(10) Any family member who assumes the responsibility of head of family as a result of the death, abandonment, disappearance or prolonged absence of the parents or solo parent. A change in the status or circumstance of the parent claiming benefits under this Act, such that he/she is no longer left alone with the responsibility of parenthood, shall terminate his/her eligibility for these benefits. -PATERNITY LEAVE 1. PEOPLE'S BROADCASTING SERVICE (BOMBO RABDYO PHILIS. INC) VS, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL., G. R. NO. 179652, March 6, 2012. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, REGIONAL DIRECTOR HA THE POWER TO DETERMINE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS: “To recapitulate, A) if a complaint is brought before the DOLE to give effect to the labor standards provisions of the Labor Code or other labor legislation, and there is a finding by the DOLE that there is an existing employer-employee relationship, the DOLE exercises jurisdiction to the exclusion of the NLRC. B) If the DOLE finds that there is no employer-employee relationship, the jurisdiction is properly with the NLRC. ©) If a complaint is filed with the DOLE, and it is accompanied by a claim for reinstatement, the jurisdiction is properly with the Labor Arbiter, under Art. 217(3) of the Labor Code, which provides that the Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction over those cases involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment, if accompanied by a claim for reinstatement.D) If a complaint is filed with the NLRC, and there is still an existing employer-employee relationship, the jurisdiction is properly with the DOLE. The findings of the DOLE, however, may still be questioned through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.” WHEREFORE, the Decision of this Court in G.R. No. 179652 is hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that in the exercise of the DOLEs visitorial and enforcement power, the Labor Secretary or the latters authorized representative shall have the power to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, to the exclusion of the NLRC. 2. LEO R. ROSALES ET AL., VS. NEW A.N.J.H. ENTERPRISES & N.H. OIL MILL CORPORATION ET AL., G.R. NO. 203355, AUGUST 18, 2015. REQUISITES IN MOTIONS TO REDUCE BOND: “On the issue of perfecting the appeal, the CA was correct when it Pointed out that Rules IV of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC provides that a motion to reduce bond hall be entertained “upon the posting of bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.” As to what the “reasonable amount is, the NLRC has wide discretion in determining the reasonableness of the bond for purposes of perfecting an appeal. In Garcia vs. KJ Commercial, G.R. No 196830, February 29, 2012, this Court explained: “The filing of a motion to reduce bond and compliance with h two conditions stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal. xxx The NLRC has full discretion to grant or deny the motion to reduce bond, and it may rule of the motion beyond the 10-day period within which to perfect an appeal. Obviously, at the time of the fling of the motion to reduce bond and posting of a bond in a reasonable amount,there is no assurance whether the appellant's motion is indeed based on “meritorious ground” and whether the bond he o she posted is a of a “reasonable amount.” Thus, the appellant always runs the risk of failing to perfect an appeal. Xxx In order to give full effect to the provisions on motion to reduce bond, the appellant must be allowed to wait for the ruling of the NLRC on the motion even beyond the 10-day period to perfect an appeal. If the NLRC grants the motion and rules that there is indeed meritorious ground and the amount of the bond poste is reasonable, then the appeal is Perfected. If the NLRC denies the motion, the appellant may still file a motion for reconsideration as provided for in Section 15, Rule VII of the Rules. If the NLRC grants the motion for reconsideration and rules that there is indeed meritorious ground and that the amount of the bond posted is reasonable, then the appeal is perfected. If the NLRC denies the motion, then the decision of the labor arbiter becomes final and executory. Xxx In any case, the rule that the filing of a motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal is not absolute. The Court may relax the rule. In Intertranz Container Lines, Inc. vs. Bautista, the Court held that: “Jurisprudence tells us that in labor cases, an appeal from a decision involving monetary award may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. The Court, however, has relaxed this requirement under certain exceptional circumstances in order to resolve controversies on their merits. These circumstances include: (1) fundamental consideration of substantial justice; (2) Prevention of miscarriage of justice or unjust enrichment; and (3) special circumstances of thecase combined with its legal merits, and the amount and the issue involved.” XKKKK This is in accord with the guidelines established in McBurnie vs. Ganzon, G.R. Nos. 178034 & 178117, G.R. Nos. 186984-85, October 17, 2013 [707 SCRA 64], where this Court declared that he posting of a provisional cash or surety bond equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the monetary award subject of the appeal is sufficient to provided that there is meritorious ground therefor, viz: [O]n the matter of filing and acceptance of motions to reduce bond, as provided in Section 6, Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, the Court hereby RESOLVES that henceforth, the following guidelines shall be observed: a) The filing of a motion to reduce bond shall be entertained by the NLRC subject to the following conditions: (1) there is meritorious ground; and (2) a bond in a reasonable amount is posted; b) For purposes of compliance with