Preliminary Title RULING: YES.
RD exercise both visitorial & enforcement power over Labor
1. Definition of Labor Standards, Labor Relations Law
a. Labor Standard
i. terms and conditions of employment
ii. employers must comply with
iii. employees are entitled as a matter of legal right
iv. the minimum requirements prescribed by existing laws, rules
and regulations relation to wages hours of work, cost-of-living
allowance, and other monetary and welfare benefits .
b. Labor Relation
i. status, rights and duties and the institutional mechanisms
ii. govern the individual and collective interactions of employers,
and employees or their representatives.
c. Maternity Children’s Hospital v. Sec of Labor
FACTS:
 Semi-gov’t hospital (BOD-CDO Women’s Club,
subsidized by PCSO & CDO gov’t)
 10 employees filed complaint with DOLE RD
(Underpayment of Salaries & ECOLA- Emergency Cost of
Living Allowance)
 RD, in favor of employees; MOL, affirmed
 MCH filed with SC with the grounds: (1) Award included
those who are not employed with them anymore; (2) RD
has no jurisdiction over money claims -which is lodged
with the LA
ISSUE: WON RD had jurisdiction over money claims
Standard Cases, so empowered to adjudicate money claims. Provided: (1)
EE-ER; (2) RD’s findings are not contested by employer. ER did not contest
and admitted Underpayment of Wages. ( Labor Standards, iv )
2. Aim and Basis of Labor Law
a. AIM = Social Justice; BASIS = Police Power
b. Definition of Social Justice (Calalang v. Williams)
 The aim, reason, and justification of labor laws are Social
Justice.
 Social Justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor
atomism nor anarchy
 the humanization of laws and the equalization of social
and economic forces by the State so that justice in its
rational and objectively secular conception may at least
be approximated.
 Social Justice means the promotion of the welfare of all
the people, the adoption by the Government of measures
calculated to insure economic stability of all the
component elements of society through the maintenance
of proper economic and social equilibrium in the
interrelations of the members of the community,
constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally
justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise
of powers underlying the existence of all governments ,
on the time honored principle of salus populi est suprema
lex.” – Dr. Jose P. Laurel (Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil.
726)
c. How does labor law promote Social Justice? APERA:CJSS
  Labor laws are intended to address social inequities,
minimize social fictions and uplift the common man. It
seeks to advance the cause of social justice: Afford
protection to labor; Promote full employment; Ensure
equal opportunities (regardless of SRC); Regulate
relations between workers and employers; and Assure
their rights to – Collective Bargaining, Just and Humane
Conditions of Work, Self-Organization, and Security of
Tenure.
3. Explain Karl Marx’s view that labor is the principal creator of wealth.
 Wealth is created by labor. Human beings can only
satisfy their basic needs through labor for without which
human beings would die.
 ER (Idea) > Realized through Manpower > ER hires EE >
creates product > Generate income (wealth); without
labor, there will be no accretion of wealth
4. Constitutional Provision on Labor (Labor as a PRIMARY SOCIAL ECONOMIC
FORCE)
a. State Policies Regarding Labor (Art. II)
 Sec. 9. The State Shall promote a just and dynamic
social order that will ensure the prosperity and
independence of the nation and the people from poverty,
promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and
an improved quality of life for all;
 Sec. 10. The State shall promote social justice in all
phases of national development;
 Sec. 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social
economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and
promote their welfare; and
 Sec. 20. The State recognizes the indispensable role of
the private sector, encourages private-enterprise and
provides incentives to needed investments.
b. Rights of Labor (Art. XIII)
 Labor Standards: TRESH
Security of Tenure
Receive living wage
Just Share in the fruits of production
Work in Humane conditions
 Labor Relations: COPE
Conduct collective bargaining and negotiation with MGT
Organize themselves
Participate in the policy and decision-making processes
Engage in peaceful and concerted activities including
strike
5. Reason for full protection to labor; SECURITY OF TENURE
This means that the ER shall not terminate EE’s services without just
cause or when authorized by the LC. (His job may possibly be his only
possession capable of sustaining his livelihood, thus he is protected from
unjust deprivation thereof)
a. Bondoc vs. People’s Bank and Trust Co.
FACTS:
 Bondoc was as Dept Mger & AVP at People’s Bank’s
Department of Economic research and statistics
 People’s Bank had a projected merger with BPI, resolved
to abolish Bondoc’s Dept being redundant.
  People’s Bank filed clearance to terminate Bondoc (SOL).
He filed his opposition as he avers his dismissal was
without cause.
 LA > SOL that application for termination be DENIED and
Bondoc be reinstated plus back wages
 NLRC: reversed LA, and ordered payment of 75%
monthly salary for every year served
 SOL: reversed NLRC, for it was not taken into account,
and his dept should be abolished without prior clearance;
reinstate him to equivalent position
 OP: Bondoc was convicted of bigamy (moral turpitude);
Termination law dictates that employment without a
definite period may be terminated without just cause, and
his position was a necessary incident of the merger, and
such was no longer dispensable to them
ISSUES:
1. WON Pres Exec Asst committed grave abuse of
discretion for abolition of petitioner’s position;
2. WON Bondoc’s Security of Tenure was
oppressively abridged
RULING: (1) NO. His employment was lawful and justified. He was not
employed for a fixed period, and held a position at the BOD’s pleasure.
OLD Termination law, absence of contract of employment ER has the
right of dismissal with or without just cause. (2) NO. He knew all along
that the tenure of his position rested with the bank’s BOD, and at
anytime his position may be abolished. Dismissal “without just cause”
defense may only be afforded by a regular employee ( Art 280).
b. A. Rance v. NLRC
FACTS:
 Polybag Mftg Corp and PWU entered into a CBA.
 Agreement: Members must continue to be in good
standing as a condition of employment with the
company. If a member shall lose membership for
reasons stated in the CBA, the company shall
likewise dismiss him with the resolution of the
Union’s board, and the company shall be free from
any liabilities. 125 members were expelled for
disloyalty, for they allegedly authorized NAFLU to file
a case with the NLRC for them.
 Petitioners sued for reinstatement for their dismissal
was without due process, and had no basis denying
their affiliation with another union.
ISSUE: WON petitioners were dismissed without due process.
