NELSON V. BEGINO v. ABS-CBN CORPORATION , GR No. 199166, 2015-04-20
[3] Subjected to contractor’s tax, petitioners’ remunerations
Facts:
Respondent ABS-CBN Corporation (formerly ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corporation) is a television and radio broadcasting corporation which, for its
Regional Network Group in Naga City, employed respondent Amalia
Villafuerte (Villafuerte) as Manager. There is no dispute regarding the fact
that, thru Villafuerte, 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. Petitioners Ma. Cristina Sumayao
(Sumayao) and Monina Avila-Llorin (Llorin) were likewise similarly engaged
as reporters sometime in 1996 and 2002, respectively. 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. In the aforesaid
capacities, petitioners were tasked with coverage of news items for
subsequent daily airings in respondents’ TV Patrol Bicol Program.[2]
While specifically providing that nothing therein shall be deemed or
construed to establish an employer-employee relationship between the
parties, the aforesaid Talent Contracts included, among other matters,
provisions on the following matters: (a) the Talent’s creation and
performance of work in accordance with the ABS-CBN’s professional
standards and compliance with its policies and guidelines covering
intellectual property creators, industry codes as well as the rules and
regulations of the Kapisanan ng mga Broadcasters sa Pilipinas (KBP) and
other regulatory agencies; (b) the Talent’s non-engagement in similar work
for a person or entity directly or indirectly in competition with or adverse to
the interests of ABS-CBN and non-promotion of any product or service
without prior written consent; and (c) the results-oriented nature of the
talent’s work which did not require them to observe normal or fixed
working hours.
were denominated as Talent Fees which, as of last renewal, were admitted
to be pegged per airing day at P273.35 for Begino, P302.92 for Del Valle,
P323.08 for Sumayao and P315.39 for Llorin.[4
Claiming that they were regular employees of ABS-CBN, petitioners filed
against respondents the complaint[5] docketed as Sub-RAB 05-04-00041-07
before the National Labor Relations Commission’s (NLRC) Sub- Regional
Arbitration Branch No. 5, Naga City. In support of their claims for
regularization, underpayment of overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th 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 and, at the end of each day, were informed
about the news to be covered the following day, the routes they were to
take and, whenever the subject of their news coverage is quite distant, even
the start of their workday. Due to the importance of the news items they
covered and the necessity of their completion for the success of the
program, petitioners claimed that, under pain of immediate termination,
they were bound by the company’s policy on, among others, attendance
and punctuality.
Aside from the constant evaluation of their actions, petitioners were
reportedly subjected to an annual competency assessment alongside other
ABS-CBN employees, as condition for their continued employment.
Although their work involved dealing with emergency situations at any time
of the day or night, petitioners claimed that they were not paid the labor
standard benefits the law extends to regular employees. To avoid paying
what is due them, however, respondents purportedly resorted to the simple
expedient of using said Talent Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms
which denominated petitioners as talents, despite the fact that they are not
actors or TV hosts of special skills. As a result of this iniquitous situation,
petitioners asseverated that they merely earned an average of P7,000.00 to
P8,000.00 per month, or decidedly lower than the P21,773.00 monthly
salary ABS-CBN paid its regular rank-and-file employees. Considering their
repeated re-hiring by respondents for ostensible fixed periods, this situation
had gone on for years since TV Patrol Bicol has continuously aired from 1996
onwards.[7]
In refutation of the foregoing assertions, on the other hand, respondents
argued that, although it occasionally engages in production and generates
programs thru various means, ABS-CBN is primarily engaged in the business
of broadcasting television and radio content. Not having the full manpower
complement to produce its own program, the company had allegedly
resorted to engaging independent contractors like actors, directors, artists,
anchormen, reporters, scriptwriters and various production and technical
staff, who offered their services in relation to a particular program. Known
in the industry as talents, such independent contractors inform ABS- CBN of
their availability and were required to accomplish Talent Information Forms
to facilitate their engagement for and appearance on designated project
days. Given the unpredictability of viewer preferences, respondents argued
that the company cannot afford to provide regular work for talents with
whom it negotiates specific or determinable professional fees on a per
project, weekly or daily basis, usually depending on the budget allocation
for a project.[8]
Issues:
Whether or not the CA seriously and reversibly erred in brushing aside the
determination made by both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC of the
existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties,
despite established jurisprudence supporting the same.
Ruling:
Principles:
In discounting the existence of said relationship between the parties, the CA
ruled that Petitioners' services were, first and foremost, engaged thru their
Talent Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms which specified the work
to be performed by them, the project to which they were assigned, the
duration thereof and their rates of pay according to the budget therefor
allocated. Because they are imbued with public interest, it cannot be
gainsaid, however, that labor contracts are subject to the police power of
the state and are placed on a higher plane than ordinary contracts. The
recognized supremacy of the law over the nomenclature of the contract and
the stipulations contained therein is aimed at bringing life to the policy
enshrined in the Constitution to afford protection to labor.[25] Insofar as
the nature of one’s employment is concerned, Article 280 of the Labor Code
of the Philippines also provides as follows:ART. 280. Regular and Casual
Employment. — The provisions of written agreement to the contrary
notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an
employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been
engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has
been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or
termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement
of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal
in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.An
employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the
preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at
least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall
be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is
employed and his employment shall continue while such actually exists.It
has been ruled that the foregoing provision contemplates four kinds of
employees, namely: (a) regular employees or those who have been engaged
to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer; (b) project employees or those whose
employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the
completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee; (c) seasonal employees or those who work or
perform services which are seasonal in nature, and the employment is for
the duration of the season; and (d) casual employees or those who are not
regular, project, or seasonal employees.[26] To the foregoing classification
of employee, jurisprudence has added that of contractual or fixed term
employee which, if not for the fixed term, would fall under the category of
regular employment in view of the nature of the employee’s engagement,
which is to perform activity usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s
business.[27]
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.[28] As
cameramen/editors and reporters, petitioners were undoubtedly
performing functions necessary and essential to ABS-CBN’s business of
broadcasting television and radio content. It matters little that petitioners’
services were engaged for specified periods for TV Patrol Bicol and that they
were paid according to the budget allocated therefor. Aside from the fact
that said program is a regular weekday fare of the ABS-CBN’s Regional
Network Group in Naga City, the record shows that, from their initial
engagement in the aforesaid capacities, petitioners were continuously re-
