You are on page 1of 12

Hugo vs lrta Facts: LRTA (Light rail transit authority, GOCC) constructed a light rail transit system pursuant

ursuant to its mandate under its charter, (EO 603). LRTA then entered into a 10 year agreement for the mgmt and operation of the metro manila light rail transit system with METRO. One of the stipulations is that METRO shall be free to employ such employees in order to carry out the agreement. METRO hired the petitioners here in. LRTA later purchased the shares of stocks of METRO, the two entities however continued with their distinct and separate juridical personalities. When the agreement expired, they renewed the same (expired on june 8, 1994) In july 25, 2000, the petitioners filed a notice of strike on account of deadlock in the negotiation for the new collective bargaining agreement between METRO and the union. The agreement between METRO AND LRTA expired on July 31, and did not renew it, it took over the management of the LRT system, hiring new employees. METRO thus considered their employees terminated (petitioners herein) Petitioners filed for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice against METRO AND LRTA, contending that the non renewal of the agreement is a scheme to terminate them who they (METRO) perceived as activists and troublemakers. LRTA averred that the labor arbiter and NLRC had no jurisdiction over it and that there is no employer-employee relationship between it and the petitioners On appeal, counterclaimed that LRTA is an indirect employer and that it is a necessary party.

Issue: w/n labor arbiter and NLRC has jurisdiction and if LRTA is an indirect employer of the petitioners Held: labor arbiter and NLRC do not have jurisdiction over LRTA. In Light rail transit authority vs venus, which has a similar backdrop, holds that LRTA, being a government owned or controlled corporation created by original charte, is beyond the reach of the DOLE, which has jurisdiction over workers in the private sector. Employees of petitioner METRO cannot be considered as employees of LRTA. The employees hired byMETRO are covered by Labor Code and are under the jurisdiction of the DOLE , where as the employees of petitioner LRTA, a GOCC with original charter are covered by civil service rules. Even if petitioner LRTA eventually purchased METRO in 1989, both parties maintained their separate and distinct juridical personality and allowed the agreement to proceed. METROs distinct corporate personality continued quiescently, separate and apart from the juridical personality of petitioner LRTA.

GSIS vs Jean Raoet Decembre 23, 2009 Facts: Respondents husband worked as an engineer at the national irrigation administration, he was tasked to review and check the structutral plan and the facilities. In 2000, He was diagnosed with hypertension, coronary artey disease and was confined. As the Gisis considered this as a work related condition, he was awarded 30 days temporary total disability benefits plus reimbursement of medical expenses incurred during treatment. In 2001, he died, causes of death are: immediate cause: cardiac arrest, antecedent cause: acute massive haemorrhage, underlying cause: bleeding peptic ulcer disease. The respondent therefore filed with GSIS a claim for income benefits accruing from the death of the husband, pursuant to PD 626. GSIS however, contended that the respondent failed to present any proof that peptic ulcer was the underlying cause for her husbands death. And that the sisease is not included in the occupational diseases listed in the amended rules on employees compensation, that proof must be shown that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by working conditions.

Issue: w/n respondent should receive income benefits Held: Section 1 (b), Rule III of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation implements P.D. 626 and requires that for sickness and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, it must be an "occupational disease" included in the list provided (Annex "A"), with the conditions attached to the listed sickness duly satisfied; otherwise, the claimant must show proof that the risk of contracting the illness is increased by his working conditions. In plainer terms, to be entitled to compensation, a claimant must show that the sickness is either: (1) a result of an occupational disease listed under Annex "A" of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation under the conditions Annex A sets forth; or (2) if not so listed, that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions Francisco had continuous exposure to prolonged emotional stress that would qualify his peptic ulcer a stress-driven ailment as a compensable cause of death. we do not require that the employment be the sole factor in the growth, development, or acceleration of a claimants illness to entitle him to the benefits provided for. It is enough that his employment contributed, even if only in a small degree, to the development of the disease. Article 4 of the Labor Code that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including their implementing rules and regulations, should be resolved in favor of labor. When the implementors fail to reach up to these standards, this Court, as guardian of the Constitution, necessarily has to take up the slack and order what we must, to ensure that the constitutional objectives are achieved. Human beings constitute the most valuable natural resources of the nation and therefore should merit the highest solicitude and the greatest protection from the State to relieve them from unbearable agony.

