Oro Enterprises vs.

NLRC collective bargaining agreement or

any other agreement/policy on
Facts:
matters concerning the payment of
- Loreto Cecilio, the private retirement benefits on employees
respondent, worked with Oro who reach a certain age except
Enterprises for 41 years and on that which is required by the
September 1990, she intended to Social Security Law.
retire from work by filing a claim - The labor arbiter rendered a
for retirement pay, stating that her decision, compelling Oro to pay
retirement pay from SSS was not P63,000 as her retirement fee.
enough to cover her daily Petitioner appealed to NLRC.
subsistence. - Pending the appeal, RA 7641 took
- Oro informed her that they are in effect, with a provision providing
no financial position to grant such for retirement pay. NLRC then
claim but they offered a house and rendered a decision, making Oro
lot in Bulacan in accordance with pay Cecilio P61,500 as retirement
a “plan” for their retiring pay. NLRC denied Oro’s
employees, which did not reconsideration.
materialize. Loreto claims that the - At the instant petition, Oro stated
offered house and lot will not meet that NLRC acted with grave abuse
her daily needs. Oro filed its of discretion on applying RA 7641,
answer, stating that they have no that it cannot be given retroactive
 effect as to cover private said employment contract took effect.
respondent since the law came in Another issue is that petitioner denied
effect only on 7 of January 1993. her request of retirement pay due to
abandonment of duty, anchored on the
Issue:
fact that Loreto never reported for
Whether or not RA 7641 can be given work after the denial of claim. NLRC
retroactive effect, which will grant said that when she filed her claim,
Loreto retirement pay? same was filed on 7 of January 1993,
Held: the time when RA 7641 took effect, and
that against the backdrop that she
Yes. RA 7641 is a social legislation. It
retired on 15 of September 1990, it
was enacted as a labor protection
could be said that the claim should be
measure and as a curative statute
treated as filed within the 3-year
regarding the absence of a retirement
prescriptive period provided by law.
plan made either on an agreement or
on voluntary grant from the employer. Maternity Children’s Hospital v
Doubt should be taken off about the Secretary of Labor
fact that the law can apply on Facts:
contracts existing prior at its
- The hospital has 41 employees and
effectivity, and that its benefits can be
that aside from salary and living
reckoned not only from the date of its
allowances, they are also given
enactment but retroactively at the time
food, with the amount spent is May 23 1986. Petitioner filed a
deducted from their salaries. On motion for reconsideration, in
the 10 of may 1986, 10 employees which it was denied. Now comes
of different departments and this petition.
positions, filed a complaint before
Issue:
the office of regional director of
Labor and Employment for region Does the Regional Director have
X, for underpayment of their jurisdiction and should give such award
salaries and ECOLAS. The regional arising from the visitorial and enforcing
director verified the allegations powers under art. 128 of the labor
and found that there is code?
underpayment. It was Held:
recommended that Antera Dorado,
Yes. The instant controversy is a labor
the hold-over president, to pay the
standard case and is governed by art.
amount representing
128-b, as amended by EO 11. Under the
underpayment of wages and
rules, the Regional Director exercises
ECOLA for the 36 employees. Mrs.
both visitorial and enforcement power
Dorado appealed the order to the
over labor standard cases. Prior to its
Minister of Labor and Employment,
effectivity, such authority was unclear
in which it was modified that the
and this case was filed before the
deficiency should only be
amendment. The rule during that time
computed from May 23 of 1983 to
is that the director has no authority to findings of the labor inspectors. In the
award money claims and property light of PD 850. It has been the
falling within the jurisdiction of labor intention of labor authorities to provide
arbiter. If there is violation, the director immediate access on rights and
will order the rectifications and does benefits for the workers, without the
not include adjudication of money inconvenience brought upon by
claims. SC, however, ruled that arbitration/litigation proceedings.
regional directors had already such Social justice legislation must not be
power under PD 850. The then labor hampered by long-winded arbitration
code labeled labor standard cases as and litigation for labor laws are meant
an exclusive function of labor arbiters to promote social justice, not defeat it.
