PASEI VS.

DRILON
[163 SCRA 386; L-81958; 30 JUN 1988]
Facts: Petitioner, Phil association of Service Exporters, Inc., is engaged principally in the recruitment of
Filipino workers, male and female of overseas employment. It challenges the constitutional validity of
Dept. Order No. 1 (1998) of DOLE entitled “Guidelines Governing the Temporary Suspension of
Deployment of Filipino Domestic and Household Workers.” It claims that such order is
a discrimination against males and females. The Order does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to
domestic helpers and females with similar skills, and that it is in violation of the right to travel, it also
being an invalid exercise of the law-making power. Further, PASEI invokes Sec 3 of Art 13 of the
Constitution, providing for worker participation in policy and decision-making processes affecting their
rights and benefits as may be provided by law. Thereafter the Solicitor General on behalf of DOLE
submitting to the validity of the challenged guidelines involving the police power of the State and
informed the court that the respondent have lifted the deployment ban in some states where there
exists bilateral agreement with the Philippines and existing mechanism providing for sufficient
safeguards to ensure the welfare and protection of the Filipino workers.

Issue: 1. Whether the government is justified in temporary suspending deployment of domestic workers
2. Whether there has been a valid classification in the challenged Department Order No. 1.

Held: 1. YES. The Constitution declares that:

Sec. 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and
promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
"Protection to labor" does not signify the promotion of employment alone. What concerns the
Constitution more paramountly is that such an employment be above all, decent, just, and humane. It is
bad enough that the country has to send its sons and daughters to strange lands because it cannot
satisfy their employment needs at home. Under these circumstances, the Government is duty-bound to
insure that our toiling expatriates have adequate protection, personally and economically, while away
from home. In this case, the Government has evidence, an evidence the petitioner cannot seriously
dispute, of the lack or inadequacy of such protection, and as part of its duty, it has precisely ordered an
indefinite ban on deployment.

2. YES. SC in dismissing the petition ruled that there has been valid classification, the Filipino
female domestics working abroad were in a class by themselves, because of the special risk to which
their class was exposed. There is no question that Order No.1 applies only to female contract workers
but it does not thereby make an undue discrimination between sexes. It is well settled
hat equality before the law under the constitution does not import a perfect identity of rights among all
men and women. It admits of classification, provided that:

1. Such classification rests on substantial distinctions

2. That they are germane to the purpose of the law
3. They are not confined to existing conditions
4. They apply equally to al members of the same class

In the case at bar, the classifications made, rest on substantial distinctions.

Dept. Order No. 1 does not impair the right to travel. The consequence of the deployment ban has on
the right to travel does not impair the right, as the right to travel is subjects among other things, to
the requirements of “public safety” as may be provided by law. Deployment ban of female domestic
helper is a valid exercise of police power. Police power as been defined as the state authority to enact
legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote general welfare.
Neither is there merit in the contention that Department Order No. 1 constitutes an invalid exercise of
legislative power as the labor code vest the DOLE with rule making powers.
 BREWMASTER INTERNATIONAL INC. v. NAFLU
Gr. No. 119243
Facts: Private respondent Estrada is a member of the respondent labor union. He did not report for
work for 1 month due to a grave family problem as his wife deserted him and nobody was there to look
after his children. He was required to explain. Finding his reasons to be unjustified, the petitioner
terminated him, since according to company rules, absence for 6 consecutive days is considered
abandonment of work. Labor arbiter ruled in favour of BrewMaster Inc citing the principle
of managerial control, which recognizes the employer’s prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules and
regulations to govern the conduct of his employees., NLRC overturned the LA’s ruling.

Issue: Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in modifying the decision of the Labor
Arbiter

Held: No. While the employer is not precluded from prescribing rules and regulations to govern the
conduct of his employees, these rules and their implementation must be fair, just and reasonable. No
less than the Constitution looks with compassion on the workingman and protects his rights not only
under a general statement of a state policy but under the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights,
thus placing labor contracts on a higher plane and with greater safeguards. Verily, relations between
labor and capital are not merely contractual. They are impressed with public interest and labor contracts
must, perforce, yield to the common good.

