Atok Big Wedge Company vs. Gison, G.R. No.
169510, be only temporary, it clearly disregarded the same by
August 8, 2011
Facts: The respondent in this case, Jesus P. Gison, was
engaged as part-time consultant of the petitioner, Atok
Big Wedge Company thorugh its then Asst. VP and
Acting Resident Manager, Rutillo A. Torres. As a
consultant on retainer basis, the former assisted the
petitioner’s retained legal counsel with matters
pertaining to the prosecution of cases against illegal
surface occupants within the area covered by the
company’s mineral claims. He also tasked to perform
liason work with government agencies which he said his
expertise. Respondent is not required to report to its
office on a regular basis, except when occassionally
requested by the management to discuss the matters
which needs of his expertise as a consultant. He is paid a
retainer fee of 3,000Php a month and delivered to him
either in his residence or in a local restaurant. They have
also executed a retainer agreement however was
misplaced and can no longer be found. This kind of
arrangement continued on for the next 11 years. Since
respondent was getting old, he requested petitioner to
cause his registration with the Social Security System but
petitioner did not accede to his request considering the
former only a retainer/consultant.
Respondent herein, filed a complaint with SSS against
petitioner’s refusal to cause his registration with the SSS.
The Resident Manager of the petitioner issued then a
Memorandum advising respondent that within 30 days
from receipt thereof, petitioner’s services as a
retainer/consultant will be terminated since his services
are no longer necessary. As a result, respondent filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice,
underpayment of wages, non-payment of 13th Month
pay, vacation pay and sick leave with the NLRC,
Regional Arbitration Branch and Cordillera Administrative
Region against the petitioner.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the
petitioner ruling that there is no employer-employee
relationship and dismissed the complaint for lack of
merit. An appeal was made before the NLRC but same
was dismissed and affirmed the decision of the Labor
Arbiter. A petition for review was filed under Rule 65
before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals
annuled and has set aside the decision of NLRC. The CA
opined that, both the Labor Arbiter and NLRC
overlooked Article 280 of the Labor Code, which
distinguishes between the two kinds of employees, i.e.,
regular and casual employees. The respondent is
deemed a regular employee of the petitioner after the
lapse of one year from his employment. Considering also
that the respondent had been performing services for
the petitioner for the last 11 years entitling him to the
rights and privileges of a regular employee. The CA
added that although there was an agreement between
the parties that the employment of the respondent will
repeatedly giving petitioner several tasks to perform.
Moreover, although the respondent may have waived
his right to attain a regular status when he agreed to
perform these tasks on a temporary employment status,
still it was the law that recognized and considered him a
regular employee after his first year of rendering service
to petitioner. As such, the waiver is ineffective.
Petitioner herein posits that CA erred in applying Article
280 of the Labor Code in determining whether there
exists an employer-employee relationship. Petitioner
contends that where the existence of an employer-
employee relationship is in dispute, Article 280 of the
Labor Code is inapplicable. The said article only set the
distinction between a casual employee from a regular
employee for purposes of determining the rights of an
employee to be entitled to certain benefits.
Issue: Whether or not CA erred in applying Article 280?
Ruling: Well-entrenched is the doctrine that the
existence of an employer-employee relationship is
ultimately a question of fact and that the findings
thereon by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC shall be
accorded not only respect but even finality when
supported by substantial evidence. Being a question of
fact, the determination whether such a relationship exists
between petitioner and respondent was well within the
province of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Being
supported by substantial evidence, such determination
should have been accorded great weight by the CA in
resolving the issue. To ascertain the existence of an
employer-employee relationship jurisprudence has
invariably adhered to the four-fold test, to wit: (1) the
selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the
payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4)
the power to control the employee's conduct, or the so-
called "control test." The so-called "control test" is
commonly regarded as the most crucial and
determinative indicator of the presence or absence of
an employer-employee relationship
Applying the aforementioned test, an employer-
employee relationship is apparently absent in the case
at bar. Among other things, respondent was not required
to report everyday during regular office hours of
petitioner. Respondent's monthly retainer fees were paid
to him either at his residence or a local restaurant. More
importantly, petitioner did not prescribe the manner in
which respondent would accomplish any of the tasks in
which his expertise as a liaison officer was needed;
respondent was left alone and given the freedom to
accomplish the tasks using his own means and method.
Respondent was assigned tasks to perform, but
petitioner did not control the manner and methods by
which respondent performed these tasks. Verily, the
absence of the element of control on the part of the
petitioner engenders a conclusion that he is not an
employee of the petitioner. Moreover, the absence of AUTO BUS TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC. vs ANTONIO
the parties' retainership agreement notwithstanding, BAUTISTA G.R. No. 156367 May 16 2005
respondent clearly admitted that petitioner hired him in Service Incentive Leave Pay
a limited capacity only and that there will be no
employer-employee relationship between them. FACTS: Antonio Bautista was employed by Auto Bus
Transport Systems, Inc. in May 1995. He was assigned to
Respondent was well aware of the agreement that he the Isabela-Manila route and he was paid by
was hired merely as a liaison or consultant of the commission (7% of gross income per travel for twice a
petitioner and he agreed to perform tasks for the month).
petitioner on a temporary employment status only.
However, respondent anchors his claim that he became In January 2000, while he was driving his bus he bumped
a regular employee of the petitioner based on his another bus owned by Auto Bus. He claimed that he
contention that the "temporary" aspect of his job and its bumped the he accidentally bumped the bus as he was
"limited" nature could not have lasted for eleven years so tired and that he has not slept for more than 24 hours
unless some time during that period, he became a because Auto Bus required him to return to Isabela
regular employee of the petitioner by continually immediately after arriving at Manila. Damages were
performing services for the company. computed and 30% or P75,551.50 of it was being
charged to Bautista. Bautista refused payment.
Respondent is not an employee, much more a regular
employee of petitioner. The appellate court's premise Auto Bus terminated Bautista after due hearing as part of
that regular employees are those who perform activities Auto Bus’ management prerogative. Bautista sued Auto
which are desirable and necessary for the business of Bus for Illegal Dismissal. The Labor Arbiter Monroe
the employer is not determinative in this case. In fact, Tabingan dismissed Bautista’s petition but ruled that
any agreement may provide that one party shall render Bautista is entitled to P78,1117.87 13th month pay
services for and in behalf of another, no matter how payments and P13,788.05 for his unpaid service incentive
necessary for the latter's business, even without being leave pay.
hired as an employee. Hence,respondent's length of
service and petitioner's repeated act of assigning The case was appealed before the National Labor
respondent some tasks to be performed did not result to Relations Commission. NLRC modified the LA’s ruling. It
respondent's entitlement to the rights and privileges of a deleted the award for 13th Month pay. The court of
regular employee. Appeals affirmed the NLRC.
Furthermore, despite the fact that petitioner made use
of the services of respondent for eleven years, he still Auto Bus averred that Bautista is a commissioned
cannot be considered as a regular employee of employee and if that is not reason enough that Bautista
petitioner. Article 280 of the Labor Code, in which the is also a field personnel hence he is not entitled to a
lower court used to buttress its findings that respondent service incentive leave. They invoke:
became a regular employee of the petitioner, is not
applicable in the case at bar. Indeed, the Court has Art. 95. RIGHT TO SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE
ruled that said provision is not the yardstick for
determining the existence of an employment (a) Every employee who has rendered at least one year
relationship because it merely distinguishes between two of service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive
kinds of employees, i.e., regular employees and casual leave of five days with pay.
employees, for purposes of determining the right of an
employee to certain benefits, to join or form a union, or Book III, Rule V: SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE
to security of tenure; it does not apply where the
existence of an employment relationship is in dispute.It is, SECTION 1. Coverage. ' This rule shall apply to all
therefore, erroneous on the part of the Court of Appeals employees except:
to rely on Article 280 in determining whether an
employer-employee relationship exists between (d) Field personnel and other employees whose
respondent and the petitioner. performance is unsupervised by the employer including
Considering that there is no employer-employee those who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely
relationship between the parties, the termination of commission basis, or those who are paid in a fixed
respondent's services by the petitioner after due notice amount for performing work irrespective of the time
did not constitute illegal dismissal warranting his consumed in the performance thereof; . . .
reinstatement and the payment of full backwages,
allowances and other benefits.
ISSUE: Whether or not Bautista is entitled to Service
Incentive Leave.
If he is, Whether or not the three (3)-year prescriptive
period provided under Article 291 of the Labor Code, as
amended, is applicable to respondent's claim of service
incentive leave pay.
HELD: Yes, Bautista is entitled to Service Incentive Leave.
The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not mean
that just because an employee is paid on commission
basis he is already barred to receive service incentive
leave pay.
The question actually boils down to whether or not
Bautista is a field employee.
According to Article 82 of the Labor Code, 'field
personnel shall refer to non-agricultural employees who
regularly perform their duties away from the principal
place of business or branch office of the employer and
whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be
determined with reasonable certainty.
As a general rule, field personnel are those whose
performance of their job/service is not supervised by the
employer or his representative, the workplace being
away from the principal office and whose hours and
days of work cannot be determined with reasonable
certainty; hence, they are paid specific amount for
rendering specific service or performing specific work. If
required to be at specific places at specific times,
employees including drivers cannot be said to be field
personnel despite the fact that they are performing work
away from the principal office of the employee.
Certainly, Bautista is not a field employee. He has a
specific route to traverse as a bus driver and that is a
specific place that he needs to be at work. There are
inspectors hired by Auto Bus to constantly check him.
There are inspectors in bus stops who inspects the
passengers, the punched tickets, and the driver.
Therefore he is definitely supervised though he is away
from the Auto Bus main office.
On the other hand, the 3 year prescriptive period ran but
Bautista was able to file his suit in time before the
prescriptive period expired. It was only upon his filing of a
complaint for illegal dismissal, one month from the time
of his dismissal, that Bautista demanded from his former
employer commutation of his accumulated leave
credits. His cause of action to claim the payment of his
accumulated service incentive leave thus accrued from
the time when his employer dismissed him and failed to
pay his accumulated leave credits.
Therefore, the prescriptive period with respect to his
claim for service incentive leave pay only commenced
from the time the employer failed to compensate his
accumulated service incentive leave pay at the time of
his dismissal. Since Bautista had filed his money claim
after only one month from the time of his dismissal,
necessarily, his money claim was filed within the
prescriptive period provided for by Article 291 of the
Labor Code.
Definition of Service Incentive Leave
Service incentive leave is a right which accrues to every
employee who has served within 12 months, whether
continuous or broken reckoned from the date the
employee started working, including authorized
absences and paid regular holidays unless the working
days in the establishment as a matter of practice or
policy, or that provided in the employment contracts, is
less than 12 months, in which case said period shall be
considered as one year. It is also commutable to its
money equivalent if not used or exhausted at the end of
the year. In other words, an employee who has served
for one year is entitled to it. He may use it as leave days
or he may collect its monetary value.
NELSON V. BEGINO vs. ABS-CBN CORPORATION
G.R. No. 199166, 20 April 2015.
FACTS: Respondent ABS-CBN, through Respondent
Villafuerte, engaged the services of Petitioners as
cameramen, editors or reporters for TV Broadcasting.
Petitioners signed regularly renewed Talent Contracts (3
months - 1 year) and Project Assignment Forms which
detailed the duration, budget and daily technical
requirements of a particular project. Petitioners were
tasked with coverage of news items for subsequent daily
airings in Respondents’ TV Patrol Bicol Program.
The Talent Contract has an exclusivity clause and
provides that nothing therein shall be deemed or
construed to establish an employer-employee
relationship between the parties.
Petitioners filed against Respondents a complaint for
regularization before the NLRC's Arbitration branch.
In support of their complaint, Petitioners claimed that
they worked under the direct control of Respondent
Villafuerte - they were mandated to wear company IDs,
they were provided the necessary equipment, they were
informed about the news to be covered the following
day, and they were bound by the company’s policy on
attendance and punctuality.
