13. VALLUM SECURITY SERVICES V. NLRC, et. al.

, GR 97320-27, July 30, 1993

FACTS

On September 1986, Baguio Leisure Corporation, also known as “Hyatt Baguio” and
Vallum Security Services (“Vallum”), entered into a contract of security services where the
latter is agreed to protect the properties and premises of the former by providing fifty (50)
security guards to the former. The contract was terminated by mutual agreement of the
parties on June 1988. The security guards were asked to report to the head office of Vallum
for re-assignment. However, they failed to do so, and instead they filed several complaints
against Vallum with NLRC for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practices. The Labor Arbiter
dismissed their complaints. Private respondents appealed the decision with the NLRC,
where the latter reversed the LA’s decision ordering Hyatt Baguio to reinstate the
complainants to their former positions with full backwages limited to one (1) year. Since
reinstatement has become impossible, Hyatt Baguio and Vallum are jointly and severally
liable to pay complainants separation pay equal to one (1) month per year of service. Hyatt
Baguio and Vallum filed for a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court for
the reinstatement of LA’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether or not private respondents are illegally dismissed

HELD

Yes. It has not been alleged by petitioners that a just cause for terminating private
respondents’ services had existed. And even if such lawful cause existed, it is not alleged
that private respondents’ rights to procedural due process in that connection had been
appropriately observed.

14. BROTHERHOOD LABOR UNITY MOVEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET. AL. V.

ZAMORA, et. al., GR L-48645, January 7, 1987

FACTS

The petitioners first reported for work to San Miguel Corporation through
Superintendent-in-Charge Camahort. They were issued gate passes signed by him and were
provided by the company with the tools, equipment and paraphernalia used in the loading,
unloading, piling and hauling operation. Their work in the glass factory was neither regular
nor continuous, depending wholly on the volume of bottles manufactured to be loaded and
unloaded, as well as the business activity of the company. Work did not necessarily mean a
full eight (8) hour day for the petitioners. However, work, at times, exceeded the eight (8)
hour day and necessitated work on Sundays and holidays. For this, they were neither paid
overtime nor compensation for work on Sundays and holidays. Petitioners were paid every
ten (10) days on a piece rate basis, that is, according to the number of cartons and wooden
shells they were able to load, unload, or pile. In January, 1969, the one hundred and forty
(140) workers organized and affiliated themselves with the petitioner union and engaged
in union activities. Believing that they are entitled to overtime and holiday pay, the
petitioners pressed management, airing their grievances. However, the respondents did
not heed these. On February 6, 1969, the petitioner union filed a notice of strike with the
Bureau of Labor Relations in connection with the dismissal of some of its members who
were allegedly dismissed for their union membership and were warned by respondent
company that their continuous union activities would result to their dismissal from their
jobs. Several conciliation conferences were scheduled in order to thresh out their
differences. Both parties failed to reach an agreement since San Miguel refuses to bargain
on ground that the petitioners were not its employees. On February 20, 1969, all the
petitioners were dismissed from their jobs and were denied entrance to company’s glass
factory. The petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice.

ISSUE

Whether or not the workers were illegally dismissed

HELD

Yes. The petitioners were dismissed allegedly because of the shutdown of the glass
manufacturing plant. Respondent company would have us believe that this was a case of
retrenchment due to the closure or cessation of operations of the establishment or
undertaking. But such is not the case here. The respondent’s shutdown was merely
temporary, one of its furnaces needing repair. Operations continued after such repairs, but
the petitioners had already been refused entry to the premises and dismissed from
respondent’s service. New workers manned their positions. It is apparent that the closure
of respondent’s warehouse was merely a ploy to get rid of the petitioners, who were then
agitating the respondent company for benefits, reforms and collective bargaining as a
union. There is no showing that petitioners had been remiss in their obligations and
inefficient in their jobs to warrant their separation.