Article 184. Government guarantee. The Republic of the Philippines guarantees the benefits prescribed under this Title, and accepts general responsibility for the solvency of the State Insurance Fund. In case of deficiency, the same shall be covered by supplemental appropriations from the national government.

ARCO METAL PRODUCTS VS SAMARM-NAFLU (may 14, 2008) Facts: Respondent is the labor union of petitioners rank and file employees. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for receiving prorated payment of their benefits (13th month pay, bonus, leave encashment) claiming that on several occasions, petitioner did not prorate the payment if the same benefits to 7 employees who had not served for the full 12 months. According to the respondent the prorated payment violates the rule against diminution of benefits under article 100 of the labor code. Thus, prompting them to file a complaint before the national conciliation and mediation board. The petitioner on the other hand counterclaimed that the giving infull of the benefit was a mere error, that an employee must have rendered one year of service in order to be entitled to the full benefits provided by the CBA. Issue: w/n the respondent shall be entitled to full payment of benefits though they have not rendered one year of service Held: Any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by employees cannot be reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer.[14] The principle of non-diminution of benefits is founded on the Constitutional mandate to "protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare,[15] and to afford labor full protection.[16] Said mandate in turn is the basis of Article 4 of the Labor Code which states that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations shall be rendered in favor of labor. Jurisprudence is replete with cases which recognize the right of employees to benefits which were voluntarily given by the employer and which ripened into company practice. In the years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1999, 2002 and 2003, petitioner had adopted a policy of freely, voluntarily and consistently granting full benefits to its employees regardless of the length of service rendered. True, there were only a total of seven employees who benefited from such a practice, but it was an established practice nonetheless. Jurisprudence has not laid down any rule specifying a minimum number of years within which a company practice must be exercised in order to constitute voluntary company practice.[20] Thus, it can be six (6) years,[21] three (3) years,[22] or even as short as two (2) years.[23] Petitioner cannot shirk away from its responsibility by merely claiming that it was a mistake or an error, supported only by an affidavit of its manufacturing group head portions.

ROSARIO BROS INC VS OPLE 131 SCRA 72 (84) FACTS: Complainants were employed as tailors, pressers, stitchers and coatmakers in the tailoring department of the respondent. They are hired through a master cutter and the department head and upon the approval of the personnel department and the management. They report to the shop from Monday to Saturday and record their attendance. They are required to stay in the shop premises "for no less than 8 hours a day" unless no job is given them "after waiting for two or three hours" in which case, they are "allowed to leave." The employees (tailors, pressers and stitchers) are paid by piece per week according to the rates established by the company. They are registered as employees with the Social Security System for which premiums are deducted from their wages. The private respondents filed with the regional office of the dept of labor a complaint for violation of PD 851 (13th month pay) and PD 1123 (emergency living allowance) against herein petitioner. The petitioner contended that the employees are excluded from the coverage of PD 525, 851 and 1123 because of the nature of their employment, ther being no fixed number with regards to entry and exit and no fixed number of days of work, thus, no such relationship exists or has been created because it posits that it had no control over the work of the private individuals. Issue: w/n there is employer-employee relationship Held: Yes. The existence of ER-EE relationship is determined by: 1.the selection and engagement of employee 2.payment of wages 3.power of dismissal 4.power to control employees conduct Although the fourth element is the most important.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. In the case at bar, the selection and hiring of respondents was done by petitioner through the mastercutter. Respondents received their weekly wages from petitioner on piece-work basis within the meaning of theterm wage under the Labor Code, which defined as the remuneration or earnings. However, designated, whetherfixed on a time, task, piece or commission basis, 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.Petitioner also had the power to dismiss respondents, thus, the latters conduct was controlle d bypetitioner. Respondents were allowed to register with SSS and withholding taxes were also deducted from theirwages.


