II.

Wages
Tan vs. Lagrama

Facts
• Lagrama works for Tan as painter of billboards and murals for the motion pictures shown at
the theaters managed by Tan for more than 10years
• Lagrama was dismissed for having urinated in his working area
• Lagrama filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non payment of benefits
• Tan asserted that Lagrama was an independent contractor as he was paid in piece-work basis

Issue
W/N Lagrama is an independent contractor or an employee of Tan?

Ruling
Lagrama is an employee not an independent contractor
Applying Four Fold Test
A. Power of Control - Evidence shows that the Lagrama performed his work as painter and
under the supervision and control of Tan.
1. Lagrama worked in a designated work area inside the theater of Tan for the use
of which petitioner prescribed rules, which rules included the observance of
cleanliness and hygeine and prohibition against urinating in the work area and
any other place other than rest rooms and
2. Tan's control over Lagrama's work extended not only the use of work area but
also the result of Lagrama;s work and the manner and means by which the
work was to be accomplished
3. Lagrama is not an independent contractor because he did not enjoy
independence and freedom from the control and supervision of Tan and he was
subjected to Tan's control over the means and methods by which his work is to
be performed and accomplished
 Philippine Spring Water Resources vs. Mahilum

Facts

Issue
Whether Mahilum is a regular employee
Ruling

Mahilum was a regular employee. Having been hired in June 2004, he must be considered to have
already served the company foreight (8) months at the time of his dismissal on February 1, 2005. This
fact calls for the applicationof Article 281 of the Labor Code:

Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the employeestarted working,
unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating alonger period

.
 NORMA MABEZA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
PETERNG/HOTEL SUPREME, respondents
Facts

Issue

Whether or not Mabeza’s certain facilities may be deducted from her wage

Ruling

No. The labor arbiter’s contention that the reason for the monetary benefits received by the
petitioner between 1981 to 1987 were less than the minimum wage was because petitioner did not
factor in the meals, lodging, electric consumption and water she received during the period of
computations. Granting that meals and lodging were provided and indeed constituted facilities, such
facilities could not be deducted without the employer complying first with certain legal requirements.
Without satisfying these requirements, the employer simply cannot deduct the value from the
employee’s wages
 Toyota Pasig, Inc., v. Vila S. De Peralta

FACTS:

• The case began when a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction, unpaid commission,
annual profit sharing and damages was filed by Respondent against Petitioner and Severino and
Jnlyn Lim, Jason Ian Yap, Jorge Tuason, Marissa Operaña and Arturo Lopez (Lim et. al.) before
the NLRC.

• Petitioner in their defense states that Respondent was dismissed for just cause and with due
process

• The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. However, Petitioner is ordered to pay
Respondent ₱11,111.50 representing Respondent’s salary for Jan. 2012

• . The NLRC affirmed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter with the modification that Petitioner is liable to
Respondent in the amount of ₱617,248.08 representing respondent’s unpaid commissions, tax
rebate, salary deductions, and her salary for January, and profit sharing.

• The CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC’s ruling stating that the NLRC did
not abuse its discretion.
ISSUE

• Whether or not the CA correctly upheld the NLARC ruling which upheld petitioner’s liability to
respondent in the amount of 617,248.08
RULING

• the SC ruled that an allegation of nonpayment of monetary benefits places the burden on the
employer, to prove with a reasonable degree of certainty that it paid the benefit and that the
employee actually received such payment or that the employee was not entitled to such payment.