FRANCES KAYE D.

CERVEZA JD2-A
LABOR LAWS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS
MARCH 10, 2024 (3RD BATCH CASES)

CASE #1:

DITIANGKIN VS. LAZADA E-SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC.

G.R. No. 246892 || Sep 21, 2022
LEONEN, J

Brief background of the case:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the riders, declaring them as regular employees of
Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc., entitled to benefits and protections, despite the
Independent Contractor Agreement they signed, based on the presence of an employer-
employee relationship and economic dependence.

FACTS:

In February 2016, Chrisden Cabrera Ditiangkin, Hendrix Masamayor Molines, Harvey

Mosquito Juanio, Joselito Castro Verde, and Brian Anthony Cubacub Nabong (collectively,
riders) were hired as riders by Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc. (Lazada).

They signed an Independent Contractor Agreement (Contract) which stated that they
would be paid P1,200.00 per day as a service fee and engaged for a period of one year. The
riders used their privately-owned motorcycles for their trips. In January 2017, the riders
were told that they were removed from their usual routes and would no longer be given
any schedules. They reported to work for three days but were not given any new
assignments. It was later discovered that their routes had been given to other employees.

They filed a complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission against Lazada for
illegal dismissal and non-payment of various benefits.

 Labor Arbiter's Ruling:

- dismissed the complaint, ruling that the riders were not regular employees
of Lazada based on the Contract they signed;
- contract explicitly stated that there was no employer-employee relationship;
- that the riders had control over the means and methods of their work, as they
provided their own vehicles and decided on their delivery routes and
working hours.

 National Labor Relations Commission's Affirmation

- affirmed the Labor Arbiter's ruling.

- the Contract's stipulations should control and that Lazada had no control
over the means and methods employed by the riders.

 Dismissal of Petition by Court of Appeals

- riders elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via Rule 65, but their
petition was dismissed outright;
- held that the correct remedy was a Rule 43 petition, not a Rule 65 certiorari
petition.
 - riders failed to show any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National
Labor Relations Commission.

 Petition for Review before the Supreme Court

- riders filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court, arguing that
there was grave abuse of discretion in finding them as independent
contractors;
- asserted that they were regular employees based on the four-fold test and
the economic dependence test.
- claimed that Lazada had control over their work and that they were
economically dependent on Lazada for their livelihood.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the riders are regular employees of Lazada.

2. Whether or not the riders are entitled to monetary awards.

RULING:

1. YES. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the riders, declaring them as regular
employees of Lazada and entitled to benefits and protections.

The Court held that the Contract signed by the riders (stating that there is no employer-
employee relationship) does not prevail over the constitutional policy of providing full
protection to labor.

The Court applied the four-fold test and economic dependence test to determine the
existence of an employer-employee relationship. It found that all the elements of an
employer-employee relationship were present, including the selection and engagement of
the riders by Lazada, payment of wages, power to dismiss, and control over the riders'
conduct. All these are present in this case:

 Despite how the contract was named, it was clear that Ditiangkin et al were
directly hired by Lazada;
 Ditiangkin et al were paid Php1,200.00 a day;
 The contract stated that Lazada may immediately terminate the contract for any
breach; and
 Lazada imposed strict rules on how the riders’ work is carried out. Lazada requires
the accomplishment of a route sheet which keeps track of the arrival, departure,
and unloading time of the items. Ditiangkin et al shoulder a penalty of P500.00 if
an item is lost on top of its actual value. Ditiangkin et al were also required to
submit trip tickets and incident reports to Lazada.

The Court also considered the integral nature of the riders' services to Lazada's business
and their economic dependence on Lazada for their livelihood.

2. YES. As regular employees, the riders are entitled to reinstatement or separation pay,
full backwages, and other monetary benefits.

However, the Court did not award moral and exemplary damages as there was no showing
of malice, fraud, or bad faith on the part of Lazada. The case was remanded to the Labor
Arbiter for the computation of the total monetary benefits due to the riders. All monetary
awards shall be subject to the interest rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this
Decision until full payment.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is GRANTED. The January 14, 2019 and March 15,
2019 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 158529 are REVERSED.