RULING: YES. The mere fact of seeking help from NAFLU, to
question union’s funds, does not constitute disloyalty, and at most,
was an act of self-preservation driven by desperation. Absent any full-
blown investigation, petitioners were not afforded due process It is the
policy of the state to assure the right of workers to "security of tenure"
(Article XIII, Sec. 3 of the New Constitution, Section 9, Article II of the
1973 Constitution). The guarantee is an act of social justice. When a
person has no property, his job may possibly be his only possession
or means of livelihood. Therefore, he should be protected against any
arbitrary deprivation of his job. You cannot be dismissed without just
cause.

6. The right of a person to his labor
a. Philippine Movie Pictures Workers’ Association vs. Premiere
Production
FACTS:
 Respondent filed with the CIR an urgent petition to lay-off
44 men due to financial losses the company is allegedly
suffering.
 Petitioners opposed, for they allege it was a retaliation of
the company for the strike that they staged, in an attempt
to harass, intimidate, weaken and destroy their union.
 CIR allowed the lay-off on the condition that if future work
is available, they be reemployed. (this was based on his
conduct of an ocular inspection and interview of 15
laborers)
ISSUE: WON CIR may authorize the layoff based on an ocular
inspection without receiving full evidence to determine the cause or
motive of the layoff
RULING: NO. The ocular inspection was done in the presence of both
their counsels, and were allowed to cross-examine at the same time.
And upon checking the records, time card shown that they reported
for work but no longer to be found in the premises, thus reached the
conclusion that they were no longer work to do by the laborers. CIR
may adopt its own policy bound by justice and equity without regard to
technicalities, but cannot disregard the fundamental requirements of
due process. The petition for layoff was predicated on lack of work
and financial losses, which cannot be established by mere inspection.
Thus, action is premature and has worked injustice to the laborers.
7. Rules of Construction
a. Labor Code – In case of doubt; when there is no doubt
i. All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the
provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and
regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor.
 In case of doubt, in favor of Labor
 When there is no doubt, law will have to be applied as it
is.
b. Labor Contracts – In case of doubt or ambiguity, these should be
interpreted liberally in favor of the worker (Ditan v. POEA)
DITAN v. POEA
FACTS:
 Ditan recruited by Intraco Sales Corp. through Asia World
(local agent), as a welding supervisor in Angola
 Arriving at Angola was assigned as an ordinary welder,
and after some time was informed he would be
transferred to Kafunfo, where rebels recently kidnapped
and killed expatriate workers. Ditan was reluctant, but
was assured protection by govt troops, later agreed.
 He was held hostage, but was able to come back to PH
with the promise of reemployment, which he was not
included, thus he filed for a breach of contract
 POEA: dismissed, NLRC: affirmed
 ISSUE: WON Ditan is entitled to any relief and his case is under
jurisdiction of NLRC.
RULING: YES. The fact of risk where the petitioner is subjected is
emphasized. The petitioner had gone to a foreign land to sell a better
life for his family, that stint will be to no avail if he refused to go to a
rebel-infested area of Kafunfo. We are dealing here not with an
ordinary transaction but with a labor contract which deserves special
treatment and a liberal interpretation in favor of the worker. The
choice is obvious. We find, considering the totality of the
circumstances attending this case, that the petitioner is entitled to
relief. Under the policy of social justice, the law bends over backward
to accommodate the interests of the working class on the humane
justification that those with less privileges in life should have more
privileges in law. That is why our judgment today must be for the
petitioner
c. Interpretation of Labor Legislation and Labor contracts under the Civil
Code
 Article 1700. The relations between capital and labor are
not merely contractual. They are so impressed with public
interest that labor contracts must yield to the common
good.
 Article 1701. Neither capital nor labor shall act
oppressively against the other or impair the interest or
convenience of the public.
 Article 1702. In case of doubt, all other legislation and all
labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safely
and decent living of the laborer.
 Article 1703. No contract which practically amounts to
involuntary servitude, under any guise whatsoever, shall
be valid.
d. Labor Law determinations (Rubberworld v. NLRC)
RUBBERWORLD v. NLRC
LABOR DETERMINATIONS SHOULD NOT ONLY BE SECUNDUM
RATIONEM BUT ALSO SECUNDUM CARITATEM.
FACTS:
 Petitioner filed with DOLE a notice of temporary
shutdown, but before it was effected, was forced to
prematurely shutdown
 Respondents: illegal dismissal & non-payment of
separation pay
 Rubberworld filed with SEC petition for declaration of
suspension of payments with a proposal for a
rehabilitation plan (favorable); submitted the same to LA
(ignored-ruled an illegal shutdown and liable for
separation pays, moral and exemplary damages)
 NLRC: affirmed with modification, exclusion of moral and
exemplary damages
ISSUE: WON DOLE, LA, or NLRC may legally act on claims despite
SEC order of rehabilitation
 RULING: YES. PD 902-A is clear that all action for claims of juridical
entities under management or receivership are suspended
accordingly. The law did not make any exceptions in favor of labor
claims. This is to enable the management committee to exercise it s
powers free from interference that may prevent the rescue of such
entity. Even if award is given, the ruling could not be enforced as long
as it is under management committee.
8. Applicability of Labor Code
a. Under Corporation Code > LABOR CODE
b. GOCC > CIVIL SERVICE
 Employees of government-owned or controlled
corporation (GOCC) created by special or original
charter, such employees are governed by the Civil
Service. The phrase “with original charter” refers to
corporations chartered by special law as distinguished
from corporations organized under the Corporation Code.
c. Government agencies > CIVIL SERVICE
 The National Parks Development Committee is an
agency of the government, not a GOCC its employees
are covered by Civil Service and regulations, since they
are civil service employees.
d. Local Water District > WATER CODE
Recruitment and Placement
more)
1. What constitutes “Recruitment and Placement” CETCHUP-CRAP
 Recruitment and Placement refers to any act of
Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring,
Utilizing or Procuring workers and includes Contract
services, Referrals, Advertising, or Promising
Employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not.
 Any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or
promises for a fee employment to two or more persons
shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
.
a. When Presumptions of Recruitment and placement arises
 To be engaged in the practice of recruitment and
placement (regardless of number of persons dealt ). It is
plain that there must at least be a promise or an offer of
employment from the person posing as a recruiter
whether locally or abroad.
b. People v. Panis
FACTS:
 4 separate claims filed against Abug for operating a fee-
charging employment agency without first securing a
license.
 Abug avers that he cannot be charged for such since only
one person for each offense in each of the 4 information;
there will only be illegal recruitment when 2 or more
persons were promised employment for a fee.