Respondents countered that, pursuant to their Talent
Contracts and Project Assignment Forms, Petitioners
were hired as talents to act as reporters, editors and/or
cameramen. Respondents further claimed they never
imposed control as to how Petitioners discharged their
duties. At most, they were briefed regarding the general
requirements of the project to be executed.
While the case was pending, Petitioners contracts were
terminated, prompting the latter to file a second
complaint for illegal dismissal.
The Arbitration Branch ruled that Petitioners were regular
employees, and ordered Respondents to reinstate the
Petitioners.
The NLRC affirmed the ruling, but the CA overturned the
decision.
ISSUE: W/N Petitioners are regular employees of
Respondents.
RULING: Yes.
Of the criteria to determine whether there is an
employer-employee relationship, the so-called "control
test" is generally regarded as the most crucial and
determinative indicator of the said relationship.
Under this test, an employer-employee relationship is said
to exist where the person for whom the services are
performed reserves the right to control not only the end
result but also the manner and means utilized to achieve
the same.
Notwithstanding the nomenclature of their Talent
Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms and the
terms and condition embodied therein, petitioners are
regular employees of ABS-CBN.
As cameramen, editors and reporters, it appears that
Petitioners were subject to the control and supervision of
Respondents which provided them with the equipment
essential for the discharge of their functions. The
exclusivity clause and prohibitions in their Talent Contract
were likewise indicative of Respondents' control over
them, however obliquely worded.
Also,the presumption is that when the work done is an
integral part of the regular business of the employer and
when the worker does not furnish an independent
business or professional service, such work is a regular
employment of such employee and not an independent
contractor.
Bernarte vs. Phil. Basketball Assoc., G.R. No. 192084,
September 14, 2011
Facts: Complainants (Jose Mel Bernarte and Renato
Guevarra) aver that they were invited to join the PBA as
referees. During the leadership of Commissioner Emilio
Bernardino, they were made to sign contracts on a year-
to-year basis. During the term of Commissioner Eala,
however, changes were made on the terms of their
employment.
Complainant Bernarte, for instance, was not made to
sign a contract during the first conference of the All-
Filipino Cup which was from February 23, 2003 to June
2003. It was only during the second conference when he
was made to sign a one and a half month contract for
the period July 1 to August 5, 2003.
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 Bernarte 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 in
February 2001. On March 1, 2001, he signed a contract
as trainee. Beginning 2002, he signed a yearly contract
as Regular Class C referee. 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, on the other hand, that complainants
entered into two contracts of retainer with the PBA in the
year 2003. The first contract was for the period January 1,
2003 to July 15, 2003; and the second was for September
1 to December 2003. After the lapse of the latter period,
PBA decided not to renew their contracts.
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.
Both the Labor Arbiter and NLRC decided that the
petitioners were employees whose dismissals by
respondents were illegal.
However, the Court of Appeals overturned the decisions
of the NLRC and Labor Arbiter on the ground that the
petitioner is an independent contractor since
respondents did not exercise any form of control over
the means and methods by which petitioner performed
his work as a basketball referee.
Issue: Whether petitioner is an employee of respondents,
which in turn determines whether petitioner was illegally
dismissed.
Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed the assailed decision
of the Court of Appeals.
To determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, case law has consistently applied the four-
fold test, to wit: (a) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of
dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the
employee on the means and methods by which the
work is accomplished. The so-called "control test" is the
most important indicator of the presence or absence of
an employer-employee relationship.
In this case, PBA admits repeatedly engaging petitioner's
services, as shown in the retainer contracts. PBA pays
petitioner a retainer fee, exclusive of per diem or
allowances, as stipulated in the retainer contract. PBA
can terminate the retainer contract for petitioner's
violation of its terms and conditions.
However, respondents argue that the all-important
element of control is lacking in this case, making
petitioner an independent contractor and not an
employee of respondents.
We agree with respondents that 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. The very
nature of petitioner's job of officiating a professional
basketball game undoubtedly calls for freedom of
control by respondents.
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 Social Security System, 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.
Furthermore, the applicable foreign case law declares
that a referee is an independent contractor, whose
special skills and independent judgment is required
specifically for such position and cannot possibly be
controlled by the hiring party.
In addition, the fact that PBA repeatedly hired petitioner
does not by itself prove that petitioner is an employee of
the former. For a hired party to be considered an
employee, the hiring party must have control over the
means and methods by which the hired party is to
perform his work, which is absent in this case. The
continuous rehiring by PBA of petitioner simply signifies
the renewal of the contract between PBA and
petitioner, and highlights the satisfactory services
rendered by petitioner warranting such contract
renewal. Conversely, if PBA decides to discontinue
petitioner's services at the end of the term fixed in the
contract, whether for unsatisfactory services, or violation
of the terms and conditions of the contract, or for
whatever other reason, the same merely results in the
non-renewal of the contract, as in the present case. The
non-renewal of the contract between the parties does
not constitute illegal dismissal of petitioner by
respondents.
Chavez v. NLRC
448 SCRA 478
DOCTRINE: The elements to determine the existence of
an employment relationship are: (1) the selection and
engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of
wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the employer’s
power to control the employee’s conduct.
FACTS:
The respondent Supreme Packaging is in the business of
manufacturing cartons and other packaging materials
for export and distribution. The petitioner was tasked to
deliver the respondent company’s products from its
factory in Mariveles Bataan, to its various customers,
mostly in Metro Manila. The respondent furnished the
petitioner with a truck. Most of the trips of the petitioner
were made in nighttime, commencing at 6:00pm from
Mariveles and returning thereto in the afternoon two or
three days after.
In 1992, the petitioner expressed to respondent Alvin Lee,
respondent company’s plant manager, his 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. Lee
promised to extend these benefits but later failed to do
so.
Petitioner filed a complaint for regularization with NLRC
and before the case could be heard, the respondent
company terminated the services of the petitioner. The
petitioner then 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 denied the existence of an employer-
employee relationship between them. They claimed that
the petitioner was an independent contractor as
evidenced by the contract of service which he and the
company entered into. Which states: “The Principal
(Supreme Packaging) agrees to hire the Contractor
(Pedro Chavez), by nature of their specialized line of
service jobs… The Contractor shall hold the Principal free
and harmless from any liability or claim…it being clearly
understood that any truck drivers, helpers or men
working with and for the Contractor, are not employees
who will be indemnified by the Principal for any such
claim, including damages incurred in connection
therewith.”
The respondents further claims that the petitioner was
not dismissed, the severance of his contractual relation
with the respondent company was due to his violation of
the terms and conditions of their contract.
Labor Arbiter found the respondent company guilty of
illegal dismissal and that such contract of service was
null and void it being a way to circumvent the rights of
the petitioner. The respondents appeal and the same
was dismissed.
Then it was Appealed, and after so many turn-around of
decisions, in the end, CA held that the Petitioner was not
illegally dismissed and that the contract of service was
upheld.
ISSUE: WoN there was an employee-employer
relationship between the petitioner and the respondent
company – YES
RULING: Petition is GRANTED
RATIO:
1. Elements to determine the existence of an
employment relationship are:
(1) the selection and engagement of the employee;
- Undeniably, it was the respondents who engaged the
services of the petitioner without the intervention of a
third party
(2) the payment of wages;
-Wages are defined as “remuneration or earnings,
however designated, capable of being expressed in
terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time,
task, piece or commission basis, or other method of
calculating the same, which is payable by an employer
to an employer under a written or unwritten contract of
employment for work done or to be done., or for service
rendered or to be rendered. The fact that the petitioner
was paid on a trip basis is not significant. This is merely a
method of computing compensation and not a basis for
determining the existence or absence of employer-
employee relationship. Interestingly, the respondents did
not present the payroll their claim that the petitioner was
not their employee, this raise the speculation that this
omission proves that its presentation would be adverse
to their case.
(3) the power of dismissal; and
-The respondent’s power to dismiss the petitioner was
inherent in the fact that they engaged the services of
the petitioner as truck driver. The exercised this power in
the guise of “severance of contractual relation” due
allegedly to the latter’s breach of his contractual
obligation.
(4) the employer’s power to control the employee’s
conduct. (THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT)
-The employee is subject to the employer’s power to
control the means and methods by which the
employee’s work is to be performed and accomplished.
In this case, the right to control was manifested by the
following attendant circumstances: (a) the truck driven
by the petitioner belonged to respondent company; (b)
there was an express instruction from the respondents
that the truck shall be used exclusively to deliver
respondent company’s goods; (c) respondents directed
the petitioner; after completion of each delivery, to park
the truck in either of two specific places only, to wit: at its
offices in Metro Manila or in Bataan; and (d) respondents
determined how, where and when the petitioner would
perform his task by issuing to him gate passes and routing
slips.
2. The employment relationship having been proven, the
respondents now bear the burden to prove that the
dismissal was for a valid and just cause. They insinuated
that the petitioner abandoned his job. To constitute
abandonment, these two factors must concur: (1) the
failure for work or absence without valid or justifiable
reason; (2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee
relationship. Obviously, the petitioner did not intend to
sever his relationship with the respondent company for
he just filed a complaint for regularization and even
prayed for reinstatement.
Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., vs. Dr. Climaco, G.R. No.
146881, February 15, 2007
Facts: Dr. Dean N. Climaco is a medical doctor who was
hired by Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. by virtue of a
Retainer Agreement. The Retainer Agreement, which
began on January 1, 1988, was renewed annually. The
last one expired on December 31, 1993. Despite the non-
renewal of the Retainer Agreement, respondent
continued to perform his functions as company doctor
to Coca-Cola until he received a letter dated March 9,
1995 from the company concluding their retainership
agreement effective 30 days from receipt thereof. Dr.
Climaco inquired from the management of the
company whether it was agreeable to recognizing him
as a regular employee. The management refused to do
so. On February 24, 1994, respondent filed a Complaint
before the NLRC, Bacolod City, seeking recognition as a
regular employee of the company and prayed for the
payment of all benefits of a regular employee. While the
complaint was pending before the Labor Arbiter,
respondent received a letter dated March 9, 1995 from
Petitioner Company concluding their retainership
agreement effective thirty (30) days from receipt
thereof.
Issue: Whether or not there exists an employer-employee
relationship.
Ruling: The Court, in determining the existence of an
employer-employee relationship, has invariably adhered
to the four-fold test: (1) the selection and engagement
of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the
power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the
employee’s conduct, or the so-called "control test,"
considered to be the most important element. No
employer-employee relationship exists between the
parties. The…company lacked the power of control over
the performance by respondent of his duties.
The…Comprehensive Medical Plan, which contains the
respondent’s objectives, duties and obligations, does not
tell respondent "how to conduct his physical
examination, how to immunize, or how to diagnose and
treat his patients, employees of [petitioner] company, in
each case."
Neri v. National Labor Relations Commission
“…It is admitted that FEBTC issued a job description
which detailed her functions as a radio/telex operator.
However, a cursory reading of the job description shows
that what was sought to be controlled by FEBTC was
actually the end result of the task, e.g., that the daily
incoming and outgoing telegraphic transfer of funds
received and relayed by her, respectively, tallies with
that of the register. The guidelines were laid down merely
to ensure that the desired end result was achieved. It did
not, however, tell Neri how the radio/telex machine
should be operated.”
Through the Comprehensive Medical Plan, provided
guidelines merely to ensure that the end result was
achieved, but did not control the means and methods
by which respondent performed his assigned tasks.
