Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
INTRODUCTORY MATERIALS
SECTION 6. WORK RELATIONSHIP
6.01. WORK RELATIONSHIP
A. Definitions: Employer and Employee
Employer A person who controls and directs a worker under an
express or implied contract of hire and who pays the workers salary
or wages. Blacks Law Dictionary
Employee A person who works in the service of another person (the
employer) under an express or implied contract of hire, under which
the employer has the right to control the details of work performance.
Blacks Law Dictionary
97 (a), (b), (c);
Article 97. Definitions. As used in this Title;
(a) Person
means
an
individual,
partnership,
association,
corporation,
business
trust,
legal
representative, or any organized group of persons.
(b) Employer includes any person acting directly or
indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to
an employee and shall include the government and all
its branches, subdivisions and instrumentalities, all
government-owned or controlled corporations and
institutions, as well as non-profit private institutions or
organizations.
(c) Employee includes any individual employed by an
employer.
Person
Individual
Partnership
Association
Corporation
Business trust
Legal representative
Any organized group of persons
Individual or single proprietorship
Refers to a business unit owned and controlled by only one person
Partnership
Refers to an association of two or more persons who bind themselves
to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund with the
intention of dividing the profits among themselves or for the exercise
of a profession
Corporation
1. Stock Corporation refers to one organized for profit and
issues shares of stock to its stockholders.
2. Non-stock, non-profit corporation refers to one organized
principally for public purposes such as charitable, educational,
cultural or similar purposes and does not issue shares of stock
to its members.
Business trust, legal representatives or any organized group of
persons
A business trust is neither a corporation nor a partnership. It is
a practice that originated in Massachusetts where a business
or certain real estate is vested in a group of trustees which
manages it for the benefit of the beneficial owners; the
ownership
of
the
latter
is
evidenced
by
negotiable/transferable shares.
Legal representatives may refer to agents under the principle
of agency in the Civil Code
Any organized group of persons refers to a duly registered
association of persons who voluntarily join together to form
business establishments which they own, control and
patronize. E.g. Cooperatives (credit, consumers, producers,
marketing, service or multi-purpose)
167 (f), (g);
Article 167. Definition of Terms. As used in this Title, unless
the context indicates otherwise:
(f) Employer means any person, natural or juridical,
employing the services of the employee.
(g) Employee means any person compulsorily covered by
the GSIS under Commonwealth Act Numbered One
hundred eighty-six, as amended, including the
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and
any person employed as casual, emergency, temporary,
substitute or contractual, or any person compulsorily
covered by the SSS under Republic Act Numbered
Eleven hundred sixty-one, as amended.
Employer
Any person, natural or juridical, domestic or foreign, who
carries on in the Philippines any trade, business, industry,
undertaking or activity of any kind and uses the services of
another person who is under his orders as regards the
employment.
Classification of employer
o Public Sector: covered by the GSIS, comprising the
National Government, including GOCCs, the Phil.
Employee
Any person who performs services for an employer
Classification of employee
o Public Sector: covered by the GSIS, including members
of the AFP, elective officials who are receiving regular
salary, and any person employed as casual,
emergency, temporary, substitute or contractual
o Private Sector: comprising the employed workers who
are covered by the SSS
212 (e), (f)
Article 212.
(e) Employer includes any person acting in the interest
of an employer, directly or indirectly. The term shall not
include any labor organization or any of its officers or
agents except when acting as employer.
(f) Employee includes any person in the employ of an
employer. The term shall not be limited to the
employees of a particular employer, unless the Code so
explicitly states. It shall include any individual whose
work has ceased as a result of or in connection with
any current labor dispute or because of any unfair
labor practice if he has no obtained any other
substantially equivalent and regular employment.
Employee
UY v. VILLANUEVA
UNITED
PEPSI-COLA
LAGUESMA
SUPERVISORY
UNION
(UPSU)
V.
Facts:
B. Employer-Employee Relationship
Factual Test
TAPE v SERVAA | Tinga, J.
GR No. 167648 | January 28, 2008
Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision and Resolution
of the CA
Petitioner: Television and Production Exponents (TAPE), Antonio
Tuviera
Respondent: Roberto Servaa
Quick Summary: Servaa, a security guard of TAPE stationed at
Broadway Centrum, was dismissed due to redundancy and the
companys decision to engage the services of a professional security
agency. The Court held that although the existence of an employeremployee relationship is a factual issue, the Court can still assume
jurisdiction especially if the findings of lower courts/ agencies are
conflicting (NLRC with those of CA and Labor Arbiters).
Looking at the following facts, the Court held that Servaa is an
employee of TAPE:
Facts:
Payment of wages
Power of dismissal
The most important factor involves the control test under which an
employer-employee relationship exists when the person for whom the
services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end
achieved but also the manner and means used to achieve the end.
Factual Considerations:
Remington:
denied that it dismissed Erlinda illegally, saying she
was a domestic helper, not a regular employee
Her job did not have anything to do with the business
her work.
She did not even need to punch any time card.
Facts:
- Nov. 29, 1996: A fire destroyed a large portion of the Wack-wack Golf
and Country Club, including its kitchen. Due to the need for
reconstruction of the clubhouse, Wack-wack had to suspend the
operations of the Food and Beverage Department, requiring the
suspension of 54 employees. The Wack-wack Employees Union found
the suspension arbitrary and constitutive of union-busting, and went
on strike.
C. Rationale:
Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. NLRC: a househelper in the staf
houses of an industrial company was a regular employee of
the said firm. The criterion is the personal comfort and
enjoyment of the family of the employer in the home of said
employer.
That she works within company premises and that she does
not cater exclusively to the personal comfort of Mr. Tan and his
family reflects the existence of Remington's right of control
over her functions, which is the primary indicator of the
existence of an employer-employee relationship.
Wrong to say that if the work is not directly related to the
Established
MIGUEL v. JCT GROUP, INC.
WACK-WACK GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB v. NLRC
Factors
PACIFIC
CONSULTANTS
SCHONFELD
INTERNATIONAL
ASIA,
INC.
v.
Facts:
work instructions came from PCIJ and that petitioner PPI only served
as a "conduit."
Respondent averred that the absence or existence of a written
contract of employment is not decisive of whether he is an employee
of PPI. He said that PPI, through its president Henrichsen, directed his
work/duties as Sector Manager of PPI. He emphasized that as gleaned
from Alien Employment Permit (AEP) No. M-029908-5017 issued to
him by DOLE on February 26, 1999, he is an employee of PPI. It was
PPI president Henrichsen who terminated his employment; PPI also
paid his salary. The two corporations have separate and distinct
personalities.
Issue: Are the factors in determining the existence of an employeremployee relationship between respondent and petitioner attendant
in this case?
Held: Yes.
