This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
, Sampaguita Pictures, Inc., and Premiere Productions, Inc 1arecorporations, duly organized under the Philippine laws, engaged in the making of motion pictures andin the processing and distribution thereof. Petitioner companies employ musicians for the purpose of making music recordings for title music, background music, musical numbers, finale music and otherincidental music, without which a motion picture is incomplete.Ninety-five (95%) percent of all the musicians playing for the musical recordings of saidcompanies are members of the Guild. The Guild has no knowledge of the existence of any otherlegitimate labor organization representing musicians in said companies. Premised upon theseallegations, the Guild prayed that it be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agency for allmusicians working in the aforementioned companies. In their respective answers, the latter deniedthat they have any musicians as employees, and alleged that the musical numbers in the filing of thecompanies are furnished by independent contractors.The lower court sustained the Guild ’s theory. A reconsideration of the order complained of having been denied by the Court en banc,LVN Pictures, inc., and Sampaguita Pictures, Inc., filed thesepetitions for review for certiorari . ISSUE: Whether the musicians in question(Guild members) are “employees”of the petitioner filmcompanies. RULING: YES The Court agreed with the lower court’s decision , to wit:Lower court resorted to apply R.A. 875 and US Laws and jurisprudence from which saidAct was patterned after. (Since statutes are to be construed in the light of purposes achievedand the evils sought to be remedied). It ruled that the work of the musical director andmusicians is a functional and integral part of the enterprise performed at the same studio substatially under the direction and control of the company. In other words, to determine whether a person who performs work for another is thelatter's employee or an independent contractor, the National Labor Relations relies on 'theright to control' test . Under this test an employer-employee relationship exist where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end to
The musical directors have no such control over the musicians involved in the present case.(John Hancock Insurance Co.who had.be achieved. Local 612 108S.through the musical directors. ... the Board will hold them to be employees under the Act where the extent of theemployer's control over them indicates that the relationship is in reality one of employment.). . in which. by reason of said control. through the motion picture director. et al. in order to suit the music they are playing tothe picture which is being flashed on the screen. is illustrated in the case of Gilchrist Timber Co. 108. The film companies. Express Co. Labor Dispute Collective Bargaining. (3) by furnishing transportation and meals to musicians. the order appealed from is hereby affirmed.. v. The film companies. 2375-D.) The decisive nature of said control over the "means to be used".where the person for whom the services are performed reserves a right to controlnot only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end . Teller. (United Insurance Company.It is well settled that "an employer-employee relationship exists . but also the manner and means to be used in reaching the end. Vol. the power to hire and fire said workers. Th film companies summon the musicians to work. Said musical directors control neither the music to be played. . nor the musicians playing it. . notwithstanding the intervention of analleged independent contractor. and(4) by supervising and directing in detail..The right of control of the film company over the musicians is shown (1) by calling themusicians through 'call slips' in 'the name of the company. WHEREFORE." (Alabama Highway Express Co. (2) by arranging schedules in itsstudio for recording sessions. . fix the date. 2d. and exercise. provide the transportation to and from the studio. Notwithstanding that the employees are called independent contractors'. 350.. NLRB No.). the time and the place of work. . 115. 1940. not themusical directors. theperformance of the musicians before the camera. the employer-employee relationshipwas held to exist between the management and the workers. through the musical directors. The film companies furnish mealat dinner time. The aforementioned control over the means to be used" in reading the desired end is possessed and exercised by the film companies over the musicians in the cases before us.
