1. ANGELINA FRANCISCO, vs.
NATIONAL LABOR The Labor Arbiter found that petitioner was illegally
RELATIONS COMMISSION, KASEI CORPORATION,
SEIICHIRO TAKAHASHI, TIMOTEO ACEDO, DELFIN LIZA,
IRENE BALLESTEROS, TRINIDAD LIZA and RAMON
ESCUETA,
G.R. No. 170087 August 31, 2006
Facts:
In 1995, petitioner was hired by Kasei Corporation
during its incorporation stage. as Accountant and
Corporate Secretary. Although she was designated as
Corporate Secretary but never acted as such beacuse
the appointment was only for convenience. In 1996,
petitioner was designated Acting Manager. petitioner
handled recruitment of all employees and perform
management administration functions; represent the
company in all dealings with government agencies,
petitioner was acting manager for 5 years. As of
December 31, 2000 her salary was P27,500.00 plus
P3,000.00 housing allowance and a 10% share in the
profit of Kasei Corporation. In January 2001, petitioner
was replaced by Liza R. Fuentes as Manager. Petitioner
alleged that she was required to sign a prepared
resolution for her replacement but she was assured that
she would still be connected with Kasei Corporation.
Thereafter, Kasei Corporation reduced her salary by
P2,500.00 a month beginning January up to September
2001. Petitioner was not paid her mid-year bonus
allegedly because the company was not earning well.
On October 2001, petitioner did not receive her salary
from the company. On October 15, 2001, petitioner
asked for her salary but she was informed that she is no
longer connected with the company. Since she was no
longer paid her salary, petitioner did not report for work
and filed an action for constructive dismissal before the
labor arbiter.
Private respondents averred that petitioner is not an
employee of Kasei Corporation. They alleged that
petitioner performed her work at her own discretion
without control no daily time record and she came to
the office any time she wanted. Petitioner did not go
through the usual procedure of selection of employees,
but her services were engaged through a Board
Resolution Petitioner’s designation as technical
consultant depended solely upon the will of
management. As such, her consultancy may be
terminated any time considering that her services were
only temporary in nature and dependent on the needs
of the corporation.
dismissed, On April 15, 2003, the NLRC affirmed. The
appellate court denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration, hence, the present recourse.
Issue:
whether or not there was an employer-employee
relationship between petitioner and private respondent
Kasei Corporation.
Ruling:
Yes, petitioner is an employee of respondent Kasei
Corporation. She was selected and engaged by the
company for compensation, and is economically
dependent upon respondent for her continued
employment in that line of business. Her main job
function involved accounting and tax services rendered
to respondent corporation on a regular basis over an
indefinite period of engagement. Respondent
corporation hired and engaged petitioner for
compensation, with the power to dismiss her for cause.
More importantly, respondent corporation had the
power to control petitioner with the means and
methods by which the work is to be accomplished.
By applying the control test, there is no doubt that
petitioner is an employee of Kasei Corporation because
she was under the direct control and supervision of Seiji
Kamura, the corporation’s Technical Consultant. She
reported for work regularly and served in various
capacities as Accountant, Liaison Officer, Technical
Consultant, Acting Manager and Corporate Secretary,
with substantially the same job functions, that is,
rendering accounting and tax services to the company
and performing functions necessary and desirable for
the proper operation of the corporation such as
securing business permits and other licenses over an
indefinite period of engagement.
Under the broader economic reality test, the petitioner
can likewise be said to be an employee of respondent
corporation because she had served the company for
six years before her dismissal, receiving check vouchers
indicating her salaries/wages, benefits, 13th month pay,
bonuses and allowances, as well as deductions and
Social Security contributions. When petitioner was
designated General Manager, respondent corporation
made a report to the SSS signed by Irene Ballesteros.
It is therefore apparent that petitioner is economically
dependent on respondent corporation for her
continued employment in the latter’s line of business.
In Domasig v. National Labor Relations Commission, 28
we held that in a business establishment, an
identification card is provided not only as a security
measure but mainly to identify the holder thereof as a
bona fide employee of the firm that issues it. Together
with the cash vouchers covering petitioner’s salaries for
the months stated therein, these matters constitute
substantial evidence adequate to support a conclusion
that petitioner was an employee of private respondent.
We likewise ruled in Flores v. Nuestro 29 that a
corporation who registers its workers with the SSS is
proof that the latter were the former’s employees. The
coverage of Social Security Law is predicated on the
existence of an employer-employee relationship.
2. JOSE SONZA vs. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING
CORPORATION  relationship. All the talent fees and benefits paid to
G.R. No. 138051
June 10, 2004
Facts: In May 1994, ABS-CBN signed an agreement with
Mel and Jay Management and Development
Corporation (MJMDC). ABS-CBN was represented by its
corporate officers while MJMDC was represented by
Sonza, as President and general manager, and Tiangco
as its EVP and treasurer. Referred to in the agreement
as agent, MJMDC agreed to provide Sonza’s services
exclusively to ABS-CBN as talent for radio and television.
ABS-CBN agreed to pay Sonza a monthly talent fee of
P310, 000 for the first year and P317, 000 for the
second and third year.  exercises, the more likely the worker is considered an
Sonza wrote a letter to ABS-CBN where he irrevocably
resigned in view of the recent events concerning his
program and career. After the said letter, Sonza filed
with the Department of Labor and Employment a
complaint alleging that ABS-CBN did not pay his salaries,
separation pay, service incentive pay,13th month pay,
signing bonus, travel allowance and amounts under the
Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP). ABS-CBN
contended that no employee-employer relationship
existed between the parties. However, ABS-CBN
continued to remit Sonza’s monthly talent fees but
opened another account for the same purpose.  radio broadcast specialist who works under minimal
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and found
that there is no employee-employer relationship. NLRC
affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. CA also
affirmed the decision of NLRC.  ABS-CBN claims that there exists a prevailing practice in
Issue: Whether or not there was employer-employee
relationship between the parties.  of labor to security of tenure as guaranteed in the
Ruling: Case law has consistently held that the elements
of an employee-employer relationship are selection and
engagement of the employee, the payment of wages,
the power of dismissal and 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. 
Sonza’s services to co-host its television and radio
programs are because of his peculiar talents, skills and
celebrity status. Independent contractors often present
themselves to possess unique skills, expertise or talent
to distinguish them from ordinary employees. The
specific selection and hiring of SONZA, because of his
unique skills, talent and celebrity status not possessed
by ordinary employees, is a circumstance indicative, but
not conclusive, of an independent contractual
SONZA were the result of negotiations that led to the
Agreement. For violation of any provision of the
Agreement, either party may terminate their
relationship. Applying the control test to the present
case, we find that SONZA is not an employee but an
independent contractor. 
The control test is the most important test our courts
apply in distinguishing an employee from an
independent contractor. This test is based on the extent
of control the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater
the supervision and control the hirer exercises, the
more likely the worker is deemed an employee. The
converse holds true as well – the less control the hirer
independent contractor. To perform his work, SONZA
only needed his skills and talent. How SONZA delivered
his lines, appeared on television, and sounded on radio
were outside ABS-CBN’s control. ABS-CBN did not
instruct SONZA how to perform his job. ABS-CBN merely
reserved the right to modify the program format and
airtime schedule "for more effective programming."
ABS-CBN’s sole concern was the quality of the shows
and their standing in the ratings. 
Clearly, ABS-CBN did not exercise control over the
means and methods of performance of Sonza’s work. A
supervision is an independent contractor. Sonza’s work
as television and radio program host required special
skills and talent, which SONZA admittedly possesses. 
the broadcast and entertainment industries to treat
talents like Sonza as independent contractors. The right
Constitution arises only if there is an employer-
employee relationship under labor laws. Individuals
with special skills, expertise or talent enjoy the freedom
to offer their services as independent contractors. The
right to life and livelihood guarantees this freedom to
contract as independent contractors. The right of labor
to security of tenure cannot operate to deprive an
individual, possessed with special skills, expertise and
talent, of his right to contract as an independent
contractor.
3. Javier vs. Fly Ace Corp.
G.R. No. 192558
February 15, 2012
FACTS:
On May 23, 2008, Javier filed a complaint before the
NLRC for underpayment of salaries and other labor
standard benefits. He alleged that he was an employee
of Fly Ace since September 2007, performing various
tasks at the respondents warehouse such as cleaning
and arranging the canned items before their delivery to
certain locations, except in instances when he would be
ordered to accompany the companys delivery vehicles,
as pahinante; that he reported for work from Monday
