargaining agreement
or general principles of fair play and justice. This is a function associated with the employers
inherent right to control and manage effectively its enterprise. Even as the law is solicitous of the
welfare of the employees, it must also protect the right of an employer to exercise what are clearly
management prerogatives. The free will of management to conduct its own business affairs to
achieve its purpose cannot be denied.
CONSTRUCTION
Art. 4. Construction in favor of labor. All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the
provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor
of labor.
- The policy is to apply the Code to a greater number of employees so they may avail themselves of
the benefits under the law, in line with the States desire to give maximum aid and protection to
labor. (See Abella, July 20, 1987.)
- Court decisions adopt a liberal approach that favors the exercise of labor rights.
- It is not correct to think that the aim of the law is always to favor labor. The mandate under Art. 4 is
simply to resolve doubt, if any, in favor of labor. If there is no doubt in implementing and
interpreting the law, labor will enjoy no built-in advantage and the law will have to be applied as it
is.
ADMINISTRATION /APPLICABILITY
Art. 5. Rules and regulations The Department of Labor and Employment, other government
agencies charged with the administration and enforcement of this Code or any of its parts shall
promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations shall
become effective fifteen (15) days after announcement of their adoption in newspapers of general
circulation.
 Art. 6. Applicability. All rights and benefits granted to workers under this Code shall, except as ISSUE: Was there an employer-employee relationship?
may otherwise be provided herein, apply alike to all workers, whether agricultural or non-
agricultural. (As amended by Presidential Decree No. 570-A, November 1, 1974)
HELD: The Court previously held in Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, that in this jurisdiction, there has
BOOK V - LABOR RELATIONS been no uniform test to determine the existence of an employer-employee relation. Generally,
courts have relied on the so-called right of control test where the person for whom the
Art. 218. [211]Declaration of Policy. A. It is the policy of the State:
services are performed reserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved but also
a. To promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining and negotiations, the means to be used in reaching such end. In addition to the standard of right-of-control, the
including voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as modes of settling labor or
industrial disputes; existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties, like the inclusion of the employee in
the payrolls, can help in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
b. To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the enhancement of democracy and the
promotion of social justice and development; However, in certain cases the control test is not sufficient to give a complete picture of the
relationship between the parties, owing to the complexity of such a relationship where several
c. To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and united labor movement;
positions have been held by the worker. The better approach would therefore be to adopt a two-
d. To promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights and obligations as union tiered test involving: (1) the putative employers power to control the employee with respect to the
members and as employees;
means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished; and (2) the underlying economic
e. To provide an adequate administrative machinery for the expeditious settlement of labor or realities of the activity or relationship. This two-tiered test would take us into considering the totality
industrial disputes;
of circumstances surrounding the true nature of the relationship between the parties. The
f. To ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial peace; and determination of the relationship between employer and employee depends upon the

g. To ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-making processes affecting their circumstances of the whole economic activity, such as: (1) the extent to which the services
rights, duties and welfare. performed are an integral part of the employers business; (2) the extent of the workers investment

B. To encourage a truly democratic method of regulating the relations between the in equipment and facilities; (3) the nature and degree of control exercised by the employer; (4) the
employers and employees by means of agreements freely entered into through collective workers opportunity for profit and loss; (5) the amount of initiative, skill, judgment or foresight
bargaining, no court or administrative agency or official shall have the power to set or fix
wages, rates of pay, hours of work or other terms and conditions of employment, except as required for the success of the claimed independent enterprise; (6) the permanency and duration
otherwise provided under this Code. (As amended by Section 3, Republic Act No. 6715, of the relationship between the worker and the employer; and (7) the degree of dependency of the
March 21, 1989)
worker upon the employer for his continued employment in that line of business.
DETERMINATION OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
By applying the control test, there is no doubt that petitioner is an employee of Kasei Corporation
1. FRANCISCO VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
500 SCRA 690, G.R. NO. 170087 AUGUST 31, 2006 because she was under the direct control and supervision of Seiji Kamura, the corporations
Technical Consultant. She reported for work regularly and served in various capacities as
FACTS: Petitioner was hired by Kasei Corporation as Accountant and Corporate Secretary and
Accountant, Liaison Officer, Technical Consultant, Acting Manager and Corporate Secretary, with
was also designated as a liaison officer. Later, she was designated as acting manager where she
substantially the same job functions, that is, rendering accounting and tax services to the company
was assigned to handle recruitment activities and perform management administration functions;
and performing functions necessary and desirable for the proper operation of the corporation such
represent the company in all government dealings and administer all matters pertaining to Kasei
as securing business permits and other licenses over an indefinite period of engagement.
Resto. After 5 years, she was replaced as a manager and was made to sign a prepared resolution
for her replacement with the assurance that she is still connected with the company.