hired by respondents over the years. To the mind of the Court, respondents’
repeated hiring of petitioners for its long-running news program positively
indicates that the latter were ABS-CBN’s regular employees.
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.[29] 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.[30] 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.[31] 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.[32] 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.[33]
As cameramen/editors and reporters, it also appears that petitioners were
subject to the control and supervision of respondents which, first and
foremost, provided them with the equipments essential for the discharge of
their functions. Prepared at the instance of respondents, petitioners’ Talent
Contracts tellingly provided that ABS-CBN retained “all creative,
administrative, financial and legal control” of the program to which they
were assigned. Aside from having the right to require petitioners “to attend
and participate in all promotional or merchandising campaigns, activities or
events for the Program,” ABS-CBN required the former to perform their
functions “at such locations and Performance/Exhibition Schedules” it
provided or, subject to prior notice, as it chose determine, modify or
change. Even if they were unable to comply with said schedule, petitioners
were required to give advance notice, subject to respondents’ approval.[34]
However obliquely worded, the Court finds the foregoing terms and
conditions demonstrative of the control respondents exercised not only
over the results of petitioners’ work but also the means employed to
achieve the same.
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. Brushing aside said finding, however, the CA applied the ruling in
Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation[35] where similar restrictions
were considered not necessarily determinative of the existence of an
employer-employee relationship. Recognizing that independent contractors
can validly provide his exclusive services to the hiring party, said case
enunciated that guidelines for the achievement of mutually desired results
are not tantamount to control. As correctly pointed out by petitioners,
however, parallels cannot be expediently drawn between this case and that
of Sonza case which involved a well-known television and radio personality
who was legitimately considered a talent and amply compensated as such.
While possessed of skills for which they were modestly recompensed by
respondents, petitioners lay no claim to fame and/or unique talents for
which talents like actors and personalities are hired and generally
compensated in the broadcast industry.
Rather than the project and/or independent contractors respondents claim
them to be, it is evident from the foregoing disquisition that petitioners are
regular employees of ABS-CBN. This conclusion is borne out by the
ineluctable showing that petitioners perform functions necessary and
essential to the business of ABS-CBN which repeatedly employed them for a
long-running news program of its Regional Network Group in Naga City. In
the course of said employment, petitioners were provided the equipments
they needed, were required to comply with the Company's policies which
entailed prior approval and evaluation of their performance. Viewed from
the prism of these considerations, we find and so hold that the CA reversibly
erred when it overturned the NLRC's affirmance of the Labor Arbiter's
finding that an employer-employee relationship existed between the
parties. Given the fact, however, that Sub-RAB-V-05-03-00039-08 had not
been consolidated with this case and appears, for all intents and purposes,
to be pending still, the Court finds that the reinstatement of petitioners
ordered by said labor officer and tribunal should, as a relief provided in case
of illegal dismissal, be left for determination in said case.
OSCAR VILLAMARIA v. VS.CA, GR NO. 165881, 2006-04-19
Facts:
Oscar Villamaria, Jr. was the owner of Villamaria Motors, a sole
proprietorship engaged in assembling passenger jeepneys with a public
utility franchise to operate along the Baclaran-Sucat route.
1995, Villamaria stopped assembling jeepneys and retained only nine,... four
of which he operated by employing drivers on a "boundary basis."
One of those drivers was respondent Bustamante who drove the jeepney
with Plate No. PVU-660. Bustamante remitted P450.00 a day
1997, Villamaria verbally agreed to sell the jeepney to Bustamante under
the "boundary-hulog scheme," where Bustamante would remit to Villarama
P550.00 a day for a period of four years; Bustamante would then become
the... owner of the vehicle and continue to drive the same under
Villamaria's franchise. It was also agreed that Bustamante would make a
downpayment of P10,000.00... parties... agreed that if Bustamante failed to
pay the boundary-hulog for three days, Villamaria Motors would hold on to
the vehicle until Bustamante paid his arrears, including a penalty of P50.00 a
day; in case Bustamante failed to remit the daily boundary-hulog for a
period... of one week, the Kasunduan would cease to have legal effect and
Bustamante would have to return the vehicle
Bustamante was prohibited from driving the vehicle without prior authority
from Villamaria Motors. Thus, Bustamante was authorized to operate the
vehicle to transport passengers only and not for other purposes.required to
display an... identification card in front of the windshield of the vehicle; in
case of failure to do so, any fine that may be imposed by government
authorities would be charged against his account
1999, Bustamante and other drivers who also had the same arrangement
with Villamaria Motors failed to pay their respective boundary-hulog. This
prompted Villamaria to serve a "Paalala,"[6] reminding them that under the
Kasunduan, failure to pay the daily boundary-hulog for one week, would
mean their respective jeepneys would be returned to him without any
complaints.
2000, Villamaria took back the jeepney driven by Bustamante and barred
the latter from driving the vehicle
Bustamante filed a Complaint[7] for Illegal Dismissal... spouses Villamaria
argued that Bustamante was not illegally dismissed since the
Kasunduan executed on August 7, 1997 transformed the employer-
employee relationship into that of vendor-vendee.
Labor Arbiter rendered judgment[17] in favor of the spouses Villamaria and
ordered the complaint dismissed
NLRC rendered judgment[20] dismissing the appeal for lack of merit
NLRC ruled that under the Kasunduan, the juridical relationship between
Bustamante and Villamaria was that of vendor and vendee, hence, the
Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the complaint.
CA reversed and set aside the NLRC decision.
appellate court ruled that the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over
Bustamante's complaint. Under the Kasunduan, the relationship between
him and Villamaria was dual: that of vendor-vendee and employer-
employee. The CA ratiocinated that Villamaria's exercise of... control over
Bustamante's conduct in operating the jeepney is inconsistent with the
former's claim that he was not engaged in the transportation business.
Issues:
CA erred in ruling that the juridical relationship between him and
respondent under the Kasunduan was a combination of employer-employee
and vendor-vendee relationships.
Ruling:
We agree with the ruling of the CA that, under the boundary-hulog scheme
incorporated in the Kasunduan, a dual juridical relationship was created
between petitioner and respondent: that of employer-employee and
vendor-vendee. The Kasunduan... did not extinguish the employer-
employee relationship of the parties extant before the execution of said
deed.
jeepney owner/operator-driver relationship under the boundary system is
that of employer-employee and not lessor-lessee.
boundary system is a scheme by an owner/operator engaged in
transporting passengers as a common carrier to primarily govern the
compensation of the driver, that is, the latter's daily earnings are remitted
to the owner/operator less the excess of the boundary which... represents
the driver's compensation. Under this system, the owner/operator exercises
control and supervision over the driver. It is unlike in lease of chattels where
the lessor loses complete control over the chattel leased but the lessee is
still ultimately responsible for the... consequences of its use. The
management of the business is still in the hands of the owner/operator,
who, being the holder of the certificate of public convenience, must see to it
that the driver follows the route prescribed by the franchising and
regulatory authority, and the... rules promulgated with regard to the
business operations. The fact that the driver does not receive fixed wages
