You are on page 1of 25

Atok Big Wedge Company vs. Gison, G.R. No.

169510, be only temporary, it clearly disregarded the same by
August 8, 2011 repeatedly giving petitioner several tasks to perform.
Moreover, although the respondent may have waived
Facts: The respondent in this case, Jesus P. Gison, was his right to attain a regular status when he agreed to
engaged as part-time consultant of the petitioner, Atok perform these tasks on a temporary employment status,
Big Wedge Company thorugh its then Asst. VP and still it was the law that recognized and considered him a
Acting Resident Manager, Rutillo A. Torres. As a regular employee after his first year of rendering service
consultant on retainer basis, the former assisted the to petitioner. As such, the waiver is ineffective.
petitioner’s retained legal counsel with matters
pertaining to the prosecution of cases against illegal Petitioner herein posits that CA erred in applying Article
surface occupants within the area covered by the 280 of the Labor Code in determining whether there
company’s mineral claims. He also tasked to perform exists an employer-employee relationship. Petitioner
liason work with government agencies which he said his contends that where the existence of an employer-
expertise. Respondent is not required to report to its employee relationship is in dispute, Article 280 of the
office on a regular basis, except when occassionally Labor Code is inapplicable. The said article only set the
requested by the management to discuss the matters distinction between a casual employee from a regular
which needs of his expertise as a consultant. He is paid a employee for purposes of determining the rights of an
retainer fee of 3,000Php a month and delivered to him employee to be entitled to certain benefits.
either in his residence or in a local restaurant. They have
also executed a retainer agreement however was Issue: Whether or not CA erred in applying Article 280?
misplaced and can no longer be found. This kind of
arrangement continued on for the next 11 years. Since Ruling: Well-entrenched is the doctrine that the
respondent was getting old, he requested petitioner to existence of an employer-employee relationship is
cause his registration with the Social Security System but ultimately a question of fact and that the findings
petitioner did not accede to his request considering the thereon by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC shall be
former only a retainer/consultant. accorded not only respect but even finality when
supported by substantial evidence. Being a question of
Respondent herein, filed a complaint with SSS against fact, the determination whether such a relationship exists
petitioner’s refusal to cause his registration with the SSS. between petitioner and respondent was well within the
The Resident Manager of the petitioner issued then a province of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Being
Memorandum advising respondent that within 30 days supported by substantial evidence, such determination
from receipt thereof, petitioner’s services as a should have been accorded great weight by the CA in
retainer/consultant will be terminated since his services resolving the issue. To ascertain the existence of an
are no longer necessary. As a result, respondent filed a employer-employee relationship jurisprudence has
complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, invariably adhered to the four-fold test, to wit: (1) the
underpayment of wages, non-payment of 13th Month selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the
pay, vacation pay and sick leave with the NLRC, payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4)
Regional Arbitration Branch and Cordillera Administrative the power to control the employee's conduct, or the so-
Region against the petitioner. called "control test." The so-called "control test" is
commonly regarded as the most crucial and
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the determinative indicator of the presence or absence of
petitioner ruling that there is no employer-employee an employer-employee relationship
relationship and dismissed the complaint for lack of
merit. An appeal was made before the NLRC but same Applying the aforementioned test, an employer-
was dismissed and affirmed the decision of the Labor employee relationship is apparently absent in the case
Arbiter. A petition for review was filed under Rule 65 at bar. Among other things, respondent was not required
before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals to report everyday during regular office hours of
annuled and has set aside the decision of NLRC. The CA petitioner. Respondent's monthly retainer fees were paid
opined that, both the Labor Arbiter and NLRC to him either at his residence or a local restaurant. More
overlooked Article 280 of the Labor Code, which importantly, petitioner did not prescribe the manner in
distinguishes between the two kinds of employees, i.e., which respondent would accomplish any of the tasks in
regular and casual employees. The respondent is which his expertise as a liaison officer was needed;
deemed a regular employee of the petitioner after the respondent was left alone and given the freedom to
lapse of one year from his employment. Considering also accomplish the tasks using his own means and method.
that the respondent had been performing services for Respondent was assigned tasks to perform, but
the petitioner for the last 11 years entitling him to the petitioner did not control the manner and methods by
rights and privileges of a regular employee. The CA which respondent performed these tasks. Verily, the
added that although there was an agreement between absence of the element of control on the part of the
the parties that the employment of the respondent will petitioner engenders a conclusion that he is not an

employee of the petitioner. Moreover, the absence of AUTO BUS TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC. vs ANTONIO
the parties' retainership agreement notwithstanding, BAUTISTA G.R. No. 156367 May 16 2005
respondent clearly admitted that petitioner hired him in Service Incentive Leave Pay
a limited capacity only and that there will be no
employer-employee relationship between them. FACTS: Antonio Bautista was employed by Auto Bus
Transport Systems, Inc. in May 1995. He was assigned to
Respondent was well aware of the agreement that he the Isabela-Manila route and he was paid by
was hired merely as a liaison or consultant of the commission (7% of gross income per travel for twice a
petitioner and he agreed to perform tasks for the month).
petitioner on a temporary employment status only.
However, respondent anchors his claim that he became In January 2000, while he was driving his bus he bumped
a regular employee of the petitioner based on his another bus owned by Auto Bus. He claimed that he
contention that the "temporary" aspect of his job and its bumped the he accidentally bumped the bus as he was
"limited" nature could not have lasted for eleven years so tired and that he has not slept for more than 24 hours
unless some time during that period, he became a because Auto Bus required him to return to Isabela
regular employee of the petitioner by continually immediately after arriving at Manila. Damages were
performing services for the company. computed and 30% or P75,551.50 of it was being
charged to Bautista. Bautista refused payment.
Respondent is not an employee, much more a regular
employee of petitioner. The appellate court's premise Auto Bus terminated Bautista after due hearing as part of
that regular employees are those who perform activities Auto Bus’ management prerogative. Bautista sued Auto
which are desirable and necessary for the business of Bus for Illegal Dismissal. The Labor Arbiter Monroe
the employer is not determinative in this case. In fact, Tabingan dismissed Bautista’s petition but ruled that
any agreement may provide that one party shall render Bautista is entitled to P78,1117.87 13th month pay
services for and in behalf of another, no matter how payments and P13,788.05 for his unpaid service incentive
necessary for the latter's business, even without being leave pay.
hired as an employee. Hence,respondent's length of
service and petitioner's repeated act of assigning The case was appealed before the National Labor
respondent some tasks to be performed did not result to Relations Commission. NLRC modified the LA’s ruling. It
respondent's entitlement to the rights and privileges of a deleted the award for 13th Month pay. The court of
regular employee. Appeals affirmed the NLRC.
Furthermore, despite the fact that petitioner made use
of the services of respondent for eleven years, he still Auto Bus averred that Bautista is a commissioned
cannot be considered as a regular employee of employee and if that is not reason enough that Bautista
petitioner. Article 280 of the Labor Code, in which the is also a field personnel hence he is not entitled to a
lower court used to buttress its findings that respondent service incentive leave. They invoke:
became a regular employee of the petitioner, is not
applicable in the case at bar. Indeed, the Court has Art. 95. RIGHT TO SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE
ruled that said provision is not the yardstick for
determining the existence of an employment (a) Every employee who has rendered at least one year
relationship because it merely distinguishes between two of service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive
kinds of employees, i.e., regular employees and casual leave of five days with pay.
employees, for purposes of determining the right of an
employee to certain benefits, to join or form a union, or Book III, Rule V: SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE
to security of tenure; it does not apply where the
existence of an employment relationship is in dispute.It is, SECTION 1. Coverage. ' This rule shall apply to all
therefore, erroneous on the part of the Court of Appeals employees except:
to rely on Article 280 in determining whether an
employer-employee relationship exists between (d) Field personnel and other employees whose
respondent and the petitioner. performance is unsupervised by the employer including
Considering that there is no employer-employee those who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely
relationship between the parties, the termination of commission basis, or those who are paid in a fixed
respondent's services by the petitioner after due notice amount for performing work irrespective of the time
did not constitute illegal dismissal warranting his consumed in the performance thereof; . . .
reinstatement and the payment of full backwages,
allowances and other benefits.
ISSUE: Whether or not Bautista is entitled to Service
Incentive Leave.

pursuant to their Talent pay his accumulated leave credits.1 year) and Project Assignment Forms which employees including drivers cannot be said to be field detailed the duration. the 3 year prescriptive period ran but In support of their complaint. his dismissal. In other words. He has a specific route to traverse as a bus driver and that is a The Talent Contract has an exclusivity clause and specific place that he needs to be at work. tasked with coverage of news items for subsequent daily airings in Respondents’ TV Patrol Bicol Program. 20 April 2015. determined with reasonable certainty. Whether or not the three (3)-year prescriptive after only one month from the time of his dismissal. passengers. complaint for illegal dismissal. including authorized absences and paid regular holidays unless the working The question actually boils down to whether or not days in the establishment as a matter of practice or Bautista is a field employee. accumulated service incentive leave thus accrued from the time when his employer dismissed him and failed to Respondents countered that. they are paid specific amount for cameramen. one month from the time they were provided the necessary equipment. Contracts and Project Assignment Forms. is less than 12 months.If he is. Labor Code. Respondents further claimed they never claim for service incentive leave pay only commenced imposed control as to how Petitioners discharged their from the time the employer failed to compensate his duties. in which case said period shall be According to Article 82 of the Labor Code. an employee who has served place of business or branch office of the employer and for one year is entitled to it. that Bautista demanded from his former informed about the news to be covered the following employer commutation of his accumulated leave day. the prescriptive period with respect to his cameramen. Petitioners claimed that Bautista was able to file his suit in time before the they worked under the direct control of Respondent prescriptive period expired. the punched tickets. regularization before the NLRC's Arbitration branch. is applicable to respondent's claim of service prescriptive period provided for by Article 291 of the incentive leave pay. Certainly. engaged the services of Petitioners as certainty. or that provided in the employment contracts. BEGINO vs. At most. Bautista is entitled to Service Incentive Leave. 199166. and the driver. There are provides that nothing therein shall be deemed or inspectors hired by Auto Bus to constantly check him. through Respondent days of work cannot be determined with reasonable Villafuerte. construed to establish an employer-employee There are inspectors in bus stops who inspects the relationship between the parties. budget and daily technical personnel despite the fact that they are performing work requirements of a particular project. policy. rendering specific service or performing specific work. editors and/or Therefore. Petitioners were hired as talents to act as reporters. He may use it as leave days whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be or he may collect its monetary value.R. Definition of Service Incentive Leave HELD: Yes. Petitioners were away from the principal office of the employee. ABS-CBN CORPORATION performance of their job/service is not supervised by the G. editors or reporters for TV Broadcasting. The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not mean Service incentive leave is a right which accrues to every that just because an employee is paid on commission employee who has served within 12 months. Therefore he is definitely supervised though he is away Petitioners filed against Respondents a complaint for from the Auto Bus main office. they were briefed regarding the general accumulated service incentive leave pay at the time of requirements of the project to be executed. employee started working. they were of his dismissal. period provided under Article 291 of the Labor Code. No. 'field considered as one year. employer or his representative. His cause of action to claim the payment of his attendance and punctuality. as necessarily. and they were bound by the company’s policy on credits. his money claim was filed within the amended. It was only upon his filing of a Villafuerte . It is also commutable to its personnel shall refer to non-agricultural employees who money equivalent if not used or exhausted at the end of regularly perform their duties away from the principal the year. field personnel are those whose NELSON V. As a general rule. months . Bautista is not a field employee.they were mandated to wear company IDs. the workplace being away from the principal office and whose hours and FACTS: Respondent ABS-CBN. If Petitioners signed regularly renewed Talent Contracts (3 required to be at specific places at specific times. hence. whether basis he is already barred to receive service incentive continuous or broken reckoned from the date the leave pay. On the other hand. Since Bautista had filed his money claim .