Respondents Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc., (Allan Ancheta, Richard Delantar, and Jade
Andrade) are ORDERED to reinstate riders (Chrisden Cabrera Ditiangkin, Hendrix
Masamayor Molines, Harvey Mosquito Juanio, Joselito Castro Verde, and Brian Anthony
Cubacub Nabong) to their former positions, and to pay their full backwages, overtime
pay, thirteenth month pay, cash bond deposit, and other benefits and privileges from
the time they were dismissed on January 16, 2017, up to their actual reinstatement.
CASE #2:

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. VS. TAJANLANGIT

G.R. No. 219508 || Sep 14, 2021
LOPEZ, J

Brief Background of the case:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that an employer-
employee relationship exists between ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation and its remote
cameramen, ordering their reinstatement, payment of backwages and benefits, and
awarding attorney's fees.

FACTS:

On various dates in June 2010, petitioner offered employment contracts to the respondents
for new positions as remote cameramen. The respondents were remote cameramen
employed by ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation. They aver that they have been regular
employees of petitioner, having been hired as cameramen on various dates from July 2003
to April 2005.

At the time of hiring, no written contract or agreement indicative of a contractual

relationship was entered into between petitioner and respondents. Instead, respondents
were compelled to sign a document entitled "Accreditation in the Internal Job Market
System x x x" so that they can be included in the IJM work pool together with other similarly
situated
employees.

From the time of their engagement, each of the respondents have been issued an ABS-CBN
Identification Card and have regularly received wages directly from ABS-CBN computed on
a per-hour basis under different rates ranging from P80.00 to P90.00 per hour, fixed and
determined solely by petitioner according to the category of the shows/programs where
they were assigned.

According to the respondents, the monthly wages were deposited in the ATM payroll
account provided by ABS-CBN on a bi-monthly basis, after petitioner deducted withholding
tax, SSS, Pag-IBIG and PhilHealth premiums.

As cameramen, respondents allege that they were assigned to different shows or programs
of petitioner at its sole and exclusive discretion. Work schedule was in fact issued by the
management of petitioner, indicating therein the show or program respondents would be
assigned to and their work schedule. Moreover, respondents were always under the direct
supervision of the petitioner's production supervisors, managers and directors of the
shows or programs and were not allowed to delegate their work to other competent
cameramen of their own choice in case of unavailability. Thus, respondents were also
subject to the usual issuances of memorandum as well as imposition of disciplinary actions
such as suspension and dismissal.

Believing that they have been continuously employed by petitioner for more than five
years, respondents filed a complaint for regularization and money claims, asserting
that they were regular employees entitled to the benefits and privileges of regular
employment.

ABS-CBN argued that the respondents were independent contractors and not employees.
They claimed that the respondents were engaged as talents for specific programs and were
not subject to the same control and supervision as regular employees. ABS-CBN also stated
that the respondents were part of its Internal Job Market System (IJM) work pool, which
provided a database of accredited technical or creative manpower for program production.
 Labor Arbiter’s Ruling:

- The Labor Arbiter dismissed the respondents’ complaints, stating that there
was no employer-employee relationship between ABS-CBN and the
respondents.

 NLRC’s affirmation:

- The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor

Arbiter's decision.

 Dismissal of Petition by Court of Appeals

- The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC's decision, finding that an
employer-employee relationship existed between ABS-CBN and the
respondents based on the four-fold test for determining such a
relationship.
- The CA also found that ABS-CBN exercised control and supervision over the
respondents' work, provided them with necessary tools and
equipment, and had the power to discipline and dismiss them.

Aggrieved, petitioner brought before this Court the instant Petition for Review on
Certiorari under RULE 45 before the Supreme Court arguing that the CA erred in finding
an employer-employee relationship.

 Supreme Court’s Decision:

- Supreme Court upheld the CA's decision, ordering the reinstatement of the
respondents, payment of backwages and other statutory benefits, and
the declaration of their dismissal as illegal.

ISSUE:

Whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the petitioner and the

respondents.

RULING:

YES. There is an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and respondents.