but only the excess of the "boundary" given to the owner/operator is not
sufficient to change the relationship between them. Indubitably, the driver
performs... activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the owner/operator.
daily remittances also had a dual purpose: that of petitioner's boundary and
respondent's partial payment (hulog) for the vehicle. This dual purpose was
expressly stated in the Kasunduan. The... well-settled rule is that an
obligation is not novated by an instrument that expressly recognizes the old
one, changes only the terms of payment, and adds other obligations not
incompatible with the old provisions or where the new contract merely
supplements the previous one.
[47]The two obligations of the respondent to remit to petitioner the
boundary-hulog can stand together.
Under the Kasunduan, petitioner retained supervision and control over the
conduct of the respondent as driver of the jeepney,... Under the boundary-
hulog scheme, petitioner retained ownership of the jeepney although its
material possession was vested in respondent as its driver. In case
respondent failed to make his P550.00 daily installment payment for a
week, the agreement would be of no... force and effect and respondent
would have to return the jeepney to petitioner; the employer-employee
relationship would likewise be terminated unless petitioner would allow
respondent to continue driving the jeepney on a boundary basis of P550.00
daily despite the termination... of their vendor-vendee relationship.
The juridical relationship of employer-employee between petitioner and
respondent was not negated by the foregoing stipulation in the Kasunduan,
considering that petitioner retained control of respondent's conduct as
driver of the vehicle.
Neither is such juridical relationship negated by petitioner's claim that the
terms and conditions in the Kasunduan relative to respondent's behavior
and deportment as driver was for his and respondent's benefit
What is primordial is that petitioner retained control over the conduct of
the respondent as driver of the jeepney.
petitioner, as the owner of the vehicle and the holder of the franchise, is
entitled to exercise supervision and control over the respondent, by seeing
to it that the route provided in his franchise, and the rules and regulations
of the Land Transportation Regulatory
Board are duly complied with. Moreover, in a business establishment, an
identification card is usually provided not just as a security measure but to
mainly identify the holder thereof as a bona fide employee of the firm who
issues it.
JOSE MEL BERNARTE v. PHILIPPINE BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION , GR No.
192084, 2011-09-14
Facts:
Complainants (Jose Mel Bernarte and Renato Guevarra) aver that they were
invited to join the PBA as referees. During the leadership of Commissioner...
they were made to sign contracts on a year-to-year basis. During the term of
Commissioner Eala,... however, changes were made on the terms of their
employment.
Complainant Bernarte,... was not made to sign a contract during the first
conference of the All-Filipino Cup which was from February 23, 2003 to June
2003. It was only during the second conference when he was made to sign a
one and a half month contract for the period
On
Bernarte received a letter from the Office of the Commissioner advising him
that his contract would not be renewed citing his unsatisfactory
performance on and off the court.
It was a total shock for Bernarte who was awarded Referee of the year in
2003.
On the other hand, complainant Guevarra alleges that he was invited to join
the PBA pool of referees in
he signed a contract as trainee. Beginning 2002, he signed a yearly contract
as Regular Class C referee. On
2003, respondent Martinez... issued a memorandum to Guevarra expressing
dissatisfaction over his questioning on the assignment of referees officiating
out-of-town games.
Respondents aver,... that complainants... were not illegally dismissed
because they were not employees of the PBA. Their respective contracts of
retainer were simply not renewed. PBA had the prerogative of whether or
not to renew their contracts, which they knew were fixed.
Labor Arbiter... declared petitioner an employee whose dismissal by
respondents was illegal.
the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's judgment.
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which
overturned the decisions of the NLRC and Labor Arbiter.
The Court of Appeals found petitioner an independent contractor since
respondents did not exercise any form of control over the means and
methods by which petitioner performed his work as a basketball referee.
Issues:
whether petitioner is an employee of respondents, which in turn
determines whether petitioner was illegally dismissed.
Ruling:
The petition is bereft of merit.
In this case, PBA admits repeatedly engaging petitioner's services, as shown
in the retainer contracts. PBA pays petitioner a retainer fee, exclusive of per
diem or allowances, as stipulated in the retainer contract. PBA can
terminate the retainer contract for petitioner's... violation of its terms and
conditions.
However, respondents argue that the all-important element of control is
lacking in this case, making petitioner an independent contractor and not an
employee of respondents.
We agree with respondents that once in the playing court, the referees
exercise their own independent judgment, based on the rules of the game,
as to when and how a call or decision is to be made. The referees decide
whether an infraction was committed, and the PBA cannot... overrule them
once the decision is made on the playing court. The referees are the only,
absolute, and final authority on the playing court. Respondents or any of the
PBA officers cannot and do not determine which calls to make or not to
make and cannot control the referee when... he blows the whistle because
such authority exclusively belongs to the referees.
The very nature of petitioner's job of officiating a professional basketball
game undoubtedly calls for freedom of control by respondents.
Moreover, the following circumstances indicate that petitioner is an
independent contractor: (1) the referees are required to report for work
only when PBA games are scheduled, which is three times a week spread
over an average of only 105 playing days a year, and they officiate... games
at an average of two hours per game; and (2) the only deductions from the
fees received by the referees are withholding taxes.
In other words, unlike regular employees who ordinarily report for work
eight hours per day for five days a week, petitioner is required to report for
work only when PBA games are scheduled or three times a week at two
hours per game. In addition, there are no deductions for... contributions to
the Social Security System, Philhealth or Pag-Ibig, which are the usual
deductions from employees' salaries. These undisputed circumstances
buttress the fact that petitioner is an independent contractor, and not an
employee of respondents.
Furthermore,... a referee is an independent contractor, whose special skills
and independent judgment are required specifically for such position and
cannot possibly be controlled by the hiring party.
the fact that PBA repeatedly hired petitioner does not by itself prove that
petitioner is an employee of the former. For a hired party to be considered
an employee, the hiring party must have control over the means and
methods by which the hired party is to perform... his work, which is absent
in this case.
The continuous rehiring by PBA of petitioner simply signifies the renewal of
the contract between PBA and petitioner, and highlights the satisfactory
services rendered by petitioner warranting such contract renewal.
Conversely, if PBA... decides to discontinue petitioner's services at the end
of the term fixed in the contract, whether for unsatisfactory services, or
violation of the terms and conditions of the contract, or for whatever other
reason, the same merely results in the non-renewal of the contract, as... in
the present case. The non-renewal of the contract between the parties does
not constitute illegal dismissal of petitioner by respondents.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the assailed decision of the LA
Court of Appeals.
LA held... that petitioner failed to establish that the elements of an
employer-employee relationship existed between him and... respondents
because he was unable to show that he was, in fact, appointed as
JESUS G. REYES v. GLAUCOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION, GR No. 189255,
administrator of the ERC and received salaries as such;... he also failed to
2015-06-17
deny that during his stint with respondents, he was, at the same time, a
consultant of various government agencies