under art. 216 and the regional director While the EO 111 was promulgated 3
only exercised visitorial powers under months after the Secretary of Labor’s
art. 127. When PD 850 came in effect, decision on the salary differentials and
the regional directors were given ECOLAs, the power of the regional
enforcement powers, in addition to director reflects on the intention stated
visitorial powers and the labor arbiters in policy instructions nos. 6 and 37,
lost jurisdiction over labor standards empowering the director to resolve
cases. In this case, Mrs. Dorado uncontested money claims in cases
admitted that the charge of where an employer-employee
underpayment is still on its employ. relationship still exists. While the
There was no contest against the award is available for those employees
not signatories on the complaint, same echague street from 7:00-
award does not apply to those 11:00am.
employees who were no longer - He further contends that the
connected with the hospital since the regulations promulgated in
enforcement power cannot extend in pursuant to Comm Act no. 548
cases of separated employees. constitute unlawful interference
with legitimate business or trade
Calalang vs. Williams
and abridge the right to personal
Facts: liberty and freedom to locomotion.
- Maximo Calalang questioned the Lastly, he also asserts that the
resolution of prohibiting anima- rules infringe the constitutional
drawn carriages to traverse on the precept regarding the promotion of
following: social justice to ensure the
o Along rosario street extending complete well-being and economic
from Plaza Calderon de la security of all the people.
Barca to Dasmarinas street Issue:
from 7:30-12:30pm and 1:30-
Does the regulation violate social
5:30pm.
justice?
o Along rizal avenue extending
along antipolo street to Held:
No. Social justice is neither governments on the principle of salus
communism, nor depotism, nor populi est suprema lex.
atomism, nor anarchy, but the
Same must be founded on the
humanization of laws and the
recognition of necessity of
equalization of social and economic
interdependence among divers and
forces by the State, so that justice, in
diverse units of a society and of the
its rational and objective secular
protection that should be evenly
conception, may at least be
extended to all groups as a combined
approximated.
force in our social and economic life,
It means that the welfare of the people consistent with the paramount
must be prioritized and in this case, objective to promote the health,
adoption by the government of measure comfort, and quiet of all persons.
calculated to insure economic stability
Marcopper v NLRC
of all competent elements of society,
through maintenance of a proper Facts:
economic and social equilibrium in the - Marcopper and Marcopper
interrelations of the members of Employees Union entered into a
community and constitutionally, collective bargaining agreement
through the exercise of powers effective from 1 may 1984 to 30
underlying the existence of all april 1987. Prior to its expiration
on 25 july 1986, a memorandum of
 agreement was entered, wherein labor arbiter’s decision. The
the terms on wage increase were motion for reconsideration was
modified. denied.
- In compliance, marcopper initially
Issue:
increased their wage by 5%. On 5
june 1987, EO 178 mandated the Did NLRC acted with grave abuse of
integration of the cost of living discretion when they directed
allowance and marcopper marcopper to pay the wage
implemented another 5% increase differentials, considering the meaning
on 1 may 1987, with COLA. of basic wage under EO 178 is different
- The union contested the 2nd and does not include COLA at the time
implementation, in which COLA the CBA was entered?
should be integrated into the basic Held:
wage before the 5% increase is
No. the basic wage mandated under EO
computed. A complaint of
178 includes the COLA. Petitioner
underpayment was filed before the
contended that the basic wage under
regional arbitration branch of QC.
the CBA is the “unintegrated” basic
Labor arbiter ruled in favor of the
wage. OSG opined that the integrated
Union and directed marcopper to
COLA should not be considered due to
pay the wage differentials due.
the exclusivity of benefits under said
- Marcopper appealed the decision
CBA and EO 178. If they follow private
to NLRC, which sustained the
respondent’s theory, which is to the rights of labor should be resolved in
integrate first the COLA into the basic in its favor pursuant to the social
wage and compute the 5% increase justice policy.