In order to determine the existence of employer-employee relationship, these elements
must be present:

a. Selection and engagement of the employee

b. Payment of wages
c. Power of dismissal
d. Power of control over the employee's conduct

The Court found that all elements of the four-fold test were sufficiently established by the
respondents, therefore, they should be considered regular employees entitled to the rights,
benefits, and privileges of regular employees.

The Supreme Court also held respondents proved by substantial evidence that they are
employees of petitioner. The CA considered the evidence presented by respondents before
the NLRC in the form of ID cards, ITRs, pay slips, memoranda issued to discipline similarly
situated employees, work schedules issued by petitioner, and documents from SSS, Phil health
and Pag-IBIG to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship with petitioner.
On the other hand, petitioner failed to present proof of any contract between
respondents and the company from the time they were engaged in 2003 to 2005, up to
the filing of the complaint against them in 2010, other than the unsigned draft of
employment contracts presented to respondents in 2011 which respondents refused to
sign due to the already impending labor dispute. Aside from these unsigned drafts,
petitioner presented only its Article of Incorporation, legislative franchise, pay slips, and
belatedly, affidavits executed by other workers, which the CA deemed gravely insufficient
to establish the status of respondents as independent contractors nor rebut the evidence
submitted by respondents to prove their employment.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for utter lack of merit. The Decision dated
September 18, 2014 and the Resolution dated June 18, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 122795, are AFFIRMED.
CASE #3:

MARIO N. FELICILDA, petitioner, vs. MANCHESTEVE H. UY

G.R. No. 221241 || September 14, 2016
PERLAS-BERNABE, J

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:

Truck driver Mario N. Felicilda fights for justice after being illegally dismissed by his
employer, Manchesteve H. Uy, leading to a Supreme Court ruling that establishes an
employer-employee relationship and orders Uy to pay backwages and separation pay.

FACTS:

Felicilda alleges that he was hired by Uy as a truck driver for his trucking service called
"Gold Pillars Trucking" (GPT) in October 2010. He was issued a company ID, assigned to a
branch in Manila, and paid on a percentage basis.

However, on December 9, 2011, Felicilda took a nap while waiting for his truck to be loaded
with cargoes. The next day, he was informed by Uy's helper that he was terminated due to
sleeping on the job.

Felicilda filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against Uy before the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

In his defense, Uy argues that there was no employer-employee relationship between

him and Felicilda. He claims that Felicilda was paid on a per trip "percentage" basis, and was
not required to regularly report to work; free to offer his services to other companies; and
was not under Uy's control in performing his job as a truck driver. He also alleges that
Felicilda's company ID only served to inform GPT's clients that he was an authorized driver
and not an employee. Uy further asserts that Felicilda's dismissal was due to "serious
transgressions and misconduct."

 Labor Arbiter’s Ruling

- ruled in favor of Felicilda, finding that he was a regular employee of Uy and

was illegally dismissed without just cause and due process
- ordered respondent to pay the aggregate sum of Php 80, 145.52 representing
his backwages and separation pay.

Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the NLRC.

 NLRC’s Affirmation:

- affirmed this ruling, stating that an employer-employee relationship existed

based on various factors, including the engagement of services without
a third party, payment of wages on a percentage basis, and Uy's control
and supervision over Felicilda's work.
- ordered Uy to pay monetary awards to Felicilda

Respondent moved for reconsideration, but was DENIED. Uy filed a petition for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).
  Court of Appeals’ Ruling:

- set aside the NLRC ruling and dismissed Felicilda's complaint for illegal
dismissal with money claims for lack of merit.
- held that the elements of payment of wages and control, which determine an
employer-employee relationship, were absent
- found that Felicilda was paid on a commission basis and that there was no
evidence of Uy's control over his work.

Felicilda's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was employer-employee relationship in this case.

RULING:

YES. There is an employer-employee relationship in this case.

The Court applied the four-fold test to determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, which includes: the selection and engagement of the employee; payment of
wages; power of dismissal; and power to control the employee's conduct.

The Court concluded that all four elements were present in this case, as Uy hired Felicilda,
paid him compensation, had the power to dismiss him, and exercised control over his work as
a truck driver.

The Court also found that Uy failed to comply with both substantive and procedural due
process requirements for a valid dismissal.

