Freyssinek Hlipioas vs. Lapua CBR_NO. 296722, Warch 18, 2010, ee Ruling: NO, the CA did not err in ruling shat eoponent_wias.a regular enployee.. not A —————_prrjec employee under Article, 246 of the Lalor Code. which provides that regular empoy=—— ————mont_evists nen the employe Is engaged to_pecform ackivities tna are. usually nece.s5.aty—— and lor_desicalde ithe. usual_asiness of trade. of the employer so A casual employed wlanst— activities am_not_usually necessary _or desivalAc_in the employers usual iousiness of trade nd _has rendeced at Kast 4 year of secvice, sheer continvays of coker wit respec to the. s eee i : : eae 3b Natoraltes ve. Acar nega Tas: ms = 4 n —-—prveationary_contrack fort months by petitioner Abbot lavoratovits. a_pharmacéutiCa caused. te. publication iaaaaineeecpe aunt ati. and eapensiifice. - ————0n May AS, she was informed shai che fniled 40 meet tne regularization. ee ——— iid _a_week later, sha. was handed a. termination kace effedive May 14, 2008. Amand = ———1tsons_mentioned_wert.: she. did not manage, hoc time. ¢ffectively_and faited 4n_gald— —_As_a, employee. the NLRC reversed the LA's dedsion arguing that Alcars ri aie pa ition and_Abbott's Code of Conduck and Performance Madules was not eqyui=—— ——alent ty hee being adtually_informed of the. performance standards upon which che_should —— ——— Seed ‘atic. Avacra_(spondtl was ied a6 Reuley Aft. Manage under ——Lssue: whether ov not Alora was validly teeminated fom hee employment ___— Ruling: YES , she was validly terminated. ———_A piokationary mployee, ihe. 4 regular empoyee enjoys ccaudhy of tenure, Ws services _ ——tay.loe terminated for cither: a Just or authorised causé_and when he, filc tp qualify as @____ ial ena a cuca sth acca. andacds pect by Se plage 3 —— his engagearent: Jb interested._appicants. the fack thal she. was wdleaulare of er duties anc waponsibilitis, Amacquirt the necessary bills for __ she joa, hor failuce ty_adequately_pecform tne samevould ed tp her non-egulaization + and -tuontually, her Termination an FSof emplayment for Fixed per Ses eationary—_ se of emptoyn ‘ Periods, i pal any, i L_practice in the teaching _p ion. The employnnent on ————parbationan_status of teach nt as peck o_thepesind_ef probation by special mules found in he ————Mamal_of Regulations for Private ¢ ——Ihe_ssential_feeccloms cubcumed i Y the freedom of the school ty ckeernine for Hselfy_ wh | A ; i no.may.teachamong_aYncrs. they have the_inhecent sight 4p estatdich high. dtandars oomph and deaf fe faut ome Tis. gens schol. autormy ede fc Hlth ems_and ——————tonditions. for iiving its teachers. 7 ae in Hit temo the ate Cade standards could wade gan fy atm tina habs. dat seed bch ttn a he applet tees. ft standards wee eee inttoduced_ as denny rk ei ng ate ae ——PLOT vs. “Teves — —CR No. SI, November 1S; ab10 serece President : , 2 tea as. pobationany HRD Manager of responaenh when te compa —— eH he ———_hhere_tan_te.no_valid resignation where the. ak was macke undec com or nd e_cirtumstances_approximating_co mopulsion, such as when an_employse’s actof handing Ih his esignation ae a_reacion to clrcumstancec leaving him no_alteenative. lk fo resign. Because ok tne otendath, hostile. and aisodminaty_Norking_environment. he. —— i manently scucr tes with Outdooc Clothing. This falls within te ut dismissal that Jucsprudende defines as voluntarily. esignation. dite fothe_harsh hostile. and_unfavorable conditions set ky she. employer. \t aries. when ———unlbeaalde_t0_the_tmplayee. The. gauge for conshuckive. dicmiscal is whether a reasonable ——— erson_in he employee's position would fl competed. 