thereafter. However, SC ruled that CBA
PAL v NLRC
is the law between the contracting
parties and with the EO in effect, the Facts:
basic wage of workers increased with - PAL revised its code of discipline,
the integration of the COLA. which they circulated among its
Unfortunately for the petitioner, such employees and implemented the
law, by coincidence, retroactively took same. On 20 of august 1985,
effect on the same date the CBA PALEA filed a complaint before
increase became effective. Also, NLRC for unfair labor practices
petitioner lost sight on the fact that the with the following remarks:
State, in enacting the EO, anchors its o That the copies had been
power to accord utmost protection and circulated in limited numbers;
justice to labor, a policy we are sworn o The code, being penal in
to uphold. When conflicts of interest of nature, must comply with
labor and capital are to be weighed on requirements of sufficient
the scales of social justice, the heavier publication and;
influence of the latter should be
counter-balanced by sympathy and
compassion and any doubt concerning
 o Same is arbitrary and failed to appear at the scheduled
prejudicial to the rights of the date. Since there is failure to
employees. appear, the labor arbiter deemed it
- PAL filed a motion to dismiss the as waiver of the parties’ right to
complaint, asserting their present evidence and submitted
prerogative as an employer that the same for decision. The
prescribes rules and regulations decision stated that there was no
regarding their conduct and by bad faith on the part of PAL when
implementing the amended code, they implemented the amended
they did not violate the CBA or the code and no case of unfair labor
labor code. PALEA, in their reply, practice. However, Pal is not
said that when they implemented totally free from fault for the
the code, art. 249(e) and the issuance of rules governing the
provisions of articles IV and I of conduct of employees is a
chapter II of the code are legitimate management
defective, being contrary to the prerogative and must meet the
construction of penal laws and test of reasonableness, propriety
making any offense punishable and fairness. The arbiter found
within PAL’s contemplation. that the code was poorly
- The labor arbiter called for a circulated since their assertion
conference for a discussion on the that all of the employees were
disputed matters but both parties served copies are unsupported by
 documentary evidence, resulted on a supposedly smooth
the confusion and imposition of relationship between them
penalties to employees who and that the union has the
though that the 1966 code is still right to complain for they felt
followed. isolated in the adoption of the
- The arbiter rendered the following: new code.
o Furnish all of the employees o PAL cannot exclude labor in
with the new code; the deliberation and adoption
o Reconsider the penalties of rules and regulations since
imposed and remand the it also affects them.
same for further hearing; - The commissioner ruled that the
o Discuss the technicalities code should be reviewed, directed
with PALEA on the PAL to reconsider the pending
objectionable provision and; cases, if such is still in the arbitral
o The claims of the union are level, and share its management
dismissed. prerogative of formulating a code
- PAL appealed the decision before of discipline with the union.
the commissioner, with the latter
Issue:
making the following observations:
o Failure of PAL to discuss the Can the labor arbiter compel Pal to
amended code with the labor share its prerogative of formulating a
that led to the deterioration of code of discipline?
Held: those prerogatives affecting the
rights of the employees.
Yes. PAL asserted that there is no
law mandating the sharing of In this case, when PALEA and PAL
responsibility between the employer signed the 1989-1991 CBA, PALEA
and employee when they revised was aware of the exclusive right of
their code on 1985 and only on PAL to make and enforce company
march 1989, upon the enactment of rules and regulations without
RA 6715, which amended art. 211 of participation of PALEA and much
the labor code, that explicitly less, obtain latter’s conformity.
considered a state policy to ensure However, industrial cannot be
participation of workers in policy- achieved if the employees are denied
making processes affecting their just participation in the discussion of
rights, duties, and welfare. A close policies affecting their rights. Also,
scrutiny of the case revealed that before the amendment, PAL cannot
PAL does not entirely concern the consider it as an “obligation” not yet
management aspect of their found on law for attainment of a
business. harmonious labor-management
relationship requires observance of
Therefore, there must a distinction
transparenct in managerial powers
between management prerogatives
affecting employees’ rights.
regarding operations per se and
MERALCO v Sec. Quisumbing and an amicable settlement. Faced
MEWA with imminence of a strike,
MERALCO filed an urgent petition,
Facts:
praying that the secretary should
- MEWA informed MERALCO of their assume jurisdiction over the
intention to re-negotiate the terms dispute and enjoin the union to go
and conditions of the existing back to work.
