You are on page 1of 5

Extend and limits of protection to labor.

manner provide a reasonable level of determination on the actual field work of the employees which can be
Pacific Mills Inc v. Alonzo reasonably ascertained. The theoretical analysis that salesmen and other similarly-situated workers regularly report
CALTEX v. PLO for work at 8:00 a.m. and return to their home station at 4:00 or 4:30 p.m., creating the assumption that their field
We have held that prewar employees have no legal right to backpay, i.e., salary during the war when they rendered no service to work is supervised, is surface projection. Actual field work begins after 8:00 a.m., when the sales personnel follow
their employer. Hence as a matter of principal, these prewar female employees have no right to back pay. However, we must their field itinerary, and ends immediately before 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. when they report back to their office. The period
agree with the Court of Industrial Relations that if prewar male employees are granted backpay gratuity, prewar female employees between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. comprises their hours of work in the field, the extent or scope and result of
should also be extended the same privilege, on grounds of equity, remembering always the Government's constitutional duty to which are subject to their individual capacity and industry and which "cannot be determined with reasonable
protect labor, especially women, and the statutory injunction that in exercising its duties and powers "the Court shall act according certainty." This is the reason why effective supervision over field work of salesmen and medical representatives,
to justice and equity and the substantial merits of the case." truck drivers and merchandisers is practically a physical impossibility. Consequently, they are excluded from the ten
we would be the last to deny them gratuity had the Caltex corporation awarded compensation to those male prewar holidays with pay award.
employees who had not been reinstated after the war. The petitioner claims that the fact that these sales personnel are given incentive bonus every quarter based on their performance
In the settlement of industrial disputes it is proper and convenient for the court to insist, in exercising its ample powers, that is proof that their actual hours of work in the field can be determined with reasonable certainty.
capital shall make no discrimination between male and female laborers. But discrimination only exists when one is denied The Court thinks otherwise.
privileges given to the other under identical or similar conditions. Material conditions of course. And the condition as to actual The criteria for granting incentive bonus are: (1) attaining or exceeding sales volume based on sales target; (2) good collection
employment required by the company is undoubtedly material, the purpose of gratuity being obviously to induce the company's performance; (3) proper compliance with good market hygiene; (4) good merchandising work; (5) minimal market returns; and
workers to render better service in return for such generosity, or simply to improve the finances and morale of its helpers with (6) proper truck maintenance. (Rollo, p. 190).
consequent beneficial effects upon the corporate business operations. In the instant controversy, the conditions were different: The above criteria indicate that these sales personnel are given incentive bonuses precisely because of the difficulty in measuring
the male beneficiaries were employees; whereas these female claimants were not. their actual hours of field work. These employees are evaluated by the result of their work and not by the actual hours of field
PAMBUSCO Employees Union v. CIR, doctrine of pari delicto work which are hardly susceptible to determination.
We have reviewed carefully the evidence on record with regard to the claim for back overtime pay we find that it amply supports In San Miguel Brewery, Inc. v. Democratic Labor Organization (8 SCRA 613 [1963]), the Court had occasion to discuss the nature
the findings and conclusions set forth in support of the motion for reconsideration are virtually a repetition of the reasons of the job of a salesman. Citing the case of Jewel Tea Co. v. Williams, C.C.A. Okla., 118 F. 2d 202, the Court stated:
advanced in the memorandum of the petitioner filed before the case was decided and were already discussed and considered in
the decision. The evidence permits no other conclusion than that the employees were not coerced not intimidated by the The reasons for excluding an outside salesman are fairly apparent. Such a salesman, to a
respondent on the repeated occasions they signed and presented to the Department of Labor their petitions for non-enforcement greater extent, works individually. There are no restrictions respecting the time he shall
of the Eight Hour Labor Law. The employees were indubitably aware of certain hardships the enforcement of the law at that time work and he can earn as much or as little, within the range of his ability, as his ambition
would bring to them and these prompted their attitude of preferring the continuation of the schedule of hours observed prior to dictates. In lieu of overtime he ordinarily receives commissions as extra compensation. He
the enactment of the legislation extending the benefits of the Eight Hour Labor Law to drivers of motor vehicles in public utility works away from his employer's place of business, is not subject to the personal supervision
enterprises. Whatever pecuniary advantage they would have gained by the strict observance of the law by the company should of his employer, and his employer has no way of knowing the number of hours he works
they be made to work more than eight hours a day was apparently waived or given up by them in exchange of their personal per day.
convenience and of the additional monthly pay the respondent gave to those employees who were assigned to routes where the While in that case the issue was whether or not salesmen were entitled to overtime pay, the same rationale for their exclusion as
daily working hours exceeded the maximum fixed by law. The evidence that the company paid additional salaries not only to field personnel from holiday pay benefits also applies.
drivers but also to its conductors who were assigned to such routes stands uncontradicted and no attempt even was made by the JPL Mktg. Promotions v. CA
petitioner to deny it. Without need of passing on the question as to whether the provisions of the law are mandatory or not, in The Court is not inclined in this case to award separation pay even on the ground of compassionate justice. The Court of Appeals
the light of the above facts and applying the rules of equity invoked by the union, we are constrained to hold that the petitioners relied on the cases[36] wherein the Court awarded separation pay to legally dismissed employees on the grounds of equity and
are not rightly entitled to the payment sought. social consideration. Said cases involved employees who were actually dismissed by their employers, whether for cause or not.
Clearly, the principle applies only when the employee is dismissed by the employer, which is not the case in this instance. In
In Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Pantranco vs. Pangasinan Transportation Co. (39 Off. Gaz., 1217), we have held that, to be seeking and obtaining employment elsewhere, private respondents effectively terminated their employment with JPL.
entitled to the benefits of section 5 of Act No. 4123, fulfillment of the mandate of the law is necessary, this being a matter of
public interest. Where both parties, as in this case, we have violated the law, this court must decline to extend the strong arm of In addition, the doctrine enunciated in the case of Serrano[37] cited by private respondents has already been abandoned by our
equity, as neither party is entitled to its aid. This is especially true in view of the findings of fact made by the Court of Industrial ruling in Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission. [38] There we ruled that an employer is liable to pay indemnity in the
Relations which we should not disturb. form of nominal damages to a dismissed employee if, in effecting such dismissal, the employer failed to comply with the
We are not, to be sure insensible to the argument that industrial disputes should be decided with an eye on the welfare of the requirements of due process. However, private respondents are not entitled to the payment of damages considering that there
working class, who, in the inter-play of economic forces, is said to find itself in the "end of the stick." In the case at bar, however, was no violation of due process in this case. JPLs memo dated 13 August 1996 to private respondents is not a notice of termination,
we find no reason for disturbing the action taken by the respondent Court of Industrial Relations, which is a special court enjoined but a mere note informing private respondents of the termination of CMCs contract and their re-assignment to other clients. The
to "act according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms and shall thirty (30)-day notice rule does not apply.