4 gWve-up his employment under —______the._circumstances. ot a a a= the facd_sf filing a. esignation_setec alone. does nok shitt the batden of ——— ptving that the_employeessclicmissal_was fora. just and valid causefom the eenploytr_te the employee.a S0n2a_vs. ABS = CBN proadcasting Corporation ————~ GR No. 198.054 , Tune 10.2004 eons, oe c cae espondlent ABS: Cat igned an. Agreement lh Yee ond Mag excopets — —-——Lorporation whem_the latter. agreed 40 provide. petittonce Sonaa's. services. exclusively as As talent for radioand Vater, Sona tendered. a.elter rescinding thei agrecane fat fia. a. complaint before the. DOLt fr payment of hi. labor standard. bends. ABS 6 e_—— nthe. genund that no employer = eenployee. relationship cxicted behaven the. parties A found for etspondent citing that Sn2a_asa ‘talent’ cannot be considcced on —————~ wc Poth NLRC and A affiemed. thee ot nol employer =emplagee rlalonship edited Ruling: NO. - ————___Applyt | the_cantol test, wt find that Sonaq_i¢ not an employee, but an___——— inna akreaniewlpato esegle ie ae iuhi——— -anl_independent_contrackor: The less control the hirer exerdises, Ane ____—— mores likely the worker is consideced_an independent contracko. ile find that_Ams - Cenk nas not involved in the. actual performance teat ——__— ————Parduced_the, finished_prducl_of Sonaa's_ work. ABS -¢BN did not induct sonta how ty ———Pecfncm is Job_ABS-CON's sole concern wasthe quality of he. shows, Clearly, ABS -CEN ——did not cxeccise.cantral over the means and methedsot pecformance.-of Somea's_ work. lth case, senza failed ty show Anat snes rules imposed ay Atos: CON controlled ____ ————his perfomance. tle Find that shese. acneeal ules art meeely. guidelines towards the ———Achiewement.of_the_mutualy desired result. tn the broadcast industny, exclusivi ily the_same_as contra}. ———{s not necessari— oo Tippin Conmuticalions. ate tema GRNoISIAA4 | June 1, 2005 Gen whe aces ——— Tape a hment_Ricardo_De Nera oficed his. services to peiionec Blom the. ga gaan Farmalied the opsal in. a. deeument.” RekaieripCrkact Laer, tong ——— tnformed De Neca ofits. dedslon te lstantinut he. scan’ contol couse. ob He ————~ Sr nas praca cee ee ee aca at ai ipa sisal edo azn tak bebe —— Ne aaly.epajed_by Pilen as i canpany, gin and es. dirs iu pence. — ——LA_dismissed tht com cho met_on te canal datos etl ——— -Poysicion” under_avalid contra Qe \ora_nas..an_"indepeadent contradne" and wasnt _——— Airlie bis sont tne dnd ik eat, TR etd she_LA's decision fining. thal petoner i llGem cgulac engage — th 4 nicer te, payment of separation pay in Oe era tn leu ob instalemen’. ———Iesut_whether orn Ruling: NO. at on employee = emplyee elafonchip evi ina the fue fold teste. vera 16 nol an emp loyee. Acarding to the erric the Court, 4p work with petitioner, he vas never inchided in_i! ———Payeoll_ ard as never deducted any conhibution for renilkance ty the. 6S: > The_powey 1 Raminate. the edatonshi_of the. pacts sas mutually vested on loka and anay ————teaminate either sith oe wilt cause, Pehtioner also had no control over tha means hod. nysihich rapondent went alot in. perfueming is work cl tne cmpanyy premises,cs : . x “Fads: ee 3 Strara_saa_ regular anpiyet_ of Tstaon_DéparkmentStot-os She ned 9 ——Stuly checks task cing measur. ctw chased otis ene. seauc section Paton ea tompotts, A td an Sens te 5 alled_tr_tstablich that ik had retrenched its ceusrihy seckion to prea i aie Ss asin that pate apndent ted acon ages to eon Aah 9 rane filed ty use. waconalde standards in_ctl¢cking.eenplayees. snase_ emp mc She terminated. Nt evcesed the, cision and. ordeced. pein ; ot the employees classed under the Vale . Ruling: Yes ————_Hettioners conteation has. ne met under_Atk. 289 of the, Vator ade. Absent the a walidous_er arbitrary manne:oe a Mati aa 0% ne 200488 Oecemioc +. 