Employee-Employer case digest

SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY VS. DRILON (Secretary of Labor) and Singer Machine Collector’s Union –Baguio (SIMACUB) (1991) Those who are not considered employees of a company, such as independent contractors, are not entitled to the constitutional right to join or form a labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining. FACTS: SIMACUB filed a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all collectors of Singer Sewing Machine. Petitioner opposed because the union members are not employees but independent contractors as evidenced by the collection agency agreement which they signed. The med-arbiter found an employer-employee relationship to exist between the union members and the petitioner. This was likewise affirmed by the Secretary of Labor. ISSUE: WON an EER exists between petitioner and respondent.

also over the means and methods in achieving the end. The plain language of the agreement reveals that the designation as collection agent does not create an employment relationship and that the applicant is to be considered at all times as an independent contractor. The court finds that since private respondents are not employees of the company, they are not entitled to the constitutional right to form or join a labor organization for the purposes of collective bargaining. There is no constitutional and legal basis for their union to be granted their petition for direct certification.

ICAWAT VS. NLRC Facts: Private respondent started working with petitioners as driver of their passenger jeepneys. On December 27, 1994, private respondent lost his driver’s license. To secure a new one, he sought petitioner’s permission to go on vacation leave. After

HELD: The SC calls the importance for the application of the control test, which if not satisfied, would lead to the conclusion that no employeeemployer relationship exists. If the union members are not employees, no right to organize for the purpose of bargaining or as a bargaining agent cannot be recognized.

obtaining his license, private respondent reported for work but was informed by petitioners that another driver had already taken his place. Aggrieved, private respondent, on January 27, 1995, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against herein petitioners before (DOLE) praying that he be reinstated and be paid his

The following elements are generally considered in the determination of the relationship: the selection and engagement of the employee, payment of wages, power of dismissal and the power to control the employee’s conduct which is the most important element. Under the collection agency agreement, the collection agents were paid their compensation for their services on a commission basis, particularly six percent of all collections made by the collecting agent. From here, it is clear that the agreement did not fix an amount for wages nor the required number working hours the collecting agents must put it. Thus, the Court held that collecting agents that are paid on a commission basis are considered independent contractors and not employees of the company. In such a situation, the company does not pass the control test because the company has no control over the collecting agent’s performance of collection services. On the contrary, the company only has control over the amount of collections made, which is a result of his work. In order for the company to have control over the commission agents, the company should not only have control over the end or result to be achieved but

13th month pay and service incentive leave credits. Issue: WON private respondent was illegally dismissed on the ground of abandonment. Held:To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (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, with the second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. Mere absence is not sufficient. To prove abandonment, the employer must show that the employee deliberately and unjustifiably refused to resume his employment without any intention of returning. Private respondent, after his vacation leave, immediately reported back for work but was not allowed by the petitioners on the ground that he was already replaced by regular drivers. After he was

notified of his termination, private respondent lost no time in filing the case for illegal dismissal against

ISSUE(S): (1) Whether or not an unregistered association may be an employer independent of the respective members it represents.

petitioners. He cannot, therefore, by any reasoning, be said to have abandoned his work or had no intention of going back to work. It would be illogical for him to have left his job and later on file said complain. We have consistently ruled that a charge of abandonment is totally inconsistent with the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal. But even assuming that private respondent abandoned his work, petitioners should have served him with a notice of termination on the ground of abandonment. Hence, before termination of employment can be legally effected, the employer must furnish the worker with two (2) written notices, i.e. a notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and the

(2) Whether or not EER exists. HELD: YES. An employer is any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly. The law does not require an employer to be registered before he may come within the purview of the Labor Code, consistent with the established rule in statutory construction that when the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish. To do otherwise would bring about a situation whereby employees are denied, not only redress of their grievances, but, more importantly, the protection and benefits accorded to them by law if their employer happens to be an unregistered association. The following are generally considered in the determination of the existence of an employeremployee relationship; (1) the manner of selection and engagement; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the presence or absence of the power of dismissal; and (4) the presence or absence of the power of control; of these four, the last one being the most important.

subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him. Petitioners failed to give private respondent written notice of his termination on the ground of abandonment. Failure to do so makes the termination illegal. G.R. No. 129076 November 25, 1998 ORLANDO FARMS GROWERS ASSOCIATION/GLICERIO AÑOVER vs NLRC FACTS: Orlando Farms Growers Association is an association of landowners engaged in the production of export quality bananas established for the sole purpose of dealing collectively on matters concerning technical services, canal maintenance, irrigation and pest control, among others. Respondents were hired as farm workers by several member-landowners but; nonetheless, were made to perform functions as packers and harvesters in the plantation of petitioner association. Respondents were dismissed on various dates. Petitioner alleged that respondents were not its employees and but of the individual landowners which fact can easily be deduced from the payments made by the latter of respondent's SSS contributions. Moreover, it could have never exercised the power of control over them with regard to the manner and method by which the work was to be accomplished, which authority remain vested with the landowners despite becoming members thereof.