Uy's claim of serious transgressions and misconduct was not substantiated, and Felicilda was
not given notice and hearing before his termination.

Therefore, the Court ruled that Felicilda was illegally dismissed and entitled to
backwages and separation pay.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

In conclusion, the Supreme Court granted Felicilda's petition, reversed the CA ruling,
and reinstated the NLRC decision ordering Uy to pay backwages and separation pay to
Felicilda.

****NOTE:

The power of control refers merely to the existence of the power. It is not essential for the
employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee, as it is sufficient
that the former has a right to wiled the power.
CASE #4:

BISHOP SHINJI AMARI OF ABIKO BAPTIST CHURCH VS. VILLAFLOR, JR.

G.R. No. 224521 || February 17, 2020
GESMUNDO, J

Background of the case:

A missionary's complaint for illegal dismissal is dismissed by the Supreme Court, ruling
that the exclusion from membership in the church is an ecclesiastical affair beyond the
jurisdiction of the court, and the missionary failed to prove an employer-employee
relationship.

FACTS:

Ricardo R. Villaflor, Jr. (Villaflor) was informed by a Letter that he was removed as a
missionary of the Abiko Baptist Church, his American Baptist Association (ABA)
recommendation as a national missionary was cancelled, and he was excluded from
membership in the Abiko Baptist Church in Japan.

Villaflor filed a complaint before the NLRC claiming that he was illegally dismissed as a
missionary/minister.

 Labor Arbiter’s Ruling

- The Labor Arbiter (LA) found Villaflor’s dismissal illegal, stating that it had
jurisdiction over the matter since Villaflor was appointed as an
instructor of the Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary (MBIS) and
ordering payment of backwages, separation pay and other damages.

 NLRC’s Decision

- The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision of

Labor Arbiter, stating that the expulsion from the church is an
ecclesiastical affair and beyond the jurisdiction of civil courts;
- dismissed the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

 Court of Appeals

- The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC’s decision and reinstated the
LA’s ruling;
- ruled that exclusion from church membership and termination of employment
were separate matters, with the former being an ecclesiastical affair
and the latter being a secular matter.
- CA found an employer-employee relationship between Villaflor and the Abiko
Baptist Church and Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary (MBIS)
based on selection, engagement, payment of wages, power of control,
and power of dismissal.

 Supreme Court Decision

- Supreme Court upheld with the NLRC's ruling and dismissed Villaflor's
complaint for illegal dismissal.
ISSUE:

Whether or not Villaflor was illegally dismissed even though the dispute involves an
ecclesiastical affair

RULING:

NO. While the State is prohibited from interfering in purely ecclesiastical affairs, the Church
is likewise barred from meddling in purely secular matters. In this case, Villaflor’s
exclusion from membership in the Abiko Baptist Church in Japan and the cancellation
of his ABA recommendation as a national missionary are ecclesiastical matters which
the court will not interfere with since the church has the discretion to choose members who
adhere to their religious standards. The ABA recommendation as a national missionary is
likewise within the discretion of the church since it pertains to the governance of the
congregation.

In order to determine his exclusion as ecclesiastical matter, it is necessary to establish the

existence of an employer-employee relationship. Villaflor failed to prove this
relationship based on the four-fold test: the selection and engagement of the employee,
payment of wages, power of dismissal, and power to control the employee’s conduct.

 Firstly, the evidence presented only refers to Villaflor’s appointment as an

instructor and not as a missionary of Abiko Baptist Church.
 Secondly, there is no concrete evidence of Villaflor’s monthly compensation.
 Thirdly, dismissal is inherent in religious congregations and does not
necessarily establish an employer-employee relationship.
 Lastly, there is no evidence of power of control.

Thus, Villaflor was not illegally dismissed since an employer-employee relationship was
not established.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED. The

October 27, 2015 Decision and April 26, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 08067 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the July 15, 2013 Decision
of the National Labor Relations Commission dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction
is hereby REINSTATED.
CASE#5:

SONZA VS. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP.

