Reynaldo Moya vs. First Solid Rubber, G.R. No.

184011, 18 September 2013

Topic: Principle of Social and Distributive Justice: Balancing the interests in case workers management’s rights
collide
Facts:
On 25 January 2005, Moya filed before the NLRC-National Capital Region a complaint for illegal dismissal against
First Solid Rubber Industries, Inc. (First Solid), a business engaged in manufacturing of tires and rubbers and its
President Edward Lee Sumulong. He was first hired as a machine operator then held a supervisory position as the
Head of the Curing Department. On October 15, 2004, he reported an incident about an under curing of tires within
his department which led to the damage of five tires, he stated that the damage was caused by machine failure and
the incident was without any fault of the operator. Despite his explanation of what transpired, he was terminated by
the company through a letter dated November 9, 2004.
Opposing the story of Moya, the company countered that Moya, who was exercising supervision and control over the
employees as a department head, failed to exercise the diligence required of him to see to it that the machine
operator, Melandro Autor, properly operated the machine.
It was discovered that Moya failed to disclose the real situation that the operator was at fault.and he breached the
trust reposed upon him when he did not disclose what was actually done by the machine operator which eventually
caused the damage. It was only when the company discovered that the report was not in accordance with what really
transpired that Moya admitted its mistake.
Issue:
WON the Court should rule in favor of Moya thus granting him separation pay
Held:
No. As already noted, even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of the employees, it also recognizes employer’s
exercise of management prerogatives. As long as the company’s exercise of judgment is in good faith to advance its
interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of employees under the laws or valid
agreements, such exercise will be upheld.
The policy of social justice is not intended to countenance wrongdoing simply because it is committed by the
underprivileged. At best it may mitigate the penalty but it certainly will not condone the offense. Compassion for the
poor is an imperative of every humane society but only when the recipient is not a rascal claiming an undeserved
privilege. Social justice cannot be permitted to be refuge of scoundrels any more than can equity be an impediment
to the punishment of the guilty.
Consequently, petitioner is not entitled to separation pay. Payment of separation pay cannot be justified by his length
of service. He was holding a supervisory rank being an Officer-in-Charge of the Tire Curing Department. The
position, naturally one of trust, required of him abiding honesty as compared to ordinary rank-and-file employees.
When he made a false report attributing the damage of five tires to machine failure, he breached the trust and
confidence reposed upon him by the company.
Hacienda Leddy, et al. vs. Paquito Villegas, G.R. No. 179654, 22 September 2014
Topic: Employer-employee relationship; tests to determine the existence of employer-employee relationship
Facts:
Villegas is an employee at the Hacienda Leddy as early as 1960, when it was still named Hacienda Teresa. Later on
named Hacienda Leddy owned by Ricardo Gamboa Sr., the same was succeeded by his son Ricardo Gamboa, Jr.
During his employment up to the time of his dismissal, Villegas performed sugar farming job 8 hours a day, 6 days a
week work, continuously for not less than 302 days a year, and for which services he was paid ₱45.00 per day. He
likewise worked in petitioner's coconut lumber business where he was paid ₱34.00 a day for 8 hours work.
On June 9, 1993, Gamboa went toVillegas' house and told him that his services were no longer needed without prior
notice or valid reason. Hence, Villegas filed the instant complaint for illegal dismissal.
Petitioner disputed that there exists an employer-employee relationship between him and Villegas. He claimed that
respondent was paid on a piece-rate basis without supervision.
Issue:
WON there exists an employer-employee relationship
Held:
Yes. A perusal of the records would show that respondent, having been employed in the subject Hacienda while the
same was still being managed by petitioner's father until the latter's death in 1993, is undisputed as the same was
even admitted by Gamboa in his earlier pleadings. While refuting that Villegas was a regular employee, petitioner
however failed to categorically deny that Villegas was indeed employed in their hacienda albeit he insisted that
Villegas was merely a casual employee doing odd jobs.
Gamboa likewise argued that Villegas was paid on a piece-rate basis.18 However, payment on a piece-ratebasis
does not negate regular employment. "The term ‘wage’ is broadly defined in Article 97 of the Labor Code as
remuneration or earnings, capable of being expressed in terms of money whether fixed or ascertained on a time,
task, piece or commission basis. Payment by the piece is just a method of compensation and does not define the
essence of the relations."
Hawaiian-Philco vs. Gulmatico , 238 SCRA 181
Topic: Employer-employee relationship; tests to determine the existence of employer-employee relationship
Facts:
On July 4, 1989, respondent union, the National Federation of Sugar Workers-Food and General Trades (NFSW-
FGT) filed RAB VI Case No. 06-07-10256-89 against herein petitioner Hawaiian-Philippine Company for claims under
Republic Act 809 (The Sugar Act of 1952).