The following circumstances which support the existence of employer-employee relations cannot be denied. During the subsistence of the association, several circulars and memoranda were issued concerning, among other things, absences without formal request, loitering in the work area and disciplinary measures with which every worker is enjoined to comply. Furthermore, the employees were issued identification cards. While the original purpose of the formation of the association was merely to provide the landowners a unified voice in dealing with Stanfilco, petitioner however exceeded its avowed intentions when its subsequent actions reenforced only too clearly its admitted role of employer. Filipinas Broadcasting Network Inc. Vs. NLRC & Simeon Mapa Jr. 287 SCRA 348 Facts: Simeon "Jun" Mapa Jr., a volunteer reporter of the DZRC, declaring to be an employee of the petitioner filed a complaint against Filipinas Broadcasting-DZRC on August 1992 claiming the payment of salaries, premium pay, holiday pay as well as 13th month pay for the period of February 28, 1990- January 16, 1992. Labor Arbiter Emeterio Ranola dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding no employer-employee relationship existed between Mapa and DZRC during the period of March 11, 1990- February 16, 1992. NLRC set aside the labor arbiters finding and ruled hold that there was an employer-employee relation.

Issue: WON Mapa was an employee of FBN-DZRC for the period March 11, 1990- February 16, 1992

an employee of the company but an independent

Held: No. The following are generally considered in determination of the existence of an employeremployee relationship. (1) the manner of selection and engagement (2) the payment of wages (3) the presence or absence of dismissal; and (4) the presence or absence of control; of these four, the last one is the most important. There could be no employer-employee where element of control is absent.

in return, received commissions therein. Petitioner

FBN-DZRC did not act on the application of Mapa for employment as a radio reporter because Mapa admittedly failed to present a clearance from his former employer. Nevertheless, Mapa "volunteered" his service, knowing that he would not be paid wages, and that he had to rely on financial sponsorship of business establishment that hw would advertise in his reports. In other words, Mapa willingly acted as a volunteer reporter, fully cognizant that he was not an employee and that he would not receive any compensation directly from FBN-DZRC, but only from his own advertising sponsor. Indeed, Mapa admitted in his bio-data sheet,in which he acknowledge that he was not an employee.

dealer authorized to promote and sell its products and also claims that it had no control and supervision over the complainant as to the manners and means he conducted his business operations. Limjoco maintained otherwise. He alleged he was hired by the petitioner and was assigned in the sales department.

The Labor Arbiter ruled that Limjoco was an employee of the company. NLRC also affirmed the decision and opined that there was no evidence supporting allegation that Limjoco was an independent contractor or dealer. Issue: Whether or not there was an employeeemployer relationship between the parties.

Ruling: There was no employee-employer relationship. In determining the relationship, the

No one in the DZRC had the power to regulate or control Mapa's activities or inputs. He was not subject to any supervision by FBN-DZRC or its officials. DZRC exercise no editorial rights under his reports. He had no fix day or time for making his reports; in fact he was not required to report anything at all. Whether he would air anything depends entirely on him and his convenience.

following elements must be present: selection and

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA (Philippines), INC.

test, an employee-employer relationship exists where

vs. NLRC

the person for whom the services are performed

Facts: Limjoco was a Sales Division of Encyclopedia Britannica and was in charge of selling the products through some sales representatives. As

engagement of the employee, payment of wages, power of dismissal and power to control the employee’s conduct. The power of control is commonly regarded as the most crucial and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employee-employer relationship. Under the control

reserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved, but also the manner and means to be employed in reaching that end.

compensation, he would receive commissions from

The issuance of guidelines by the petitioner was

the products sold by his agents. He was also allowed

merely guidelines on company policies which sales

to use the petitioner’s name, goodwill and logo. It was

managers follow and impose on their respective

agreed that office expenses would be deducted from

agents. Limjoco was not an employee of the company

Limjoco’s commissions.

since he had the free rein in the means and methods for conducting the marketing operations. He was merely an agent or an independent dealer of the

In 1974, Limjoco resigned to pursue his private business and filed a complaint against petitioner for

petitioner. He was free to conduct his work and he was free to engage in other means of livelihood.

alleged non-payment of separation pay and other benefits and also illegal deduction from sales commissions. Petitioner alleged that Limjoco was not

In ascertaining the employee-employer relationship, the factual circumstances must be considered. The

element of control is absent where a person who

and Regulations, likewise, does not detract from the

works for another does so more or less at his own

absence of employer-employee relationship.‖ The

pleasure and is not subject to definite hours or

NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and CA

conditions of work, and in turn is compensated in

dismissed the action for certiorari. Should there be

according to the result of his efforts and not the

any complaint, it does not arise from an EER but from

amount thereof. Hence, there was no employee-

a breach of contract in which regular courts have

employer relationship.

jurisdiction. Hence this petition.

