G.R. No.

L-29590 September 30, 1982
PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA
and VICENTE GARCIA, respondents.
FACTS:
Respondent Garcia started working for the company in 1922 as a copra carrier. In 1931, he was promoted to
foreman with 21 or 22 men working under him. By 1948, these men were employed under pakiao arrangements
but the company paid the workers directly and the function of their foreman insofar as wages were concerned was
to distribute the money. The pakiao workers unloaded copra from trucks or carriers, stored it in the company
warehouses and delivered copra from the warehouses to the company's Mill Day Bin. In 1955, the pakiao
arrangement were formalized in writing through a series of written agreement and Garcia, the former copra
carrier and foremen, was given the authority to choose and hire the men to do the work assigned to him. Instead
of the company paying the workers directly with Garcia merely distributing their wages, the work was
compensated on a volume basis at so many centavos per metric ton handled by all of them in the various phases of
the job - receipt, storage, and distribution of copra - with the money being given to Garcia.
ISSUE:
Whether the public respondents are employees of the petitioner-appellant.
HELD:
Copra is the basic raw material of the petitioner-appellant's business. The company must have, and the facts show
that it has, positive and direct control over the handling of copra immediately prior to its being fed into the
manufacturing process. The conveyor is owned by the company. The load it may carry and the time and manner of
its operation are controlled by the appellant. A company employee ordered the supposed independent contractor
where to store copra, when to bring out copra, how much to load and where, and what class of copra to handle.
The appellant limited the number of workers which Mr. Garcia could hire to assure that statutory minimum wages
were paid from the lump sum payments, given for the "pakiao " work. Mr. Garcia had no office of his own. He had
no independent funds to pay the men working under him. He could not work for any other company but was
completely dependent on the appellant. Mr. Vicente Garcia denies that he is an independent contractor. The
control test is more than satisfactorily met.







G.R. No. L-53590 July 31, 1984
ROSARIO BROTHERS INC. (MANILA COD DEPARTMENT STORE), petitioner,
vs.
HON. BLAS F. OPLE, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, and LEONARDO LOVERIA, MARIETTA GALUT, LINDA
TAPICERIA, JESUS S. OLIVER, CLARITA SANGLE, RICARDO ROXAS, ANTONIO MABUTOL, LUZ BAYNO, NESTOR SANCHEZ, TITO
CASTALEDA, EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, MANUEL MEJES, FRANCISCA TAPICERIA, EDITHA BAYNO, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS:
Private respondents are tailors, pressers, stitchers and similar workers hired by the petitioner in its tailoring
department (Modes Suburbia). Some had worked there since 1969 until their separation on January 2, 1978. For
their services, they were paid weekly wages on piece-work basis, minus the withholding tax per Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR) rules. Further, they were registered with the Social Security System (SSS) as employees of petitioner
and premiums were deducted from their wages; they were also members of the Avenida-Cubao Manila COD
Department Store Labor Union which has a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the company and; they were
required to report for work from Monday through Saturday and to stay in the tailoring shop for no less than eight
(8) hours a day, unless no job order was given them after waiting for two to three hours, in which case, they may
leave and may come back in the afternoon. Their attendance was recorded through a bundy clock just like the
other employees of petitioner. A master cutter distributes job orders equally, supervises the work and sees to it
that they were finished as soon as possible.
ISSUE:
Whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the petitioner and the private respondents.
HELD:
In the case at bar, as found by the public respondent, the selection and hiring of private respondents were done by
the petitioner, through the master cutter of its tailoring department who was a regular employee. The procedure
was modified when the employment of personnel in the tailoring department was made by the management itself
after the applicants' qualifications had been passed upon by a committee of four. Later, further approval by the
Personnel Department was required.
Petitioner had the power to dismiss private respondents, as shown by the various memoranda issued for strict
compliance by private respondents, violations of which, in extreme cases, are grounds for outright dismissal.
Private respondents' conduct in the performance of their work was controlled by petitioner, such as: (1) they were
required to work from Monday through Saturday; (2) they worked on job orders without waiting for the deadline;
(3) they were to observe cleanliness in their place of work and were not allowed to bring out tailoring shop
patterns; and (4) they were subject to quality control by petitioner.





