G.R. No.

101279
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC., petitioner,
vs.
HON. RUBEN D. TORRES, as Secretary of the Department of Labor & Employment, and JOSE
N. SARMIENTO, as Administrator of the PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT
ADMINISTRATION, respondents.
FACTS:
In view of published stories regarding the abuses suffered by Filipino domestic helpers in
Hong Kong, the DOLE issued a Department Order which temporarily suspends the recruitment
by private employment agencies of Filipino domestic helpers in Hong Kong and provides that
DOLE shall take over the business of deploying Hong Kong bound workers. Pursuant to the
Department Order issued by DOLE, POEA also issued a Memorandum Circular providing the
guidelines on the government processing and deployment of Filipino domestic helpers to Hong
Kong and the accreditation of Hong Kong recruitment agencies intending to hire Filipino
domestic helpers. Another Circular was issued by the POEA Administrator providing that all
recruitment agencies hiring domestic helpers from the Philippines shall recruit under the new
scheme which requires prior accreditation with the POEA. Hence, Philippine Association of
Service Exporters Inc. (PASEI), now filed this petition for prohibition to annul the said DOLE and
POEA circulars and to prohibit their implementation because the respondent agencies exceeded
their rule making authority in issuing said circulars and that said circulars are against the
Constitution being unreasonable, unfair, oppressive.
ISSUE:
Did the respondent agencies have the authority to issue the assailed circulars under the
Constitution or any other laws?

RULING:
Yes, the respondents have authority to issue such circulars. Under Article 36 of the Labor
Code, the Secretary of Labor has the power to restrict and regulate recruitment and placement
activities. Further, the regulatory authority of the POEA was vested by Executive Order No. 797
which authorizes POEA to take over the functions of the Overseas Employment Development
Board, National Seamen Board and the overseas employment function of the Bureau of
Employment Services. These vesture of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers in
administrative bodies is not constitutional, unreasonable, and oppressive. Such is necessary to
help in the regulation of societys ramified activities. The circulars does not prohibit PASEI from
engaging in the recruitment and deployment of Filipino land based workers but merely regulates
hence it is but only a valid exercise of police power as delegated to the executive branch of the
government. However, such circulars are legally invalid, defective and unenforceable because of
its non-compliance with the requirements of publication and filing in the Office of Administrative

Register as required in Article 2 of the Civil Code, Article 5 of the Labor Code, and Section 3 and
4, Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987. Hence, the writ is prohibition is
granted and the implementation of the assailed circulars is suspended pending compliance with
the statutory requirements of publication and filing under the aforementioned laws.

G.R. No. L-16600 December 27, 1961

ILOILO CHINESE COMMERCIAL SCHOOL, petitioner,
vs.
LEONORA FABRIGAR and THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION,
respondents.
FACTS:
Santiago Fabrigar wad a janitor of Iloilo Chinese Commercial School (ICCS). When
he died, his common-law wife filed a claim for compensation with the WCC alleging that
Fabrigars cause of death was pulmonary tuberculosis contracted during and as a result
of his employment as janitor. The Hearing Officer of WCC, however, denied the claim and
dismissed the case finding that the claimant failed to prove the casual relation of the
employment to Fabrigars death, sighting that the cause of death was beriberi adult as
reflected in the Death Certificate. On the appeal before the WCC, the decision was
reversed, ruling that the employment of the decease aggravated the latters pre-existing
illness basing and putting more credence from the testimony of Dr. Villareal, Fabrigars
attending physician, and therefore ordering the petitioner to a the claims. Petitioners
motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence this appeal, with the contention that the
deceased Santiago Fabrigar was not the petitioners employee since the Iloilo Chinese
Chamber of Commerce was responsible for Fabrigars salary and therefore the petitioner
is exempt from the scope of the Workmens Compensation Law.
ISSUE:
Does the Workmens Compensation Law apply to the petitioner given the fact that
he was not the one actually paying the salary of the deceased but the Chinese Chamber
of Commerce, who should likewise be the one responsible for the death compensation
claim?
RULING:
Yes, the Workmens Compensation Law applies to the petitioner because under the
law he is considered as the employer of the deceased. There is substantial proof on
evidence showing that Fabrigar was employed by and rendered service for the petitioner

and was an employee within the purview of the Workmens Compensation Law. The most
important test of employer-employee relation is the power to control the employees
conduct. The records disclose that the person in charge of the ICCS supervised the
deceased in his work and had control over the manner he performed the same.
Therefore, it could indeed be concluded that there exists an employer-employee
relationship between ICCS and Fabrigar, hence, the Workmens Compensation Law
applies to them. In view thereof, the appeal interposed by the petitioner is dismissed and
the decision appealed from is affirmed with costs against petitioner.