Sonza vs ABS-CBN [G.R. No. 138051. June 10,

Issue: Whether there was EER between the parties.

2004] Facts: In May 1994 ,ABS-CBN Broadcasting

Ruling: No. Case law has consistently held that the

Corporation (―ABS-CBN‖), represented by its

elements of an employer-employee relationship are:

corporate officers signed an Agreement with the Mel and Jay Management and Development Corporation

(a) the selection and engagement of the employee;

(―MJMDC‖), represented by SONZA, as President and

SONZA contends that the ―discretion used by

General Manager, and Carmela Tiangco as EVP and

respondent in specifically selecting and hiring

Treasurer. MJMDC agreed to provide SONZA’s

complainant over other broadcasters of possibly

services exclusively to ABS-CBN as talent for radio

similar experience and qualification as complainant

and television. ABS-CBN agreed to pay monthly

belies respondent’s claim of independent

talent fee for SONZA’s services. On 1 April 1996,

contractorship.‖

SONZA wrote a letter to ABS-CBN notice of

Independent contractors often present themselves to

rescission of said Agreement at their instance

possess unique skills, expertise or talent to

effective as of date due to the Mr. Sonza’s irrevocably

distinguish them from ordinary employees. The

resignation in view of recent events concerning his

specific selection and hiring of SONZA, because of

programs and career. On 30 April 1996, SONZA filed

his unique skills, talent and celebrity status not

a complaint against ABS-CBN before DOLE that

possessed by ordinary employees, is a circumstance

ABS-CBN did not pay his salaries, separation pay and

indicative, but not conclusive, of an independent

other benefits stipulated in the agreement. ABS-CBN

contractual relationship.

filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that no employer-employee relationship existed between the

(b) the payment of wages;

parties. Meanwhile, ABS-CBN continued to remit

SONZA asserts that this mode of fee payment shows

SONZA’s monthly talent fees and other payments.

that he was an employee of ABS-CBN. SONZA also

Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and found ther

points out that ABS-CBN granted him benefits and

is no employee-employer relationship (EER) and

privileges ―which he would not have enjoyed if he

ruled that ―complainant was engaged by respondent

were truly the subject of a valid job contract.‖

by reason of his peculiar skills and talent as a TV host

All the talent fees and benefits paid to SONZA were

and a radio broadcaster. Unlike an ordinary

the result of negotiations that led to the Agreement. If

employee, he was free to perform the services he

SONZA were ABS-CBN’s employee, there would be

undertook to render in accordance with his own style.

no need for the parties to stipulate on benefits such

Whatever benefits complainant enjoyed arose from

as ―SSS, Medicare, x x x and 13th month pay‖ which

specific agreement by the parties and not by reason

the law automatically incorporates into every

of employer-employee relationship. The fact that

employer-employee contract. Whatever benefits

complainant was made subject to respondent’s Rules

SONZA enjoyed arose from contract and not because

ABS-CBN was completely dissatisfied with the means

of an employer-employee relationship.

and methods of SONZA’s performance of his work, or

(c) the power of dismissal;

even with the quality or product of his work, ABS-CBN could not dismiss or even discipline SONZA. All that

For violation of any provision of the Agreement, either party may terminate their relationship. SONZA failed to show that ABS-CBN could terminate his services

ABS-CBN could do is not to broadcast SONZA’s show but ABS-CBN must still pay his talent fees in full.

on grounds other than breach of contract, such as retrenchment to prevent losses as provided under labor laws.

The Agreement does not require SONZA to comply with the rules and standards of performance prescribed for employees of ABS-CBN. The code of

During the life of the Agreement, ABS-CBN agreed to pay SONZA’s talent fees as long as ―AGENT and Jay Sonza shall faithfully and completely perform each condition of this Agreement.‖ Even if it suffered severe business losses, ABS-CBN could not retrench SONZA because ABS-CBN remained obligated to pay SONZA’s talent fees during the life of the Agreement. This circumstance indicates an independent contractual relationship between SONZA and ABS-CBN. (d) the employer’s power to control the employee on

conduct imposed on SONZA under the Agreement refers to the ―Television and Radio Code of the Kapisanan ng mga Broadcaster sa Pilipinas (KBP), which has been adopted by the COMPANY (ABSCBN) as its Code of Ethics.‖ The KBP code applies to broadcasters, not to employees of radio and television stations. Broadcasters are not necessarily employees of radio and television stations. Clearly, the rules and standards of performance referred to in the Agreement are those applicable to talents and not to employees of ABS-CBN.