Facts: NLRC

NLRC reversed and set aside the Decision of the LA.

Petitioner alleged that: on August 1, 2003, he was hired by respondent CA

corporation as administrator of the latter's Eye
CA annulled and set aside the judgment of the NLRC and reinstated the
Referral Center (ERC); he performed his duties as administrator and Decision of the LA.
continuously received his monthly salary... beginning February 2005,
The CA held that the LA was correct in ruling that, under the control test
respondent withheld petitioner's salary without notice but he still continued
and the economic reality test, no employer-employee relationship existed
to report for work;... petitioner wrote a letter to respondent
between... respondents and petitioner.
Agulto... who is the Executive Director of respondent corporation, informing
the latter that he has not been receiving his salaries since February 2005 as
well as his 14th month... pay for 2004... petitioner did not receive any Issues:
response from Agulto... petitioner was informed... that he is no longer the
Administrator of the ERC; subsequently, petitioner's... office was padlocked
and closed without notice... he still continued to report for work but... he NO
was no longer allowed by the security guard on duty to enter the premises
of the ERC. COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN RULING THAT
NO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP EXISTS BETWEEN RESPONDENTS
respondents contended that... they engaged his services as a consultant or AND PETITIONER.
adviser in the formulation of an updated organizational set-up and...
employees' manual which is compatible with their present condition;...
based on his claim that there is a need for an administrator for the ERC, he Ruling:
later designated himself as such on a trial basis... there is no employer-
employee relationship between them because respondents had no...
control over petitioner in terms of working hours... respondents also had no CONTROL TEST
control as to the manner in which he performs his alleged duties as
consultant;... petitioner was not dismissed as he was the one who Indeed, the power of the employer to control the work of the employee is
voluntarily severed his relations with respondents. considered the most significant determinant of the existence of an
employer-employee relationship.[28] This test is premised on whether the
person for whom the services are performed... reserves the right to control
both the end achieved and the manner and means used to achieve that end.
In the present case, petitioner contends that, as evidence of respondents'
supposed control over him, the organizational plans he has drawn were
subject to the approval of respondent corporation's Board of Trustees.
[Respondents'] power to approve or reject the organizational plans drawn
by [petitioner] cannot be the control contemplated in the "control test." It is
but logical that one who commissions another to do a piece of work should
have the right to accept or reject the... product. The important factor to
consider in the "control test" is still the element of control over how the
work itself is done, not just the end result thereof.
Well settled is the rule that where a person who works for another performs
his job more or less at his own pleasure, in the manner he sees fit, not
subject to definite hours or conditions of work, and is compensated
according to the result of his efforts and not the amount... thereof, no
employer-employee relationship exists.
petitioner was never subject to definite working hours. He never denied
that he goes to work and leaves therefrom as he pleases.
In fact,... he went on leave without... seeking approval from the officers of
respondent company.
ECONOMIC REALITY TEST
Court has also used the economic reality test in determining whether an
employer-employee relationship exists between the parties.
Under this test, the economic realities prevailing within the activity or
between the parties... are examined, taking into consideration the totality
of circumstances surrounding the true nature of the relationship between
the parties.
In our... jurisdiction, the benchmark of economic reality in analyzing
possible employment relationships for purposes of applying the Labor Code
ought to be the economic dependence of the worker on his employer.
In the instant case, as shown by the resume of [petitioner], he concurrently
held consultancy positions with the Manila International Airport Authority...
and the Anti-Terrorist Task Force for
Aviation and Air Transportation Sector... during his stint with the Eye
Referral Center
Accordingly, it cannot be said that the [petitioner] was wholly dependent on
[respondent] company.[34]
In bolstering his contention that there was an employer-employee
relationship, petitioner draws attention to the pay slips he supposedly
received from respondent corporation. However, he does not dispute the
findings of the CA that there are no deductions for SSS and withholding...
tax from his compensation, which are the usual deductions from employees'
salaries. Thus, the alleged pay slips may not be treated as competent
evidence of petitioner's claim that he is respondents' employee.
CENTURY PROPERTIES v. EDWIN J. BABIANO &
EMMA B. CONCEPCION, GR No. 220978, 2016-07-05
Facts:
Babiano was hired by CPI as Director of Sales, and
was eventually[6] appointed as Vice President for
Sales
His employment contract[7] also contained a
"Confidentiality of Documents and Non-Compete
Clause"[8] which, among others, barred him from
disclosing confidential information, and from working
in any business enterprise that is in direct
competition with CPI "while [he is] employed and for
a period of one year from date of resignation or
termination from [CPI]."
During the same period, Concepcion was initially
hired as Sales Agent by CPI and was eventually[10]
promoted as Project Director
As such, she signed an employment agreement,
denominated as "Contract of Agency for Project
Director"
Notably, it was stipulated in both contracts that no
