G.R. No.

L-21465 March 31, 1966

INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL-AGRICULTURAL WORKERS' ORGANIZATION (ICAWO),
petitioner-appellant,
vs.
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE PILAR and/or
ANTONIO BELZARENA as Manager, CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE PILAR ALLIED
WORKERS ASSOCIATION (CAPAWA), respondents-appellees.
FACTS:
ICAWO is an independent organization of workers who who works with the Central
Azucarera De Pilar (Azucarera) some of them have been working with the latter since the
pre-war years. On the other hand CAPAWA is another workers association which is
considered to be a company union of the Azucarera with which the latter has a collective
bargaining agreement, prioritizing members of CAPAWA when hiring unskilled workers.
The ICAWO staged a strike against the Azucarera asking for a fair treatment between the
workers belonging to the two labor unions. The matter was settled through an amicable
settlement with the Azucarera promising not to discriminate the members of the ICAWO
whether a striker or not. During the opening of the milling season in 1956, 101 seasonal
employees who are members of the ICAWO was denied re-admission to work by the
Azucarera on the ground that the latter is precluded by its collective bargaining
agreement with CAPAWA containing a closed-shop clause. The ICAWO filed an unfair
labor practice charge against the Azucarera before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR)
who subsequently ordered the reinstatement of the said workers. However, on the
motion for reconsideration, The CIR reversed its previous order relying on the contention
of the Azucarera that the members of the ICAWO could not be re-admitted without
violating their collective bargaining agreement with CAPAWA, stating that the members
of the latter must be preferred when hiring new workers. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
Is the employment of seasonal workers severed when they are allowed to seek
other employment during the off-season when they dont work for the company hence,
considering them as new workers when the operation of the company resumes?
RULING:
No, their employment is merely suspended temporarily and the workers are
deemed on-leave without pay. Even if they were allowed to seek employment during the
temporary lay-off, their employment subsist and they are not terminated from work
when the season ends, hence, they are not to be considered as new employee when the
operation of the company resumes at the start of the milling season. Seeking other
employment during off-season is natural because the laborers are not being paid

therefore they must find means to support their familys living. The seasonal stoppage of
work does not, therefore, negate the reasonable expectation of the laborers to be
subsequently allowed to resume work unless there be justifiable reasons for acting
otherwise. In view thereof, the Court hereby sets aside the resolution of the CIR and
directs the latter to reinstate the 101 seasonal workers to their former positions in the
Azucarera. Motion for reconsideration is denied, and case is remanded to the CIR for the
determination of backwages, if any.
G.R. No. L-30592

February 25, 1982

PHILIPPINE FISHING BOAT OFFICERS AND ENGINEERS UNION, SAMAHAN NG

MANGDARAGAT SA FILIPINAS, FRANCISCO VISAYAS AND AMBROCIO BERGADO, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, SAN DIEGO FISHERY ENTERPRISES, INC., BARTOLOME
A. SAN DIEGO AND ANATOLIO LLIDO, respondents.
FACTS:
Francisco Visaya (Visaya) and Ambrosio Bergado (Bergado) were president and treasurer,
respectively, of Philippine Fishing Boat Officers and Engineers Union (Officers Union) composed
of officers and engineers while Samahan ng Mangdaragat sa Filipinas (Samahan) is another
registered union composed of crew members. Both unions are in the employ of San Diego
Fishery Enterprises (Company) where Bartolome A. San Diego (San Diego) is a stockholder and
Anatolio Llido is an employee. Petitioners are seasonal employees of the company who seize to
work with the latter when the latters boats are on dry dock and they seek other employment
during such time. The petitioners filed before the CIR a complaint for unfair labor practices by
the respondents when the latter failed to act on the demand letters, sent by the petitioners,
within the reglamentary period provided by Sec. 14 of R.A. 875 and for the illegal termination of
the individual petitioners because of the union activities and their refusal to resign from the
petitioner unions when asked by San Diego to resign and join the union being established by the
latter. The CIR dismissed the case of the petitioners giving merit to the contention of the
respondents that the unions were not legitimate representative groups entitled to a collective
bargaining agreement with the company and that Visaya and Bergado were not employees of the
company at the time of their dismissal hence were not illegally terminated from work.
ISSUE:
Is employment is severed when the workers stop to work for the company and seek other
employment when the operation of the company temporarily seizes during lean season or when
company machineries and equipment are under maintenance?
RULING:
No, the contention of the respondents that at the moment the crew members disembark,
they are no longer considered employees of the company, is not correct. Likewise, the ruling of
the CIR which states that since the record indicated that individual petitioners were not on
board any of the company's fishing vessels at the time of their dismissal, there existed no
employer-employee relationship between the parties and therefore respondents could not be held