G.R. No. 116960 April 2, 1996

BERNARDO JIMENEZ and JOSE JIMENEZ, as Operators of JJ's TRUCKING, petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PEDRO JUANATAS and FREDELITO
JUANATAS, respondents.
FACTS:
Pedro and Fredelito Juanatas, Father and son, filed a claim for unpaid
wages/commissions, separation pay and damages against Bernardo Jimenez, the owner
of JJs Trucking. The petitioners were allegedly hired by Jimenez as driver/mechanic
and helper but Jimenez did not pay them the entire amount of commission for the year
1989 and illegally terminated them which further entitled both of them to a separation
pay. The Labor Arbiter granted the commission and separation pay claims of Pedro
Juanatas but dismissed that of Fredelito Juanatas for lack of merit. On appeal with the
NLRC, affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision with modifications such that Fredelito is
considered an employee of Jimenez thus entitling him a share from the commission and
separation pay granted to Pedro. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied,
hence, this appeal contending that NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling
that Fredelito was an employee of Jimenez and that the latter did not pay the
commission in full.
ISSUE:
Does the provisions of the Labor Code cover Fredelito Junatas, who works with his
father as the latters helper and receives part of his fathers salary and commission as
his compensation?
RULING:
No, it does cover Frederico Juanatas there being no employer-employee
relationship between him and Jimenez. The four elements considered in determining
such relationship does not exist in the case at bar, particularly the fourth element which
is the power to control the employees conduct. The agreement was merely between
Pedro Juanatas and Jimenez. The hiring of a helper was discretionary on the part of
Pedro. Should he hire a helper, the contract states that he would be responsible for the
latters compensation. With or without the helper, Pedro would be receiving the same
salary/commission. Fredelito was hired by his father and the compensation he received
was paid by his father out of the latters commission. Furthermore, Fredelito was not
subject to the control, supervision and dismissal by Jimenez. Hence, he is not an

employee of Jimenez entitled to the payment of separation pay and commission. In view
thereof, the decision of the NLRC is affirmed with modification that Fredelito Juanatas
is not entitled to the award for commission and separation pay.

G.R. No. 114787 June 2, 1995

MAM REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and MANUEL CENTENO, petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and CELSO B. BALBASTRO respondents.
FACTS:
Celso Balbastro filed a case before the Labor Arbiter against MAM Realty
Development Corporation (MAM) and its Vice President Manuel Centeno for wage
differentials, overtime pay, incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, holiday pay and rest day
pay. He alleged that he was employed by MAM as a pump operator at Rancho Estate,
earning a basic monthly salary of P 1,590, for seven days of work starting at 6:00am up
to 6:00pm. MAM contended that he was working merely as a service contractor and not
as a regular employee. His task was simply to close/open the water supply system of the
subdivision on a daily basis and had to work only for a maximum of three hours. He
makes use of his free time by offering plumbing services to homeowners of the
subdivision. MAM maintains that he was not at all subject to the control and
supervision of MAM. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Upon
appeal with the NLRC, the decision of the Labor Arbiter was set aside and the petitioners
MAM and Manuel Centeno jointly and severally liable for the money claims. Hence, these
appeal.
ISSUE:
Can the NLRC hold MAM and its Vice President Manuel Centeno jointly and
severally liable for the money claims awarded to private respondent?
RULING:
No, in this case, the NLRC erred in holding Manuel Centeno jointly and severally
liable for the money claims awarded to private respondent. While it is true that in labor
cases, corporate officers may be held solidarily liable with the corporation for the
termination of the employment of employees done with malice or in bad faith, it may
only be possible when exceptional circumstances warrant such, generally, in cases
provided for by law. In the present case, there is nothing substantial on record that can
justify, rescinding from the foregoing, petitioner Centenos solidary liability with the
corporation. Nonetheless, it is settled that Celso Balbastro is an employee of MAM and
the latter is liable for the claimed payments. In view thereof, the decision of the NLRC is
affirmed with modification that MAM shall solely pay that compensations awarded.