not be bound by any technical rules of legal evidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable"
Liberal construction in favor of labor The law in protecting the rights of the employees authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. It should be
Union of Fil Employees v. Vivar, Jr. made clear that when the law tilts the scale of justice in favor of labor, it is but recognition of the inherent economic inequality
The petitioner insists that respondent's sales personnel are not field personnel under Article 82 of the Labor Code. The respondent between labor and management. The intent is to balance the scale of justice; to put the two parties on relatively equal positions.
company controverts this assertion. There may be cases where the circumstances warrant favoring labor over the interests of management but never should the scale
Under Article 82, field personnel are not entitled to holiday pay. Said article defines field personnel as "non-agritultural employees be so tilted if the result is an injustice to the employer. Justitia nemini neganda est (Justice is to be denied to none).
who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actua l PLDT v. Balbastro
hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty." It had also been established by Dr. Dungo’s testimony that private respondent’s medical record showed that she did not go to the
The controversy centers on the interpretation of the clause "whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with clinic for consultation as she would only present a medical certificate and get a clearance for her sick leave;24 that the same
reasonable certainty." medical record showed her absences in 1989 as follows: (1) From April 27 to May 4 due to urinary tract infection and she submitted
It is undisputed that these sales personnel start their field work at 8:00 a.m. after having reported to the office and come back to a medical certificate;25 (2) From May 5 to 14 due to back pain; 26 (3) From May 20 to 21 due to migraine; 27 (4) June 5 to 13 due to
the office at 4:00 p.m. or 4:30 p.m. if they are Makati-based. gastroenteritis (penalized as her second offense); (5) June 15 to 24 due to conjunctivitis and submitted a medical certificate; 28 and
The petitioner maintains that the period between 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. comprises the sales personnel's working hours (6) June 25 to July 14, 1989 due to systemic viral disease with medical certificate (her third offense penalized with dismissal).
which can be determined with reasonable certainty. Private respondent had incurred a total absence of 85 days from January to October 1989; 29 and 115 days in 1988.30 It had also
The Court does not agree. The law requires that the actual hours of work in the field be reasonably ascertained. The company has been established that petitioner’s doctors confirmed most of her sick leave out of compassion 31 and that her medical records
no way of determining whether or not these sales personnel, even if they report to the office before 8:00 a.m. prior to field work showed that there were several warnings given her regarding her unconfirmed sick leave. 32
and come back at 4:30 p.m, really spend the hours in between in actual field work. As petitioner stated in its pleadings, it is a telecommunication service company which provides the country with various
We concur with the following disquisition by the respondent arbitrator: telecommunication services and facilities. Its operations are a vital part to many transactions all over the country and abroad, and
The requirement for the salesmen and other similarly situated employees to report for work at the office at 8:00 private respondent was one of its telephone operators who used to connect all these calls. Thus, her patent abuse of her sick
a.m. and return at 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. is not within the realm of work in the field as defined in the Code but an exercise leave privileges is detrimental to petitioner’s business.
of purely management prerogative of providing administrative control over such personnel. This does not in any
While it is true that compassion and human consideration should guide the disposition of cases involving termination of At the outset, we reiterate the doctrine that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is ultimately a question of fact
employment since it affects one's source or means of livelihood, it should not be overlooked that the benefits accorded to la bor and that the findings thereon by the labor arbiter and the NLRC shall be accorded not only respect but even finality when
do not include compelling an employer to retain the services of an employee who has been shown to be a gross liability to the supported by ample evidence.[5]
employer. The law in protecting the rights of the employees authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the following elements are considered: (1) the selection and
employer.33 It should be made clear that when the law tilts the scale of justice in favor of labor, it is but a recognition of the engagement of the workers; (2) power of dismissal; (3) the payment of wages by whatever means; and (4) the power to control
inherent economic inequality between labor and management. The intent is to balance the scale of justice; to put the two parties the workers conduct, with the latter assuming primacy in the overall consideration. The power of control refers to the existence
on relatively equal positions. There may be cases where the circumstances warrant favoring labor over the interests of of the power and not necessarily to the actual exercise thereof. It is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the
management but never should the scale be so tilted if the result is an injustice to the employer. Justitia nemini neganda est (Justice performance of duties of the employee; it is enough that the employer has the right to wield that power. [6]
is to be denied to none) Absent a clear showing that petitioners and private respondent had intended to pursue a relationship of industrial partnership,
Er-Ee relations, 4-fold test we entertain no doubt that private respondent was employed by petitioners as caretaker-barber. Initially, petitioners, as new
Sonza v. ABS-CBN owners of the barbershop, hired private respondent as barber by absorbing the latter in their employ. Undoubtedly, the services
Applying the control test to the present case, we find that SONZA is not an employee but an independent contractor. The control performed by private respondent as barber is related to, and in the pursuit of the principal business activity of petitioners. Later
test is the most important test our courts apply in distinguishing an employee from an independent Contractor. This test is based on, petitioners tapped private respondent to serve concurrently as caretaker of the shop. Certainly, petitioners had the power to
on the extent of control the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the supervision and control the hirer exercises, the more dismiss private respondent being the ones who engaged the services of the latter. In fact, private respondent sued petitioners for
likely the worker is deemed an employee. The converse holds true as well – the less control the hirer exercises, the more likely illegal dismissal, albeit contested by the latter. As a caretaker, private respondent was paid by petitioners wages in the form of
the worker is considered an independent contractor. honorarium, originally, at the rate of one-third (1/3) of the shops net income but subsequently pegged at a fixed amount per
We find that ABS-CBN was not involved in the actual performance that produced the finished product of SONZA’s work. ABS-CBN month. As a barber, private respondent earned two-thirds (2/3) of the fee paid per haircut or shaving job done. Furthermore, the
did not instruct SONZA how to perform his job. ABS-CBN merely reserved the right to modify the program format and airtime following facts indubitably reveal that petitioners controlled private respondents work performance, in that: (1) private
schedule “for more effective programming.” ABS-CBN’s sole concern was the quality of the shows and their standing in the ratings. respondent had to inform petitioners of the things needed in the shop; (2) he could only recommend the hiring of barbers and
Clearly, ABS-CBN did not exercise control over the means and methods of performance of SONZA’s work. masseuses, with petitioners having the final decision; (3) he had to be at the shop at 9:00 a.m. and could leave only at 9:00 p.m.