208 Fads: = - pe Golden Rack canimaded the. services of Dalag asa sid¢.machine opecakor— © Seed > file at acy, gti oat en BAT Balen Bock nice the Nae agrczd ty employ Srenecessary nu ms > . 9 tonto Gol d &3 =3-: 4. n 9 Aliviado evs. Procter and Gamige Prils- Inc. >>: GR No. 1U0SDi,,_March 4, 2010 = 2 9s eos nectar Po @ Bom aa das nd tachi Ror See ee ities fled compat against 2G fer regulation shich was later arcade #2——~ int i ismisal. 9 alist complaint for lack of me and thal ects. a0 = EE lation = —— > i 2G. He further found that umm Gem ard - > mat_indepradiat ‘¢ waing. : : Takaaiae mm = Genn_is_a_ legitimate. job contractor _whike_SAPS is engaged in aor “old ie sig ate mustoe_ made to.an independent conteackor y——_betcause the. aurent OC wiles txpressly pohibit labor “only contracting. labor = . sc tekndig Laat 28s nti sca the_contractor.Leulocedtactor dees. not have. sulostantial_capital_or : ich relates fa he ob. oc cei to be pechemed an the. emplayees. na au emai ha hy cb be or the co not eerdst the right ty ie pla fi fot conteol__Gata Gola tales tril Inge Agito eae GR Ho. 144 SH, December 43, 2004. Fads: ie ‘eta Gaia domestic craton iba engnged sie cris ob TNO HS tn eae epg ——tesue: Whether or oct Interserve is a legitimate job contend ————_—__~ Ruling: _No. Inteeserwe i a labor- only contractor, Te lav. cleady. establishes an_2R-6F eationsrip behween the pincgn| epee a ge ce 2_upan finding thatthe. contractor is engaged in_\abor-_———— onky_cor ing. ln thie cave, although ther is no absolute figure. for what is substantial capital. Ine Contract does no} specify the. work. or_priyck 4 lve performed by the. rtapondents In ——_———_Intersteve's_Articies of Incorporation, its primary. purpose ic in-the lousingss of ____ Yuniturial_and_ allied seevices. Yet, #he reapondents wee histd as sakesmen ard _ -—leadman_of Coca: Cola, __ esha Be The contractor, nek the. employee, has the. Jpunden of prmof_that_ aha the —__________.surstantial_capitaL. investment..and tool toengage_in_ jab contracting thawing _____—_ falled_t»_establish the suastaatial capital of Interserue, the Court willnck presume Nehides and equipment, ~—_that_Intecseove had sufficient investment in secvice —eapecially since espondents allegation thal ty wert using equipmentdecision Tesi: Whether the PCL is a \abor= only contrackor or an i jent_donteackor Ruling: PMC was a Idoor-only contractor. Ahough Ned Case prvided sat dochine wiih. dated frat it is enough that a_contractor_had substantial cat i Inde-__ pendent _cantyqatur, the case of Tuji Xerox clarified the docking _ckatin eM actor must_undectake the performance. of the contract ocuording ty feet, f the. pind| ae te Seas _San_Miguel_Corp. vs. MAERC GR_No. 44072, July 40 20> —— fads: ee | milan vet atten oC lee In eng om gS yy _ he talon Codes er “VA sete camper eg tanssalhelding tak WME 6m pendak Gatrace URC uled that MARC 005 a laor-enly tontactor and campl2sS>——— ert SMC employed. Such decislon vos afirmed by he CA. “Tosae: Whether MAERC is_a_lalee only _contraclor_or_an_inaepencent _conttackor —————— sling: MAERC 1s a labor-only contractor. jority of he. complainads had already een workig_ for SHC lice, contract between SMC and MAERC , characteristics of a labor only contractor. While MAERC‘S fings, twos and equipment is cuibstantal « We cannot olistt - gal te fock that A was SMG rich equited. SMAERG ty undecake such investmcats uctfe he os os — eis ores, 194403. 