Respondent union claimed that the sugar farm workers within petitioner's milling district have never availed of the
benefits due them under the law. Under said law, it is provided that In addition to the benefits granted by the
Minimum Wage Law, the proceeds of any increase in participation granted to planters under this Act and above their
present share shall be divided between the planter and his laborers in the following proportions. Sixty per centum of
the increase participation for the laborers and forty per centum for the planters. The distribution of the share
corresponding to the laborers shall be made under the supervision of the Department of Labor. Sixty per centum of
the increase participation for the laborers and forty per centum for the planters. The distribution of the share
corresponding to the laborers shall be made under the supervision of the Department of Labor.
Issue:
WON there is an employer-employee relationship
Ruling:
In the case at bar, it is clear that there is no employer-employee relationship between petitioner milling company and
respondent union and/or its members-workers, a fact which, the Solicitor General notes, public respondent did not
dispute or was silent about. Absent the jurisdictional requisite of an employer-employee relationship between
petitioner and private respondent, the inevitable conclusion is that public respondent is without jurisdiction to hear
and decide the case with respect to petitioner.
Meteoro et al vs. Creative Creatures, G.R. No. 171275, 13 July 2009
Topic: Who has jurisdiction to determine ER-EE relationship: Secretary of Labor or the NLRC?
Facts:
Respondent is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of producing, providing, or procuring the production
of set designs and set construction services. On the other hand, petitioners were hired by respondent on various
dates as artists, carpenters and welders. They were tasked to design, create, assemble, set-up and dismantle props,
and provide sound effects to respondent’s various TV programs and movies.
Sometime in February and March 1999, petitioners filed their respective complaints for non-payment of night shift
differential pay, overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay, premium pay for Sundays and/or rest days, service
incentive leave pay, paternity leave pay, educational assistance, rice benefits, and illegal and/or unauthorized
deductions from salaries against respondent, before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), National
Capital Region (NCR).
After the inspection conducted at respondent’s premises, the labor inspector noted that "the records were not made
available at the time of the inspection;" that respondent claimed that petitioners were contractual employees and/or
independent talent workers; and that petitioners were required to punch their cards.
Issue:
WON the NLRC has jurisdiction
Ruling:
Yes. The last sentence of Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code, otherwise known as the "exception clause," provides an
instance when the Regional Director or his representatives may be divested of jurisdiction over a labor standards
case.
Under prevailing jurisprudence, the so-called "exception clause" has the following elements, all of which must concur:
(a) that the employer contests the findings of the labor regulations officer and raises issues thereon;
(b) that in order to resolve such issues, there is a need to examine evidentiary matters; and
(c) that such matters are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.
In the present case, the CA aptly applied the "exception clause." At the earliest opportunity, respondent registered its
objection to the findings of the labor inspector. The labor inspector, in fact, noted in its report that "respondent alleged
that petitioners were contractual workers and/or independent and talent workers without control or supervision and
also supplied with tools and apparatus pertaining to their job." It then questioned the Regional Director’s jurisdiction
to entertain the matter before it, primarily because of the absence of an employer-employee relationship. Finally, it
raised the same arguments before the Secretary of Labor and the appellate court. It is, therefore, clear that
respondent contested and continues to contest the findings and conclusions of the labor inspector.
Indophil Textile Mills Vs. Adviento, G.R. No. 171212, 04 August 2014
Topic: Reasonable Causal Connection
Facts:
Petitioner Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing thread for
weaving. On August 21, 1990, petitioner hired respondent Engr. Salvador Adviento as Civil Engineer to maintain its
facilities in Lambakin, Marilao, Bulacan. On August 7, 2002, respondent consulted a physician due to recurring
weakness and dizziness. Few days later, he was diagnosed with Chronic Poly Sinusitis, and thereafter, with
moderate, severe and persistent Allergic Rhinitis. Accordingly, respondent was advised by his doctor to totally avoid
house dust mite and textile dust as it will transmute into health problems.
Distressed, respondent filed a complaint against petitioner with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),
San Fernando, Pampanga, for alleged illegal dismissal and for the payment of backwages, separation pay, actual
damages and attorney’s fees. Subsequently, respondent filed another Complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Aparri, Cagayan, alleging that he contracted such occupational disease by reason of the gross negligence of
petitioner to provide him with a safe, healthy and workable environment.
Issue:
WON the Labor Code has any relevance to the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs
Ruling:
While we have upheld the present trend to refer worker-employer controversies to labor courts in light of the
aforequoted provision, we have also recognized that not all claims involving employees can be resolved solely by our
labor courts, specifically when the law provides otherwise. For this reason, we have formulated the "reasonable
causal connection rule," wherein if there is a reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted and the
employer-employee relations, then the case is within the jurisdiction of the labor courts; and in the absence thereof, it
is the regular courts that have jurisdiction.
Petitioner's claim for damages is grounded on the "wanton failure and refusal"without just cause of private
respondent Cruz to report for duty despite repeated notices served upon him of the disapproval of his application for
leave of absence without pay. This, coupled with the further averment that Cruz "maliciously and with bad faith"
violated the terms and conditions of the conversion training course agreement to the damage of petitioner removes
the present controversy from the coverage of the Labor Code and brings it within the purview of Civil Law.
As it is, petitioner does not ask for any relief under the Labor Code. It merely seeks to recover damages based on the
parties' contract of employment as redress for respondent's breach thereof.