Consequently, her salary was reduced until later on the company stopped giver her her salary. She
made follow ups about it but the company said that she was no longer connected with the 2. SONZA VS. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION,
431 SCRA 583, G.R. NO. 138051 JUNE 10, 2004
company. Francisco then filed a complaint for constructive dismissal which was favored by the
Labor Arbiter, affirmed with modification by the NLRC and reversed by the CA. Private FACT: ABS-CBN and MJMDC signed an agreement wherein the latter as agent agreed to provide

respondents argued that she is not an employee and was hired only as a technical consultant and Sonzas services exclusively to the former. After a couple of years, Sonza wrote to Mr. Lopez

that she performed her work at her own discretion without control and supervision of Kasei; that calling his attention to the Agreement and informing him that Sonza irrevocably resigned in view of

she had no DTR and comes to office any time she wanted; that her designation depended solely the recent events concerning his programs and career. It was also stated in the letter that Sonza

on the will of the management and her consultancy maybe terminated anytime considering that her considers the acts of the station violative of the Agreement and the station as in breach thereof.

services were only temporary in nature. And served notice of rescission of the Agreement.

3|Page
 Thereafter, Sonza filed a complaint before the DOLE alleging that ABS-CBN did not pay his
salaries, separation pay, etc. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss alleging that there is no
employer-employee relationship between ABS-CBN and Sonza. The Labor Arbiter held that
Sonza was engaged by respondent by reason of peculiar skills and talent as a TV host and radio
broadcaster. Unlike ordinary employee, he was free to perform the services he undertook to render
in accordance with his own style and that the benefits enjoyed arose from the specific agreement
by the parties and not by reason of employer-employee relationship.
The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision; CA adopted the NLRC decision.
ISSUE: Was there an employer-employee relationship?
HELD: The assailed decision was affirmed. Existence of employer-employee relationship is a
question of fact and the Labor Arbiters and NLRCs decisions are accorded with respect and
finality when supported with substantial evidence.
Case law has consistently held that the elements of an employer-employee relationship are: (a) the
selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal;
and (d) 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.
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 xx 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.
Applying the control test to the present case, we find that SONZA is not an employee but an
independent contractor. The control test is the most important test our courts apply in
distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor. This test is based on the extent of
control the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the supervision and control the hirer
exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an employee. The converse holds true as well
the less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is considered an independent
contractor.
We find that ABS-CBN was not involved in the actual performance that produced the finished
product of SONZAs work. ABS-CBN did not instruct SONZA how to perform his job. ABS-CBN
merely reserved the right to modify the program format and airtime schedule for more effective
programming. ABS-CBNs sole concern was the quality of the shows and their standing in the
ratings. Clearly, ABS-CBN did not exercise control over the means and methods of performance of
SONZAs work.
4.
3. JAVIER VS. FLY ACE CORPORATION,
4|Page
666 SCRA 383, G.R. NO. 192558 FEBRUARY 15, 2012
FACTS: Petitioner was hired as a pahinante or stevedore at Fly Ace Corporation. He also cleans
and arranges canned items before delivering it to certain locations, One day, he reported for work
but he was not allowed entry to the premises of the company upon the instruction of his superior.
When he asked why, his superior told him to ask his daughter, thereafter, he was terminated
without notice and neither was he given the opportunity to refute the causes of his dismissal from
work. He then filed a complaint before the NLRC for underpayment of salaries and other labor
standard benefits alleging that he was an employee of Fly Ace but Fly Ave opposed the same and
argued that Javier was contracted by Fly Ace as an extra helper on a pakyaw basis at 300 per trip.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Javiers complaint on the ground that Javier failed to present a proof
that he was a regular employee at Fly Ace; no employe ID, no payslip.The NLRC favored Javier
but the CA reinstated Labor Arbiters decision.
ISSUE: Was there an employer-employee relationship?
HELD: As the records bear out, the LA and the CA found Javiers claim of employment with Fly
Ace as wanting and deficient.Elements of employer-employee relationship do not exist. In this
case, the LA and the CA both concluded that Javier failed to establish his employment with Fly
Ace. By way of evidence on this point, all that Javier presented were his self-serving statements
purportedly showing his activities as an employee of Fly Ace. Clearly, Javier failed to pass the
substantiality requirement to support his claim. Elements of an employer-employee relationship do
not exist in this case. Theres no competent proof that Fly Ace engaged Javiers services as a
regular employee; that Fly Ace paid his wages; that Fly Ace has right of control over his conduct.
Javiers allegation did not establish that his relationship with Fly Ace had the attributed of an
employer-employee relationship on the basis of the four-fold test.
