You are on page 1of 3

Escario v.

NLRC [GR No 124055, June 8, 2000]
FACTS: Petitioners are merchandisers of respondent company. They withdraw stocks from
the warehouse; fix the prices, price-tagging, displaying the products and inventory. They
were paid by the company through an agent to avoid liability. They claim that they were
under the control and supervision of the company. They asked for regularization of their
status. They were then given notice of their termination. The company denied any employer-
employee relationship. They claim that they used an agent or independent contractors to
sell the merchandise. The LA ruled that there was an employer-employee relationship. The
NLRC set aside the decision and said that there was no such relationship. The agent was a
legitimate independent contractor.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners are employees of the company.

HELD: The court ruled that there is no employer-employee relationship and that petitioners
are employees of the agent. The agent is a legitimate independent contractor. Labor-only
contractor occurs only when the contractor merely recruits, supplies or places workers to
perform a job for a principal. The labor-only contractor doesn’t have substantial capital or
investment and the workers recruited perform activities directly related to the principal
business of the employer. There is permissible contracting only when the contractor carries
an independent business and undertakes the contract in his won manner and method, free
from the control of the principal and the contractor has substantial capital or investment.
The agent, and not the company, also exercises control over the petitioners. No documents
were submitted to prove that the company exercised control over them. The agent hired the
petitioners. The agent also pays the petitioners, no evidence was submitted showing that it
was the company paying them and not the agent. It was also the agent who terminated their
services. By petitioning for regularization, the petitioners concede that they are not regular
employees.

Metro Transit Organization vs. NLRC, 245 SCRA 767

As a rule, a bonus is an act of liberality which cannot be demanded as a matter or right. But
a bonus becomes a demandable or
enforceable obligation when it is made part of the wage or salary or compensation of the
employee. Whether or not a bonus forms part of wages depends upon the circumstances
and conditions for its payment. If it is additional compensation which the employer promised
and agreed to give without any conditions instead for its payment, such as successful
business or greater production or output, then it is of he Where it is not payable to all, but
only to some employees and only when their labor becomes more efficient or productive, it
is only an inducement for efficiency, a prize therefore, and not a part of the wage.

United CMC Textile Workers Union vs. Valenzuela

Employers already paying their employees a 13th- month pay or more in a calendar year, or
its equivalent.

Valenzuela. respondents. mid-year bonus. Jurisprudence has interpreted the term “its equivalent” to approximate the legal requirement in all respects. (United CMC Textile Workers Union vs. which is a purpose not found in the law. cost of living allowances and all other allowances regularly enjoyed by the employees. And if the grant is at variance with the law. the provision is meant to be in addition to the legal requirement.Some worked since 1969 until separation 1928. If the bonus is provided in graduated amounts depending on length of service of employees.  Thereafter. Where an employer pays less than the required one-twelfth of the employee’s salary the employer shall pay the difference. respondents. cash bonuses and other payments amounting to not less than one-twelfth of the basic salary. it is regarded as a contractual obligation distinct from the legal obligation. complaints are EES . but shall not include cash and stock dividends. a report was submitted pursuant thereto .March 4. . to annul and set aside the decision of minister of labor and to dismiss the claims of the priv. its purpose is to give bigger awards to long-service employees. Jan 1978 – Respondent were dismissed  respondent filed for illegal dismissal with ministry of labor  NCRC – Affirmed decision of labor arbiter and dismissed complaint. Hence.Thereafter. of labor ( now ministry ) Dec. a writ of execution was issued for the satisfaction of the said amount.  Minister of labor – upon appeal . among the others. Hence.decision has already been partially implemented [Merits: Devoid of merit] . Whether or not petition was filed too late. . 1980.  Labor arbiter issued an order to compute the balance of priv. the grant must reflect the same intent as the law. namely magnanimity. stitchers and similar workers . reversed NCRC decision: . pressers. Respondents: tailors. petition for certiorari. respondent filed for issuance of writ of execution of the decision of minister of labor which was granted and partially implemented. Sept 1977 – Respondent filed complaint for 13th pay and emergency allowance with dept. vs. ISSUES: 1.The term “its equivalent” (supra) is deemed to include Christmas. 1977 – Labor arbiter dismissed complaint upon finding that complaints are not EES. Ople FACTS: Petitioner: Rosario Bros Inc. as well as non-monetary benefits. praying.the decision of minister of labor has already become final .Petitioner-respondent-to pay 13th month pay and emergency allowances. Rosario Brothers Inc. Hence.

required to work mon – sat . Were allowed to register with GSIS as employees of petitioner 2. elements to determine its existence: a. power dismissal .observer cleanliness . whether or not there exist an employer.employee rel. Selection and engagement of the EE.received weekly salaries on piece-work basis c.subj.Jan 2.hiring is the done by PET. through the master cutter b. power to control employee’s conduct . 1998 resps were dismissed d. DISPO PET. . Dismissed for lack of merit . payment wages .worked on job orders . Their jurisdiction are confined to specific matters are generally accorded respect and finality. to quality control e.violation of memoranda ground of dismissal . 1. Findings of administrative agencies which have acquired expertise bec.