liable for unfair labor practices, is equally erroneous. It is settled that tenure of employment is
not considered as the test of employment. All that is required is hiring. For it not the continuity
of employment that renders the employer responsible, but whether the work of the laborer is
part of the regular business or occupation of the employer. In the case at bar, the employeremployee relationship is merely suspended during the time the vessels are dry docked or
undergoing repairs or being loaded with the necessary provisions for the next fishing trip. All
these activities form part of the regular operation of the company's fishing business. Hence, the
individual petitioners are employees of the company and the fact that on the date of the
individuals petitioners dismissal, they were not on board any of the company's fishing vessels
does not exonerate respondents from the charge of unjust dismissal. In view of the foregoing
thereof, the decision of the CIR is set aside and the respondent company is ordered to pay the
individual petitioners their entitled backwages.

G.R. No. L-64313 January 17, 1985

NATIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
BENJAMIN JUCO AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.
FACTS:
Benjamin Juco (Juco) was a project engineer of the National Housing Corporation
(NHC). Juco was dismissed from work by NHC for having been implicated on a crime of
theft and malversation of public funds involving the iron scraps owned by the
corporation and appropriating the proceeds to his own benefits. Juco filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal against NHC with the Department of Labor. The Labor Arbiter,
however, dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, the NLRC set aside the
decision of the Labor Arbiter and remanding it back to the latter for the settlement of the
illegal dismissal case. Its contention was that the case of Fernandez vs. Cedro which
ruled that NHC is a government owned and controlled corporation does not preclude it
from taking a contrary stand if by doing so the ends of justice could be better served.
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
Can the Labor Code be applied to the illegal dismissal of employees of government
owned and controlled corporations such as the National Housing Corporation?
RULIUNG:
No, the Code does not apply to employees of government owned and controlled
corporation like the National Housing Corporation. What governs them are laws and
regulations governing civil service. Section 1, Article XII-B of the Constitution provides
that the Civil Service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision, and instrumentality
of the Government, including every government-owned or controlled corporation, and
as ruled on previous cases NHC is deemed a government owned and controlled
corporation. The Art. 227 of the Labor Code itself provides that the terms and
conditions of employment of all government employees, including employees of
government-owned and controlled corporations shall be governed by the Civil Service
Law, rules and regulations. Clearly, The NHC comes under the jurisdiction of the Civil
Service Commission, not the Ministry of Labor and Employment nor its subordinate.
Wherefore, the petition of NHC is granted, the decision of the NLRC is set aside and the
decision of the Labor Arbiter dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction is reinstated.

G.R. No. L-69870

November 29, 1988

NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION (NASECO) AND ARTURO L. PEREZ, petitioners,

vs.
THE HONORABLE THIRD DIVISION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MINISTRY
OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, MANILA AND EUGENIA C. CREDO, respondents.
G.R. No. 70295

November 29, 1988

EUGENIA C. CREDO, petitioner,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NATIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION AND
ARTURO L. PEREZ, respondents.
FACTS:
Eugenia Credo was an employee of the National Service Corporation (NASECO). She was
charged with an administrative case for non-compliance with a company memo issued by her
superior and for her disrespect to the latter in the presence of other co-workers. NASECOs
Committee on Personnel Affairs recommended her termination from work with forfeiture of
benefits and was later given a notice of termination. Hence Credo filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Credos complaint and directed NASECO to pay her
separation pay. Both appealed to the NLRC to which rendered a decision ordering NASECO to
reinstate Credo and pay her back wages but not granting Credos claim for attorneys fee, moral
and exemplary damages. Hence, this appeal. NASECO contends that, as a government
corporation by virtue of its being a subsidiary of the National Investment and Development
Corporation , a subsidiary wholly owned by the Philippine National Bank, which in turn is a
government owned corporation), the terms and conditions of employment of its employees are
governed by the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations.
ISSUE:
Does the Labor Code Apply to an illegal dismissal case between a government owned
and/or controlled corporation and its employee?
HELD:
Yes, the Labor Code applies to employees of government owned and/or controlled
corporation, provided that such corporation is without original charter such as NASECO in the
case at bar. Therefore, the provisions of the Labor Code applies in this case and the NLRC has
the jurisdiction to decide over the case. Unlike in the case of NCH vs. NLRC, which was
governed by the 1973 Constitution, it is the 1987 constitution that governs the instant case. The
1987 Constitution provides that The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled

corporations with original charter, hence, by clear implication, the Civil Service does not
include government-owned or controlled corporations which are organized as subsidiaries of
government-owned or controlled corporations under the general corporation law.

G.R. No. L-41182-3 April 16, 1988

DR. CARLOS L. SEVILLA and LINA O. SEVILLA, petitioners-appellants,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, TOURIST WORLD SERVICE, INC., ELISEO S.CANILAO, and
SEGUNDINA NOGUERA, respondents-appellees.
FACTS:
A contract was entered into by and between Segundina Noguera Noguera and Tourist
World Service (TWS), represented by Eliseo Canilao (Canilao), wherein TWS leased the premises
belonging to Noguera as branch office of TWS, with Lina Sevilla (Sevilla) holdind herself
solidarily liable with TWS in the payment of rent. When the branch office was opened, it was run
by appellant Sevilla with the proceeds payable to TWS by any airline for any fare brought in on
the efforts of Mrs. Sevilla, 4% was to go to Sevilla and 3% was to be withheld by the TWS. Later,
TWS was informed that Sevilla was connected with rival firm, and since the branch office was
losing, TWS considered closing down its office. Subsequently, the contract with appellee for the
use of the branch office premises was terminated and while the effectivity thereof was January
31, 1962, the appellees no longer used it. Because of this, Canilao, the secretary of TWS, went
over to the branch office, and finding the premises locked, he padlocked the premises, allegedly
to protect the interest of TWS.When neither appellant Sevilla nor any of his employees could
enter, a complaint was filed by the appellants against the appellees. TWS insisted that Sevilla
was a mere employee, being the branch manager of its branch office and that she had no right
on the lease executed with the private respondent, Noguera.
ISSUE:
Did there exist an employer-employee relationship between TWS and Sevilla so as to make
the Labor Code applicable in the case and exempt TWS from the damages claimed by Sevilla?
HELD:
No, there was no employer-employee relationship between TWS and Sevilla. The records
show that petitioner, Sevilla, was not subject to control by the private respondent TWS. First,
under the contract of lease, she had bound herself in solidum as and for rental payments, an
arrangement that would belie claims of a master-servant relationship. That does not make her
an employee of TWS, since a true employee cannot be made to part with his own money in
pursuance of his employers business, or otherwise, assume any liability thereof. Second, when
the branch office was opened, the same was run by the Sevilla with the proceeds payable to TWS
by any airline for any fare brought in on the effort of Sevilla. Thus, it cannot be said that Sevilla
was under the control of TWS. Sevilla in pursuing the business, relied on her own capabilities. It
is further admitted that Sevilla was not in the companys payroll. For her efforts, she retained
4% incommissions from airline bookings, the remaining 3% going to TWS. Unlike an employee,
who earns a fixed salary, she earned compensation in fluctuating amount depending on her
booking successes. The fact that Sevilla had been designated branch manager does not make
her a TWS employee. It appears that Sevilla is a bona fide travel agent herself, and she acquired
an interest in the business entrusted to her. She also had assumed personal obligation for the

operation thereof, holding herself solidary liable for the payment of rentals. In view thereof, it
could be concluded that the relationship that existed between TWS and Sevilla was that of a
principal-agent relationship. Wherefore, for its unwarranted revocation of the contract of agency,
TWS should pay Seivilla for damages; and Canilao as a joint tortfeasor, is also liable in a solidary
capacity, in indemnifying the petitioner.