One final note. The Courts decision does not contradict the settled rule that payment by the piece
is just a method of compensation and does not define the essence of the relation. Payment on a
piece-rate basis does not negate regular employment. The term wage is broadly defined in
Article 97 of the Labor Code as remuneration or earnings, capable of being expressed in terms of
money whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece or commission basis. Payment by the
piece is just a method of compensation and does not define the essence of the relations. Nor does
the fact that the petitioner is not covered by the SSS affect the employer-employee relationship.
However, in determining whether the relationship is that of employer and employee or one of an
independent contractor, each case must be determined on its own facts and all the features of the
relationship are to be considered.38 Unfortunately for Javier, the attendant facts and
circumstances of the instant case do not provide the Court with sufficient reason to uphold his
claimed status as employee of Fly Ace.
San Miguel Corp. Employees Union-PTGWO vs. Bersamira,
186 SCRA 496, G.R. No. 87700 June 13, 1990
Labor dispute exists when the controversy concerns the terms and conditions of employment.
 HELD: While it is SanMigs submission that no employer-employee relationship exists between
itself, on the one hand, and the contractual workers of Lipercon and DRite on the other, a labor
dispute can nevertheless exist regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate
relationship of employer and employee (Article 212 [1] Labor Code, supra) provided the
controversy concerns, among others, the terms and conditions of employment or a change or
arrangement thereof (ibid). Put differently, and 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 relation
of employer and employee.
5. Locsin vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company,
602 SCRA 740, G.R. No. 185251 October 2, 2009
HELD: It is the so-called control test which constitutes the most important index of the existence
of the employer-employee relationship that is, whether the employer controls or has reserved the
right to control the employee not only as to the result of the work to be done but also as to the
means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished. Stated otherwise, 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 means to be used in reaching such
end.
Four-fold test to determine the existence of the elements of such relationship
(a)the selection and engagement of the employee;
(b) the payment of wages;
(c) the power of dismissal; and
(d) the employers power to control the employees conduct.
Control Test; It is an oft-repeated rule that control is the most important element in the
determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship.(Tongko v. The
Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (Phils.) Inc., 570 SCRA 503 (2008)
6. People's Broadcasting(BomboRadyoPhils., Inc.) vs. Secretary of the Department of Labor
and Employment (2012)
HELD: The visitorial and enforcement power of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
comes into play only in cases when the relationship of employer-employee still exists;
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)s power does not apply in two instances, namely:
(a) where the employer-employee relationship has ceased; and
(b) where no such relationship has ever existed.
7. Ymbong vs. ABS-CBNG.R. No. 184885
FACTS: Petitioner Ernesto G. Ymbong started working for ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
(ABS-CBN) in 1993 at its regional station in Cebu as a television talent, co-anchoring Hoy
Gising and TV Patrol Cebu. His stint in ABS-CBN later extended to radio when ABS-CBN Cebu
launched its AM station DYAB in 1995 where he worked as drama and voice talent, spinner,
scriptwriter and public affairs program anchor.
5|Page
Like Ymbong, Leandro Patalinghug also worked for ABS-CBN Cebu. Starting 1995, he worked as
talent, director and scriptwriter for various radio programs aired over DYAB.
On January 1, 1996, the ABS-CBN Head Office in Manila issued Policy No. HR-ER-016 or the
Policy on Employees Seeking Public Office. The pertinent portions read:
Any employee who intends to run for any public office position, must file his/her letter
of resignation, at least thirty (30) days prior to the official filing of the certificate of candidacy either
for national or local election.
Further, any employee who intends to join a political group/party or even with no
political affiliation but who intends to openly and aggressively campaign for a candidate or group of
candidates (e.g. publicly speaking/endorsing candidate, recruiting campaign workers, etc.) must
file a request for leave of absence subject to managements approval. For this particular reason,
the employee should file the leave request at least thirty (30) days prior to the start of the planned
leave period.
Please be informed that per company policy, any employee/talent who wants to run for any
position in the coming election will have to file a leave of absence the moment he/she files his/her
certificate of candidacy.
The services rendered by the concerned employee/talent to this company will then be temporarily
suspended for the entire campaign/election period.
After the issuance of the March 25, 1998 Memorandum, Ymbong got in touch
with Luzon. Luzon claims that Ymbong approached him and told him that he would leave radio for
a couple of months because he will campaign for the administration ticket. It was only after the
elections that they found out that Ymbong actually ran for public office himself at the eleventh
hour. Ymbong, on the other hand, claims that in accordance with the March 25, 1998
Memorandum, he informed Luzon through a letter that he would take a few months leave of
absence from March 8, 1998 to May 18, 1998 since he was running for councilor of Lapu-Lapu
City.
As regards Patalinghug, Patalinghug approached Luzon and advised him that he will run as
councilor for Naga, Cebu. According to Luzon, he clarified to Patalinghug that he will be
considered resigned and not just on leave once he files a certificate of candidacy.