the means and methods by which the work is accomplished. The last element, the so-called ―control test‖, is the most important element. ABS-CBN engaged SONZA’s services specifically to co-host the ―Mel & Jay‖ programs. ABS-CBN did not

Jose Mel Bernante v. PBA et al Facts: Complainants (Jose Mel Bernarte and Renato Guevarra) aver that they were invited to join the PBA as referees and were made to sign contracts on a year-to-year basis.

assign any other work to SONZA. To perform his work, SONZA only needed his skills and talent. How SONZA delivered his lines, appeared on television, and sounded on radio were outside ABS-CBN’s

Bernarte was not made to sign a contract during the 1st conference of the All-Filipino Cup. It was only during the 2nd conference when he was made to sign a one and a half month contract.

control. SONZA did not have to render eight hours of work per day. The Agreement required SONZA to attend only rehearsals and tapings of the shows, as well as pre- and post-production staff meetings. ABSCBN could not dictate the contents of SONZA’s script. However, the Agreement prohibited SONZA from criticizing in his shows ABS-CBN or its interests. The clear implication is that SONZA had a free hand on what to say or discuss in his shows provided he did not attack ABS-CBN or its interests. Although ABS-CBN did have the option not to

On January 15, 2004, Bernarte received a letter from the Office of the Commissioner advising him that his contract would not be renewed citing his unsatisfactory performance on and off the court. It was a total shock for him who was awarded Referee of the year in 2003. He felt that the dismissal was caused by his refusal to fix a game upon order of Ernie De Leon. On the other hand, complainant Guevarra alleges that he was invited to join the PBA pool of referees. On March 1, 2001, he signed a contract as trainee. Beginning 2002, he signed a yearly contract as Regular Class C referee.

broadcast SONZA’s show, ABS-CBN was still obligated to pay SONZA’s talent fees. Thus, even if

On May 6, 2003, respondent Martinez issued a memorandum to Guevarra expressing dissatisfaction

over his questioning on the assignment of referees officiating out-of-town games. Beginning February 2004, he was no longer made to sign a contract. Respondents aver that complainants were not illegally dismissed because they were not employees of the PBA. Their respective contracts of retainer were simply not renewed. PBA had the prerogative of whether or not to renew their contracts, which they knew were fixed. Issue: whether petitioner is an employee of respondents, which in turn determines whether petitioner was illegally dismissed. Ruling: petitioners are not employees of the respondent, for the latter doesn’t exercise control over the former. Once in the playing court, the referees exercise their own independent judgment, based on the rules of the game, as to when and how a call or decision is to be made. The referees decide whether an infraction was committed, and the PBA cannot overrule them once the decision is made on the playing court. The referees are the only, absolute, and final authority on the playing court. Respondents or any of the PBA officers cannot and do not determine which calls to make or not to make and cannot control the referee when he blows the whistle because such authority exclusively belongs to the referees. Moreover, the following circumstances indicate that petitioner is an independent contractor: (1) the referees are required to report for work only when PBA games are scheduled, which is three times a week spread over an average of only 105 playing days a year, and they officiate games at an average of two hours per game; and (2) the only deductions from the fees received by the referees are withholding taxes. In other words, unlike regular employees who ordinarily report for work eight hours per day for five days a week, petitioner is required to report for work only when PBA games are scheduled or three times a week at two hours per game. In addition, there are no deductions for contributions to the SSS, Philhealth or Pag-Ibig, which are the usual deductions from employees’ salaries. These undisputed circumstances buttress the fact that petitioner is an independent contractor, and not an employee of respondents POLYFOAM – RGC v. EDGARDO CONCEPCION (employee-employer relationship) G.R. 172349, June 13, 2012 TOPIC: Petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the ROC due to the judgement rendered in favor of the respondent (Mr. Concepcion) assailing

the affirmation of CA for paying the money claims of the Respondent due to illegal dismissal and reinstatement to the job.