Likewise, the allegation of complainant that since he is
on call at anytime of the day and night makes him a
regular employee is off-tangent. Complainant does not
dispute the fact that outside of the two (2) hours that he
is required to be at respondent company’s premises, he
is not at all further required to just sit around in the
premises and wait for an emergency to occur so as to
enable him from using such hours for his own benefit and
advantage. In fact, complainant maintains his own
private clinic attending to his private practice in the city,
where he services his patients, bills them accordingly --
and if it is an employee of respondent company who is
attended to by him for special treatment that needs
hospitalization or operation, this is subject to a special
billing. More often than not, an employee is required to
stay in the employer’s workplace or proximately close
thereto that he cannot utilize his time effectively and
gainfully for his own purpose. Such is not the prevailing
situation here. The Retainership Agreement granted to
both parties the power to terminate their relationship
upon giving a 30-day notice. Hence, Petitioner
Company did not wield the sole power of dismissal or
termination. Considering that there is no employer-
employee relationship between the parties, the
termination of the Retainership Agreement, which is in
accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, does
not constitute illegal dismissal of respondent.
Consequently, there is no basis for the moral and
exemplary damages granted by the Court of Appeals to
respondent due to his alleged illegal dismissal.
David v. Macasio (2014)
Facts:
Macasio filed before the Labor Arbiter a complaint
against petitioner Ariel L. David, doing business under
the name and style “Yiels Hog Dealer,” for
nonpayment of overtime pay, holiday pay, and 13th
month pay.
He also claimed payment for moral and exemplary
damages and attorney’s fees; and for payment of
service incentive leave (SIL).
Macasio alleged before the Labor Arbiter that he
had been working as a butcher for David since
January 6, 1995.
Macasio claimed that David exercised effective
control and supervision over his work, pointing out
that David:
(1) set the work day, reporting time and hogs
to be chopped, as well as the manner by
which he was to perform his work;
(2) daily paid his salary of P700.00, which was
increased from P600.00 in 2007, P500.00 in
2006 and P400.00 in 2005; and
(3) approved and disapproved his leaves.
Macasio added that David owned the hogs
delivered for chopping, as well as the work tools and
implements; David also rented the workplace.
Macasio further claimed that David employs about
twenty-five (25) butchers and delivery drivers.
David claimed that he started his hog dealer
business in 2005, and that he only has ten employees.
He alleged that he hired Macasio as a butcher or
chopper on “pakyaw” or task basis who is, therefore,
not entitled to overtime pay, holiday pay and 13th
month pay.
David pointed out that Macasio:
(1) usually starts his work at 10:00 p.m. and ends
at 2:00 a.m. of the following day or earlier,
depending on the volume of the delivered hogs;
 (2) received the fixed amount of P700.00 per
engagement, regardless of the actual number of
hours that he spent chopping the delivered hogs;
and
(3) was not engaged to report for work and,
accordingly, did not receive any fee when no
hogs were delivered.
Macasio disputed David’s allegations.
He argued that, first, David did not start his business
only in 2005. He pointed to the Certificate of
Employment that David issued in his favor which
placed the date of his employment, albeit
erroneously, in January 2000.
Second, he reported for work every day which the
payroll or time record could have easily proved had
David submitted them in evidence.
David claimed that he issued the Certificate of
Employment, upon Macasio’s request, only for
overseas employment purposes.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Macasio’s complaint for
lack of merit. The Labor Arbiter gave credence to
David’s claim that he engaged Macasio on
“pakyaw” or task basis.
The LA concluded that since Macasio was engaged
on “pakyaw” or task basis, he is not entitled to
overtime, holiday, SIL and 13th month pay.
The NLRC affirmed the Labor arbiter’s ruling.
The CA partly granted Macasio’s certiorari petition
and reversed the NLRC’s ruling for having been
rendered with grave abuse of discretion.
While the CA agreed with the LA and the NLRC that
Macasio was a task basis employee, it nevertheless
found Macasio entitled to his monetary claims.
The CA explained that as a task basis employee,
Macasio is excluded from the coverage of holiday,
SIL and 13th month pay only if he is likewise a “field
personnel.”
As defined by the Labor Code, a “field personnel” is
one who performs the work away from the office or
place of work, and whose regular work hours cannot
be determined with reasonable certainty.
In Macasio’s case, the elements that characterize a
“field personnel” are evidently lacking as he had
been working as a butcher at David’s “Yiels Hog
Dealer” business in Sta. Mesa, Manila under David’s
supervision and control, and for a fixed working
schedule that starts at 10:00 p.m.
Accordingly, the CA awarded Macasio’s claim for
holiday, SIL and 13th month pay for three years, with
10% attorney’s fees on the total monetary award.
Hence, David filed the present petition.
Issue: The issue revolves around the proper application
and interpretation of the labor law provisions on holiday,
SIL and 13th month pay to a worker engaged on
“pakyaw” or task basis.
Held:
David confuses engagement on “pakyaw” or task
basis with the lack of employment relationship.
Impliedly, David asserts that their “pakyawan” or task
basis arrangement negates the existence of
employment relationship.
The Supreme Court reject this assertion of the
petitioner.
Engagement on “pakyaw” or task basis does not
characterize the relationship that may exist between
the parties, i.e., whether one of employment or
independent contractorship.
To determine the existence of an employer-
employee relationship, four elements generally need
to be considered, namely:
(1) the selection and engagement of the
employee;
(2) the payment of wages;
(3) the power of dismissal; and
(4) the power to control the employee’s
conduct.
These elements or indicators comprise the so-called
“four-fold” test of employment relationship.
Macasio’s relationship with David satisfies this test.
A distinguishing characteristic of “pakyaw” or task
basis engagement, as opposed to straight-hour
wage payment, is the non-consideration of the time
spent in working.
The payment of an employee on task or pakyaw
basis alone is insufficient to exclude one from the
coverage of Service Incentive Leave (SIL) and
holiday pay.
In determining whether workers engaged on
“pakyaw” or task basis is entitled to holiday and
Service Incentive Leave (SIL) pay, the presence (or
absence) of employer supervision as regards the
worker’s time and performance is the key.
The Supreme Court agree with the CA that Macasio
does not fall under the definition of “field personnel.”
The CA’s finding in this regard is supported by the
established facts of this case:
first, Macasio regularly performed his duties at
David’s principal place of business;
second, his actual hours of work could be
determined with reasonable certainty; and
third, David supervised his time and
performance of duties.
Since Macasio cannot be considered a “field
personnel,” then he is not exempted from the grant
of holiday, SIL pay even as he was engaged on
“pakyaw” or task basis.
With respect to the payment of 13th month pay
however, the Supreme Court find that the CA legally
erred in finding that the NLRC gravely abused its
discretion in denying this benefit to Macasio.
The governing law on 13th month pay is PD 8 5 1. As
with holiday and SIL pay, 13th month pay benefits
generally cover all employees; an employee must be
one of those expressly enumerated to be exempted.
 Section 3 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing
P.D. 851 enumerates the exemptions from the
coverage of 13th month pay benefits. Under said
law, “employers of those who are paid on task basis,
and those who are paid a fixed amount for
performing a specific work, irrespective of the time
consumed in the performance thereof” are
exempted.
Note that unlike the IRR of the Labor Code on
holiday and SIL pay, Section 3(e) of the Rules and
Regulations Implementing PD 851 exempts
employees “paid on task basis” without any
reference to “field personnel.” This could only mean
that insofar as payment of the 13th month pay is
concerned, the law did not intend to qualify the
exemption from its coverage with the requirement
that the task worker be a “field personnel” at the
same time.
Dumpit-Morillo vs. CA, G.R. No. 164652, June 8, 2007,
citing 2004 Sonza
Facts: Associated Broadcasting Company (ABC) hired
Thelma Dumpit-Murillo under a talent contract as a
newscaster and co-anchor for Balitang-Balita, an early
evening news program. The contract was for a period of
three months. After four years of repeated renewals,
petitioner’s talent contract expired. Two weeks after the
expiration of the last contract, petitioner sent a letter to
Mr. Jose Javier, Vice President for News and Public
Affairs of ABC, informing the latter that she was still
interested in renewing her contract subject to a salary
increase. Thereafter, petitioner stopped reporting for
work. She sent a demand letter to ABC, demanding
reinstatement, payment of unpaid wages and full
backwages, payment of 13th month pay,
vacation/sick/service incentive leaves and other
monetary benefits due to a regular employee. ABC
replied that a check covering petitioner’s talent fees
had been processed and prepared, but that the other
claims of petitioner had no basis in fact or in law. The
Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for illegal
constructive dismissal. NLRC reversed.
Issue: Whether or not Murillo is an employee of
Associated Broadcasting Company.
Ruling: Thelma Dumpit-Murillo was a regular employee
under contemplation of law. The practice of having
fixed-term contracts in the industry does not
automatically make all talent contracts valid and
compliant with labor law. The assertion that a talent
contract exists does not necessarily prevent a regular
employment status. Further, the Sonza case is not
applicable. In Sonza, the television station did not
exercise control over the means and methods of the
performance of Sonza’s work. In the case at bar, ABC
had control over the performance of petitioner’s work.
Noteworthy too, is the comparatively low P28,000
monthly pay of petitioner vis the P300,000 a month salary
of Sonza, that all the more bolsters the conclusion that
petitioner was not in the same situation as Sonza. The
duties of petitioner as enumerated in her employment
contract indicate that ABC had control over the work of
petitioner. Aside from control, ABC also dictated the
work assignments and payment of petitioner’s wages.
ABC also had power to dismiss her. All these being
present, clearly, there existed an employment
relationship between petitioner and ABC.
Concerning regular employment, the requisites for
regularity of employment have been met in the instant
case. Petitioner’s work was necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer which includes,
as a pre-condition for its enfranchisement, its
participation in the government’s news and public
information dissemination. In addition, her work was
continuous for a period of four years. This repeated
engagement under contract of hire is indicative of the
necessity and desirability of the petitioner’s work in
private respondent ABC’s business. As a regular
employee, petitioner is entitled to security of tenure and can
be dismissed only for just cause and after due compliance
with procedural due process. Since private respondents did
not observe due process in constructively dismissing the
petitioner, there was an illegal dismissal.
Encyclopedia Britanica vs. NLRC, 264 SCRA 4 [1996]
Facts: Limjoco was a Sales Divison of Encyclopaedia
Britannica and was in charge of selling the products
through some sales representatives. As compensation,
he would receive commissions from the products sold by
his agents. He was also allowed to use the petitioner’s
name, goodwill and logo. It was agreed that office
expenses would be deducted from Limjoco’s
commissions. In 1974, Limjoco resigned to pursue his
private business and filed a complaint against petitioner
for alleged non-payment of separation pay and other
benefits and also illegal deduction from sales
commissions. Petitioner alleged that Limjoco was not an
employee of the company but an independent dealer
authorized to promote and sell its products and in return,
received commissions therein. Petitioner 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. On appeal, petitioner assails that there was no
employee-employer relationship.

Ruling: There was no employee-employer relationship. In
determining the relationship, the following elements must
be present: selection and 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
test, an employee-employer 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 manner and means to be employed in reaching that
end. The issuance of guidelines by the petitioner was
merely guidelines on company policies which sales
managers follow and impose on their respective agents.
Limjoco was not an employee of the company 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 petitioner. He
was free to conduct his work and he was free to engage
in other means of livelihood.
In ascertaining the employee-employer relationship, the
factual circumstances must be considered. The element
of control is absent where a person who works for
another does so more or less at his own pleasure and is
not subject to definite hours or conditions of work, and in
turn is compensated in according to the result of his
efforts and not the amount thereof. Hence, there was no
employee-employer relationship.
FELIX VS. BUENASEDA
G.R. No. 109704 January 17, 1995
FACTS: This is a petition assailing the petitioner’s dismissal
as Medical Specialist I of the National Center for Mental
Health as illegal and violative of the constitutional
provision on security of tenure. Petitioner joined the
NCMH as a Resident Physician in June1979. Shortly, he
was promoted as Senior Resident Physician until the
Ministry of Health reorganized the NCMH pursuant toE.O.