A mastercutter distributed job orders equally. ISSUE: WN an employer-employee relationship exists between petitioner and private respondents HELD: Yes. minus the withholding tax of BIR.power to control employee’s conductAlthough the fourth element is the most important. However. They were required to report for work and stay in the shop for no less than 8 hours a day. thus. OpleFACTS: Private respondents are tailors hired by the petitioner in its tailoring department. whetherfixed on a time. Respondents were allowed to register with SSS and withholding taxes were also deducted from theirwages. the latter’s conduct was controlled bypetitioner.Rosario Bros v. Respondents received their weekly wages from petitioner on piecework basis within the meaning of theterm “wage” under the Labor Code. They were registered with SSS as employees of petitioner. payable by an employer to an employee under a written orunwritten contact for work done or to be done or for services rendered or to be rendered.An independent contractor is the one who exercises independent employment and contracts to do a pieceof work according to his own methods without being subjected to control of his employer except as to the result of his work.Private respondents filed a complaint for violation of PD 851(13th month pay) and PD 525 (EmergencyLiving Allowance) against petitioner. piece or commission basis. which defined as “the remuneration or earnings. The existence of ER-EE relationship is determined by:1.payment of wages3.power of dismissal4. They were paid weeklywages on piece-work basis. the selection and hiring of respondents was done by petitioner through the mastercutter.Wherefore. petition is dismissed . designated.In the case at bar. task.Petitioner also had the power to dismiss respondents.the selection and engagement of employee2.
Manila Golf & Country Club. a domesticcorporation. I n the case before the SS . vs IAC and F ermin Llamar (1994) G.R.They alleged that although the petitioners were employees of the Manila Golf and Country Club. Inc. 64948 F acts: Respondents were caddies and employees of Manila Golf & Country Club who originally filed a petition withthe S ocial S ecurity Commission ( SS C) for coverage and availment of benefits under the S ocial S ecurity A ct. the latter had not registered them as such with the SSS ..
Court agree that thegroup rotation system so -called.and hence. caddies must submit to some supervision of their conduct while enjoying theprivilege of pursuing their occupation within the premises and grounds of whatever club they do their workin. showing that the Club has not the measure of control over theincidents of the caddies' work and compensation that an employer would possess. a caddy who is absent when his turn number is called simply losing his turn to serve . It seems to the Court. that as such caddies.on the other hand. In the very nature of things. tostay away for as long they like. the Clubmay do in any case even absent any breach of the rules. the respondent Club alleged that the petitioners. For all that is made to appear. they were not the Club's employees. that theintendment of such fact is to the contrary. and without violating any right to work on their part. however. wereallowed into the Club premises to render services as such to the individual members and guests playing theClub's golf course and who themselves paid for such services. is less a measure of employer control than an assurance that the work isfairly distributed. they work for the club to which they attach themselves on sufferance but.C.The IAC would point to the fact that the Club suggests the rate of fees payable by the players to the caddiesas still another indication of the latter's status as employees. It is not pretended that if found remiss in the observance of said rules. it may be supposed. All these considerations clash frontally with the concept of employment. caddies by occupation. also without having to observe any working hours. free to leave anytime they please. anydiscipline may be meted them beyond barring them from the premises which. the petitioners were notsubject to the direction and control of the Club as regards the manner in which they performed their work. Issue: WON there exist an employer -employee relationship between the cadies and the Golf Club? Held: No existence of employer -employee relationship.
Batangas. He maywork with any other golf club or he may seek employment a caddy or otherwise with any entity or individualwithout restriction by petitioner. South Cotabato. Pampanga. INC. vs. as pointed out by petitioner which was never refuted that: has no means of compelling thepresence of a caddy. respectively. or in Magalang. Respondents’ work entailed tending to the cattle during transportation. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (5th DIVISION). and housed in. fattening and distribution of live cattle for sale to meat dealers. and ALBERT CABAN GR No. meat processors. or Manila. It included feeding and frequently showering the cattle to prevent dehydration .andbeing assigned instead the last number for the day. CHIQUITO BASTIDA. In turn. Acaddy is not required to exercise his occupation in the premises of petitioner. production. for fattening until the cattle individually reach the market weight of 430 to 450 kilograms. 1994. petitioner’s farms in Polomolok. 2009 FACTS: Petitioner Dealco Farms is a corporation engaged in the business of importation. DEALCO FARMS vs.Moreover. 153192 January 30. NLRC DEALCO FARMS. canned good manufacturers and other dealers in Mindanao and in Metro Manila. these imported cattle are transported to. as escorts or "comboys" for the transit of live cattle from General Santos City to Manila. Subic. Respondents Albert Caban and Chiquito Bastida were hired by petitioner on June 25. Petitioner imports cattle by the boatload from Australia into the ports of General Santos City. 1993 and October 29. meat traders.