1992-1997 CBA on the remaining 2 - The secretary rendered a decision,
years from 1 december 1995 to 30 granting the following:
november 1997. MEWA submitted o Wage increase of 2,300 from 1
its proposal, which MERALCO december 1995 to 30
presented a counter-proposal. november 1996 then 2,200
Despite series of meetings for from 1 december 1996 – 30
acceptable terms and conditions, november 1997;
both parties failed to arrive at o RCR allowance is integrated
such conclusion. in their salary starting 1
- MEWA filed then a notice of strike december 1995;
with the NCMB of DOLE on the o Longevity allowance
grounds of deadlock and unfair anniversary bonus – denied
labor practices. NCMB then o Longevity increase – same but
conducted series of conciliation bonus to be included in new
meetings but both failed to reach CBA
o Sick leave – upgrade is o Xmas bonus and special xmas
denied. grant – one month as bonus is
o Sick leave reserve – reduced granted & 2 months salary as
to 15 days, with option to grant is granted
convert excess 10 days as o Midyear bonus – incorporate
cash or let it remain. if in new CBA
remain, can convert to cash o Xmas gist cert – at discretion
at either retirement or of MERALCO
separation. - MERALCO filed a motion for
o Vacation leave – upgrade is reconsideration, alleging that labor
denied. secretary committed a grave
o Union leave – increased from abuse of discretion amounting to
30 to 40 Mondays a month lack or excess in jurisdiction in
o Maternity, paternity and making such awards.
funeral leaves – same unless
Issue
new law on paternity leave,
latter is superior over the Was there a grave abuse of
current policy. discretion?
o Birthday leave – granted Held:
o GHSIP – same
Yes. MERALCO argued that their
o HMP for dependents –
freedom to contract was infringed by
increased from 3 to 5
being ordered to include all other negotiation must be done within 3
benefits presently enjoyed by MEWA years within its execution. If there is
in the new CBA, even if they are not no agreement within 6 months from
incorporated in the new CBA. SC the expiration of 3 years following
ruled that such order of secretary CBA execution, it is the parties that
made him act in excess of will have the discretion to fix the
jurisdiction allowed to him by law. effectivity. In such case, in the
And to avoid possible problems, only absence of agreement, an arbitrated
the terms existing in the current CBA CBA will be an quasi-judicial award,
and was granted shall be and will operate until a new
incorporated in the CBA. agreement is set.

Also, the retroactivity of the CBA

shall run from the date of the
CUGCO v Subido
secretary’s disputed order on the
parties’ motion for reconsideration, Facts:
which is 28 december 1996 up to 27 - This is a petition for prohibition
december 1999. filed by CUGCO, PCSEA-CUGCO
The reason is that the 5-year period and Geronimo Quadra against
under art. 253-A is a guide when the Abelardo Subido, as the acting
CBA will take effect. The 5-year commissioner of civil service for
period is for the representation is re- issuing a memorandum circular to
 the auditor-general that for the Yes. Such right is is not absolute for if
auditor general and gov’t a person accepts employment falling
corporate counsel are considererd under civil service law and employers
employers of the personnel performs governmental functions, he
employed in the auditing as well cannot exercise his right to strike for it
as in the legal depts of GOCC. The is prohibited by law. his only recourse
memorandum then orders all union is to comply or to resign.
members employed in the auditing
North Davao Mining Corp v NLRC
and legal departments of such
gov’t corporations to renounce all Facts:
collective bargaining benefits or - Respondent Wilfredo Guillerma
face disciplinary action. was one of the several employees
Petitioners pray that the that were separated by reason of
memorandum be declared company closure on may 31, 1992.
unconstitutional as it violates their Following its closure, the
right to form or join associations remaining employees were given
or labor unions of their choice. separation pays equivalent to 12.5
Issue: is the memorandum valid? days’ pay for every year of service,
computed on their basic monthly
Held:
salary pay. Hoerverm during the
life of the corporation, they have
 been giving separation pay of personnel. It governs the grant of
equivalent to 30 days’ pay for separation benefits in case of closures
every year of service. or cessation of operation not due to
- A complaint then was filed for business losses or financial reverses. If
additional separation pay of 17.5 in case the business loss amounted to
days for every year of service, 20 billion above, the law does not
backwages, transport allowance, obligate the employer to pay separation
hazard pay, housing and food benefits for obvious reasons.
allowance, which was granted by
Director of Bureau of Commerce and
NLRC. Petitioner, through the
Industry v Judge Pedro Concepcion
government corporate counsel,
filed a motion for reconsideration Facts:
regarding the awards. - Alfredo Galvez, an officer of the
Issue: coast guard, accrued leave salary
of 1,359.92, which was not paid to
Is north davao obliged to pay the
him due to the loss of equipment
separation pay equivalent to 30 days?
for which he is accountable.