Ratio:
The SC agreed with the conclusion of the CA that there was an
employer-employee relationship between petitioner PPI and
respondent using the four-fold test. Jurisprudence is firmly settled
that whenever the existence of an employment relationship is in
dispute, four elements constitute the reliable yardstick: (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. It is the so-called "control test"
which constitutes the most important index of the existence of the
employer-employee relationshipthat 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.
The SC quoted the CA: There is, indeed, substantial evidence on
record which would erase any doubt that the respondent company is
the true employer of petitioner. In the case at bar, the power to
control and supervise petitioners work performance devolved upon
the respondent company. Likewise, the power to terminate the
employment relationship was exercised by the President of the
respondent company. It is not the letterhead used by the company in
the termination letter which controls, but the person who exercised
FACTS
NLRC reversed (the word used is modified) that of the Labor Arbiter,
on a finding that De Vera is Philcoms regular employee and
accordingly directed the company to reinstate him to his former
position without loss of seniority rights and privileges and with full
backwages from the date of his dismissal until actual reinstatement.
ISSUES
- Applying the four-fold test to this case, we initially find that it was
respondent himself who sets the parameters of what his duties would
be in ofering his services to petitioner in the letter which he sent to
petitioner.
- The letter was substantially the basis of the labor arbiters finding
that there existed no employer-employee relationship between
petitioner and respondent, in addition to the following factual settings:
- The fact that the complainant was not considered an employee was
recognized by the complainant himself in a signed letter, the tenor of
which indicated that the complainant was proposing to extend his
time with the respondent and seeking additional compensation for
said extension. This shows that the respondent PHILCOM did not have
control over the schedule of the complainant as it [is] the complainant
who is proposing his own schedule and asking to be paid for the
same. This is proof that the complainant understood that his
relationship with the respondent PHILCOM was a retained physician
and not as an employee. If he were an employee he could not
negotiate as to his hours of work.
- De Veras service for the respondent was covered by a retainership
contract [which] was renewed every year from 1982 to 1994. Upon
reading the contract dated September 6, 1982, signed by the
complainant himself (Annex C of Respondents Position Paper), it
clearly states that is a retainership contract. The retainer fee is
indicated thereon and the duration of the contract for one year is also
clearly indicated in paragraph 5 of the Retainership Contract. The
complainant cannot claim that he was unaware that the contract was
good only for one year, as he signed the same without any
objections. The complainant also accepted its renewal every year
thereafter until 1994. As a literate person and educated person, the
complainant cannot claim that he does not know what contract he
signed and that it was renewed on a year to year basis.
- The labor arbiter added the indicia, not disputed by respondent, that
from the time he started to work with petitioner, he never was
included in its payroll; was never deducted any contribution for
remittance to the Social Security System (SSS); and was in fact
subjected by petitioner to the ten (10%) percent withholding tax for
his professional fee, in accordance with the National Internal Revenue
Code, matters which are simply inconsistent with an employeremployee relationship.
- Clearly, the elements of an employer-employee relationship are
wanting in this case. We may add that the records are replete with
evidence showing that respondent had to bill petitioner for his
Control Test
LOPEZ v. METROPOLITAN
SYSTEM (MWSS)
WATERWORKS
and
SEWERAGE
Facts:
Petitioners were engaged by the MWSS as collectors-contractors by
virtue of an Agreement wherein the petitioners agreed to collect from
the concessionaires of MWSS charges, fees, assessments of rents for
water, etc. However, when MWSS entered into a Concession
Agreement with Manila Water and Benpress-Lyonnaise, the collection
of the bills was transferred to said private concessionaires. Regular
employees of the MWSS (except those who chose to remain with
MWSS or retired) were absorbed by the concessionaires.
Relying on a Civil Service Commission Resolution, MWSS refused to
give the petitioners retirement benefits, saying that they were
10
SEVILLA v. CA | Sarmiento, J.
G.R. No. L-41182-3 | April 16, 1988
Petitioner: Dr. Carlos Sevilla and Lina Sevilla
Respondent: CA, Tourism World Service, Inc.
Quick Summary:
Sevilla and Tourism World Service (TWS) entered into a contract
involving the management of a branch office of the latter. The issue
here is the nature of the relationship between the parties. This stems
from the unilateral disconnection of phone lines and padlocking of the
said offices by TWS, wherein Sevilla feeling aggrieved, filed a
complaint under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code.
In this case the petitioner Lina Sevilla claims that a joint business
venture was entered into by and between her and Tourist World
Service with offices at the Ermita branch office and that she was not
an employee of the TWS to the end that her relationship with TWS
was one of a joint business venture. TWS contends that she is an
employee, and therefore bound by the acts of TWS, the employer.
The Court held, using the Economic test, that she is not an employee:
(USING the existing economic conditions prevailing between
the parties, like the inclusion of the employee in the payrolls, in
determining
the
existence
of
an
employer-employee
relationship)
Economic Test
11
TWS to the end that her relationship with TWS was one of a
joint business venture. TWS contend that the appellant was an
employee of the appellee Tourist World Service, Inc. and as
such was designated manager.
RTC: TWS, being the true lessee, it was within its prerogative
to terminate the lease and padlock the premises. It likewise
found the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, to be a mere employee of
said Tourist World Service, Inc. and as such, she was bound by
the acts of her employer
Hence this appeal
In the second place, and as found by the Appellate Court, '[w]hen the
branch office was opened, the same was run by the herein appellant
Lina O. Sevilla payable to Tourist World Service, Inc. by any airline for
any fare brought in on the efort of Mrs. Lina Sevilla. Under these
circumstances, it cannot be said that Sevilla was under the control of
Tourist World Service, Inc. "as to the means used." Sevilla in pursuing
the business, obviously relied on her own gifts and capabilities.
It is further admitted that Sevilla was not in the company's
payroll. For her eforts, she retained 4% in commissions from airline
bookings, the remaining 3% going to Tourist World. Unlike an
employee then, who earns a fixed salary usually, she earned
compensation in fluctuating amounts depending on her
booking successes.
FRANCISCO v. NLRC | Ynares-Santiago, J.
G.R. No. 170087 | August 31, 2006
Petitioner: Angelina Francisco
Respondent: NLRC, KASEI Corp.
Quick Summary:
Angelina Francisco filed a complaint for constructive dismissal. Kaseis
defense was that no employee-employer relationship exist since he
was only hired as a technical consultant. The Court held, using
economic test that she is an employee and DEPENDENT to the
company since:
she had served the company for six years before her
dismissal,
receiving
check
vouchers
indicating
her
salaries/wages, benefits, 13th month pay, bonuses and
allowances, as well as deductions and Social Security
When petitioner was designated General Manager, respondent
corporation made a report to the SSS signed by Irene
Ballesteros. Petitioners membership in the SSS as manifested
by a copy of the SSS specimen signature card which was
signed by the President of Kasei Corporation and the inclusion
of her name in the on-line inquiry system of the SSS evinces
the existence of an employer-employee relationship between
petitioner and respondent corporation.