respondents were each paid P1.00.500. and (d) respondents likewise failed to complete the one-year service period. ISSUE: Whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondents and therefore the latter’s termination was illegal. (c) in the alternative. Upon arrival in Manila. respondents usually made two trips. The 12day period is occasionally extended when petitioner’s customers are delayed in receiving the cattle. Respondents attempted to meet with petitioner but failed. For every round trip travel which lasted an average of 12 days. set forth in Article 280 of the Labor Code. On the whole.e. whether continuous or broken.. but no reason was given for their replacement. HELD: . respondents were told by Dealco’s hepe de viaje that their replacement had been effected immediately. respondents’ work ceases.and to develop heat resistance. thereby limiting the escort or "comboy" activity for which respondents were employed. respondents are free from the control and supervision of the cattle owner since the latter is interested only in the result thereof. Petitioner denies the existence of an employer-employee relationship with respondents. (b) in the performance of work on board the ship. the cattle are turned over to and received by the duly acknowledged buyers or customers of petitioner. not only to petitioner. as petitioner’s shipments were substantially reduced in 1998-1999. respondents ensured that the cattle would be safe from harm or death caused by a cattle fight or any such similar incident. 1999. In a month. claiming that: (a) respondents are independent contractors who offer "comboy" services to various shippers and traders of cattle. i. respondents can only be considered as casual employees performing work not necessary and desirable to the usual business or trade of petitioner. at which point. cattle fattening to market weight and production. On August 19.
it also appears that respondents had rendered service for more than one year doing the same task repeatedly. the control test merely calls for the existence of the right to control. (2) the payment of wages. but employees of petitioner. The presence of the four (4) elements in the determination of an employer-employee relationship has been clearly established by the facts and evidence on record.Complainant’s task of escorting the livestock shipped to Manila. jurisprudentially considered the most essential element of the four. The branch has noticed that the preparation of the shipment of cattle. even assuming they were casual employees they may be considered regular employees with respect to the activity in which they were employed and their employment shall continue while such activity exists (last par. (3) the power to dismiss. The element of control. Hogs do not swim. and making a report upon their return to General Santos that the cattle shipped and which reached Manila actually tallied were all indicators of instructions. a part of the scheme of the operation. More importantly. and (4) the power to control the employees’ conduct. is an activity which is necessary and desirable in the usual business or trade of respondent. The caretaker is a component of the business. thus. This we agree on all . starting with the admissions of petitioner who acknowledged the engagement of respondents as escorts of their cattles shipped from General Santos to Manila. and not necessarily the exercise thereof. taking care of the livestock in transit. the power of control is the most important element. In the case at bench. has not been demolished by any evidence to the contrary. of Art. 280)." Of the four.00 per trip. In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties. they are shipped. More. and the compensation of the latter at a fee of P1. or the so -called "control test.500. both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC examined and weighed the circumstances against the four-fold test which has the following elements: (1) the power to hire. supervision and control by [petitioner] on *respondents’+ performance of work as escorts for which they were hired. manning and feeding them while in transit. It is of judicial notice that the bulk of the market for livestock of big livestock raisers such as respondent is in Manila. both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC were one in their conclusion that respondents were not independent contractors.