Later, Ymbong and Patalinghug both tried to come back to ABS-CBN Cebu. According to Luzon,
he informed them that they cannot work there anymore because of company policy. This was
stressed even in subsequent meetings and they were told that the company was not allowing any
exceptions. ABS-CBN, however, agreed out of pure liberality to give them a chance to wind up
their participation in the radio drama, Nagbabagang Langit, since it was rating well and to avoid an
abrupt ending. The agreed winding-up, however, dragged on for so long prompting Luzon to issue
to Ymbong the memorandum dated September 14, 1998 automatically terminating them.
ISSUE: whether Policy No. HR-ER-016 is valid
HELD: So long as a companys management prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the
advancement of the employers interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the
rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, this Court will uphold them.
It is worth noting that such exercise of management prerogative has earned a stamp of approval
from no less than our Congress itself when on February 12, 2001, it enacted Republic Act No.
9006, otherwise known as the Fair Election Act. Section 6.6 thereof reads:
Any mass media columnist, commentator, announcer, reporter, on-air correspondent or personality
who is a candidate for any elective public office or is a campaign volunteer for or employed or
 retained in any capacity by any candidate or political party shall be deemed resigned, if so required
by their employer, or shall take a leave of absence from his/her work as such during the campaign
period: Provided, That any media practitioner who is an official of a political party or a member of
the campaign staff of a candidate or political party shall not use his/her time or space to favor any
candidate or political party. [Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
7. Professional Services Inc. v. Agana (2008)
FACTS: Natividad Agana was rushed to Medical City because of difficulty of bowel movement and
bloody anal discharge. Dr. Ampil diagnosed her to be suffering from cancer of the sigmoid. Dr.
Ampil performed an anterior resection surgery on her, and finding that the malignancy spread on
her left ovary, he obtained the consent of her husband, Enrique, to permit Dr. Fuentes to
perform hysterectomy on her. After the hysterectomy, Dr. Fuentes showed his work to Dr. Ampil,
who examined it and found it in order, so he allowed Dr. Fuentes to leave the operating room. Dr.
Ampil was about to complete the procedure when the attending nurses made some remarks on the
Record of Operation: sponge count lacking 2; announced to surgeon search done but to no avail
continue for closure (two pieces of gauze were missing). A diligent search was conducted but
they could not be found. Dr. Ampil then directed that the incision be closed.
9.
A couple of days after, she complained of pain in her anal region, but the doctors told her that it
was just a natural consequence of the surgery. Dr. Ampil recommended that she consult an
oncologist to examine the cancerous nodes which were not removed during the operation. After
months of consultations and examinations in the US, she was told that she was free of cancer.
Weeks after coming back, her daughter found a piece of gauze (1.5 in) protruding from her vagina,
so Dr. Ampil manually extracted this, assuring Natividad that the pains will go away. However, the
pain worsened, so she sought treatment at a hospital, where another 1.5 in piece of gauze was
found in her vagina. She underwent another surgery.
Sps. Agana filed a complaint for damages against PSI (owner of Medical City), Dr. Ampil, and Dr.
Fuentes, alleging that the latter are liable for negligence for leaving 2 pieces of gauze in
Natividads body, and malpractice for concealing their acts of negligence. Enrique Agana also filed
an administrative complaint for gross negligence and malpractice against the two doctors with the
PRC (although only the case against Dr. Fuentes was heard since Dr. Ampil was abroad). Pending
the outcome of the cases, Natividad died (now substituted by her children). RTC found PSI and the
two doctors liable for negligence and malpractice. PRC dismissed the case against Dr. Fuentes.
CA dismissed only the case against Fuentes.
HELD: For purposes of apportioning responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer-
employee relationship in effect exists between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians.
[LABOR LESSON: power to hire, fire, power of control]
Agency principle of apparent authority / agency by estoppel
Imposes liability because of the actions of a principal or employer in somehow misleading the
public into believing that the relationship or the authority exists [see NCC 1869]
PSI publicly displays in the Medical City lobby the names and specializations of their physicians.
Hence, PSI is now estopped from passing all the blame to the physicians whose names it proudly
paraded in the public directory, leading the public to believe that it vouched for their skill and
competence.