however obliquely worded. and the second was for September regular employees of ABS-CBN. he was no longer made to sign a result but also the manner and means utilized to achieve contract. Beginning performed reserves the right to control not only the end February 2004. he signed a yearly contract determinative indicator of the said relationship. On March 1. an employer-employee relationship is said dissatisfaction over his questioning on the assignment of to exist where the person for whom the services are referees officiating out-of-town games. them. on the other hand.While the case was pending. Respondents aver. Bernarte vs. It was only during the second conference when he The Arbitration Branch ruled that Petitioners were regular was made to sign a one and a half month contract for employees. when the worker does not furnish an independent business or professional service. complainant Guevarra alleges that Of the criteria to determine whether there is an he was invited to join the PBA pool of referees in employer-employee relationship. was not made to terminated. the Court of Appeals overturned the decisions employment of such employee and not an independent of the NLRC and Labor Arbiter on the ground that the contractor. 2003. 2003. such work is a regular However.. 1 to December 2003. The first contract was for the period January 1. relationship. contract would not be renewed citing his unsatisfactory performance on and off the court. 2001. 2004. Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed the assailed decision to-year basis. editors and reporters. Basketball Assoc. referees. the so-called "control February 2001.R. they were made to sign contracts on a year. petitioners are 2003 to July 15. Facts: Complainants (Jose Mel Bernarte and Renato which in turn determines whether petitioner was illegally Guevarra) aver that they were invited to join the PBA as dismissed. Petitioners contracts were Complainant Bernarte. he signed a contract test" is generally regarded as the most crucial and as trainee. however. 192084. to wit: (a) the selection and engagement of the . Filipino Cup which was from February 23. Petitioners. Bernarte received a letter from the The NLRC affirmed the ruling. Phil. case law has consistently applied the four- fold test. and ordered Respondents to reinstate the the period July 1 to August 5. After the lapse of the latter period. for instance. changes were made on the terms of their To determine the existence of an employer-employee employment. PBA had exclusivity clause and prohibitions in their Talent Contract the prerogative of whether or not to renew their were likewise indicative of Respondents' control over contracts. respondent Martinez issued a memorandum to Guevarra expressing Under this test. G. Beginning 2002. which they knew were fixed. During the leadership of Commissioner Emilio Bernardino. that complainants Notwithstanding the nomenclature of their Talent entered into two contracts of retainer with the PBA in the Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms and the year 2003. RULING: Yes. PBA decided not to renew their contracts. The contracts of retainer were simply not renewed. On May 6. 2011 Issue: Whether petitioner is an employee of respondents. He felt that the dismissal was caused by his refusal to fix a game upon order of Ernie De Leon. but the CA overturned the Office of the Commissioner advising him that his decision. September 14. prompting the latter to file a second sign a contract during the first conference of the All- complaint for illegal dismissal. petitioner is an independent contractor since respondents did not exercise any form of control over the means and methods by which petitioner performed his work as a basketball referee. Their respective essential for the discharge of their functions. On the other hand. It was a total shock ISSUE: W/N Petitioners are regular employees of for Bernarte who was awarded Referee of the year in Respondents. the same. Both the Labor Arbiter and NLRC decided that the Also. 2003.the presumption is that when the work done is an petitioners were employees whose dismissals by integral part of the regular business of the employer and respondents were illegal. 2003 to June 2003. terms and condition embodied therein. 2003. On January 15. No. As cameramen. it appears that Petitioners were subject to the control and supervision of Complainants were not illegally dismissed because they Respondents which provided them with the equipment were not employees of the PBA. of the Court of Appeals. as Regular Class C referee. During the term of Commissioner Eala.

the same merely results in the non-renewal of the contract. The petitioner then filed an amended complaint against the special skills and independent judgment is required respondents for illegal dismissal. the respondent that a referee is an independent contractor. and the PBA cannot overrule them once the decision is made on Chavez v. as to when respondents. or violation petitioner an independent contractor and not an of the terms and conditions of the contract. which is absent in this case. and (2) the only deductions from the fees received by petitioner with a truck. (b) the payment of wages. the referees exercise their own independent not constitute illegal dismissal of petitioner by judgment. control by respondents. mostly in Metro Manila. as shown in the retainer contracts. The respondent furnished the officiate games at an average of two hours per game. Conversely. to its various customers. as in the present case. and how a call or decision is to be made. among others. unlike regular employees who ordinarily three days after. and (4) the employer’s basketball game undoubtedly calls for freedom of power to control the employee’s conduct.employee. making contract. the following circumstances indicate that The respondent Supreme Packaging is in the business of petitioner is an independent contractor: (1) the referees manufacturing cartons and other packaging materials are required to report for work only when PBA games are for export and distribution. Philhealth or were receiving such as overtime pay. the hiring party must have control over the In this case. as stipulated in the retainer contract. and 13th month pay. 448 SCRA 478 and final authority on the playing court. The referees are the only. the former. Respondents or any of the PBA officers cannot and do not determine DOCTRINE: The elements to determine the existence of which calls to make or not to make and cannot control an employment relationship are: (1) the selection and the referee when he blows the whistle because such authority exclusively belongs to the referees. there are no deductions for avail himself of the benefits that the regular employees contributions to the Social Security System. and highlights the satisfactory services violation of its terms and conditions. rendered by petitioner warranting such contract renewal. Most of the trips of the petitioner the referees are withholding taxes. In addition. and they factory in Mariveles Bataan. and (d) the employer's power to control the controlled by the hiring party. whatever other reason. exclusive of per diem or continuous rehiring by PBA of petitioner simply signifies allowances. PBA pays perform his work. PBA admits repeatedly engaging petitioner's means and methods by which the hired party is to services. FACTS: Moreover. NLRC the playing court. if PBA decides to discontinue However. The We agree with respondents that once in the playing non-renewal of the contract between the parties does court. The so-called "control test" is the In addition. his desire to per game. PBA the renewal of the contract between PBA and can terminate the retainer contract for petitioner's petitioner. which is three times a week spread over an deliver the respondent company’s products from its average of only 105 playing days a year. based on the rules of the game. which are the usual deductions from differential pay. employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished. The very engagement of the employee. and not an employee of respondents. whose company terminated the services of the petitioner. or for employee of respondents. buttress the fact that petitioner is an independent contractor. Petitioner filed a complaint for regularization with NLRC Furthermore. These undisputed circumstances promised to extend these benefits but later failed to do so. (2) the payment of nature of petitioner's job of officiating a professional wages. commencing at 6:00pm from Mariveles and returning thereto in the afternoon two or In other words. petitioner is required to report for work only when PBA games are scheduled or three times a week at two hours respondent company’s plant manager. Lee employees' salaries. nightshift Pag-Ibig. the petitioner expressed to respondent Alvin Lee. whether for unsatisfactory services. (c) the power of specifically for such position and cannot possibly be dismissal. were made in nighttime. In 1992. (3) the power of dismissal. the applicable foreign case law declares and before the case could be heard. unfair labor practice . The petitioner a retainer fee. the fact that PBA repeatedly hired petitioner most important indicator of the presence or absence of does not by itself prove that petitioner is an employee of an employer-employee relationship. For a hired party to be considered an employee. report for work eight hours per day for five days a week. respondents argue that the all-important petitioner's services at the end of the term fixed in the element of control is lacking in this case. absolute. The petitioner was tasked to scheduled. The referees decide whether an infraction was committed.

. the petitioner did not intend to RULING: Petition is GRANTED sever his relationship with the respondent company for he just filed a complaint for regularization and even prayed for reinstatement. which is payable by an employer to Coca-Cola until he received a letter dated March 9. the upheld. among others. capable of being expressed in last one expired on December 31. Which states: “The Principal (3) the power of dismissal. who will be indemnified by the Principal for any such (4) the employer’s power to control the employee’s claim. piece or commission basis. determining the existence or absence of employer- employee relationship. which -Wages are defined as “remuneration or earnings. February 15. this raise the speculation that this the petitioner was an independent contractor as omission proves that its presentation would be adverse evidenced by the contract of service which he and the to their case. Interestingly. by the petitioner belonged to respondent company. They insinuated that the petitioner abandoned his job. The employment relationship having been proven. was renewed annually. after completion of each delivery. vs.. renewal of the Retainer Agreement. (2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship.Undeniably. This is merely a company whether it was agreeable to recognizing him . 2007 . The exercised this power in and harmless from any liability or claim…it being clearly the guise of “severance of contractual relation” due understood that any truck drivers. Elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Climaco is a medical doctor who was third party hired by Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. (c) respondents directed null and void it being a way to circumvent the rights of the petitioner. these two factors must concur: (1) the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent failure for work or absence without valid or justifiable company – YES reason. offices in Metro Manila or in Bataan. respondents now bear the burden to prove that the dismissal was for a valid and just cause. the right to control was manifested by the with the respondent company was due to his violation of following attendant circumstances: (a) the truck driven the terms and conditions of their contract. by nature of their specialized line of inherent in the fact that they engaged the services of service jobs… The Contractor shall hold the Principal free the petitioner as truck driver. 1988. No. or for service agreement effective 30 days from receipt thereof. not present the payroll their claim that the petitioner was employee relationship between them. respondent task. CA held that the Petitioner was not slips. or other method of continued to perform his functions as company doctor calculating the same. The however designated. 13th month pay. 1993. Despite the non- terms of money. rendered or to be rendered. helpers or men allegedly to the latter’s breach of his contractual working with and for the Contractor.” -The employee is subject to the employer’s power to control the means and methods by which the The respondents further claims that the petitioner was employee’s work is to be performed and accomplished. Dr. where and when the petitioner would Then it was Appealed. nightshift differential method of computing compensation and not a basis for pay.and non-payment of overtime pay. it was the respondents who engaged the services of the petitioner without the intervention of a Facts: Dr. to an employer under a written or unwritten contract of 1995 from the company concluding their retainership employment for work done or to be done. The respondents appeal and the same the truck in either of two specific places only. to park the petitioner. and (d) respondents determined how. by virtue of a (2) the payment of wages. began on January 1. The Retainer Agreement. Retainer Agreement. (1) the selection and engagement of the employee.. whether fixed or ascertained on a time. to wit: at its was dismissed. not dismissed. and (Supreme Packaging) agrees to hire the Contractor -The respondent’s power to dismiss the petitioner was (Pedro Chavez). Inc. including damages incurred in connection conduct. the severance of his contractual relation In this case.R. Dean N. and after so many turn-around of perform his task by issuing to him gate passes and routing decisions. RATIO: 1. Obviously. illegally dismissed and that the contract of service was 2. Climaco. G. 146881. To constitute ISSUE: WoN there was an employee-employer abandonment. (b) there was an express instruction from the respondents Labor Arbiter found the respondent company guilty of that the truck shall be used exclusively to deliver illegal dismissal and that such contract of service was respondent company’s goods. Dr. They claimed that not their employee. (THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT) therewith. the respondents did The respondents denied the existence of an employer. are not employees obligation. company entered into. The fact that the petitioner Climaco inquired from the management of the was paid on a trip basis is not significant. in the end.