ISSUE: WON the number of persons involved is essential (2 or
 RULING: Regardless of the number of persons dealt with, recruitment
and placement is still constituted. The proviso merely lays down a rule
of evidence that where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise
or offer of employment to 2 or more prospective workers, the
individual or entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged
in the act of recruitment and placement. The words “shall be deemed”
create that presumption.
c. Distinction between illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and R.A
8042
 Under Article 38(a) of the Labor Code, Illegal recruitment
means any recruitment activities, including the prohibited
practices enumerated under Article 34 of this code, to be
undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority.
 Under RA 8042, as amended by RA 10022 (license or
authority is IMMATERIAL), illegal recruitment shall mean
any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting.
contracting, hiring, utilizing or procuring workers and
includes contract services, referrals, advertising, or
promising employment, locally or abroad, whether for
profit or not, when undertaken by non-licensee or non-
holder of authority. Provided, that any such non-licensee
or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for
a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall
be deemed so engaged.
d. When is illegal recruitment considered economic sabotage
(QUALIFIED ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT)?
 It is an economic sabotage when complex illegal
recruitment is committed. It is considered as Qualified
Illegal Recruitment.
 No valid license or authority , undertakes recruitment and
placement and recruiters and victims are 3 or more.
 Syndicated = carried out by group of 3 or more persons in
conspiracy or confederation with one another;
 Large scale or qualified = committed against three or
more persons individually or as a group.
2. R.A 8042 – Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995
a. Who is a migrant worker?
 “Overseas Filipino Worker” refers to a person who is to
be engaged, is engaged or has been engaged in a
remunerated activity is a state of which he or she is not a
citizen or on board a vessel navigating the foreign seas
other than a government ship used for military or non-
commercial purposes or on an installation located
offshore on the high seas; to be used interchangeably
with migrant worker.” (Sec.2)
b. Pre-termination under R.A. 8042
i. What is the migrant worker entitled to in case of illegal pre-
termination of overseas contractual employment?
 Full reimbursement of his placement free with 12%
interest per annum;
 Plus, salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment
contract.
 Included in unexpired salary are: His basic salary, unless
it is a guaranteed benefit and Separation pay, back
 wages and reinstatement reliefs for an Illegally dismissed RULING: On the amount of salaries due private respondent,
employee. the rule has always been that an illegally dismissed worker
 Attorney’s Fees whose employment is for a fixed period is entitled to payment
 Damages of his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his
1. Moral Damages employment. On 15 July 1995, RA 8042 otherwise known as
2. Exemplary Damages the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995"
3. Nominal Damages – if termination is without due took effect, Sec. 10
process
 Repatriation

ii. Marsaman Manning Agency v. NLRC

iii. Serrano v. Gallant Martime Services
FACTS:
FACTS:
 Private respondent Wilfredo T. Cajeras was hired by
 Serrano was hired by Gallant under POEA approved
petitioner MARSAMAN, the local manning agent of
contract for 12 months as Chief Officer.
petitioner DIAMANTIDES, as Chief Cook Steward on the
 At the date of departure, he was constrained to accept a
MV Prigipos, owned and operated by DIAMANTIDES, for
downgraded contract to Second Officer upon assurance
a contract period of ten (10) months. Cajeras started work
and representation by Gallant that he would be Chief
on 8 August 1995, but less than two (2) months later, he
Officer; But, Gallant wasn’t able to deliver
was repatriated to the Philippines allegedly by "mutual
 Serrano refused to stay on as second officer and was
consent."
repatriated to PH, rendering 2 mos and 7 days, lacking 9
 Private respondent Cajeras filed a complaint for illegal
mos and 23 days
dismissal against petitioners with the NLRC alleging that
 He filed for constructive dismissal and for payment of
he was dismissed illegally, denying that his repatriation
money claims, moral and exemplary
was by mutual consent, and asking for his unpaid wages,
 He questioned par. 5, sec. 10 of RA 8042-LA and NLRC
overtime pay, damages, and attorney's fees.
have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide within 90
 LA: discharge by mutual consent was not proved by
days for claims arising from EE-ER relationship
convincing evidence; NLRC: affirmed
(Constitutionality)
ISSUE: WON NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE: WON the last clause in par 5, sec 10 of RA 8042,
unconstitutional
 RULING: YES. It is violative of the equal protection clause.
The clause “or for three months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less” is unconstitutional and
awarded the entire unexpired portion of the employment
contract to the overseas Filipino worker. The subject clause
singles out one classification of OFWs and burdens it with
peculiar disadvantage. The clause is a violation of the right to
equal protection and right to substantive due process, for it
deprives him of property, consisting of monetary benefits,
without any existing valid governmental purpose.
3. How does Sec. 10 (5) of R.A. 8042 violate the equal protection clause?
The Supreme Court held that limiting the award of salaries to three (3) months
only under the 5th paragraph of Section 10, Republic Act (R.A) No. 8042 is
unconstitutional for violating Section 1, Article III (deprivation of life, liberty and
property), Section 18, Article II (labor as the primary social economic force)
and Section 3, Article VIII of the Constitution.
4. Theory of Imputed Knowledge
 A rule in insurance law that any information material to
the transaction, either possessed by the agent at the time
of the transaction or acquired by him before its
completion, is deemed to be the knowledge of the
principal, at least so far as the transaction is concerned,
even though in fact the knowledge is not communicated
to the principal at all.
 The knowledge of the agent is the knowledge of the
principal without the necessity of communicating to the
latter.
a. Sunace International Mgt. Services v. NLRC
FACTS:
 Sunace deployed a domestic helper (Divina
Montehermozo) to Taiwan, under a 12-month contract
 Deployment was with assistance of a Taiwanese Broker.
After expiration of the term, she continued working for the
same ER for 2 more years, after which returned to the PH
 Divina filed with NLRC against Sunace and another
Taiwanese broker, that she was jailed for 3 months, and
was underpaid.
 Sunace aver that her 2-year extension was without their
knowledge and consent, thus it had no liability. Further
reinforced by Divina’s waiver/quitclaim
 LA: rejected Sunace
ISSUE: WON the renewal by the foreigner-prinicipal
attributable to Sunace
RULING: NO. the local agency is not aware of the renewal of
the contract. SC reason for the ruling is that, contract takes
effect only between the contracting parties. That is between
the foreign employer and the OFW. The local agency is not a
party to the contract, therefore he cannot be held liable in
case of damages or illegal dismissal of the OFW. There is
implied revocation of its agency relationship with its foreign-
principal by entering into a new contract without its knowledge
and consent. This is an exception to the solidary liability of
local employment.