Held: Benito Zoboli then instituted an
action for collection of a sum of
No. art. 283 grants remedy for both the
1,230. The court then issued a writ
employer and employee in case of
of garnishment, authorizing the
closure of establishment and reduction
 sheriff to attach all the right of Held:
Galvez to his accrued leave salary.
Yes. The rule is that money in the
The attorney-general, on behalf of
hands of public officers, even if it may
the director, filed a motion to
be due to government employees, is
dissolve the garnishment for the
not liable to creditors of these
writ was improperly issued, for the
employees in the process of
government officers are not
garnishment. The reason is that except
subject to such process. The judge
in cases provided, the State cannot be
denied the motion.
sued in its own courts and to subject
- The director, hence this certiorari,
the officers in garnishment would be to
stated that the order of
permit indirectly what is prohibited
garnishment is illegal for:
directly. As long as the money remains
a. It is an indirect suit against
in the hands of the disbursing office of
the State, since it was done
the government, still belongs to the
without its consent;
latter, although the defendant in
b. The money does not belong
garnishment is entitled to a specific
to Galvez until paid over to
portion.
him and;
c. Contrary to public policy. Esmalin v NLRC and Care ph

Issue: Facts:

Is the order improperly issued?

- Esmalin is an employee of Care ph order milk CSM from Pasig
for 6 years, assigned as a warehouse that instead to be
warehouse man in Bacood. CARE brought in ASF and Bureau of
ph facilitates the flow of reliefs Animal Industry, it was brought to
and reconstruction materials Binan. AS OIC warehouseman,
donated by organization outside every delivery of the relief must
PH to individuals/organizations in have a copy of DCR, wherein he
PH. could easily identify who brought
- In a series of theft occurred at the and received them. But Felix did
TRANSCON bodega, wherein not comply and caused the
Esmalin manages the warehouse, diversion. Felix and VCabrega, a
Felix cooperated with Dupree in USAID program specialist, without
retesting in MIT lab relief goods inspecting the goods, jacked up
consisting of soy flour and soya the damaged CSM and SFF for
milk. While the results came that donation.
the goods were both unfit to - On april 1981, Esmalin was
human and animal, they change it terminated by CARE PH, citing his
to “unfit for human but fir for presence poses a threat. On 4 may
animal”. Letter orderts were made 1981, Esmalin opposed the
and applied to the soy flour and clearance, claiming his presence
soya milk in TRANSCON. Dupree does not endanger his co-
caused the withdrawal of good employees and since his duty is
 ministerial, the investigation has employed in a position of trust and
no bearing upon him. as a warehouseman, he had
- On 22 october 1981, the ministry access to the properties. With the
of labor denied the clearance for finding that Esmalin was involved
preventive suspension and ordered in a series of theft and his
his reinstatement. CARE PH subsequent indictment, one
opposed and filed a motion for cannot say that there was no
reconsideration, which paved the justifiable cause for the company’s
way to set aside the October 22 loss of trust and confidence on
order and remand the case to him.
NLRC, regional arbitration branch
Issue: was Esmalin illegally dismissed?
for compulsory arbitration.