G.R. No. L-48645 January 7, 1987
"BROTHERHOOD" LABOR UNITY MOVEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al. vs. HON. RONALDO B. ZAMORA
FACTS:
The petitioners are workers who have been employed at the San Miguel Parola Glass Factory since 1961, averaging
about seven (7) years of service at the time of their termination. They worked as "cargadores" or "pahinante" at
the SMC Plant loading, unloading, piling or palleting empty bottles and woosen shells to and from company trucks
and warehouses. At times, they accompanied the company trucks on their delivery routes.
It was alleged that respondents ordered the individual complainants to disaffiliate from the complainant union;
and that management dismissed the individual complainants when they insisted on their union membership.
On their part, respondents moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that the complainants are not
and have never been employees of respondent company but employees of the independent contractor; that
respondent company has never had control over the means and methods followed by the independent contractor
who enjoyed full authority to hire and control said employees.

ISSUE:
Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists between petitioners-members of the (BLUM) and SMC.
HELD:
Firmly establishing respondent SMC's role as employer is the control exercised by it over the petitioners that is,
control in the means and methods/manner by which petitioners are to go about their work, as well as in
disciplinary measures imposed by it.











G.R. No. L-72654-61 January 22, 1990
ALIPIO R. RUGA, JOSE PARMA, ELADIO CALDERON, LAURENTE BAUTU, JAIME BARBIN, NICANOR FRANCISCO,
PHILIP CERVANTES and ELEUTERIO BARBIN, petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and DE GUZMAN FISHING ENTERPRISES and/or ARSENIO DE
GUZMAN, respondents.
FACTS:
Private respondent's regular business of "trawl" fishing, petitioners were paid on percentage commission basis in
cash by one Mrs. Pilar de Guzman, cashier of private respondent. As agreed upon, they received thirteen percent
(13%) of the proceeds of the sale of the fish-catch if the total proceeds exceeded the cost of crude oil consumed
during the fishing trip, otherwise, they received ten percent (10%) of the total proceeds of the sale. The
patron/pilot, chief engineer and master fisherman received a minimum income of P350.00 per week while the
assistant engineer, second fisherman, and fisherman-winchman received a minimum income of P260.00 per week.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the fishermen-crew members of the trawl fishing vessel are employees of its owner-operator, De
Guzman Fishing Enterprises.
HELD:
The hiring of petitioners to perform work which is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of private
respondent for a period of 8-15 years since 1968 qualify them as regular employees within the meaning of Article
281 of the Labor Code as they were indeed engaged to perform activities usually necessary or desirable in the
usual fishing business or occupation of private respondent.












G.R. Nos. 83380-81 November 15, 1989
MAKATI HABERDASHERY, INC. vs. NLRC

FACTS:
Individual complainants, private respondents herein, have been working for petitioner Makati Haberdashery, Inc.
as tailors, seamstress, sewers, basters (manlililip) and "plantsadoras". They are paid on a piece-rate basis except
Maria Angeles and Leonila Serafina who are paid on a monthly basis. In addition to their piece-rate, they are given
a daily allowance of three (P 3.00) pesos provided they report for work before 9:30 a.m. everyday.
ISSUE:
Whether there exists an employer-employee relationship.
HELD:
The facts at bar indubitably reveal that the most important requisite of control is present. As gleaned from the
operations of petitioner, when a customer enters into a contract with the haberdashery or its proprietor, the latter
directs an employee who may be a tailor, pattern maker, sewer or "plantsadora" to take the customer's
measurements, and to sew the pants, coat or shirt as specified by the customer. Supervision is actively manifested
in all these aspects — the manner and quality of cutting, sewing and ironing.
It is evident in the memorandum, that the petitioner has reserved the right to control its employees not only as to
the result but also the means and methods by which the same are to be accomplished. That private respondents
are regular employees is further proven by the fact that they have to report for work regularly from 9:30 a.m. to
6:00 or 7:00 p.m. and are paid an additional allowance of P 3.00 daily if they report for work before 9:30 a.m. and
which is forfeited when they arrive at or after 9:30 a.m.