IMPORTANT NOTES:
In addition to the control test, economic realities of the employment
relations help provide a comprehensive analysis of the true
classification of the individual, whether as employee, independent
contractor, corporate officer or some other capacity.
12
Agreement
CHAVEZ v. NLRC
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. ABELLA
Penned by J. Carpio-Morales
Facts: Petitioner SMC entered into a one-year Contract of Services
(renewable) with Sunflower Multi-Purpose Cooperative. The latter
undertakes to provide janitorial, shrimp harvesting, sanitation, and
storage services for the Bacolod Shrimp Processing Plant. Noteworthy
is the explicit stipulation in the contract that there is no employeremployee relationship between the company and the cooperative or
the company and the cooperatives employees. Pursuant to the
contract Sunflower engaged the services of private respondents. After
sometime, private respondents filed a complaint praying that they be
declared as regular employees which was amended subsequently to
include illegal dismissal. In the meantime, SMC filed before the DOLE a
Notice of Closure.
(I think this is the relevant part with respect to the topic). The law of
course provides for two kinds of regular employees: (1) those who are
13
WATERWORKS
and
SEWERAGE
Facts:
Petitioners were engaged by the MWSS as collectors-contractors by
virtue of an Agreement wherein the petitioners agreed to collect from
the concessionaires of MWSS charges, fees, assessments of rents for
water, etc. However, when MWSS entered into a Concession
Agreement with Manila Water and Benpress-Lyonnaise, the collection
of the bills was transferred to said private concessionaires. Regular
employees of the MWSS (except those who chose to remain with
MWSS or retired) were absorbed by the concessionaires.
Relying on a Civil Service Commission Resolution, MWSS refused to
give the petitioners retirement benefits, saying that they were
contract-collectors and not employees. On the other hand, the
petitioners claim that they are employees, saying that with the nature
and extent of their work at the MWSS, they served as collectors of
MWSS only, and that they never provided collections services to
customers as an independent business.
Issue:
W/N petitioners are regular employees.
Held and Ratio:
According to the Court, they are indeed regular employees of MWSS.
The primary standard of determining regular employment is the
reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by
the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the
employer, which can be determined by looking at the nature of the
work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular
business or trade in its entirety.
14
Sonzas rescission of
the agreement was
not an admission of
his status as a nonemployee.
ABS-CBN
exercised
control
over
the
means and methods
of his work, subjected
him to its rules and
standards
of
performance, and his
exclusivity
as
a
talent.
15
most important element. De los Reyes was under the efective 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,
to wit: (a) De los Reyes was to serve exclusively the company,
therefore, he was not an independent contractor; (b) he was required
to meet certain manpower and production quota; and, (c) petitioner
controlled the assignment to and removal of soliciting agents from his
unit.
Doctrine: Not every form of control over the conduct of the party
hired in relation to the service rendered establishes employeremployee relationship.
Broadcasts Talents - Performers
TELEVISION ETC. v. SERVANA, supra
DUMAPIT-MURLLO v. CA
Facts: Dumapit-Murillo hired as co-anchor for ABC. Her fixed-term
contract was for a period of 3 mos but it was renewed by ABC
continually for 4 yrs. LA dismissed her complaint for illegal dismissal.
NLRC reversed LAs decision, CA reversed NLRC.
Hours of Work
16
Proof
TELEVISION AND PRODUCTION EXPONENTS, INC. v. SERVANA,
supra
LOPEZ v. BODEGA CITY
MCLEOD v NLRC
Jan 23, 2007
Carpio, J:
17
The NLRC on the other hand, said that the Labor Arbiter acted
arbitrarily on ruling in favor of Domasig since Cata was
asserting that Domasig was merely a commissions agent
evidenced by the list of sales collections which included the
commissions due, expenses incurred and cash advances
received.
Issue: Whether or not there enough/sufficient/substantial evidence as
to establish the employee-employer relationship between Domasig
and Cata Garments.
Held:
There was enough evidence to establish the employeremployee relationship.
It has long been established that substantial evidence is enough to
prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
Substantial evidence has been defined to be such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion, and its absence is not shown by
stressing that there is contrary evidence on record, direct or
circumstantial, for the appellate court cannot substitute its
own judgment or criterion for that of the trial court in
determining wherein lies the weight of evidence or what
evidence is entitled to belief.
It was wrong for the NLRC to be not convinced with the uncontested
issuance of the identification card which petitioners submitted to
prove that there was evidence of an employer-employee relationship.
Also, Domasig was employed for more than one year and under the
law, he is considered to be a regular employee. Domasig was
reinstated in this case.
Absence of Relationship
Respondents: Lamadrid Bearing & Parts Corp and its President Jose
Lamadrid
Facts:
Abante was employed by the Lamadrid company in 1985 as a
salesman for Mindanao w/ a commission of 3% of the total paid-up
sales.
Petitioner had 5 bad accounts worth P687K in 1998 & Jose warned him
that if he doesnt issue his own checks to cover the bad accounts, his
commissions wont be released & he will lose his job. He issued
checks on condition that these will not be deposited for clearing &
that the deficiencies shall be charged against his commissions. The
company tricked him into signing a Promissory Note and a Deed of
Real Estate Mortgage. Some checks were returned to Abante.
Abante was to apply for a salary loan w/ SSS but learned that he
wasnt covered. When he inquired w/ Jose, the latter berated & hurled
invectives at him. Jose deposited the remaining checks, contrary to
their agreement. These were dishonored due to Account Closed.
Company demanded that he make good his checks. Abante replied
committing his commissions as payment for the balance of the sales.
Abantes customer handed to him a letter from the company
informing clients that Abante is no longer recognized as a salesman.
Abante received a subpoena for violation of BP 22.
ABante filed a complaint for illegal dismissal w/ money claims before
the NLRC. The respondents aver that Abante is a freelance salesman,
not an employee because he was on commission basis, he doesnt
have a monthly salary, he doesnt report to work daily, he didnt have
a pay-slip, he is not enrolled w/ the SSS, he is also a salesman for 5
other companies, and he shouldnt have executed a Promissory Note
& Deed of Real Estate Mortgage..
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Abante. The NLRC reversed the
NLRCs decision for lack of cause of action. The CA denied Abantes
petition for review.
Issue/Held: WON Abante is an employee of Lamadrid. NO
ABANTE v. LAMADRID
Petitioner: Empermaco B Abante, Jr
Ratio:
Abante allege that he was doing work that is necessary or desirable in
Lamadrids usual business or trade (pursuant to Art 280, Labor Code).
He also said that the company had the power of control over him. He
18
19
engaged
by
the
contractor/subcontractor to accomplish the work, job, etc.