- The Labor arbiter, on 8 april 1983, Held:
rendered a decision in favor of No. Petitioner insists that the dismissal
Felix, citing that the complainant without a formal investigation is
had shown his boldness by unwarranted and arbitrary. However,
pursuing his bid for justice for it CARE PH sought not only his
was clear the Felix is not involved suspension but also his dismissal. This
in the irregularity. CARE PH came from the memorandum submitted
appealed the decision on NLRC, by CARE PH on the application for
which nullified the previous clearance for the termination of the
decision. NLRC stated that Felix is
employment of petitioner with the citizens, making it more vital than
minister of labor. Even if the letter preservation of corporate profit.
speaks of preventive suspension, this
Euro-Linea v NLRC and Jimmy Pastoral
also clearly indicated a dismissal. Also,
the letter refers to an enclosure which Facts:
is the clearance to dismiss employee. - Jimmy was hired as a shipping
PD 442 clearly states that no employer expediter on a probationary period.
may dismiss an amployee without prior Prior to hiring, he was also a
clearance secured from the ministry of shipping expediter of Fitshcer for
labor. A dismissal without said more than a year. Petitioner
clearance is presumed a termination absorbed Jimmy on a probationary
without a just cause. However, the basis. Pastoral received a
court ruled that it is a prerogative of memorandum dated 31 january
management to employ the services of 1984, that he is relieved of
a person and likewise to discharge him, probationary employment due to
but not without limitations and failure meet the performance
restrictions. Dismissal of an employee standards set by the company.
must be done without abuse of Pastoral contested the illegal
discretion and the right of employer to dismissal and a decision was
freely select or discharge is regulated made by NLRC, in favor of
by the State due to the duty of the
latter to preserve the lives of its
 Pastoral. Euro-Linea appealed the case, Euro-Linea did not bother to cite
decision, which was denied. particular instances in its position
paper that Pastoral was
Issue:
underperforming and what is more
Whether NLRC acted in grave abuse of suspicious is that they retained his
discretion in ruling against the services until the last remaining 2
dismissal of Pastoral, a probationary weeks of the 6-month probationary
employee? employment.
Held: People’s broadcasting service v
No. Even if his status is probationary or Secretary of Labor and Jandeleon
has limited tenure, Pastoral still enjoys Juenzan
the constitutional protection of Facts:
security of tenure. During such limited
- Private respondent Juenzan filed a
tenure, he cannot be removed except
complaint for before DOLE regional
for causes provided for by law. It is
office no. VII of Cebu City for the
significant to note that in interpreting
following:
the protection of labor and social
o illegal deduction
justice provisions of the constitution,
o non-payment of service
labor law and rules, the court always
incentive leave
adopts the liberal approach, which is
the exercise of labor rights. In this
 o 13th month pay, delayed SSS, employer-employee relationship, such
PhilHealth and PAG-IBIG function cannot co-extend with the
contributions, premium pay visitorial and enforcement power under
for holiday and rest day. art. 128(b) of the labor code. It is the
- After a series of investigations, NLRC, being the primary agency, has
DOLE ruled in favor respondent the power to determine the existence
and deemed entitled to such of employer-employee relationship. In
benefits. The acting DOLE this case, PAO then filed a motion for
secretary denied the clarification with leave of court to
reconsideration because instead understand the jurisdiction of DOLE
of a surety bond, a deed of secretary and the NLRC. Under art.
assignment of bank deposit was 129, DOLE and its authorized hearing
submitted. hence, this petition. officers may heat and decide any
matter on recovering wages and other
Issue:
monetary claims and benefits qualified
Was there a employer-employee by the provision that such complaint
relationship to warrant the grant of the does not include a claim for
mentioned backwages and benefits? reinstatement, or that the aggregate
Held: claims do not exceed 5,000. Under RA
7730, the DOLE may exercise visitorial
No. SC ruled that while DOLE may
and enforcement powers for claims
determine the existence of an
beyond 5,000, as long as there is still
an existing employer-employee If there is a finding about such, it takes
relationship. While NLRC may be the cognizance of the matter, to the
primary agency to determine the exclusion of the NLRC. DOLE will not
existence of such relationship, the have jurisdiction if the relationship is
determination made also by the DOLE terminated or if appears, upon review,
must also be respected. No limitation that no employer-employee relationship
was placed upon the power of DOLE to exists. As to the money claim, if the
determine the existence of an amount is below 5,000, jurisdiction is
employer-employee relationship. DOLE with the regional director of DOLE
does not need to seek the decision of under 129. Otherwise, with the labor
NLRC regarding such. DOLE has set of arbiter under art. 217. Art. 128(b)
guidelines to follow. applies if it is done in the course of
regular inspections done by DOLE,
1. The selection and engagement of
unlike in the former, which must
employee
originate from complaints.