(3) the exemplary damages granted by the Court of Appeals to power of dismissal. complainant maintains his own (1) usually starts his work at 10:00 p. but did not control the means and methods implements. an employee is required to payment of all benefits of a regular employee. It did (2) daily paid his salary of P700. Through the Comprehensive Medical Plan. Bacolod City. holiday pay. On February 24. and that he only has ten employees." damages and attorney’s fees. doing business under respondent’s objectives. that the daily that David: incoming and outgoing telegraphic transfer of funds (1) set the work day. Macasio further claimed that David employs about Likewise. . however.” 2006 and P400.00 in should be operated. which contains the against petitioner Ariel L. or how to diagnose and month pay. Complainant does not business in 2005. is not at all further required to just sit around in the not entitled to overtime pay. 1994. treat his patients. Macasio filed before the Labor Arbiter a complaint The…Comprehensive Medical Plan. Considering that there is no employer- relationship. which was not. The management refused to do and if it is an employee of respondent company who is so. or the so-called "control test. he chopper on “pakyaw” or task basis who is. David also rented the workplace. does employer-employee relationship. The Retainership Agreement granted to agreement effective thirty (30) days from receipt both parties the power to terminate their relationship thereof. While the stay in the employer’s workplace or proximately close complaint was pending before the Labor Arbiter. employee relationship between the parties. tallies with to be chopped. the allegation of complainant that since he is twenty-five (25) butchers and delivery drivers. duties and obligations.” for tell respondent "how to conduct his physical nonpayment of overtime pay.as a regular employee.. how to immunize. 1995. and 13th examination. employee’s conduct. as well as the work tools and achieved. in He also claimed payment for moral and exemplary each case. in determining the existence of an accordance with the provisions of the Agreement. and (4) the power to control the respondent due to his alleged illegal dismissal. employees of [petitioner] company. thereto that he cannot utilize his time effectively and respondent received a letter dated March 9. No David v. respectively. and (3) approved and disapproved his leaves. pointing out actually the end result of the task. by which respondent performed his assigned tasks. More often than not. However. on call at anytime of the day and night makes him a David claimed that he started his hog dealer regular employee is off-tangent. The…company lacked the power of control over Facts: the performance by respondent of his duties.00. reporting time and hogs received and relayed by her. seeking recognition as a hospitalization or operation. there is no basis for the moral and of the employee. Petitioner Company did not wield the sole power of dismissal or Issue: Whether or not there exists an employer-employee termination. upon giving a 30-day notice. bills them accordingly -. (2) the payment of wages.00 in 2005. Hence. at 2:00 a. does not the name and style “Yiels Hog Dealer." considered to be the most important element. e. dispute the fact that outside of the two (2) hours that he He alleged that he hired Macasio as a butcher or is required to be at respondent company’s premises. P500.m. as well as the manner by that of the register. 1995 from gainfully for his own purpose. this is subject to a special regular employee of the company and prayed for the billing. and ends private clinic attending to his private practice in the city. has invariably adhered not constitute illegal dismissal of respondent. Macasio (2014) employer-employee relationship exists between the parties. a cursory reading of the job description shows Macasio claimed that David exercised effective that what was sought to be controlled by FEBTC was control and supervision over his work. Such is not the prevailing Petitioner Company concluding their retainership situation here. therefore. Macasio alleged before the Labor Arbiter that he “…It is admitted that FEBTC issued a job description had been working as a butcher for David since which detailed her functions as a radio/telex operator. The guidelines were laid down merely which he was to perform his work.00 in 2007. of the following day or earlier. January 6. which is in Ruling: The Court. David. where he services his patients. and for payment of Neri v. the termination of the Retainership Agreement. National Labor Relations Commission service incentive leave (SIL). provided Macasio added that David owned the hogs guidelines merely to ensure that the end result was delivered for chopping. tell Neri how the radio/telex machine increased from P600. to the four-fold test: (1) the selection and engagement Consequently. respondent filed a Complaint attended to by him for special treatment that needs before the NLRC. to ensure that the desired end result was achieved. In fact. holiday pay and 13th premises and wait for an emergency to occur so as to month pay. enable him from using such hours for his own benefit and David pointed out that Macasio: advantage.m.g. depending on the volume of the delivered hogs.

it nevertheless In determining whether workers engaged on found Macasio entitled to his monetary claims. an employee must be Held: one of those expressly enumerated to be exempted. upon Macasio’s request. employment relationship. . and overseas employment purposes. The LA concluded that since Macasio was engaged A distinguishing characteristic of “pakyaw” or task on “pakyaw” or task basis. The CA partly granted Macasio’s certiorari petition The payment of an employee on task or pakyaw and reversed the NLRC’s ruling for having been basis alone is insufficient to exclude one from the rendered with grave abuse of discretion. “pakyaw” or task basis is entitled to holiday and The CA explained that as a task basis employee.” The Supreme Court agree with the CA that Macasio As defined by the Labor Code. schedule that starts at 10:00 p. SIL and 13th month pay. Macasio’s relationship with David satisfies this test. discretion in denying this benefit to Macasio. Macasio was a task basis employee. David did not start his business characterize the relationship that may exist between only in 2005.m. the Supreme Court find that the CA legally Issue: The issue revolves around the proper application erred in finding that the NLRC gravely abused its and interpretation of the labor law provisions on holiday. whether one of employment or Employment that David issued in his favor which independent contractorship. David supervised his time and supervision and control. placed the date of his employment. i. SIL and 13th month pay for three years. 13th month pay benefits generally cover all employees.00 per David confuses engagement on “pakyaw” or task engagement. the CA awarded Macasio’s claim for personnel. David filed the present petition. (4) the power to control the employee’s The Labor Arbiter dismissed Macasio’s complaint for conduct. first. with of holiday.. Hence.” then he is not exempted from the grant holiday. With respect to the payment of 13th month pay however. Since Macasio cannot be considered a “field Accordingly. Employment. petitioner. coverage of Service Incentive Leave (SIL) and While the CA agreed with the LA and the NLRC that holiday pay. and whose regular work hours cannot established facts of this case: be determined with reasonable certainty. as opposed to straight-hour overtime. “pakyaw” or task basis. wage payment. Service Incentive Leave (SIL) pay. Macasio regularly performed his duties at In Macasio’s case. the elements that characterize a David’s principal place of business. absence) of employer supervision as regards the SIL and 13th month pay only if he is likewise a “field worker’s time and performance is the key. personnel. Macasio disputed David’s allegations. did not receive any fee when no The Supreme Court reject this assertion of the hogs were delivered.” one who performs the work away from the office or The CA’s finding in this regard is supported by the place of work. he reported for work every day which the to be considered. Impliedly. Manila under David’s third. in January 2000. He pointed to the Certificate of the parties. his actual hours of work could be been working as a butcher at David’s “Yiels Hog determined with reasonable certainty.e. a “field personnel” is does not fall under the definition of “field personnel. albeit To determine the existence of an employer- erroneously. the presence (or Macasio is excluded from the coverage of holiday. and for a fixed working performance of duties. he is not entitled to basis engagement. four elements generally need Second. SIL pay even as he was engaged on 10% attorney’s fees on the total monetary award. accordingly. “field personnel” are evidently lacking as he had second. David asserts that their “pakyawan” or task and basis arrangement negates the existence of (3) was not engaged to report for work and. David claimed that he issued the Certificate of (2) the payment of wages. is the non-consideration of the time The NLRC affirmed the Labor arbiter’s ruling. hours that he spent chopping the delivered hogs. lack of merit. (2) received the fixed amount of P700. with holiday and SIL pay. namely: payroll or time record could have easily proved had (1) the selection and engagement of the David submitted them in evidence. only for (3) the power of dismissal. SIL and 13th month pay to a worker engaged on The governing law on 13th month pay is PD 8 5 1. spent in working. first. Mesa. regardless of the actual number of basis with the lack of employment relationship. and Dealer” business in Sta. As “pakyaw” or task basis. holiday. “pakyaw” or task basis. Engagement on “pakyaw” or task basis does not He argued that. employee relationship. employee. The Labor Arbiter gave credence to These elements or indicators comprise the so-called David’s claim that he engaged Macasio on “four-fold” test of employment relationship.

He was also allowed to use the petitioner’s vacation/sick/service incentive leaves and other name. petitioner sent a letter to Mr. the law did not intend to qualify the case. ABC or dealer. It was agreed that office monetary benefits due to a regular employee. NLRC reversed. her work was continuous for a period of four years. In 1974. 851 enumerates the exemptions from the monthly pay of petitioner vis the P300. This repeated Dumpit-Morillo vs. As a regular Facts: Associated Broadcasting Company (ABC) hired employee. petitioner assails that there was no had control over the performance of petitioner’s work. employee-employer relationship. Since private respondents did evening news program. there existed an employment Regulations Implementing PD 851 exempts relationship between petitioner and ABC. the television station did not opined that there was no evidence supporting exercise control over the means and methods of the allegation that Limjoco was an independent contractor performance of Sonza’s work. engagement under contract of hire is indicative of the citing 2004 Sonza necessity and desirability of the petitioner’s work in private respondent ABC’s business. petitioner’s talent contract expired. petitioner. No. his agents. petitioner is entitled to security of tenure and can Thelma Dumpit-Murillo under a talent contract as a be dismissed only for just cause and after due compliance newscaster and co-anchor for Balitang-Balita. She sent a demand letter to ABC. The assertion that a talent contract exists does not necessarily prevent a regular The Labor Arbiter ruled that Limjoco was an employee of employment status. The for alleged non-payment of separation pay and other Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for illegal benefits and also illegal deduction from sales constructive dismissal. Petitioner alleged that Limjoco was not an employee of the company but an independent dealer Issue: Whether or not Murillo is an employee of authorized to promote and sell its products and in return. As compensation. ABC also dictated the exempted. Associated Broadcasting Company. 2007.D. NLRC also affirmed the decision and applicable. The and those who are paid a fixed amount for duties of petitioner as enumerated in her employment performing a specific work. Section 3(e) of the Rules and present. petitioner was not in the same situation as Sonza. June 8. participation in the government’s news and public information dissemination. is the comparatively low P28. The contract was for a period of not observe due process in constructively dismissing the three months.R. CA. Section 3 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Noteworthy too. Under said of Sonza. but that the other private business and filed a complaint against petitioner claims of petitioner had no basis in fact or in law. Limjoco resigned to pursue his had been processed and prepared. demanding through some sales representatives. Jose Javier. the requisites for that insofar as payment of the 13th month pay is regularity of employment have been met in the instant concerned. compliant with labor law. On appeal. Petitioner’s work was necessary or desirable in the exemption from its coverage with the requirement usual business or trade of the employer which includes. Note that unlike the IRR of the Labor Code on ABC also had power to dismiss her. He alleged fixed-term contracts in the industry does not he was hired by the petitioner and was assigned in the automatically make all talent contracts valid and sales department. informing the latter that she was still interested in renewing her contract subject to a salary Facts: Limjoco was a Sales Divison of Encyclopaedia increase. there was an illegal dismissal.000 a month salary coverage of 13th month pay benefits. the Sonza case is not the company. The practice of having operations. irrespective of the time contract indicate that ABC had control over the work of consumed in the performance thereof” are petitioner. ABC expenses would be deducted from Limjoco’s replied that a check covering petitioner’s talent fees commissions. reinstatement. In the case at bar. Aside from control. commissions. Vice President for News and Public Encyclopedia Britanica vs.000 P. Limjoco maintained otherwise. goodwill and logo. its same time.” This could only mean Concerning regular employment. Petitioner also claims that it had no control and supervision over the complainant Ruling: Thelma Dumpit-Murillo was a regular employee as to the manners and means he conducted his business under contemplation of law. In Sonza. 264 SCRA 4 [1996] Affairs of ABC. work assignments and payment of petitioner’s wages. employees “paid on task basis” without any reference to “field personnel. that all the more bolsters the conclusion that law. G. “employers of those who are paid on task basis. Thereafter. After four years of repeated renewals. Further. payment of 13th month pay. All these being holiday and SIL pay. . NLRC. that the task worker be a “field personnel” at the as a pre-condition for its enfranchisement. In addition. 164652. clearly. petitioner stopped reporting for Britannica and was in charge of selling the products work. an early with procedural due process. payment of unpaid wages and full he would receive commissions from the products sold by backwages. received commissions therein. Two weeks after the expiration of the last contract.