5. When does employment commence for the migrant worker?
a. Santiago v. CF Sharp Crew Management.
FACTS:
 Santiago has been working with Smith Bell Mgt for about
5 years, and signed a new 9-month contract thereafter
duly approved by POEA
 VP of the said company received from Santiago’s wife,
giving him feedbacks that if he be allowed to depart, he
plans on jumping-off the ship, thus his departure was
cancelled
 Santiago filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, damages
and atty’s fees.
 LA: in favor of Santiagom contract employment remained Apprentices, Learners and Handicapped Workers
valid but did not commence for failure to deploy to
overseas employment
1. Distinction Between Apprentice and Learners
 NLRC: no EE-ER relationship, absent his departure from
 Learner:
any port, the reckoning point of commencement of the
1. Entails semi-skilled or other occupations
contract, thus his claims was dismissed; and decision of
2. Not exceed a period of 3 months
non-deployment was management prerogative
3. Employable when no experienced workers available
 CA: affirmed NLRC
 Apprentice:
ISSUE: When does EE-ER commence 1. Highly-technical industry as a nature of occupation
2. Not be less than 4 months but not exceeding 6 months
RULING: The employer-employee relationship shall  BOTH:
commence only upon the seafarer’s actual departure from the 1. Involve practical on-the-job training
port in the point of hire. Yet, he is still entitled to relief under 2. Wage rate is 75% of statutory minimum
RA 8042- Migrant Workers’ Act despite the absence of EE- 3. Maximum of 20% of the existing workforce
ER. Moreover, Since the present case involves the
employment contract entered into by petitioner for overseas a. Nitto Enterprises v. NLRC
employment, his claims are cognizable by the LA of the FACTS:
NLRC.  Capili was hired as an apprentice machinist in a glass
and aluminum products company, for a period of 6
months and 75% of the applicable minimum wage
  He accidentally injures the leg of the Office Secretary;
and injured his thumb while operating a power press
machine without authority
 He was made to sign a Quitclam/Release for his 5-day
salary, during which he was unable to work
 3 days after he filed an illegal dismissal complaint and
demanded monetary consideration before the NLRC
 LA: Dismissed because: (1) violated the terms of the
agreement causing injury due to his gross negligence and
(2) Does not have proper attitude and training to handle
the machines without authority
 NLRC: reversed LA, ordering reinstatement and back
wages
ISSUES: (1) WON there was an ER-Apprentice relationship; (2) WON
NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing LA
RULING: (1) NO. Capili failed to follow the guidelines set forth in Art
61: Apprenticeship Agreements. The apprentice program, pending
approval from DOLE, was enforced thru the hiring of Capili. It was
NULL & VOID for prior approval is indispensable. Thus, his
employment fall under Art 280: Regular and Casual Employment
(2) NO. He filed the complaint only three days after signing of the
Quitclaim/Release, which meant the dismissal was deliberate and not
voluntary. Such move, run against the twin requirements of due
process. Thus, finding no credence in finding that NLRC committed a
grave abuse of discretion, NLRC’s decision is upheld.
 Valid Requisite Apprenticeship:
1. Qualification of Apprenticeship;
2. Apprentice Earns not less than 75% of the
prescribe minimum salary;
3. Apprenticeship agreement duly executed and
Signed;
4. Apprenticeship program must be Approved by
DOLE (now TESDA); otherwise, the apprentice
shall be deemed a regular employee.
5. Period of apprenticeship shall not exceed 6
months.
2. What is a handicapped worker? APIMIDI
 Handicapped workers are those whose earning capacity
is impaired by age or physical or mental deficiency or
injury, disease, or illness.
a. Bernardo v. NLRC
FACTS:
 43 deaf-mutes were hired as Money Sorters and
Counters at Far East Bank & Trust Co. through an
Employment Contract for Handicapped Workers
 They were dismissed; But, they aver that they are
considered as regular employees because their task was
necessary and desirable to the bank’s business. The
contract merely precluded the application of Art 280 to
bar them from becoming regular employees.
 Bank submits that they are special workers under Art 80
ISSUE: WON the petitioners are capable of becoming regular
employees
 RULING: YES. The Magna Carta for Disabled persons mandates that
a qualified disabled person should be given the same terms and
conditions of employment as able-bodied person (Sec. 5). The fact
that the employees were qualified disabled persons necessarily
removes the contract from the ambit of Art 80, they are thus covered
by Art 280. Without a doubt, their task is necessary and desirable to
the bank. Their disability did not render them unqualified or unfit for
the tasks assigned to them.
b. Magna Carta for Disabled Persons
 The Magna Carta for Disabled Persons (R.A. 7277, as
amended by R.A. 9422 and R.A. 10070) governs the
rights and privileges of handicapped workers.
 R.A. No. 7277 is applicable to those persons with
disability who are Filipino citizen.
BOOK TWO
1. Classes of Employees Not Covered
a. Government Workers
 Government employees refer to employees of
government agencies, of the political subdivisions of the
national government, of government instrumentalities,
and of government owned corporations that are not
incorporated under the Corporation Code because they
are governed by the Civil Service Law. Has an
ORIGINAL CHARTER
b. Managerial Employees or Staff; Supervisors (Supervisors, Middle &
Top Managers)
 An employee is a managerial employee (has special
training, experience and knowledge – thus, the value
of their work cannot be measured in terms of hours)
is he meets all the following conditions:
1. His primary duty consists of Management of the
establishment in which he is employed or
department or subdivision thereof;
2. He customarily and regularly directs the work of
two (2) or more subordinate employees ; and
3. He has the authority to hire or fire other
employees of lower rank; or make suggestions
and recommendations as to the hiring,
promotion, termination, or any other change of
status of other employees.
 An employee is part of the managerial staff if he
performs the following duties and responsibilities:
1. One whose primary duty consist of the
performance of work directly related to carrying
out the management policies of the employer;
2. One who customarily and regularly exercise
discretion and independent judgement when:
 Regularly and directly assisting a
proprietor or a managerial employee;
 Executing under general supervision
work along specialized or technical lines
 requiring special training, experience, or
knowledge, or
 Executing under general supervision,
special assignments and task
3. One who does not devote more that 20% of their
hours worked in a work week to activities which
are not directly and closely related to the
performance of the work describe in paragraph
(1), (2) and (3) above.