15. COSMOPOLITAN FUNERAL HOMES, INC. V. MAALAT, GR 86693, July 2, 1990

FACTS

Sometime in 1962, petitioner Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc. engaged the

services of private respondent Noli Maalat as a "supervisor" to handle the solicitation of
mortuary arrangements, sales and collections. The funeral services, which he sold, refer to
the taking of the corpse, embalming, casketing, viewing and delivery. The private
respondent was paid on a commission basis of 3.5% of the amounts actually collected and
remitted. On January 15, 1987, respondent Maalat was dismissed by the petitioner for
understatement of the reported contract price against the actual contract price charged to
and paid by the customers and several other violations despite previous warnings. Maalat
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of commissions. The Labor Arbiter
rendered a decision declaring that indeed Maalat was illegally dismissed. The National
Labor Relations Commission reversed the decision.
ISSUE

Whether or not Maalat was illegally dismissed

HELD

No. The Court did not disturb the finding by the NLRC that private respondent
Maalat was dishonest in the discharge of his functions. The finding is sufficiently supported
by the evidence on record. And additionally, the private respondent did not appeal from the
NLRC decision, thereby impliedly accepting the validity of his dismissal. In Philippine Long
Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) v. NLRC, (164 SCRA 671 [1988]), this Court re-
examined, the doctrine in the aforecited Firestone and Soco cases and other previous cases
that employees dismissed for cause are nevertheless entitled to separation pay on the
ground of social and compassionate justice. “A contrary rule would, as the petitioner
correctly argues, have the effect of rewarding rather than punishing the erring employee
for his offense. . . .” Conformably with the aforementioned ruling, the Court pronounces that
the grant of separation pay to private respondent Maalat, who was validly terminated for
dishonesty, is not justified. However, he was still entitled to his unclaimed commissions.

16. CONSULTA V. CA, GR 145443, March 18, 2005

FACTS

Pamana Philippines, Inc. ("Pamana") is engaged in health care business. Raquel P.

Consulta ("Consulta") was a Managing Associate of Pamana. In 1987, Consulta negotiated
with the Federation of Filipino Civilian Employees Association ("FFCEA") working at the
United States Subic Naval Base for a Health Care Plan for the FFCEA members. Pamana
issued Consulta a Certification for such. Upon such negotiation and eventual execution of
the contract agreements, entitlements of all benefits due the Emerald Group in it’s entirely
including it’s Supervising Consultants and Health Consultants, by of commissions, over-
rides and other package of benefits is hereby affirmed, obligated and confirmed as long as
the contracts negotiated and executed are in full force and effect, including any and all
renewals made. And provided further that the herein authorized consultants remain in
active status with the Pamana Golden Care sales group. On March 1988, Pamana and the
U.S. Naval Supply Depot signed the FFCEA account. Consulta, claiming that Pamana did not
pay her commission for the FFCEA account, filed a complaint for unpaid wages or
commission against Pamana. The Labor Arbiter ordered respondent to pay complainant
her unpaid commission. The appellate court reversed such decision.

ISSUE

Whether or not Consulta is an employee of Pamana

HELD
 No. Consulta was an independent agent and not an employee of Pamana. Under the
four-fold test, one of the elements is the power to control, which in the present case is
missing. Pamana tasked Consulta to organize, develop, manage, and maintain a sales
division, submit a number of enrollments and revenue attainments in accordance with
company policies and guidelines, and to recruit, train and direct her Supervising Associates
and Health Consultants. However, the manner in which Consulta was to pursue these
activities was not subject to the control of Pamana. Consulta failed to show that she had to
report for work at definite hours. The amount of time she devoted to soliciting clients was
left entirely to her discretion. The means and methods of recruiting and training her sales
associates, as well as the development, management and maintenance of her sales division,
were left to her sound judgment. There being no employer-employee relationship between
Pamana and Consulta, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had no jurisdiction to entertain and
rule on Consulta’s money claim.