1995 claim or the voluntary acceptance of another position in government. obviously without reservation. the status quo prior to the reorganizations would therefore factual circumstances must be considered. however. he was elevated to the position of Medical Specialist I (Temporary Status) which was renewed the following year. The issuance of guidelines by the petitioner was RULING: NO. 109704 January 17. The Dept. Shortly. an employee-employer relationship exists where the ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner was illegally person for whom the services are performed reserves a dismissed from his position and that it is not a violative of right to control not only the end to be achieved. but also his constitutional right of security of tenure. 500 SCRA 690 [2006] appointments of Medical Specialist positions in cases where the termination of medical specialist who failed to Facts: Petitoner was hired by Kasei Corporation during meet the requirements for board certification. it was later dismissed for lack of employee. after reviewing petitioner's service record. power of dismissal and merit. no objection was raised by him about the change of position or the FELIX VS. when it 119. did not involve a dismissal but an position of Senior Resident Physician in a temporary expiration of the petitioner's term. there was no petitioner's promotion to the position of Medical employee-employer relationship. No. Under the reorganization. he Manager. however. 1991.R. The petitioner filed a petition with the Merit determining the relationship. was advised by the hospital authorities to vacate his Ruling: There was no employee-employer relationship. and receive his Manila to secure permits for the operation of the salary.In 1996. 347 which required board certification as prerequisite for renewal of specialist positions in various medical centers and it also extend Francisco vs. Said decision was appealed to the Civil Service power to control the employee’s conduct. She was designated as 20. non. and in when he. petitioner’s temporary appointment after the Limjoco was not an employee of the company since he reorganization were valid and did not violate his had the free rein in the means and methods for constitutional right of security of tenure. On August the incorporation stage. of Health issued Department Order No. Stringent standards and agent or an independent dealer of the petitioner. he (Medical Specialist I). She Specialist I was recommended. Soon. an employee-employer relationship. NLRC. the manner and means to be employed in reaching that end. Hence. He is estopped from insisting another does so more or less at his own pleasure and is upon a right or claim which he had plainly abandoned not subject to definite hours or conditions of work. The element be akin to a college student asking to be sent to high of control is absent where a person who works for school and staying there. He requirements for renewal of specialist-rank positions or for was free to conduct his work and he was free to engage promotion to the next post-graduate residency year are in other means of livelihood. Petitioner is guilty conducting the marketing operations. In cottage. merely guidelines on company policies which sales The Solicitor General is correct in contending that the managers follow and impose on their respective agents. He was. from the facts of the case at bench. accountant and corporate secretary and was assigned renewal of petitioner’s appointment as Medical to handle all the accounting needs of the company. Specialist I (temporary) in August of 1988. It bears emphasis that at the time of efforts and not the amount thereof. provision on security of tenure. As respondent Civil Service was promoted as Senior Resident Physician until the Commission has correctly pointed out. BUENASEDA temporary nature of designation. from all indications. allowances and other benefits even after being company. Petitioner joined the that the petitioner accepted a temporary appointment NCMH as a Resident Physician in June1979. the following elements must System Protection Board alleging harassment by be present: selection and engagement of the respondents. payment of wages. was also designated as Liason Officer to the City of allowed to continue in the service. the appointment Ministry of Health reorganized the NCMH pursuant toE. Petitioner was designated as Acting informed of the termination of his appointment. Finally. He was merely an of estoppels or laches. Health as illegal and violative of the constitutional it is crystal clear. he was appointed to the was not renewed. capacity. leads to a FACTS: This is a petition assailing the petitioner’s dismissal presumption that the civil servant has either given up his as Medical Specialist I of the National Center for Mental claim of has already settled into the new position. was for a definite and renewable period which. She was assigned to handle recruitment of all . On August 1988. enthusiastically accepted turn is compensated in according to the result of his the promotion. Under the control test.O. The power of Commission which dismissed the same including the control is commonly regarded as the most crucial and Motion for Reconsideration the petitioner has filed after determinative indicator of the presence or absence of which brought this appeal. necessary because lives are ultimately at stake. The petitioner was not illegally dismissed. The failure to assert a G. Petitioner’s insistence on being reverted back to the In ascertaining the employee-employer relationship.

the corporation’s Technical Consultant. they were illegally deducted by the petitioner existing economic conditions prevailing between the P55.employees and perform management administration By applying the control test. the existing economic GABRIEL V BILON conditions prevailing between the parties.R. enterprise. the court observed the need to consider the court. 146989 FEBRURARY 7. In the case of jeepney owners/operators and (7) the degree of dependency of the worker upon the jeepney drivers. Petitioner had a to the means and methods by which the work is to be pool of drivers. private respondents were employees because they had been . Respondent Corporation hired and been no uniform test to determine the existence of an engaged petitioner for compensation. to give a garage fees and they were illegally dismissed . the former exercises supervision and employer for his continued employment in that line of control over the latter. More importantly. The better approach would therefore be to Petitioner. and the lessor. (4) the worker’s opportunity for profit and loss. can help in determining the existence of an employer-employee FACTS: relationship. skill. which included respondents. NLRC affirmed the decision while CA selected and engaged by the company for reversed it. In Sevilla v.500 per month which was until September. the totality of economic circumstances of the worker. Her main job function involved accounting an employer-employee relationship. The of the activity or relationship.00 deposit. like the G. 2007 inclusion of the employee in the payrolls. She asked Kamura. She did not anymore dependent on Respondent Corporation for her report to work since she was not paid for her salary. The Labor Arbiter found that the petitioner was employee of respondent Kasei Corporation. (b) 20. courts have dismiss her for cause.00 per day for the following :(a) 20. there has engagement. compensation. operating accomplished. Court of following issue was raised by the respondents before the Appeals. judgment or foresight loses complete control over the chattel leased although required for the success of the claimed independent the lessee cannot be reckless in the use thereof. she was replaced by Liza Fuentes as petitioner is an employee of Kasei Corporation because Manager. was the owner-operator of a public employer’s power to control the employee with respect transport business. the means to be used in reaching such end. whether there was business. and (2) the underlying economic realities under a “boundary system” of P400 per day. (d) the inclusion of the employee in the payrolls. adopt a two-tiered test involving: (1) the putative Flordeliza V. ISSUE: Thus. The proper standard of economic receive fixed wages but get only that in excess of the so dependence is whether the worker is dependent on the called boundary they pay to the owner/operator is not alleged employer for his continued employment in that sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them line of business. The clearer picture in determining the existence of an petitioner rose that there is no employer-employee employer-employee relationship based on an analysis of relationships exists.00 washing. of lessor-lessee because in the lease of chattels the lessor (5) the amount of initiative. with the power to employer-employee relation. It is for her salary but was informed that she was no longer therefore apparent that petitioner is economically connected to the company. from that of employer and employee. such as: (1) the extent to which the services performed are an HELD: integral part of the employer’s business. and tax services rendered to Respondent Corporation on a regular basis over an indefinite period of Ruling: The court held that in this jurisdiction. In 2001. circumstances of the whole economic activity. and is economically dependent upon respondent for her continued employment in that line of The following issue is to be discussed. Kasei Corporation reduced her salary to she was under the direct control and supervision of Seiji P2. She was illegally dismissed. In addition to the standard of right-of-control. the determination of the relationship between Whether there is an employer-employee employer and employee depends upon the relationship between the parties. (c) 10. (2) the extent of The relationship between jeepney the worker’s investment in equipment and facilities. (3) owners/operators and jeepney drivers under the the nature and degree of control exercised by the boundary system is that of employer-employee and not employer. NO. represented by his surviving spouse. Respondent relied on the so-called right of control test where the Corporation had the power to control petitioner with the person for whom the services are performed reserves a means and methods by which the work is to be right to control not only the end to be achieved but also accomplished. Thus. She continued employment in the latter’s line of business. Generally. in addition to the standard of right-of-control like protection. there is no doubt that functions. Gabriel. (6) the permanency and duration of the otherwise he would be responsible for the damages to relationship between the worker and the employer. filed an action for constructive dismissal with the Labor There can be no other conclusion that petitioner is an Arbiter.00 police parties. The fact that the drivers do not business. “Gabriel Jeepney”.

and garage shown that there was a strained relationship between fees. HELD: The appeal was made on time because when the promulgation was made Gabriel is already dead. employee relationship between the drivers and Gabriel. the drivers were required to pay an additional P50. BILON receive fixed wages but get only that in excess of the so- GR 146989. Aggrieved. deposit fee.00 to cover The award of the separation pay is not proper. Petitioners Flordeliza (wife of Gabriel) refused to receive the copy. applied if it is shown that reinstatement would only cause On April 30. Gabriel died on April 4. 1995. Flordeliza Upon learning about the plan of Petitioners. Later. The copy was interests. and on succeeding days. their LA. The Court Respondent’s first motion for reconsideration having of Appeals reversed the NLRC but it ruled that the been denied.engaged to perform activities which were usually ten day requirement to make an appeal is not necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of applicable in this situation because Gabriel was not yet the employer. JUNE 2006 called “boundary” [that] they pay to the owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the FACTS: Bilon. 1997. International Inc. the labor arbiter dismissed said complaint for appeal.) a domestic corporation engaged in the operation of “Goodman Taxi” under a boundary On April 18. The fact that the drivers do not GABRIEL V. Whether or not there was an employer- hence the instant petition. the NLRC reversed and set aside the judgment of the labor arbiter declaring that Petitioners The National Labor Relations Commission reversed the are employees of Respondent. another motion was filed and was granted separation pay should not be awarded but rather. lack of merit. They are employee. Brazil and Pagaygay are jeepney drivers relationship between them from that of employer and driving jeepneys owned by Melencio Gabriel. Believing that the deduction for the washing of on the same day sent a copy thereof to Gabriel but taxi units in their daily earnings is illegal. The LA dismissed the appeal. NLRC (G.00. It was not police protection. the time of their actual reinstatement . were not given any jeepney to drive. paying P400/day for their boundary. 1997. made on time. There exists an employer-employee relationship between the drivers and Gabriel.R. The Strained Relations Principle is only The three drivers refused to pay the additional P50. 1997 and that the appeal on June 5. Respondent appealed to the LA on June 5. 119268) ordered Gabriel to pay the drivers their backwages and their separation pay amounting to about a total of Facts: Petitioners were drivers of Respondent (Philjama P1. ruling that the relationship of the parties is employees should be reinstated. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the drivers and JARDIN V. Therefore. illegal on April 18. decided to form a labor union to protect their rights and Apparently. The counting of the The respondents are entitled to reinstatement without period should be made starting from the date when the loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to their full copy was sent via registered mail. not that of an employer-employee but that of leasehold and thus covered by the Civil Code rather than the ISSUE: Whether or not the appeal before the LA was Labor Code. the by the NLRC. and. the appeal backwages computed from the date of dismissal up to filed on June 5 was made on time. The Ruling: . refused to let them drive their taxicabs when they reported for work. 1997. Eventually. when the drivers reported to work. dismissal. 1997 dismissal and illegal deduction of washing fees. as such. NO. Whether or not there was a strained relation between Issue: Gabriel and the drivers. relationship between the drivers and Gabriel. Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and private respondent. the LA promulgated its decision and system. 1997. In a was already beyond the ten day period required for decision. they antagonism between the employer and the employee. properly substituted by the wife. it ruled that the appeal Petitioners filed with the labor arbiter a complaint was not on time because the promulgation was made against Respondent for unfair labor practice. NLRC denied Petitioner’s reconsideration. they and that the only solution is separation and the payment were dismissed. The three drivers sued Gabriel for illegal of separation pay. It ruled that there was no employee-employer dismissal must be for just cause and after due process.03M. On appeal. Gabriel and the drivers so as to cause animosity if they are reinstated. resent via registered mail on May 28. car wash.