 Supervisory Employee are those who, in the interest of
the employer, effectively recommend such managerial
actions if the exercise such authority is not merely
routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of
independent judgement.
2. Definition of Managerial Employees and Management Staff and Supervisors
(Book III, Rule 1 of Rules to Implement Labor Code)
Managerial Employees – is one who is vested with powers or
prerogatives to lay down and execute management or prerogatives to
lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer
suspend, layoff, recall discharge, assign or discipline employees;
Supervisory Employees – are those who, in the interest of the
employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions if the
exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature
but requires the use of independent judgement; and
3. Field Personnels
Rank-and-file Employees – are all employees not falling within any of
the above definitions.
a. NAWASA vs NWSA Consolidated Unions
FACTS:
 NAWASA is a GOCC under a special charter RA 1383
and the respondents are the various labor organizations
of NAWASA
 CIR (now NLRC) conducted a hearing of the controversy
over the implementation of RA 1880: 40-hour Work Law
 Respondent filed a petition for intervention on the issue of
additional compensation for night work
 CIR ruled that NAWASA is an agency not performing
governmental functions thus liable to pay additional
compensation for work on Sundays and legal holidays
under CA 444: 8-hour Labor Law
 Respondents aver that they do not fall within the category
of managerial employees and are not exempt from CA
444
ISSUE: WON respondents are managerial employees not entitled to
the benefits under CA 444 as amended
RULING: NO. There responsibilities and primary duties do not bear
any relation to the management of NAWASA, nor do they participate
in the formulation of its policies nor in the hiring or firing of employees.
Hence, they have little freedom of action, as their main function is
merely to carry-out the company’s orders, plans and policies.
 Non-agricultural employees:
 1. Who regularly performs their duties away from the
principal place of business or branch of office of the
employer; and
2. Whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be
determined with reasonable certainty .
a. Auto Bus Transport System, Inc. v. Bautista
FACTS:
 Bautista is a driver-conductor of Auto Bus and was
dismissed for failure to pay an amount demanded by the
latter for the repair of the bus damaged caused by him.
 His compensation is commission per travel
 He complained for illegal dismissal with money claims for:
13th month pay and SIL Pay
 Company submits that Bautista’s employment was
replete of offenses involving: reckless imprudence, gross
negligence and dishonesty
 In the exercise of Management Prerogative: he was
terminated with opportunity to explain
 LA: dismissed but was awarded 13 th month pay and SIL
pay
 NLRC: deleted 13th month pay award
 CA: affirmed NLRC
ISSUE: (1) WON Bautista is entitled to SIL Pay; (2) WON Bautista is
considered a Field Personnel
RULING: (1) YES. Under Art 95: every employee who has rendered
at least 1 year of service is entitled to a yearly SIL of 5 days with pay. ;
(2) YES. Field Personnel should not be construed as a separate
classification of employees of employees but merely an amplification
of the definition of field personnel, thus he does not fall within the
exception to the entitlement to SIL pay. The courts have taken judicial
notice: (1) inspectors are assigned in strategic places; (2) a
mandatory shop day, to check the bus; (3) Prompt departure and
arrival at specified place and time; and (4) there is a dispatcher
ensuring arrival and departure at estimated proper times. Thus, they
are, under constant supervision while in the performance of this work
and hence cannot be considered field personnel.
b. Mericidar Fishing Corp. v. NLRC
FACTS:
 Agao, a bodegero (ship quartermaster) filed a complaint
of illegal dismissal and non-payment of SIL; constructive
dismissal for refusal of mgt to assign him aboard its boats
 He wa allowed a leave without pay due to sickness for 1
month, but upon return with his health clearance with him,
he was told to come back since he could not be
reinstated immediately
 MGT submits that Agao failed to report for work after his
leave had expired and was AWOL for 3 months
 LA: reinstate + backwages + 13th month pay + SIL
 NLRC: Mgt appeals, but dismissed Mgt’s claim that Agao
is a field personnel and thus not entitled to SIL pay, due
to lack of merit
ISSUE: WON Agao is Field Employee and thus not entitled to SIL
pay
RULING: NO. Agao is not a field employee and entitled to SIL pay.
Fishermen are not field personnel, although they perform non-
agricultural work away from petitioner’s business offices, the fact
 remains that throughout the duration of their work they are under the an employee’s actual working hours in the field can be determined
effective control and supervision of employer . However, under the with reasonable certainty, query must be made as to whether or not
Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, fishermen are considered field such employee’s time and performance is constantly supervised by
personnel. the employer.

c. Union of Filipro Employees v. Vivar

FACTS:
 Filipro (now Nestle) filed with NLRC a petition for claims
of its monthly paid employees for holiday pay
 LA Vivar: Filipro to pay monthly paid employees Holiday
pay (Art 94) , subject to the exclusions in Art 82
 Filipro filed a motion to clarify that: (1) award is limited to
3 years; (2) sales personnel are excluded from the award
of holiday pay (for they are not considered as field
personnel); and (3) Offset with overpayment of OT, ND,
VL, and SL due to the use of 251 (261 -10) TEST OF EMPLOYEMENT RELATIONSHIP
 UFE: sales personnel are NOT field personnel thus,
entitled to holiday pay 1. Employment as a Question of Law and a Question of Fact
 LA Vivar: sales personnel are field personnel and NOT  Existence of employer-employee relationship is
entitled to holiday pay; the divisor must be 261 not 251; determined by law, not by contract . Hence, even if the
and ordered reimbursement of offsets parties call their contract a “Contract of lease or Service”,
the factual existence of an employer-employee
ISSUE: WON Filipro’s Sales Personnel are entitled to Holiday Pay relationship will still prevail.
 No particular form of evidence is required to prove the
RULING: Under Article 82, field personnel are not entitled to holiday existence of employer-employee relationship. Any
pay. Said article defines field personnel as “non-agricultural competent and relevant evidence to prove the
employees who regularly perform their duties away from the principal relationship may be admitted.
place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual  The existence of Ee-Er relationship depends upon the
hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable facts of each case. (QUESTION OF FACT)
certainty. The company is unable to ascertain whether the interval of
time was actual use of field work. Hence, in deciding whether or not
  If the services rendered directly connected or necessarily
integral, there is Ee-Er. Why? Employment status is
defined by law and not by what the parties stipulate them
to be.