G.R. No. 111870 June 30, 1994
AIR MATERIAL WING SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, et al., respondents.
FACTS:
Private respondent Luis S. Salas was appointed "notarial and legal counsel" for petitioner Air Material Wings
Savings and Loan Association (AMWSLAI) in 1980. The appointment was renewed for three years in an
implementing order that he is reappointed as Notarial and Legal Counsel by the association for another term of 3
years. The petitioner issued another order reminding Salas of the approaching termination of his legal services
under their contract. This prompted Salas to lodge a complaint against AMWSLAI for separation pay, vacation and
sick leave benefits, cost of living allowances, refund of SSS premiums, moral and exemplary damages, payment of
notarial services rendered from February 1, 1980 to March 2, 1990, and attorney's fees.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Salas can be considered an employee of the petitioner company.
HELD:
The terms and conditions set out in the letter-contract entered into by the parties on January 23, 1987, clearly
show that Salas was an employee of the petitioner. His selection as the company counsel was done by the board of
directors in one of its regular meetings. The petitioner paid him a monthly compensation/retainer's fee for his
services. Though his appointment was for a fixed term of three years, the petitioner reserved its power of dismissal
for cause or as it might deem necessary for its interest and protection. No less importantly, AMWSLAI also
exercised its power of control over Salas by defining his duties and functions as its legal counsel, to wit: To act on
all legal matters pertinent to his Office; To seek remedies to effect collection of overdue accounts of members
without prejudice to initiating court action to protect the interest of the association; To defend by all means all suit
against the interest of the Association.
The claims for the notarial fee should be dismissed because it arose out of Salas' employment contract with the
petitioner which assigned him the duty to notarize loan agreements and other legal documents.








G.R. No. 120969 January 22, 1998
Maraguinot, Jr. vs. NLRC
FACTS:
Petitioners were employed by private respondents (Viva). Maraguinot, Jr. as electrician and Enero as shooting
member, petitioners’ tasks consisted of loading, unloading and arranging movie equipment in the shooting area as
instructed by the cameraman, returning the equipment to Viva Films’ warehouse, assisting in the “fixing” of the
lighting system, and performing other tasks that the cameraman and/or director may assign. Petitioners sought
the assistance of their supervisor, Mrs. Alejandria Cesario, to facilitate their request that private respondents
adjust their salary in accordance with the minimum wage law. In June 1992, Mrs. Cesario informed petitioners
that Mr. Vic del Rosario would agree to increase their salary only if they signed a blank employment contract.
Refusing to sign, private respondent terminated their service.
Petitioners thus sued for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter and thus, it declared the complainants were
illegally dismissed. The NLRC, in reversing the Labor Arbiter, then concluded that herein petitioners were project
employees.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioners were project employees.
HELD:
A project employee or a member of a work pool may acquire the status of a regular employee when:

a. there is a continuous rehiring of project employees even after a cessation of project ;
b. the tasks performed by the alleged project employee are vital and necessary to the business of
employer.
In the instant case, the evidence on record shows that petitioner Enero was employed for a total of two (2) years
and engaged in at least eighteen (18) projects, while petitioner Maraguinot was employed for some three (3) years
and worked on at least twenty-three (23) projects. Moreover, as petitioners’ tasks involved, among other chores,
the loading, unloading and arranging of movie equipment in the shooting area as instructed by the cameramen,
returning the equipment to the Viva Films’ warehouse, and assisting in the “fixing” of the lighting system, it may
not be gainsaid that these tasks were vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the
employer.
The cessation of construction activities at the end of every project is a foreseeable suspension of work. No
compensation can be demanded from the employer because the stoppage of operations at the end of the project
and before the start of a new one is regular and expected by both parties to the labor relations. Similar to the case
of regular employees, the employment is not severed but merely being suspended. The employees are, strictly
speaking, not separated from service but merely on leave of absence without pay until they are re-employed.



