LABOR I

MIDTERMS

PEOPLE v. POMAR – “The law creates a term w/o the consent of the parties. Such persons are
deprived of their liberty to contract.”
- The police power at that time can’t encompass maternity leave; Freedom to contract is
not absolute, it is subject to police power.

WEST COAST v. PARRISH – Freedom of contract is not an absolute right, it is a qualified one.
There is no absolute freedom to contract as one chooses.
- Liberty implies the absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable
regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interests of the community.
*Pomar and West Coast is the same, but police power coverage is broad in the latter.

ACCFA v. CUGCO – laissez faire is not adopted in our jurisdiction.

CALALANG v. WILLIAMS – definition of social justice

BREWMASTER v. NAFLU – management prerogative; the employer is not precluded from

prescribing rules and regulations to govern the conduct of his employees, but these rules and
their implementation must be fair, just and reasonable.
-Protection to labor – it will apply when there’s a balance bet. The employer and employee’s
interests. It will be in favor of labor. (Balancing of interests)

FUENTES v. NLRC – Constitutional protection

- Employer lost something but it failed to comply w/ the procedural requirement of
notice.
- If there is evenly balanced claims but employer failed to comply w/ the procedural
requirements, he is still liable.

GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE v. NLRC – Principle of strained relations cannot be applied

- No strained relations should arise from a valid and legal act of asserting one’s right.

PASEI v. DRILON – Constitutional guaranty of worker participation

- The right granted must submit to the demands and necessities of the State’s power of
regulation.
- Protection to labor does not signify the promotion of employment alone.

JAMER v. NLRC – loss of trust and confidence

- Failure of petitioners to report the shortages and averages as soon as they arose
resulted in the breach of the fiduciary trust reposed in them.
- Employer cannot be compelled to retain employee who has been shown to be a gross
liability to the employer.
 - When the law tilts the scale of justice in favor of labor, it is but a recognition of the
inherent inequality bet. Labor and management.
- The intent is to balance the scale of justice; to put the two parties on relatively equal
positions.
- Never should the scale be tilted if the result is an injustice to the employer.

Art. 58(a) – definition of apprenticeship

Art. 58(c) – definition of apprenticeable occupation
Art. 60
Art. 73 – Learners
Art. 74
Art. 75(c)(d)
NITTO ENTERPRISES v. NLRC – Prior approval by DOLE is a condition sine qua non before an
apprenticeship agreement can be fully enforced.

Art. 219(e)(f) – “Employee”; “Employer”

LVN v. PHILIPPINE MUSICIANS GUILD – control test

- “An employer-employee relationship exist where the person for whom the services are
performed reserves the right to control not only the end to be achieved, but also the manner
and means to be used in reaching the end.”
-who is an employer? - Impt. to determine to know who is liable

*Four-fold test in determining employer-employee relationship:

1. The selection and engagement of the employees
2. The payment of wages
3. The power of dismissal
4. The power to control the employee’s conduct
*The most important test is the element of control.

MANILA GOLF v. NLRC – some form of control; but control test is specific to actual work
-why control test is the determinative test? – if you control anything other than the actual
work, then there is no employer-employee relationship.

LA SUERTE v. DIRECTOR of BLR – determination of relationship bet. the parties is determined

by their contract
-dealership agreement

INSULAR LIFE v. NLRC – insurance policy

-there is some semblance of control
-but won’t control actual work

TABAS v. CMC – employer and labor-only contractor are liable for any valid labor claim
*Independent Contractor – only concern is end
-means and method left to the contractor
-no employer-employee relationship
-liability is to the extent of the work performed
*Labor-only Contracting – equivalent to having employer-employee relationship
-contractor is a mere agent of the employer; liability to any and all claims must be shouldered
by either one or both. (Solidary liable)

SONZA v. ABS-CBN – principal and independent contractor with special skills and talent
-pointless to exercise control; you will negate his talent
*Directly related to the main business of the principal – where the duties performed by the
workers are dependent and integral steps in or aspects of the essential operations of the
principal.