8. SOUTH EAST INTERNATIONAL RATTAN INC V. JESUS J. COMING (2014)
FACTS:
Petitioner South East International Rattan is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of
manufacturing and exporting furniture to various countries. Respondent Coming was hired by
petitioner as Sizing Machine Operator whose work is initially compensated on pakiao basis but
sometime was fixed per day and a work schedule of 8:00am to 5:00pm. Without any apparent
6|Page
reason, his employment was interrupted as he was told by petitioners to resume work in 2 months
time but was never called back. Respondent thus filed a complaint before the regional arbitration
branch. The Labor Arbiter ruled respondent as a regular employee of petitioner SEIRI but on
appeal, was reversed by the NLRC. CA then reversed the NLRC decision and ruled that there
existed an employer-employee relationship between petitioners and respondent
ISSUE: Whether or not there is employer-employee relationship between petitioner and
respondent
HELD: To ascertain the existence of employer-employee relationship jurisprudence has invariably
adhered to the four-fold test, to wit: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the
payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employees
conduct, or the so-called control test.
x xx As to the control test, the following facts indubitably reveal that respondents wielded control
over the work performance of petitioner, to wit: (1) they required him to work within the company
premises; (2) they obliged petitioner to report every day of the week and tasked him to usually
perform the same job; (3) they enforced the observance of definite hours of work from 8 oclock in
the morning to 5 oclock in the afternoon; (4) the mode of payment of petitioners salary was under
their discretion, at first paying him on pakiao basis and thereafter, on daily basis; (5) they
implemented company rules and regulations; (6) [Estanislao] Agbay directly paid petitioners
salaries and controlled all aspects of his employment and (7) petitioner rendered work necessary
and desirable in the business of the respondent company.
BERNARD TENAZAS v. R. VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT (2014)
FACTS:The case at bar is a consolidated cases filed by Bernard A. Tenazas (Tenazas) and
Jaime M. Francisco (Francisco) and Isidro G. Endraca (Endraca) for a complaint for illegal
dismissal against R. Villegas Taxi Transport and/or Romualdo Villegas (Romualdo) and Andy
Villegas (Andy) (respondents). Tenazas, Francisco and Endraca (petitioners) alleged that they
were hired and dismissed by the respondents on the following dates:
Date of Date of
Name Salary
Hiring Dismissal
Bernard A. Boundary
10/1997 07/03/07
Tenazas System
Jaime M. Boundary
04/10/04 06/04/07
Francisco System
Isidro G. Boundary
04/2000 03/06/06
Endraca System7
Tenazas alleged that the illegal dismissal happened in July 1, 2007 when he reported an accident
that caused damage to the assigned taxi in the amount of P500.00. He was scolded and was told
that to leave the garage for he is already fired. Despite of this, Tenazas reported for work on the
following day but was told that he can no longer drive any of the companys units as he is already
fired.
Francisco, on the other hand, averred that his dismissal was brought about by the companys
unfounded suspicion that he was organizing a labor union. He was instantaneously terminated,
without the benefit of procedural due process, on June 4, 2007.
Endraca, for his part, alleged that his dismissal was instigated by an occasion when he fell short of
the required boundary for his taxi unit. He was no longer allowed to drive a taxi unit despite his
persistent pleas.
 The Respondents, for their part, the respondents admitted that Tenazas and Endraca were
employees of the company, the former being a regular driver and the latter a spare driver. The
respondents, however, denied that Francisco was an employee of the company or that he was
able to drive one of the companys units at any point in time. They further alleged that Tenazas
was never terminated by the company and rather it was Tenaza who failed to report back to work
for no apparent reason. As regards Endraca, the respondents alleged that they hired him as a
spare driver in February 2001. They allow him to drive a taxi unit whenever their regular driver will
not be able to report for work. In July 2003, however, Endraca stopped reporting for work without
informing the company of his reason. They strongly maintained, however, that they could never
have terminated Endraca in March 2006 since he already stopped reporting for work as early as
July 2003. Even then, they expressed willingness to accommodate Endraca should he wish to
work as a spare driver for the company again since he was never really dismissed from
employment anyway.
On May 29, 2008, the petitioners, by registered mail, filed a Motion to Admit Additional
Evidence. They alleged that after diligent efforts, they were able to discover new pieces of
evidence that will substantiate the allegations in their position paper. Attached with the motion are
the following: (a) Joint Affidavit of the petitioners; (2) Affidavit of Good Faith of Aloney Rivera, a co-
driver;16 (3) pictures of the petitioners wearing company shirts;17 and (4) Tenazas
Certification/Record of Social Security System (SSS) contributions.
On May 30, 2008, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision dismissing the instant consolidated
complaints for lack of merit. There was no formal investigations, no show cause memos,
suspension memos or termination memos were never issued. Otherwise stated, there is no proof
of overt act of dismissal committed by herein respondents. Therefore, the LA was constrained to
rule that there was no illegal dismissal in the case at bar. The situations contemplated by law for
entitlement to separation pay does [sic] not apply.
Petitioners appealed the decision of the LA to the NLRC. Subsequently, on June 23, 2009, the
NLRC rendered a Decision, reversing the appealed decision of the LA, holding that the additional
pieces of evidence belatedly submitted by the petitioners sufficed to establish the existence of
employer-employee relationship and their illegal dismissal. On July 24, 2009, the respondents filed
a motion for reconsideration but the NLRC denied the same in its Resolution 23 dated September
23, 2009.