FACTS: Consulta was Managing Associate of Pamana. On 1987 she was issued a certification authorizing her to negotiate for and in behalf of PAMANA with the Federation of Filipino Civilian Employees Association. Consulta was able to secure an account with FFCEA in behalf of PAMANA. However, Consulta claimed that PAMANA did not pay her commission for the FFCEA account and filed a complaint for unpaid wages or commission. ISSUE: Whether or not Consulta was an employee of PAMANA. HELD: The SC held that Pamana was an independent agent and not an employee. The power of control in the four fold test is missing. The manner in which Consulta was to pursue her tasked activities was not subject to the control of PAMANA. Consulta failed to show that she worked definite hours. The amount of time, the methods and means, the management and maintenance of her sales division were left to her sound judgment. Finally, Pamana paid Consulta not for labor she performed but only for the results of her labor. Without results, Consultas labor was her own burden and loss. Her right to compensation, or to commission, depended on the tangible results of her work - whether she brought in paying recruits. The fact that the appointment required Consulta to solicit business exclusively for Pamana did not mean Pamana exercised control over the means and methods of Consultas work as the term control is understood in labor jurisprudence. Neither did it make Consulta an employee of Pamana. Pamana did not prohibit Consulta from engaging in any other business, or from being connected with any other company, for as long as the business or company did not compete with Pamanas business. The exclusivity clause was a reasonable restriction to prevent similar acts prejudicial to Pamanas business interest. Article 1306 of the Civil Code provides that [t]he contracting parties may establish such stipulation, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided that they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. There being no employer-employee relationship between Pamana and Consulta, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had no jurisdiction to entertain and rule on Consultas money claim. Consultas remedy is to file an ordinary civil action to litigate her claim Petition is dismissed.

BESA VS TRAJANO (DEC 29,1986) Respondent KAMPI filed a Petition for Certification Election. Petitioner opposed alleging that there is no ER-EE relationship between Besa and petitioners. These petitioners are shoe shiners paid on a commission basis. Thequestion of ER-EE relationship became a primordial consideration in resolving whether or not the subject shoeshiners have the juridical personality and standing to present a petition for certification as well as to vote therein. ISSUE: W/N ER-EE relationship exists betweem shoe shiners and Besa HELD: No.Shoe shiner is different from a piece worker: Piece Woker 1. paid for work accomplished 2. theemployer2. the employer pays his wages 3. paid for work accomplished without concern to the profit derived by employer 4. the employer supervises and controls hiswork Shoe shiner 1. contributes anything to the capital of theemployer 2. paid directly by his customer 3. the proceeds derived from the trade aredivided share with respondent BESA 4. respondent does not exercise control Thus, shoe shiners are not employees of the company, but are partners, because there is no control by theowner and shoe shiners have their own customers whom they charge a fee and divide the proceeds equally withthe owner. A basic factor underlying the exercise of rights under the Labor Code is the status of employment. It is important in the determination of who shall be included in a proposed bargaining unit because it is sine qua non. The fundamental and essential condition that a bargaining unit be composed of employees. Failure to establish this juridical relationship between the union members and the employer affects the legality of the union itself. It means ineligibility of the union members to present a petition for certification election as well as to vote therein.

EQUITABLE BANK VS NLRC FACTS 1. Private respondent Atty. Ricardo Sadac was appointed Vice-President for the Legal Department of petitioner bank by its then President, Manuel L. Morales, with a monthly salary of P8,000 plus an allowance of P4,500 and a Christmas bonus equivalent to a two-month salary. 2. The turning point in the relationship among the parties surfaced, when, on 26 June 1989, nine lawyers of the bank's Legal Department, who were all under private respondent, addressed a letter-petition to the Chairman of the Board of Directors, accusing private respondent of abusive conduct, inefficiency, mismanagement, ineffectiveness and indecisiveness. 3. One of the bank's directors, Heminio Banico was directed to look further into the matter and to determine a course of action for the best interest of the bank. 4. Banico concluded that the charge of abusive conduct is true and this is supported by overwhelming evidence. The charge of mismanagement is also supported by abundant evidence. 5. A memorandum was issued to private respondent stating that the Board of Directors has chosen the more compassionate option of waiting for the voluntary resignation of private respondent Sadac. 6. Reacting to the memorandum, private respondent addressed a letter to Board Chairman to the effect that the report of Mr. Banico contained libelous statements and requested for a full hearing by the Board of Directors so that he could clear his name. But to no avail. 7. The Board adopted a resolution terminating the services of private respondent in view of his belligerence and the Board's honest belief that the relationship between private respondent and petitioner bank was one of client and lawyer. 8. Private respondent was removed from his office occupancy in the bank and ordered disentitled, starting 10 August 1989, to any compensation and other benefits. ISSUE w/n there is an employer employee relationship between the respondent and petitioner HELD he existence of an employer-employee relationship is, itself, a factual question[45] well within the province of the NLRC. Considering, nevertheless, that its findings are at odds with the Labor Arbiter, the Court sees it fit to dwell a bit into the issue.[46] 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.
"It was complainant's understanding with respondent Morales that he would be appointed and assigned to the Legal Department as vice President with the same salary, privileges and benefits granted by the respondent bank to its ranking senior officers. He was not hired as lawyer on a retainership basis but as an officer of the bank.