G.R. No. 138051 || June 10, 2004
CARPIO, J

Background of the case:

In Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp., the Supreme Court affirms that Jose Y. Sonza was
an independent contractor and not an employee of ABS-CBN, based on the control test and
the unique skills possessed by Sonza, denying his petition for review on certiorari.

FACTS:

In May 1994, respondent ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN) signed an

Agreement (Agreement) with the 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 Carmela Tiangco
(TIANGCO), as 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 for SONZA’s services a monthly talent fee of P310, 000 for the
first year and P317, 000 for the second and third year of the Agreement. ABS-CBN would
pay the talent fees on the 10th and 25th days of the month.

On 1 April 1996, SONZA wrote a letter to ABS-CBN’s President, Eugenio Lopez III,
stating in the letter:

“Mr. Sonza irrevocably resigned in view of recent events** concerning his programs
and career; that these were due to acts of the station in violation and breach of their
agreement; that the letter served as notice of rescission of said agreement; and that he
is waiving and renouncing recovery of the remaining amount stipulated in paragraph
7 of the Agreement but reserves the right to seek recovery of the other benefits under
said Agreement.”

On 30 April 1996, SONZA filed a complaint against ABS-CBN before the Department of
Labor and Employment, National Capital Region in Quezon City. SONZA complained that
ABS-CBN did not pay his salaries, separation pay, service incentive leave pays, 13th month
pay, signing bonus, travel allowance and amounts due under the Employees Stock Option
Plan (ESOP).

On 10 July 1996, ABS-CBN filed a Motion to dismiss on the ground that no employer-
employee relationship existed between the parties, to which SONZA filed an opposition to the
motion.

 Labor Arbiter’s Ruling

- Dismissed Sonza's complaint for lack of jurisdiction, found that there is no

employee-employer relationship and ruled that he is not an
employee by reason of his peculiar skill and talent as a TV host and a radio
broadcaster. Unlike an ordinary employee, he was free to perform his
services in accordance with his own style.
  NLRC’s Decision

- Affirmed the LA’s decision of lack of jurisdiction. Sonza’s Motion for

reconsideration denied.

 Court of Appeals’ Ruling

- Affirmed NLRC ruling. The CA ruled that the allegations of Sonza against ABS-
CBN did not constitute a labor dispute because there was no employer-
employee relationship to begin with. If anything, Sonza's allegations
constitute an action for breach of contractual obligation, which is
intrinsically a civil dispute to be resolved by a civil court, not the Labor
Arbiter or the NLRC.

 Supreme Court’s Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts and held that
Sonza was indeed an independent contractor.

ISSUES:

Whether Sonza was an employee or an independent contractor of ABS-CBN.

RULING:

The Supreme Court held that Sonza was not an employee of ABS-CBN. As a "talent," he
was an independent contractor. In coming up with this conclusion, the Court looked at
the essential elements of employer-employee relationship and applied the control test.

(a) Selection and engagement of employee

ABS-CBN engaged Sonza's services to co-host its television and radio

programs because of his peculiar skills, talent and celebrity status. These are
indicative, but not conclusive, of an independent contractual relationship

(b) Payment of wages

The Court held that whatever benefits Sonza enjoyed (SSS, Medicare, 13th
month pay) arose from contract and not because of an employer-employee
relationship

(c) Power of dismissal

For violation of any provision of the Agreement, either party may terminate
their relationship. Sonza failed to show that ABS-CBN could terminate his
services on grounds other than breach of contract, such as retrenchment to
prevent losses as provided under labor laws.

(d) Power of control

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 exercises, the more likely the worker is considered an
independent contractor.

In Sonza's case, ABS-CBN did not exercise control over the means and methods of his work.
The Court found that ABS-CBN was not involved in the actual performance that produced
the finished product of Sonza's work.

The Supreme Court held that the right of labor to security of tenure as guaranteed in the
Constitution arises only if there is an employer-employee relationship under labor laws.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, petition DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 26
March 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 49190 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

***NOTE:

Not every performance of services for a fee creates an employer-employee relationship. To

hold that every person who renders services to another for a fee is an employee – to give
meaning to the security of tenure clause – will lead to absurd results.
CASE #6:

R TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. ROGELIO EJANDRA

GR NO 148508 || May 20, 2004
CORONA, J.:

Background of the case:

A bus driver files a complaint for illegal dismissal against his employer after being accused
of causing damage to the bus and being denied the opportunity to return to work, leading
the court to rule in favor of the driver and order his reinstatement and payment of
backwages.