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. On March 11, 2010, the CA rendered a
Decision,24 affirming with modification the Decision dated June 23, 2009 of the NLRC. The CA
agreed with the NLRCs finding that Tenazas and Endraca were employees of the company, but
ruled otherwise in the case of Francisco for failing to establish his relationship with the company. It
also deleted the award of separation pay and ordered for reinstatement of Tenazas and Endraca.
On March 19, 2010, the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by
the CA in its Resolution26 dated June 28, 2010.
Undeterred, the petitioners filed the instant petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme
Court on July 15, 2010.
10.
ISSUE: Whether or not employer-employee relationship exists between Francisco and the
respondents.
HELD: The petition lacked merit.
"[I]n determining the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship, the Court has
consistently looked for the following incidents, to wit: (a) the selection and engagement of the
7|Page
employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) 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."
There is no hard and fast rule designed to establish the aforesaid elements. Any competent and
relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted. Identification cards, cash vouchers,
social security registration, appointment letters or employment contracts, payrolls, organization
charts, and personnel lists, serve as evidence of employee status.
In this case, however, Francisco failed to present any proof substantial enough to establish his
relationship with the respondents. He failed to present documentary evidence like attendance
logbook, payroll, SSS record or any personnel file that could somehow depict his status as an
employee. Anent his claim that he was not issued with employment records, he could have, at
least, produced his social security records which state his contributions, name and address of his
employer, as his co-petitioner Tenazas did. He could have also presented testimonial evidence
showing the respondents exercise of control over the means and methods by which he undertakes
his work. This is imperative in light of the respondents denial of his employment and the claim of
another taxi operator, Emmanuel Villegas (Emmanuel), that he was his employer. Specifically, in
his Affidavit, Emmanuel alleged that Francisco was employed as a spare driver in his taxi garage
from January 2006 to December 2006, a fact that the latter failed to deny or question in any of the
pleadings attached to the records of this case. The utter lack of evidence is fatal to Franciscos
case especially in cases like his present predicament when the law has been very lenient in not
requiring any particular form of evidence or manner of proving the presence of employer-employee
relationship.
In Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage v. NLRC, this Court emphasized, thus:
No particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of an employer-employee
relationship. Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted. For,
if only documentary evidence would be required to show that relationship, no scheming employer
would ever be brought before the bar of justice, as no employer would wish to come out with any
trace of the illegality he has authored considering that it should take much weightier proof to
invalidate a written instrument.
Here, Francisco simply relied on his allegation that he was an employee of the company without
any other evidence supporting his claim. Unfortunately for him, a mere allegation in the position
paper is not tantamount to evidence. Bereft of any evidence, the CA correctly ruled that Francisco
could not be considered an employee of the respondents. It is an oft-repeated rule that in labor
cases, as in other administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, "the quantum of proof necessary
is substantial evidence, or such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." "[T]he burden of proof rests upon the party who
asserts the affirmative of an issue." Corollarily, as Francisco was claiming to be an employee of the
respondents, it is incumbent upon him to proffer evidence to prove the existence of said
relationship.reinstatement no longer a feasible option.
NELSON V. BEGINO et al., vs. ABS-CBN CORPORATION
FACTS: Respondent ABS-CBN, through Respondent Villafuerte, engaged the services of
Petitioners as cameramen, editors or reporters for TV Broadcasting. Petitioners signed regularly
renewed Talent Contracts (3 months - 1 year) and Project Assignment Forms which detailed the
duration, budget and daily technical requirements of a particular project. Petitioners were tasked
with coverage of news items for subsequent daily airings in Respondents TV Patrol Bicol Program.
The Talent Contract has an exclusivity clause and provides that nothing therein shall be deemed or
construed to establish an employer-employee relationship between the parties.
Petitioners filed against Respondents a complaint for regularization before the NLRC's Arbitration
branch.
 In support of their complaint, Petitioners claimed that they worked under the direct control of
Respondent Villafuerte - they were mandated to wear company IDs, they were provided the
necessary equipment, they were informed about the news to be covered the following day, and
they were bound by the companys policy on attendance and punctuality.
Respondents countered that, pursuant to their Talent Contracts and Project Assignment Forms,
Petitioners were hired as talents to act as reporters, editors and/or cameramen. Respondents
further claimed they never imposed control as to how Petitioners discharged their duties. At most,
they were briefed regarding the general requirements of the project to be executed.
While the case was pending, Petitioners contracts were terminated, prompting the latter to file a
second complaint for illegal dismissal.
The Arbitration Branch ruled that Petitioners were regular employees, and ordered Respondents to
reinstate the Petitioners.