employer-employee relationship exists between
Concepcion and CPI
After receiving reports that Babiano provided a
competitor with information regarding CPFs
marketing strategies, spread false information
regarding CPI and its projects, recruited CPI's
personnel to join the competitor, and for being absent
without official leave (AWOL) for five (5) days, CPI,
through its Executive Vice President for Marketing
and Development, Jose Marco R. Antonio (Antonio),
sent Babiano a Notice to Explain
On February 25, 2009, Babiano tendered[18] his
resignation and revealed that he had been accepted
as Vice President of First Global BYO Development
Corporation (First Global), a competitor of CPI
Babiano was served a Notice of Termination[20] for:
(a) incurring AWOL; (b) violating the "Confidentiality
of Documents and Non-Compete Clause" when he
joined a competitor enterprise while still working for
CPI and provided such competitor enterprise
information regarding CPFs marketing strategies; and
(c) recruiting CPI personnel to join a competitor.[21]
On the other hand, Concepcion resigned as CPFs
Project Director through a letter... respondents filed a
complaint[23] for non-payment of commissions and
damages against CPI and Antonio before the NLRC,...
For its part, CPI maintained[25] that Babiano is
merely its agent tasked with selling its projects.
Nonetheless, he was afforded due process in the
termination of his employment which was based on
just causes.[26] It also claimed to have validly
withheld Babiano's commissions, considering that
they were deemed forfeited for violating the
"Confidentiality of Documents and Non-Compete
Clause."... the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in CPI's favor
and, accordingly, dismissed the complaint for lack of
merit.[30]... he NLRC reversed and set aside the LA
ruling, and entered a new one ordering CPI to pay
Babiano and Concepcion
While the NLRC initially concurred with the LA that
Babiano's acts constituted just cause which would
warrant the termination of his employment from CPI,
it, however, ruled that the forfeiture of all earned
commissions of Babiano under the "Confidentiality of
Documents and Non-Compete Clause" is confiscatory
and unreasonable and hence, contrary to law and
public policy.
In this light, the NLRC held that CPI could not invoke
such clause to avoid the payment of Babiano's
commissions since he had already earned those
monetary benefits and, thus, should have been
released to him.
Meanwhile, contrary to the LA's finding, the NLRC
ruled that Concepcion was CPI's employee,
considering that CPI: (a) repeatedly hired and
promoted her since 2002; (b) paid her wages despite
referring to it as "subsidy"; and (c) exercised the
power of dismissal and control over he... the CA
affirmed the NLRC ruling with modification increasing
the award of unpaid commissions to Babiano and
Concepcion
The CA held that Babiano properly instituted his claim
for unpaid commissions before the labor tribunals as
it is a money claim arising from an employer-
employee relationship with CPI. In this relation, the
CA opined that CPI cannot withhold such unpaid
commissions on the ground of Babiano's alleged
breach of the "Confidentiality of Documents and Non-
Compete Clause"
The petition is partly meritorious.
Issues:
The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether or
not the CA erred in denying CPI's petition for
certiorari, thereby holding it liable for the unpaid
commissions of respondents.
Ruling:
Thus, in the interpretation of contracts, the Court
must first determine whether a provision or
stipulation therein is ambiguous. Absent any
ambiguity, the provision on its face will be read as it
is written and treated as the binding law of the
parties to the contract.[54]In the case at bar, CPI
primarily invoked the "Confidentiality of Documents
and Non-Compete Clause" found in Babiano's
employment contract[55] to justify the forfeiture of
his commissions, viz.:Confidentiality of Documents
and Non-Compete Clause
Finally, if undersigned breaches any terms of this
contract, forms of compensation including
commissions and incentives will be forfeited.[56]
(Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Verily, the foregoing clause is not only clear and
unambiguous in stating that Babiano is barred to
"work for whatsoever capacity x x x with any person
whose business is in direct competition with [CPI]
while [he is] employed and for a period of one year
from date of [his] resignation or termination from the
company," it also expressly provided in no uncertain
terms that should Babiano "[breach] any term of [the
employment contract], forms of compensation
including commissions and incentives will be
forfeited."
Indubitably, obligations arising from contracts,
including employment contracts, have the force of
law between the contracting parties and should be
complied with in good faith.[59] Corollary thereto,
parties are bound by the stipulations, clauses, terms,
and conditions they have agreed to, provided that
these stipulations, clauses, terms, and conditions are
not contrary to law, morals, public order or public
policy,[60] as in this case.
Therefore, the CA erred in limiting the "Confidentiality
of Documents and Non-Compete Clause" only to acts
done after the cessation of the employer-employee
relationship or to the "post-employment" relations of
the parties. As clearly stipulated, the parties wanted
to apply said clause during the pendency of Babiano's
employmen
From the foregoing, it is evidently clear that when he
sought and eventually accepted the said position with
First Global, he was still employed by CPI as he has
not formally resigned at that time. Irrefragably, this is
a glaring violation of the "Confidentiality of Therefore, the CA correctly ruled that since there
Documents and Non-Compete Clause" in his exists an employer-employee relationship between
employment contract with CPI, thus, justifying the Concepcion and CPI, the labor tribunals correctly
forfeiture of his unpaid commissions. assumed jurisdiction over her money claims.