The assailed compensation and does not define the essence of the DECISION of NLRC is hereby SET ASIDE. Labor Arbiter With regard to the amount deducted daily by private dismissed the complaint ruling that respondent Fly Ace is respondent from petitioners for washing of the taxi units. Now. auto-calesa the cause/s of his dismissal from work. No. The security guard upon the instruction of Ruben Ong (Mr. In the case of jeepney company. We have applied by analogy the above was terminated from his employment without notice. clean condition when he took it out. It was in fact dictated by fair play. owner/operator and driver.The petition is impressed with merit. We explained that in the lease of He alleged that he reported for work from Monday to chattels. However. and recently between taxi owners/operators and taxi drivers. that Annalyn tried owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the to talk to Ong and convince him to spare her father from relationship between them from that of employer and trouble but he refused to accede. to be computed because the work he was doing was not directly related from the date of dismissal until their actual reinstatement. we ruled Javier an employee of Fly Ace performing various work that the relationship between jeepney owners/operators for the latter filed a complaint before the NLRC for on one hand and jeepney drivers on the other under the underpayment of salaries and other labor standard boundary system is that of employer-employee and not benefits. Payment by result x x x is a method of WHEREFORE. For failing to present proof of a valid BITOY JAVIER v. NLRC reversed the decisin of the LA. he saw Ong whom he must see to it that the driver follows the route prescribed approached and asked why he was being barred from by the franchising authority and the rules promulgated entering the premises. Respondent is directed to reinstate or absence of an employer-employee relationship. FLY ACE CORPORATION and FLORDELYN cause for his termination. and sales of groceries. Milmar Hauling Services. management of the business is in the owner’s hands. that Ong replied by saying. Fly Ace was found to be liable CASTILLO for illegal dismissal of Javier who was likewise entitled to G. Javier employee. Hence. not a basis for determining the existence MODIFICATION. The DECISION and relation. Since there is a regular hauler to We note that after a tour of duty. determined by law and the same would prevail whatever the parties may call it. his superior. otherwise he would be responsible for issued an identification card and pay slips by the the damages to the lessor. petitioners are For its part p. Finding Javier to be a regular employee. to the employers trade or business or the work may be However.that he discovered that Ong had not receive fixed wages but get only that in excess of been courting his daughter Annalyn after the two met at the so-called “boundary” they pay to the a fiesta celebration in Malabon City. not engaged in trucking business but in the importation we view the same as not illegal in the context of the law. the lessor loses complete control over the Saturday from 7:00 oclock in the morning to 5:00 oclock chattel leased although the lessee cannot be reckless in in the afternoon. the drivers are not of the view that a pakyaw-basis arrangement did not entitled to reimbursement of washing charges. stated doctrine to the relationships between bus and that he was neither given the opportunity to refute owner/operator and bus conductor. Car washing after a tour of duty is indeed a practice in the taxi industry and is On appeal. of lessor-lessee. we give credence to Respondents the driver to restore the unit he has driven to the same claim that complainant was contracted on pakiao basis. the instant petition is GRANTED. Hence. Fly Ace denied the existence of employer- undoubtedly employees of private respondent because employee relationship between them and Javier as the as taxi drivers they perform activities which are usually latter was only called roughly 5 to 6 times only in a necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of month whenever the vehicle of its contracted hauler. and that the reimbursed the amount paid as washing charges is relationship of an employer and an employee was deleted. Respondent is likewise ordered to was a job contractor and not an employee. that thereafter. It is a mere method of computing RESOLUTION of NLRC are hereby REINSTATED subject to compensation. their employer. that after several minutes of begging owner as holder of the certificate of public convenience to the guard to allow him to enter.R. he was not the use thereof. preclude the existence of employer-employee relationship. 192558 : February 15. it is incumbent upon deliver its products. FACTS: In a number of cases decided by this Court. the former longer allowed to enter the company premises by the exercise supervision and control over the latter. on appeal. as regards its operation. the order of Respondent that Petitioners be considered as extra helper as in this case. CA reversed the ruling of NLRC . The Ong). the fact that the drivers do Tanungin mo anak mo. was not available. 2012 backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. The Petitioners to their positions held at the time of the NLRC further averred that it did not follow that a worker complained dismissal. just pay Petitioners their full backwages. the NLRC ruled that he was entitled to a security of tenure. that during his employment. that he reported for work but he was no owners/operators and jeepney drivers.

respondent issued a Letter dated which party deserves credence on the basis of evidence August 30. the case for illegal employer controls or has reserved the right to control the dismissal could not prosper. and moral and presented were his self-serving statements purportedly exemplary damages against PLDT. (3) the power of dismissal. Clearly. however. subject only to the requirement that their October 1. that he was not an employee of Fly Ace. as it was only when employed stevedore of Fly Ace. the same payment of wages. Despite the termination of the decision must be supported by substantial Agreement. Lastly. showing his activities as an employee of Fly Ace. holiday pay. petitioners provided the Labor Arbiter with copies of petitioner In sum. Sadly. he the burden to pass the well-settled tests to determine the was not required to report daily. The lone affidavit declared that the facts alleged by Javier did not pass executed by one Bengie Valenzuela was unsuccessful in the control test. Thus. viz: (1) accept other work elsewhere as there was no exclusivity the selection and engagement of the employee. the requisite quantum of evidence. the Court sees no reason to his contention. Pursuant to rules are they provided a license to completely discount such agreement. the CA proof was submitted to fortify his claim. 185251. claims such as overtime pay. payslips. service incentive leave pay. 1990. The quantum of proof Tomaquin. petitioners’ services were establish his or her right thereto x x x. DENIED. He contracted work outside the company premises. or the lack of it. Locsin vs. premium pay for holiday and rest day. . Labor and Safety Corporation of the Philippines (SSCP) entered officials are enjoined to use reasonable means to into a Security Services Agreement (Agreement) ascertain the facts speedily and objectively with little whereby SSCP would provide armed security guards to regard to technicalities or formalities but nowhere in the PLDT to be assigned to its various offices. however. Javier failed terminated. 2001. among other security guards. By way of evidence on this point. Hence. PLDT GR No. The Court is constrained to agree. were posted at required.Accordingly.The CA ruled thatJaviers failure to present salary Javier failed to pass the substantiality requirement to vouchers. pointed to the inescapable conclusion depart from the findings of the CA. the petitioner needs to show by the premises of their assigned office. They were allegedly substantial evidence that he was indeed an employee directed to remain at their post by representatives of of the company against which he claims illegal dismissal. petitioners Raul Locsin and Eddie evidence. the LA and the CA found On November 1. which a regular hauling the company premises during weekdays arranging and service could not deliver. it is for them in the exercise of discretion to determine On August 30. the most important criterion is whether the employer-employee relationship. In support of their contention. 2002. on September 30. must still be satisfied. 2001 terminating the Agreement effective received. 2001. or other pieces of evidence to bolster support his claim. Hence. October 2. that Fly Ace would contract cleaning grocery items for delivery to clients. petitioners filed a complaint before the to adduce substantial evidence as basis for the grant of Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal and recovery of money relief. relationship between Javier and Fly Ace. Further. 2009 LABOR LAW Facts: As the records bear out. petitioners continued to secure evidence. all that Javier Emergency Cost of Living Allowance. Of these substantial evidence was presented to establish an elements. Hence. (2) the of his contracted service to the company. respondent. and (4) being co-terminous with the trip only. this appeal. he The Court is of the considerable view that on Javier lies was not required to observe definite hours of work. confronted with conflicting versions on factual matters. HELD: The CA's decision was sustained. and he was free to existence of an employer-employee relationship. thereby holding the latter guilty of illegal dismissal. no other the services of Javier as an extra helper. the rule of thumb remains: the onus probandi falls Locsin’s pay slips for the period of January to September on petitioner to establish or substantiate such claim by 2002. when a PLDT office. Since no the power to control the employees conduct. employee not only as to the result of the work but also as to the means and methods by which the result is to be ISSUE: Whether or not there exist an employer-employee accomplished. Whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should Then. it found that Javiers work was not necessary and desirable to the While Javier remains firm in his position that as an business or trade of the company. he was made to work in there were scheduled deliveries. strengthening Javiers cause. respondent Philippine Long Javiers claim of employment with Fly Ace as wanting Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) and the Security and deficient.

As such employees. From the foregoing circumstances. Evidently. while respondent and SSCP no longer had any legal relationship with the termination of the Agreement. Thus. To reiterate. This. allegedly from SSCP. It is but reasonable to conclude that. reason dictates that we conclude that petitioners remained at their post under the instructions of respondent. to our mind and under the circumstances. such are indicia of control that respondent exercised over petitioners. as aptly declared by the NLRC. such a situation makes no sense. Clearly. Evidently. directive of respondent. Issue: Is there employer-employee relationship? Ruling: Yes. . respondent is guilty of illegal dismissal.The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision finding PLDT liable for illegal dismissal. petitioners remained at their post securing the premises of respondent while receiving their salaries. with the behest and. Both the Labor Arbiter and NLRC found that respondent did not observe such due process requirements. respondent having the power of control over petitioners must be considered as petitioners’ employer– –from the termination of the Agreement onwards––as this was the only time that any evidence of control was exhibited by respondent over petitioners and in light of our ruling in Abella. Having failed to do so. including due process requirements in the termination of their services. petitioners were entitled to the rights and benefits of employees of respondent. Such conclusion was arrived at with the factual finding that petitioners continued to serve as guards of PLDT’s offices. presumably. petitioners were entitled to substantive and procedural due process before termination of employment. and the denials proffered by respondent do not shed any light to the situation. petitioners continued with their services. is sufficient to establish the existence of an employer-employee relationship. It was explained in the Decision that petitioners were found to be employees of PLDT and not of SSCP. We can further conclude that respondent dictated upon petitioners that the latter perform their regular duties to secure the premises during operating hours.

