ARTICLE 97 – Service Charge

 WAGES
(Chavez v. NLRC, G.R. No. 146530, January 17, 2005)

Supreme Packaging, Inc., is in the business of manufacturing cartons and other packaging materials
for export and distribution. It engaged the services of the petitioner, Pedro Chavez, as truck driver on
October 25, 1984. As such, the petitioner was tasked to deliver the respondent companys
products from its factory in Mariveles, Bataan, to its various customers, mostly in Metro
Manila. The respondent company furnished the petitioner with a truck. Most of the
petitioners delivery trips were made at nighttime, commencing at 6:00 p.m. from
Mariveles, and returning thereto in the afternoon two or three days after. The deliveries
were made in accordance with the routing slips issued by respondent company indicating
the order, time and urgency of delivery. Initially, the petitioner was paid the sum
of P350.00 per trip. This was later adjusted to P480.00 per trip and, at the time of his
alleged dismissal, the petitioner was receiving P900.00 per trip.
Sometime in 1992, the petitioner expressed to respondent Alvin Lee, respondent
companys plant manager, his (the petitioners) desire to avail himself of the benefits that
the regular employees were receiving such as overtime pay, nightshift differential pay, and
13th month pay, among others. Although he promised to extend these benefits to the
petitioner, respondent Lee failed to actually do so. the petitioner filed a complaint for
regularization. respondent company terminated the services of the petitioner. Consequently, on May
25, 1995, the petitioner filed an amended complaint against the respondents for illegal dismissal,
unfair labor practice and non-payment of overtime pay, nightshift differential pay, 13th month pay,
among others.
The respondents, for their part, denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship
between the respondent company and the petitioner. They averred that the petitioner was an
independent contractor as evidenced by the contract of service which he and the respondent
company entered into.
  SALARY
(International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 128845, June 1,
2000)
Receiving salaries less than their counterparts hired abroad, the local-hires of private respondent School,
mostly Filipinos, cry discrimination. We agree. That the local-hires are paid more than their colleagues in other
schools is, of course, beside the point. The point is that employees should be given equal pay for work of equal
value. That is a principle long honored in this jurisdiction. That is a principle that rests on fundamental notions
of justice.

 BASIC SALARY
(Davao Fruits Corporation v. Associated Labor Union, G.R. No. 85073, August 24,
1993)
 BONUS MAY FORM PART OF THE WAGE
(Atok big Wedge Mining Co. v. Atok Big Wedge Mutual Benefits Association, G.R.
No. L-5276,March 3, 1953)
 BONUS
(Producers Bank of the Philippines v. NLRC, G.R. No. 100701, March 26.20010
 COMMISSION
(Workers-TUCP v. NLRC, G.R. No. 107994, August 14, 1995)
 SUPPLEMENTS
(States Marine Co. v. Cebu Seamen’s Association, G.R. No. L-12444, Febuary
28,1963)
 FACILITIES
(Mabeza v. NLRC. G.R. No. 118506, April 18,1997, 271 SCRA 670)
 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DEDUCTING FACILITIES FROM WAGES
(Section 7, Rule VII, Rules to Implimate the Labor Code)

(Mayon Hotel And Restaurant v. Adana, G.R. No. 157634, May 16, 2005)
  SUPPLEMENTS ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE FROM WAGES
(Mabeza v. R.G. No. 118506, April 18, 1997)

ARTICLE 99
 REGIONAL MINIMUM WAGES
(As Ammended by Section 3, R.A. No. 6727, June 9, 1989)

ARTICLE 100
 A COMPANY PRACTICE FAVORING EMPLOYEES CANNOT BE WITHHELD
UNILATERALLY BY THE EMPLOYER
(Sevilla Trading Co. v. Semana, G.R. No. 152456, April 28, 2004)
 WAGE ORDER INCREASES NOT A COMPANY PRACTICE
(Pag-asa Steel Works,inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166647, March 31, 2006)
 OVERTIME DOES NOT FALL UNDER ARTICLE 100
(Manila Jockey Club Employees Labor Union v. Manila Jockey Club, G.R. No.
167760, March 7, 2007)

ARTICLE 102
 FORMS OF PAYMENT
(Congson v. NLRC, G.R. NO. 114250, April 5, 1995)
 LEGAL TENDER
(Cebu International Finance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123031,
October 12, 1999)