In any event, not all rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party indicate that the latter is an employee of the former. In because he was the one who opened and closed it, being the one entrusted with the key. [7] These duties were complied with by
this case, SONZA failed to show that these rules controlled his performance. We find that these general rules are private respondent upon instructions of petitioners. Moreover, such task was far from being negligible as claimed by petitioners.
merely guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result, which are top-rating television and radio programs On the contrary, it was crucial to the business operation of petitioners as shown in the preceding discussion. Hence, there was
that comply with standards of the industry. enough basis to declare private respondent an employee of petitioners. Accordingly, there is no cogent reason to disturb the
Being an exclusive talent does not by itself mean that SONZA is an employee of ABS-CBN. Even an independent contractor can findings of the labor arbiter and NLRC on the existence of employer-employee relationship between herein private parties.
validly provide his services exclusively to the hiring party. In the broadcast industry, exclusivity is not necessarily the same as FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE, petitioner,
control. vs.
*Not every performance of services for a fee creates an employer-employee relationship. To hold that every person who renders HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. ENRIQUE P. SUPLICO, in his capacity as Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
services to another for a fee is an employee – to give meaning to the security of tenure clause – will lead to absurd results. XIV, Roxas City and POTENCIANO KAPUNAN, SR., respondent
Abante v. Lamadrid brearings and parts It is undisputed that Funtecha was a working student, being a part-time janitor and a scholar of petitioner Filamer. He was, in
Well-entrenched is the doctrine that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is ultimately a question of fact relation to the school, an employee even if he was assigned to clean the school premises for only two (2) hours in the morning of
and that the findings thereon by the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission shall be accorded not only respect each school day.
but even finality when supported by substantial evidence. The decisive factor in such finality is the presence of substantial Funtecha is an employee of petitioner Filamer. He need not have an official appointment for a driver's position in order that the
evidence to support said finding, otherwise, such factual findings cannot be accorded finality by this Court.[12] Considering the petitioner may be held responsible for his grossly negligent act, it being sufficient that the act of driving at the time of the incident
conflicting findings of fact by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC as well as the Court of Appeals, there is a need to reexamine the was for the benefit of the petitioner. Hence, the fact that Funtecha was not the school driver or was not acting within the scope
records to determine with certainty which of the propositions espoused by the contending parties is supported by substantial of his janitorial duties does not relieve the petitioner of the burden of rebutting the presumption juris tantum that there was
evidence. negligence on its part either in the selection of a servant or employee, or in the supervision over him. The petitioner has failed to
We are called upon to resolve the issue of whether or not petitioner, as a commission salesman, is an employee of show proof of its having exercised the required diligence of a good father of a family over its employees Funtecha and Allan.
respondent corporation. To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship, jurisprudence has invariably applied The Court reiterates that supervision includes the formulation of suitable rules and regulations for the guidance of its employees
the four-fold test, namely: (1) the manner of selection and engagement; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the presence or absence and the issuance of proper instructions intended for the protection of the public and persons with whom the employer has
of the power of dismissal; and (4) the presence or absence of the power of control. Of these four, the last one is the most relations through his employees. (Bahia v. Litonjua and Leynes, supra, at p. 628; Phoenix Construction, v. Intermediate Appellate
important.[13] The so-called control test is commonly regarded as the most crucial and determinative indicator of the presence or Court, 148 SCRA 353 [1987])
absence of an employer-employee relationship. Under the control test, an employer-employee relationship exists where the An employer is expected to impose upon its employees the necessary discipline called for in the performance of any act
person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved, but also the manner and indispensable to the business and beneficial to their employer.
means to be used in reaching that end. In the present case, the petitioner has not shown that it has set forth such rules and guidelines as would prohibit any one of its
Applying the aforementioned test, an employer-employee relationship is notably absent in this case. It is undisputed that employees from taking control over its vehicles if one is not the official driver or prohibiting the driver and son of the Filamer
petitioner Abante was a commission salesman who received 3% commission of his gross sales. Yet no quota was imposed on him president from authorizing another employee to drive the school vehicle. Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to prove that it
by the respondent; such that a dismal performance or even a dead result will not result in any sanction or provide a ground for had imposed sanctions or warned its employees against the use of its vehicles by persons other than the driver.
dismissal. He was not required to report to the office at any time or submit any periodic written report on his sales performance ANGEL JARDIN, DEMETRIO CALAGOS, URBANO MARCOS, ROSENDO MARCOS, LUIS DE LOS ANGELES, JOEL ORDENIZA and
and activities. Although he had the whole of Mindanao as his base of operation, he was not designated by respondent to conduct AMADO CENTENO, petitioners,
his sales activities at any particular or specific place. He pursued his selling activities without interference or supervision from vs.
respondent company and relied on his own resources to perform his functions. Respondent company did not prescribe the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) and GOODMAN TAXI (PHILJAMA INTERNATIONAL, INC.) respondents.
manner of selling the merchandise; he was left alone to adopt any style or strategy to entice his customers. While it is true that In a number of cases decided by this Court,19 we ruled that the relationship between jeepney owners/operators on one hand and
he occasionally reported to the Manila office to attend conferences on marketing strategies, it was intended not to control the jeepney drivers on the other under the boundary system is that of employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee. We explained
manner and means to be used in reaching the desired end, but to serve as a guide and to upgrade his skills for a more efficient that in the lease of chattels, the lessor loses complete control over the chattel leased although the lessee cannot be reckless in
marketing performance. As correctly observed by the appellate court, reports on sales, collection, competitors, market strategies, the use thereof, otherwise he would be responsible for the damages to the lessor.
price listings and new offers relayed by petitioner during his conferences to Manila do not indicate that he was under the control In the case of jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers, the former exercise supervision and control over the latter. The
of respondent.[14] Moreover, petitioner was free to offer his services to other companies engaged in similar or related marketing management of the business is in the owner's hands. The owner as holder of the certificate of public convenience must see to it
activities as evidenced by the certifications issued by various customers. [15] that the driver follows the route prescribed by the franchising authority and the rules promulgated as regards its operation. Now,
In Encyclopedia Britannica (Philippines), Inc. v. NLRC,[16] we reiterated the rule that there could be no employer-employee 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
relationship where the element of control is absent. Where a person who works for another does so more or less at his own owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them from that of employer and employee.
pleasure and is not subject to definite hours or conditions of work, and in turn is compensated according to the result of his efforts We have applied by analogy the abovestated doctrine to the relationships between bus owner/operator and bus
and not the amount thereof, no relationship of employer-employee exists. conductor,20 auto-calesa owner/operator and driver,21 and recently between taxi owners/operators and taxi drivers. 22 Hence,
PAZ MARTIN JO and CESAR JO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PETER petitioners are undoubtedly employees of private respondent because as taxi drivers they perform activities which are usually
MEJILA, respondents. necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of their employer.