The NLRC affirmed the ruling, but the CA overturned the decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners are regular employees of Respondents.
HELD: The Court finds the petition impressed with merit.
Of the criteria to determine whether there is an employer-employee relationship, the so-called
"control test" is generally regarded as the most crucial and determinative indicator of the said
relationship.
To determine the existence of said relation, case law has consistently applied the four-fold test, to
wit: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of
dismissal; and (d) the employers power to control the employee on the means and methods by
which the work is accomplished. Of these criteria, the so-called control test is generally regarded
as the most crucial and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-
employee relationship. Under this test, an employer-employee relationship is said to exist where
the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end
result but also the manner and means utilized to achieve the same.
Under this test, an employer-employee relationship is said to exist where the person for whom the
services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end result but also the manner
and means utilized to achieve the same.
Later echoed in Dumpit-Murillo v. Court of Appeals, this Court has rejected the application of the
ruling in the Sonza case to employees similarly situated as petitioners in ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corporations v. Nazareno. The following distinctions were significantly observed between
employees like petitioners and television or radio personalities like Sonza, to wit:
First. In the selection and engagement of respondents, no peculiar or unique skill, talent or
celebrity status was required from them because they were merely hired through petitioners
personnel department just like any ordinary employee.
Second. The so-called talent fees of respondents correspond to wages given as a result of an
employer-employee relationship. Respondents did not have the power to bargain for huge talent
fees, a circumstance negating respondent contractual relationship.
Third. Petitioner could always discharge respondents should it find their work unsatisfactory, and
respondents are highly dependent on the petitioner for continued work,
Fourth. The degree of control and supervision exercised by petitioner over respondents through its
supervisors negates that respondents are independent contractors.
Notwithstanding the nomenclature of their Talent Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms and
the terms and condition embodied therein, petitioners are regular employees of ABS-CBN.
As cameramen, editors and reporters, it appears that Petitioners were subject to the control and
8|Page
supervision of Respondents which provided them with the equipment essential for the discharge of
their functions. The exclusivity clause and prohibitions in their Talent Contract were likewise
indicative of Respondents' control over them, however obliquely worded.
Also,the presumption is that when the work done is an integral part of the regular business of the
employer and when the worker does not furnish an independent business or professional service,
such work is a regular employment of such employee and not an independent contractor.
11. ARIEL L. DAVID, vs.JOHN G. MACASIO
FACTS: In January 2009, Macasio filed before the LA a complaint against petitioner Ariel L. David,
doing business under the name and style "Yiels Hog Dealer," for non-payment of overtime pay,
holiday pay and 13th month pay. He also claimed payment for moral and exemplary damages and
attorneys fees. Macasio also claimed payment for service incentive leave (SIL). He alleged before
the LA that he had been working as a butcher for David since January 6, 1995. He also claimed
that David exercised effective control and supervision over his work, pointing out that David: (1) set
the work day, reporting time and hogs to be chopped, as well as the manner by which he was to
perform his work; (2) daily paid his salary of P700.00, which was increased from P600.00 in
2007, P500.00 in 2006 and P400.00 in 2005; and (3) approved and disapproved his leaves.
Macasio added that David owned the hogs delivered for chopping, as well as the work tools and
implements; the latter also rented the workplace. Macasio further claimed that David employs
about twenty-five (25) butchers and delivery drivers.
In his defense, David claimed that he started his hog dealer business in 2005 and that he only has
ten employees. He alleged that he hired Macasio as a butcher or chopper on "pakyaw" or task
basis who is, therefore, not entitled to overtime pay, holiday pay and 13th month pay pursuant to
the provisions of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Labor Code. David pointed
out that Macasio: (1) usually starts his work at 10:00 p.m. and ends at 2:00 a.m. of the following
day or earlier, depending on the volume of the delivered hogs; (2) received the fixed amount
of P700.00 per engagement, regardless of the actual number of hours that he spent chopping the
delivered hogs; and (3) was not engaged to report for work and, accordingly, did not receive any
fee when no hogs were delivered.
In April 30, 2009 decision, the LA dismissed Macasios complaint for lack of merit and gave
credence to Davids claim that he engaged Macasio on "pakyaw" or task basis. The LA concluded
that as Macasio was engaged on "pakyaw" or task basis, he is not entitled to overtime, holiday, SIL
and 13th month pay.
In its May 26, 2010 decision, the NLRC affirmed the LA ruling. The NLRC observed that David did
not require Macasio to observe an eight hour work schedule to earn the fixed P700.00 wage; and
that Macasio had been performing a non-time work, pointing out that Macasio was paid a fixed
amount for the completion of the assigned task, irrespective of the time consumed in its
performance. Since Macasio was paid by result and not in terms of the time that he spent in the
workplace, Macasio is not covered by the Labor Standards laws on overtime, SIL and holiday pay,
and 13th month pay under the Rules and Regulations Implementing the 13th month pay law.