FACTS: Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of wages, premium pay for rest day, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, th 13 month pay, damages and attorney’s fee against Polyfoam and Ms. Cheng (as petitioners), when the latter refused him to report for work despite of his counsel’s requests for re-admission. Polyfoam denied the respondent as their employee. th On 24 of May 2000, Gramaje filed a motion for intervention claiming to be her employer which was granted by the Labor Arbiter. Trial ensued, she argued, however, that respondent was not dismissed from employment, but rather, he simply stopped th reporting for work. On 14 December 2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered its decision in favor of the respondent finding Polyfoam-RGC and Gramaje solidarily liable for respondent’s money claims. On appeal of the petitioners with the decision made by Labor Arbiter, the NLRC modified the LA decision by exonerating Polyfoam from liability for respondent’s money claim and ordered that only Gramaje who has to pay for respondents money claims. Aggrieved, respondent elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) for special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the ROC on the grounds that Polyfoam-RGC was his employer and he was employed for almost six years as ―all-around employees‖. The following issues are to be determined on this case, to wit: Issues: (1) whether or not Gramaje is an independent job contractor; (2) whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists between Polyfoam and respondent; and (3) whether or not respondent was illegally dismissed from employment. HOLD/Ruling: On the first issue - Gramaje is not a legitimate job contractor but only a "labor-only" contractor. ―There is labor-only contracting where the person supplying workers to an employer does not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and the workers recruited and placed by such person are performing activities which are directly related to the principal business of such employer because of the following: (1) Gramaje failed to present its Audited Financial Statement that would have shown

its financial standing and ownership of equipment, machineries, and tools necessary to run her own business; (2) Gramaje failed to present a single copy of the purported contract with Polyfoam as to the packaging aspect of the latter’s business; (3) Gramaje’s licenses supposedly issued by the DOLE appeared to be spurious. (4) Gramaje was not registered with DOLE as a private recruitment agency; and (5) Gramaje presented only one (1) SSS Quarterly Collection List whose authenticity 31 is doubtful. On the second issue – Yes, respondent is an employee of the Polyfoam, and thereby both are likewise proven having an employee-employer relationships. While it is true that petitioners submitted the Affidavit of Polyfoam’s supervisor Victor Abadia, claiming that the latter did not exercise supervision over respondent because the latter was not Polyfoam’s but Gramaje’s employee, said Affidavit is insufficient to prove such claim. Petitioners should have presented the person who they claim to have exercised supervision over respondent and their alleged other employees assigned to Polyfoam. It was never established that Gramaje took entire charge, control and supervision of the work and service agreed upon. And as aptly observed by the CA, "it is likewise highly unusual and suspect as to the absence of a written contract specifying the performance of a specified service, the nature and extent of the service or work to be done and the term and duration of the relationship." The CA noted that petitioners are represented by only one law firm though they made it appear that they were represented by different lawyers. These circumstances, says the CA, give rise to the suspicion that the creation or establishment of Gramaje was just a scheme designed to evade the obligation inherent in an employer-employee relationship. Thus, respondent was indeed Polyfoam’s employee. This relationship was specifically shown by Polyfoam’s exercise of supervision over the work of respondent; the furnishing of a copy of Polyfoam’s "Mga Alituntunin at Karampatang Parusa" to serve as respondent’s guide in the performance of his duty; the length of time that respondent had performed activities necessary for Polyfoam’s business; and Polyfoam’s act of directly firing respondent. Finally, the appellate court affirmed the LA’s findings of illegal dismissal as respondent was dismissed from the service without cause and due process. Consequently, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement was awarded. The CA quoted with approval the LA conclusions on the award of respondent’s other money claims. On the Third issue – Respondent was found illegal dismissed from its job, when he reported for work on January 14, 2000, his time card was suddenly taken

off the rack His supervisor later informed him that Polyfoam’s management decided to dismiss him due to infraction of company rule. In short, respondent insisted that he was dismissed from employment without just or lawful cause and without due process. Polyfoam did not offer any explanation of such dismissal. It, instead, explained that respondent’s real employer is Gramaje. Gramaje, on the other, denied the claim of illegal dismissal. She shifted the blame on respondent claiming that the latter in fact abandoned his work. Which the LA gave credence to respondent’s narration and it was affirmed by CA. Therefore, Polyfoam and respondent Concepcion have an employee-employer relationship. AFP MBAI VS. NLRC FACTS: Private respondent Eutiquio Bustamante had been an insurance underwriter of petitioner AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. since 1975. There is a Sales Agent's Agreement between them. In 1989, petitioner dismissed private respondent for misrepresentation and for simultaneously selling insurance for another life insurance company in violation of said agreement. Private respondent wrote petitioner seeking the release of his commissions for said 24 months, discovering the amount of P354,796.09 as his total commission. However, he was paid only the amount of P35,000.00. The Agent filed a case about the matter, but the petitioner denied the contention based on absence of employeeemployer relationship. ISSUE: Whether or not there exist an employeeemployer relationship between the said parties? RULING: NO. Time and again, the Court has applied the "four-fold" test in determining the existence of employer-employee relationship. Although petitioner could have, theoretically, disapproved any of private respondent's transactions, what could be disapproved was only the result of the work, and not the means by which it was accomplished.The "control" which the above factors indicate did not sum up to the power to control private respondent's conduct in and mode of soliciting insurance. On the contrary, they clearly indicate that the juridical element of control had been absent in this situation. Thus, the Court is constrained to rule that no employment relationship had ever existed between the parties. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES vs. NLRC et al FACTS: Private respondent Dr. Fabros was employed as flight surgeon at petitioner company. He was assigned at the PAL Medical Clinic and was on duty from 4:00 in the afternoon until 12:00 midnight.