Legitimate Job Contracting
Conditions to be met:
1.
20
Elements:
1. The C/SC does not have substantial capital or investment
which relates to the job, work or service to be performed
and the employees recruited, supplied or placed by such
c/sc are performing activities w/c are directly related to
the main business of the principal, OR
2. The C/SC does not exercise the right of control over the
performance of the work of the contractual employee.
Even if only one of the two elements is present, there is laboronly contracting
Bases in prohibiting labor-only contracting:
a. 3, Art. XIII, 1987 Consti. Section 3. The State shall aford
full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized, and promote full employment and equality
of employment opportunities for all. X X X
b. Art. 106, Labor Code.
o Objective:
(a)
"Contracting"
or
"subcontracting"
refers
to
an
arrangement whereby a principal agrees to put out or farm
out with a contractor or subcontractor the performance or
completion of a specific job, work or service within a definite
or predetermined period, regardless of whether such job,
work or service is to be performed or completed within or
outside the premises of the principal.
(b) "Contractor or subcontractor" refers to any person or
entity engaged in a legitimate contracting or subcontracting
arrangement.
Section
3.
Trilateral
Relationship
in
Contracting
Arrangements. - In legitimate contracting, there exists a
trilateral relationship under which there is a contract for a
specific job, work or service between the principal and the
contractor or subcontractor, and a contract of employment
between the contractor or subcontractor and its workers.
Hence,
there
are
three
parties
involved
in
these
arrangements, the principal which decides to farm out a job or
service to a contractor or subcontractor, the contractor or
subcontractor which has the capacity to independently
undertake the performance of the job, work or service, and
the contractual workers engaged by the contractor or
subcontractor to accomplish the job work or service.
Section 4. Definition of Basic Terms. - The following terms as
used in these Rules, shall mean:
21
22
23
with
labor
standards
and
working
24
A. Independent Contractor
FACTS:
1.
2.
25
3.
4.
26
27
28
Proof
OREGAS v. NLRC
Employer-Employee Relationship
MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION v. LIBUNAO
GR No. 144458 | 14 July 2004 | Callejo, Sr., J. | Petition for review on
certiorari of the decision and resolution of the CA
Relevant Topic:
Where the security agency recruits, hires and assigns the works of its
watchmen or security guards to a client, the employer of such guards
or watchmen is such agency, and not the client, since the latter has
no hand in selecting the security guards.
SYNOPSIS
In the complaint for damages filed by Atty. Rodrigo B. Libunao
for the delictual and harmful acts committed by Security Guard
Remegio Sido, the trial court rendered judgment holding Sido and
Mercury Drug Corporation liable for moral damages, exemplary
damages, attorney's fees and costs of suits in favor of Atty. Libunao.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment affirming with
modification the decision of the trial court as it deleted the award of
attorney's fees. It ruled that Sido was an employee of Mercury Drug
Corporation, and that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that
he was an employee of Black Shield Security Services Corporation
(BSSC). Thus, Mercury Drug Corporation was jointly and severally,
liable with Sido. Mercury Drug Corporation filed this petition for review
on certiorari.
The Court ruled that where the security agency recruits, hires
and assigns the works of its watchmen or security guards to a client,
the employer of such guards or watchmen is such agency, and not the
client, since the latter has no hand in selecting the security guards.
Thus, the duty to observe the diligence of a good father of a family
cannot be demanded from the said client. The fact that a client
company may give instructions or directions to the security guards
assigned to it, does not, by itself, render the client responsible as an
employer of the security guards concerned and liable for their
wrongful acts or omissions. Accordingly, the petition was granted.
FACTS
Atty. Libunao, herein respondent, bought items from the selfservice section of Mercury Drug in Robinsons Galleria with a
friend
When they were about to exit, Mercury Drugs Security Guard
Sido asked for the receipt, saying, Yong resibo niyan. It took
Libunao some time to produce said receipt because Sido was
holding his right arm. Libunao uttered, Wala yatang resibo yan!
When Libunao found the receipt, he held it up to Sidos face
and said, Satisfied ka na? Sido replied, Putang-ina mo! Which
was Libunaos reply as well.
Sido allegedly lunged at Libunao, hit him on the face twice,
and pointed his revolver at Libunao saying, Putang-ina mo, pag
hindi kayo lumabas ditto papuputukin ko to sa iyo!
Libunao fled the scene but returned with the chief of security
of Robinsons Galleria to arrest Sido. The store manager, Vilma
Santos, allegedly said, Ako ang manager dito, hindi ninyo
puedeng arestuhin ang security guard kasi on duty pa siya. Magsialis nga kayo dito mga buwisit kayo!
But Santos relented and as they were leaving, all the sales
ladies of the store surrounded Sido and tried to protect him.
They were able to arrest Sido but Libunao was later found to
be sufering from post-traumatic depression syndrome due to the
altercation.
Libunao filed a complaint for damages against Mercury Drug
Corporation, its president, Vilma Santos, and Sido.
TC and CA found in favor of Libunao
Mercury drug alleges that it is not Sidos employer and that
his direct employer was the security agency, Black Shield Security
Services Corporation; hence, Mercury Drug Corp. could not be
held liable for the damages under A2180 CC.
ISSUE/HELD
W/N Mercury Drug is liable for damages to the respondent for the
tortuous and delictual acts of Sido [NO]
RATIO
Based on the evidence on record, the petitioner was not Sido's
employer; hence, the trial and appellate courts erred in applying
Article 2180 of the New Civil Code against the petitioner and
holding it liable for Sido's harmful acts.
In Soliman, Jr. v. Tuazon, we held that where the security
agency recruits, hires and assigns the works of its watchmen or
security guards to a client, the employer of such guards or
watchmen is such agency, and not the client, since the latter has
no hand in selecting the security guards. Thus, the duty to
29
Liability
JAGUAR SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY V. SALES
Date: April 22, 2008
Ponente: Austria-Martinez
Doctrine: Under Articles 106, 107 and 108 of the Labor Code, the
joint and several liability of the contractor and principal is mandated
to assure compliance of the provisions therein including statutory
minimum wage. Jaguar, the contractor, is liable as a direct employer.
Delta, as principal, is liable as the indirect employer of the
contractors employees for purposes of paying the employees their
wages should the contractor be unable to pay them.
Facts:
Ratio:
1. Yes, both companies are liable.
30
Issues:
3. Topical: W/N both Jaguar and Delta are liable to pay the
guards.
4. Side issue: If both parties are liable, can Jaguar claim
reimbursement from Delta through a cross-claim filed with the
labor court?
Ratio:
3. Yes, both companies are liable.
Facts:
Quick Summary:
NLRC: Affirmed
3
The only instance when the principal can also be held liable with the
independent contractor or subcontractor for the backwages and separation pay
of the latters employees is when there is proof that the principal conspired
with the independent contractor or subcontractor in the illegal dismissal of the
employees
31
CA: Solidarily liable on all: (1) underpayment and on the nonpayment of (2) overtime pay plus (3) separation pay
Issue:
A. Facts
1.