Petitioner’s finding that complainant was guilty of abandonment is misplaced. Abandonment as a just
and valid ground for dismissal requires the deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his
employment. Two elements must then be satisfied: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without
valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee
relationship. b) Verily, relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They
are impressed with public interest and labor contracts must, perforce, yield to the common good. While
the employer is not precluded from prescribing rules and regulations to govern the conduct of
his employees, these rules and their implementation must be fair, just and reasonable
 LVN PICTURES, INC. vs. PHILIPPINE MUSICIANS Guild
G.R. No. L-12582 January 28, 1961
Facts: Respondent Philippine Musicians Guild (FFW) is a duly registered legitimate labor organization.
LVN Pictures, Inc., Sampaguita Pictures, Inc., and Premiere Productions, Inc. are corporations, duly
organized under the Philippine laws, engaged in the making of motion pictures and in the processing
and distribution thereof. Petitioner companies employ musicians for the purpose of making music
recordings for title music, background music, musical numbers, finale music and other incidental music,
without which a motion picture is incomplete. Ninety-five(95%) percent of all the musicians playing for
the musical recordings of said companies are members of the Guild. The Guild has no knowledge of the
existence of any other legitimate labor organization representing musicians in said companies. Premised
upon these allegations, the Guild prayed that it be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agency
for all musicians working in the aforementioned companies. In their respective answers, the latter
denied that they have any musicians as employees, and alleged that the musical numbers in the filing of
the companies are furnished by independent contractors. The lower court sustained the Guild’s theory.
Are consideration of the order complained of having been denied by the Court en banc,LVN Pictures,
inc., and Sampaguita Pictures, Inc., filed these petitions for review for certiorari.

Issue: Whether the musicians in question(Guild members) are “employees “of the petitioner film
companies.

Held: YES The Court agreed with the lower court’s decision, to wit: Lower court resorted to apply R.A.
875 and US Laws and jurisprudence from which said Act was patterned after. (Since statutes are to
be construed in the light of purposes achieved and the evils sought to be remedied). It ruled that the
work of the musical director and musicians is a functional and integral part of the enterprise performed
at the same studio substantially under the direction and control of the company. In other words, to
determine whether a person who performs work for another is the latter's employee or an independent
contractor, the National Labor Relations relies on 'the right to control' test . Under this test
an employer-employee-relationship exist where the person for whom the services are performed
reserves the right to control not only the end to be achieved, but also the manner and means to be
used in reaching the end. (United Insurance Company, 108, NLRB No. 115.).Notwithstanding that
the employees are called independent contractors', the Board will hold them to be employees under the
Act where the extent of the employer's control over them indicates that the relationship is in reality one
of employment. The right of control of the film company over the musicians is shown (1) by calling the
musicians through 'call slips' in 'the name of the company; (2) by arranging schedules in its studio for
recording sessions; (3) by furnishing transportation and meals to musicians; and(4) by supervising and
directing in detail, through the motion picture director, the performance of the musicians before the
camera, in order to suit the music they are playing to the picture which is being flashed on the
screen. The “musical directors” have no such control over the musicians involved in the present case.
Said musical directors control neither the music to be played, nor the musicians playing it. The Premier
Production did not appeal the decision of the Court en banc (that’s why it’s not one of the petitioners in
the case) film companies summon the musicians to work, through the musical directors. The
film companies, through the musical directors, fix the date, the time and the place of work. The film
companies, not the musical directors, provide the transportation to and from the studio. The film
companies furnish meal at dinner time. It is well settled that "an employer-employee relationship exists
. . .where the person for whom the services are performed reserves a right to control not only the end
to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end . . . ." The decisive nature of said
control over the "means to be used", is illustrated in the case of Gilchrist Timber Co., et al., in which, by
reason of said control, the employer-employee relationship was held to exist between the management
and the workers, notwithstanding the intervention of an alleged independent contractor, who had, and
exercise, the power to hire and fire said workers. The aforementioned control over the means to be
used" in reading the desired end is possessed and exercised by the film companies over the musicians in
the cases before us. WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against
petitioners herein. It is so ordered
 MANILA GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and FERMIN LLAMAR
[G.R. No. 64948 September 27, 1994]
Facts: A petition for certification was filed with the Labor Relations Division of the Ministry of Labor by
Philippine Technical, Clerical, Commercial Employees Association (PTCCEA) in behalf of the caddies of
petitioners. The petition was resolved in favor of the caddies. The same union later filed for SSS
coverage but the Social Security Commission denied them for absence of employee employer
relationship.