2. Payment of wages
3. Power of dismissal For short, if a complaint is brought
4. Employer’s power to control the before DOLE to enforce labor standard
employee’s conduct. provisions under the labor code and
there is a finding of such relationship,
Such test is not limited to NLRC. DOLE
DOLE exercises jurisdiction, to the
can also use the same test, even in the
exclusion of NLRC. If there is no
course of inspection.
relationship, NLRC has jurisdiction 14th month pay to no avail. But
under art. 217(3), if accompanied by a still, he reported for work until
claim of reinstatement. In this case, april and on the same month, he
such finding of DOLE was subjected to was no longer allowed to enter the
review and upon finding no premises. Because of such, Reyes
relationship, saying that the allegations filed a complaint for illegal
of private respondent were self-serving, dismissal before the NLRC.
not based on substantial evidence and Respondent, opposed the motion,
failed to prove such relationship, DOLE saying that they hired him as a
has no jurisdiction over the matter. consultant in the formulation of
the organizational set-up and
Reyes v Glaucoma Research
employees’ manual. They added
Facts: that he designated himself as such
- Jesus Reyes was an administrator on a trial basis; that he can leave
of the Eye Referral Center of anytime of the day, no control as
Glaucoma research. He receives a to the manner on how he performs
salaray of 20,000 until January his duties and that he became
2005. Manuel Agulto, the overbearing that complaints were
executive director, withheld his filed against him. He was not
salary without notice. Reyes sent dismissed for he already severed
a letter regarding his salary and his relations with them. The labor
arbiter held that Reyes failed to
 prove employer-employee the nature of work prevailing between
relationship. It was also added the parties, taking into consideration
that aside from his stint at ERC, he the totality of circumstances
was also a consultant to various surrounding the relationship between
government agencies, a matter the parties. This is most used accepted
ERC cannot control. However, test when the matter involved does not
NLRC reversed the decision, have a written agreement to base the
relying on the fact that the relationship. In our jurisdiction, the
arbiter’s basis lack support, that benchmark is the economic
respondent failed to discharge the dependence of the worker on his
burden that such dismissal was for employer. In this case, he became a
a cause. consultant to MIAA, Anti-Terrorism task
force for aviation and air transportation
Issue:
sector during his stay with ERC.
Was there an employer-employee Therefore, it cannot say that Reyes
relationship? was dependent on ERC. Also, the pay
Held: slips he supposedly gets from ERC do
not have deductions for SSS and
No. there are 2 tests to determine the
withholding tax from his compensation.
existence of such relationship. First,
Also, the 20,000 is a cash voucher or as
control test, which involved 4 factors.
an allowance. Lastly, the testimonies
Second, economic reality test involves
of admin officers of ERC that he was
hired as a consultant and not as an of waiting, they request C.F. Sharp
employee may be given evidentiary to release the submitted
value, since allegations of hearsay documents but the latter refused,
made by Reyes are not persuasive. prompting them to file a complaint
Adding to that, being an administrator before POEA.
will not determine the existence of - POEA rendered a decision,
such relationship for mere title in a ordering C.F. Sharp to return the
corporation does not justify such travel documents. Also, they
existence. suspended their license until the
documents are returned. While
C.F. Sharp Co v Pioneer Insurance,
POEA has no jurisdiction over
Wilfredo Agustin and Hernando Minimo
monetary claims, they filed a
Facts: complaint for breach of contract
- Responding from a newspaper ad before the RTC against petitioner
on job opening, private and pioneer insurance. Pioneer
respondents applied with C.F insurance filed a cross-claim
Sharp. After passing the interview, against C.F Sharp for damages and
they were required to submit costs that petitioner may incur as
documents and upon submission, a surety. RTC ruled that there is a
contract of employment was breach of contract when they
executed. However, after a month failed to deploy and release the
documents of respondents.