ARTICLE 105

 INTERPLEADER IS THE PROPER REMEDY IN CASE OF CONFLICTING

CLAIMANTS

(Ocampo v.Tirona, G.R. No. 147812, April 6, 2005)

ARTICLE 106

 JOB CONTRACTING

(Babas, et al. v. Lorenzo Shipping Co. G.R. No. 186091, December 15, 2010)

(Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Agito, et al. G.R. No.179546, February 13, 2009)

 ELEMENTS OF LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING

(Filipinas Synthetic Fiber Corporation [FILSYN] v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113347, June 14,
1996)

 JURISPRUDENCE

(Baguio, et al. v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 79004-08, October 4, 1991)

 NEWSPAPER COLUMNISTS ARE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS

(Orozco v. Court of Appeals,Philippine Daily Inquirer, et al., G.R. NO. 155207,

August 13, 2008)

 TELEVISION HOST IS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

(Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp.,G.R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004)

 COLLEGE PROFESSORS ARE NOT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
(FEATI University v. Hon. Jode Bautista, G.R. No. L-21278, December 27, 1966)
 TRUCK DRIVERS ARE NOT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
(chavez v. NLRC, G.R. No. 146530, January 17, 2005)

ARTICLE 107
 JURISPRUDENCE
(Philippine Airlines Inc. v. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 120506, October 28, 1996)

DISTINCTION BETWEEN ARTICLES 106 AND 107

(Bagiuo, et al. v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 79004-08,October 4, 1991)

ARTICLE 108
 SOLIDARY LIABILITY
(Filipinas Synthetic Fiber Corporation [FILSYN] v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113347, June 14,
1996)
 LIABILITY OF THE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER
(see united Special Watchman Agency v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152476, July 8,
2003)

ARTICLE 110
 WORKER PREFERENCE IN CASE OF BANKRUPTCY
(As amended by Section 1, R.A. No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
 JURISPRUDENCE
(Barayoga, et al, v. Asset privatization Trust, G.R. No. 160073, October 24, 2005)

ARTICLE 111
 ATTORNEY’S FEES
(Traders Royal Bank Employees Union Independent v. NLRC, G.R. No. 120592,
March 14, 1997)

ARTICLE 113
 DEDUCTION MUST BE WITH THE CONSENT OF THE EMPLOYEE
(Galvadores v. Trajano, G.R. No. 70067, September15, 1986, 144 SCRA 138)
 DEDUCTION OF AGENCY SHARE IS ILLEGAL
(Mercury Drug Co. v. Nardo Dayao, G.R. No. 30432, September30, 1982;
Commando Security v., G.R. No NLRC. 95844, July 20, 1992, 211 SCRA 645)
ARTICLE 115
 DAILY DEPOSIT TO COVER SHORTAGE IN BOUNDARY IS ILLEGAL
(Five J Taxi v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111474, August 22, 1994, 235 SCRA 556)

ARTICLE 116
 JURISPRUDENCE
(Special steel Products, inc. v. Villareal, G.R. No. 143304, July 8, 2004)

ARTICLE 117
 DEDUCTION TO ENSURE EMPLOYMENT
(Mercury Drug Co. v. Nardo Dayao, G.R. No. 30432, September30, 1982;
Commando Security v., G.R. No NLRC. 95844, July 20, 1992, 211 SCRA 645)

Article 121
 POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION
(As Ammended by R.A. No. 6727, June 9, 1989)

ARTICLE 124
 STANDARDS/CRITERIA FOR MINIMUM WAGE FIXING
(As Ammended by R.A. No. 6727, June 9, 1989)
 WAGE DISTORTION
(Metropolitant bank And trust company Employees Union-ALU-TUCP v. NLRC, G.R.
No. 102636, September 10, 1993)

(Manila MAndarian employees union v. NLRC, G.R. No. 108556, November 19,
1996)
 ELEMENTS OF WAGE DISTORTION
(Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank & Trust Company, G.R. No. 102636,
September 10, 1993)
(ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa [IBM] v. NLRC, G.R. No. 91980, June 27, 1991)

ARTICLE 125

(Producers Bank of the Philippines v. NLRC and Producers Ban k Employees

Association, G.R. No. 100701, March 28, 2001)