Thus, the complainant was given an appointment as Vice President, Legal Department, effective August 1, 1981, with a monthly salary of P8,000.00, monthly allowance of P4,500.00, and the usual two months Christmas bonus based on basic salary likewise enjoyed by the other officers of the bank. Then, as part of the ongoing organization of the Legal Department, the position of General Counsel of the bank was created and extended to the complainant. In his more than eight years employment with the respondent bank, the complainant was given the usual payslips to evidence his monthly gross compensation.

SYCIP, GORRES, VELAYO AND CO, VS DE RAEDT (JUNE 16, 2009) Facts: Central cordillera agricultural programme (cecap) project was launched to be implemented by the Departnment of Agriculture (da). DA then contracted Travers morgan international ltd (tmi) to provide technical assistance for cecap. Then on july 1 1989, TMI and SGV entered into a subconsultancy- agreement for the SGV to undertake part of the technical assistance services requirements of the CECAP. Hence, SGV proposed qualified consultants, however, DA proposed the respondent whom they considered for the sociologist position. The respondent wrote SV expressing her conformity to the consultancy contract. While the CECAP was in progress, TMI received verbal and written complaints from the project staff regarding the respondents performance and working relations with them. TMI, conducted an investigation and directed SGV to withdraw the respondent from the CECAP. The respondent then filed a case against SGV for illegal dismissal. Issue: w/n the respondent was an employee of SGV and was illegally dismissed. Held: 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 employers 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. SGV had no discretion in the selection of De Raedt for the position of Sociologist in the CECAP. The selection was made by the TMI, upon recommendation of Gimenez of the DA, to be approved by the DA and the Commission. The engagement of De Raedt was merely coursed through SGV. Unlike an ordinary employee who receive basic monthly salaries, De Raedt received retainer fees and benefits such as housing and subsistence allowances and medical insurance. De Raedts services could be terminated on the ground of end of contract between the DA and TMI, and not on grounds under labor laws. Though the end of the contract between the DA and TMI was not the ground for the withdrawal of De Raedt from the CECAP, De Raedt was disengaged from the project upon the instruction of SGVs client, TMI. Most important of all, SGV did not exercise control over the means and methods by which De Raedt performed her duties as Sociologist. SGV did impose rules on De Raedt, but these were necessary to ensure SGVs faithful compliance with the terms and conditions of the Sub-Consultancy Agreement it entered into with TMI In sum, there existed no employer-employee relationship between the parties. De Raedt is an independent contractor, who was engaged by SGV to render services to SGVs client TMI, and ultimately to DA o n the CECAP project, regarding matters in the field of her special knowledge and training for a specific period of time.

BERNARTE VS PBA Facts: complainant was a referee of PBA , that he was made to sign contracts on a year to year basis, however, he 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. He felt that the dismissal was caused by his refusal to fix a game, he then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The respondent maintained that the complainant was not illegally dismissed because they were not employees of the PBA. Their respective contracts of retainer were not simpy renewed. Issue: w/n there is an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent Held: 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 employers 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 19 indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship. In this case, PBA admits repeatedly engaging petitioners 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 petitioners violation of its terms and conditions. The contractual stipulations do not pertain to, much less dictate, how and when petitioner will blow the whistle and make calls. On the contrary, they merely serve as rules of conduct or guidelines in order to maintain the integrity of the professional basketball league. 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 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.