SMC – principal relief is for quasi-contracts

MEDINA – principal relief is damages
*Test for LA and NLRC to have jurisdiction:
-What is the principal relief sought?
-If referenced to other codes, Labor Code will not apply.
-If under Art. 217, Labor Code applies even if there’s no employer-employee relationship
-In pepsi v. galang- damages is merely ancillary to the principal relief sought w/c is illegal
dismissal hence, labor code applies. In this case, the relief sought is only damages which is
referenced to the civil code hence, labor court has no jurisdiction.
-Yusen Air

Art. 280 – REGULAR, PROBATIONARY, PROJECT, CASUAL

-you’re talking of “STATUS”
-it presupposes the employer-employee relationship
-cannot be used to determine employer-employee relationship
-REGULAR – 1st par.
-performs activities necessary and desirable
-CASUAL- employee who does not perform activities necessary and desirable
-but can also be regular after 1 year
-2nd par.
-activity exists
-if no longer existing, not any more regular casual. (EX: Painting building but brush is 2 in only; it
will take 1 year to finish so employee is regular casual. By operation of law, already regular.)
-limited security of tenure
-“agreements to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreements”- catch-all
phrase; regardless of agreements except if they are actually casual, project, probationary, or
seasonal employees; must pass the requirements otherwise they are regular; if contract is void,
he is regular from the first day; e.g. oral probationary agreement with employee performing
activities necessary and desirable w/o the employer giving the standards then, employee is
regular.
MAGSALIN – kargadors and pahinantes work is necessary and desirable

DE LEON v. NLRC – primary standard – reasonable connection bet. the particular activity
performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer.
-the connection can be determined by considering the nature of the work performed and its
relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety.
*Repeated rehiring – sufficient evidence of the necessity and indispensability of services to the
business.

-PROBATIONARY – period of 6 mos.

-may become regular once he has qualified in accordance with reasonable standards made
known to him at the time of hiring.
-If allowed to work beyond the period, regular.
GR: 6 mos.
Xpn: learnership/apprenticeship
-3 years-teacher
-when parties agree to a longer term by virtue of company policy or when the same is required
by the nature of the work.
*The employer has absolute discretion in hiring his employees in accordance with his standards
of competence and probity.
*A probationary employee, if found unfit for the job, may be dismissed for cause at any time
before the expiration of the period, provided there is due process.
*The word “probationary” as used to describe the period of employment, implies the purpose
of the term or period, but not its length.

MARIWASA – if, law, but the fact remains that Mariwasa should not be there because the
employer is the one who fixes the period.
-As a rule, you should not extend because period is already fixed.

Art. 295 proviso – criteria to apply – intention to circumvent tenurial security-“The provisions
to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreements of the parties”
-first step is to ascertain if the intent is to circumvent tenurial security; to ascertain intent: 1.
knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon; and 2. Dealt w/ each other on more or less equal
terms; if these 2 conditions are met, term employment is valid.
BRENT They could say no because of their educational attainment;
PAKISTAN they had a choice to go to other companies unlike CIELO.
CIELO – Would he have said no? 1st condition met, 2nd no; they are not on equal footing.
PHILIPPINE VILAGE HOTEL – PVH was closed. Employees won the case. They know that when
PVH opened again it was only a trial. So they cannot say that they did not deal on equal footing.
-this is peculiar only to this case.
*If intent is lacking, proviso is inapplicable.
Equal footing – educated
*Term contract will not apply to menial(manual) jobs.
PROJECT EMPLOYEE – hired for a specific undertaking (impt. to prove); if not proven, employee
is regular.
-for a specified period
-specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project
-the nature of their work is necessary and desirable
*The period is dependent on the undertaking. (EX: if undertaking is for 6 mos. and it ended in 5
mos., terminated. If work is not yet done, still project because the undertaking determines the
period.)
-the undertaking is material
-one undertaking only
(EX: Project A: apply-hire-terminate-cut - this must be shown so that even if there was
Project B: apply-hire-terminate-cut repeated rehiring, he is still project employee
Project C: apply-hire-terminate-cut)
-employer would only hire those who he needs
-you must prove that the undertaking started and ended.
Work pool employees – regular employee
-but the work is also for a specific undertaking but there is no cut
*If employee is hired continuously, and cannot pinpoint where the undertaking began or
ended, regular.

SEASONAL EMPLOYEES
-must be hired for the duration of one season only.
-MERCADO is better ruling.
-HACIENDA FATIMA – repeated rehiring(absurd)- seasonal employees are already performing
activities which are necessary and desirable
-“different phases of agricultural work”(this is the factor that took this case out of seasonal
employment) – they were asked to do something other than harvesting; they should have
mentioned what it is.