On Feb.17, 1994, at around 7:00 in the evening, Dr. FAbros left the clinic to have his dinner at his residence, which was abou t5-minute drive away. A few minutes later, the clinic received an emergency call from the PAL Cargo Services. One of its employeeshad suffered a heart attack. The nurse on duty, Mr. Eusebio, called private respondent at home to inform him of the emergency. The patient arrived at the clinic at 7:50 in the evening and Mr. Eusebio immediately rushed him to the hospital. When Dr. Fabros reached the clinic at around 7:51 in the evening, Mr. Eusebio had already left with the patient to the hospital. The patient died the following day. Upon learning about the incident, PAL Medical Director ordered the Chief Flight Surgeon to conduct an investigation. In his explanation, Dr. Fabros asserted that he was entitled to a thirty-minute meal break; that he immediately left his residence upon being informed by Mr. Eusebio about the emergency and he arrived at the clinic a few minutes later; that Mr. Eusebio panicked and brought the patient to the hospital without waiting for him. Finding private respondent’s explanation unacceptable, the management charged private respondent with abandonment of post while on duty. He denied that he abandoned his post on February 17, 1994. He said that he only left the clinic to have his dinner at home. In fact, he returned to the clinic at 7:51 in the evening upon being informed of the emergency. After evaluating the charge as well as the answer of private respondent, he was given a suspension for three months effective December 16, 1994. Private respondent filed a complaint for illegal suspension against petitioner. On July 16, 1996, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring the suspension of private respondent illegal. It also ordered petitioner to pay private respondent the amount equivalent to all the benefits he should have received during his period of suspension plus P500,000.00 moral damages. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC, however, dismissed the appeal after finding that the decision of the Labor Arbiter is supported by the facts on record and the law on the matter. The NLRC likewise denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. ISSUE: WON the nullifying of the 3-month suspension by the NLRC erroneous. HELD: No. The legality of private respondent’s suspension: Dr. Fabros left the clinic that night only to

have his dinner at his house, which was only a few minutes’ drive away from the clinic. His whereabouts were known to the nurse on duty so that he could be easily reached in case of emergency. Upon being informed of Mr. Acosta’s condition, private respondent immediately left his home and returned to the clinic. These facts belie petitioner’s claim of abandonment. Petitioner argues that being a full-time employee, private respondent is obliged to stay in the company premises for not less than eight (8) hours. Hence, he may not leave the company premises during such time, even to take his meals. Art. 83 and 85 of the Labor Code read: Art. 83. Normal hours of work. — The normal hours of work of any employee shall not exceed eight (8) hours a day. Health personnel in cities and municipalities with a population of at least one million (1,000,000) or in hospitals and clinics with a bed capacity of at least one hundred (100) shall hold regular office hours for eight (8) hours a day, for five (5) days a week, exclusive of time for meals, except where the exigencies of the service require that such personnel work for six (6) days or forty-eight (48) hours, in which case they shall be entitled to an additional compensation of at least thirty per cent (30%) of their regular wage for work on the sixth day. For purposes of this Article, ―health personnel‖ shall include: resident physicians, nurses, nutritionists, dieticians, pharmacists, social workers, laboratory technicians, paramedical technicians, psychologists, midwives, attendants and all other hospital or clinic personnel. Art. 85. Meal periods. — Subject to such regulations as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe, it shall be the duty of every employer to give his employees not less than sixty (60) minutes time-off for their regular meals. Sec. 7, Rule I, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code further states: Sec. 7. Meal and Rest Periods. — Every employer shall give his employees, regardless of sex, not less than one (1) hour time-off for regular meals, except in the following cases when a meal period of not less than twenty (20) minutes may be given by the employer provided that such shorter meal period is credited as compensable hours worked of the employee; (a) Where the work is nonmanual work in nature or does not involve strenuous physical exertion; (b) Where the establishment regularly operates not less than sixteen hours a day; (c) In cases of actual or impending emergencies or there is urgent work to be performed on machineries, equipment or installations to avoid serious loss which the employer would otherwise suffer; and (d) Where the work is necessary to prevent serious loss of

perishable goods. Rest periods or coffee breaks running from five (5) to twenty (20) minutes shall be considered as compensable working time.

does not apply, grievances shall be subject to negotiation, conciliation or arbitration as provided elsewhere in this Code .