summary that is the NLRC.00. its visitorial and enforcement power somehow has to make a determination of the existence of an employer- In his Order dated 27 February 2004. G. and that the former is entitled to his money merely preliminary. prospect of competing conclusions of the Secretary of Labor and the NLRC. the determination of Petitioner was required to rectify/restitute the which should be comprehensive and intensive and violations within five (5) days from receipt. was there ever an employer- or surety bond and instead submitted a Deed of employee relationship to speak of. Indeed. reconsideration was denied. Regional Director Atty. non-payment of service incentive leave. The determination of the existence of Director gave credence to the documents offered by employer-employee relationship is still primarily lodged respondent without examining the originals. The have been considered by the labor arbiter rationale underlying this limitation is to eliminate the because respondent’s claim exceeded P5. particularly docume On the basis of the complaint. investigations were conducted. and (2) Are there Assignment of Bank Deposit. May 8. such determination is of petitioner. Petitioner maintained that violations of the Labor Code or of any labor law? there is no employer-employee relationship had ever existed between it and respondent because it was the The existence of an employer-employee drama directors and producers who paid. far above the cursory and the mechanical. or alternatively. rather than an determine the existence of an employer-employee administrative official of the executive branch of the relationship? government. 726. In its Order dated 27 under Article 128. Rodolfo M. More often than deny employer-employee relationship with the not. It also added that the case a limitation on the power of the Secretary of Labor.30. PAG-IBIG and intricacies and implications of an employer-employee Philhealth before the Department of Labor and relationship demand that the level of scrutiny should be Employment (DOLE) Regional Office No. of DOLE No. Inc) (petitioner) for illegal employee relationship is a matter which is not easily deduction. Sec. determinable from an ordinary inspection. situation especially. The wages and non-coverage of SSS. the Acting DOLE Secretary dismissed the resolved: (1) Does the employer-employee relationship appeal on the ground that petitioner did not post a cash still exist. the DOLE nts found in the employer’s office are the primary conducted a plant level inspection on 23 September source materials.see Notice of Inspection results. before the DOLE may exercise its powers employer-employee relationship. Sabulao (Regional however. what may prove decisive are 2003. the question of employer-employee relationship complainant. 128 (b).[ On appeal to the DOLE Secretary. Such prerogatival determination. with the parties eventually ordered to submit their respective position It can be assumed that the DOLE in the exercise of papers. (Bombo Radyo Phils. no.000.People’s Broadcasting v. While documents. the Labor Inspector factors related to the history of the employer’s business wrote under the heading “Findings/Recommendations” operations. but at the with the NLRC. which is the NRLC. which is best resolved by the quasi- Does the Secretary of Labor have the power to judicial body. incidental and collateral to the claims amounting to P203. No therefore best left to the specialized quasi-judicial body rectification was effected by petitioner. Petitioner sought DOLE’s primary function of enforcing labor standards reconsideration of the Order. the existence of an employer- Inc. This is the meaning of the clause “in cases same time he missed or failed to consider where the relationship of employer-employee still exists” petitioner’s evidence. necessarily so. thus. claiming that the Regional provisions. one was beyond the jurisdiction of the DOLE and should which the legislative branch is entitled to impose. delayed payment of verifiable from a mere ocular examination.R. premium pay for holiday and rest day because the elements of such a relationship are not and illegal diminution of benefits. two important questions must be January 2005. 179652.” becomes a battle of evidence.Cebu City.. 2009 Clearly the law accords a prerogative to the NLRC over the claim when the employer-employee Facts: relationship has terminated or such relationship has not Jandeleon Juezan (respondent) filed a arisen at all. If the Secretary of Labor proceeds to exercise his visitorial and enforcement powers absent the Held: . on a matter fraught with questions Issue: of fact and law. 13th month pay. its current state as well as accepted “non-diminution of benefits” and “Note: Respondent contemporary practices in the industry. In the Inspection Report Form. petitioner denied once more the existence of Thus. VII. Petitioner’s motion for in Art. The reason is obvious. supervised relationship is a statutory prerequisite to and and disciplined respondent. DOLE employee relationship. cannot be coextensive with the visitorial and Director) ruled that respondent is an employee enforcement power itself. In the second complaint against People’s Broadcasting Service.

There was to be no to enforce. the Union filed is which is at the very heart of this case. other. while appearing to be contractual workers supposedly independent The most important consideration for the contractors. since employees are D'Rite. The peremptory dismissal of the instant petition on a technicality would deprive the Court of the Beginning 14 February 1989 until 2 March 1989. Art. Petitioner is the duly authorized representative of the At least a prima facie showing of such absence monthly paid rank-and-file employees of SanMig with of relationship. the DOLE’s prerogative hinges on the these workers be regularized. 212) jurisdiction on itself which it cannot otherwise acquire. the issue On 12 January 1989 and 30 January 1989. In said contracts.R. the Mediation Board of DOLE (NCMB-DOLE). SMC filed a verified Complaint for Injunction and Damages before respondent Court enjoining petitioner from representing and/or acting in Professional Services v CA behalf of the employees of Lipercon and D’Rite. employment than that which respondent outside the scope of this Agreement. pickets were staged by Lipercon and D'Rite workers in various SMC plants and offices. and union busting. The Union aegis. and. wage order. it was from the employer as opposed to non. G." had. the petition is GRANTED. SanMig entered into affects the complexion of the putative findings that the contracts for merchandising services with Lipercon and Secretary of Labor may determine. But the DOLE did not then held before the National Conciliation and address. on the one hand. alleged that this group of employees. especially if he were an employee. issue. and enforcing. therefore. Necessarily. is needed to preclude the whom the latter executed a Collective Bargaining DOLE from the exercise of its power. petitioner could ill-afford to disclaim an signed up for union membership and sought the employment relationship with all of the people under its regularization of their employment with SMC. Conciliatory meetings were been petitioner’s employee. expressly understood and agreed that the workers employees. existence of employer-employee relationship. the duty of the employer to and/or its workers. (SMCEU v Bersamira. the actual existence of an employer-employee relationship Facts: Sometime in 1983 and 1984. As exhaustively was then demanded that the employment status of discussed here. and SanMig on the adhere to those labor standards with respect to the non. as the dissent proposes. 1990 Reading of Art. Judge Bersamira (Review. WHEREFORE. It employer-employee relationship. Among these differentiated rights are those employed by the contractors were to be paid by the accorded by the “labor standards” provisions of the latter and that none of them were to be deemed Labor Code. Section Labor would not have been precluded from exercising 1 of their CBA specifically provides that "temporary. or contract employees and workers are another person with better-grounded claim of excluded from the bargaining unit and. or rules employer) and regulations issued pursuant thereto. at the same SanMig that some Lipercon and D'Rite workers had time. These companies are independent contractors entitled to a different set of rights under the Labor Code duly licensed by the DOLE. If there is no employer-employee employer-employee relation between the contractors relationship in the first place.first requisite. which the Secretary of Labor is mandated employees or agents of SanMig. while the Court of Appeals glossed over. No. and of Feb 11 2008 calling a strike among others. have been continuously working for SanMig allowance of the instant petition is the opportunity for the for a period ranging from 6 months to 15 years and that Court not only to set the demarcation between the their work is neither casual nor seasonal as they are NLRC’s jurisdiction and the DOLE’s prerogative but also performing work or activities necessary or desirable in the the procedure when the case involves the fundamental usual business or trade of SanMig. his office confers SMCEU v. On 6 March 1989. it was contended challenge on the DOLE’s prerogative based on lack of that there exists a "labor-only" contracting situation. CBA evidence clearly indicates private respondent has never violations. Thus. The Secretary of Agreement effective 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1989. series of opportunity to resolve the novel controversy. as in this case. where purpose of determining violations of. 87700 June 13. could have very well enjoined other In a letter dated 20 November 1988. the Union advised employees to complain with the DOLE. And the two notices of strike for unfair labor practice. the powers under Article 128 (b) over petitioner if probationary. Respondent. 128 of the Labor Code reveals that The existence of a labor dispute is not negated by the the Secretary of Labor or his authorized representatives fact that the plaintiff and defendants do not stand in the was granted visitorial and enforcement powers for the proximate relations of ER-EE. the dispute was between contracual employees and an the Labor Code and any labor law. . employees is questionable.

talent and celebrity status not possessed by those workers. the more Sonza vs. Further. MJMDC agreed to provide Sonza’s services exclusion of the NCMB-DOLE. The last element. All the talent fees and benefits paid to ground that there is no employer-employee relationship SONZA were the result of negotiations that led to the between it and those workers and because the demand Agreement. and the contractual workers of Lipercon and CBN continued to remit Sonza’s monthly talent fees but D'Rite on the other. law." pay. changing. Put differently. This test is based on the extent jurisdiction belongs to the labor tribunals. Terms. ABS-CBN contended that no employee-employer employee relationship exists between itself.R. for the purpose of Applying the control test to the present case.Respondent Court found the Complaint sufficient in form Facts: In May 1994. June 10. the payment of wages. for the purpose of collective bargaining. is a circumstance indicative. as defined by the law. However. After fixing. and as defined by affirmed the decision of NLRC. an Order granting the Corporation (MJMDC). For violation of any provision of the violates the terms of their CBA. Sonza filed with the Department of Labor conditions of employment. 000 for the second Labor Code includes "any controversy or matter and third year. On April 1996. that they be absorbed into the working Sonza’s services to co-host its television and radio unit of SanMig. ABS-CBN signed an agreement with and substance and issued a Temporary Restraining the Mel and Jay Management and Development Order. the . independent contractor. because of his unique labor dispute. and Tiangco Issue: Whether or not there exists a labor dispute such as its EVP and treasurer. service incentive and employee. tenure and conditions of their themselves to possess unique skills. While it is SanMig's submission that no employer. representation and association. for its part. What the Union seeks is to regularize the which the work is accomplished. CA also "arrangement" thereof. skills and working relationship between said employees vis-a-vis celebrity status. The control test is the most important test our courts apply in distinguishing an employee from an As the case is indisputably linked with a labor dispute. separation pay. not conclusive. and subsequently. among others. exist "regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relationship of employer and employee" The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and found provided the controversy concerns. This matter definitely dwells on the programs are because of his peculiar talents. NLRC terms and conditions of employment or a "change" or affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. 2004 likely the worker is deemed an employee. the existence of a labor dispute is not determined by the fact that the plaintiffs and defendants do not Ruling: Case law has consistently held that the elements stand in the proximate relation of employer and of an employee-employer relationship are selection and employee. D'Rite in effect. exclusively to ABS-CBN as talent for radio and television. Obvious then is that Agreement. ABS-CBN was represented by its complaint of SanMig. does exist control the employee on the means and methods by here is evident. a labor dispute can nevertheless opened another account for the same purpose. the that there is no employee-employer relationship. signing bonus. 000 for the first year and P317.13th month pay. ABS-CBN. of control the hirer exercises over a worker. but membership. ABS- hand. we find negotiating the conditions of employment are also that SONZA is not an employee but an independent involved. Independent contractors often present SanMig. below is directly connected with the labor dispute already taken cognizance of by the NCMB-DOLE. The specific thus involved bringing the matter within the purview of a selection and hiring of SONZA. Sonza wrote a letter to concerning terms and conditions of employment or the ABS-CBN where he irrevocably resigned in view of the association or representation of persons in negotiating. ABS-CBN agreed to pay Sonza a monthly talent fee of Held: A "labor dispute" as defined in Article 212 (1) of the P310. 138051. The converse holds true as well – the less control the hirer exercises. No. maintaining. Referred to in the agreement as that the RTC may not validly assume jurisdiction to the agent. regardless of whether the and Employment a complaint alleging that ABS-CBN did disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer not pay his salaries. recent events concerning his program and career. Neither can it be denied that the controversy contractor. the status of the employees contracted by Lipercon and so-called "control test". The greater the supervision and control the hirer exercises. the power of dismissal and the employer’s power to That a labor dispute. the Union also seeks to represent skills. either party may terminate their relationship. who have signed up for Union ordinary employees. G. resists that Union demand on the relationship. travel allowance and amounts under the Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP). engagement of the employee. of an independent contractual SanMig. corporate officers while MJMDC was represented by Sonza. expertise or talent to employment and the arrangement of those terms are distinguish them from ordinary employees. on the one relationship existed between the parties. is the most important element. or arranging the terms and the said letter. as President and general manager.