condition no. 2, a motion shall be accompanied by the posting of a provisional cash or surety bond equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the monetary award subject of the appeal, exclusive of damages and attorney's fees. c) Compliance with the foregoing conditions shall suffice to suspend the running of the 10-day reglementaryperiod to perfect n appeal from the labor arbiter’s decision to the NLRC; d) The NLRC retains its authority and duty to resolve the motion to reduce bind and to determine the final amount of bind that shall be posted by the appellant, still in accordance with the standards of meritorious grounds and reasonable amount; and e) In the event that the NLRC denies the motion to reduce bond, or requires a bond that exceeds the amount of the provisional bond, the appellant shall be given a fresh period of ten (10) days from notice of the NLRC order within which to perfect the appeal by posting the required appeal bond.” RES JUDICATA NOT A BAR TO FILING OF A COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL “On the matter of the application of the doctrine of res judicata, however, this Court is loath to sustain the finding of the appellate court and the NLRC. For res judicata to apply, the concurrence of the following requisites must be verified: (1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the Parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; (4) there is — between the first and the second actions — identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.’(Luzon Development Bank vs. Conquilla, G.R. No. 163338, September 21, 2005) ACCEPTANCE OF SEPARATION PAY DOES NOT BAR THE EMPLOYEE FROM CONTESTING THE LEGALITY OF THEIR DISMISSAL“The conformity of the employees to the corporation's act of considering them as terminated and the subsequent acceptance of separation pay does not remove the taint of illegal dismissal. Acceptance of separation pay does not bar the employees from subsequently contesting the legality of their dismissal, nor does it estop them from challenging the legality of their separation from the service.” JOB CONTRACTING 3. In the case of Polyfoam-RGC International Corporation et al. vs. Edgardo Conception, G.R. No. 172349, June 13, 2012, the Supreme Court had the occasion to explain that: “In Sasan, Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission 4" Division, the Court distinguished permissible job contracting or subcontracting from labor-only contracting, to wit: Permissible job contracting or subcontracting refers to an arrangement whereby a principal agrees to put out or farm out to a contractor or subcontractor the performance or completion of a specific job, work or service within a definite or predetermined period, regardless of whether such job, work or service is to be performed or completed within or outside the premises of the principal. A person is considered engaged in legitimate job contracting or subcontracting if the following conditions concur: (a) The contractor or subcontractor carries on a distinct and independent business and undertakes to perform the job, work or service on its own account and under its own responsibility according to its own manner and method, and free from the control and direction of the principal in all matters connected with the performance of the work exceptas to the results thereof; (b) The contractor or subcontractor has substantial capital or investment; and (c) The agreement between the principal and contractor or subcontractor assures the contractual employees entitlement to all labor and occupational safety and health standards, free exercise of the right to self-organization, security of tenure, and social and welfare benefits. In contrast, labor-only contracting, a prohibited act, is an arrangement where the contractor or subcontractor merely recruits, supplies or places workers to perform a job, work or service for a principal. In labor-only contracting, the following elements are present: (a) The contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or investment to actually perform the job, work or service under its own account and responsibility; and (b) The employees recruited, supplied or placed by such contractor or subcontractor are performing activities which are directly related to the main business of the principal. The test of independent contractorship is whether one claiming to be an independent contractor has contracted to do the work according to his own methods and without being subject to the control of the employer, except only as to the results of the work. In San Miguel Corporation v. Semillano, the Court laid down the criteria in determining the existence of an independent and permissible contractor relationship, to wit:x x x [W]hether or not the contractor is carrying on an independent _business; the nature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term and duration of the relationship; the right to assign the performance of a the work to another; the employers power with respect to_the hiring, firing and payment of the contractors workers; the control of the premises; the duty to supply the premises, tools, appliances, materials, and labor; and the mode, manner and terms of payment. Simply put, the totality of the facts and the surrounding circumstances of the case are to be considered. Each case must be determined by its own facts and all the features of the relationship are to be considered.”(underscoring ours) POST EMPLOYMENT BAN 1. Non-compete or Non-involvement Clause a. Raquel P. Consulta vs. CA, Panama Phils. Inc., G.R. No. 145443, March 18, 2005; b. Daisy B. Tiu vs. Platinum Plans Phils. Inc., G.R. No. 163512, February 28, 2007; Who has jurisdiction over breach of non-compete clause? a. Dai-Chi Electronics Manufacturing Corp. vs. Hon. Villarama, G.R. No. 112940, November 21, 1994; b. Portillo vs. Rudolf Leitz, Inc., G.R. No. 196539, October 10, 2012.