 - On appeal, C.F. sharp said that release of the documents of private
RTC lacks jurisdiction, in pursuant respondents.
to sec. 4(a) of EO 797, which gives
As a rule, contracts go through 3
POEA jurisdiction over cases,
stages, negotiation, perfection, and
including money claims arising
consummation. Under art. 1315,
from any contract involving
contract is perfected by consent and
workers for overseas employment.
from that moment, the parties are
CA partially granted the appeal,
bound not only to the fulfillment of
saying that there is no breach of
what is stipulated but also to the
contract for the employment
consequences may be in keeping with
contract was not perfected.
good faith, usage and law. in this case,
Issue: may a local recruitment agency the employment contract is an
be liable for breach of contract due to actionable document. The terms and
failure deploy a seafarer? conditions of the revised employment
contract for seafarers approved by
Held:
POEA/DOLE under MC no. 41 shall be
Yes. strictly observed. Any changes or
The basis of RTC is that the award of alterations on the contract relative to
damages is due to the unjustified the implementation and interpretation
failure to deploy and subsequently shall be evaluated and approved by
POEA and PH courts. Any violation of
the terms and conditions shall warrant suspension/cancellation of license and
the imposition of disciplinary return of the documents.
measures. By the contract, C.F Sharp,
Tongko v Manulife
on behalf of International Shipping
Management Inc., hired the Facts:
respondents as sandblaster/painter for - The contract involved 2 phases;
a 3-month stint, with a salary of $450 first, provided under the career
monthly. SC disagreed that there was agent’s agreement that petitioner
no employer-employee relationship. is an independent contractor and
Such must be treated separately from shall canvass applications for life
the perfection of an employment insurance, annuities, group
contract. Despite no employer- policies and others. Second, it
employment due to failure to deploy the started when he became the unit
respondents, they are till entitled to manager in sales agency
rights arising from the perfected organization and in 1990, he
contract of employment. POEA rules became a branch manager. By
are silent as to the payment of 1996, a regional sales manager.
damages to the affected seafarer but Since his employment, Tongko
does not mean the latter is precluded declares in his tax return that he is
from claiming the same. The sanctions self-employed. Due to issues on
do not end on the earnings and management
 problems, the management appeal, reversed the decision,
exercised its prerogative under saying that he was illegally
sec. 14 of the agents contract that dismissed. However, CA, through a
they sent him a notice of petition for certiorari, said that
termination. This made Tongko file NLRC gravely abused its discretion
a complaint for illegal dismissal, in reversing the labor arbiter’s
saying that before his termination, decision.
he was Manulife’s employee.
Issue:
Manulife countered the argument
by saying that he has no fixed Was there an employer-employee
salary. Under the agreement, he relationship?
was paid in commissions based on Held:
premium paid in full and received
No. in their November 2008 decision,
by Manulife on policies obtained by
Manulife had control over Tongko,
such agent. Manulife also added
sufficient to characterize him as
that labor arbiters do not have
employee, by saying that:
jurisdiction as he is not an
employee, as characterized by the 1. Tongko complied with
four-fold test. manulife’s rules, regulations and
- The labor arbiter ruled that there other requirements.
was no employer-employee 2. Various affidavits suggest that
relationship. NLRC, through an those who occupied the same
 position as Tongko, they expenses he incurred in the course of
performed administrative duties, lead agency. Him, assuming leadership,
establishing employment with but remained as an agent, seals the
Manulife. fact that other interpretations from the
3. Tongko was tasked to recruit perspective of insurance law and civil
agents, in addition to his law provisions may give rise to the
administrative duties. objective sense of determining whether
an employer-employee relationship
In the motion for reconsideration filed
exists.
by Manulife, SC ruled that the
agreement, while stood for decades, On the issue of alleged control, Tongko
was never challenged nor novated. By failed to properly analyze the difference
the express terms of the agreement, he of manulife’s managers and grepalife’s
worked as an “insurance agent” for supervisors. That aside from the
Manulife, not as employee. Such affidavits of other managers who
agreement, by express terms, is occupied the same position as
compliant with insurance code when it Tangko’s, some do not have the same
provided for a principal-agent weight. For example, de Dios’
relationship. Also, evidence suggested directives are merely operational
that Tongko remained as their agent, guidelines on how Tongko will align his
but moved up on his role. He moved up operations with manulife’s goal of
in terms of the reimbursements of being a big league player. Meaning, he
is not supervising full-time employees
engaged in the running of an insurance
business.