FACTS:

Respondent, Ejandra, is working as a bus driver of petitioner R Transport Corporation for

almost 6 years following a definite route from 5am to 2am and was paid 10% of his daily
earnings.

One day, he was apprehended by the LTO for obstruction of traffic for which his license was
confiscated to which he reported immediately to his manager.

When he was able to retrieve his license only after a week, he informed his manager that he
was ready to work however he was told that the company was still studying whether to
allow him to drive again. During his absence, the private respondent was also accused of
causing damage to the bus he used to drive, which he denied. The manager told him to take
a rest and wait until he was needed again, without specifying how long he had to rest.

Ejandra filed a complaint for illegal dismissal to which the petitioner denied and claimed
that Ejandra was a habitual absentee, the confiscation by the LTO was not true and that he
was not an employee because theirs was a contract of lease and not employment.

 Labor Arbiters Ruling

- The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Ejandra, stating that his one-week
absence did not constitute abandonment of work as it was justified by the
delay in reclaiming his license;
- The labor arbiter also found that Ejandra was not given due process and that
the company failed to report the alleged abandonment to the
Department of Labor and Employment;
- therefore, illegal and ORDERING R-Transport to REINSTATE him to his
former position without loss of seniority and other benefits and to pay
him backwages from the time of his dismissal until actual
reinstatement.

 NLRC’s Decision

- the NLRC rendered a decision affirming the decision of the labor arbiter

Petitioner, R Transport Corporation appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that

Ejandra had abandoned his job and that their relationship was that of lessor and lessee.
  Court of Appeals’ Decision

- The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, stating that the findings of fact
of the labor tribunals were supported by substantial evidence;
- The court also held that the company was barred from denying the existence
of an employer-employee relationship since it invoked its rights as an employer
in dismissing Ejandra.

 Supreme Court’s Decision

- the Supreme Court denied the appeal and upheld the decisions of the
lower courts.
- the court affirmed the finding of illegal dismissal and ordered the
company to reinstate Ejandra and pay him backwages.

ISSUE:

 Whether or not there exists employer-employee relationship between the parties.

 Whether or not Ejandra abandoned his work.
 Whether or not Ejandra was illegally dismissed.

RULING:

1. YES. THERE EXISTS EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP.

The court held that the existence of an employer-employee relationship was

established based on the control test, and the fact that Ejandra was paid on a
commission basis did not negate this relationship.

According to the control test, the power to dismiss an employee is one of the indications
of an employer-employee relationship. Petitioner’s claim that private respondent was
legally dismissed for abandonment was in fact a negative pregnant: an
acknowledgement that there was no mutual termination of the alleged contract of lease
and that private respondent was its employee.

The fact that petitioner paid private respondent on commission basis did not rule out
the presence of an employee-employer relationship. Article 97(f) of the Labor Code
clearly provides that an employee’s wages can be in the form of commissions.

2. NO. RESPONDENT EJANDRA DIDN’T ABANDONED HIS WORK.

Abandonment results upon the concurrence of these two elements: (1) the failure to
report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason and (2) a clear intention to
sever the employer-employee relationship. Of the two, the second element is the more
determinative factor and should be manifested by some overt acts. Mere absence
is not sufficient. It is the employer who has the burden of proof to show a deliberate and
unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment without any intention of
returning.

In the instant case, petitioner fell short of proving the requisites. First, the respondent’s
absence was justified as his license was not released only until after a week. Second,
private respondent never intended to sever his employment as he in fact reported for
work as soon as he got his license back.
 Furthermore, if private respondent really abandoned his work, petitioner should have
reported such fact to the nearest Regional Office of the Department of Labor and
Employment in accordance with Section 7, Rule XXIII, Book V of Department Order No.
9, series of 1997 (Rules Implementing Book V of the Labor Code).

