1.
Marsman vs Sta Rita – When Marsman and Metro drug (later on CPDSI)
merged, the former became a holding company while latter became the
main operating company per a MOA. CPDSI contracted it logistics with
EAC where the former will provide warehousemen. Marsman confirmed
Sta. Rita’s appointment as warehouseman as part of cross training
program. However, EAC terminated their contract with CPDSI, later it also
terminated Sta. Rita for redundancy. Sta. Rita filed a complaint against
Marsman arguing that she’s an EE because she didn’t sign the MOA (mere
allegation). The MOA was valid because integration is a legitimate
management prerogative.
2. Expedition Construction vs Africa – The garbage truck drivers are
employees of the company but they are not illegally dismissed. There’s
EE/ER because they were hired by the company, received compensation
(paid per trip basis), the power to dismiss was apparent when work was
withheld. There’s control because the company owns the trucks, instructed
where to go, returned the trucks in the company’s premises.
3. Royal Homes Mktg vs Alcantara – Alcantara married an officemate and
wanted to establish their own brokerage company. He filed a case for
illegal dismissal. The SC held he is an independent contractor because of
the characterization in their contract as to the naure of juridical relationship
(they unequivocally stated that there’s no EE/ER). Further, the rules, code
of ethics, periodic evals do not mean control over the means and methods.
These do not dictate the details how he should solicit sales.
4. David vs Macasio – After applying Four-Fold test, the butcher paid on
pakyaw basis is an employee. The mode of compensation doesn’t
determine EE/ER. He is entitled to SIL and HP since he is a pakyaw but
NOT field personnel. He is exempted from 13th MP.
5. Reyes vs Glaucoma – The company hired Reyes as consultant/adviser
to formulate a corporate organizational structure and based on his claim
that an Administrator is needed, he designated himself as such. He was
terminated because he became overbearing. Applying the Economic
Reality Test, there is no EE/ER because Reyes concurrently held
consultancy positions with MIAA, Anti-Task Force for Aviation, and Eye
Center. Thus, he is not wholly dependent on the company.
6. Orozco vs CA – Newspaper columnist is not an employee of Inquirer
because petitioner’s main job is not as columnist but a women’s rights
advocate in various organizations. She also contributes articles to other
publications. Inquirer’s power to approve/reject the publication of an article
isn’t the “control test” since for piece work, the one contracting may accept
or reject a final output. She’s an independent contractor. She was engaged
as a columnist for her talent, skill, experience, and her unique viewpoint
as a feminist advocate. How she utilized all these in writing her column
was not subject to dictation by respondent.
7. Tenazas vs Villegas Taxi – Taxi Driver Francisco filed a complaint after
he was allegedly dismissed for forming a Union. The company denied that
there’s EE/ER. There’s no EE/ER because the driver failed to present
documentary evid like attendance logbook, payroll, SSS. Hence, he’s not
an EE
8. Domasig vs NLRC – Salesman employee or commission agent? Here,
EE/ER was established after Domasig presented substantial evidence
such as undisputed ID (identifier of a bona fide employee) and salary
vouchers.
9. De Leon vs NLRC – De Leon’s work consisted of painting company
building and equipment, maintenance work, cleaning and operating
company equipment and was paid on daily basis. He was terminated after
asking to be included in the payroll. He is an EE because he was instructed
to do maintenance work while waiting for painting job or if he finished
painting early. His work is necessary too, just as those of the engg dept.
10. San Miguel Corp vs NLRC – The company which is glass manufacturing,
it is not engaged in the business of repairing furnaces. Respondent is only
a project employee (not regular) because he was hired as
helper/bricklayer for a specific project not within the regular business of
the company. While the activity is necessary to enable the company to
continue manufacturing glass, the necessity arose only when a particular
furnace broke.
11. Tabas vs California Manufacturing – Petitioners were employees of Livi
Manpower and were assigned as promodisers of California for 6mos
(renewed once) by virtue of manpower supply agreement that stipulates
that it’s contractual. SC held they are regular employees because Livi is a
labor-only contractor which is prohibited by law. The promodisers
performed activities directly related to manufacturing because they
merchandise sale of the products in diff outlets inc. price tagging.