2. Core vs. Non-Core Jobs; Existence of Employment relationship regardless of
nature of activities involved.
 A core job will require you to utilize your skills which
you’ve been studying in college. A non-core job will
require you to perform based on a completely different
skill-set.
 Non-core job is not explicitly related to the work.
a. Phil. Fuji Xerox Corp v. NLRC
FACTS:
 Fuji entered into an agreement with Skillpower to operate
copier machines in Fuji’s Sales Office where Gerado is
assigned as a key operator
 Gerado went to leave, and was substituted; Upon his
return discovered spoilage of 600 copies; Fuji reported
the incident to Skillpower asking him to explain and
suspended him from work; Subsequently, he filed a
3. Four-Fold Right of Control Test
complaint for illegal dismissal
 Although he receives salary from Fuji, Skillpower
exercises control and supervision over her work
 LA: Gerado was an employee of Skillpower
 NLRC: Gerado was an employee of Fuji and was illegally
dismissed; Skillpower acted on behalf of Fuji in
supervising his work and a mere paymaster-agent of the
latter
 Fuji: Skillpower is an independent contractor and Gerado,
on the following grounds: (1) Gerado was recruited by
Skillpower; (2) Work done was not necessary in the
conduct of Fuji’s business; (3) Salary was paid directly by
Skillpower; (4) He worked under the control of Skillpower;
and (5) Skillpower is a highly-capitalized business
venture
ISSUE: WON Gerado is an employee of Fuji
RULING: YES. Skillpower did not have copying machines of its own,
what it did was to simply supply manpower to Fuji . One who does not
have independent business for undertaking the job contracted for is
just an agent of the employer. The services rendered may not
generate income, but they redound to the benefit of the company. The
determination of the existence of an ER-EE relationship is defined by
law according to the facts of the case, regardless of the nature of the
activities involved.
 Elements of Employer Relationship (FOUR FOLD TEST)
1. Selection and engagement of the employee;
2. Payment of wages;
3. Power of Dismissal; and
4. Power to Control.
 Control Test Refers to the employer’s power to control
or right to control the employee not only as to the result of
the work to be done but also as to the means and
methods by which the same is to be accomplished .
  Most important test. This test is based on the extent of
control the hirer exercise 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.
 The control test merely calls for the existence of the right
to control the manner of doing the work , not the actual
exercise of the right.
a. Equitable Banking Corp. v. NLRC
FACTS:
 Sadac was appointed as VP for the legal services – he
was paid salaries and bonuses; Later, 9 lawyers
addressed a petition letter to the chairman of BOD
accusing the former of abusive conduct, inefficiency,
mismanagement and indecisiveness.
 Chairman: called the lawyers in an attempt to solve, but
to no avail, failed. He sent Banico – a BOD, to look
further on the matter; upon exploring alternatives,
affirmed the charges against Sadac; Chairman then so
advised him for resignation
 He was told that it was management prerogative that
pushed the BOD to terminate his services; Sadac
requested for full hearing and investigation, but was
likewise unheeded
 Sadac filed for illegal dismissal; the bank upon learning of
the same terminated him
 LA: he was illegally dismissed; entitled to reinstatement
and back wages
 NLRC: affirmed LA
 Sadac computed (6M) > Bank opposed > LA favored
Sadac; NLRC reversed LA; CA reversed NLRC
ISSUE: WON ER-EE exists and his computation of backwages
including prospective increases is correct
RULING: YES. ER-EE exist, but computation of backwages is wrong.
ELEMENTS. — In determining the existence of an employer-
employee relationship, the following elements are considered: (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, with the control test generally assuming primacy
in the overall consideration. The power of control refers to the
existence of the power and not necessarily to the actual exercise
thereof. It is not essential, in other words, for the employer to actually
supervise the performance of duties of the employee; it is enough that
the former has the right to wield the power. There is no vested right in
salary increases. Prior receipt of increases only proves the fact of
receipt but not an assurance that becomes inherent to backwages.
The inclusion of prospective salary increases cannot be permitted
b. Algon Engineering and Construction Corp v. NLRC
FACTS:
 Algon as standard operating procedure of their
construction business entered into a lease contract with
Espinosa for storage and parking of heavey equipment in
exchange for a fee.
 Espinosa claims that he was hired by Algon as a
watchman to guard the other equipment from 6am to 6pm
  LA: affirms, since Algon pays Espinosa P20 on a daily
basis as a watchman
 NLRC: affirmed LA, despite Algon’s contention that it did
not hire Espinosa, the relationship was merely of leased
storage and parking space
ISSUE: WON ER-EE exists between Algon and Espinosa
RULING: YES. Even though, Cash Vouchers paid to Espinosa were
merely for storage and parking in his premises, the question whether
an employer employee relationship exists is a question of fact. As
long as the findings of the labor agencies on this question are
supported by substantial evidence, the findings will not be
disturbed on review in this Court . Review in the Supreme Court
concerning factual findings in labor cases is confined to determining
allegations of lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion." We see
no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the NLRC. We are in
agreement with the public respondent's conclusion that there indeed
existed an employer-employee relationship between Algon and
Espinosa, since the said conclusion was based on substantial
evidence.
4. Type of control not indicative of employment relationship ( capable of
exercising control, and causal connection between the claim exists )
a. Orozco v. CA
 Rules that serve as General Guidelines towards the
achievement of the mutually desired result are not
indicative of the power of control (restraints only to the
space allocation of her column)
 Economic Reality Test: Fails; Her occupation is not as a
columnist for the respondent but as a women’s right
advocate in various women’s organizations. Thus, it
cannot be said that Orozco was dependent on PDI for her
continued employment in the former’s line of business
 In this case the control exercised by PDI over Orozco is
merely incidental or inherent in the newspaper business
and is not an exercise of control over Orozco. Orozco is
an independent contractor.
5. Economic Dependency Test
 Refers to whether the worker is dependent on the alleged
employer for his continued employment in that line of
business.
 CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. Extent to which services are an integral part to
the ER’s business;
2. Extent of EE’s investment in equipment &
facilities;
3. Nature and degree of control by ER
4. Worker’s opportunity for profit or 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 employer; and
7. The degree of dependency of the worker upon
the employer for his continued employment in
that line of business.
a. Sevilla v. CA
  There has been no uniform test to determine the
existence of an employer-employee relationship. The
“four-fold” test may be regarded as the traditional or
conventional test of the employment question. But it not
the sole test. There is a need to consider the existing
conditions between the parties. In addition to the right-of-
control-test.
 The most common is the inclusion of the employee in the
payrolls, submission of his name with SSS/Philhealth.
b. Francisco v. NLRC
FACTS:
 Francisco was hired by Kasei Corporation during its
incorporation stage as an Accountant > Corporate
Secretary > Liaison Officer
 Subsequently designated as Acting Manager until
replaced, and assured by the company that she was still
connected with them as a Technical Consultant
 Thereafter, her salary was decreased, despite repeated
follow-ups, and finally was informed that she was
terminated
 She filed an action for constructive dismissal before the
LA; wherein Kasei averred that she was not their
employee because she performed her work at her own
discretion without their control and supervision; LA and
NLRC ruled in favor of Francisco; CA: reversed
ISSUE: WON there was an ER-EE relationship between the parties
RULING: YES. The control test is not sufficient to give the complete
overview of the relationship. Two-Tiered Test is Applied: (1) control of
ER over the means and methods of which work is accomplished; and
(2) underlying economic realities of the relationship [because she
served for 6 years and receiving salaries and benefits. Control Test >
she is an employee. SSS online inquiry with Kasei’s specimen
signature, affirmed that it is apparent that petitioner is economically
dependent on Kasei for continued employment in its line of business.
CIRCUMSTANCES
6. Examples where employment relationship exist:
a. Jeepney Drivers on Boundary System (Martinez v. NLRC)
FACTS:
 Raul had two taxis with two drivers. Later he died, and
was survived by his mother Nelly (the sole heir)
 Not once, were they given 13 th month pay (PD 851);
When Nelly assumed administration, she informed the
drivers that she cannot administer the taxi business and
plans to sell the units, but later on assigned the units to
other drivers.
 The regular drivers filed before the LA claims for 13 th
month pay and illegal dismissal
 Nelly traversed: the liability of Raul to pay for 13 th month
pay, does not survive to her as an heir, and these drivers
were paid on boundary basis thus ER-EE is absent.
 LA: in favor of Nelly because: (1) drivers’ claims are
personal to Raul; and (2) She was a mere housewife
incapable of administration; and (3) not enttled to 13 th
month pay, because ER-EE is doubtful on account of the
boundary system
 NLRC: ruled otherwise, because: (1) regular drivers were
paid wages; (2) management of the business passed to
Nelly, and even hired new drivers; and (3) personal
 claims survived because the business continued
presumably, in the absence of the proof of sale
ISSUE: WON the employees are entitled to 13 th month pay after the
death of their ER
RULING: NO. The claim for 13th month pay is a personal obligation of
Raul and cannot survive his death, unless expressly assumed ( labor
contracts are not enforceable against the transferee of an enterprise ).
Labor contracts are IN PERSONAM. Taxi drivers under the
“boundary” system are employees of the taxi/jeepney operators; also
the passenger bus drivers and conductors. ER-EE cannot assume
continuance unless supported by evidence, consideration of the issue
on illegal dismissal is futile and irrelevant
b. Boundary-hulog driver (Villamaria v. CA and Bustamante)
FACTS:
 Villamaria is the owner of Villiamaria Motors with a public
utility franchise. They stopped making jeepney, and
retained only 9 which operated by employing drivers in
“boundary basis”
 Bustamante paid his boundary and retained the residue,
consequently, villiamaria verbally agreed to sell the
jeepney to him under a “boundary-hulog scheme”, where
Bustamante would remit P550 per day for 4 years, also
with a P10,000 downpayment
 They executed a contract that stated if Bustamante fails
to pay for 3 days, Villamaria will hold the vehicle until
arrears are paid and a penalty of 50 per day; if 1 week,
cease to have legal effect; He failed to pay boundary-
hulog
 Villamaria took the jeepney and barred Bustamante from
driving the vehicle. Thus, Bustamante filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal.
ISSUES: WON the existence of a boundary-hulog negates ER-EE
RULING: NO. Under the boundary-hulog scheme a dual juridical
relationship is created (ER-EE & VR-VE). The kasunduan did not
extinguish the ER-EE relationship of the parties existing before the
execution of the deed. Villamaria exercises control and supervision
over the driver. The driver performs activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business of the operator. The
existence of an employment relation is not dependent on how the
worker is paid, but on the presence or absence of control over the
means and method of the work
c. Piece-rate Workers (Makati Haberdashery, Inc. v NLRC)
FACTS:
 Complainants are tailors, seamstress, sewers, basters
and plantsadoras of Haberdashery, paid on a piece-rate
basis with allowance if they report every 9:30 AM
 Complainants filed a complaint for underpayment of
wages, allowance, OT, HP SI Pay and other benefits
 Haberdashery dismissed them for alleged acceptance
from another
 Complainants filed for illegal dismissal
ISSUES: (1) WON ER-EE exists; (2) WON they are entitled to
monetary claims; and (3) WON they are illegally dismissed
RULINGS: (1) YES. The most important requisite of control is
indubitably present. For, the company directs the designation of the
 employees, and supervision is actively manifested in all aspects of the
work such as cutting, sewing and ironing; (2) YES. Because they are
proven as regular employees. For, as piece-rate workers they are
paid fixed amounts for performing their work irrespective of the time
consumed; and (3) NO. For, disciplinary sanctions upon an employee
for just and valid cause is within the rights of the ER (guilty of copying
of Barong designs)
d. Street-hired Cargadores (Caurdanetahan Piece Workers Union v.
Usec. Laguesma)
FACTS:
 Petitioners worked as cargadores for the respondent.
They were paid on piece rate basis
 Upon denial of some benefits, they formed a union , and
upon learning of such, respondent barred them from
working and were replaced by non-members; Thus, they
filed for certification of election with DOLE as well as a
complaint for illegal dismissal
 Respondent denies power of control for they are street-
hired workers, no supervision, nor tools and equipment
issued; further contended that ER-EE is negated, since
the workers also perform the same work to various rice
mills in Pangasinan
 LA: affirmed illegal dismissal; Laguesma: Affirmed LA
ISSUE: WON there was an ER-EE
RULING: YES. They performed work which is directly related,
necessary and vital to the operations of Corfarm. Moreover, Corfarm
did not even allege, much less prove, that petitioner’s members have
“substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment,
machineries, [and] work premises, among others. To be considered
as independent contractors. Furthermore, said respondent did not
contradict petitioner’s allegation that it paid wages directly to these
workers without the intervention of any third-party independent
contractor. It also wielded the power of dismissal over petitioners; in
fact, its exercise of this power was the progenitor of the illegal
dismissal case. Clearly, the workers are not independent contractors.