Coming filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. ABS-CBN claims that there exists a upon order of management. Apondar supplies finished rattan products to Rattan Inc. Rattan denied having hired respondent. damages and attorney’s fees. as Sonza’s work. respondent Jesus J. with prayer for reinstatement. non-payment of purely on “buying and exporting rattan holiday pay. 13th month pay and service incentive furniture” hence no manufacturing employees leave pay. The right of labor to security of tenure cannot operate to On their part. mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion –  Also. Although no particular form of evidence is employees reported to the SSS. for work. possessed with special skills. 1986. JJ waited for almost a year but petitioners did this freedom to contract as independent contractors. To perform his work. 2002 without guaranteed in the Constitution arises only if there is an lawful cause. v. any competent and relevant evidence to prove the JJ’s full brother. denied having  Furthermore. March 17. back wages. JJ was persuaded by the control over the means and methods of performance of management as well as his brother not to complain. JJ’s name does not appear in the list of is sufficient. . employer-employee relationship under labor laws. with prayer for reinstatement.m. to 5:00 p. That is. standing in the ratings. The right of labor to security of tenure as respondent was dismissed on January 1. Sonza’s work as television and radio program host Fearing such consequence. The only relationship exists must nonetheless rest on substantial connection was that their employer Faustino evidence. which SONZA Nonetheless. substantial evidence – showing that he rendered service during the that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable period indicated therein. when they started to actually SUMMARY. ABS-CBN merely reserved which was paid weekly. were hired. deprive an individual. A radio broadcast specialist who works otherwise petitioners might decide not to call him back under minimal supervision is an independent contractor. CA overturned NLRC decision. underpayment of wages.  JJ also failed to present a single payslip. damages and attorney’s fees. ISSUES & RATIO.00 per day SONZA how to perform his job. was SOUTH EAST INT’L RATTAN INC. 2002. his compensation was on “pakiao” basis but outside ABS-CBN’s control. not call him back to work. FACTS: On November 3. the company was engaged dismissal. of his right to contract as an  JJ alleged that he worked continuously from independent contractor. non-payment of holiday pay.m. How SONZA delivered his lines. expertise or talent enjoy the company is not doing well financially and that he would freedom to offer their services as independent be called back to work only if they need his services contractors. Rattan Inc. and sounded on radio were Initially. He was told that he will be terminated because the Individuals with special skills. JJ accepted his fate. nor was he in the list Certification issued by the SEC. now raised the issue up to the SC. underpayment of wages. required special skills and talent. ABS-CBN did not exercise Being an uneducated person. is from 8:00 a. the company suspended payslip. 1984 up to January 21. and  There was also an Affidavit of Vicente Coming. DOCTRINE. Rattan denied that JJ was their employee: expertise and talent. from the last quarter of 1989 up to hired JJ." ABS-CBN’s was interrupted as he was told by petitioners to resume sole concern was the quality of the shows and their work in two months’ time.  Moreover. JJ COMING incorporated only last July 18. JJ Coming filed a complaint for illegal operate in 1987. without any apparent reason. voucher or a copy of a company payroll operations due to economic reverses as per showing that he rendered service. appeared on television.more likely the worker is considered an independent JJ alleged that he was hired by petitioners as Sizing contractor. back wages. Labor Arbiter rendered decision in favor of JJ. 2003. after two months he reported back to work admittedly possesses. SONZA only needed his Machine Operator on March 17. contractors. showing that he failed to present a single August of 1992. Rattan Inc. NLRC reversed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. of employees reported to the SSS. 1984. in favor of JJ. a finding that the been an employee of Rattan. His work schedule skills and talent. ABS-CBN did not instruct sometime in June 1984. the right to modify the program format and airtime In 1990. 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay. Records reveal however that Rattan Inc. Clearly. The right to life and livelihood guarantees again. In resolving the issue of whether such voucher or a copy of a company payroll relationship exists in a given case. required to prove the existence of the relationship. prevailing practice in the broadcast and entertainment Despite being an employee for many years with his work industries to treat talents like Sonza as independent performance never questioned by petitioners. it was fixed at P150. attesting that JJ had never relationship may be admitted. his employment schedule "for more effective programming.

and any business of the Rattan Inc. No. The CA Decision (2008) and Resolution evidence. wielded control over the work On March 2. respondent received a memorandum performance of JJ: informing him of his impending dismissal on account of (1) They required him to work within the company TAPE’s decision to contract the services of a professional premises. respondent enjoys the right to security of tenure under Article 279 of the Labor Code In this case. employee except for a just cause or when authorized by employee relationship. it must his actual reinstatement. relationship exists must nonetheless rest on substantial Petition is denied. Art. Servana contended that his dismissal was undertaken . does not appear in the payrolls and pay envelope inclusive of allowances. television programs. or the so-called “control test.R. an employer would this Title. Otherwise. accept as adequate to justify a conclusion – is sufficient. security agency. and doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are (4) The power to control the employee’s resolved in favor of the laborer. “In any controversy between a laborer and his master. contain a true and complete list of the employee. (2009) are affirmed and upheld. “Eat Bulaga”. 279. on daily basis. 2000. it was apparent that Rattan Inc.000. v. He willfully retained a portion of the payroll. such as the long-running variety program. relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might (5) They implemented company rules and regulations.” SSS and his name does not appear in the payrolls and in pay envelope records. Television and Production Exponents. the following facts indubitably TAPE as a regular company guard. reveal that Rattan Inc. work from 8am to 5am. – YES. competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted. at first paying him on “pakiao” basis a given case. 167648 542 SCRA 578 NLRC consisting of copies of payrolls and pay earnings records are only for the years 1999 and 2000. arguing that JJ was not reported as their employee in otherwise the dismissal becomes illegal. guard for TAPE. Inc. and to his other benefits or their records submitted by petitioners negate the existence monetary equivalent computed from the time his of employer-employee relationship. and tasked him to usually perform the same job. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work be rewarded for his failure or even neglect to perform his shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority obligation. denied the relationship by and may only be dismissed for a just or authorized cause. — In cases of regular employment. Nor does the fact that respondent’s name rights and other privileges and to his full backwages. to wit: NOTES. Lagrama. conduct. they do not Facts: Television and Production Exponents (TAPE) is a cover the entire 18-year period during which respondent domestic corporation engaged in the production of supposedly worked for SEIRI.” As a regular employee. Rattan Inc. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal maintained a separate payroll for certain employees or dismissal and non-payment of benefits against TAPE. Labor Code In Tan v. (6) Agbay directly paid JJ’s salaries and controlled all aspects of his employment. substantial evidence – that amount of and thereafter. the exhibits offered by petitioners before the January 28. (4) The mode of payment of JJ’s salary was under In resolving the issue of whether such relationship exists in their discretion. Servana In this case. and Although no particular form of evidence is required to (7) JJ rendered work necessary and desirable in the prove the existence of the relationship.1. (2) They obliged JJ to report every day of the week respondent was receiving a monthly salary P6. (Setting aside the NLRC Decision and reinstating the Labor Arbiter Decision which To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee was in favor of JJ Coming) relationship jurisprudence has invariably adhered to the four-fold test. (2) The payment of wages. WON an employer-employee relationship existed (3) They enforced the observance of definite hours of between the company and JJ Coming. the Court held that the fact that a Security of Tenure. At the time of his termination. For a payroll to be compensation was withheld from him up to the time of utilized to disprove the employment of a person. alleged that he was first connected with Agro- Commercial Security Agency but was later absorbed by As to the “control test”. 2008 G. worker was not reported as an employee to the SSS is the employer shall not terminate the services of an not conclusive proof of the absence of employer. (3) The power of dismissal. Servana had served as a security According to the CA. a finding that the DECISION. (1) The selection and engagement of the Lines from Decision: employee.

Jaime Francisco. Control is manifested in the bundy cards submitted by aggravated by non-payment of separation pay. capable of being expressed in terms of company shirts. piece or commission basis. services of a professional security agency. which assigned him to assist TAPE in its to report backto work after being told to wait for the live productions. FRANCISCO . fell short because of P700 spent TAPE failed to establish that respondent is an on an urgent repair independent contractor. however (co-driver). When the security agency’s contract release of his taxi (overhauled due to mechanical with RPN-9 expired. TAPE averred that respondent was an independent TENAZAS . or for service failed to prove he was an employee rendered or to be rendered. Francisco.Company admits that Tenazas is an employee Respondent was first connected with Agro-Commercial – regular driver. d. the additional evidence sufficiently The Memorandum informing respondent of the established the existence of employer-employee discontinuance of his service proves that TAPE had the relationship and illegal dismissal (for all three) power to dismiss respondent. Villegas Taxi. Social Security System (SSS) contributions. Endraca could not have been provided not just as a security measure but to mainly terminated in March 2006because he stopped reporting identify the holder thereof as a bona fide employee of for work in July 2003 (but willing to accommodate him the firm who issues it.Dismissed because of the unfounded Issue: WON the Servana is an independent contractor. defects) or in the latter’s language. are remuneration or earnings.without due process and violation of existing labor laws.44 as Tenazas. and Isidro provide security service and it was agreed that Endraca filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against R. his relationship with the company ISSUES: WON there was an employer-employee relationship (re: Francisco) – NO . even was working under a special arrangement which is threatened w/ physical harm if he was seen on recognized in the industry. fired after reporting the incident. He was required to report daily insisted that he was a regular employee having been and observe definite work hours. which is payable by an employer LA: No illegal dismissal because no proof of an overt act to an employee under a written or unwritten contract of of dismissal committed by R. c. as defined in the Labor petitioners. Wages.R. but Francisco failed to establish work is to be accomplished. It has been in held that in ENDRACA . The payment of wages Respondent claims to have been receiving P5. respondent was absorbed by TAPE . suspicion that he was organizing a labor union EDRACA – Dismissed after falling short of the required Ruling: boundary for his taxi unit. BERNARD TENAZAS v. 192998 02 APRIL 2014 relationship between the parties. whether fixed or ascertained on a time. company premises. “retained as talent”. the Sun Shield Security Agency. task. R. and Endraca also filed a Motion to his monthly salary while TAPE prefers to designate such Admit Additional Evidence: (a) Joint Affidavit of the amount as talent fees. (d) Tenazas’ Certification/Record of money. Tenazas was never terminated. TAPE started negotiations for the engagement of a professional PETITIONER’S CLAIM security agency . The employer’s power to control the employee CA: Tenazas and Endraca were indeed employees and with respect to the means and method by which the were illegally dismissed. He respondent in evidence. The selection and engagement of the employee TENAZAS. namely: a. or other method of calculating the same. Respondent presented employee his identification card. The power of dismissal NLRC: Reversed LA. he failed Security Agency. (b) Affidavit of Good Faith of Aloney Rivera Code. No.Taxi unit was sideswiped by another vehicle contractor falling under the talent group category and (damage = P500). and/or Romualdo Villegas and that respondent company shall have engaged the Andy Villegas. as part of the support group to FACTS:Bernard Tenazas. engaged to perform an activity that is necessary and desirable to TAPE’s business for 13 years. an identification card is usually employee – spare driver . VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT TAPE contended that there is no employer-employee G.444.Company admits that Endraca is an business establishment. FRANCISCO . again as he was never really dismissed) b. Jurisprudence is abound woith casesn that recite the factors to be considered in determining the existence of R. Francisco employment for work done or to be done. VILLEGAS TAXI’S CLAIM employer-employee relationship. Clearly. TAPE engaged respondent’s services. (c) pictures of the petitioners wearing designated. complainant would render his services until such time Villegas Taxi Transport.Company denies that Francisco is an respondent was hired by TAPE.