to Saturday from 7:00 oclock in the morning to 5:00
oclock in the afternoon; that during his employment, he
was not issued an identification card and payslips by the
company;that on May 6, 2008, he reported for work but
he was no longer allowed to enter the company
premises by the security guard upon the instruction of
Ruben Ong (Mr. Ong), his superior; that after several
minutes of begging to the guard to allow him to enter,
he saw Ong whom he approached and asked why he
was being barred from entering the premises; that Ong
replied by saying, Tanungin mo anak mo; that he then
went home and discussed the matter with his family;
that he discovered that Ong had been courting his
daughter Annalyn; that Annalyn tried to talk to Ong and
convince him to spare her father from trouble but he
refused to accede; that thereafter, Javier was
terminated from his employment without notice; and
that he was neither given the opportunity to refute the
cause/s of his dismissal from work.
For its part, Fly Ace averred that it was engaged in the
business of importation and sales of groceries.
Sometime in December 2007, Javier was contracted by
its employee, Mr. Ong, as extra helper on a pakyaw
basis. Mr. Ong contracted Javier roughly 5 to 6 times
only in a month whenever the vehicle of its contracted
hauler, Milmar Hauling Services, was not available. On
April 30, 2008, Fly Ace no longer needed the services of
Javier. Denying that he was their employee, Fly Ace
insisted that there was no illegal dismissal. Fly Ace
submitted a copy of its agreement with Milmar Hauling
Services and copies of acknowledgment receipts
evidencing payment to Javier for his contracted services
bearing the words, daily manpower (pakyaw/piece rate
pay) and the latters signatures/initials.
LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit on the
ground that Javier failed to present proof that he was a
regular employee of Fly Ace. Complainant has no
employee ID showing his employment with the
Respondent nor any document showing that he
received the benefits accorded to regular employees of
the Respondents. As to the claim for underpayment of
salaries, the payroll presented by the Respondents
showing salaries of workers on pakiao basis has
evidentiary weight because although the signature of
the complainant appearing thereon are not uniform,
they appeared to be his true signature.
On appeal with the NLRC, Javier was favored. It ruled
that a pakyaw-basis arrangement did not preclude the
existence of employer-employee relationship. Payment
by result is a method of compensation and does not
define the essence of the relation. It is a mere method
of computing compensation, not a basis for determining
the existence or absence of an employer-employee
relationship. Finding Javier to be a regular employee,
the NLRC ruled that he was entitled to a security of
tenure.
CA annulled the NLRC findings that Javier was indeed a
former employee of Fly Ace and reinstated the dismissal
of Javiers complaint. He contracted work outside the
company premises; he was not required to observe
definite hours of work; he was not required to report
daily; and he was free to accept other work elsewhere
as there was no exclusivity of his contracted service to
the company, the same being co-terminous with the
trip only. Since no substantial evidence was presented
to establish an employer-employee relationship, the
case for illegal dismissal could not prosper. The CA
likewise added that Javiers failure to present salary
vouchers, payslips, or other pieces of evidence to
bolster his contention, pointed to the inescapable
conclusion that he was not an employee of Fly Ace.
ISSUE: w/n Javier is deemed a regular employee
HELD:
NO. Whoever claims entitlement to the benefits
provided by law should establish his or her right
thereto. Sadly, Javier failed to adduce substantial
evidence as basis for the grant of relief.
In this case, the LA and the CA both concluded that
Javier failed to establish his employment with Fly Ace.
By way of evidence on this point, all that Javier
presented were his self-serving statements purportedly
showing his activities as an employee of Fly Ace. Clearly,
Javier failed to pass the substantiality requirement to
support his claim.
The lone affidavit executed by one Bengie Valenzuela
was unsuccessful in strengthening Javiers cause. In said
document, all Valenzuela attested to was that he would
frequently see Javier at the workplace where the latter
was also hired as stevedore. Certainly, in gauging the
evidence presented by Javier, the Court cannot ignore
the inescapable conclusion that his mere presence at
the workplace falls short in proving employment
therein. The supporting affidavit could have, to an
extent, bolstered Javiers claim of being tasked to clean
grocery items when there were no scheduled delivery
trips, but no information was offered in this subject
simply because the witness had no personal knowledge
of Javiers employment status in the company.
The Court is of the considerable view that on Javier lies
the burden to pass the well-settled tests to determine
the existence of an employer-employee relationship,
viz: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee;
(2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal;
and (4) the power to control the employees conduct.
In this case, Javier was not able to persuade the Court
that the above elements exist in his case. He could not
submit competent proof that Fly Ace engaged his
services as a regular employee; that Fly Ace paid his
wages as an employee, or that Fly Ace could dictate
what his conduct should be while at work.
Fly Ace does not dispute having contracted Javier and
paid him on a per trip rate as a stevedore, albeit on a
pakyaw basis. The Court cannot fail to note that Fly Ace
presented documentary proof that Javier was indeed
paid on a pakyaw basis per the acknowledgment
receipts admitted as competent evidence by the LA.
Unfortunately for Javier, his mere denial of the
signatures affixed therein cannot automatically sway us
to ignore the documents because forgery cannot be
presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and
convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the
party alleging forgery.
4. G.R. No. 87700 June 13, 1990
San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-Ptgwo Vs.
Bersamira
FACTS:
SanMig entered into contracts for merchandising
services with Lipercon and D'Rite. In said contracts, it
was expressly understood and agreed that the workers
employed by the contractors were to be paid by the
latter and that none of them were to be deemed
employees or agents of SanMig. There was to be no
employer-employee relation between the contractors
and/or its workers, on the one hand, and SanMig on the
other.
Petitioner San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-
PTWGO, the duly authorized representative of the
monthly paid rank-and-file employees of SanMig,
advised the latter that some Lipercon and D'Rite
workers had signed up for union membership and
sought the regularization of their employment with
SMC. The Union alleged that this group of employees,
while appearing to be contractual workers supposedly
independent contractors, have been continuously
working for SanMig for a period ranging from six (6)
months to fifteen (15) years and that their work is
neither casual nor seasonal as they are performing work
or activities necessary or desirable in the usual business
or trade of SanMig. Thus, it was contended that there
exists a "labor-only" contracting situation. It was then
demanded that the employment status of these
workers be regularized.
Having failed to receive any favorable response from
SanMig, the Union filed a notice of strike for unfair
labor practice, CBA violations, and union busting. Still
unheard, the Union again filed a second notice of strike
for unfair labor practice. This prompted SanMig to file a
verified Complaint for Injunction and Damages against
the Union, which the RTC granted. The Union then filed
a Motion to Dismiss SanMig's Complaint on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction over the case/nature of the action.
Said Motion was denied by the RTC, saying, and as
likewise maintained by SMC, that the absence of
employer-employee relationship negates the existence
of labor dispute. Verily, this court has jurisdiction to
take cognizance of plaintiff's grievance.
ISSUE:
WON the instant case relates to a labor dispute and
thus justifying the Court’s assumption of jurisdiction;
HELD:
While it is SanMig's submission that no employer-
employee relationship exists between itself, on the one
hand, and the contractual workers of Lipercon and
D'Rite on the other, a labor dispute can nevertheless
exist "regardless of whether the disputants stand in the
proximate relationship of employer and employee"
provided the controversy concerns, among others, the
terms and conditions of employment or a "change" or
"arrangement" thereof. Put differently, and as defined
by law, the existence of a labor dispute is not negative
by the fact that the plaintiffs and defendants do not
stand in the proximate relation of employer and
employee.
That a labor dispute, as defined by the law, does exist
herein is evident. At bottom, what the Union seeks is to
regularize the status of the employees contracted by
Lipercon and D'Rite in effect, that they be absorbed into
the working unit of SanMig. Terms, tenure and
conditions of their employment and the arrangement of
those terms are thus involved bringing the matter
within the purview of a labor dispute. Further, the
Union also seeks to represent those workers, who have
signed up for Union membership, for the purpose of
collective bargaining. SanMig, for its part, resists that
Union demand on the ground that there is no employer-
employee relationship between it and those workers
and because the demand violates the terms of their
CBA. Obvious then is that representation and
association, for the purpose of negotiating the
conditions of employment are also involved. In fact, the
injunction sought by SanMig was precisely also to
prevent such representation. Again, the matter of
representation falls within the scope of a labor dispute.
Neither can it be denied that the controversy below is
directly connected with the labor dispute already taken
cognizance of by the NCMB-DOLE.