163700 PETITIONER Charlie Jao alleged that respondents BCC Product Sales. G. It is illogical for [petitioner] to argue that the shipment was not necessary or desirable to their business. SFC had posted him as its comptroller in BCC to oversee BCC’s finance and business operations and to look after SFC’s interests or investments in BCC. As respondents pointed out. Considering that we have sustained the Labor Arbiter’s and the NLRC’s finding of an employer employee relationship between the parties. 11. Respondent BCC countered that petitioner was not its employee but that of Sobien Food Corp. indeed. and nobody else’s. its major creditor and supplier. it was implausible for SFC to still post him to oversee and supervise the collections of accounts receivables due from BCC beyond December 1995 if.R. as these were based on the finding that respondents were dismissed without just or authorized cause. The Supreme Court’s (SC) perusal of the affidavit of petitioner compels a conclusion similar to that reached by the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Labor Arbiter to the effect that the affidavit supported the contention that petitioner had really worked in BCC as SFC’s representative. . It does seem more natural and more believable that petitioner’s affidavit was referring to his employment by SFC even while he was reporting to BCC as a comptroller in behalf of SFC. Which contention is more meritorious? Ruling: That of BCC. Inc. 19. BCC Products Sales and Terrance Ty. 1995 to the effect that petitioner had illegally appropriated some checks without authority from BCC. The livestock shipment would cost thousands of pesos and the certainty of it reaching its destination would be the only thing any operator would consider at all time and under all circumstances. we are not wont to dist urb the award of separation pay. On Oct. the security guards of BCC barred him from entering its premises.fours. how could he still efficiently perform in behalf of SFC the essential responsibility to “oversee and supervise collections” at BCC? Surely. 1995. as he insisted. as their business was mainly livestock production. claims for COLA and union service fees fixed at 10% of the total monetary award. Should losses of a shipment occur due to respondents’ neglect these would still be petitioners’ loss. Given the patent animosity and strained relations between him and respondents in such circumstances. we likewise sustain the administrative bodies’ finding of respondents’ illegal dismissal. Accordingly. (BCC) and Terrance Ty employed him as a comptroller. (SFC). We note that petitioner executed the affidavit in March 1996 to refute a statement Ty himself made in his own affidavit dated Dec. because they were undeniably the owners of the cattle escorted by respondents. Charlie Jao vs. respondents would have vigorously objected to any arrangement with SFC involving him. BCC had already illegally dismissed him and had even prevented him from entering the premises of BCC.
and Terrance Ty. Tongko appealed to the Supreme Court. The employeremployee relationship is established by the four-fold test. the same period when he actually worked as comptroller in BCC (Charlie Jao vs. Naturally. Manulife claims otherwise insisting that he was an agent. as follows: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee. The significance of this finding is that if it is found that no such relationship exists. On appeal to the CA. This was reversed by the NLRC. . The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case not finding any employer-employee relationship. the circumstances petitioner adverted to in his March 1996 affidavit concerned those occurring before December 11. 163700. the labor courts have no jurisdiction over this case.R. and (d) the employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct. 2012) TONGCO VS MANUFACTURERS LIFE The case arose from a complaint for illegal dismissal with various claims filed by Tongko against Manulife. Hence. This showing would aid in fending off the criminal charge respondents filed against him arising from his mishandling of the checks. Tongko alleged that he was an employee of the company since the latter exercised control over him. (c) the power of dismissal. G. BCC Products Sales Inc.Petitioner thereby sought to show that he had the authority to receive the checks pursuant to the arrangements between SFC and BCC. Of course. 1995. (b) the payment of wages. No. the latter ruled in favor of Manulife finding no employer-employee relationship. April 18. Central to the resolution of the Supreme Court in the appeal was the disquisition on the existence of employer-employee relationship.
” In short. More importantly. Certainly. the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tongko which prompted Manulife to file its Motion for Reconsideration. Applying said standard. Manulife’s evidence establishes the fact that Tongko was tasked to perform administrative duties that establishes his employment with Manulife. The Court accorded much weight on the various codes of conduct that Tongko had to observe pursuant to the agency agreement. the fact that Tongko was an employee of Manulife may already be established. the Court held that Tongko was an employee of Manulife since the latter had the power of control over the former. the Supreme Court held that if the specific rules and regulations that are enforced against insurance agents or managers are such that would directly affect the means and methods by which such agents or managers would achieve the objectives set by the insurance company. these requirements controlled the means and methods by which Tongko was to achieve the company’s goals. they are employees of the insurance company. with the company regulations and requirements alone.As foundation for its decision. It held: “Thus. .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.