Macasio moved for reconsideration19 but the NLRC denied his motion in its August 11, 2010
resolution prompting Macasio to elevate his case to the CA via a petition for certiorari. The CA
partly granted Macasios certiorari petition and reversed the NLRCs ruling for having been
rendered with grave abuse of discretion.
While the CA agreed with the LAand the NLRC that Macasio was a task basis employee, it
nevertheless found Macasio entitled to his monetary claims. Accordingly, the CA awarded
 Macasios claim for holiday, SIL and 13th month pay for three years, with 10% attorneys fees on
the total monetary award. The CA, however, denied Macasios claim for moral and exemplary
damages for lack of basis.
David filed the present petition after the CA denied his motion for reconsideration in the CAs
January 31, 2011 resolution.
ISSUE: Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship between Macasio and
David.
HELD: The Court finds that the claim that no employer-employee relationship exists was baseless.
Employing the control test, the Court finds that such a relationship exist in the present case.
To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, four elements generally need to
be considered, namely: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of
wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employees conduct. These
elements or indicators comprise the so-called "four-fold" test of employment relationship.
Macasios relationship with David satisfies this test.
Under this overall setup, all those working for David, including Macasio, could naturally be
expected to observe certain rules and requirements and David would necessarily exercise some
degree of control as the chopping of the hog meats would be subject to his specifications. Also,
since Macasio performed his tasks at Davids workplace, David could easily exercise control and
supervision over the former. Accordingly, whether or not David actually exercised this right or
power to control is beside the point as the law simply requires the existence of this power to
control or, as in this case, the existence of the right and opportunity to control and supervise
Macasio.
In sum, the totality of the surrounding circumstances of the present case sufficiently points to an
employer-employee relationship existing between David and Macasio.
12. Citibank, N.A. vs. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 390, G.R. No. 108961 November 27, 1998
FACTS: In 1983, Citibank and El Toro Security Agency, Inc. (hereafter El Toro) entered into a
contract for the latter to provide security and protective services to safeguard and protect the
bank's premises, situated at 8741 Paseo de Roxas, Makati, Metro Manila. Under the contract, El
Toro obligated itself to provide the services of security guards to safeguard and protect the
premises and property of Citibank against theft, robbery or any other unlawful acts committed by
any person or persons, and assumed responsibility for losses and/or damages that may be
incurred by Citibank due to or as a result of the negligence of El Toro or any of its assigned
personnel
Citibank renewed the security contract with El Toro yearly until 1990. On April 22, 1990, the
contract between Citibank and El Toro expired.
On June 7, 1990, respondent Citibank Integrated Guards Labor Alliance-SEGA-
TUPAS/FSM (hereafter CIGLA) filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) a
request for preventive mediation citing Citibank as respondent therein giving as issues for
preventive mediation the following:
a) Unfair labor practice;
b) Dismissal of union officers/members; and
c) Union busting.
9|Page
On June 10, 1990, petitioner Citibank served on El Toro a written notice that the bank would
not renew anymore the service agreement with the latter. Simultaneously, Citibank hired another
security agency, the Golden Pyramid Security Agency, to render security services at Citibank's
premises.
On the same date, June 10, 1990, respondent CIGLA filed a manifestation with the NCMB
that it was converting its request for preventive mediation into a notice of strike for failure of the
parties to reach a mutually acceptable settlement of the issues, which it followed with a
supplemental notice of strike alleging as supplemental issue the mass dismissal of all union
officers and members.
On June 11, 1990, security guards of El Toro who were replaced by guards of the Golden
Pyramid Security Agency considered the non-renewal of El Toro's service agreement with Citibank
as constituting a lockout and/or a mass dismissal. They threatened to go on strike against Citibank
and picket its premises.
In fact, security guards formerly assigned to Citibank under the expired agreement loitered
around and near the Citibank premises in large groups of from twenty (20) and at times fifty (50)
persons.
On June 14, 1990, respondent CIGLA filed a notice of strike directed at the premises of the
Citibank main office.
HELD:Article 212, paragraph 1 of the Labor Code provides the definition of a labor dispute. It
includes any controversy or matter concerning terms or 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 disputants stand in the
proximate relation of employer and employee.
On the basis of the allegations of the complaint, it is safe to conclude that the dispute involved is a
civil one, not a labor dispute. Consequently, we rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
complaint lies with the regional trial court.
13. Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. NLRC, 287 SCRA 672, G.R. No. 120567 March 20, 1998
From the foregoing provisions of law, the power of the NLRC to issue an injunctive writ originates
from any labor dispute upon application by a party thereof, which application if not granted may
cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such
party. The term labor dispute is defined as 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
or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employers and employees.