5. Locsin vs. PLDT
GR No. 185251, October 2, 2009
Respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company (PLDT) and the Security and Safety
Corporation of the Philippines (SSCP) entered into a
Security Services Agreement3 (Agreement) whereby
SSCP would provide armed security guards to PLDT to
be assigned to its various offices.
Pursuant to such agreement, petitioners Raul Locsin and
Eddie Tomaquin, among other security guards, were
posted at a PLDT office.
On August 30, 2001, respondent issued a Letter dated
August 30, 2001 terminating the Agreement effective
October 1, 2001.4
Despite the termination of the Agreement, however,
petitioners continued to secure the premises of their
assigned office. They were allegedly directed to remain
at their post by representatives of respondent.
Then, on September 30, 2002, petitioners’ services
were terminated.
Thus, petitioners filed a complaint before the Labor
Arbiter for illegal dismissal and recovery of money
claims such as overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay
for holiday and rest day, service incentive leave pay,
Emergency Cost of Living Allowance, and moral and
exemplary damages against PLDT.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision finding PLDT
liable for illegal dismissal. That petitioner continued to
serve as guards of PLDT’s offices. As such employees,
petitioners were entitled to substantive and procedural
due process before termination of employment.
PLDT appealed the above Decision to the NLRC which
rendered a Resolution affirming in toto the Arbiter’s
Decision.Thus, PDLT filed a Motion for Reconsideration
of the NLRC’s Resolution which was also denied.
Consequently, PLDT filed a Petition for Certiorari with
the CA asking for the nullification of the Resolution
issued by the NLRC as well as the Labor Arbiter’s
Decision. The CA rendered the assailed decision
granting PLDT’s petition and dismissing petitioners’
complaint
issue: whether petitioners became employees of
respondent after the Agreement between SSCP and
respondent was terminated
held:
YES.
Jurisprudence is firmly settled that whenever the
existence of an employment relationship is in dispute,
four elements constitute the reliable yardstick: (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’s
conduct. It is the so-called "control test" which
constitutes the most important index of the existence of
the employer-employee relationship that is, whether
the employer controls or has reserved the right to
control the employee not only as to the result of the
work to be done but also as to the means and methods
by which the same is to be accomplished. Stated
otherwise, an employer-employee relationship exists
where the person for whom the services are performed
reserves the right to control not only the end to be
achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such
end.
To reiterate, while respondent and SSCP no longer had
any legal relationship with the termination of the
Agreement, petitioners remained at their post securing
the premises of respondent while receiving their
salaries, allegedly from SSCP. Clearly, such a situation
makes no sense, and the denials proffered by
respondent do not shed any light to the situation. It is
but reasonable to conclude that, with the behest and,
presumably, directive of respondent, petitioners
continued with their services. Evidently, such are indicia
of control that respondent exercised over petitioners.
Evidently, respondent having the power of control over
petitioners must be considered as petitioners’
employer––from the termination of the Agreement
onwards––as this was the only time that any evidence
of control was exhibited by respondent over petitioners
and in light of our ruling in Abella. Thus, as aptly
declared by the NLRC, petitioners were entitled to the
rights and benefits of employees of respondent,
including due process requirements in the termination
of their services.
6. G.R. No. 179652 March 6, 2012
PEOPLE'S BROADCASTING SERVICE (BOMBO RADYO
PHILS., INC.), Petitioner,
vs.
THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DOLE REGION
VII, and JANDELEON JUEZAN, Respondents.
Facts:
Private respondent Jandeleon Juezan filed a complaint
against petitioner with the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) Regional Office No. VII, Cebu City,
for illegal deduction, nonpayment of service incentive
leave, 13th month pay, premium pay for holiday and
rest day and illegal diminution of benefits, delayed
payment of wages and noncoverage of SSS, PAG-IBIG
and Philhealt. the DOLE Regional Director found that
private respondent was an employee of petitioner, and
was entitled to his money claims.2 Petitioner sought
reconsideration of the Director’s Order, but failed. The
Acting DOLE Secretary dismissed petitioner’s appeal on
the ground that petitioner submitted a Deed of
Assignment of Bank Deposit instead of posting a cash or
surety bond. When the matter was brought before the
CA, where petitioner claimed that it had been denied
due process, it was held that petitioner was accorded
due process as it had been given the opportunity to be
heard, and that the DOLE Secretary had jurisdiction over
the matter, as the jurisdictional limitation imposed by
Article 129 of the Labor Code on the power of the DOLE
Secretary under Art. 128(b) of the Code had been
repealed by Republic Act No. (RA) 7730.
In the Decision of this Court, the CA Decision was
reversed and set aside, and the complaint against
petitioner was dismissed. 
Issue: WON the DOLE is fully empowered to make a
determination as to the existence of an employer-
employee relationship in the exercise of its visitorial and
enforcement power
Held:
Yes.
The determination of the existence of an employer-
employee relationship by the DOLE must be respected.
The expanded visitorial and enforcement power of the
DOLE granted by RA 7730 would be rendered nugatory
if the alleged employer could, by the simple expedient
of disputing the employer-employee relationship, force
the referral of the matter to the NLRC. The Court issued
the declaration that at least a prima facie showing of
the absence of an employer-employee relationship be
made to oust the DOLE of jurisdiction. But it is precisely
the DOLE that will be faced with that evidence, and it is
the DOLE that will weigh it, to see if the same does
successfully refute the existence of an employer-
employee relationship.
If the DOLE makes a finding that there is an existing
employer-employee relationship, it takes cognizance of
the matter, to the exclusion of the NLRC. The DOLE
would have no jurisdiction only if the employer-
employee relationship has already been terminated, or
it appears, upon review, that no employer-employee
relationship existed in the first place.
7. Ymbong vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, 667
SCRA 682, G.R. No. 184885 March 7, 2012
Petitioner Ernesto G. Ymbong started working for ABS-
CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN) in 1993 at its
regional station in Cebu as a television talent. On
January 1, 1996, the ABS-CBN Head Office in Manila
issued Policy No. HR-ER-016 or the Policy on Employees
Seeking Public Office which requires any employee who
intends to run for any public office to file his/her
resignation letter at least thirty (30) days prior to the
official filing of the certificate of candidacy either for
national or local election.
Because of the impending May 1998 elections and
based on his immediate recollection of the policy at that
time, Dante Luzon, Assistant Station Manager of DYAB
issued a memorandum dated March 25,1998 which
required any employee/talent who wants to run for any
position in the coming election will have to file a leave
of absence the moment he/she files his/her certificate
of candidacy. Luzon, however, admitted that upon
double-checking of the exact text of the policy and
subsequent confirmation with the ABS-CBN Head Office,
he saw that the policy actually required suspension for
those who intend to campaign for a political party or
candidate and resignation for those who will actually
run in the elections.
Ymbong ran as councilor of Lapu-Lapu City but Ymbong
lost in the May 1998 elections. Later, Ymbong and
Patalinghug both tried to come back to ABS-CBN Cebu.
According to Luzon, he informed them that they cannot
work there anymore because of company policy. This
was stressed even in subsequent meetings and they
were told that the company was not allowing any
exceptions. ABS-CBN, however, agreed out of pure
liberality to give them a chance to wind up their
participation in the radio drama, Nagbabagang Langit,
since it was rating well and to avoid an abrupt ending.
Ymbong in contrast contended that after the expiration
of his leave of absence, he reported back to work as a
regular talent and in fact continued to receive his salary.
On September 14, 1998, he received a memorandum
stating that his services are being terminated
immediately, much to his surprise. Thus, he filed an
illegal dismissal complaint against ABS-CBN, Luzon and
DYAB Station Manager Veneranda Sy. The Labor Arbiter
and the NLRC, upon appeal, rendered a decision finding
the dismissal of Ymbong illegal. ABS-CBN filed a petition
for certiorari before the CA and the latter reversed the
NLRC decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ymbong was illegally dismissed.
Held: No. As Policy No. HR-ER-016 is the subsisting
company policy and not Luzon’s March 25, 1998
Memorandum, Ymbong is deemed resigned when he
ran for councilor. We find no merit in Ymbong’s
argument that “[his] automatic termination x x x was a
blatant [disregard] of [his] right to due process” as he
was “never asked to explain why he did not tender his
resignation before he ran for public office as mandated
by [the subject company policy].”
Ymbong’s overt act of running for councilor of Lapu-
Lapu City is tantamount to resignation on his part. He
was separated from ABS-CBN not because he was
dismissed but because he resigned. Since there was no
termination to speak of, the requirement of due process
in dismissal cases cannot be applied to Ymbong. Thus,
ABS-CBN is not duty-bound to ask him to explain why he
did not tender his resignation before he ran for public
office as mandated by the subject company policy.
This is not the first time that this Court has dealt with a