ANDRES VILLAVILLA and ESTER GADIENTE VILLAVILLA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, In Tan v. Lagrama,35 the Court held that the fact that a worker was not reported as an employee to the SSS is not conclusive proof
REYNALDO MERCADO, and MARCELO COSUCO, respondents, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, intervenor. of the absence of employer-employee relationship. Otherwise, an employer would be rewarded for his failure or even neglect to
the crew members did not receive fixed compensation as they only shared in their catch; they ventured to the sea irrespective of perform his obligation.36
the instructions of the boat owners, i.e., upon their own best judgment as to when, how long, and where to go fishing; the boat Nor does the fact that respondent’s name does not appear in the payrolls and pay envelope records submitted by petitioners
owners did not hire them but simply joined the fishing expedition upon invitation of the ship master, even without the knowledge negate the existence of employer-employee relationship. For a payroll to be utilized to disprove the employment of a person, it
of the boat owner. In short, there was neither right of control nor actual exercise of such right on the part of the boat owner over must contain a true and complete list of the employee.
his crew members. ROYALE HOMES MARKETING CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. FIDEL P. ALCANTARA [deceased], substituted by his
Pajarillo v. Social Security System 18 where We held: heirs, Respondent.
. . . an employee is defined as a "person who performs services for an employer in which either or both [ Royale Homes, a corporation engaged in marketing real estates, appointed Alcantara asits Marketing Director for a fixed period
mental and physical efforts are used and who receives compensation for such services, where there is an of one year. His work consisted mainly of marketing Royale Homes’ realestate inventories on an exclusive basis. Royale Homes
employer-employee relationship" (Sec. 8[d], Rep. Act 1161, as amended by Rep. Act 2658). In the present reappointed him for several consecutive years;
case, neither the pilots nor the crew-members receive compensation from boat-owners. They only share Royale Homes, on the other hand, vehemently denied that Alcantara is its employee. It argued that the appointment paper of
in their own catch produced by their own efforts. There is no showing that outside of their one third share, Alcantara is clear that it engaged his services as an independent sales contractor for a fixed term of one year only. He never
the boat-owners have anything to do with the distribution of the rest of the catch among the pilots and the received any salary, 13th month pay, overtime pay or holiday pay from Royale Homes as he was paid purely on commission basis.
crew members. The latter perform no service for the boat-owners, but mainly for their own benefit. In addition, Royale Homes had no control on how Alcantara would accomplish his tasks and responsibilities as he was free to
In the undertaking in question, the boat-owners obviously are not responsible for the wage, salary, or fee solicit sales at any time and by any manner which he may deem appropriate and necessary. He is even free to recruit his own
of the pilot and crew-members. Their sole participation in the venture is the furnishing or delivery of the sales personnel to assist him in pursuance of his sales target.
equipment used for fishing, after which, they merely wait for the boat's return and receive their share in According to Royale Homes, Alcantara decided to leave the company after his wife, who was once connected with it as a sales
the catch, if there is any. For his part, a person who joins the outfit is entitled to a share or participation in agent, had formed a brokerage company that directly competed with its business, and even recruited some of its sales agents.
the fruit of the fishing trip. If it gives no return, the men get nothing. It appears to us therefore that the CA promulgated its Decision18 granting Alcantara’s Petition and reversing the NLRC’s Decision. Applying the four-fold and
undertaking is in the nature of a joint venture, with the boat-owner supplying the boat and its equipment economic reality tests, it held thatAlcantara is an employee of Royale Homes. Royale Homes exercised some degree of control
(sic), and the pilot and crew-members contributing the necessary labor, and the parties getting specific over Alcantara since his job, as observed by the CA, is subject to company rules, regulations, and periodic evaluations. He was also
shares for their respective contributions. bound by the company code of ethics. Moreover, the exclusivity clause of the contract has made Alcantara economically
Add to this extreme difficulty, if not impossibility of determining the monthly wage or earning of these fishermen for the purpose dependent on Royale Homes, supporting the theory that he is anemployee of said company.][facts]
of fixing the amount of their and the supposed employer's contributions (See Secs. 18 and 19, Ibid.), and there is every reason to Not every form of control that a hiring party imposes on the hired party is indicative of employee-employer relationship. Rules
exempt the parties to this kind of undertaking from compulsory registration with the Social Security System. and regulations that merely serve as guidelines towards the achievement of a mutually desired result without dictating the means
CHARLIE JAO, v. BCC PRODUCTS SALES INC., and TERRANCE TY, and methods of accomplishing it do not establish employer-employee relationship.