G.R. No. 119930

March 12, 1998

INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., petitioner,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Fourth Division, Cebu City), LABOR ARBITER
NICASIO P. ANINON and PANTALEON DE LOS REYES, respondents.
FACTS:
Pantaleon Delos Reyes (Delos Reyes) and Insular Life Assurance Co. Inc., (Insular Life)
entered into a contract of agency which contained a stipulation that no employer-employee
relationship shall be created between the parties and that the agent shall be free to exercise his
own judgement as to time, place and means of soliciting insurance. There were other
stipulations requiring Delos Reyes to submit reports, turn over sums of money collected, and
other conditions and limitations as to how the work was done, including a quota that should be
met. He was also promoted to work as a Unit Manager and was pasked by the company to
participate on company programs until the management gave him a notice that he is terminated
from work. De los Reyes filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter complaining that he was
illegally terminated and was not given separation pay. The Labor Arbiter dismissed his petition
on grounds that there was no employee-employer relationship between him and Insular Life
having failed to meet the four-fold test. The NLRC on appeal however, sighted that respondent De
los Reyes was under the effective control of petitioner in the critical and most important aspects
of his work as Unit Manager. This conclusion was derived from the provisions in the contract
which appointed private respondent as Acting Unit Manager. De los Reyes was to serve
exclusively the company, therefore, he was not an independent contractor. He was required to
meet certain manpower and production quota and petitioner controlled the assignment to and
removal of soliciting agents from his unit. Thus, he must be considered an employee of Insular
Life. NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Hence this appeal.
ISSUE:
Is a contract containing stipulations that there shall be no employer-employee
relationship shall be created between the parties binding in determining whether there is an
employer-employee relationship or not, in deciding labor cases?
RULING:
No, the employer-employee relationship cannot be solely based from the stipulations of
contract signed by the parties. What is important is that all the elements in the four-fold test is
met considering the actual nature of the employees work. In the case at bar, the exclusivity of
service, control of assignments and removal of agents under private respondent's unit, collection
of premiums, furnishing of company facilities and materials as well as capital described as Unit
Development Fund are but hallmarks of the management system in which herein private
respondent worked. This obtaining, there is no escaping the conclusion that private respondent
Pantaleon de los Reyes was an employee of herein petitioner. Hence he is entitled to the benefits

granted by law to employees. The petition of Insular Life is denied and the decision of the NLRC
is affirmed.

G.R. No. L-18873

September 30, 1963

MANILA HOTEL COMPANY, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS:
The Pines Hotel Association filed a petition before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR)
asking that the workers who rendered service beyond the regular hours be given overtime pay for
services rendered due to the exigencies of the business, as well as additional compensation for
Sunday, legal holiday and nighttime work. The Manila hotel filed an answer denying the
averments and contended that the overtime was not authorized by them and was rendered
voluntarily. The presiding judge rendered a decision favorable to the employees. A motion for
consideration was filed by Manila Hotel but was denied. The Examining Division of the CIR
determined the amount to be paid by Manila Hotel in a report which listed the employees
entitled to payment. However, the management of Manila Hotel objected on the ground that 22
names of employees should not be included in the list since they were not employees of Manila
Hotel at the time the petition was filed. The trial judge, however overruled the objection holding
that while the 22 employees were actually not in the service at the time of the filing of the
petition, they were however subsequently employed even during the pendency of the incident,
and so their claim comes within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations. Hence, the
present petition for review.
ISSUE:
Is the employer-employee relationship between the employer and the employee severed
when seasonal employees are temporarily not in service during off season?
RULING:
No, the employer-employee relationship is not severed in such a case. They are merely
suspended. While it is true that the 22 employees whose claim is objected to,P were not actually
in the service at the time the instant petition was filed, they were however, subsequently
reemployed even while the present incident was pending consideration by the trial court.
Moreover, it appears that the questioned employees were never separated from the service. Their
status is that of regular seasonal employees who are called to work from time to time, mostly
during summer season. Their relationship being such, the 22 employees can be considered as in
the regular employment of the hotel. Hence they are entitled to the award. The decision appealed
from is affirmed.