policy similar to Policy No. HR-ER-016. In the case of
Manila Broadcasting Company v. NLRC, 294 SCRA 486
(1998), this Court ruled: What is involved in this case is
an unwritten company policy considering any employee
who files a certificate of candidacy for any elective or
local office as resigned from the company.
 Although §11(b) of R.A. No. 6646 does not require mass
media commentators and announcers such as private
respondent to resign from their radio or TV stations but
only to go on leave for the duration of the campaign
period, we think that the company may nevertheless
validly require them to resign as a matter of policy. In
this case, the policy is justified on the following
grounds:
Working for the government and the company at the
same time is clearly disadvantageous and prejudicial to
the rights and interest not only of the company but the
public as well. In the event an employee wins in an
election, he cannot fully serve, as he is expected to do,
the interest of his employer. The employee has to serve
two (2) employers, obviously detrimental to the interest
of both the government and the private employer. In
the event the employee loses in the election, the
impartiality and cold neutrality of an employee as
broadcast personality is suspect, thus readily eroding
and adversely affecting the confidence and trust of the
listening public to employer’s station.
8. PSI vs. CA
Case #8,Er-Ee Rship
Facts:
Natividad Agana was admitted at the Medical City
General Hospital for difficulty of bowel movement and
bloody anal discharge. Dr. Ampil diagnosed her to be
suffering from cancer of stigmoid and performed an
anterior resection surgery upon her. Another surgery
has to be performed upon her by Dr. Fuentes as the
malignancy in her sigmoid area had spread to her left
ovary. A couple of days later, Agana complained of
excruciating pain in her anal region. Both Dr. Ampil and
Dr. Fuentes told her that it was a natural consequence
of the surgical operation performed upon her.  their educational qualifications; generally, evidence of
She then went to the US to seek further treatment. 4
months of consultations and lab exams, she flew back
to the Ph. Two weeks later, her daughter found a piece
of gauze protruding from her vagina. Dr. Ampil then
proceeded to her house where he managed to extract
by hand a piece of gauze, and assured her that the pain
would soon vanished. 
However, her pain intensified, prompting her to seek
medical assistance. She was then informed of the
presence of a foul-smelling gauze in her vagina, which
forced stool to secrete through the vagina. Agana
underwent another surgery.
On Nov. 12, 1984, she and her husband filed a
complaint for damages against PSI (owner of Medical
City), Dr. Ampil, and Dr. Fuentes. During the pendency
of the case, Agana died and was duly substituted by her
daughters.
RTC: judgment in favor of Sps. Agana finding PSI, Dr.
Ampil, and Dr. Fuentes jointly and severally liable.
CA: affirmed with modification: case against Dr. Fuentes
was dismissed
SC first division: Affirmed; PSI jointly and severally liable
with Dr. Ampil as there is an er-ee rship
Issue: WON there is an er-ee rship between PSI and Dr.
Ampil
Held: 
Yes.
In the first place, hospitals exercise significant control in
the hiring and firing of consultants and in the conduct of
their work within the hospital premises. Doctors who
apply for "consultant" slots, visiting or attending, are
required to submit proof of completion of residency,
accreditation by the appropriate board (diplomate),
evidence of fellowship in most cases, and references.
These requirements are carefully scrutinized by
members of the hospital administration or by a review
committee set up by the hospital who either accept or
reject the application. This is particularly true with
respondent hospital.
In other words, private hospitals hire, fire and exercise
real control over their attending and visiting
"consultant" staff. While "consultants" are not,
technically employees, a point which respondent
hospital asserts in denying all responsibility for the
patient’s condition, the control exercised, the hiring,
and the right to terminate consultants all fulfill the
important hallmarks of an employer-employee
relationship, with the exception of the payment of
wages. In assessing whether such a relationship in fact
exists, the control test is determining. Accordingly, on
the basis of the foregoing, we rule that for the purpose
of allocating responsibility in medical negligence cases,
an employer-employee relationship in effect exists
between hospitals and their attending and visiting
physicians. This being the case, the question now arises
as to whether or not respondent hospital is solidarily
liable with respondent doctors for petitioner’s
condition.
The basis for holding an employer solidarily responsible
for the negligence of its employee is found in Article
2180 of the Civil Code which considers a person
accountable not only for his own acts but also for those
of others based on the former’s responsibility under a
relationship of partia ptetas.
Clearly, in Ramos, the Court considered the peculiar
relationship between a hospital and its consultants on
the bases of certain factors. One such factor is the
"control test" wherein the hospital exercises control in
the hiring and firing of consultants, like Dr. Ampil, and in
the conduct of their work.
Actually, contrary to PSI’s contention, the Court did not
reverse its ruling in Ramos. What it clarified was that
the De Los Santos Medical Clinic did not exercise control
over its consultant, hence, there is no employer-
employee relationship between them. Thus, despite the
granting of the said hospital’s motion for
reconsideration, the doctrine in Ramos stays, i.e., for
the purpose of allocating responsibility in medical
negligence cases, an employer-employee relationship
exists between hospitals and their consultants.
In the instant cases, PSI merely offered a general denial
of responsibility, maintaining that consultants, like Dr.
Ampil, are "independent contractors," not employees of
the hospital. Even assuming that Dr. Ampil is not an
employee of Medical City, but an independent
contractor, still the said hospital is liable to the Aganas.
9. SEIRI V. COMING
GR NO 186621
MARCH 21, 2014
FACTS:
Petitioner SEIRI is a domestic corporation
engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting
furniture to various countries. Respondent Coming was
hired by petitioners as Sizing Machine Operator on
March 17, 1984. Despite being an employee for many
years with his work performance never questioned by
petitioners, respondent was dismissed without lawful
cause. He was told that he will be terminated because
the company is not doing well financially and that he
would be called back to work only if they need his
services again. After of almost a year of waiting,
respondent Coming filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal.
On the other hand, petitioners denied having
hired respondent asserting that SEIRI was incorporated
only in 1986, and that respondent actually worked for
SEIRI’s furniture suppliers because when the company
started in 1987 it was engaged purely in buying and
exporting furniture and its business operations were
suspended from the last quarter of 1989 to August
1992. Thus, they stressed that respondent was not
include in the list of employees submitted to the SSS.
ISSUE:
WON an employer- employee relationship
exists between the parties by virtue of control test
RULING:
YES. To determine whether there is an
employer- employee relationship, the four-fold test
must be applied. One of which is the control test.
 As to the control test, the following facts
indubitably reveal that petitioners wielded control over
the work performance of respondent, to wit: (1) they
required him to work within the company premises; (2)
they obliged respondent to report every day of the
week; (3) the mode of payment of respondent’s salary
was under their discretion; (4) they implemented rules
and regulations; and (5) respondent rendered work
necessary and desirable in business of the petitioner
company.
Thus, the fact that a worker was not reported as
an employee to the SSS is not conclusive proof of the
absence of employer-employee relationship. Nor does
the fact that respondent’s name does not appear in the
payrolls and pay envelope records submitted by
petitioners negate the existence of the employer-
employee relationship.
Therefore, the dismissal was illegal and
respondent is entitled to his claims.
10. TENAZAS vs. R. VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT
G.R. No. 192998; April 2, 2014
FACTS:
Bernard A. Tenazas (Tenazas), Jaime M. Francisco
(Francisco), and Isidro G. Endraca (Endraca) filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal against R. Villegas Taxi
Transport and/or Romualdo Villegas (Romualdo) and
Andy Villegas (Andy) (respondents).
Respondents admitted that Tenazas and Endraca were
employees of the company, the former being a regular
driver and the latter a spare driver. Respondents claim
that Isidro Endraca was only an extra driver who
stopped reporting to queue for available taxi units
which he could drive. Respondents offered Tenazas and
Edraco reinstatement but both refused. The
respondents, however, denied that Francisco was an
employee of the company or that he was able to drive
one of the company’s units at any point in time.
The Labor Arbiter held that there could be no illegal
dismissal since there was no overt act of dismissal
committed by the respondents. There was no formal
investigations, no show cause memos, suspension
memos or termination memos were never issued.
Otherwise stated, there is no proof of overt act of
dismissal committed by herein respondents.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the ruling of the LA and
ruled that the petitioners were all employees of the
company.
The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the
decision of the NLRC, holding that there was indeed an
illegal dismissal on the part of Tenazas and Endraca but
not with respect to Francisco who failed to present
substantial evidence, proving that he was an employee
of the respondents. It also deleted the NLRC’s award of
separation pay and instead ordered that Tenazas and
Endraca be reinstated.
ISSUES:
Whether or not Francisco is an employee of
respondent.
RULING:
No. There was no employer-employee relationship.
Francisco was claiming to be an employee of the
respondents, it is incumbent upon him to proffer
evidence to prove the existence of said relationship.
Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the
relationship may be admitted.
Identification cards, cash vouchers, social security
registration, appointment letters or employment
contracts, payrolls, organization charts, and personnel
lists, serve as evidence of employee status. In this case,
however, Francisco failed to present any proof
substantial enough to establish his relationship with the
respondents. Francisco simply relied on his allegation
that he was an employee of the company without any
other evidence supporting his claim. Unfortunately for
him, a mere allegation in the position paper is not
tantamount to evidence. Bereft of any evidence, the CA
correctly ruled that Francisco could not be considered
an employee of the respondents.
11. NELSON V. BEGINO, GENER DEL VALLE, MONINA A
VILA-LLORIN AND MA. CRISTINA SUMAYAO, Petitioners,
vs. ABS-CBN CORPORATION (FORMERLY, ABS-CBN
BROADCASTING CORPORATION) AND AMALIA
VILLAFUERTE, Respondents.
G.R. No. 199166, 20 April 2015.
The Facts
ABS-CBN engaged the services of petitioners Nelson
Begino (Begino) and Gener Del Valle (Del Valle)
sometime in 1996 as Cameramen/Editors for TV
Broadcasting. With their services engaged by
respondents thru Talent Contracts which, though
regularly renewed over the years, provided terms
ranging from three (3) months to one (1) year,
petitioners were given Project Assignment Forms which
detailed, among other matters, the duration of a
particular project as well as the budget and the daily
technical requirements thereof. While specifically
providing that nothing therein shall be deemed or
construed to establish an employer-employee
relationship between the parties,
Claiming that they were regular employees of ABS-CBN,
petitioners filed against respondents the complaint. In
support of their claims for regularization,
underpayment of overtime pay, holiday pay, 13 th month
pay, service incentive leave pay, damages and
attorney's fees, petitioners alleged that they performed
functions necessary and desirable in ABS-CBN's
business. Mandated to wear company IDs and provided
all the equipment they needed, petitioners averred that
they worked under the direct control and supervision of
Villafuerte.
Although petitioners were inevitably subjected to some
degree of control, the same was allegedly limited to the
imposition of general guidelines on conduct and
performance, simply for the purpose of upholding the
standards of the company and the strictures of the
industry. Never subjected to any control or restrictions
over the means and methods by which they performed
or discharged the tasks for which their services were
engaged. Having been terminated during the pendency
of the case, Petitioners filed on 10 July 2007 a second
complaint against respondents, for regularization this
complaint was dismissed for violation of the rules
against forum shopping in view of the fact that the
determination of the issues in the second case hinged
on the resolution of those raised in the first
The Arbitration Branch ruled that Petitioners
were regular employees and ordered Respondents to
reinstate the Petitioners. The NLRC affirmed the ruling,
but the CA overturned the decision.
Issue
whether or not the there is an employer-employee
relationship
Ruling:
Yes, The Court finds that, notwithstanding the
nomenclature of their Talent Contracts and/or Project
Assignment Forms and the terms and condition
embodied therein, petitioners are regular employees of
ABS-CBN. Time and again, it has been ruled that the test
to determine whether employment is regular or not is
the reasonable connection between the activity
performed by the employee in relation to the business
or trade of the employer. As cameramen/editors and
reporters, petitioners were undoubtedly performing
functions necessary and essential to ABS-CBN’s business
of broadcasting television and radio content.
If the employee has been performing the job for
at least one year, even if the performance is not
continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the
repeated or continuing performance as sufficient
evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of that
activity in the business. Indeed, an employment stops
being co-terminous with specific projects where the
employee is continuously re-hired due to the demands
of the employer’s business. When circumstances show,
moreover, that contractually stipulated periods of
employment have been imposed to preclude the
acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, this
Court has not hesitated in striking down such
arrangements as contrary to public policy, morals, good
customs or public order. The nature of the employment
depends, after all, on the nature of the activities to be
performed by the employee, considering the nature of
the employer’s business, the duration and scope to be
done, and, in some cases, even the length of time of the
performance and its continued existence. In the same
manner that the practice of having fixed-term contracts
in the industry does not automatically make all talent
contracts valid and compliant with labor law, it has,
consequently, been ruled that the assertion that a
talent contract exists does not necessarily prevent a
regular employment status.
In finding that petitioners were regular employees, the
NLRC further ruled that the exclusivity clause and
prohibitions in their Talent Contracts and/or Project
Assignment Forms were likewise indicative of
respondents’ control over them.
12 G.R. No. 195466               July 2, 2014
ARIEL L. DAVID, doing business under the name and
style "YIELS HOG DEALER," Petitioner, 
vs.
JOHN G. MACASIO, Respondent.
Facts:
In January 2009, Macasio filed before the LA a
complaint against petitioner Ariel L. David, doing
business under the name and style “Yiels Hog Dealer,”
for non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay and 13th
month pay. He also claimed payment for moral and
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Macasio also
claimed payment for service incentive leave (SIL) David
claimed that he started his hog dealer business in 2005
and that he only has ten employees. The LA concluded
that as Macasio was engaged on “pakyaw” or task basis,
he is not entitled to overtime, holiday, SIL and 13th
month pay.The NLRC affirmed the LA decision, thus this
case reach the CA which says that Macasio is entitled to
his monetary claims following the doctrine laid down in
Serrano v. Severino Santos Transit.The CA explained
that as a task basis employee, Macasio is excluded from
the coverage of holiday, SIL and 13th month pay only if
he is likewise a “field personnel.”Thus this case reached
the SC.
Issue:
Whether or not Macasio is entitled of overtime pay,
holiday pay, 13th month pay and payment for service
incentive leave
Ruling:
Yes, in so far as the Holiday and SIL pay is concern.
To determine whether workers engaged on “pakyaw”
ortask basis” is entitled to holiday and SIL pay, the
presence (or absence) of employer supervision as
regards the worker’s time and performance is the
key: if the worker is simply engaged on pakyaw or task
basis, then the general rule is that he is entitled to a
holiday pay and SIL pay unless exempted from the
exceptions specifically provided under Article 94
(holiday pay) and Article 95 (SIL pay) of the Labor Code.
However, if the worker engaged on pakyaw or task basis
also falls within the meaning of “field personnel” under
the law, then he is not entitled to these monetary
benefits. CA that Macasio does not fall under the
definition of “field personnel.” The CA’s finding in this
regard is supported by the established facts of this case:
first, Macasio regularly performed his duties at David’s
principal place of business; second, his actual hours of
work could be determined with reasonable certainty;
and, third, David supervised his time and performance
of duties. Since Macasio cannot be considered a “field
personnel,” then he is not exempted from the grant of
holiday, SIL pay even as he was engaged on “pakyaw” or
task basis.
However, the governing law on 13th month pay is PD
No. 851. As with holiday and SIL pay, 13th month pay
benefits generally cover all employees; an employee
must be one of those expressly enumerated to be
exempted. Section 3 of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing P.D. No. 851 enumerates the exemptions
from the coverage of 13th month pay benefits. Under
Section 3(e), “employers of those who are paid on task
basis, and those who are paid a fixed amount
for performing a specific work, irrespective of the
time consumed in the performance thereof are
exempted. Note that unlike the IRR of the Labor Code
on holiday and SIL pay, Section 3(e) of the Rules and
Regulations Implementing PD No. 851exempts
employees "paid on task basis" without any reference
to "field personnel." This could only mean that insofar
as payment of the 13th month pay is concerned, the
law did not intend to qualify the exemption from its
coverage with the requirement that the task worker be
a "field personnel" at the same time. Thus Macasio is
not entitled to 13th month pay.
13. Chevron Phils. vs Galit
GR No: 186114
Date: October 7, 2015
FACTS:
Respondent, Vitaliano C. Galit, filed a complaint against
Chevron (Phils) Inc., formerly Caltex Philippines
Inc., Sons Construction Corporation (SJS), and its
president Reynaldo Salomon for alleged illegal
dismissal. SJS, in its position position paper, claims that
it is a company engaged in the business of providing
manpower to its clients on a “per project/contract”
basis.
Respondent alleged that he was a regular employee of
Chevron since 1982, having been assigned in its
Pandacan depot as an “all around employee” and that
he was directly under the control and supervision of
Chevron supervisors. On Jan. 15, 2005, he was verbally
informed that his employment is terminated but was
promised that he will be reinstated soon. He followed
up on his reinstatement but he never got his job back.
The complaint for illegal dismissal was filed with the A petition for review on Certiorari was filed by herein
NLRC, NCR, North Sector Branch in Quezon City. petitioner assailing the decision of the CA

