You are on page 1of 2

GR NO.

59299
HIJOS DE F. ESCAO INC., and PIER 8 ARRASTRE AND STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC., petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WORKINGMEN (NOWM)
PSSLU-TUCP and ROLANDO VILLALOBOS, respondents.
Private respondent National Organization of Workingmen ("NOWM") PSSLU-TUCP is a labor organization that counts among
its members a majority of the laborers of petitioner Pier 8 Arrastre & Stevedoring Services, Inc. ("PIER 8 A&S") consisting,
among others, of stevedores, dockworkers, sweepers and forklift operators (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the
stevedores"). On 31 July 1978, NOWM PSSLU-TUCP and about 300 stevedores filed with the then Ministry of Labor and
Employment ("MOLE") a complaint 1 for unfair labor practice ULP and illegal dismissal against PIER 8 A&S.
On 8 September 1978, NOWM PSSLU-TUCP amended its complaint to include the monetary claims of the stevedores for
overtime compensation, legal holiday pay, emergency cost of living allowance, 13th month pay, night shift differential pay, and
the difference between the salaries they received and that prescribed under the minimum wage law. The complaint was also
amended to implead petitioner Hijos de F. Escao, Inc. (Escao) as respondent before the MOLE.
The Labor Arbiter took the view that PIER 8 A&S was a labor only contractor and held that Escao was the principal employer
of the stevedores. For that reason, the Labor Arbiter adjudged the petitioners solidarily liable for payment of backwages to the
stevedores as well as for reinstatement.
*PIER 8 A&S is a corporation providing Arrastre and stevedoring services to vessels docked at Pier 8 of the Manila North
Harbor.
Two stevedoring companies had been servicing vessels docking at Pier 8. One of these was the Manila Integrated Services, Inc.
MISI which was servicing Escao vessels, then berthing at Pier 8. The other was the San Nicolas Stevedoring and Arrastre
Services, Inc. (SNSASI) which was servicing Compania Maritima vessels
PPA issued Administrative Order No. 1377 specifically adopting the policy of "one pier, one Arrastre and/or stevedoring
company." MISI and SNSASI merged to form the Pier 8 Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc.
*Because of its resulting manpower surplus, PIER 8 A&S altered the work schedule of its stevedores by rotating them .
It is firmly settled that the existence or non-existence of the employer-employee relationship is commonly to be determined by
examination of certain factors or aspects of that relationship. These include: (a) the manner of selection and engagement of the
putative employee; (b) the mode of payment of wages; (c) the presence or absence of the power of dismissal; and (d) the
presence or absence of a power to control the putative employee's conduct.
G.R. No. L-16600 ,December 27, 1961 ILOILO CHINESE COMMERCIAL SCHOOL, petitioner, vs.
LEONORA FABRIGAR and THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents.

Luis G. Hofilea for petitioner.


J. T. de Leon for respondents.
Death of Santiago Fabrigar; cause of death was " pulmonary tuberculosis contracted during and as a result of
his employment as janitor."BERIBERI ADULT facts: *employed from 1947 to March 12, 1956 as a janitormessenger of the respondent Iloilo Chinese Commercial School, his work consisting of sweeping and scrubbing
the floors, cleaning the classrooms and the school premises, and other janitorial chores; *The Commission,
therefore, ordered the respondent Chinese Commercial School, Inc., in said case 1. To pay to the claimant, for
and in behalf of her minor children by the deceased, namely, Carlito, Gloria, Rosita and Ernesto, all surnamed
Fabrigar, the amount of P2,496.00 as Death benefits; and 2. To pay to the Commission the amount of P25.00 as
fees pursuant to Section 55 of Act 3428, as amended.
[G.R. No. 116960. April 2, 1996] BERNARDO JIMENEZ and JOSE JIMENEZ, as Operators of JJs TRUCKING, petitioners,
vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PEDRO JUANATAS and FREDELITO JUANATAS, respondents.

Private respondents Pedro and Fredelito Juanatas, father and son, filed a claim for unpaid wages/commissions,
separation pay and damages against JJ s Trucking and/or Dr. Bernardo Jimenez. they were hired by herein
petitioner Bernardo Jimenez as driver! mechanic and helper, respectively, in his trucking firm, JJ Trucking.
They were assigned to a ten-wheeler truck to haul soft drinks of Coca-Cola Bottling Company and paid on
commission basis, initially fixed at 17% but later increased to 20% in 1988. *they received only a partial
commission of P84,000.00 total gross income of almost P1,000,000.00 for the said two years.Consequently,
with their commission for that period being computed at 20% of said income, there was an unpaid balance to
them of P106,211.86; that until March, 1990 when their services were illegally terminated, they were further
entitled to P15,050.309 which, excluding the partial payment of P7,000.00, added up to a grand total of
P114,261.86 due and payable to them; and that petitioners refusal to pay their aforestated commission was a
ploy to unjustly terminate them.
GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION (GREPALIFE) VS. JUDICO HONORATO (GR NO. 73887 DECEMEBER 21,
1989)
FACTS: Honorato Judico filed a complaint for illega! Dismissl against grepalife, a duly organized insurance firm
(Said complaint prayed for award of money claims consisting of:
Separation pay;Unpaid salary and 13th month pay;refund of cash bond;moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fee.
*Grepalife defines a debit agent as an insurance agent selling servicing industrial life plans and policy holders.
*As a debit agent, Judico had definite work assignments including but not limited to collection of premiums from policyholders and selling insurance

to prospective clients. Public respondent NLRC also found out that complainant was initially paid P 200. 00 as allowance for thirteen
(13) weeks regardless of production and later a certain percentage denominated as sales reserve of his total collections but not lesser than P 200.00.
Judico was promoted to the position of Zone Supervisor and was given additional (supervisor's) allowance fixed at P110.00 per week.
ISSUE: Whether or not employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and private respondent. *During the third week of November
1981, he was reverted to his former position as debit agent but, for unknown reasons, not paid so-called weekly sales reserve of at least P 200.00.
That the so-called allowance for the first thirteen weeks that Judico worked as debit agent, cannot be construed as salary but as a subsidy or a way of
assistance for transportation and meal expenses of a new debit agent during the initial period of his training which was fixed for thirteen (13) weeks.
*Said contentions of petitioner were strongly rejected by respondent he maintains that he received a definite amount as his wage known as "sales
reserve" the failure to maintain the same would bring him back to a beginner's employment with a fixed weekly wage of P 200.00 regardless of
production.
*He earned out of his faithful and productive service, a promotion to Zone Supervisor with additional supervisor's allowance, (a definite or fixed
amount of P110.00) that he was dismissed primarily because of anemic performance and not because of the termination of the contract of agency
substantiate the fact that he was indeed an employee of the petitioner and not an insurance agent in the ordinary meaning of the term.

DG.C.P