119. Under the reorganization, he was appointed to the
position of Senior Resident Physician in a temporary
capacity. On August 1988, he was elevated to the
position of Medical Specialist I (Temporary Status) which
was renewed the following year. The Dept. of Health
issued Department Order No. 347 which required board
certification as prerequisite for renewal of specialist
positions in various medical centers and it also extend
appointments of Medical Specialist positions in cases
where the termination of medical specialist who failed to
meet the requirements for board certification. On August
20, 1991, after reviewing petitioner's service record, non-
renewal of petitioner’s appointment as Medical
Specialist I was recommended. He was, however,
allowed to continue in the service, and receive his
salary, allowances and other benefits even after being
informed of the termination of his appointment. Soon, he
was advised by the hospital authorities to vacate his
cottage. The petitioner filed a petition with the Merit
System Protection Board alleging harassment by
respondents; however, it was later dismissed for lack of
merit. Said decision was appealed to the Civil Service
Commission which dismissed the same including the
Motion for Reconsideration the petitioner has filed after
which brought this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner was illegally
dismissed from his position and that it is not a violative of
his constitutional right of security of tenure.
RULING: NO. The petitioner was not illegally dismissed.
The Solicitor General is correct in contending that the
petitioner’s temporary appointment after the
reorganization were valid and did not violate his
constitutional right of security of tenure. Petitioner is guilty
of estoppels or laches. Stringent standards and
requirements for renewal of specialist-rank positions or for
promotion to the next post-graduate residency year are
necessary because lives are ultimately at stake.
Petitioner’s insistence on being reverted back to the
status quo prior to the reorganizations would therefore
be akin to a college student asking to be sent to high
school and staying there. He is estopped from insisting
upon a right or claim which he had plainly abandoned
when he, from all indications, enthusiastically accepted
the promotion. It bears emphasis that at the time of
petitioner's promotion to the position of Medical
Specialist I (temporary) in August of 1988, no objection
was raised by him about the change of position or the
temporary nature of designation. The failure to assert a
claim or the voluntary acceptance of another position in
government, obviously without reservation, leads to a
presumption that the civil servant has either given up his
claim of has already settled into the new position. Finally,
it is crystal clear, from the facts of the case at bench,
that the petitioner accepted a temporary appointment
(Medical Specialist I). As respondent Civil Service
Commission has correctly pointed out, the appointment
was for a definite and renewable period which, when it
was not renewed, did not involve a dismissal but an
expiration of the petitioner's term.
Francisco vs. NLRC, 500 SCRA 690 [2006]
Facts: Petitoner was hired by Kasei Corporation during
the incorporation stage. She was designated as
accountant and corporate secretary and was assigned
to handle all the accounting needs of the company. She
was also designated as Liason Officer to the City of
Manila to secure permits for the operation of the
company.In 1996, Petitioner was designated as Acting
Manager. She was assigned to handle recruitment of all
employees and perform management administration
functions. In 2001, she was replaced by Liza Fuentes as
Manager. Kasei Corporation reduced her salary to
P2,500 per month which was until September. She asked
for her salary but was informed that she was no longer
connected to the company. She did not anymore
report to work since she was not paid for her salary. She
filed an action for constructive dismissal with the Labor
Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter found that the petitioner was
illegally dismissed. NLRC affirmed the decision while CA
reversed it.
The following issue is to be discussed, whether there was
an employer-employee relationship.
Ruling: The court held that in this jurisdiction, there has
been no uniform test to determine the existence of an
employer-employee relation. Generally, courts have
relied on the so-called right of control test 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. In addition
to the standard of right-of-control, the existing economic
conditions prevailing between the parties, like the
inclusion of the employee in the payrolls, can help in
determining the existence of an employer-employee
relationship. The better approach would therefore be to
adopt a two-tiered test involving: (1) the putative
employer’s power to control the employee with respect
to the means and methods by which the work is to be
accomplished; and (2) the underlying economic realities
of the activity or relationship. In Sevilla v. Court of
Appeals, the court observed the need to consider the
existing economic conditions prevailing between the
parties, in addition to the standard of right-of-control like
the inclusion of the employee in the payrolls, to give a
clearer picture in determining the existence of an
employer-employee relationship based on an analysis of
the totality of economic circumstances of the worker.
Thus, the determination of the relationship between
employer and employee depends upon the
circumstances of the whole economic activity, such as:
(1) the extent to which the services performed are an
integral part of the employer’s business; (2) the extent of
the worker’s investment in equipment and facilities; (3)
the nature and degree of control exercised by the
employer; (4) the worker’s opportunity for profit and loss;
(5) the amount of initiative, skill, judgment or foresight
required for the success of the claimed independent
enterprise; (6) the permanency and duration of the
relationship between the worker and the employer; and
(7) the degree of dependency of the worker upon the
employer for his continued employment in that line of
business. The proper standard of economic
dependence is whether the worker is dependent on the
alleged employer for his continued employment in that
line of business.
By applying the control test, there is no doubt that
petitioner is an employee of Kasei Corporation because
she was under the direct control and supervision of Seiji
Kamura, the corporation’s Technical Consultant. It is
therefore apparent that petitioner is economically
dependent on Respondent Corporation for her
continued employment in the latter’s line of business.
There can be no other conclusion that petitioner is an
employee of respondent Kasei Corporation. She was
selected and engaged by the company for
compensation, and is economically dependent upon
respondent for her continued employment in that line of
business. Her main job function involved accounting
and tax services rendered to Respondent Corporation
on a regular basis over an indefinite period of
engagement. Respondent Corporation hired and
engaged petitioner for compensation, with the power to
dismiss her for cause. More importantly, Respondent
Corporation had the power to control petitioner with the
means and methods by which the work is to be
accomplished.
GABRIEL V BILON
G.R. NO. 146989 FEBRURARY 7, 2007
FACTS:
Petitioner, represented by his surviving spouse,
Flordeliza V. Gabriel, was the owner-operator of a public
transport business, “Gabriel Jeepney”. Petitioner had a
pool of drivers, which included respondents, operating
under a “boundary system” of P400 per day. The
following issue was raised by the respondents before the
court, they were illegally deducted by the petitioner
P55.00 per day for the following :(a) 20.00 police
protection; (b) 20.00 washing; (c) 10.00 deposit; (d)
garage fees and they were illegally dismissed . The
petitioner rose that there is no employer-employee
relationships exists.
ISSUE:
Whether there is an employer-employee
relationship between the parties.
HELD:
The relationship between jeepney
owners/operators and jeepney drivers under the
boundary system is that of employer-employee and not
of lessor-lessee because in the lease of chattels the lessor
loses complete control over the chattel leased although
the lessee cannot be reckless in the use thereof,
otherwise he would be responsible for the damages to
the lessor. In the case of jeepney owners/operators and
jeepney drivers, the former exercises supervision and
control over the latter. The fact that the drivers do not
receive fixed wages but get only that in excess of the so
called boundary they pay to the owner/operator is not
sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them
from that of employer and employee. Thus, private
respondents were employees because they had been
engaged to perform activities which were usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer.
The respondents are entitled to reinstatement without
loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to their full
backwages computed from the date of dismissal up to
the time of their actual reinstatement .
GABRIEL V. BILON
GR 146989, JUNE 2006
FACTS: Bilon, Brazil and Pagaygay are jeepney drivers
driving jeepneys owned by Melencio Gabriel. They are
paying P400/day for their boundary. Later, the drivers
were required to pay an additional P50.00 to cover
police protection, car wash, deposit fee, and garage
fees.
The three drivers refused to pay the additional P50.00.
On April 30, 1995, when the drivers reported to work, they
were not given any jeepney to drive. Eventually, they
were dismissed. The three drivers sued Gabriel for illegal
dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the drivers and
ordered Gabriel to pay the drivers their backwages and
their separation pay amounting to about a total of
P1.03M.
On April 18, 1997, the LA promulgated its decision and
on the same day sent a copy thereof to Gabriel but
Flordeliza (wife of Gabriel) refused to receive the copy.
Apparently, Gabriel died on April 4, 1997. The copy was
resent via registered mail on May 28, 1997. Flordeliza
appealed to the LA on June 5, 1997.
The LA dismissed the appeal; it ruled that the appeal
was not on time because the promulgation was made
on April 18, 1997 and that the appeal on June 5, 1997
was already beyond the ten day period required for
appeal.
The National Labor Relations Commission reversed the
LA. It ruled that there was no employee-employer
relationship between the drivers and Gabriel. The Court
of Appeals reversed the NLRC but it ruled that the
separation pay should not be awarded but rather, the
employees should be reinstated.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appeal before the LA was
made on time. Whether or not there was an employer-
employee relationship between the drivers and Gabriel.
Whether or not there was a strained relation between
Gabriel and the drivers.
HELD: The appeal was made on time because when the
promulgation was made Gabriel is already dead. The
ten day requirement to make an appeal is not
applicable in this situation because Gabriel was not yet
properly substituted by the wife. The counting of the
period should be made starting from the date when the
copy was sent via registered mail. Therefore, the appeal
filed on June 5 was made on time.
There exists an employer-employee relationship between
the drivers and Gabriel. The fact that the drivers do not
receive fixed wages but get only that in excess of the so-
called “boundary” [that] they pay to the
owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the
relationship between them from that of employer and
employee.
The award of the separation pay is not proper. It was not
shown that there was a strained relationship between
Gabriel and the drivers so as to cause animosity if they
are reinstated. The Strained Relations Principle is only
applied if it is shown that reinstatement would only cause
antagonism between the employer and the employee;
and that the only solution is separation and the payment
of separation pay.
JARDIN V. NLRC (G.R. NO. 119268)
Facts: Petitioners were drivers of Respondent (Philjama
International Inc.) a domestic corporation engaged in
the operation of “Goodman Taxi” under a boundary
system. Believing that the deduction for the washing of
taxi units in their daily earnings is illegal, Petitioners
decided to form a labor union to protect their rights and
interests.
Upon learning about the plan of Petitioners, Respondent
refused to let them drive their taxicabs when they
reported for work, and on succeeding days. Aggrieved,
Petitioners filed with the labor arbiter a complaint
against Respondent for unfair labor practice, illegal
dismissal and illegal deduction of washing fees. In a
decision, the labor arbiter dismissed said complaint for
lack of merit.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed and set aside the
judgment of the labor arbiter declaring that Petitioners
are employees of Respondent, and, as such, their
dismissal must be for just cause and after due process.
Respondent’s first motion for reconsideration having
been denied, another motion was filed and was granted
by the NLRC, ruling that the relationship of the parties is
not that of an employer-employee but that of leasehold
and thus covered by the Civil Code rather than the
Labor Code. NLRC denied Petitioner’s reconsideration,
hence the instant petition.
Issue:
Whether or not there exists an employer-employee
relationship between petitioner and private respondent.
Ruling:
The petition is impressed with merit.
In a number of cases decided by this Court, we ruled
that the relationship between jeepney owners/operators
on one hand and jeepney drivers on the other under the
boundary system is that of employer-employee and not
of lessor-lessee. We explained that in the lease of
chattels, the lessor loses complete control over the
chattel leased although the lessee cannot be reckless in
the use thereof, otherwise he would be responsible for
the damages to the lessor. In the case of jeepney
owners/operators and jeepney drivers, the former
exercise supervision and control over the latter. The
management of the business is in the owner’s hands. The
owner as holder of the certificate of public convenience
must see to it that the driver follows the route prescribed
by the franchising authority and the rules promulgated
as regards its operation. Now, the fact that the drivers do
not receive fixed wages but get only that in excess of
the so-called “boundary” they pay to the
owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the
relationship between them from that of employer and
employee. We have applied by analogy the above
stated doctrine to the relationships between bus
owner/operator and bus conductor, auto-calesa
owner/operator and driver, and recently between taxi
owners/operators and taxi drivers. Hence, petitioners are
undoubtedly employees of private respondent because
as taxi drivers they perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
their employer.
With regard to the amount deducted daily by private
respondent from petitioners for washing of the taxi units,
we view the same as not illegal in the context of the law.