Guided by these parameters, the Court finds that Finally, CPI contends that Concepcion's failure to
Concepcion was an employee of CPI considering that: assail the NLRC ruling awarding her the amount of
(a) CPI continuously hired and promoted Concepcion P470,754.62 representing unpaid commissions
from October 2002 until her resignation on February rendered the same final and binding upon her. As
23, 2009,[64] thus, showing that CPI exercised the such, the CA erred in increasing her monetary award
power of selection and engagement over her person to P591,953.05.[70]
and that she performed functions that were
As a general rule, a party who has not appealed
necessary and desirable to the business of CPI; (b)
cannot obtain any affirmative relief other than the one
the monthly "subsidy" and cash incentives that
granted in the appealed decision. However,
Concepcion was receiving from CPI are actually
jurisprudence admits an exception to the said rule,
remuneration in the concept of wages as it was
such as when strict adherence thereto shall result in
regularly given to her on a monthly basis without any
the impairment of the substantive rights of the parties
qualification, save for the "complete submission of
concerned. In Global Resource for Outsourced
documents on what is a sale policy";[65] (c) CPI had
Workers, Inc. v. Velasco:[71]Indeed, a party who has
the power to discipline or even dismiss Concepcion
failed to appeal from a judgment is deemed to have
as her engagement contract with CPI expressly
acquiesced to it and can no longer obtain from the
conferred upon the latter "the right to discontinue
appellate court any affirmative relief other than what
[her] service anytime during the period of
was already granted under said judgment. However,
engagement should [she] fail to meet the
when strict adherence to such technical rule will
performance standards,"[66] among others, and that
impair a substantive right, such as that of an illegally
CPI actually exercised such power to dismiss when it
dismissed employee to monetary compensation as
accepted and approved Concepcion's resignation
provided by law, then equity dictates that the Court
letter; and most importantly, (d) as aptly pointed out
set aside the rule to pave the way for a full and just
by the CA, CPI possessed the power of control over
adjudication of the case.[72
Concepcion because in the performance of her duties
as Project Director - particularly in the conduct of In the present case, the CA aptly pointed out that the
recruitment activities, training sessions, and skills NLRC failed to account for all the unpaid
development of Sales Directors - she did not exercise commissions due to Concepcion for the period of
independent discretion thereon, but was still subject August 9, 2008 to August 8, 2011.[73] Indeed,
to the direct supervision of CPI, acting through Concepcion's right to her earned commissions is a
Babiano.[67]
substantive right which cannot be impaired by an
erroneous computation of what she really is entitled
to
In sum, the Court thus holds that the commissions of
Babiano were properly forfeited for violating the
"Confidentiality of Documents and Non-Compete
Clause." On.the other hand, CPI remains liable for the
unpaid commissions of Concepcion in the sum of
P591,953.05.
Principles:
Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. NLRC,[68] it was
ruled that one's employment status is defined and
prescribed by law, and not by what the parties say it
should be, viz.:It is axiomatic that the existence of an
employer-employee relationship cannot be negated by
expressly repudiating it in the management contract
and providing therein that the "employee" is an
independent contractor when the terms of the
agreement clearly show otherwise. For, the
employment status of a person is defined and
prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it
should be. In determining the status of the
management contract, the "four-fold test" on
employment earlier mentioned has to be applied.[69]
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
BITOY JAVIER v. FLY ACE CORPORATION, GR No.
192558, 2012-02-15
Facts:
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
2007, performing various tasks at the respondent's
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 company's delivery
vehicles, as pahinante; that during his employment,
he was not issued an identification card and payslips
by the company; that on... 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 discovered that Ong had been courting his
daughter Annalyn after the two met at a fiesta
; 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.
Fly Ace averred that it
Sometime in Javier was contracted... as extra helper
on a pakyaw basis... contracted Javier roughly 5 to 6
times only in a month whenever the vehicle of its
contracted hauler,... was not available.
On 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.
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.
On appeal with the NLRC, Javier was favored.
It was of the view that a pakyaw-basis arrangement
did not... preclude the existence of employer-
employee relationship.
CA annulled the NLRC findings... and reinstated the
dismissal of Javier's complaint
Hence, this appeal
Claiming to be an employee of Fly Ace, petitioner
asserts that he was illegally dismissed by the latter's
failure to observe substantive and procedural due
process. Since his dismissal was not based on any of
the causes recognized by law, and was implemented
without notice,... Javier is entitled to separation pay
and backwages.
Issues:
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER WAS NOT
A REGULAR EMPLOYEE OF FLY ACE.
Ruling:
The Court affirms the assailed CA decision.
It must be noted that the issue of Javier's alleged
illegal dismissal is anchored on the existence of an
employer-employee relationship between him and Fly
Ace.
As the records bear out, the LA and the CA found
Javier's claim of employment with Fly Ace as wanting
and deficient. The Court is constrained to agree.
Accordingly, the petitioner needs to show by...
substantial evidence that he was indeed an employee
of the company against which he claims illegal
dismissal.
In sum, the rule of thumb remains: the onus probandi
falls on petitioner to establish or substantiate such
claim by the requisite quantum of evidence.
"Whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided
by law should establish his or her... right thereto x x
x."
Sadly, Javier failed to adduce substantial evidence as
basis for the grant of relief.
Clearly,... Javier failed to pass the substantiality
requirement to support his claim.
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
employee's conduct. Of these elements, the most
important criterion is whether the employer controls
or has reserved the right to control the employee not
only as to the result of the work but also as to the
means and methods by... which the result is to be Court with... sufficient reason to uphold his claimed
accomplished. status as employee of Fly Ace.