In petitioner’s position paper with Motion to Dismiss, it

contends that it entered into two (2) contracts for
janitorial services with SJS from May 1, 2001 to April 30, Petitioner's Contention:
2003 and from June 1, 2003 to June 1, 2004; under
That the CA erred when it found that an employer-
these contracts, SJS undertook to "assign such number
employee relationship exists between herein petitioner
of its employees, upon prior agreement with
and respondent and that SJS was a labor-only
[petitioner], as would be sufficient to fully and
contractor.
effectively render the work and services undertaken"
and to "supply the equipment, tools and materials,
which shall, by all means, be effective and efficient, at
its own expense, necessary for the performance" of Respondent's Contention:
janitorial services; Galit, who was employed by SJS, was
assigned to petitioner's Pandacan depot as a janitor; his That petitioner was his employer and that he was
wages and all employment benefits were paid by SJS; he illegally dismissed.
was subject to the supervision, discipline and control of
SJS; on November 30, 2004, the extended contract
between petitioner and SJS expired; subsequently, a ISSUE/S:
new contract for janitorial services was awarded by
petitioner to another independent contractor; Whether a employer-employee relationship exists
petitioner was surprised that Galit filed an action between Chevron and Galit
impleading it.
Whether or not SJS was a labor-only contractor

LA/RTC/NLRC RULING:
The LA dismissed the complaint against Chevron for lack
of jurisdiction and as against SJS and Salomon for lack of
merit but ordered SJS to pay Galit separation pay at the
rate of half-month salary for every year of service that
Galit had with SJS. The Labor Arbiter held that SJS was a
legitimate contractor and that it was Galit’s employer.
On appeal to the NLRC, the decision was affirmed
although the amount was modified to 1 month salary
for every year of service. A motion for consideration
was filed but was denied by the NLRC.
CA RULING:
The CA reversed the decision of the NLRC finding that
SJS was a labor-only contractor and that petitioner was
Galit’s actual employer and that the latter was unjustly
dismissed. A motion for reconsideration was filed by
petitioner but was denied by the CA.
HELD:
1. None.
To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, jurisprudence has invariably adhered to
the four-fold test, to wit: (1) the selection and
engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of
wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to
control the employee's conduct, or the so-called
"control test." Of these four, the last one is the most
important. The so- called "control test" is commonly
regarded as the most crucial and determinative
indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-
employee relationship. Under the control test, an
employer- employee relationship exists where the
person for whom the services are performed reserves
the right to control not only the end achieved, but also
the manner and means to be used in reaching that end.