Thus, the eight-hour work period does not include the meal break. Nowhere in the law may it be inferred that employees must take their meals within the company premises. Employees are not prohibited from going out of the premises as long as they return to their posts on time. Private respondent’s act, therefore, of going home to take his dinner does not constitute abandonment.

FERMIN REOTAN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION, defendant-appellant.

Phil Graphic Arts vs. NLRC FACTS: The petitioner corporation was forced by economic circumstances to require its workers to go on mandatory vacation leave in batches of seven or nine for periods ranging from 15, 30, to 45 days. The workers were paid while on leave but the pay was charged against their respective earned leaves. As a result, the private respondents filed complaints for unfair labor practice and discrimination. ISSUE: Whether or not the forced vacation leave without pay is unfair labor practice. HELD: The Court is convinced from the records now before it, that there was no unfair labor practice. As found by the NLRC, the private respondents themselves never questioned the existence of an economic crisis but, in fact, admitted its existence. There is basis for the petitioner's contentions that the reduction of work schedule was temporary, that it was taken only after notice and consultations with the workers and supervisors, that a consensus was reached on how to deal with deteriorating economic conditions and reduced sales and that the temporary reduction of working days was a more humane solution instead of a retrenchment and reduction of personnel. The petitioner further points out that this is in consonance with the collective bargaining agreement between the employer and its employees. The decision to resort to forced leaves was, under the circumstances, a management prerogative. The workers' claim of non-resort to the grievance machinery is negated by their failure to initiate steps for its employment. The statutory law on grievance procedure provides that: ART. 261. Grievance machinery. Whenever a grievance arises from the interpretation or implementation of a collective agreement, including disciplinary actions imposed on members of the bargaining unit, the employer and the bargaining representative shall meet to adjust the grievance. Where the grievance procedure as provided herein

Facts: Plaintiff-appellees are guard- night watchmen for the National Rice and Corn Corporation in NARIC branches of Naga, Camarines Sur, Tobaco, Albay and Daet, Camarines Norte. They appealed to the court to demand NARIC to pay for their overtime and night differentials. NARIC refused to pay them these even after a decision in the guards’ favor. They contended that NARIC as a government- owned corporation is an exception to such payment as they are subject to the Civil Service law and that such payments were not allowed by a board resolution and upon order of the President-manager except in special cases. The defendant also contended that they are exempted from the Eight hour labor law which would have subjected them to give overtime pay. Issue: Whether or not NARIC should give overtime pay to Appellants not withstanding its nature as a government-owned and controlled corporation subject to the Civil Service Law. Ruling: Yes. The Civil Service Law section 10, Executive Order No. 350, Series of 1951), providing that officers and employees are subject to the Civil Service Law ... refer to the fixed tenure of office of its officers and employees who may be removed only for cause as provided by law A government-owned corporation run and operated like any ordinary corporation which may realize profits and incur losses and the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations in labor disputes involving government-owned corporations is recognized. Moreover, it is a well-established doctrine that when the Government engages in business, it abdicates part of its sovereign prerogatives and descends to the level of a citizen, and thereby subjects itself to the laws and regulations governing the relation of labor and management. Additional compensation for overtime, Sundays and legal holidays' work, and for night time work, have been granted to labor. It appearing that Fermin Reotan had been on leave of absence for 36 days and that Silvestre Reotan and Praxedes Balane had been absent for one (1) day and four (4) days, respectively, and that these absences had not been considered in computing the overtime compensation due said plaintiffs, it is clear

that the corresponding deductions should be made therefrom.

independent contractor. Lastly, in labor-only contracting, the employees supplied by the contractor

Held: With this modification, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, therefore, in all other respects, and let these cases be remanded to the lower court for determination of the amount of said deductions, without special pronouncement as to the costs of this instance. It is so ordered.

perform activities, which are directly related to the main business of its principal.

It is clear that in this case, the work of petitioner as sales representative was directly related to the

VINOYA V NLRC FACTS: Petitioner Vinoya was hired by RFC as sales representative. He avers that he was transferred by RFC to PMCI, an agency which provides RFC with additional contractual workers. In PMCI, he was reassigned to RFC as sales representative and then later informed by the personnel manager of RFC that his services were terminated. RFC maintains that no

business of RFC. Since due to petitioner’s length of service, he attained the status of regular employee thus cannot be terminated without just or valid cause. RFC failed to prove that his dismissal was for cause and that he was afforded procedural due process. Petitioner is thus entitled to reinstatement plus full backwages from his dismissal up to actual reinstatement.

employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and itself. Petitioner filed complaint for illegal dismissal. RFC alleges that PMCI is an independent contractor as the latter is a highly capitalized venture.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was an employee of RFC and thereby, illegally dismissed.