In this case, Javier was not able to persuade the WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
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
Pre-Employment Cases:
could dictate what... his conduct should be while at
work. CORAZON C. SIM v. NLRC, GR No. 157376, 2007-10-02
In other words, Javier's allegations did not establish Facts:
that his relationship with Fly Ace had the attributes of
Corazon Sim (petitioner) filed a case for illegal
an employer-employee relationship on the basis of the
dismissal with the Labor Arbiter, alleging that she
above-mentioned four-fold test.
was initially employed by Equitable PCI-Bank
One final note. The Court's decision does not (respondent)... as Italian Remittance Marketing
contradict the settled rule that "payment by the piece Consultant to the Frankfurt Representative
is just a method of compensation and does not define
Office.
the essence of the relation."
Eventually, she was promoted to Manager position,
Payment on a piece-rate basis does not negate
until... she received a letter from... the Senior Officer,
regular... employment.
European Head of PCIBank, and Managing Director of
Payment by the piece is just a method of... PCIB- Europe -- informing her that she was being
compensation and does not define the essence of the dismissed due to loss of... trust and confidence based
relations. Nor does the fact that the petitioner is not on alleged mismanagement and misappropriation of
covered by the SSS affect the employer-employee funds.
relationship.
Respondent denied any employer-employee
However, in determining whether the relationship is relationship between them, and sought the dismissal
that of employer and employee or one of an... of the complaint.
independent contractor, each case must be
LA
determined on its own facts and all the features of
the relationship are to be considered." Labor Arbiter rendered its Decision dismissing the
case for want of jurisdiction and/or lack of merit.
Unfortunately for Javier, the attendant facts and
circumstances of the instant case do not provide the
According to the Labor Arbiter... the labor relations
system in the Philippines has no extra-territorial
jurisdiction.
Since complainant was hired and assigned... in a
foreign land, although by a Philippine Corporation, it
follows that the law that govern their relationship is
the law of the place where the employment was
executed and her place of work or assignment.
Assuming for the sake of argument that this Office
has jurisdiction over this case, still, this Office is
inclined to rule in favor of the respondent.
NLRC
NLRC... affirmed the Labor Arbiter's Decision
CA
CA... dismissed the petition due to petitioner's non-
filing of a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC.
Issues:
YES
National Labor Relations Commission decided a
question of jurisdiction... in a manner not in accord
with law when it ruled that it had no jurisdiction over
a labor dispute between a Philippine corporation
and... its employee which it assigned to work for a
foreign land.
Ruling:
the CA was not in error when it dismissed the
petition. More so since petitioner failed to show any
error on the part of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC in
ruling that she was dismissed for cause.
Petitioner does not deny having withdrawn the
amount of P3,000,000.00 lire from the bank's
account. What petitioner submits is that she used
said amount for the Radio Pilipinas sa Roma radio
program of the company. Respondent, however,
countered... that at the time she withdrew said
amount, the radio program was already off the air.
Respondent is a managerial employee. Thus, loss of
trust and confidence is a valid ground for her
dismissal.
JURISDICTION
It was wrong for the Labor Arbiter to rule that "labor
relations system in the Philippines has no... extra-
territorial jurisdiction."
ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the
Commission. (a) Except as otherwise provided under
this Code the Labor Arbiters shall have original and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty
(30) calendar days after the submission of the case...
by the parties for decision without extension, even in
the absence of stenographic notes, the following
cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or
non-agricultural:
Unfair labor practice cases;
Termination disputes;
If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those
cases that workers may file involving wage, rates of
pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of
employment;
Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms
of damages arising from the employer-employee
relations;
Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this
Code, including questions involving the legality of
strikes and lockouts; and
Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social
Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other
claims, arising from employer-employee relations,
including those of persons in domestic or household
service, involving an amount of exceeding five
thousand pesos
(P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with
a claim for reinstatement.
(b) The commission shall have exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters.
Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995
Money Claims. Notwithstanding any provision of law
to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the
original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide,
within ninety (90) calendar... days after the filing of
the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-
employee relationship or by virtue of any law or
contract involving Filipino workers for overseas
deployment including claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages.
Section 62 of
R.A. No. 8042... provides that the Labor Arbiters of the
NLRC shall have the original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide all claims arising out
of employer-employee relationship... or by virtue of
any law or contract involving Filipino workers for
overseas deployment including claims for actual,
moral, exemplary and other forms of damages,
subject to the rules and procedures of the NLRC.
Under these provisions, it is clear that labor arbiters
have original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims
arising from employer-employee relations, including
termination disputes involving all workers, among
whom are overseas Filipino workers.
In any event, since the CA did not commit any error in
dismissing the petition before it for failure to file a
prior motion for reconsideration with the NLRC, and
considering that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC's
factual findings as regards the validity of petitioner's
dismissal... are accorded great weight and respect
and even finality when the same are supported by
substantial evidence, the Court finds no compelling
reason to relax the rule on the filing of a motion for
reconsideration
PEOPLE v. MA. HARLETA VELASCO Y BRIONES, GR
No. 195668, 2014-06-25
Facts:
Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City filed in the
RTC two informations
Inovero
Diala and
Paulino with illegal recruitment... and 11
informations[4] charging the same accused with
estafa
Only Inovero was arrested and... prosecuted, the
other accused having remained at large.
Six cases charging estafa... and one of the two
charging illegal recruitment... were... dismissed... the
prosecution presented the five (5) private
complainants as witnesses to prove the crime of
Illegal Recruitment, namely:
Baful
Brizuela
Aguirre
Amoyo
Marbella
Versoza
the 5 were all required to submit certain documents and to pay
processing fee; after paying said fee, Diala and Inovero
promised her and the other applicants that they will be
deployed in three (3) months or in June 2003; however, the
promised deployment never materialized; she later found out
that HARVEL was not even licensed to recruit workers.
. conducted by Inovero
(1)
Baful testified that... she, together with her sister-in-
law, went to Harvel... upon learning that recruitment
for caregivers to Japan was on-going there.
She... testified that Diala, the alleged talent manager,
directed her to submit certain documents, and to
pay... training fee, as well as... placement and
processing fees.
after complying with the aforesaid requirements and
after paying
Baful was promised deployment within two (2) to
three (3) months.
She likewise testified that Inovero... briefed her and
her co-applicants on what to wear on the day of their
departure.
However, she was never deployed. Finally, she
testified that she found out that HARVEL was not
licensed to deploy workers for overseas employment.
(2)
Brizuela, another complainant, testified that he went
to HARVEL's office... to inquire on the requirements
and hiring procedure for a caregiver in Japan.
Diala told him the amount required as processing fee
and the documents to be submitted.
when he submitted... the required documents and
payments, it was, this time, Paulino who received
them.
He claimed that he underwent training and medical
examination;... he likewise attended an orientation
He testified that he was not deployed. Neither was
his money returned, as promised.
Brizuela testified that Inovero was the one who
conducted the orientation, and represented to all the
applicants that most of the time, she was in the
Japanese Embassy expediting the applicants' visa.
(3) Amoyo and (4)
Aguirre,... alleged that she went to HARVEL... to apply
as caregiver in Japan; there, Diala informed her that
Inovero was one of the owners of HARVEL and
Velasco was its President; she paid... and... submitted
her documents, receipt of which was acknowledged
by Diala; despite her undergoing medical examination
and several training seminars, she was however not
deployed to Japan. Worse, she found out that HARVEL
was not licensed to recruit workers.
(5)
Marbella was the last complainant to testify. She
alleged that she applied for the position of janitress
at HARVEL... just like the rest of the complainants,
she was required to submit certain documents and to
pay... processing fee; after paying said fee, Diala and
Inovero promised her and the other applicants that
they will be deployed in three (3) months... however,
the promised deployment never materialized; she
later found out that HARVEL was not even... licensed
to recruit workers.
Versoza,... is a Labor and Employment Officer at the