In addition, petitioner presented no document setting forth the terms of his employment by BCC. The failure to present such In Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Commission 35 it was pronounced that:
agreement on terms of employment may be understandable and expected if he was a common or ordinary laborer who would Logically, the line should be drawn between rules that merely serve as guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired
not jeopardize his employment by demanding such document from the employer, but may not square well with his actual status result without dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining it, and those that control or fix the methodology and
as a highly educated professional. bind or restrict the party hired to the use of such means. The first, which aim only to promote the result, create no employe r
Hereunder are some of the circumstances and incidents occurring while petitioner was supposedly employed by BCC that employee relationship unlike the second, which address both the result and the means used to achieve it. x x x3
debunked his claim against respondents: In this case, the Court agrees with Royale Homes that the rules, regulations, code of ethics, and periodic evaluation alluded to
byAlcantara do not involve control over the means and methods by which he was to performhis job. Understandably, Royale
It can be deduced from the March 1996 affidavit of petitioner that respondents challenged his authority to deliver some 158 Homes has to fix the price, impose requirements on prospective buyers, and lay down the terms and conditionsof the sale,
checks to SFC. Considering that he contested respondents challenge by pointing to the existing arrangements between BCC and including the mode of payment, which the independent contractors must follow. It is also necessary for Royale Homes to
SFC, it should be clear that respondents did not exercise the power of control over him, because he thereby acted for the benefit allocateits inventories among its independent contractors, determine who has priority in selling the same, grant commission or
and in the interest of SFC more than of BCC. allowance based on predetermined criteria, and regularly monitor the result of their marketing and sales efforts. But tothe mind
of this Court, these do not pertain to the means and methods of how Alcantara was to perform and accomplish his task of soliciting
In addition, petitioner presented no document setting forth the terms of his employment by BCC. The failure to present such sales. They do not dictate upon him the details of how he would solicit sales or the manner as to how he would transact business
agreement on terms of employment may be understandable and expected if he was a common or ordinary laborer who would with prospective clients. In Tongko, this Court held that guidelines or rules and regulations that do notpertain to the means or
not jeopardize his employment by demanding such document from the employer, but may not square well with his actual status methods to be employed in attaining the result are not indicative of control as understood inlabor law.
as a highly educated professional. [Further reading][From jurisprudence, an important lesson that the first Insular Lifecase teaches us is that a commitment to abide
by the rules and regulations of an insurance company does not ipso factomake the insurance agent an employee. Neither do
Petitioners admission that he did not receive his salary for the three months of his employment by BCC, as his complaint for illegal guidelines somehow restrictive of the insurance agent’s conduct necessarily indicate "control" as this term is defined in
dismissal and non-payment of wages and the criminal case for estafa he later filed against the respondents for non-payment of jurisprudence. Guidelines indicative of labor law "control," as the first Insular Lifecase tells us, should not merely relate to the
wages indicated, further raised grave doubts about his assertion of employment by BCC. If the assertion was true, we are puzzled mutually desirable result intended by the contractual relationship; they must have the nature of dictating the means or methods
how he could have remained in BCCs employ in that period of time despite not being paid the first salary ofP20,000.00/month. to beemployed in attaining the result, or of fixing the methodology and of binding or restricting the party hired to the use of these
Moreover, his name did not appear in the payroll of BCC despite him having approved the payroll as comptroller. means.In fact, results-wise, the principal can impose production quotas and can determine how many agents, with specific
LOLITALOPEZ, petitioner, vs.BODEGA CITY (Video-Disco Kitchen of the Philippines) and/or ANDRES C. TORRES- territories, ought to be employed to achieve the company’s objectives. These are management policy decisions that the labor law
YAP, respondents. element of control cannot reach. Our ruling in these respects in the first Insular Lifecase was practically reiterated in Carungcong.
Hence, going back to the element of control, the concessionaire agreement merely stated that petitioner shall maintain the Thus, as will be shown more fully below, Manulife’s codes of conduct, all of which do not intrude into the insurance agents’ means
cleanliness of the ladies' comfort room and observe courtesy guidelines that would help her obtain the results they wanted to and manner of conducting their sales and only control them as to the desired results and Insurance Code norms, cannot be used
achieve. There is nothing in the agreement which specifies the methods by which petitioner should achieve these results. as basis for a finding that the labor law concept of control existed between Manulife and Tongko]
Respondents did not indicate the manner in which she should go about in maintaining the cleanliness of the ladies' comfort room. [Further reading][ As the party claiming the existence of employer-employee relationship, it behoved upon Alcantara to prove the
Neither did respondents determine the means and methods by which petitioner could ensure the satisfaction of respondent elements thereof, particularly Royale Homes’ power of control over the means and methods of accomplishing the work. 38 He,
company's customers. In other words, petitioner was given a free hand as to how she would perform her job as a "lady keeper." however, failed to cite specificrules, regulations or codes of ethics that supposedly imposed control on his means and methods of
In fact, the last paragraph of the concessionaire agreement even allowed petitioner to engage persons to work with or assist her soliciting sales and dealing with prospective clients. On the other hand, this case is replete with instances that negate the element
in the discharge of her functions.34 of control and the existence of employer-employee relationship. Notably, Alcantara was not required to observe definite working
Moreover, petitioner was not subjected to definite hours or conditions of work. The fact that she was expected to maintain the hours.39 Except for soliciting sales, RoyaleHomes did not assign other tasks to him. He had full control over the means and methods
cleanliness of respondent company's ladies' comfort room during Bodega City's operating hours does not indicate that her of accomplishing his tasks as he can "solicit sales at any time and by any manner which [he may] deem appropriate and necessary."
performance of her job was subject to the control of respondents as to make her an employee of the latter. Instead, the He performed his tasks on his own account free from the control and direction of Royale Homes in all matters connected
requirement that she had to render her services while Bodega City was open for business was dictated simply by the very nature therewith, except as to the results thereof]
of her undertaking, which was to give assistance to the users of the ladies' comfort room. MANILA GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC., petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and FERMIN LLAMAR, respondents.
SOUTH EAST INTERNATIONAL RATTAN, INC. and/or ESTANISLAO1 AGBAY, Petitioners, vs. JESUS J. COMING, Respondent. [While respondent club promulgates rules and regulations on the assignment, deportment and conduct of caddies; the same are
designed to impose personal discipline among the caddies but not to direct or conduct their actual work. In fact, a golf player is
at liberty to choose a caddy of his preference regardless of the respondent club's group rotation system and has the discretion on Because of its resulting manpower surplus, PIER 8 A&S altered the work schedule of its stevedores by rotating them. The rotation
whether or not to pay a caddy. As testified to by petitioner Llamar that their income depends on the number of players engaging scheme was resisted by the stevedores, especially those formerly assigned to service Escaño vessels. It appears that the
their services and liberality of the latter; his lends credence to respondent's assertion that the caddies are never their employees employees formerly belonging to MISI continued to service Escaño vessels in like manner that those employees formerly
in the absence of two elements, namely, (1) payment of wages and (2) control or supervision over them. In this connection, our belonging to SNSASI continued to service Compania Maritima vessels, although MISI and SNSASI had already merged to form PIER
Supreme Court ruled that in the determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the "control test" shall be 8 A&S The affected stevedores boycotted Pier 8 leading to their severance from employment by PIER 8 A&S on 10 August 1978.
considered decisive; yees under the SS law, as amended. The unrebutted testimony of Col. Generoso A. Alejo (Ret.) that the ID Their refusal to work continued even after they were served with a return-to-work order.