We note that after a tour of duty, it is incumbent upon
the driver to restore the unit he has driven to the same
clean condition when he took it out. Car washing after a
tour of duty is indeed a practice in the taxi industry and is
in fact dictated by fair play. Hence, the drivers are not
entitled to reimbursement of washing charges.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed
DECISION of NLRC is hereby SET ASIDE. The DECISION and
RESOLUTION of NLRC are hereby REINSTATED subject to
MODIFICATION. Respondent is directed to reinstate
Petitioners to their positions held at the time of the
complained dismissal. Respondent is likewise ordered to
pay Petitioners their full backwages, to be computed
from the date of dismissal until their actual reinstatement.
However, the order of Respondent that Petitioners be
reimbursed the amount paid as washing charges is
deleted.
BITOY JAVIER v. FLY ACE CORPORATION and FLORDELYN
CASTILLO
G.R. No. 192558 : February 15, 2012
FACTS:
Javier an employee of Fly Ace performing various work
for the latter filed a complaint before the NLRC for
underpayment of salaries and other labor standard
benefits.
He alleged that he reported for work from Monday to
Saturday from 7:00 oclock in the morning to 5:00 oclock
in the afternoon; that during his employment, he was not
issued an identification card and pay slips by the
company; that he reported for work but he was no
longer allowed to enter the company premises by the
security guard upon the instruction of Ruben Ong (Mr.
Ong), his superior; that after several minutes of begging
to the guard to allow him to enter, he saw Ong whom he
approached and asked why he was being barred from
entering the premises; that Ong replied by saying,
Tanungin mo anak mo;that he discovered that Ong had
been courting his daughter Annalyn after the two met at
a fiesta celebration in Malabon City; that Annalyn tried
to talk to Ong and convince him to spare her father from
trouble but he refused to accede; that thereafter, Javier
was terminated from his employment without notice;
and that he was neither given the opportunity to refute
the cause/s of his dismissal from work.
For its part p, Fly Ace denied the existence of employer-
employee relationship between them and Javier as the
latter was only called roughly 5 to 6 times only in a
month whenever the vehicle of its contracted hauler,
Milmar Hauling Services, was not available. Labor Arbiter
dismissed the complaint ruling that respondent Fly Ace is
not engaged in trucking business but in the importation
and sales of groceries. Since there is a regular hauler to
deliver its products, we give credence to Respondents
claim that complainant was contracted on pakiao basis.
On appeal, NLRC reversed the decisin of the LA. It was
of the view that a pakyaw-basis arrangement did not
preclude the existence of employer-employee
relationship. Payment by result x x x is a method of
compensation and does not define the essence of the
relation. It is a mere method of computing
compensation, not a basis for determining the existence
or absence of an employer-employee relationship. The
NLRC further averred that it did not follow that a worker
was a job contractor and not an employee, just
because the work he was doing was not directly related
to the employers trade or business or the work may be
considered as extra helper as in this case; and that the
relationship of an employer and an employee was
determined by law and the same would prevail
whatever the parties may call it. Finding Javier to be a
regular employee, the NLRC ruled that he was entitled to
a security of tenure. For failing to present proof of a valid
cause for his termination, Fly Ace was found to be liable
for illegal dismissal of Javier who was likewise entitled to
backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.
However, on appeal, CA reversed the ruling of NLRC
The CA ruled thatJaviers failure to present salary
vouchers, payslips, or other pieces of evidence to bolster
his contention, pointed to the inescapable conclusion
that he was not an employee of Fly Ace. Further, it found
that Javiers work was not necessary and desirable to the
business or trade of the company, as it was only when
there were scheduled deliveries, which a regular hauling
service could not deliver, that Fly Ace would contract
the services of Javier as an extra helper. Lastly, the CA
declared that the facts alleged by Javier did not pass
the control test.
He contracted work outside the company premises; he
was not required to observe definite hours of work; he
was not required to report daily; and he was free to
accept other work elsewhere as there was no exclusivity
of his contracted service to the company, the same
being co-terminous with the trip only. Since no
substantial evidence was presented to establish an
employer-employee relationship, the case for illegal
dismissal could not prosper. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not there exist an employer-employee
relationship between Javier and Fly Ace, thereby
holding the latter guilty of illegal dismissal.
HELD: The CA's decision was sustained.
LABOR LAW
As the records bear out, the LA and the CA found
Javiers claim of employment with Fly Ace as wanting
and deficient. The Court is constrained to agree. Labor
officials are enjoined to use reasonable means to
ascertain the facts speedily and objectively with little
regard to technicalities or formalities but nowhere in the
rules are they provided a license to completely discount
evidence, or the lack of it. The quantum of proof
required, however, must still be satisfied. Hence, when
confronted with conflicting versions on factual matters, it
is for them in the exercise of discretion to determine
which party deserves credence on the basis of evidence
received, subject only to the requirement that their
decision must be supported by substantial
evidence.Accordingly, the petitioner needs to show by
substantial evidence that he was indeed an employee
of the company against which he claims illegal dismissal.
In sum, the rule of thumb remains: the onus probandi falls
on petitioner to establish or substantiate such claim by
the requisite quantum of evidence. Whoever claims
entitlement to the benefits provided by law should
establish his or her right thereto x x x. Sadly, Javier failed
to adduce substantial evidence as basis for the grant of
relief.
By way of evidence on this point, all that Javier
presented were his self-serving statements purportedly
showing his activities as an employee of Fly Ace. Clearly,
Javier failed to pass the substantiality requirement to
support his claim. Hence, the Court sees no reason to
depart from the findings of the CA.
While Javier remains firm in his position that as an
employed stevedore of Fly Ace, he was made to work in
the company premises during weekdays arranging and
cleaning grocery items for delivery to clients, no other
proof was submitted to fortify his claim. The lone affidavit
executed by one Bengie Valenzuela was unsuccessful in
strengthening Javiers cause.
The Court is of the considerable view that on Javier lies
the burden to pass the well-settled tests to determine the
existence of an employer-employee relationship, viz: (1)
the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the
payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4)
the power to control the employees conduct. Of these
elements, the most important criterion is whether the
employer controls or has reserved the right to control the
employee not only as to the result of the work but also as
to the means and methods by which the result is to be
accomplished.
DENIED.
Locsin vs. PLDT GR No. 185251, October 2, 2009
Facts:
On November 1, 1990, respondent Philippine Long
Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) and the Security
and Safety Corporation of the Philippines (SSCP) entered
into a Security Services Agreement (Agreement)
whereby SSCP would provide armed security guards to
PLDT to be assigned to its various offices. Pursuant to
such agreement, petitioners Raul Locsin and Eddie
Tomaquin, among other security guards, were posted at
a PLDT office.
On August 30, 2001, respondent issued a Letter dated
August 30, 2001 terminating the Agreement effective
October 1, 2001. Despite the termination of the
Agreement, however, petitioners continued to secure
the premises of their assigned office. They were allegedly
directed to remain at their post by representatives of
respondent. In support of their contention, petitioners
provided the Labor Arbiter with copies of petitioner
Locsin’s pay slips for the period of January to September
2002.
Then, on September 30, 2002, petitioners’ services were
terminated. Thus, petitioners filed a complaint before the
Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal and recovery of money
claims such as overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay
for holiday and rest day, service incentive leave pay,
Emergency Cost of Living Allowance, and moral and
exemplary damages against PLDT.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision finding PLDT liable
for illegal dismissal. It was explained in the Decision that
petitioners were found to be employees of PLDT and not
of SSCP. Such conclusion was arrived at with the factual
finding that petitioners continued to serve as guards of
PLDT’s offices. As such employees, petitioners were
entitled to substantive and procedural due process
before termination of employment.

Issue:
Is there employer-employee relationship?

Ruling:
Yes. From the foregoing circumstances, reason dictates
that we conclude that petitioners remained at their post
under the instructions of respondent. We can further
conclude that respondent dictated upon petitioners
that the latter perform their regular duties to secure the
premises during operating hours. This, to our mind and
under the circumstances, is sufficient to establish the
existence of an employer-employee relationship.

To reiterate, while respondent and SSCP no longer had

any legal relationship with the termination of the
Agreement, petitioners remained at their post securing
the premises of respondent while receiving their salaries,
allegedly from SSCP. Clearly, such a situation makes no
sense, and the denials proffered by respondent do not
shed any light to the situation. It is but reasonable to
conclude that, with the behest and, presumably,
directive of respondent, petitioners continued with their
services. Evidently, such are indicia of control that
respondent exercised over petitioners.
Evidently, respondent having the power of control over
petitioners must be considered as petitioners’ employer–
–from the termination of the Agreement onwards––as
this was the only time that any evidence of control was
exhibited by respondent over petitioners and in light of
our ruling in Abella. Thus, as aptly declared by the NLRC,
petitioners were entitled to the rights and benefits of
employees of respondent, including due process
requirements in the termination of their services.

Both the Labor Arbiter and NLRC found that respondent

did not observe such due process requirements. Having
failed to do so, respondent is guilty of illegal dismissal.
People’s Broadcasting v. Sec. of DOLE
G.R. no. 179652. May 8, 2009
Facts:
Jandeleon Juezan (respondent) filed a
complaint against People’s Broadcasting Service,
Inc. (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc) (petitioner) for illegal
deduction, non-payment of service incentive leave,
13th month pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day
and illegal diminution of benefits, delayed payment of
wages and non-coverage of SSS, PAG-IBIG and
Philhealth before the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) Regional Office No. VII,Cebu City.
On the basis of the complaint, the DOLE
conducted a plant level inspection on 23 September
2003. In the Inspection Report Form, the Labor Inspector
wrote under the heading “Findings/Recommendations”
“non-diminution of benefits” and “Note: Respondent
deny employer-employee relationship with the
complainant- see Notice of Inspection results.”
Petitioner was required to rectify/restitute the
violations within five (5) days from receipt. No
rectification was effected by petitioner; thus, summary
investigations were conducted, with the parties
eventually ordered to submit their respective position
papers.
In his Order dated 27 February 2004, DOLE
Regional Director Atty. Rodolfo M. Sabulao (Regional
Director) ruled that respondent is an employee
of petitioner, and that the former is entitled to his money
claims amounting to P203, 726.30. Petitioner sought
reconsideration of the Order, claiming that the Regional
Director gave credence to the documents offered by
respondent without examining the originals, but at the
same time he missed or failed to consider
petitioner’s evidence. Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration was denied.[ On appeal to the DOLE
Secretary, petitioner denied once more the existence of
employer-employee relationship. In its Order dated 27
January 2005, the Acting DOLE Secretary dismissed the
appeal on the ground that petitioner did not post a cash
or surety bond and instead submitted a Deed of
Assignment of Bank Deposit. Petitioner maintained that
there is no employer-employee relationship had ever
existed between it and respondent because it was the
drama directors and producers who paid, supervised
and disciplined respondent. It also added that the case
was beyond the jurisdiction of the DOLE and should
have been considered by the labor arbiter
because respondent’s claim exceeded P5,000.00.
Issue:
Does the Secretary of Labor have the power to
determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship?
Held:
No.
Clearly the law accords a prerogative to the
NLRC over the claim when the employer-employee
relationship has terminated or such relationship has not
arisen at all. The reason is obvious. In the second
situation especially, the existence of an employer-
employee relationship is a matter which is not easily
determinable from an ordinary inspection, necessarily so,
because the elements of such a relationship are not
verifiable from a mere ocular examination. The
intricacies and implications of an employer-employee
relationship demand that the level of scrutiny should be
far above the cursory and the
mechanical. While documents, particularly docume
nts found in the employer’s office are the primary
source materials, what may prove decisive are
factors related to the history of the employer’s business
operations, its current state as well as accepted
contemporary practices in the industry. More often than
not, the question of employer-employee relationship
becomes a battle of evidence, the determination of
which should be comprehensive and intensive and
therefore best left to the specialized quasi-judicial body
that is the NLRC.