POEA Licensing Branch. She testified that she
prepared a Certification certifying that neither
HARVEL nor Inovero was authorized to recruit
workers for overseas employment as per records at
their... office.
In her defense, Inovero denied the allegations hurled
against her.
she claimed that she is the niece of accused Velasco,
the owner of HARVEL, but denied working there.
Explaining her presence in HARVEL, she alleged that
she worked... for her uncle
She also testified that her alleged errands mainly
consisted of serving food and refreshments during
orientations at
HARVEL.
Inovero likewise denied receiving any money from the
complainants, nor issuing receipts therefor.
RTC
RTC rendered judgment acquitting Inovero of five
counts of estafa but convicting her... of illegal
recruitment
CA
CA affirmed the conviction
Issues:
NO
CA erred in affirming her conviction by the RTC
Ruling:
The essential elements of illegal recruitment
committed in large scale are: (1) that the accused
engaged in acts of recruitment and placement of
workers as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor
Code, or in any prohibited activities under Article 34
of the same
Code; (2) that the accused had not complied with the
guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment with respect to the requirement to
secure a license or authority to recruit and deploy
workers; and (3) that the accused committed the
unlawful acts against 3 or more... persons. In simplest
terms, illegal recruitment is committed by persons
who, without authority from the government, give the
impression that they have the power to send workers
abroad for employment purposes.
In Our view, despite Inovero's protestations that she
did not commit illegal recruitment, the following
circumstances contrarily convince Us that she was
into illegal recruitment.
First, private complainants Baful and Brizuela
commonly testified that Inovero was the one who
conducted orientations/briefings on them; informed
them, among others, on how much their salary would
be as caregivers in Japan; and what to wear when
they finally will be... deployed.
Second, when Diala introduced her (Inovero) to
private complainant Amoyo as one of the owners of
HARVEL, Inovero did not bother to correct said
representation. Inovero's silence is clearly an implied
acquiescence to said representation.
Third, Inovero, while conducting orientation on
private complainant Brizuela, represented herself as
the one expediting the release of applicants' working
visa for Japan.
Fourth, in a Certification issued and attested to by
POEA's Versoza Inovero had no license nor authority
to recruit for overseas employment.
All that Inovero's appeal has offered was her denial of
complicity in the illegal recruitment of the
complainants. But the complainants credibly
described and affirmed her specific acts during the
commission of the crime of illegal recruitment.
We concur with the RTC and the CA that Inovero was
criminally liable for the illegal recruitment charged
against her.
People v. Tolentino G.R. No. 208686, July 01, 2015 Carpio, J.:
FACTS: Appellant Tolentino was charged with illegal
recruitment and 5 counts of estafa under Article 315 (2a) of the
Revised Penal Code. Tolentino represented to the 5
complainants that she could secure work for them in Korea and
that she is capable of processing their visas and other
documents for their travel and employment in Korea. Private
complainants gave and delivered partial payments to Tolentino
for medical examination and processing of their documents for
work in Korea. Tolentino misappropriate, misapply and convert
the payments to her own personal use and benefit to the
damage and prejudice of the complainants. Sometime in
January 2002, private complainants met with appellant
Tolentino for signing of contract. Howver, the names written on
the employment contracts were not private complainants’ name.
Appellant explained that the contracts were supposedly for other
applicants who sought her services but later backed out.
Appellant assured them that original contracts bearing their
names would subsequently be provided. Private complainants
signed the contracts and paid their second partial payment. On
February 2002, private complainants received information that
the CIDG arrested appellant for illegal recruitment. Private
complainants demanded the return of their partial payments.
Subsequently, private complainants were able to secure a
certification from POEA that appellant was not licensed to
recruit workers for overseas employment.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant committed Illegal
Recruitment in Large Scale and Illegal Recruitment Committed
by A Syndicate punishable by life imprisonment and maximum
penalty of P1,0000.00 under RA 8042.
RULING: Yes. RA 8042, otherwise known as the "Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995," established a
higher standard of protection and promotion of the welfare of the
migrant workers, their families and overseas Filipinos in
distress. RA 8042 also broadened the concept of illegal
recruitment for overseas employment and increased the
penalties, especially for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and
Illegal Recruitment Committed by a Syndicate, which are
considered offenses involving economic sabotage. Part II of RA
8042 defines and penalizes illegal recruitment for employment
abroad, whether undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of
authority or by a licensee or holder of authority. Under RA 8042,
a non-licensee or non-holder of authority commits illegal
recruitment for overseas
employment in two ways: (1) by any act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers,
and includes referring, contract services, promising or
advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not;
and (2) by undertaking any of the acts enumerated under
Section 6 of RA 8042. On the other hand, a licensee or holder of
authority is also liable for illegal recruitment for overseas
employment when he or she undertakes any of the thirteen acts
or practices [(a) to (m)] listed under Section 6 of RA 8042. To
constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, the offense of illegal
recruitment must be committed against three or more persons,
individually or as a group. In Section 7 of RA 8042, enumerates
the penalties: SEC. 7. Penalties. – (a) Any person found guilty
of illegal recruitment shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than
twelve (12) years and a fine of not less than Two hundred
thousand pesos (₱200,000.00) nor more than Five hundred
thousand pesos (₱500,000.00). (b) The penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand
pesos (₱500,000.00) nor more than One million pesos
(₱1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment
constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein. Provided,
however, That the maximum penalty shall be imposed If the
person illegally recruited is less than eighteen (18) years of age
or committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. The
penalty imposed by the trial court in this case for large-scale
illegal recruitment, which constitutes economic sabotage, is life
imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000. Section 7 of RA 8042
provides that the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not
less than ₱500,000 nor more than ₱1,000,000 shall be imposed
if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage. Said article
further provides that the maximum penalty shall be imposed if
committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. Thus,
the proper penalty in this case is life imprisonment and a fine of
₱1,000,000.
ROSA C. RODOLFO v. PEOPLE, GR NO. 146964, 2006-
08-10
Facts:
Petitioner was charged before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Makati for illegal recruitment... the
trial court took note of the fact that while the
information reflected the commission of illegal
recruitment in large scale, only the complaint of the
two of the five complainants was proven.
accused-appellant approached private complainants
Necitas Ferre and Narciso Corpus individually and
invited them to apply for overseas employment in
Dubai... private complainants gave certain amounts to
appellant for processing and other fees.
private complainants and all the other applicants
were not able to depart on the said date as their
employer allegedly did not arrive.
the prosecution presented Jose Valeriano, a Senior
Overseas Employment Officer of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Agency (POEA), who testified
that accused-appellant was... neither licensed nor
authorized by the then Ministry of Labor and
Employment to recruit workers for overseas
employment.
For her defense, appellant denied ever approaching a fee employment" to warrant conviction for illegal
private complainants to recruit them for employment recruitment
in Dubai. On the contrary, it was the private
Court held that issuance of receipts for placement
complainants who asked her help in securing jobs
fees does not make a case for illegal recruitment.
abroad.

appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial

court but modified the penalty imposed due to the
trial court's failure to apply the Indeterminate
Sentence Law.

Issues:

IN FINDING THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED GUILTY

WHEN THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE HER
GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

Ruling:

The elements of the offense of illegal recruitment,

which must concur, are: (1) that the offender has no
valid license or authority required by law to lawfully
engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and
(2) that the offender undertakes any activity within
the meaning of... recruitment and placement under
Article 13(b), or any prohibited practices enumerated
under Article 34 of the Labor Code.[13] If another
element is present : that the accused commits the
act against three or more persons, individually or as a
group, it... becomes an illegal recruitment in a large
scale

That petitioner issued provisional receipts indicating

that the amounts she received from the private
complainants were turned over to Luzviminda Marcos
and Florante Hinahon does not free her from liability.
For the act of recruitment may be "for profit or not." It
is sufficient... that the accused "promises or offers for