3. YES. EJANDRA WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.

There was no valid ground for termination and petitioner violated the respondent’s
right to procedural due process by not giving him the required notice and hearing.

For termination of employment on just causes, the following must be observed:

(a)written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds

for termination, and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within
which to explain his side;

(b) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the
assistance of counsel if the employee so desires, is given opportunity to respond
to the charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against
him; and

(c) A written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that

upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established
to justify his termination. In case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be
served on the employee’s last known address.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against the
petitioner.
CASE #7:

VILLAVILLA VS. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 79664 || Aug 11, 1992
BELLOSILLO, J

Background of the case:

The case involves a dispute over the existence of an employer-employee relationship

between the owners of a fishing boat and the crew members, with the court ultimately
ruling that there was no such relationship due to the nature of their arrangement as a joint
venture.

Arturo Villavilla, son of petitioners, was employed as "tripulante" (crew member) of the
fishing boat "F/B Saint Theresa" from 1974 until September 11, 1977, when the boat sank
off Isla Binatikan, Taytay, Palawan. Arturo was not among the known survivors of that
sinking and had been missing since then.

FACTS:

On November 20, 1979, Petitioners, Andres Villavilla and Ester Gadiente Villavilla, filed a
petition with the Social Security Commission against Reynaldo Mercado and Marcelino
Cosuco, owners of a fishing boat for death compensation benefits of Arturo whom
respondents failed to register as their employee.

On May 29, 1981, the Social Security System (SSS) filed a petition in intervention alleging
that records from the SSS Production Department showed that "F/B Saint Theresa", owned
by Marcelino Cosuco and operated by Reynaldo Mercado, was a registered member-
employer, and that in the event petitioners succeeded in proving the employment of Arturo
with private respondents, the latter should be held liable in damages equivalent to the
benefits due the petitioners for failure to report Arturo for coverage pursuant to Sec. 24 (a)
of the Social Security Act, as amended.

Respondent Cosuco filed his answer denying all allegations in the petition and claiming
that he already sold the fishing boat to respondent Mercado on December 10, 1975, and
from then on, he did not participate anymore in the operation and management of the boat
nor in the hiring of its crewmembers. Meanwhile respondent Mercado was declared in
default for failure to file his answer.

On November 28, 1984, respondent Social Security Commission issued an Order

dismissing the petition for lack of cause of action.

 Court of Appeals’ Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Social Security

Commission, being no reversible error.
- The crew members did not receive fixed compensation but shared in the
catch of the fishing trips.
- The crew members made decisions about when, how long, and where to go
fishing without the instructions or control of the boat owners.
 - The boat owners did not hire the crew members but simply joined the
fishing expedition upon invitation of the ship master.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship between Arturo and private

respondents?
RULING:

NO, THERE WAS NO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARTURO

VILLAVILLA AND THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.

Since the arrangement between the boat crew and the boat owners was “joint venture.”

The Court of Appeals states that the crew members did not receive fixed compensation as
they only shared in the catch. They ventured into the sea irrespective of the instructions of
the boat owners as to how long, where to go fishing and when to go fishing. The crew were
paid based on their share in the catch. The boat owners merely supplied the boat used for
fishing and waited for the boat to arrive to receive their share

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the questioned judgment of the appellate

court, the same is AFFIRMED. No costs.

***NOTE:

Definition of an Employee and Absence of Key Elements

 The court cited a previous ruling that defined an employee as a person who performs
services for an employer and receives compensation, where there is an employer-
employee relationship.
 In this case, the fundamental bases for the existence of an employer-employee
relationship were not present.
 The boat owners had no connection with the selection and engagement of Arturo.
 The boat owners exercised no power of dismissal or control over Arturo.
 There was no uniform salary involved.
CASE #8:

RICHARD N. WAHING, RONALD L. CALAGO AND PABLO P. MAIT vs. SPOUSES AMADOR
DAGUIO AND ESING DAGUIO
G.R. No. 219755 || April 18, 2022
LEONEN, J.:

Background of the case:

Rubber tree tappers file a complaint for illegal dismissal against their employers, leading to
a legal battle to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, resulting in
a Supreme Court decision in favor of the tappers and ordering their reinstatement and
payment of back wages and benefits.