Held/ Ratio:
NO. MERALCO as a principal of an independent contractor
(Landrito for janitorial services) cannot be held liable for
payment separation pay of dismissed employees (of the
independent contractor).
ON LIABILITY
The only instance when the principal can also be held liable with the
independent contractor or subcontractor for the backwages and separation pay
of the latters employees is when there is proof that the principal conspired
with the independent contractor or subcontractor in the illegal dismissal of the
employees
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
32
C. Rationale:
33
34
Issue:
(1) whether or not Grigio is a "labor-only" contractor; YES
(2) whether the
abandonment.
respondents
were
lawfully
dismissed
due
to
Held/Ratio:
(1) YES.
The first issue that needs to be resolved is whether Grigio is a "laboronly" contractor, which is tantamount to a finding that the petitioner is
the employer of the respondents.
Article 106 of the Labor Code explains the relations which may arise
between an employer, a contractor and the contractors employees
thus:
ART. 106. Contractor or subcontractor. Whenever an
employer enters into a contract with another person for the
performance of the formers work, the employees of the
contractor and of the latters subcontractor, if any, shall be
paid in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay
the wages of his employees in accordance with this Code, the
employer shall be jointly and severally liable with his
contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the extent
of the work performed under the contract in the same manner
and extent that he is liable to employees directly employed by
him.
The Secretary of Labor may, by appropriate regulations,
restrict or prohibit the contracting out of labor to protect the
rights of workers established under this Code. In so prohibiting
or restricting, he may make appropriate distinctions between
labor only contracting and job contracting as well as
diferentiations within these types of contracting and
determine who among the parties involved shall be
35
before the contract between Grigio and the petitioner was terminated
on 15 May 1996. This allegation was supported by the complaint by
one of the respondents, Mamate, for unpaid salaries from 22 April
1996 to 9 May 1996.
However, respondents submitted copies of the pertinent pages of the
logbook showing that they had in fact reported for work on the dates
they were supposed to have abandoned their jobs, from 9 May 1996
until 15 May 1996. One of the respondents, Monaorai Dimapatoi, even
submitted a Certification issued by petitioners very own Warehouse
Supervisor, Roger R. Borromeo, that Dimapatoi efectively performed
her job as warehouse checker and documentation clerk from 16
September 1992 to 15 May 1996.
Petitioners allegation that respondents abandoned their work is
therefore devoid of legal and factual bases. The Court has repeatedly
held that abandonment as a just and valid ground for dismissal
requires the deliberate and unjustified refusal of the employee to
resume his employment. Mere absence of failure to report for work,
after notice to return, is not enough to amount to such abandonment.
For a valid finding of abandonment, two factors must be present: (1)
the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable
reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee
relationship, with the second element as the more determinative
factor being manifested by some overt acts. In abandonment, there
must be a concurrence of the intention to abandon and some overt
acts from which an employee may be deduced as having no more
intention to work.
MARAGUINOT v. NLRC
FACTS:
1.
Petitioners'
were
employed
by
private
respondents(Maraguinot aince 1989 and Enero since 1990),
their tasks consisted of loading, unloading and arranging
movie equipment in the shooting area as instructed by the
cameraman, returning the equipment to Viva Films'
warehouse, assisting in the "fixing" of the lighting system, and
performing other tasks that the cameraman and/or director
may assign.
2.
36
3.
4.
5.
C. Efect of Finding
MANDAUE V. ANDALES, supra
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSIONS
SMC, petitioner, versus, NLRC and Rafael Maliksi, respondents
Penned by J. Garcia
Facts: Rafael Maliksi filed a complaint against the San Miguel
Corporation-Magnolia Division, herein referred to as SMC and
Philippine Software Services and Education Center to compel them to
recognize him as a regular employer. He amended the complaint
37
38
7.01 COVERAGE
Art 278 LC Coverage. The provisions of this Title shall apply to all
establishments or undertakings, whether for profit or not.
7.02 EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATION
Art 280 LC Regular and casual employment. The provisions of
written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of
the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to
be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform
activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has
been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or
termination of which has been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be
performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the
duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by
the preceding paragraph: Provided, That any employee who has
rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is
continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with
respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment
shall continue while such activity exists.
Quick Facts:
Respondents were employed by Glory on a month-to-month basis;
after the initial month, they were made to sign new contracts for
another month long extension. At one point, they were not made to
sign contracts for a period of several months but were still made to
continue their employment.
Later on, they were made to sign
contracts retroacting to around half of the months with no contracts
till the end of the month of April. Petitioners main branch (based in
Japan), ordered that respondents services would no longer be
required so petitioner dismissed them (at the end of the work day,
they were told my the security guard as they left not to report for
employment anymore since their contracts had already expired).
Respondents filed for illegal dismissal. Petitioner averred that they
were contractual employees and their term had already expired.
Respondents won at the CA. Hence this petition for review on
certiorari.
Issue: WON respondents were contractual employees
Held: No! They were regular employees hence illegally dismissed
Ratio (doctrine in blue highlights):
Article 280 of the Labor Code provides for three kinds of employees:
(1) regular employees or those who have been engaged to perform
activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer; (2) project employees or those
whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or
undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been
determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where
the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the
employment is for the duration of the season; and (3) casual
employees or those who are neither regular nor project employees . . .
.
In Grandspan Development Corporation v. Bernardo, 14 the Court held
that the principal test for determining whether particular employees
39
Nature of Issue
Issues:
UNIVERSAL
ROBINA
SUGAR
MILLING
CORPORATION
(URSUMCO) V CABALLEDA, 156644, JULY 28, 2008, NACHURA,
J.
WoN RA 7641 has retroactive efect: Yes. The issue of the retroactive
efect of RA 7641 has long been settled. It is a curative statute.
Facts:
WoN the Agripino and Alejandro voluntarily retired: No. The law
generally looks with disfavor on quitclaims and releases of employees
who have been inveigled or pressured into signing them by
unscrupulous employers seeking to evade their responsibilities.
40
In this case, it is noteworthy that the LA, the NLRC and the CA are one
in ruling that Agripino was not a casual employee, much less a
seasonal or project employee. In their findings, Agripino was
considered a regular employee of URSUMCO. Consequently, such
uniform finding of the LA, the NLRC, and the CA binds this Court.
