1. Is a comptroller an employee?

The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a question of fact. in determining

the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship, the Court has
consistently looked for the following incidents, to wit: (a) the selection and engagement
of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the
employer’s power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the
work is accomplished. The last element, the so-called control test, is the most important
element.

In the case of Jao vs BCC Products, G.R. No. 163700, April 18, 2012, it was held that
Jao merely acted as a representative of SFC in BCC. BCC did not exercise the power of
control over the petitioner because he acted for the benefit and in the interest of SFC,
more than of BCC. Moreover, his name did not appear in the payroll of BCC despite him
having approved the payroll as comptroller.

2. In the availment of funeral and bereavement aid under the CBA, may the
Company interpret "legal dependent" in accordance with the SSS definition of
"beneficiary" and hence, refuse payment of the benefit?

No. The coverage of the term legal dependent as used in a stipulation in a collective
bargaining agreement (CBA) granting funeral or bereavement benefit to a regular
employee for the death of a legal dependent, if the CBA is silent about it, is to be
construed as similar to the meaning that contemporaneous social legislations have set.
This is because the terms of such social legislations are deemed incorporated in or
adopted by the CBA.

The civil status of the employee as either married or single is not the controlling
consideration in order that a person may qualify as the employee’s legal dependent.
What is rather decidedly controlling is the fact that the spouse, child, or parent is
actually dependent for support upon the employee (Philippine Journalists, Inc. vs.
Journal Employees Union, G.R. No. 192601, June 26, 2013).

3. Distinguish corporate officers from ordinary employees.

A position must be expressly mentioned in the By-Laws in order to be considered as a

corporate office. Thus, the creation of an office pursuant to or under a By-Law enabling
provision is not enough to make a position a corporate office. The only officers of a
corporation are those given that character either by the Corporation Code or by the By-
Laws; the rest of the corporate officers could be considered only as employees or
subordinate officials.

An “office” is created by the charter of the corporation and the officer is elected by the
directors or stockholders. On the other hand, an employee occupies no office and
generally is employed not by the action of the directors or stockholders but by the
managing officer of the corporation who also determines the compensation to be paid to
such employee (Matling Industrial and Commercial Corp. vs Coros, G.R, No. 157802,
October 13, 2010).

4. Does a fixed period in a contract of employment give rise to a presumption of

an intention to circumvent the law?

No. A fixed period in a contract of employment does not by itself signify an intention to
circumvent Article 280 of the Labor Code. The fixed period of employment must be
knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, without any force, duress or
improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other
circumstances vitiating his consent, or it must satisfactorily appear that the employer
and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral
dominance whatsoever being exercised by the former on the latter (Jamias vs NLRC,
G.R. No. 159350, March 9, 2016).

5. Can foreign currency be used to pay wages?

Yes. As a general rule, all obligations shall be paid in Philippine currency. However, the
contracting parties may stipulate that foreign currencies may be used for settling
obligations. This is pursuant to Republic Act No. 8183. In the absence of a written
agreement between the employer and the employee that sales commissions shall be
paid in a foreign currency, the latter has the right to be paid in such foreign currency
once the same has become an established practice of the former (Netlink vs Delmo,
G.R. No. 160827, June 18, 2014).

6. Is the grant of bonus demandable?

As a general rule, no. The grant of a bonus or special incentive, being a management
prerogative, is not a demandable and enforceable obligation, except when the bonus or
special incentive is made part of the wage, salary or compensation of the employee, or
is promised by the employer and expressly agreed upon by the parties. By its very
definition, bonus is a gratuity or act of liberality of the giver, and cannot be considered
part of an employee’s wages if it is paid only when profits are realized or a certain
amount of productivity is achieved. If the desired goal of production or actual work is not
accomplished, the bonus does not accrue (Mega Magazine Publications vs Defensor,
G.R. No. 162021, June 16, 2014).

7. Are "CAPATAZES" in mining operations rank-and-file employees or

supervisory employees?

Capatazes are supervisory employees. Capatazes or foremen are not rank-and-file

employees because they are an extension of the management, and as such they may
influence the rank-and-file workers under them to engage in slowdowns or similar
activities detrimental to the policies, interests or business objectives of the employers
(Lepanto Consolidated Mining vs Lepanto Capataz Union, G.R. No. 157086, February
18, 2013).