FACTS:

Wahing, Calago, and Mait worked as rubber tree tappers for the Daguio Spouses until Mait
was ordered to stop tapping the rubber tree on October 15, 2006. Wahing and Calago were
similarly ordered to stop working on the Daguio Spouses' trees on February 6, 2007.

They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, reinstatement or separation pay,

underpayment of wages, labor standards benefit, damages, and attorney's fees.

 Labor Arbiters Ruling (1st Complaint)

- The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling that the relationship
between the parties was that of a landlord and tenant and not of
employer-employee.
- The National Labor Relations Commission vacated and set aside the
dismissal and ordered the Labor Arbiter to decide the complaint on the
merits.

When the Labor Arbiter ordered the parties to submit their respective position papers,
only Wahing, et al., were able to file theirs, despite the Daguio Spouses being sent several
notices to do so.
 Labor Arbiters Ruling (after filing of position papers)

- the Labor Arbiter's September 28, 2010 Decision ruled that Wahing, et al.,
were illegally dismissed from employment.
- ordered the Daguio Spouses to pay Wahing, et al., a total monetary award of
P777,090.52

The Daguio Spouses appealed the Labor Arbiter's findings to the National Labor
Relations Commission, arguing that that they did not receive the Labor Arbiter's orders and
that their appeal bond should be reduced.

 NLRC’s Decision
 - The NLRC partially granted their motion to reduce the bond and
remanded the case for the reception of the Daguio Spouses' evidence.

Wahing, et al., then moved for the reconsideration, but were denied relief. Thus, they filed
a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, arguing that: (1) the National
Labor Relations Commission had no jurisdiction to render the assailed Resolution because the
Daguio Spouses failed to perfect their appeal; and (2) that contrary to the assailed
Resolution, the Labor Arbiter respected the Daguio Spouses' right of due process by giving
them adequate time and notice to submit their evidence, which they allegedly disregarded.

 Court of Appeals’ Decision

- The Court of Appeals decided the case on its merits and dismissed the
complaint for illegal dismissal, finding no employer-employee relationship
between the parties.

Wahing, et al., filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing
that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling on the merits of the case when those issues were not
raised in their petition. They also contested the finding that there was no employer-employee
relationship, presenting supporting affidavits from their co-workers.

 Supreme Court’s Decision

- The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the Court of
Appeals' decision.

ISSUE:

 Whether an employee-employer relationship exists between the parties;

 Whether the respondents were illegally terminated.

RULING:

 YES, THERE EXISTS AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE

PARTIES.

Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ findings, respondents employed petitioners as

farm workers and are subject to the rules governing an employer-employee
relationship. The Court applied the four-fold test for determining the existence
of an employer-employee relationship, which includes the power to hire, payment
of wages, power to dismiss, and power to control.

The Court found that there was sufficient evidence to establish an employer-
employee relationship between the parties, including testimonies from the
petitioners' co-workers and the respondents' constant supervision of the petitioners
during work hours.

 YES, RESPONDENTS WERE ILLEGALLY TERMINATED.

In view of the employer-employee relationship between the parties, respondents

illegally terminated petitioners’ employment by ordering them to stop their
work without just or authorized cause.

Petitioners are entitled to reinstatement, and the payment of back wages and
labor standards benefits from the time of their dismissal from employment until the
 finality of the subject decision. Should reinstatement be impossible or impractical
due to strained relations between parties, respondents shall pay petitioners
separation pay. Attorney’ fees of ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award
are warranted in view of the litigation costs incurred by Petitioners as a result of
their illegal dismissal.

The Court did not award moral or exemplary damages as there was no proof of
malice, fraud, or bad faith on the part of the respondents.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals’
January 23, 2015 Decision, and its July 7, 2015 Resolution, are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The September 28, 2010 Decision of the Labor Arbiter finding the existence of the
employer-employee relationship and petitioners’ illegal dismissal, and awarding back wages
and other benefits is hereby REINSTATED, subject to the possibility of reinstatement in lieu
of separation pay. Petitioners are likewise entitled to Attorney’s Fees at the rate of ten
percent (10%) of the entire monetary award.