cards issued to the caddies merely intended to identify the holders as accredited caddies of the club and privilege(d) to ply their The stevedores claim that since they had long been servicing Escaño vessels, i.e. from the time Escaño was exclusively serviced by
trade or occupation within its premises which could be withdrawn anytime for loss of confidence. This gives us a reasonable MISI until the time MISI was merged with SNSASI to form PIER 8 A&S they should also be considered as employees of Escaño.
ground to state that the defense posture of respondent that petitioners were never its employees is well taken] Escaño disclaimed any employment relationship with the stevedores. In its Position Paper, Escaño alleged that the stevedores are
caddies does not have Employer-Employee relationship with Manila Golf and Country Club because . In the very nature of things, included in the payroll of PIER 8 A&S and that the SSS and Medicare contributions of the stevedores are paid by PIER 8 A&S as
caddies must submit to some supervision of their conduct while enjoying the privilege of pursuing their occupation within the well.
premises and grounds of whatever club they do their work in. For all that is made to appear, they work for the club to which they the Labor Arbiter added that the business of PIER 8 A&S is "desirable and indispensable in the business of Hijos de F. Escaño and
attach themselves on sufference but, on the other hand, also without having to observe any working hours, free to leave anytime without [the stevedores], its vessels could not be operated."]
they please, to stay away for as long they like , the Club may do in any case even absent any breach of the rules, and without [Escaño is a corporation engaged in inter-island shipping business, being the operator of the Escaño Shipping Lines.
violating any right to work on their part. All these considerations clash frontally with the concept of employment. Further, the It was not alleged, nor has it been shown, that Escaño or any other shipping company is also engaged in Arrastre and stevedoring
rate of fees payable by the players to the caddies as still another indication of the latter's status as employees. It seems to the services. Stevedoring is not ordinarily included in the business of transporting goods, it (stevedoring) being a special kind of service
Court, however, that the intendment of such fact is to the contrary, showing that the Club has not the measure of control over which involves the loading unloading of cargo on or from a vessel on port. It consists of the handling of cargo from the hold of the
the incidents of the caddies' work and compensation that an employer would possess. Thus, respondent is under no obligation ship to the dock, in case of pier-side unloading, or to a barge, in case of unloading at sea. The loading on a ship of outgoing cargo
to report him for compulsory coverage to the Social Security System. (copyahin mo nalng) is also part of stevedoring work.8 Arrastre, upon the other hand, involves the handling of cargo deposited on the wharf or between
WILHELMINA S. OROZCO, petitioner, vs. THE FIFTH DIVISION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PHILIPPINE DAILY the establishment of the consignee or shipper and the ships tackle. 9 Considering that a shipping company is not normally or
INQUIRER, and LETICIA JIMENEZ MAGSANOC, respondents.(columnist) customarily engaged in stevedoring and arrastre activities either for itself or other vessels, it contracts with other companies
[In March 1990, PDI engaged the services of petitioner to write a weekly column for its Lifestyle section. She religiously submitted offering those services. The employees, however, of the stevedoring and/or arrastre company should not be deemed the
her articles every week, except for a six-month stint in New York City when she, nonetheless, sent several articles through mail. employees of the shipping company, in the absence of any showing, that the arrastre and/or stevedoring company in fac t acted
She received compensation of P250.00 – later increased to P300.00 – for every column published.5 as an agent only of the shipping company. No such showing was made in this case.]
On November 7, 1992, petitioner’s column appeared in the PDI for the last time. Petitioner claims that her then editor, Ms. Lita There is no clear showing that Stevedoring((stevedores, dockworkers, sweepers and forklift operators) an indispensable part of
T. Logarta,6 told her that respondent Leticia Jimenez Magsanoc, PDI Editor in Chief, wanted to stop publishing her column for no the business. is not ordinarily included in the business of transporting goods, it (stevedoring) being a special kind of service which
reason at all and advised petitioner to talk to Magsanoc herself. Petitioner narrates that when she talked to Magsanoc, the latter involves the loading unloading of cargo on or from a vessel on port. It consists of the handling of cargo from the hold of the ship
informed her that it was PDI Chairperson Eugenia Apostol who had asked to stop publication of her column, but that in a telephone to the dock, in case of pier-side unloading, or to a barge, in case of unloading at sea. The loading on a ship of outgoing cargo is
conversation with Apostol, the latter said that Magsanoc informed her (Apostol) that the Lifestyle section already had many also part of stevedoring work.8 Arrastre, upon the other hand, involves the handling of cargo deposited on the wharf or between
columnists.7 the establishment of the consignee or shipper and the ships tackle. 9 Considering that a shipping company is not normally or
On the other hand, PDI claims that in June 1991, Magsanoc met with the Lifestyle section editor to discuss how to improve said customarily engaged in stevedoring and arrastre activities either for itself or other vessels, it contracts with other companies
section. They agreed to cut down the number of columnists by keeping only those whose columns were well-written, with regular offering those services. The employees, however, of the stevedoring and/or arrastre company should not be deemed the
feedback and following. In their judgment, petitioner’s column failed to improve, continued to be superficially and poorly written, employees of the shipping company, in the absence of any showing, that the arrastre and/or stevedoring company in fact acted
and failed to meet the high standards of the newspaper. Hence, they decided to terminate petitioner’s column.] as an agent only of the shipping company.
The Inquirer is the publisher of a newspaper of general circulation which is widely read throughout the country. As such, public ROGELIO E. RAMOS and ERLINDA RAMOS, in their own behalf and as natural guardians of the minors, ROMMEL RAMOS, ROY
interest dictates that every article appearing in the newspaper should subscribe to the standards set by the Inquirer, with its RODERICK RAMOS and RON RAYMOND RAMOS, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, DELOS SANTOS MEDICAL CENTER, DR.
thousands of readers in mind. It is not, therefore, unusual for the Inquirer to control what would be published in the newspaper. ORLINO HOSAKA and DRA. PERFECTA GUTIERREZ, respondents.