Issue: Whether persons rendering caddying services in golf clubs are considered employees of such.

Held: NO. The caddies are not employees for the following reasons:-rules and regulations are
permissible means to impose order where the caddies are allowed to pursue their profession within the
club’s premises-they do not observe a particular working hour and are not at the call of the club-the club
has no measure of control over the incidents of the caddies’ work and compensation-the group rotation
system is only an assurance that the work is distributed fairly. Without having to observe any working
hours, free to leave anytime they please, to stay away for as long they like. It is not pretended that if
found remiss in the observance of said rules, any discipline may be meted them beyond barring them
from the premises which, it may be supposed, the Club may do in any case even absent any breach of
the rules, and without violating any right to work on their part. All these considerations clash frontally
with the concept of employment. Decision of the CA reversed and set aside.
 Tan v. Lagrama
G.R. No. 151228 August 15, 2002
Facts: Petitioner Rolando Tan is the president of Supreme Theater Corporation and the general manager
of Crown and Empire Theaters in Butuan City. Private respondent Leovigildo Lagrama is a painter,
making ad billboards and murals for the motion pictures shown at the Empress, Supreme, and Crown
Theaters for more than 10 years, from September 1, 1988 to October 17, 1998. On October 17, 1998
Lagrama was summoned by Tan who accused him of urinating inside the work area, when Lagrama
asked what Tan was saying, Tan told him “I don't want you to draw anymore. From now on, no more
drawing. Get out.!”

Lagrama filed a complaint. He alleged that he had been illegally dismissed and sought reinvestigation
and payment of 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, salary differential, and damages.
Petitioner Tan denied that Lagrama was his employee. He asserted that Lagrama was an independent
contractor who did his work according to his methods, while he (petitioner) was only interested in the
result thereof. Labor Arbiter Rogelio P. Legaspi rendered a decision declaring complainant's [Lagrama's]
dismissal illegal Petitioner Rolando Tan appealed to the NLRC which rendered a decision finding Lagrama
to be an independent contractor
The Court of Appeals found that petitioner exercised control over Lagrama's work.

Issue: Whether Lagrama is Tan’s employee

Held: YES. In determining whether there is an employer-employee relationship, we have applied a

"four-fold test," to wit: (1) whether the alleged employer has the power of selection and engagement of
employees; (2) whether he has control of the employee with respect to the means and... methods by
which work is to be accomplished; (3) whether he has the power to dismiss; and (4) whether the
employee was paid wages.
These elements of the employer-employee relationship are present in this case.
First: It was petitioner who engaged the services of Lagrama, the evidence shows that the latter
performed his work as painter under the supervision and control of petitioner. Lagrama worked in a
designated work area inside the Crown Theater of petitioner, for the use of which petitioner prescribed
rules. The rules included the observance of cleanliness and hygiene and a prohibition against urinating in
the work area and any place other than the toilet or the rest rooms.9 Petitioner's control over Lagrama's
work extended not only to the use of the work area, but also to the result of Lagrama's work, and the
manner and means by which the work was to be accomplished.
Second: That petitioner had the right to hire and fire was admitted by him in his position paper
submitted to the NLRC
Third: Payment of wages is one of the four factors to be considered in determining the existence of
employer-employee relation. That Lagrama worked for Tan on a fixed piece-work basis is of no moment.
Payment by result is a method of compensation and does not define the essence of the relation.
It is a method of computing compensation, not a... basis for determining the existence or absence of
employer-employee relationship.
In this case, by his refusal to give Lagrama work to do and ordering Lagrama to get out of his sight as the
latter tried to explain his side, petitioner made it plain that Lagrama was dismissed. Urinating in a work
place other than the one designated for the purpose by the employer constitutes violation of reasonable
regulations intended to promote a healthy environment under Art. 282(1) of the Labor Code for
purposes of terminating employment, but the same must be shown by evidence. Here there is no
evidence that Lagrama did urinate in a place.