G.R. No. 117495 May 29, 1997
NELLY ACTA MARTINEZ, petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
FACTS:
The private respondents alleged that they have been regular drivers of Raul Martinez since 20 October 1989
earning no less than P400.00 per day driving twenty-four (24) hours every other day. For the duration of
employment, not once did they receive a 13th month pay. After the death of Raul Martinez, petitioner took over
the management and operation of the business. On or about 22 June 1992 she informed them that because of
difficulty in maintaining the business, she was selling the units together with the corresponding franchises.
However, petitioner did not proceed with her plan; instead, she assigned the units to other drivers.
ISSUE:
Whether there is employer-employee relationship in “boundary system”
HELD:
The Court ruled that the relationship between jeepney owners/operators on one hand and jeepney drivers on the
other under the boundary system is that of employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee. Therein we explained
that in the lease of chattels the lessor loses complete control over the chattel leased although the lessee cannot be
reckless in the use thereof, otherwise he would be responsible for the damages to the lessor. In the case of
jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers, the former exercise supervision and control over the latter. The
fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages but get only that in excess of the so-called "boundary" they pay to
the owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them from that of employer and
employee. The doctrine is applicable by analogy to the present case. Thus, private respondents were employees of
Raul Martinez because they had been engaged to perform activities which were usually necessary or desirable in
the usual business or trade of the employer.









G.R. No. 119268 February 23, 2000
ANGEL JARDIN, DEMETRIO CALAGOS, URBANO MARCOS, ROSENDO MARCOS, LUIS DE LOS ANGELES, JOEL
ORDENIZA and AMADO CENTENO, petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) and GOODMAN TAXI (PHILJAMA INTERNATIONAL, INC.)
respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioners were drivers of private respondent, Philjama International Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in the
operation of "Goodman Taxi." Petitioners used to drive private respondent's taxicabs every other day on a 24-hour
work schedule under the boundary system. Under this arrangement, the petitioners earned an average of P400.00
daily. Nevertheless, private respondent admittedly regularly deducts from petitioners, daily earnings the amount
of P30.00 supposedly for the washing of the taxi units.
ISSUE:
Whether an employer-employee relationship exists in the case.
HELD:
The Court ruled that the relationship between jeepney owners/operators on one hand and jeepney drivers on the
other under the boundary system is that of employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee. We explained that in the
lease of chattels, the lessor loses complete control over the chattel leased although the lessee cannot be reckless
in the use thereof, otherwise he would be responsible for the damages to the lessor. In the case of jeepney
owners/operators and jeepney drivers, the former exercise supervision and control over the latter. The
management of the business is in the owner's hands. The owner as holder of the certificate of public convenience
must see to it that the driver follows the route prescribed by the franchising authority and the rules promulgated
as regards its operation. Now, the fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages but get only that in excess of the
so-called "boundary" they pay to the owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them
from that of employer and employee. We have applied by analogy the abovestated doctrine to the relationships
between bus owner/operator and bus conductor, auto-calesa owner/operator and driver, and recently between
taxi owners/operators and taxi drivers.
22
Hence, petitioners are undoubtedly employees of private respondent
because as taxi drivers they perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or
trade of their employer.