Employer Determination - Effect
SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NLRC
SMC, petitioner, versus, NLRC and Rafael Maliksi, respondents
Penned by J. Garcia
Facts: Rafael Maliksi filed a complaint against the San Miguel
Corporation-Magnolia Division, herein referred to as SMC and
Philippine Software Services and Education Center to compel them to
recognize him as a regular employer. He amended the complaint
afterwards to include the charge of illegal dismissal. Maliksis
employment record shows that he rendered services with Lipercon
Services from April 1, 1981 to February 1982 as budget head assigned
to SMC- Beer Division, then from July 1983 to April 1985 with Skill
Power Inc., as accounting clerk assigned to SMC-Magnolia Division,
then from October 1988 to 1989 also with Skill Power, Inc as acting
clerk assigned to SMC-Magnolia Finance, and from October 1989 to
October 31, 1990 with PHILSSEC assigned to Magnolia Finance as
accounting clerk. He alleged that Lipercon, Skillpower, and PHILSSEC
are labor-only contractors and any one of which had never been his
employer.
PHILSSEC has contracted with Magnolia to computerize the
latters manual accounting reporting systems of its provincial sales.
Maliksi was one of those employed by PHILSSEC whose principal
function was the manual control of data needed for computerization.
The respondents work was controlled by PHILSSECs supervisors, his
salary was paid by the agency and he reported directly to the latter.
The computerization was terminated in Oct 31, 1990 and so he was
terminated. On the other hand, it is SMCs contention that there was
no employer-employee relationship between the corporation and
Maliksi.
41
Held/Ratio: NO. She was already a regular employee under Art. 280
of the Labor Code on the distinction between regular and casual or
contractual employment. Art. 280 was placed in our statute books to
prevent the circumvention by unscrupulous employers of the
employees right to be secure in his tenure by indiscriminately and
completely ruling out all written and oral agreements inconsistent with
the concept of regular employment defined therein. The language of
the law manifests the intent to protect the security of tenure of the
worker who may be denied the rights and benefits due a regular
employee because of lopsided agreements with the economically
powerful employer who can maneuver to keep an employee on a
casual or temporary status for as long as it is convenient to it. Art.
280 was designed to put an end to the pernicious practice of making
permanent casuals of our lowly employees by the simple expedient of
extending to them temporary or probationary appointments, ad
infinitum.
2.
42
Nature of Work
UNIVERSAL ROBINA v. CABALLEDA, supra
MAGSALIN V. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION
Ponente: VITUG, J.
Facts: Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., petitioner, engaged the services
of respondent workers as sales route helpers for a limited period of
five months. After five months, respondent workers were employed
by petitioner company on a day-to-day basis. According to petitioner
company, respondent workers were hired to substitute for regular
sales route helpers whenever the latter would be unavailable or when
there would be an unexpected shortage of manpower in any of its
work places or an unusually high volume of work. The practice was
for the workers to wait every morning outside the gates of the sales
office of petitioner company. If thus hired, the workers would then be
paid their wages at the end of the day.
Ultimately, respondent workers asked petitioner company to extend to
them regular appointments. Petitioner company refused. 58 of the
temporary workers (respondents) filed with NLRC a complaint for the
regularization of their employment with petitioner company and filed
a notice of strike and a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor
practice with the NLRC.
Ratio:
Art. 280.
Regular and Casual Employment. The provisions of
written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of
the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to
be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform
activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has
been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or
termination of which has been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be
43
LOPEZ v. METROPOLITAN
SYSTEM, supra
WATERWORKS
AND
SEWERAGE
Contract to Contract
BETA ELECTRIC CORP. v. NLRC
UNIVERSAL PLASTIC CORP. v. CATAPANG
Callejo, Sr | 2005
Petitioners: Universal Robina Corporation and/or Randy Gregorio
Respondents: Catapang, Ararao, Alcantara, Alcoran, Aristado, Cabrera,
Casano, Cervas, Cuidian, Comendador, Conchada, Coronado, Hiling,
Joyosa, Loria, Marikit, Pang-Ao, Platero, Roxas, Salazar, Trinidad,
Varela, Villanueva, Villegas
Facts:
The respondents were hired in Universals duck farim in Laguna under
an employment contract provided for a 5-month period. The company
would renew and re-employ respondents after expiration. This practice
continued from 1991 up to 1996 when the company informed them
that they will no longer renew their contracts.
Procedural5
5
44
Petitioners
They claim that the respondents are not regular employees because
they are covered by the 5-month contracts. Such contracts are not
intended to evade the law & the respondents voluntarily signed them,
under no moral dominance. They also claim that they cant be
compelled to physically reinstate the 13 other respondents because
no positions are available.
Respondents
They claim that they are regular employees after rendering 1 year of
service to the company. The fixed period of employment should be
struck down as contrary to public policy, morals, good customs or
public order as it was designed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial
security.
Issue/Held: WON the respondents, hired & re-hired through renewed 5month contracts, have acquired the status of regular employees
Ratio:
Procedural the appeal was filed way beyond the reglementary period
for filing an appeal.
Merits
In Abasolo v NLRC: The primary standard, therefore, of determining
regular employment is the reasonable connection between the
particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual
trade or business 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 work performed and its relation to the scheme of the
particular business or trade in its entirety. Also, if the employee has
been performing the job for at least a year, even if the
performance is not continuous and merely intermittent, the
law deems repeated and continuing need for its performance
as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability
of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is
considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and
while such activity exists.
The 5-month contracts was used by the company as a convenient
subterfuge from becoming regular employees. Such contractual
arrangement should be struck down or disregarded as contrary to
public policy or morals. To uphold the same would, in effect,
permit petitioners to avoid hiring permanent or regular
employees by simply hiring them on a temporary or casual
basis, thereby violating the employees security of tenure in
their jobs.
The act of the company in re-hiring the respondents for 3-5 years
negate their contention that the respondents were hired only for a
specific project/undertaking.
Petition denied due course. CA decision affirmed.
Length of Time
MARAGUINOT v. NLRC
Facts
Petitioner says that he was employed by respondents as part of the
filming crew. He was later promoted as an electrician. Petitioners
tasks contained of loading movie equipment in the shoothing area.
45
recruited crew members. Thus, the relationship between VIVA and its
producers or associate producers seems to be that of agency.
With regards to the issue of illegal dismissal, petitioners assert that
they were regular employees who were illegally dismissed. Petitioners
in this case had already attained the status of regular employees in
view of VIVAs conduct. Thus, petitioners are entitled to back wages.
A project employee or a member of a work pool may acquire the
status of a regular employee when:
a. there is a continuous rehiring of project employees even
after a cessation of project
b. the tasks performed by the alleged project employee are
vital and necessary to the business of employer
The tasks of petitioners in loading movie equipment and returning it to
VIVAs warehouse and fixing the lighting system were vital, necessary
and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer.
Petition granted.
ABESCO CONSTRUCTION
RAMIREZ
AND
DEVELOPMENT
CORP.
v.
Facts:
Abesco Construction hired respondents on diferent dates from 1976
to 1992 either as labourers, road roller operators, painters or drivers.