7 rs AR Nt. 121909-04, Ocbiee 4D, 2012 — > ond fe va order DIGATEL. Enplaees Union vecame the exchasivt, bargaining ageek of i rank ————$nitployets_of_DIGITeL. Calechive bargaining neq ofitions ensxtd ride howener reached tn 4 i ing 4. assumed iuficdiction due +e taitakt te goon stiles cS = Ruling: NO. * —Affer_on_exhaustive_revien!_ol the. ccvords, there is no showing hat Dielsted_bas___— = suastantiq| investment in_the form_of capital, equipment or tools, The NLR ee > —_________ substantial Dicise Rv's authorized capital etock and there. was no increase iHe amages aginst petitioner, 2yhn and AC Sicat- bbb rS—______ A dismissed the compat ond ruled Ana thay. wet nok legally dis eS Bay sat taney ited by ie and. A a the A's ruling. CA, however, hed dot responcerte. wee iegaiy dicmicced » V¥ found Ae Sicat caches the requitements of gma vo contacting out 2yhton does wate Assug: whether or not _scapandents were illegally dismissed. Ruling NO. = Resyencentt employment, was not ikeqatly tearinated win ayhron for it was ‘orwught_oibout by the ceccation of their contrac wlth the Yaliee Respondents were thé Ont _uho refused fo renew thei cartrad and acquiesced themsehies to AC Skat. BY hei refusal 4 rend, they wee ettectvehy condoned a resigned. —__Rspmdeate!_conployecet_with AC Steal was. also ook iegally Secminated. Che __ —_______comectly foutdl tat_o Sical is engaged in legitimate joe contracting. AC Sicat was ode te _conteacking to pratated nec AF EDELVULLUELULE EE EOLLELEDEL298 £904! Fads: ma Arevalo set-up Broad com and Cotare was promoted as A fe sales i i aie st per eaAtlanta Irduskies ys. Sebolino GR No. 197990 j Saamary UW, 201 Sate ie fads: ; The complainants fled a cast against tank indushits: In. wen ee —deaynea creamer of sag an ln nay dma el class ———txemplany damages and_attomey's free againg iti a wl thay ote thay aan 09} alia ath oP Manta for moe than of the. purported. apprenticeship_agee ——_———belwe pany. they claimed that they wert illegally, ot ———npement_expit ri fi dasizati Issue _thelhec or not_CA eal in-ring thal Scbolina and others nee Negaly.ciswiese —— Ruling: NO.ye Resignation ic the formal rengul nt _of an office , the overt ack tin ie caupted with the intent to renounce This intent coud be. inferred foma _ GR No. 196440 , Juy 26, 9044 ads: : = ce Alcantara fed o complaint for Hlegal dismissal against Nayote. homes contrat a cat) One ——— ane. Hal He eur eno ie We priv as A BG Atstaie_ 4 Hs business anc We perforate is azo to compan] ees andre thles, walugtion and exclusivity clause, of contract. i vi = fens, ed Ahab is venirock with Alcantara is. hear and una He, -Ggtd ins series as an independ Cntracfor and no EX- EE relationship odsts wobec ——Partigs Royale Homes alleged that its expected +o exercise s 9 ey relatiol-__—— pendent contractors, tad that does. not oxomaticallyteault in the existence of t= E42 Et ttiedqs” ® tee a ua gp Fads: Tai teat Flea conga for coal acess ——— a OH a yr mn edo and Tune 4991, until ney were oat 5 ert Sha enn a hale —— ret ete tit lea ht ay ely ct ee regula at tnd at Napa antec nk ene tat —ER Wo. 204 206 Ferwary 2.2044 fads: cons exhtudte —_—Petionces Watiede_and_ Hones we it_y-eanceat_corgorion A ————cyeatars in 2000 