HELD: Yes. PMCI was a labor-only contractor. Although the Neri doctrine stated that it was enough that a contractor had substantial capital to show it was an independent contractor, the case of Fuji Xerox clarified the doctrine stating that an independent business must undertake the performance of the contract according to its own manner and method free from the control of the principal.

In this case, PMCI did not even have substantial capitalization as only a small amount of its authorized capital stock was actually paid-in. Also, PMCI did not carry on an independent business or undertake the performance of its contract according to its own manner and method. Furthermore, PMCI was not

GARDEN OF MEMORIES PARK and LIFE PLAN, INC. and PAULINA T. REQUIÑO, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION, LABOR ARBITER FELIPE T. GARDUQUE II and HILARIA CRUZ G.R. 160278, February 8, 2012. TOPIC: A petition for review under Rule 45 of the ROC seeking nullification on the resolution of the CA affirming the decision of NLRC in finding the petitioner as the employer of the respondent and ordered liable for the money claims of respondent Cruz. FACTS: Petitioner is engaged in business of operating a memorial park in Pateros, MM, and selling memorial plan and services, Respondent, likewise, is a worker in Garden of Memories Park from 1991 up to Feb. 1998. On March 13, 1998 Respondent filed a complaint of illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, noninclusion of SSS and so on against the petitioner before the DOLE. Petitioner denied the employment of respondent, but likewise, impleaded Paulina T. Requino as it was the service contractor and employer of Cruz. It was due to misunderstanding with a co-worker why he was dismissed without due process and valid cause. Both petitioner denied the fact that Cruz was their employee either, and argued that respondent has abandoned his work. Upon judgement of the LA, it was declared that both petitioners are held jointly and severally liable for the monetary claims of Cruz and order payment.

engaged to perform a specific and special job or service, which is one of the strong indicators that is an

Petitioners both appealed at NLRC but was denied even on the MR due to lack of merit. They then

elevated the appeal at the CA but was also affirmed the decision made by NLRC, hence this petition for certiorari due to GAOD and Acted in Excess of Jurisdiction for the following issues, to wit:

period, or the 40 hours worked during the regular work week from Mon. - Fri. Caltex Union instituted a complaint for unfair labor practice against Caltex Phil. alleging violations of the provisions of the CBA for non-payment of overtime pay, with respect to

ISSUES:

worked performed on 2/12 hours on a Saturday. In turn, Caltex denied such allegations.

1. 2.

3.

WON Petitioner Requino was engaged in Labor-only contracting; WON there exists an employee-employer relationship between Gardens and respondent Cruz; and WON respondent Cruz has abandon his work at the Gardens.

RULING/HELD:

Issue: WON the allegations of Caltex Union is meritorious?

Held: No. Hours of work on a Saturday do not, by that fact alone, necessarily constitutes overtime work

First Issue: Sec. 5 of Rule VIII-A of the Omnibus Rule implementing the Labor Codes, provides that labor contracting shall refer to an arrangement where the contractor or subcontractor merely recruits, supplies or places workers to perform a job, work or service for a principal and the elements of determinating this are present, 1) capitalization requirements and 2) the power of control over to his employee which Requino are wanting. The Courts find this absent in Requino’s favor, hence, he’s only doing as a mere agent of the Garden of Memories and not as an employer of respondent Cruz, which was supported by Service Contract Agreement between both the petitioners. Second Issue: Consequently, due to the findings made by the court upon declaring that Requino was only doing as agent of the Gardens. As such, Gardens is the principal employer of the respondent Cruz, he was hired as a Utility Worker tasked to clean, sweep and water the lawn of the memorial park. She performed activities which were necessary or desirable to its principal trade or business. Thus, she was a regular employee of Gardens of Memories and cannot be dismissed except for just and authorized causes when respondent Cruz did not abandon her work but was illegally dismissed as described on the Third Issue. Therefore, the petition is denied and the assailed decision/resolutions of the CA were affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Caltex Regular Employees vs Caltex Phil. Facts: Caltex Regular Employees (Union) and Caltex Phil. (Caltex) entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement ( CBA ) in conformity with the Labor Code. Under the CBA, to be considered as overtime work, the hours worked must be in excess of and in addition to the 8 hours work during the prescribed daily work

compensable at premium rates of pay, contrary to petitioner's assertion. These are normal or regular work hours, compensable at a regular rates of pay, as provided in the CBA; under that CBA, Saturday is not a rest day or a "day off". It is only when an employee has been required on a Saturday to render work in excess of the 40 hours which constitutes the regular work week that such employee may be considered as performing overtime work on that Saturday.