Assuming that they did work with other rice mills, this was required by
the imperative of meeting their basic needs.
e. Handicraft Workers on “pakyaw” system (Dy Keh Beng v. Int’l Labor)
FACTS:
 Dy Keh Beng (Dy) dismissed Solano & Tudla for their
union activities (ULP); thus, a cased filed before the CIR
 Dy did not know Tudla and Solano were employees
because they came to the establishment for pakyaw
basis under a separate contract.
 Dy’s reasons: (1) Solano did not stay long enough in the
establishment; (2) He leaves as soon as he was done; (3)
Orders were given to him by DY; (4) there were no orders
of there is nothing for him to do; (5) Only when his regular
workers could not perform the work, will he contact him;
and (6) his work was not continuous
ISSUE: WON there existed ER-EE
 RULING: YES. Although Solano worked on a piece basis.
Evidence showed that the work of Solano and Tudla was
continuous except in the event of illness. Although their
services were compensated on piece basis. The control
test calls for the existence of the right to control the
manner of doing the work, not actual exercise of the right
considering that Dy Key Beng is engaged in the
 manufacture of baskets known as “kaing”, those working
under Dy would be subject to Dy’s specifications such as
the size and quality of the “kaing”. And since the laborers
are done at Dy’s establishment, it could be inferred that
Dy could easily exercise control upon them.
7. Examples where employment relationship does not exist
a. Insurance company vis-à-vis commission agents
 here are built-in elements of control specific to an
insurance agency [that] do not amount to the elements of
control that characterize an employment relationship
governed by the Labor Code.
 controls aimed only at specific results in undertaking an
insurance agency, and are, in fact, parameters set by law
in defining an insurance agency and the attendant duties
and responsibilities an insurance agent must observe
and undertake. They do not reach the level of control into
the means and manner of doing an assigned task that
invariably characterizes an employment relationship, as
defined by labor law.
b. Insular Life v. NLRC
FACTS:
 Insular entered into a contract with Basiao authorizing the
latter to solicit for insurance policies; Later, entered into
another contract causing the latter to organize an agency
for the same purpose
 Insular terminated the second contract prompting the
termination of the first contract as well
 Basiao filed with MIL for recovery of alleged unpaid
commissions; Insular contends that he was just an
independent contractor and had no obligation to pay the
said commissions
 LA: ER-EE exists; NLRC: affirm LA
ISSUE: WON ER-EE exists
RULING: NO. Rules and regulations governing the conduct of the
business are provided in the Insurance Code and enforced by the
Insurance Commissioner. Therefore, it is expected for an insurance
company to promulgate rules to guide commission agents in selling
their policies. None of these really invades the agent’s contractual
prerogative to adapt his own methods of selling, at his own time and
convenience, hence he cannot justifiably be said to establish ER-EE
relationship between him and the company. Thus, Basiao is a
commission agent – independent contractor whose claim for unpaid
commissions and should have been litigated in an ordinary civil
action.
In determining the status of the management contract that one is an
employee of an insurance company:
1. Exclusivity of Service
2. Control of assignments and removal of agents
under private respondent’s unit.
3. Collection of premiums.
4. Furnishing of company facilities and materials.
c. Company v. Collecting Agents on Commission Basis
 Under the collection agency agreement, the collection
agents were paid their compensation for their services on
 a commission basis, particularly six percent of all
collection made by the collecting agent. From here, it is
clear that the agreement did not fix an amount for wages
nor the required number working hours the collecting
agents must put it.
 Considered as independent contractors. The company
does not pass the control test because the company has
no control over the collecting agent’s performance of
collection services.
 In order to pass, company should have control over the
end or result to be achieved but also over the means and
methods in achieving the end.
d. Singer Sewing Machine v. Drilon
 The last and most important element of the control test is
not satisfied by the terms and conditions of the contracts.
There is nothing in the agreement which implies control
by the Company not only over the end to be achieved but
also over the means and methods in achieving the end.
 The collection agent does his work “more or less at his
own pleasure” without a regular daily time frame imposed
on him.
e. Domestic Helpers, Personal Service
i. Apex Mining Company v. NLRC
 Considered a regular employee when working within the
premises of the business of the employer and in relation
to or in connection with its business.
 The criteria is the personal comfort and enjoyment of the
family of the employer in the home of said employer.
While it may be true that the nature of the work of a
house helper, domestic servant or laundrywoman in a
home or in a company staff house may be similar in
nature, the difference in their circumstances is that in the
former instance they are actually serving the family while
in the latter case, whether it is a corporation or a single
proprietorship engaged in business or industry or any
other agricultural or similar pursuit, service is being
rendered in the staff houses or within the premises of the
business of the employer. In such instance, they are
employees of the company or employer in the business
concerned entitled to the privileges of a regular
employee.
 There mere fact that the house helper or domestic
servant is working within the premises of the business of
the employer and in relation to or in connection with its
business, as in its staff houses for its guest or even for its
officers and employees, warrants the conclusion that
such house helper or domestic servant is a and should be
considered as a regular employee of the employer and
not as a mere family house helper or domestic servant as
contemplated in RULE XIII, Section 1(b), Book 3 of the
Labor Code.
ii. Ultra Villa Food Haus v. Genisto
 Private respondent is not an employee of Ultra Villa Food
Haus but a personal driver. There is a substantial
evidence to support such conclusion, namely:
 1. PR admission during the mandatory conference
that he was petitioner’s personal driver.
2. Copies of the Ultra Villa Food Haus payroll which
do not contain private respondent’s name.
3. Affidavits of employees attesting that PR was
never an employee of said establishment.

8. Family Members
 They are not covered by this title because the amounts
given by the employer by way of support may far exceed
the benefits to which the employee is entitled under the
provisions of law.

9. Workers paid by result (paid by piece or by task); Taxi drivers as regards 8

hours’ labor law

a. Makati Haberdashery, Inc. v. NLRC