In 1977, respondents filed a complaint against Abesco Construction
for illegal dismissal and claims for non-payment of thirteenth month
pay, five days service incetive leave pay, premium pay for holidays
and rest days, and moral and exemplary damages. Abesco
Construction denied liability claiming that the respondents are just
project employees whose employments were coterminous with the
project to which they were assigned; that they were not regular
employees who enjoy security of tenure and entitled to separation pay
upon termination from work.
The Labor Arbiter declared that the respondents are employees of
Abesco Construction because they belong to a work pool from which
the company drew workers for assignment to diferent projects, at its
discretion. Because respondents were hired and rehired for over a
period of 18 years, they were deemed to be regular employees
Issue:/Held:
Whether respondents are regular employees? YES, they are regular
employees but not for the reasons given by the Labor Arbiter.
Ratio:
Employee who work under diferent project employment contracts for
several years do not automatically become regular employees; they
46
Facts:
- NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION (NSC), undertook the ambitious Five
Year Expansion Program I and II with the ultimate end in view of
expanding the volume and increasing the kinds of products that it
may ofer for sale to the public.
- NSC opted to execute and carry out its Five Yeear Expansion Projects
"in house," as it were, by administration
- NSC did the work here involved the construction of buildings and
civil and electrical works, installation of machinery and equipment and
the commissioning of such machinery only for itself. Private
respondent NSC was not in the business of constructing buildings and
installing plant machinery for the general business community, i.e.,
for unrelated, third party, corporations. NSC did not hold itself out to
the public as a construction company or as an engineering
corporation.
- The petitioners were released/dismissed from their jobs, thus they
filed separate complaints for unfair labor practice, regularization and
monetary benefits with the NLRC
- Petitioners argue that they are "regular" employees of NSC because:
47
Project Employees
48
FACTS
Petitioner was employed as data encoder by private
respondent.
From August 26, 1988 until October 18, 1991, she entered into
thirteen (13) separate employment contracts with private
respondent, each contract lasting only for a period of three (3)
months.
On October 18, 1991, her services were terminated due to low
volume of work.
Charging private respondent with unfair labor practices,
petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Petitioner alleged
that her employment was terminated because she signed a
petition for certification election among the rank and file
employees of respondent.
Private respondent argued that petitioner's employment was
for a specific project with a specified period of engagement.
HELD
49
50
YES
Ratio Elements of the control test: (a) selection and engagement of
the employee; (b) payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and
(d) the power of control with regard to the means and methods by
which the work is to be accomplished, with the power of control being
the most determinative factor.
- Even though the employer does not admit, the existence of an
employer-employee relationship between the parties can easily be
determined by the application of the "control test, the elements of
which are: (a) selection and engagement of the employee; (b)
payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the power of
control with regard to the means and methods by which the work is to
be accomplished, with the power of control being the most
determinative factor.
- There is no dispute that private respondents were employees of
petitioner. Petitioner himself admitted that they worked in his
construction projects, although the period of their employment was
allegedly co-terminus with their phase of work. It is clear that private
respondents are employees of petitioner, the latter having control
over the results of the work done, as well as the means and methods
by which the same were accomplished. Suffice it to say that
regardless of the nature of their employment, whether it is regular or
project, private respondents are subject of the compulsory coverage
under the SSS Law, their employment not falling under the exceptions
provided by the law. This rule is in accord with the Courts ruling in
Luzon Stevedoring Corp. v. SSS to the efect that all employees,
regardless of tenure, would qualify for compulsory membership in the
SSS, except those classes of employees contemplated in Section 8(j)
of the Social Security Act.
- In Violeta v. NLRC, this Court ruled that to be exempted from the
presumption of regularity of employment, the agreement between a
project employee and his employer must strictly conform to the
requirements and conditions under Article 280 of the Labor Code. It is
not enough that an employee is hired for a specific project or phase of
work. There must also be a determination of, or a clear agreement on,
the completion or termination of the project at the time the employee
was engaged if the objectives of Article 280 are to be achieved. This
second requirement was not met in this case.
- 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 employers business and re-engaged for many
more projects without interruption. The Court likewise takes note of
the fact that, as cited by the SSC, even the National Labor Relations
Commission in a labor case involving the same parties, found that
private respondents were regular employees of the petitioner.
Rationale
DE OCAMPO v. NLRC
Date: June 6, 1990
Ponente: Cruz
Doctrine: The rule in Cartagenas v. Romago Electric Co., that contract
workers are not considered regular employees, their services being
needed only when there are projects to be undertaken, is not
applicable in this case. The rationale of this rule is that if a project has
already been completed, it would be unjust to require the employer to
maintain them in the payroll while they are doing absolutely nothing
except waiting until another project is begun, if at all. In efect, these
stand-by workers would be enjoying the status of privileged retainers,
collecting payment for work not done, to be disbursed by the
employer from profits not earned. This is not fair by any standard and
can only lead to a coddling of labor at the expense of management.
Facts:
51
Topical issue:
W/N the separation of the project employees was justified.
Ratio: Yes, the separation of the project employees was justified.
Employer Obligation
HANJIN v. IBANEZ, supra
A.M. ORETA AND CO. INC. v. NLRC
G.R. No. 74004 | August 10, 1989
Nature: A petition for certiorari seeking annulment of the resolution of
the NLRC
Quick Summary:
Employee was hired for 12 months, during 1 st month, he met an
accident which fractured him. He went back to work after a month but
was later terminated by employer because employee was
probationary and terminated due to poor performance due to his
physical condition.
Citing POLICY INSTRUCTION NO. 12 of Minister of Labor, What
determines regularity or casualness is not employment
contract, written or otherwise, but the nature of the job. If the
job is usually necessary or desirable to the main business of the
employer, the employment is regular. Otherwise, it is casual
employment.
In this case, employment contract reveals that it is renewable subject
to future agreements of the parties which evinces that the Grulla was
hired by the company as a regular employee and not just mere
probationary employee.
52
employment contract.
Facts:
August 27, 1980: Grulla was discharged from the hospital and
was told that he could resume his normal duties after
undergoing physical therapy for two weeks.
After 22 days (REPORTED BACK TO WORK)
Article 281 of the Labor Code provides that the employer shall
make known to the employee at the time he is hired, the
standards by which he will qualify as a regular employee. In
the absence of these requisites, there is justification in
concluding that respondent Grulla was a regular employee
entitled to security of tenure during his period of employment.
Assuming that respondent is a probationary employee, still he
cannot be removed except for cause during the period of
probation.
53
Specific Period
GLORY PHILIPPINES INC., v. VERGARA, supra
PUREFOODS CORP. v. NLRC
LABAYOG v. M.Y. SAN BISCUITS, INC.