What is important is the fact that such control pertains only to the end result, i.e., the submitted articles. The Inquirer has no In the first place, hospitals exercise significant control in the hiring and firing of consultants and in the conduct of their
control over [petitioner] as to the means or method used by her in the preparation of her articles. The articles are done by work within the hospital premises. Doctors who apply for consultant slots, visiting or attending, are required to submit proof of
[petitioner] herself without any intervention from the Inquirer. completion of residency, their educational qualifications; generally, evidence of accreditation by the appropriate board
Petitioner has not shown that Philippine Daily Inquirer, acting through its editors, dictated how she was to write or produce her (diplomate), evidence of fellowship in most cases, and references. These requirements are carefully scrutinized by members of
articles each week. Aside from the constraints presented by the space allocation of her column, there were no restraints on her the hospital administration or by a review committee set up by the hospital who either accept or reject the application. [75]This is
creativity; petitioner was free to write her column in the manner and style she was accustomed to and to use whatever research particularly true with respondent hospital.
method she deemed suitable for her purpose. The apparent limitation that she had to write only on subjects that befitted the After a physician is accepted, either as a visiting or attending consultant, he is normally required to attend clinico-
Lifestyle section did not translate to control, but was simply a logical consequence of the fact that her column appeared in that pathological conferences, conduct bedside rounds for clerks, interns and residents, moderate grand rounds and patient audits
section and therefore had to cater to the preference of the readers of that section. and perform other tasks and responsibilities, for the privilege of being able to maintain a clinic in the hospital, and/or for the
the so-called control as to time, space, and discipline are dictated by the very nature of the newspaper business itself. Thus, privilege of admitting patients into the hospital. In addition to these, the physicians performance as a specialist is generally
newspaper columnist is an employee of the newspaper which publishes the column. evaluated by a peer review committee on the basis of mortality and morbidity statistics, and feedback from patients, nurses,
HIJOS DE F. ESCAÑO INC., and PIER 8 ARRASTRE AND STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC., petitioners, interns and residents. A consultant remiss in his duties, or a consultant who regularly falls short of the minimum standards
vs. acceptable to the hospital or its peer review committee, is normally politely terminated.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WORKINGMEN (NOWM) PSSLU-TUCP and In other words, private hospitals, hire, fire and exercise real control over their attending and visiting consultant staff. While
ROLANDO VILLALOBOS, respondents consultants are not, technically employees, a point which respondent hospital asserts in denying all responsibility for the patients
[PIER 8 A&S is a corporation providing Arrastre and stevedoring services to vessels docked at Pier 8 of the Manila North Harbor. condition, the control exercised, the hiring, and the right to terminate consultants all fulfill the important hallmarks of a n
Prior to the incorporation of PIER 8 A&S two (2) stevedoring companies had been servicing vessels docking at Pier 8. One of these employer-employee relationship, with the exception of the payment of wages. In assessing whether such a relationship in fact
was the Manila Integrated Services, Inc. MISI which was servicing Escaño vessels, then berthing at Pier 8. The other was the San exists, the control test is determining. Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, we rule that for the purpose of allocating
Nicolas Stevedoring and Arrastre Services, Inc. (SNSASI) which was servicing Compania Maritima vessels. Aside, of course, from responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer-employee relationship in effect exists between hospitals and their
MISI and SNSASI there were individual contractors known as the "cabos" who were operating in Pier 8. attending and visiting physicians. This being the case, the question now arises as to whether or not respondent hospital is solidarily
On 11 July 1974, the Philippine Port Authority ("PPA") was created pursuant to the policy of the State to implement an integrated liable with respondent doctors for petitioners condition.
program of port development for the entire country. 4 Towards this end, the PPA issued Administrative Order No. 1377 specifically The basis for holding an employer solidarily responsible for the negligence of its employee is found in Article 2180 of the Civil
adopting the policy of "one pier, one Arrastre and/or stevedoring company." MISI and SNSASI merged to form the Pier 8 Arrastre Code which considers a person accountable not only for his own acts but also for those of others based on the formers
and Stevedoring Services, Inc. responsibility under a relationship of patria potestas.[77] Such responsibility ceases when the persons or entity concerned prove
Sometime in June 1978, Escaño had transferred berth to Pier 16 with the approval of the PPA. PIER 8 A&S then started to that they have observed the diligence of a good father of the family to prevent damage. [78] In other words, while the burden of
encounter problems; it found its business severely reduced with only Compania Maritima vessels to service. Even if it had wanted proving negligence rests on the plaintiffs, once negligence is shown, the burden shifts to the respondents (parent, guardian,
to continue servicing the vessels of Escaño at Pier 16, that was simply not possible as there was another company exclusively teacher or employer) who should prove that they observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
authorized to handle and render Arrastre and stevedoring services at Pier 16. Applicability, Art. 6
NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION (NASECO) AND ARTURO L. PEREZ, petitioners, HELLENIC PHILIPPINE SHIPPING, INC., petitioner, vs. EPIFANIO C. SIETE and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
vs. (NLRC), respondents.
THE HONORABLE THIRD DIVISION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT,
MANILA AND EUGENIA C. CREDO, respondents. WALLEM PHILIPPINES SHIPPING, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HON. MINISTER OF LABOR, in his capacity as Chairman of the National
It would appear that, under the same 1973 Constitution ,but prior to the ruling in National Housing Corporation vs. Juco, this Court Seamen Board Proper, JAIME CAUNCA, ANTONIO CABRERA, EFREN GARCIA, JOSE OJEDA and RODOLFO
had recognized the applicability of the Labor Code to, and the authority of the NLRC to exercise jurisdiction over, disputes involving PAGWAGAN, respondents.
terms and conditions of employment in government owned or controlled corporations, among them, the National Service
Corporation ANTONIO M. SERRANO, - versus - GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES, INC. and MARLOW NAVIGATIONCO., INC.,
PNOC ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and MARCELINO TONGCO, petitioners,
vs. The Court concludes that the subject clause contains a suspect classification in that, in the computation of the monetary benefits of fixed-
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MANUEL S. PINEDA, respondents. term employees who are illegally discharged, it imposes a 3-month cap on the claim of OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their
it was no doubt aware that in light of Section 2 (1), Article IX of the 1987 Constitution: (a) government-owned or controlled contracts, but none on the claims of other OFWs or local workers with fixed-term employment. The subject clause singles out one classification of OFWs
corporations were of two (2) categories — those with original charters, and those organized under the general law — and (b) and burdens it with a peculiar disadvantage.
employees of these corporations were of two (2) kinds — those covered by the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations because
employed in corporations having original charters, and those not subject to Civil Service Law but to the Labor Code because the subject clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 is violative of the right of petitioner and other OFWs to equal protection.
employed in said corporations organized under the general law, or the Corporation Code. Yet Congress made no effort to Further, there would be certain misgivings if one is to approach the declaration of the unconstitutionality of the subject clause from the lone perspective that
distinguish between these two classes of government-owned or controlled corporations or their employees in the Omnibus the clause directly violates state policy on labor under Section 3,[131] Article XIII of the Constitution.