It can be assumed that the DOLE in the exercise of
its visitorial and enforcement power somehow has to
make a determination of the existence of an employer-
employee relationship. Such prerogatival determination,
however, cannot be coextensive with the visitorial and
enforcement power itself. Indeed, such determination is
merely preliminary, incidental and collateral to the
DOLE’s primary function of enforcing labor standards
provisions. The determination of the existence of
employer-employee relationship is still primarily lodged
with the NLRC. This is the meaning of the clause “in cases
where the relationship of employer-employee still exists”
in Art. 128 (b).
Thus, before the DOLE may exercise its powers
under Article 128, two important questions must be
resolved: (1) Does the employer-employee relationship
still exist, or alternatively, was there ever an employer-
employee relationship to speak of; and (2) Are there
violations of the Labor Code or of any labor law?
The existence of an employer-employee
relationship is a statutory prerequisite to and
a limitation on the power of the Secretary of Labor, one
which the legislative branch is entitled to impose. The
rationale underlying this limitation is to eliminate the
prospect of competing conclusions of the Secretary of
Labor and the NLRC, on a matter fraught with questions
of fact and law, which is best resolved by the quasi-
judicial body, which is the NRLC, rather than an
administrative official of the executive branch of the
government. If the Secretary of Labor proceeds to
exercise his visitorial and enforcement powers absent the
first requisite, as the dissent proposes, his office confers
jurisdiction on itself which it cannot otherwise acquire.
Reading of Art. 128 of the Labor Code reveals that
the Secretary of Labor or his authorized representatives
was granted visitorial and enforcement powers for the
purpose of determining violations of, and enforcing,
the Labor Code and any labor law, wage order, or rules
and regulations issued pursuant thereto. Necessarily, the
actual existence of an employer-employee relationship
affects the complexion of the putative findings that the
Secretary of Labor may determine, since employees are
entitled to a different set of rights under the Labor Code
from the employer as opposed to non-
employees. Among these differentiated rights are those
accorded by the “labor standards” provisions of the
Labor Code, which the Secretary of Labor is mandated
to enforce. If there is no employer-employee
relationship in the first place, the duty of the employer to
adhere to those labor standards with respect to the non-
employees is questionable.
At least a prima facie showing of such absence
of relationship, as in this case, is needed to preclude the
DOLE from the exercise of its power. The Secretary of
Labor would not have been precluded from exercising
the powers under Article 128 (b) over petitioner if
another person with better-grounded claim of
employment than that which respondent
had. Respondent, especially if he were an
employee, could have very well enjoined other
employees to complain with the DOLE, and, at the same
time, petitioner could ill-afford to disclaim an
employment relationship with all of the people under its
aegis.
The most important consideration for the
allowance of the instant petition is the opportunity for the
Court not only to set the demarcation between the
NLRC’s jurisdiction and the DOLE’s prerogative but also
the procedure when the case involves the fundamental
challenge on the DOLE’s prerogative based on lack of
employer-employee relationship. As exhaustively
discussed here, the DOLE’s prerogative hinges on the
existence of employer-employee relationship, the issue
is which is at the very heart of this case. And the
evidence clearly indicates private respondent has never
been petitioner’s employee. But the DOLE did not
address, while the Court of Appeals glossed over, the
issue. The peremptory dismissal of the instant petition on
a technicality would deprive the Court of the
opportunity to resolve the novel controversy.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
Professional Services v CA
Feb 11 2008
SMCEU v. Judge Bersamira (Review, Art. 212)
G.R. No. 87700 June 13, 1990
The existence of a labor dispute is not negated by the
fact that the plaintiff and defendants do not stand in the
proximate relations of ER-EE. (SMCEU v Bersamira, where
the dispute was between contracual employees and an
employer)
Facts: Sometime in 1983 and 1984, SanMig entered into
contracts for merchandising services with Lipercon and
D'Rite. These companies are independent contractors
duly licensed by the DOLE. In said contracts, it was
expressly understood and agreed that the workers
employed by the contractors were to be paid by the
latter and that none of them were to be deemed
employees or agents of SanMig. There was to be no
employer-employee relation between the contractors
and/or its workers, on the one hand, and SanMig on the
other.
Petitioner is the duly authorized representative of the
monthly paid rank-and-file employees of SanMig with
whom the latter executed a Collective Bargaining
Agreement effective 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1989. Section
1 of their CBA specifically provides that "temporary,
probationary, or contract employees and workers are
excluded from the bargaining unit and, therefore,
outside the scope of this Agreement."
In a letter dated 20 November 1988, the Union advised
SanMig that some Lipercon and D'Rite workers had
signed up for union membership and sought the
regularization of their employment with SMC. The Union
alleged that this group of employees, while appearing to
be contractual workers supposedly independent
contractors, have been continuously working for SanMig
for a period ranging from 6 months to 15 years and that
their work is neither casual nor seasonal as they are
performing work or activities necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of SanMig. Thus, it was contended
that there exists a "labor-only" contracting situation. It
was then demanded that the employment status of
these workers be regularized.
On 12 January 1989 and 30 January 1989, the Union filed
two notices of strike for unfair labor practice, CBA
violations, and union busting. Conciliatory meetings were
then held before the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board of DOLE (NCMB-DOLE).
Beginning 14 February 1989 until 2 March 1989, series of
pickets were staged by Lipercon and D'Rite workers in
various SMC plants and offices.
On 6 March 1989, SMC filed a verified Complaint for
Injunction and Damages before respondent Court
enjoining petitioner from representing and/or acting in
behalf of the employees of Lipercon and D’Rite, and of
calling a strike among others.
Respondent Court found the Complaint sufficient in form
and substance and issued a Temporary Restraining
Order, and subsequently, an Order granting the
complaint of SanMig.
Issue: Whether or not there exists a labor dispute such
that the RTC may not validly assume jurisdiction to the
exclusion of the NCMB-DOLE.
Held: A "labor dispute" as defined in Article 212 (1) of the
Labor Code includes "any controversy or matter
concerning terms and conditions of employment or the
association or representation of persons in negotiating,
fixing, maintaining, changing, or arranging the terms and
conditions of employment, regardless of whether the
disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer
and employee."
While it is SanMig's submission that no employer-
employee relationship exists between itself, on the one
hand, and the contractual workers of Lipercon and
D'Rite on the other, a labor dispute can nevertheless
exist "regardless of whether the disputants stand in the
proximate relationship of employer and employee"
provided the controversy concerns, among others, the
terms and conditions of employment or a "change" or
"arrangement" thereof. Put differently, and as defined by
law, the existence of a labor dispute is not determined
by the fact that the plaintiffs and defendants do not
stand in the proximate relation of employer and
employee.
That a labor dispute, as defined by the law, does exist
here is evident. What the Union seeks is to regularize the
status of the employees contracted by Lipercon and
D'Rite in effect, that they be absorbed into the working
unit of SanMig. This matter definitely dwells on the
working relationship between said employees vis-a-vis
SanMig. Terms, tenure and conditions of their
employment and the arrangement of those terms are
thus involved bringing the matter within the purview of a
labor dispute. Further, the Union also seeks to represent
those workers, who have signed up for Union
membership, for the purpose of collective bargaining.
SanMig, for its part, resists that Union demand on the
ground that there is no employer-employee relationship
between it and those workers and because the demand
violates the terms of their CBA. Obvious then is that
representation and association, for the purpose of
negotiating the conditions of employment are also
involved. Neither can it be denied that the controversy
below is directly connected with the labor dispute
already taken cognizance of by the NCMB-DOLE.
As the case is indisputably linked with a labor dispute,
jurisdiction belongs to the labor tribunals.
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN, G.R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004
Facts: In May 1994, ABS-CBN signed an agreement with
the Mel and Jay Management and Development
Corporation (MJMDC). ABS-CBN was represented by its
corporate officers while MJMDC was represented by
Sonza, as President and general manager, and Tiangco
as its EVP and treasurer. Referred to in the agreement as
agent, MJMDC agreed to provide Sonza’s services
exclusively to ABS-CBN as talent for radio and television.
ABS-CBN agreed to pay Sonza a monthly talent fee of
P310, 000 for the first year and P317, 000 for the second
and third year. On April 1996, Sonza wrote a letter to
ABS-CBN where he irrevocably resigned in view of the
recent events concerning his program and career. After
the said letter, Sonza filed with the Department of Labor
and Employment a complaint alleging that ABS-CBN did
not pay his salaries, separation pay, service incentive
pay,13th month pay, signing bonus, travel allowance and
amounts under the Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP).
ABS-CBN contended that no employee-employer
relationship existed between the parties. However, ABS-
CBN continued to remit Sonza’s monthly talent fees but
opened another account for the same purpose.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and found
that there is no employee-employer relationship. NLRC
affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. CA also
affirmed the decision of NLRC.
Ruling: Case law has consistently held that the elements
of an employee-employer relationship are selection and
engagement of the employee, the payment of wages,
the power of dismissal and the employer’s power to
control the employee on the means and methods by
which the work is accomplished. The last element, the
so-called "control test", is the most important element.
Sonza’s services to co-host its television and radio
programs are because of his peculiar talents, skills and
celebrity status. Independent contractors often present
themselves to possess unique skills, expertise or talent to
distinguish them from ordinary employees. The specific
selection and hiring of SONZA, because of his unique
skills, talent and celebrity status not possessed by
ordinary employees, is a circumstance indicative, but
not conclusive, of an independent contractual
relationship. All the talent fees and benefits paid to
SONZA were the result of negotiations that led to the
Agreement. For violation of any provision of the
Agreement, either party may terminate their relationship.
Applying the control test to the present case, we find
that SONZA is not an employee but an independent
contractor.
The control test is the most important test our courts
apply in distinguishing an employee from an
independent contractor. This test is based on the extent
of control the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater
the supervision and control the hirer exercises, the more
likely the worker is deemed an employee. The converse
holds true as well – the less control the hirer exercises, the
more likely the worker is considered an independent
contractor. 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 control. ABS-CBN did not instruct
SONZA how to perform his job. ABS-CBN merely reserved
the right to modify the program format and airtime
schedule "for more effective programming." ABS-CBN’s
sole concern was the quality of the shows and their
standing in the ratings. Clearly, ABS-CBN did not exercise
control over the means and methods of performance of
Sonza’s work. A radio broadcast specialist who works
under minimal supervision is an independent contractor.
Sonza’s work as television and radio program host
required special skills and talent, which SONZA
admittedly possesses. ABS-CBN claims that there exists a
prevailing practice in the broadcast and entertainment
industries to treat talents like Sonza as independent
contractors. The right of labor to security of tenure as
guaranteed in the Constitution arises only if there is an
employer-employee relationship under labor laws.
Individuals with special skills, expertise or talent enjoy the
freedom to offer their services as independent
contractors. The right to life and livelihood guarantees
this freedom to contract as independent contractors.
The right of labor to security of tenure cannot operate to
deprive an individual, possessed with special skills,
expertise and talent, of his right to contract as an
independent contractor.
SOUTH EAST INT’L RATTAN INC. v. JJ COMING
SUMMARY. JJ Coming filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of
holiday pay, 13th month pay and service incentive
leave pay, with prayer for reinstatement, back wages,
damages and attorney’s fees. Rattan Inc. denied having
hired JJ, showing that he failed to present a single
payslip, voucher or a copy of a company payroll
showing that he rendered service, nor was he in the list
of employees reported to the SSS.
DOCTRINE. In resolving the issue of whether such
relationship exists in a given case, substantial evidence –
that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion –
is sufficient. Although no particular form of evidence is
required to prove the existence of the relationship, and
any competent and relevant evidence to prove the
relationship may be admitted, a finding that the
relationship exists must nonetheless rest on substantial
evidence.
FACTS: On November 3, 2003, respondent Jesus J.
Coming filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
underpayment of wages, non-payment of holiday pay,
13th month pay and service incentive leave pay,
with prayer for reinstatement, back wages, damages
and attorney’s fees.
JJ alleged that he was hired by petitioners as Sizing
Machine Operator on March 17, 1984. His work schedule
is from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Initially, his compensation was on “pakiao” basis but
sometime in June 1984, it was fixed at P150.00 per day
which was paid weekly.