Continuous Rehiring
CHUA v. CA, supra
C.E. CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. CIOCO
Facts:
Cioco, et al were workers hired by C.E. Construction Corp as
carpenters and laborers in various construction projects from 19901999, the latest was GTI Tower in Makati. Before the start of every
project, Cioco et al signed invidual employment contracts.
In summer of 1999, Cioco et al (with 66 other workers) were
terminated by the company on the ground that the phases of the GTI
Tower project were already completed. Cioco et al filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal.
Workpool Employees
Issue
ABESCO CONSTRUCTION
RAMIREZ, supra
AND
DEVELOPMENT
CORP.
v.
54
Length of Service
PALOMARES v. NLRC
Quick Facts:
Petitioners were hired as contractual employees for several specific
projects for private respondents 5-year expansion plan. They filed for
regularization but private respondent denied it. Thus they filed for
illegal dismissal. NLRC found they were project employees and not
entitled to regularization or reinstatement. Thus this petition on
certiorari.
Issue:
WON petitioners were contractual employees
Held:
Yes, they were contractual employees
Ratio (doctrine in blue highlights):
2.
ID.; ID.; ID.; PROJECT EMPLOYEES; TEST THEREOF. The
principal test for determining whether an employee is a project
employee and not a regular employee is whether he was assigned to
carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of
which were specified at the time he was engaged for that project.
DTSaIc
3.
ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; THE FACT THAT EMPLOYEES WORKED FOR THE
EMPLOYER UNDER DIFFERENT PROJECT EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS
FOR YEARS CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO CONSIDER THEM AS
REGULAR EMPLOYEES; CASE AT BAR. It should be noted that there
were intervals in petitioners' respective employment contracts with
NSC, thus bolstering the latter's position that, indeed, petitioners are
project employees. Since its work depends on availability of such
contracts or projects, necessarily the employment of its work force is
not permanent but co-terminous with the projects to which they are
assigned and from whose payrolls they are paid. It would be extremely
burdensome for their employer to retain them as permanent
employees and pay them wages even if there are no projects to work
on. The fact that petitioners worked for NSC under diferent project
employment contracts for several years cannot 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.
4.
ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; LENGTH OF SERVICE IS NOT THE
CONTROLLING DETERMINANT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TENURE OF A
PROJECT EMPLOYEE. Even if petitioners were repeatedly and
successively re-hired on the basis of a contract of employment for
more than one year, they cannot be considered regularized. Length of
service is not the controlling determinant of the employment tenure of
a project employee. As stated earlier, it is based on whether or not the
employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the
completion of which has been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee. Furthermore, the second paragraph of
Article 280, providing that an employee who has rendered service for
at least one (1) year, shall be considered a regular employee, pertains
to casual employees and not to project employees such as petitioners.
5.
ID.; ID.; ID.; CRITERIA FOR FIXED CONTRACTS OF
EMPLOYMENT WHICH DO NOT CIRCUMVENT SECURITY OF TENURE.
In the case of Philippine National Oil Company Energy Development
Corporation v. NLRC, we set forth the criteria for fixed contracts of
employment which do not circumvent security of tenure, to wit: (1)
The fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed
upon by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure
being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other
circumstances vitiating his consent; or (2) It satisfactorily appears that
the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less
equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by
the former on the latter.
FILIPINAS PRE-FABRICATED BUILDING SYSTEMS v. PUENTE
PNOC ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORP v. NLRC, supra
7.05 CASUAL EMPLOYEES
Art. 280. Regular and casual employment. An employment shall
be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding
paragraph: Provided, That any employee who has rendered at least
one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken,
shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in
which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such
activity exists.
Nature of Work
A.M. ORETA AND CO. INC. v. NLRC, supra
55
KIMBERLY v. DRILON
Facts:
56
Held: Yes.
Ratio:
The law thus provides for two. kinds of regular employees, namely: (1)
those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer;
and (2) those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether
continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are
employed. The individual petitioners herein who have been adjudged
to be regular employees fall under the second category. These are the
mechanics, electricians, machinists machine shop helpers, warehouse
helpers, painters, carpenters, pipefitters and masons. It is not
disputed that these workers have been in the employ of KIMBERLY for
more than one year at the time of the filing of the Petition for
certification election by KILUSAN-OLALIA.
Owing to their length of service with the company, these
workers became regular employees, by operation of law, one
year after they were employed by KIMBERLY through RANK.
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. To rule otherwise, and to instead make their
regularization dependent on the happening of some contingency or
the fulfillment of certain requirements, is to impose a burden on the
employee which is not sanctioned by law.
On the basis of the foregoing circumstances, and as a
consequence of their status as regular employees, those
workers not perforce janitorial and yard maintenance service
were performance entitled to the payment of salary
2.
3.
A week before the agreement was about to expire, however, Cielo was
formally notified by the trucking company of the termination of his
services on the ground of expiration of their contract. Cielo came to
Court claiming that he had worked for the trucking company for more
than 6 months and had thus acquired the status of a regular
employee. As such, he could no longer be dismissed except for lawful
cause. He also contended that he had been removed before of his
refusal to sign, as required by the trucking company, an affidavit
57
stating that he has received his salary and allowances from said
company and had no more claim against them.
Issue: W/N the six-month period fixed by the contract between the
parties is valid
Held/Ratio: It is void ab initio since, from the circumstances, it is
apparent that the six-month period has been imposed to preclude
acquisition of security of tenure by the employee.
While insisting that it is the agreement that regulates its relations with
Cielo, the trucking company is ensnared by its own words. The
agreement specifically declared that there was no employer-employee
relationship between the parties.
Yet the affidavit the trucking
company prepared required Cielo to acknowledge that he has received
his salary and allowances from them, suggesting an employment
relationship. According to its position paper, Cielos refusal to sign the
affidavit constituted disrespect or insubordination which had some
bearing on the renewal of his contract of employment with the
trucking company. The records show that all the drivers of the
trucking company have been hired on a fixed contract basis, as
evidenced by the mimeographed form of the agreement and of the
affidavit. The trucking company merely filled in the blanks with the
corresponding data, such as the drivers name and address, the
amount received by him, and the date of the document. Each driver
was paid through individual vouchers rather than a common payroll.
By this clever scheme, the trucking company could also prevent the
drivers from becoming regular employees and thus be entitled to
security of tenure and other benefits, such as a minimum wage, costof-living allowances, vacation and sick leaves, holiday pay, and other
statutory requirements. It was a clear attempt to exploit the unwitting
employee and deprive him of the protection of the Labor Code by
making it appear that the stipulations of the parties were governed by
the Civil Code as in ordinary private transactions. In reality, however,
Seasonal Employees
MAGALOS v. NLRC
PHIL. TOBACCO v. NLRC
SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NLRC, supra
MANILA HOTEL v. CIR
INDUSTRIAL ETC. v. CIR
58
59