G.R. No. 164652
DUMPIT-MURILLO vs. ABC
FACTS:
Dumpit was hired by ABC as a newscaster in 1995. Her contract with the TV station was repeatedly renewed until
1999. She then wrote Jose Javier (VP for News and Public Affairs of ABC) advising him of her intention to renew the
contract. Javier did not respond. Dumpit then demanded reinstatement as well as her backwages, service incentive
leave pays and other monetary benefits.ABC said they could only pay her backwages but her other claims had no
basis as she was not entitled thereto because she is considered as a talent and not a regular employee.
Dumpit sued ABC. The Labor Arbiter ruled against Dumpit. The National Labor Relations Commission reversed the
LA. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and ruled that as per the contract between ABC and Dumpit, Dumpit is
a fixed term employee.
ISSUE:
Whether there is an employer-employee relationship.
HELD:
Petitioner was a regular employee under contemplation of law. The practice of having fixed-term contracts in the
industry does not automatically make all talent contracts valid and compliant with labor law. The assertion that a
talent contract exists does not necessarily prevent a regular employment status.
The duties of petitioner as enumerated in her employment contract indicate that ABC had control over the work of
petitioner. Aside from control, ABC also dictated the work assignments and payment of petitioner’s wages. ABC
also had power to dismiss her. All these being present, clearly, there existed an employment relationship between
petitioner and ABC.
In the case at bar, it does not appear that the employer and employee dealt with each other on equal terms.
Understandably, the petitioner could not object to the terms of her employment contract because she did not want to lose
the job that she loved and the workplace that she had grown accustomed to,1[38] which is exactly what happened when
she finally manifested her intention to negotiate. Being one of the numerous newscasters/broadcasters of ABC and desiring
to keep her job as a broadcasting practitioner, petitioner was left with no choice but to affix her signature of conformity on
each renewal of her contract as already prepared by private respondents; otherwise, private respondents would have
simply refused to renew her contract. Patently, the petitioner occupied a position of weakness vis-à-vis the employer.
Moreover, private respondents’ practice of repeatedly extending petitioner’s 3-month contract for four years is a
circumvention of the acquisition of regular status. Hence, there was no valid fixed-term employment between petitioner
and private respondents.






G.R. No. L-21278 December 27, 1966
FEATI UNIVERSITY, petitioner,
vs.
HON. JOSE S. BAUTISTA, Presiding Judge of the Court of Industrial Relations and FEATI UNIVERSITY FACULTY
CLUB-PAFLU, respondents.
FACTS:
The private respondent wrote a letter to president of petitioner informing her of the organization of the Faculty
Club into a registered labor union. President of the Faculty Club sent another letter containing twenty-six demands
that have connection with the employment of the members of the Faculty Club by the University, and requesting
an answer within ten days from receipt thereof. The President of the University answered the two letters,
requesting that she be given at least thirty days to study thoroughly the different phases of the demands.
Meanwhile counsel for the University, to whom the demands were referred, wrote a letter to the President of the
Faculty Club demanding proof of its majority status and designation as a bargaining representative. President of
the Faculty Club filed a notice of strike with the Bureau of Labor alleging as reason therefore the refusal of the
University to bargain collectively. The parties were called to conferences but efforts to conciliate them failed.
Members of the Faculty Club declared a strike and established picket lines in the premises of the University,
resulting in the disruption of classes in the University. President of the Philippines certified to the Court of
Industrial Relations the dispute between the management of the University and the Faculty Club pursuant to the
provisions of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 875.

ISSUE:
Whether or not FEATI is an employer within the purview of the Industrial Peace Act.
HELD:
The Supreme Court denied the petition. Based on RA 875 Section 2(c) The term employer include any person
acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly, but shall not include any labor organization (otherwise
than when acting as an employer) or any one acting in the capacity or agent of such labor organization.
In this case, the University is operated for profit hence included in the term of employer. Professors and
instructors, who are under contract to teach particular courses and are paid for their services, are employees
under the Industrial Peace Act.
Professors and instructors are not independent contractors. university controls the work of the members of its
faculty; that a university prescribes the courses or subjects that professors teach, and when and where to teach;
that the professors work is characterized by regularity and continuity for a fixed duration; that professors are
compensated for their services by wages and salaries, rather than by profits; that the professors and/or instructors
cannot substitute others to do their work without the consent of the university; and that the professors can be laid
off if their work is found not satisfactory. All these indicate that the university has control over their work; and
professors are, therefore, employees and not independent contractors.