Election Code or subsequent related statutes, particularly as regards the rule that any employee "in government-owned or
controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy." SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC, INC., versus NATIONAL LABORRELATIONS COMMISSION,
Be this as it may, it seems obvious to the Court that a government-owned or controlled corporation does not lose its character as A seafarer is not a regular employee as defined in Article 280 of the Labor Code. Hence, he is not entitled to full backwages and
such because not possessed of an original charter but organized under the general law. If a corporation's capital stock is owned separation pay in lieu of reinstatement as provided in Article 279 of the Labor Code. [25] Seafarers are contractual employees
by the Government, or it is operated and managed by officers charged with the mission of fulfilling the public objectives for which whose rights and obligations are governed primarily by the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen, the Rules
it has been organized, it is a government-owned or controlled corporation even if organized under the Corporation Code and not and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment, and, more importantly, by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the Migrant
under a special statute; and employees thereof, even if not covered by the Civil Service but by the Labor Code, are nonetheless Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.[26] While the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen and the Rules
"employees in government-owned or controlled corporations," and come within the letter of Section 66 of the Omnibus Election and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment do not provide for the award of separation or termination pay,[27] Section 10 of
Code, declaring them "ipso facto resigned from . . . office upon the filing of . . . (their) certificate of candidacy." R.A. 8042 provides for the award of money claims in cases of illegal dismissals, thus:
What all this imports is that Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code which provide, Section 10. Money Claims. x x x
Sec. 66. Candidates holding appointive office or position.— Any person holding a public appointive office or position, including In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as
active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers and employees in government-owned or controlled defined by law or contract, the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee
corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy, applies to with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
officers and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, even those organized under the general laws on employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.
incorporation and therefore not having an original or legislative charter, and even if they do not fall under the Civil Service Law
but under the Labor Code. In other words, Section 66 constitutes just cause for termination of employment in addition to those The award of salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired
set forth in the Labor Code, as amended. term, whichever is less, is not an award of backwages or separation pay, but a form of indemnity for the worker who was illegally
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the NATIONAL PARKS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, petitioner, dismissed. The Labor Arbiter may have mislabeled it as separation pay, nonetheless, the award was made in conformity with law.
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE NATIONAL PARKS DEVELOPMENT SUPERVISORY ASSOCIATION & THEIR However, in the interest of substantial justice and to avoid further litigation on the matter, [28] it must be stressed that the peso
MEMBERS, respondents. amounts equivalent to the dollar awards of the Labor Arbiter can not be enforced for being contrary to law. The peso equivalent
Since NPDC is a government agency, its employees are covered by civil service rules and regulations (Sec. 2, Article IX, 1987 of the monetary award should be computed at the peso to dollar exchange rate prevailing at the time of payment, [29] as provided
Constitution). Its employees are civil service employees (Sec. 14, Executive Order No. 180). in Republic Act No. 8183, entitled An Act Repealing Republic Act Numbered Five Hundred Twenty-Nine, As Amended, Entitled An
Further, NPDC employees are allowed under the 1987 Constitution to organize and join unions of their choice, there is as yet no Act to Assure the Uniform Value of Philippine Coin and Currency, which provides:
law permitting them to strike. In case of a labor dispute between the employees and the government, Section 15 of Executive
Order No. 180 dated June 1, 1987 provides that the Public Sector Labor- Management Council, not the Department of Labor and SECTION 1. All monetary obligations shall be settled in the Philippine currency which is legal
Employment, shall hear the dispute. tender in the Philippines. However, the parties may agree that the obligation or transaction shall be
ANTONIO P. SALENGA and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, versus COURT OF APPEALS and CLARK DEVELOPMENT settled in any other currency at the time of payment.
CORPORATION,
Respondent CDC owes its existence to Executive Order No. 80 issued by then President Fidel V. Ramos. It was meant to be the implementing Except for the foregoing clarification, the Court finds no cogent reason to grant this petition.
and operating arm of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) tasked to manage the Clark Special Economic Zone (CSEZ).
Expressly, respondent was formed in accordance with Philippine corporation laws and existing rules and regulations promulgated by the SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC., Petitioner,
SEC pursuant to Section 16 of Republic Act (R.A.) 722 vs.
DC, a government-owned or -controlled corporation without an original charter, was incorporated under the Corporation Code. Pursuant JOY C. CABILES, Respondent.
to Article IX-B, Sec. 2(1), the civil service embraces only those government-owned or -controlled corporations with original charter. As such, We reiterate our finding in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime that limiting wages that should be recovered by anillegally dismissed
respondent CDC and its employees are covered by the Labor Code and not by the Civil Service Law. overseas worker to three months is both a violation of due process and the equal protection clauses of the Constitution.
Pre-Employment, Recruitment and Placement Equal protection of the law is a guarantee that persons under like circumstances and falling within the same class are treated
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. DOMINGO PANIS, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zambales alike, in terms of "privileges conferred and liabilities enforced." 97 It is a guarantee against "undue favor and individual or class
& Olongapo City, Branch III and SERAPIO ABUG, respondents. privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality."98
The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and placement of workers. Any of the In creating laws, the legislature has the power "to make distinctions and classifications." 99
acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) win constitute recruitment and placement even if only one prospective worker is In exercising such power, it has a wide discretion.100
involved. The proviso merely lays down a rule of evidence that where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise or offer of The equal protection clause does not infringe on this legislative power. 101 A law is void on this basis, only if classifications are
employment to two or more prospective workers, the individual or entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged in made arbitrarily.102 There is no violation of the equal protection clause if the law applies equally to persons within the same class
the act of recruitment and placement. The words "shall be deemed" create that presumption. and if there are reasonable grounds for distinguishing between those falling within the class and those who do not fall within the
At any rate, the interpretation here adopted should give more force to the campaign against illegal recruitment and placement, class.103 A law that does not violate the equal protection clause prescribes a reasonable classification
which has victimized many Filipino workers seeking a better life in a foreign land, and investing hard- earned savings or even The clause, "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022
borrowed funds in pursuit of their dream, only to be awakened to the reality of a cynical deception at the hands of theirown amending Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 is declared unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.
countrymen.