In 1990, without any apparent reason, his employment
was interrupted as he was told by petitioners to resume
work in two months’ time.
Being an uneducated person, JJ was persuaded by the
management as well as his brother not to complain, as
otherwise petitioners might decide not to call him back
for work.
Fearing such consequence, JJ accepted his fate.
Nonetheless, after two months he reported back to work
upon order of management.
Despite being an employee for many years with his work
performance never questioned by petitioners,
respondent was dismissed on January 1, 2002 without
lawful cause.
He was told that he will be terminated because the
company is not doing well financially and that he would
be called back to work only if they need his services
again. JJ waited for almost a year but petitioners did
not call him back to work.
On their part, Rattan denied having hired respondent.
That is, Rattan denied that JJ was their employee:
 JJ alleged that he worked continuously from
March 17, 1984 up to January 21, 2002. Records
reveal however that Rattan Inc. was
incorporated only last July 18, 1986.
 Moreover, when they started to actually
operate in 1987, the company was engaged
purely on “buying and exporting rattan
furniture” hence no manufacturing employees
were hired.
 Furthermore, from the last quarter of 1989 up to
August of 1992, the company suspended
operations due to economic reverses as per
Certification issued by the SEC.
 JJ also failed to present a single payslip,
voucher or a copy of a company payroll
showing that he rendered service during the
period indicated therein.
 Also, JJ’s name does not appear in the list of
employees reported to the SSS.
 There was also an Affidavit of Vicente Coming,
JJ’s full brother, attesting that JJ had never
been an employee of Rattan. The only
connection was that their employer Faustino
Apondar supplies finished rattan products to
Rattan Inc.
Labor Arbiter rendered decision in favor of JJ.
NLRC reversed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter.
CA overturned NLRC decision, in favor of JJ.
Rattan Inc. now raised the issue up to the SC.
ISSUES & RATIO.
1. WON an employer-employee relationship existed
between the company and JJ Coming. – YES.
In resolving the issue of whether such relationship exists in
a given case, substantial evidence – that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion – is sufficient.
Although no particular form of evidence is required to
prove the existence of the relationship, and any
competent and relevant evidence to prove the
relationship may be admitted, a finding that the
relationship exists must nonetheless rest on substantial
evidence.
To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee
relationship jurisprudence has invariably adhered to the
four-fold test, to wit:
(1) The selection and engagement of the
employee;
(2) The payment of wages;
(3) The power of dismissal; and
(4) The power to control the employee’s
conduct, or the so-called “control test.”
In this case, Rattan Inc. denied the relationship by
arguing that JJ was not reported as their employee in
SSS and his name does not appear in the payrolls and in
pay envelope records.
In Tan v. Lagrama, the Court held that the fact that a
worker was not reported as an employee to the SSS is
not conclusive proof of the absence of employer-
employee relationship. Otherwise, an employer would
be rewarded for his failure or even neglect to perform his
obligation. Nor does the fact that respondent’s name
does not appear in the payrolls and pay envelope
records submitted by petitioners negate the existence
of employer-employee relationship. For a payroll to be
utilized to disprove the employment of a person, it must
contain a true and complete list of the employee.
In this case, the exhibits offered by petitioners before the
NLRC consisting of copies of payrolls and pay earnings
records are only for the years 1999 and 2000; they do not
cover the entire 18-year period during which respondent
supposedly worked for SEIRI.
According to the CA, it was apparent that Rattan Inc.
maintained a separate payroll for certain employees or
willfully retained a portion of the payroll.
As to the “control test”, the following facts indubitably
reveal that Rattan Inc. wielded control over the work
performance of JJ:
(1) They required him to work within the company
premises;
(2) They obliged JJ to report every day of the week
and tasked him to usually perform the same job;
(3) They enforced the observance of definite hours of
work from 8am to 5am;
(4) The mode of payment of JJ’s salary was under
their discretion, at first paying him on “pakiao” basis
and thereafter, on daily basis;
(5) They implemented company rules and regulations;
(6) Agbay directly paid JJ’s salaries and controlled all
aspects of his employment; and
(7) JJ rendered work necessary and desirable in the
business of the Rattan Inc.
DECISION.
Petition is denied. The CA Decision (2008) and Resolution
(2009) are affirmed and upheld. (Setting aside the NLRC
Decision and reinstating the Labor Arbiter Decision which
was in favor of JJ Coming)
NOTES.
Lines from Decision:
“In any controversy between a laborer and his master,
doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are
resolved in favor of the laborer.
As a regular employee, respondent enjoys the right to
security of tenure under Article 279 of the Labor Code
and may only be dismissed for a just or authorized cause,
otherwise the dismissal becomes illegal.”
Art. 279, Labor Code
Security of Tenure. — In cases of regular employment,
the employer shall not terminate the services of an
employee except for a just cause or when authorized by
this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work
shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority
rights and other privileges and to his full backwages,
inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their
monetary equivalent computed from the time his
compensation was withheld from him up to the time of
his actual reinstatement.
Television and Production Exponents, Inc. v. Servana
January 28, 2008 G.R. No. 167648 542 SCRA 578
Facts: Television and Production Exponents (TAPE) is a
domestic corporation engaged in the production of
television programs, such as the long-running variety
program, “Eat Bulaga”. Servana had served as a security
guard for TAPE. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal and non-payment of benefits against TAPE. He
alleged that he was first connected with Agro-
Commercial Security Agency but was later absorbed by
TAPE as a regular company guard.
On March 2, 2000, respondent received a memorandum
informing him of his impending dismissal on account of
TAPE’s decision to contract the services of a professional
security agency. At the time of his termination,
respondent was receiving a monthly salary P6,000.
Servana contended that his dismissal was undertaken
without due process and violation of existing labor laws,
aggravated by non-payment of separation pay. He
insisted that he was a regular employee having been
engaged to perform an activity that is necessary and
desirable to TAPE’s business for 13 years.
TAPE contended that there is no employer-employee
relationship between the parties. TAPE engaged
respondent’s services, as part of the support group to
provide security service and it was agreed that
complainant would render his services until such time
that respondent company shall have engaged the
services of a professional security agency. TAPE started
negotiations for the engagement of a professional
security agency , the Sun Shield Security Agency.
TAPE averred that respondent was an independent
contractor falling under the talent group category and
was working under a special arrangement which is
recognized in the industry.
Issue: WON the Servana is an independent contractor.
Ruling:
TAPE failed to establish that respondent is an
independent contractor.
Jurisprudence is abound woith casesn that recite the
factors to be considered in determining the existence of
employer-employee relationship, namely:
a. The selection and engagement of the employee
Respondent was first connected with Agro-Commercial
Security Agency, which assigned him to assist TAPE in its
live productions. When the security agency’s contract
with RPN-9 expired, respondent was absorbed by TAPE ,
or in the latter’s language, “retained as talent”. Clearly,
respondent was hired by TAPE. Respondent presented
his identification card. It has been in held that in
business establishment, an identification card is usually
provided not just as a security measure but to mainly
identify the holder thereof as a bona fide employee of
the firm who issues it.
b. The payment of wages
Respondent claims to have been receiving P5,444.44 as
his monthly salary while TAPE prefers to designate such
amount as talent fees. Wages, as defined in the Labor
Code, are remuneration or earnings, however
designated, capable of being expressed in terms of
money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task,
piece or commission basis, or other method of
calculating the same, which is payable by an employer
to an employee under a written or unwritten contract of
employment for work done or to be done, or for service
rendered or to be rendered.
c. The power of dismissal
The Memorandum informing respondent of the
discontinuance of his service proves that TAPE had the
power to dismiss respondent.
d. The employer’s power to control the employee
with respect to the means and method by which the
work is to be accomplished.
Control is manifested in the bundy cards submitted by
respondent in evidence. He was required to report daily
and observe definite work hours.
BERNARD TENAZAS v. R. VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT
G.R. No. 192998 02 APRIL 2014
FACTS:Bernard Tenazas, Jaime Francisco, and Isidro
Endraca filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against R.
Villegas Taxi Transport, and/or Romualdo Villegas and
Andy Villegas.
PETITIONER’S CLAIM
TENAZAS - Taxi unit was sideswiped by another vehicle
(damage = P500); fired after reporting the incident, even
threatened w/ physical harm if he was seen on
company premises.
FRANCISCO - Dismissed because of the unfounded
suspicion that he was organizing a labor union
EDRACA – Dismissed after falling short of the required
boundary for his taxi unit; fell short because of P700 spent
on an urgent repair
R. VILLEGAS TAXI’S CLAIM
TENAZAS- Company admits that Tenazas is an employee
– regular driver. Tenazas was never terminated; he failed
to report backto work after being told to wait for the
release of his taxi (overhauled due to mechanical
defects)
FRANCISCO - Company denies that Francisco is an
employee
ENDRACA - Company admits that Endraca is an
employee – spare driver . Endraca could not have been
terminated in March 2006because he stopped reporting
for work in July 2003 (but willing to accommodate him
again as he was never really dismissed)
Tenazas, Francisco, and Endraca also filed a Motion to
Admit Additional Evidence: (a) Joint Affidavit of the
petitioners; (b) Affidavit of Good Faith of Aloney Rivera
(co-driver); (c) pictures of the petitioners wearing
company shirts; (d) Tenazas’ Certification/Record of
Social Security System (SSS) contributions.
LA: No illegal dismissal because no proof of an overt act
of dismissal committed by R. Villegas Taxi; Francisco
failed to prove he was an employee
NLRC: Reversed LA; the additional evidence sufficiently
established the existence of employer-employee
relationship and illegal dismissal (for all three)
CA: Tenazas and Endraca were indeed employees and
were illegally dismissed, but Francisco failed to establish
his relationship with the company ISSUES: WON there was
an employer-employee relationship (re: Francisco) – NO

HELD: The burden of proof rests upon the party who
asserts the affirmative of an issue. As Francisco was
claiming tobe an employee of R. Villegas Taxi, it is
incumbent upon him to proffer evidence to prove the
existence of the relationship.
There is no hard and fast rule to establish the elements of
employer-employee relationship. Any competent and
relevant evidence may be admitted, e.g., identification
cards, cash vouchers, social security registration,
appointment letters or employment contracts, payrolls,
organization charts, personnel lists.
Francisco failed to present substantial evidence to
establish the relationship. No documentary evidence
submitted, like an attendance logbook, payroll, SSS
record, or any personnel file that depicts his status as an
employee. He could also have at least presented his
social security records stating his contributions, name
and address of employer (which Tenazas presented).
Another taxi operator, Emmanuel Villegas, also claimed
to be his employer – a fact not denied or questioned by
Francisco in any of his pleadings. Petition DENIED. SC
agreed with CA’s order of reinstatement instead of
separation pay. (*Strained relations must be
demonstrated as a fact. In this case, no facts
demonstrated that the relations were so strained as to
make reinstatement no longer a feasible option.)
Tongko v. Manufacturer Life Insurance Co. (MANULIFE)
Inc., et al., G.R. No 167622, January 25, 2011
Facts: Tongko was, initially an insurance agent of
Manulife who was promoted to the role of a manager.
The contractual relationship between Tongko and
Manulife had two basic phases. The initial phase began
on July 1, 1977under a Career Agent’s Agreement which
regarded him as an independent contractor, not an
employee. As an agent, his tasks were to canvass for
applications for insurance products and collect money
due to the Company. The second phase started in 1983
when Tongko was named Unit Manager. In 1990, he
became a Branch Manager. In 1996, Tongko became a
Regional Sales Manager, where he earned commissions,
persistency income and management overrides. Since
the beginning, Tongko consistently declared himself self-
employed in his income tax returns.