raponsie for the vanging-of flame. yarn, Tete on | gut itn — ere fit a perod of 1 year. Beay_year thereat they would con a_Rbsignali rDi_Censunji_ine. vs. Gobres GRNO- 4170, August ¢,'2010 fads: : Respondents worked as_carpentecs tn the prajecks_of petitione’ on several ob: — is anlar ot varies times Thc teemination or each prec 1s egorted 4n-PAA= ——Thetclast assignment sigs a_Gloricia. sheet they stacted_working on September 1998. ——— a Hetun,_tn_Ocholaec thee mapondents. san dheir-names_in chucked tn the natice_of ——— termination. this. pemptent_them tp file_a_complalnt for ikegal dicmissal_____— To hnttoner contends that respondents. being pried ili Jastruction No. 20_ac superseded D0 No. 14.s. 1948 with: respect to Heir __— ———aerred that wepondents' secutces were. terminated when their phase i gag ns i ————Htt_tompleted. Citing Sec. 2, Rule XilL, Book V of the Omnilous Rules tn Implemen= __Golegig del Sanfcino Rosario vs. Rojo GR NO. FoAgs , September 4, 201 sae Cdegio deh Sarnticimo Gasaio (Ose) hive Emmanuel Gio aS a vignsdel He iat —— ———pabationany basis. Un 1906, cor deaged vat eae ep conkiac Rie et nt ont —— Forilegal dicmicsal aiming be had ened the maximum team for pabationaty °F hould be considered permanent citing paragiayh 36 of 4he 1410 Manual of Reqlae=— Private Schools. _ - = ‘ __Fefifionecs agued that Rojo knew i's contsack_vould expite-on 9S.nen® sh ——slismisstd cater his contract merely expistd; and the 2 consecutive yess math ——— ———he_1470_Manual refer to 4% months not 2 school yet - Since a scht Rojo served only 40 montns, Fads:Gapayad vs. tulo : a ee GR No- 149499 , June 19, 2019 ———— adhe: —— Jaime Fulo_dfed_of eectmadiion hile deing repairs ak te ssidend?=———— and _aasinesestadichmert of pctitonee Prvate respondent. txcouhed.an. AME dovit_o{_pesistanve_ stating Ahatsh. was. nok holding petikioner_Walae for 490 cdeatof her Iusoand_ aad is. idving tet ight 4p file-any criminal of_ci¥ll—— acon. They ¢xecubed_ a. compmumise. agreamert_sinere 7 40,090_ was. given 10 82 ——— promised In the existence of employer tant Freaplshed, the Cour ules n favor of. spond nan ie te. employee relationship - Thal having __morte eats, pm GR No. 49989, Frloruaaty 40, 207 Fads: —Pefiongs_art medical prfesionals_hned by 1S6Lurdec a_uniform.on6PO os —— Rekainer_beginvirg Sure 1489 and the sueding AS yeare, terminating I aria 1—— wing..year_vnen tne school. year ends. The. conhrack prides that ne sckainer ts only’ les tk ot —— 5 tharacker_and_eyclusively Viited to the_assigned undertaking. Dt further pawl 1? —— any ine pit n-etion, LCL nay terminate ceracks. shoul she sek teal oki — assigned ask ty te. sicfackion ok he. choo. of ot any just cast Hea wc 2” a ) ) + ) » > > : the lash day, of ya i i ic tine ———___m. 2 tentracts vill no longer be rercnted. When they cequested_ for payment ot the ®____ they were denied re tesa igang — 2 ___ trey were regular employees for 3 Soe dla weds poms and SAPD —___thoy west_subjeched 40 the schod's administvative and discit Se ee a ee thie medical shits. ond operand Set phone pay. wee aime tes_ acd —— s regular salarte Nok the. shock ____—— lA dismissed the vompaint and tied that petitioners wert Independent cen ——— 9 tractors. NLRG disagreed finding petitioners as fixed-term ¢my 0 4he_Contradl of Retainer. CA affirmed the NLRC Dericion = csue: Whether of not petitioners were regular employees Ruling: NES. the petitionecs attained £ retained seqular employment. raat neck eke ig ese S61 glory. Petitioners were nol on equc nit wae!