In the fulfillment of its obligations to the COMPANY, the

APPEAL TO THE SC: CONTRACTOR shall select and hire its workers. The
CONTRACTOR alone shall be responsible for the
payment of their wages and other employment benefits
and likewise for the safeguarding of their health and
safety in accordance with existing laws and regulations.
Likewise, the CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for the
discipline and/or dismissal of these workers.
The CONTRACTOR shall retain the right to control the
manner and the means of performing the work, with
the COMPANY having the control or direction only as to
the results to be accomplished.
5.1 The CONTRACTOR shall maintain efficient and
effective discipline over any and all employees it may
utilize in performing its obligations under this
CONTRACT. . . .
6.1 The CONTRACTOR shall at its own expense maintain
with a reputable insurance company, acceptable to the
COMPANY, a comprehensive liability insurance in the
amount required by the COMPANY to cover claims for
bodily injury, death or property damage caused to any
person or persons by an act or omission of the
CONTRACTOR or any of its employees, agents or
representatives.
The foregoing provisions of the Job Contract between
petitioner and SJS demonstrate that the latter
possessed the following earmarks of an employer, to
wit: (1) the power of selection and engagement of
employees, under Sections 4.1 and 6.1 (d); (2) the
payment of wages, under Sections
4.1 and 6.1 (c); (3) the power to discipline and dismiss,
under Section 4.1; and, (4) the power to control the
employee's conduct, under Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 5.1. As
to SJS' power of selection and engagement, Galit
himself admitted in his own affidavit that it was SJS
which assigned him to work at Chevron's Pandacan
depot. As such, there is no question that it was SJS
which selected and engaged Galit as its employee.
2. No, SJS is a legitimate contractor.
As to whether or not SJS is an independent contractor,
jurisprudence has invariably ruled that an independent
contractor carries on an independent business and
undertakes the contract work on his own account,
under his own responsibility, according to his own
manner and method, and free from the control and
direction of his employer or principal in all matters
connected with the performance of the work except as
to the results thereof. This embodies what has long
been jurisprudentially recognized as the control test, as
discussed above. In the instant case, SJS presented
evidence to show that it had an independent business
by paying business taxes and fees and that it was
registered as an employer with the Social Security
System. Moreover, there was no evidence to show that
SJS and its employees were ever subject to the control
of petitioner. On the contrary, as shown above, SJS
possessed the right to control its employees' manner
and means of performing their work, including herein
respondent Galit.
14. .R. No. 208451, February 03, 2016
Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. V. Ezard D. Lluz,
FACTS:
Herein petitioner Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc.
entered into a Contract of Services with respondent
Ward Trading and Services. Said contract provided that
Ward Trading, as an independent contractor, will render
interment and exhumation services and other related
work to Manila Memorial in order to supplement
operations at Manila Memorial Park, Paranaque City.
Subsequently, herein respondents, who were among
those assigned by Ward Trading to perform services at
the Manila Memorial filed a Complaint for
regularization and Collective Bargaining Agreement
benefits against Manila Memorial and its officers.
Respondents also filed an amended complaint to
include illegal dismissal, underpayment of 13 th month
pay, and payment of attorney's fees, when Manila
Memorial refused to consider them as regular workers.
Manila Memorial justified its refusal based on the
ground that respondents were employed by Ward
Trading, an independent labor contractor.
Manila Memorial sought the dismissal of the complaint
for lack of jurisdiction since there was no employer-
employee relationship. Manila Memorial argued that
respondents were the employees of Ward Trading
Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for failing to
prove the existence of an employer-employee
relationship. Respondents appealed to the NLRC, which
reversed the Labor Arbiter's findings. Manila Memorial
filed an appeal with the CA. In its decision, the CA
affirmed the ruling of the NLRC.
ISSUE:
WON an employer-employee relationship exists
between Manila Memorial and respondents;
HELD:
A closer look at the Contract of Services reveals that
Ward Trading does not have substantial capital or
investment in the form of tools, equipment, machinery,
work premises and other materials since it is Manila
Memorial which owns the equipment used in the
performance of work needed for interment and
exhumation services.
In one of the provisions of the contract, it shows that
the COMPANY shall sell to the contractor the
COMPANY-owned equipment. Another provision shows
that the Ward does not have an absolute right to use or
enjoy subject equipment, considering that its right to do
so is subject to respondent MMPCI's use thereof at any
time the latter requires it. Further, even the work
premises actually and directly used by Ward in the
performance of the services contracted out is owned by
respondent MMPCI.
For failing to register as a contractor, a presumption
arises that one is engaged in labor-only contracting
unless the contractor overcomes the burden of proving
that it has substantial capital, investment, tools and the
like.
In this case, Manila Memorial failed to adduce evidence
to prove that Ward Trading had any substantial capital,
investment or assets to perform the work contracted
for. Thus, the presumption that Ward Trading is a labor-
only contractor stands. Consequently, Manila Memorial
is deemed the employer of respondents. As regular
employees of Manila Memorial, respondents are
entitled to their claims for wages and other benefits as
awarded by the NLRC and affirmed by the CA.
15. Diamond farms (Mhel)
16. Lu vs. Enopia
Facts: Petitioners (now herein respondents) were hired
from January 20, 1994 to March 20, 1996 as crew
members of the fishing mother boat F/B MG-28 owned
by respondent Joaquin "Jake" Lu (herein petitioner Lu)
who is the sole proprietor of Mommy Gina Tuna
Resources [MGTR] based in General Santos City.
proposed the signing of a Joint Venture Fishing
Agreement between them, but petitioners refused to
sign the same as they opposed the one-year term
provided in the agreement. According to petitioners,
during their dialogue on August 18, 1997, Lu terminated
their services right there and then because of their
refusal to sign the agreement. On the other hand, Lu
alleged that the master fisherman (piado) Ruben Salili
informed him that petitioners still refused to sign the
agreement and have decided to return the vessel F/B
MG-28.
On the other hand, Lu denied having dismissed
petitioners, claiming that their relationship was one of
joint venture where he provided the vessel and other
fishing paraphernalia, while petitioners, as industrial
partners, provided labor by fishing in the high seas. Lu
alleged that there was no employer-employee
relationship as its elements were not present, viz.: it
was the piado who hired petitioners; they were not paid
wages but shares in the catch, which they themselves
determine; they were not subject to his discipline; and
respondent had no control over the day-to-day fishing
operations, although they stayed in contact through
respondent's radio operator or checker. Lu also claimed
that petitioners should not be reimbursed for their
share in the expenses since it was their joint venture
that shouldered these expenses.
Issue: Whether or not Employer- Employee relationship
exist.
Ruling: Yes. In determining the existence of an
employer-employee relationship, the following
elements are considered: (1) the selection and
engagement of the workers; (2) the power to control
the worker's conduct; (3) the payment of wages by
whatever means; and (4) the power of dismissal.16 We
find all these elements present in this case.