However, in 2001, Manulife instituted manpower
development programs which directed the managers to
increase the number of agents to at least 1,000 strong for
a start. It was found that Tongko’s region was the lowest
performer in terms of recruiting in 2000. Subsequently,
Tongko received another letter, dated December 18,
2001, terminating his services. Tongko then filed an illegal
dismissal complaint with the NLRC Arbitration Branch. He
alleged the existence of an employment relationship. In
support of this he asserted that as Unit Manager, he was
paid an annual over-rider, a travel and entertainment
allowance in addition to his overriding commissions. He
was tasked with numerous administrative functions and
supervisory authority over Manulife’s employees. He was
required to follow at least three codes of conduct. On
the other hand, Manulife contended that what existed
between them was a mere agency relationship.
Decisions of the Judicial Tribunals
LA: No employer-employee relationship existed
between the parties.
NLRC: It found the existence of an employer-employee
relationship. There was illegal dismissal.
CA: It reverted to the labor arbiter’s decision that no
employer-employee relationship existed between them.
SC: In reversing the CA ruling, it declared that an
employment relationship existed between them. First,
there exists the possibility of an insurance agent
becoming an employee of an insurance company if
evidence shows that the company promulgated rules or
regulations that effectively controlled or restricted an
insurance agent’s choice of methods or the methods
themselves in selling insurance.
Second, Manulife had the power of control over Tongko,
sufficient to characterize him as an employee, as shown
by the fact that he complied with 3 different codes of
conduct and that he performed administrative duties.
Also, Tongko was tasked to recruit some agents in
addition to his other administrative functions.
Hence, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by
Manulife and was granted by the SC.
Issue: Whether or not there exists an employer-
employee relationship.
SC Ruling: Rules regarding the desired results (e.g., the
required volume to continue to qualify as a company
agent & legal/ ethical rules to be followed) are built-in
elements of control specific to an insurance agency and
should not and cannot be read as elements of control
that attend an employment relationship governed by
the Labor Code.
Based on decided cases, a determination of the
presence of the Labor Code element of control was
made on the basis of the stipulations of the subsequent
contracts. In this case, while Tongko was later on
designated unit manager in 1983, Branch Manager in
1990, and Regional Sales Manager in 1996, no formal
contract regarding these undertakings appears in the
records of the case. Any such contract or agreement,
had there been any, could have at the very least
provided the bases for properly ascertaining the juridical
relationship established between the parties.
For this reason, we can take judicial notice that as a
matter of Insurance Code-based business practice, an
agency relationship prevails in the insurance industry for
the purpose of selling insurance. Significantly, evidence
shows that Tongko’s role as an insurance agent never
changed during his relationship with Manulife. Tongko
essentially remained an agent, but moved up in this role
through Manulife’s recognition that he could use other
agents approved by Manulife but operating under his
guidance. For want of a better term, Tongko perhaps
could be labeled as a "lead agent" who guided under
his wing other Manulife agents.
Evidence indicates that Tongko consistently clung to the
view that he was an independent agent since he
invariably declared himself a business or self-employed
person in his income tax returns. The concept of estoppel
– a legal and equitable concept – necessarily must
come into play. Tongko’s previous admissions in several
years of tax returns as an independent agent, as against
his belated claim that he was all along an employee,
are too diametrically opposed to be simply dismissed or
ignored.
There was, indeed, lack of evidence on record showing
that Manulife ever exercised means-and-manner
control, even to a limited extent, over Tongko during his
ascent in Manulife’s sales ladder. The reality is, prior to
the directives sent by De Dios, Manulife had practically
left Tongko alone not only in doing the business of selling
insurance, but also in guiding the agents under his wing.
In addition, the mere presentation of codes or of rules
and regulations is not per se indicative of labor law
control. The codes of conduct do not intrude into the
insurance agents’ means and manner of conducting
their sales and only control them as to the desired results.
Guidelines indicative of labor law "control," based on the
case of Insular Life, should not merely relate to the
mutually desirable result intended by the contractual
relationship; they must have the nature of dictating the
means or methods to be employed in attaining the
result, or of fixing the methodology and of binding or
restricting the party hired to the use of these means.
Hence, the failure of Tongko to comply with the
guidelines & directives of Manulife is recruiting more
agents, as a ground for termination of Tongko’s agency,
is a matter that the labor tribunals cannot rule upon in
the absence of an employer-employee relationship.
Jurisdiction over the matter belongs to the courts
applying the laws of insurance, agency and contracts.
SC: Tongko is just an AGENT. In effect, the SC is telling
us that, first, there must be an evidence of a contract
that shows that the relationship has been converted
from contract of agency to that of employment, which is
absent in the case at bar. Secondly, adherence to a
code of conduct is not, per se, indicative of control
when it merely controls the desired results and not the
means and the manner by which agents are to conduct
their sales. The directive of De Dios to Tongko (in
increasing the number of agents) was merely suggestive.
Hence, not indicative of control
Ymbong vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp., G.R. No.
184885, March 7, 2012
Facts: Petitioner Ernesto G. Ymbong started working for
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN) in 1993 at
its regional station in Cebu as a television talent, co-
anchoring Hoy Gising and TV Patrol Cebu. His stint in ABS-
CBN later extended to radio when ABS-CBN Cebu
launched its AM station DYAB in 1995 where he worked
as drama and voice talent, spinner, scriptwriter and
public affairs program anchor.
Like Ymbong, Leandro Patalinghug also worked for ABS-
CBN Cebu. Starting 1995, he worked as talent, director
and scriptwriter for various radio programs aired over
DYAB.
On January 1, 1996, the ABS-CBN Head Office in Manila
issued Policy No. HR-ER-016 or the "Policy on Employees
Seeking Public Office." The pertinent portions read:
1.Any employee who intends to run for any public office
position, must file his/her letter of resignation, at least
thirty (30) days prior to the official filing of the certificate
of candidacy either for national or local election.
xxx xxx xxx
3.Further, any employee who intends to join a political
group/party or even with no political affiliation but who
intends to openly and aggressively campaign for a
candidate or group of candidates (e.g., publicly
speaking/endorsing candidate, recruiting campaign
workers, etc.) must file a request for leave of absence
subject to management's approval. For this particular
reason, the employee should file the leave request at
least thirty (30) days prior to the start of the planned
leave period.
Because of the impending May 1998 elections and
based on his immediate recollection of the policy at that
time, Dante Luzon, Assistant Station Manager of DYAB
issued the following memorandum:
TO:ALL CONCERNED
FROM:DANTE LUZON
DATE:MARCH 25, 1998
SUBJECT:AS STATED
Please be informed that per company policy, any
employee/talent who wants to run for any position in the
coming election will have to file a leave of absence the
moment he/she files his/her certificate of candidacy.
The services rendered by the concerned
employee/talent to this company will then be
temporarily suspended for the entire campaign/election
period.
After the issuance of the March 25, 1998 Memorandum,
Ymbong got in touch with Luzon. Luzon claims that
Ymbong approached him and told him that he would
leave radio for a couple of months because he will
campaign for the administration ticket. It was only after
the elections that they found out that Ymbong actually
ran for public office himself at the eleventh hour.
Ymbong, on the other hand, claims that in accordance
with the March 25, 1998 Memorandum, he informed
Luzon through a letter that he would take a few months
leave of absence from March 8, 1998 to May 18, 1998
since he was running for councilor of Lapu-Lapu City.
As regards Patalinghug, Patalinghug approached Luzon
and advised him that he will run as councilor for Naga,
Cebu. According to Luzon, he clarified to Patalinghug
that he will be considered resigned and not just on leave
once he files a certificate of candidacy
Later, Ymbong and Patalinghug both tried to come
back to ABS-CBN Cebu. According to Luzon, he
informed them that they cannot work there anymore
because of company policy. As a result, they filed as
illegal dismissal suit against ABS-CBN.
Issues:
(1) Whether Policy No. HR-ER-016 is valid;
(2) Whether the March 25, 1998 Memorandum issued by
Luzon superseded Policy No. HR-ER-016; and
(3) Whether Ymbong, by seeking an elective post, is
deemed to have resigned and not dismissed by ABS-
CBN.
Rulings:
Policy No. HR-ER-016 is valid.
We have consistently held that so long as a company's
management prerogatives are exercised in good faith
for the advancement of the employer's interest and not
for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights
of the employees under special laws or under valid
agreements, this Court will uphold them. In the instant
case, ABS-CBN validly justified the implementation of
Policy No. HR-ER-016. It is well within its rights to ensure
that it maintains its objectivity and credibility and freeing
itself from any appearance of impartiality so that the
confidence of the viewing and listening public in it will
not be in any way eroded. Even as the law is solicitous of
the welfare of the employees, it must also protect the
right of an employer to exercise what are clearly
management prerogatives. The free will of management
to conduct its own business affairs to achieve its purpose
cannot be denied.
Policy No. HR-ER-016 was not superseded by the March
25, 1998 Memorandum
The CA correctly ruled that though Luzon, as Assistant
Station Manager for Radio of ABS-CBN, has policy-
making powers in relation to his principal task of
administering the network's radio station in the Cebu
region, the exercise of such power should be in accord
with the general rules and regulations imposed by the
ABS-CBN Head Office to its employees. Clearly, the
March 25, 1998 Memorandum issued by Luzon which
only requires employees to go on leave if they intend to
run for any elective position is in absolute contradiction
with Policy No. HR-ER-016 issued by the ABS-CBN Head
Office in Manila which requires the resignation, not only
the filing of a leave of absence, of any employee who
intends to run for public office. Having been issued
beyond the scope of his authority, the March 25, 1998
Memorandum is therefore void and did not supersede
Policy No. HR-ER-016.
Ymbong is deemed resigned when he ran for councilor.
As Policy No. HR-ER-016 is the subsisting company policy
and not Luzon's March 25, 1998 Memorandum, Ymbong
is deemed resigned when he ran for councilor.
Ymbong's overt act of running for councilor of Lapu-
Lapu City is tantamount to resignation on his part. He
was separated from ABS-CBN not because he was
dismissed but because he resigned. Since there was no
termination to speak of, the requirement of due process
in dismissal cases cannot be applied to Ymbong. Thus,
ABS-CBN is not duty-bound to ask him to explain why he
did not tender his resignation before he ran for public
office as mandated by the subject company policy.
In addition, we do not subscribe to Ymbong's claim that
he was not in a position to know which of the two
issuances was correct. Ymbong most likely than not, is
fully aware that the subsisting policy is Policy No. HR-ER-
016 and not the March 25, 1998 Memorandum and it
was for this reason that, as stated by Luzon in his Sworn
Statement, he only told the latter that he will only
campaign for the administration ticket and not actually
run for an elective post.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Encyclopedia Britanica vs. NLRC, 264 SCRA 4 [1996]
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN, G.R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004
Francisco vs. NLRC, 500 SCRA 690 [2006]
Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., vs. Dr. Climaco, G.R. No.
146881, February 15, 2007
Dumpit-Morillo vs. CA, G.R. No. 164652, June 8, 2007,
citing 2004 Sonza
Tongko v. Manufacturer Life Insurance Co. (MANULIFE)
Inc., et al., G.R. No 167622, January 25, 2011
Atok Big Wedge Company vs. Gison, G.R. No. 169510,
August 8, 2011
Bernarte vs. Phil. Basketball Assoc., G.R. No. 192084,
September 14, 2011

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
Ymbong vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp., G.R. No.
184885, March 7, 2012

1. Autobus Transport v Bautista

2. Begino v ABSCBN April 20 2015
3. Chavez v NLRC Jan 17 2005
4. David v Macasio July 2014
5. Felix v Buenaseda Jan 7 1995
6. Gabriel v Bilon Feb 2007
7. Jardin v NLRC Feb 23 2000
8. Javier v Fly ace Corp Feb 15 2012
9. Locsin et al v PLDT Oct 2 2009
10. Peoples Broadcasting Service v Sec of Labor
March 6 2012
11. Professional Services v CA Feb 11 2008
12. SMCEU v Judge Bersamira
13. Tenzas et al v R Villegas Taxi Transport April 2 2014
14. Southeast International Rattan Inc v Coming
March 12 2014
15. TAPE Inc v Servana Jan 28 2008