000 strong for 1990. Also. NLRC: It found the existence of an employer-employee Francisco failed to present substantial evidence to relationship. while Tongko was later on development programs which directed the managers to designated unit manager in 1983. SSS employer-employee relationship existed between them. Manulife had the power of control over Tongko. Based on decided cases. Villegas Taxi. Subsequently. As an agent. Emmanuel Villegas. payroll. demonstrated that the relations were so strained as to sufficient to characterize him as an employee. Manulife who was promoted to the role of a manager. presence of the Labor Code element of control was made on the basis of the stipulations of the subsequent However. Tongko became a that attend an employment relationship governed by Regional Sales Manager. records of the case. separation pay. It was found that Tongko’s region was the lowest contract regarding these undertakings appears in the performer in terms of recruiting in 2000. had there been any. The initial phase began employee relationship. LA: No employer-employee relationship existed organization charts. On the other hand. cash vouchers. appointment letters or employment contracts. e. (MANULIFE) addition to his other administrative functions. 2011 Hence. it declared that an employee. employer-employee relationship. initially an insurance agent of Manulife and was granted by the SC. In . Manulife instituted manpower contracts. In 1996. or any personnel file that depicts his status as an SC: In reversing the CA ruling. no facts Second. social security records stating his contributions. a travel and entertainment asserts the affirmative of an issue. a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Facts: Tongko was.. Branch Manager in increase the number of agents to at least 1. personnel lists. 1977under a Career Agent’s Agreement which regarded him as an independent contractor. identification Decisions of the Judicial Tribunals cards. In this case. like an attendance logbook.g. dated December 18. a determination of the employed in his income tax returns. Tongko was tasked to recruit some agents in Tongko v. Tongko received another letter.) by the fact that he complied with 3 different codes of conduct and that he performed administrative duties. In 1990. on July 1.R. name there exists the possibility of an insurance agent and address of employer (which Tenazas presented). There was illegal dismissal. He was existence of the relationship. persistency income and management overrides. The contractual relationship between Tongko and Issue: Whether or not there exists an employer- Manulife had two basic phases. and Regional Sales Manager in 1996. Any such contract or agreement. payrolls.g. not an SC Ruling: Rules regarding the desired results (e. social security registration. Since the beginning. could have at the very least 2001. record... establish the relationship. First. He could also have at least presented his employment relationship existed between them. the Labor Code. No documentary evidence CA: It reverted to the labor arbiter’s decision that no submitted. Tongko consistently declared himself self. becoming an employee of an insurance company if Another taxi operator. as shown make reinstatement no longer a feasible option. (*Strained relations must be demonstrated as a fact. Inc. G. January 25. no formal a start. He claiming tobe an employee of R. support of this he asserted that as Unit Manager.. As Francisco was allowance in addition to his overriding commissions. he was HELD: The burden of proof rests upon the party who paid an annual over-rider. Manufacturer Life Insurance Co. also claimed evidence shows that the company promulgated rules or to be his employer – a fact not denied or questioned by regulations that effectively controlled or restricted an Francisco in any of his pleadings. where he earned commissions. terminating his services. et al. alleged the existence of an employment relationship. between the parties. He relationship established between the parties. Any competent and relevant evidence may be admitted. No 167622. Manulife contended that what existed There is no hard and fast rule to establish the elements of between them was a mere agency relationship. required to follow at least three codes of conduct. SC insurance agent’s choice of methods or the methods agreed with CA’s order of reinstatement instead of themselves in selling insurance. Tongko then filed an illegal provided the bases for properly ascertaining the juridical dismissal complaint with the NLRC Arbitration Branch. the employee. In this case. his tasks were to canvass for required volume to continue to qualify as a company applications for insurance products and collect money agent & legal/ ethical rules to be followed) are built-in due to the Company. he should not and cannot be read as elements of control became a Branch Manager. it is was tasked with numerous administrative functions and incumbent upon him to proffer evidence to prove the supervisory authority over Manulife’s employees. The second phase started in 1983 elements of control specific to an insurance agency and when Tongko was named Unit Manager. in 2001. Petition DENIED.

. must file his/her letter of resignation. but also in guiding the agents under his wing. prior to the directives sent by De Dios. the failure of Tongko to comply with the guidelines & directives of Manulife is recruiting more Because of the impending May 1998 elections and agents. director are too diametrically opposed to be simply dismissed or and scriptwriter for various radio programs aired over ignored. 1998 us that. per se. Significantly. they must have the nature of dictating the workers. Tongko perhaps could be labeled as a "lead agent" who guided under Facts: Petitioner Ernesto G. he worked as talent. G. adherence to a employee/talent who wants to run for any position in the code of conduct is not. Hence. The directive of De Dios to Tongko (in the purpose of selling insurance. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. 3. TO:ALL CONCERNED FROM:DANTE LUZON SC: Tongko is just an AGENT. Tongko’s previous admissions in several years of tax returns as an independent agent. which is Please be informed that per company policy. The codes of conduct do not intrude into the xxx xxx xxx insurance agents’ means and manner of conducting their sales and only control them as to the desired results. HR-ER-016 or the "Policy on Employees control. agents approved by Manulife but operating under his 184885.. spinner. Tongko essentially remained an agent. there must be an evidence of a contract SUBJECT:AS STATED that shows that the relationship has been converted from contract of agency to that of employment. 2012 guidance. the mere presentation of codes or of rules of candidacy either for national or local election. DYAB. In effect. the SC is telling DATE:MARCH 25. or of fixing the methodology and of binding or reason. Assistant Station Manager of DYAB the absence of an employer-employee relationship. For want of a better term. The reality is. least thirty (30) days prior to the start of the planned leave period. co- Evidence indicates that Tongko consistently clung to the anchoring Hoy Gising and TV Patrol Cebu. issued the following memorandum: Jurisdiction over the matter belongs to the courts applying the laws of insurance. evidence increasing the number of agents) was merely suggestive. indeed. shows that Tongko’s role as an insurance agent never Hence. any absent in the case at bar. at least insurance. come into play. Leandro Patalinghug also worked for ABS- his belated claim that he was all along an employee. based on his immediate recollection of the policy at that is a matter that the labor tribunals cannot rule upon in time. and regulations is not per se indicative of labor law control. publicly mutually desirable result intended by the contractual speaking/endorsing candidate. There was. etc. lack of evidence on record showing On January 1. Manulife had practically 1. the ABS-CBN Head Office in Manila that Manulife ever exercised means-and-manner issued Policy No. The concept of estoppel as drama and voice talent. His stint in ABS- view that he was an independent agent since he CBN later extended to radio when ABS-CBN Cebu invariably declared himself a business or self-employed launched its AM station DYAB in 1995 where he worked person in his income tax returns.R. Dante Luzon. an means and the manner by which agents are to conduct agency relationship prevails in the insurance industry for their sales. but moved up in this role through Manulife’s recognition that he could use other Ymbong vs." based on the intends to openly and aggressively campaign for a case of Insular Life. Secondly. as against Like Ymbong. Starting 1995. recruiting campaign relationship. No. we can take judicial notice that as a when it merely controls the desired results and not the matter of Insurance Code-based business practice. first. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN) in 1993 at its regional station in Cebu as a television talent.Any employee who intends to run for any public office left Tongko alone not only in doing the business of selling position.For this reason. CBN Cebu. even to a limited extent. should not merely relate to the candidate or group of candidates (e. over Tongko during his Seeking Public Office. any employee who intends to join a political group/party or even with no political affiliation but who Guidelines indicative of labor law "control. the employee should file the leave request at restricting the party hired to the use of these means. not indicative of control changed during his relationship with Manulife. scriptwriter and – a legal and equitable concept – necessarily must public affairs program anchor." The pertinent portions read: ascent in Manulife’s sales ladder. 1996. March 7. as a ground for termination of Tongko’s agency.Further. agency and contracts. thirty (30) days prior to the official filing of the certificate In addition.) must file a request for leave of absence means or methods to be employed in attaining the subject to management's approval. Ymbong started working for his wing other Manulife agents.g. For this particular result. indicative of control .

coming election will have to file a leave of absence the management prerogatives. it must also protect the Atok Big Wedge Company vs. HR-ER-016 is the subsisting company policy and not Luzon's March 25. No. et al.R. claims that in accordance run for any elective position is in absolute contradiction with the March 25. 1998 Memorandum. G. It is well within its rights to ensure 146881. The CA correctly ruled that though Luzon. ABS-CBN. to conduct its own business affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied. Since there was no termination to speak of. 1998 Memorandum issued by Luzon which ran for public office himself at the eleventh hour. and In addition. Policy No. right of an employer to exercise what are clearly August 8. as Assistant Station Manager for Radio of ABS-CBN. did not tender his resignation before he ran for public (2) Whether the March 25. dismissed but because he resigned. 2007 that it maintains its objectivity and credibility and freeing Dumpit-Morillo vs. he clarified to Patalinghug that he will be considered resigned and not just on leave Ymbong is deemed resigned when he ran for councilor. HR-ER-016. is CBN. No. Clearly. ABS-CBN is not duty-bound to ask him to explain why he (1) Whether Policy No. as stated by Luzon in his Sworn Statement. Luzon claims that administering the network's radio station in the Cebu Ymbong approached him and told him that he would region. 169510. 2007. 1998 Memorandum and it Rulings: was for this reason that. HR-ER-016.R. Ymbong most likely than not. The free will of management moment he/she files his/her certificate of candidacy.. 2011 the welfare of the employees. making powers in relation to his principal task of Ymbong got in touch with Luzon.. once he files a certificate of candidacy As Policy No. 2004 agreements. 1998 As regards Patalinghug. G. 1998 Memorandum. back to ABS-CBN Cebu. HR-ER-016 is valid. NLRC. 1998 Memorandum. In the instant Francisco vs. they filed as was separated from ABS-CBN not because he was illegal dismissal suit against ABS-CBN. campaign for the administration ticket and not actually We have consistently held that so long as a company's run for an elective post. 164652. fully aware that the subsisting policy is Policy No. is he was not in a position to know which of the two deemed to have resigned and not dismissed by ABS. Luzon superseded Policy No. this Court will uphold them. June 8. According to Luzon. G. NLRC. CA. Cebu.R. G. only requires employees to go on leave if they intend to Ymbong. Policy No. G. Manufacturer Life Insurance Co. January 25. No. issuances was correct. Thus. the March 25. of any employee who since he was running for councilor of Lapu-Lapu City.R. 264 SCRA 4 [1996] of the employees under special laws or under valid Sonza vs. HR-ER-016 issued by the ABS-CBN Head Luzon through a letter that he would take a few months Office in Manila which requires the resignation. HR-ER-016 is valid. the the elections that they found out that Ymbong actually March 25. June 10. he informed with Policy No. 500 SCRA 690 [2006] case. vs. Gison. management prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not GENERAL PRINCIPLES for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights Encyclopedia Britanica vs. The services rendered by the concerned employee/talent to this company will then be Policy No. the requirement of due process Issues: in dismissal cases cannot be applied to Ymbong. ABS-CBN validly justified the implementation of Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. on the other hand. 1998 the filing of a leave of absence. we do not subscribe to Ymbong's claim that (3) Whether Ymbong. intends to run for public office. Having been issued beyond the scope of his authority. 1998 to May 18. 138051. According to Luzon. 1998 Memorandum period. (MANULIFE) not be in any way eroded. 1998 Memorandum issued by office as mandated by the subject company policy. he only told the latter that he will only Policy No. Ymbong Later. No 167622. he Ymbong's overt act of running for councilor of Lapu- informed them that they cannot work there anymore Lapu City is tantamount to resignation on his part. not only leave of absence from March 8. It was only after ABS-CBN Head Office to its employees. Ymbong and Patalinghug both tried to come is deemed resigned when he ran for councilor. No. HR-ER-016. Climaco.R. As a result. Dr. Even as the law is solicitous of Inc. 2011 . by seeking an elective post. the exercise of such power should be in accord leave radio for a couple of months because he will with the general rules and regulations imposed by the campaign for the administration ticket. February 15. HR-ER- 016 and not the March 25.. itself from any appearance of impartiality so that the citing 2004 Sonza confidence of the viewing and listening public in it will Tongko v. HR-ER-016 was not superseded by the March temporarily suspended for the entire campaign/election 25. He because of company policy. has policy- After the issuance of the March 25. Patalinghug approached Luzon Memorandum is therefore void and did not supersede and advised him that he will run as councilor for Naga.

Jardin v NLRC Feb 23 2000 8. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. Gabriel v Bilon Feb 2007 7. Tenzas et al v R Villegas Taxi Transport April 2 2014 14. 2012 1. 2011 TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT Ymbong vs. March 7.Bernarte vs. SMCEU v Judge Bersamira 13. G.. Phil. Javier v Fly ace Corp Feb 15 2012 9. September 14. Autobus Transport v Bautista 2. No. Begino v ABSCBN April 20 2015 3. Southeast International Rattan Inc v Coming March 12 2014 15.R. Basketball Assoc. Professional Services v CA Feb 11 2008 12.R. No. Peoples Broadcasting Service v Sec of Labor March 6 2012 11. Chavez v NLRC Jan 17 2005 4. Felix v Buenaseda Jan 7 1995 6. 192084. TAPE Inc v Servana Jan 28 2008 .. G. David v Macasio July 2014 5. 184885. Locsin et al v PLDT Oct 2 2009 10.