It is settled that no particular form of evidence is
required to prove the existence of an employer-
employee relationship. Any competent and relevant
evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted.17
In this case, petitioner contends that it was the piado
who hired respondents, however, it was shown by the
latter's evidence that the employer stated in their Social
Security System (SSS) online inquiry system printouts
was MGTR, which is owned by petitioner. We have gone
over these printouts and found that the date of the SSS
remitted contributions coincided with the date of
respondents' employment with petitioner. Petitioner
failed to rebut such evidence. Thus, the fact that
petitioner had registered the respondents with SSS is
proof that they were indeed his employees. The
coverage of the Social Security Law is predicated on the
existence of an employer-employee relationship.18
Moreover, the records show that the 4% backing
incentive fee which was divided among the fishermen
engaged in the fishing operations approved by
petitioner was paid to respondents after deducting the
latter's respective vale or cash advance.19 Notably,
even the piado's name was written in the backing
incentive fee sheet with the corresponding vale which
was deducted from his incentive fee. If indeed a joint
venture was agreed upon between petitioner and
respondents, why would these fishermen obtain vale or
cash advance from petitioner and not from the piado
who allegedly hired and had control over them.
It was established that petitioner exercised control over
respondents. It should be remembered that the control
test merely calls for the existence of the right to control,
and not necessarily the exercise thereof. It is not
essential that the employer actually supervises the
performance of duties by the employee. It is enough
that the former has a right to wield the power.
17. Wesleyan University-Philippines vs. Maglaya, Sr.,
815 SCRA 171, G.R. No. 212774 January 23, 2017
WUP is a non-stock, non-profit, non-sectarian
educational corporation. Respondent Atty. Guillenno T.
Maglaya, Sr.(Maglaya) was appointed as a corporate
member, and later on elected as member of the Board
of Trustees. Subsequently, he was elected as President
of WUP for 5years and was re-elected as trustee.
Sometime later, the incumbent Bishops of the United
Methodist Church (Bishops) issued a memorandum
apprising all the corporate members of the expiration of
their term, unless renewed by him. Maglaya and some
other members, sought the renewal of their
membership in the WUP's Board, and signified their
willingness to continually serve the corporation.
However, the Bishops, through a formal notice to all the
officers, deans, staff, and employees of WUP,
introduced the new corporate members, trustees, and
officers. Manuel Palomo (Palomo), the new Chairman
of the Board, informed Maglaya of the termination of
his services and authority as the President of the
University.
Thereafter, Maglaya and other members of the
Board(Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint for Injunction and
Damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC
dismissed the case declaring the same as a nuisance
because under the by laws of WUP, the expiration of
the terms of the corporate members including Maglaya,
carried with it their termination as members of the
Board.
Thecase was elevated to the CA, which affirmed the
decision of the RTC. Thereafter, Maglaya filed an illegal
`dismissal case against WUP before the Labor Arbiter.
He submitted pieces of evidence to support his claim
that he is employed by WUP.
However, the LA dismissed the case because the
dispute is intra-corporate since Maglaya is a corporate
officer and not an employee, therefore the jurisdiction
is before the regular courts.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the LA decision saying
that there was anemployee-employer relationship
between Maglaya and WUP citing the control test,
when Malaya received his salary and has the duty to
report to the Board and since Malaya was dismissed
without just cause, there was an illegal dismissal. The
NLRC also denied the motion for reconsideration of
WUP.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the NLRC decision. WUP
questioned the NLRC decision citing that NLRC had no
jurisdiction over the case involving a corporate officer
and where the nature of the controversy is an intra-
corporate dispute
Issue: whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over the
illegal dismissal case filed by Maglaya.
Held: No. The president, vice president, secretary and
treasurer are commonly regarded as the principal or
executive officers of a corporation, and they are usually
designated as the officers of the corporation. However,
other officers are sometimes created by the charter or
bylaws of a corporation, or the board of directors may
be empowered under the bylaws of a corporation to
create additional offices as may be necessary.
This Court expounded that an “office” is created by the
charter of the corporation and the officer is elected by
the directors or stockholders, while an “employee”
usually occupies no office and generally is employed not
by 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.
It is apparent from the bylaws of WUP that the
president was one of the officers of the corporation,
and was an honorary member of the Board. He was
appointed by the Board and not by a managing officer
of the corporation. We held that one who is included in
the bylaws of a corporation in its roster of corporate
officers is an officer of said corporation and not a mere
employee. The alleged “appointment” of Maglaya
instead of “election” as provided by the bylaws neither
convert the president of university as a mere employee,
nor amend its nature as a corporate officer.
With the office specifically mentioned in the bylaws, the
NLRC erred in taking cognizance of the case, and in
concluding that Maglaya was a mere employee and
subordinate official because of the manner of his
appointment, his duties and responsibilities, salaries
and allowances, and considering the Identification Card,
the Administration and Personnel Policy Manual which
specified the retirement of the university president, and
the check disbursement as pieces of evidence
supporting such finding.
18. Nestle Phil vs. Pineda, et. Al
Case #18, Er-Ee Rship
Facts:
ODSI and NPI hired respondents to sell various NPI
products in the assigned covered area. After sometime,
respondents demanded that they be considered regular
employees but they were instead directed to sign
contracts of employment with ODSI. When they
refused, NPI and ODSI terminated them from their
position. Thus, they were constrained to file the
complaint, claiming that ODSI is a labor-only contractor,
and thus they should be deemed regualr employees of
NPI; and there was no just or authorized cause for their
dismissal.
ODSI claimed that it is a company engaged in the
business of buying, selling, distributing, and marketing
goods and commodities of every kind and it enters into
all kinds of contracts for the acquisition thereof. 
Howevere, ODSI’s relationship with NPI sour when the
latter’s sales dept. badgered the former regarding the
sales target. NPI then downsized its marketing and
promotional support from ODSI resulting to business
reverses and in the latter’s filing of a petition for
corporate rehabilitation and subsequently, the closure
of its Nestle unit due to the termination of the
Distributorship Agreement and the failure of rehab.
Thus, ODSI argued that respondents were not dismissed
but merely put in floating status.
LA: dismissed the complaint but ordered the NPI and
ODSI to pay respondents nominal damages;
respondents were unable to prove that they were NPI
employees
NLRC: reversed and set aside the LA ruling; ODSI is a
labor-only contractor of NPI considering that: 1. ODSI
had no substantial capitalization or investment; 2.
respondents performed activities directly related to
NPI’s principal business; and 3. the fact that
respondent’s employment depended on the continuous
supply of NPI products shows that ODSI had not been
carrying an independent business accrdg to its own
manner and method
CA: affirmed NLRC; MR was denied
Issue:
WON ODSI is a labor-only contractor of NPI and
consequently, NPI is respondents’ true employer and
thus, deemed jointly and severally liable with ODSI for
respondents’ monetary claim
Held:
Yes
In holding NPI jointly and severally liable with ODSI for
the monetary awards in favor of respondents, both the
NLRC and the CA held that based on the provisions of
the Distributorship Agreement between them, ODSI is
merely a labor-only contractor of NPI. In this regard, the
CA opined that the following stipulations of the said
Agreement evinces that NPI had control over the
business of ODSI, namely, that: (a) NPI shall offer to
ODSI suggestions and recommendations to improve
sales and to further develop the market; (b) NPI
prohibits ODSI from exporting its products (the No-
Export provision); (c) NPI provided standard
requirements to ODSI for the warehousing and
inventory management of the sold goods; and (d)
prohibition imposed on ODSI to sell any other products
that directly compete with those of NPI.
However, a closer examination of the Distributorship
Agreement reveals that the relationship of NPI and ODSI
is not that of a principal and a contractor (regardless of
whether labor-only or independent), but that of a seller
and a buyer/re-seller.  illegal dismissal, reinstatement, back wages, and
Thus, contrary to the CA's findings, the aforementioned
stipulations in the Distributorship Agreement hardly
demonstrate control on the part of NPI over the means
and methods by which ODSI performs its business, nor
were they intended to dictate how ODSI shall conduct
its business as a distributor. Otherwise stated, the
stipulations in the Distributorship Agreement do not
operate to control or fix the methodology on how ODSI
should do its business as a distributor of NPI products,
but merely provide rules of conduct or guidelines
towards the achievement of a mutually desired result -
which in this case is the sale of NPI products to the end
consumer. 
Thus, the foregoing circumstances show that ODSI was
not a labor only contractor of NPI; hence, the latter
cannot be deemed the true employer of respondents.
As a consequence, NPI cannot be held jointly and
severally liable to ODSI's monetary obligations towards
respondents.
19. FALLARME V. SAN JUAN DE DIOS
G.R. NOS. 190015 & 190019
SEPTEMBER 14, 2016
FACTS:
Petitioners were hired by San Juan de Dios for
full-time teaching positions. Despite having served as a
faculty member since SY 2003-2004, petitioners were
asked only on 1 March 2006 to sign and submit the
written contract on the nature of the former's
employment and corresponding obligations. The
contract was denominated as "Appointment and
Contract for Faculty on Probation" (appointment
contract), and its effectivity period covered the second
semester of SY 2005-2006. The appointment contract
specified their status as a probationary faculty member.
After the expiration of the contract, respondent college
informed them that it would not be renewed for the
first semester of SY 2006-2007. They were told that the
nonrenewal of their contract was made on the basis of
"administrative prerogative."
Petitioners filed a Complaint against respondents for
damages before the labor arbiter. The labor arbiter
ruled that petitioners were regular employees who
were entitled to security of tenure. The NLRC reversed
the Decision of the labor arbiter. It held that petitioners
had failed to meet the third requirement for
regularization as prescribed by the 1992 Manual. The
CA affirmed the NLRC Decision.
ISSUE:
WON petitioners were regular employees of
respondent college
RULING:
 YES. Petitioners were regular employees of the
college. As prescribed by the 1992 Manual, a teacher
must satisfy the following requisites to be entitled to
regular faculty status: (1) must be a full-time teacher;
(2) must have rendered three years of service (or six
consecutive semesters of service for teachers on the
tertiary level); and (3) that service must have been
satisfactory.

In this case, the first two requisites for

regularization under the 1992 Manual - full-time faculty
status and completion of the probationary period were
present. However, the parties disagree on the
fulfillment of the third requisite.

As observed by this Court in Colegio del

Santisimo Rosario v. Rojo, the use of the
term satisfactory "necessarily connotes the
requirement for schools to set reasonable standards to
be followed by teachers on probationary employment.

Applying Article 281 of the Labor Code, a school

must not only set reasonable standards that will
determine whether a probationary teacher rendered
satisfactory service and is qualified for regular status; it
must also communicate these standards to the teacher
at the start of the probationary period. Should it fail to
do so, the teacher shall be deemed a regular employee
from Day One.

However, the records lack evidence that respondent

college clearly and directly communicated to
petitioners, at the time they were hired, what
reasonable standards they must meet for the school to
consider their performance satisfactory and for it to
grant them regularization as a result.

Henceforth, petitioners are deemed regular

employees but the dismissal is valid.