Cases on labor law Essay

In-may 1994, ABS-CBN” signed a contract with the Mel and The writer Management and Development Corporation. ABS-CBN was represented simply by its company officers whilst MJMDC was represented simply by SONZA, as President and General Administrator, and Carmela Tiangco, while EVP and Treasurer. Known in the Arrangement as “AGENT, ” MJMDC agreed to offer SONZA’s solutions exclusively to ABS-CBN while talent pertaining to radio and television.

ABS-CBN agreed to spend on SONZA’s companies a monthly skill fee of P310, 1000 for the first yr and P317, 000 for the second and third year of the Agreement. ABS-CBN will pay the talent charges on the 10th and 25th days of the month. Upon 30 April 1996, SONZA filed a complaint against ABS-CBN ahead of the Department of Labor and Employment, Nationwide Capital Place in Quezon City. SONZA complained that ABS-CBN would not pay his salaries, separation pay, assistance incentive leave pay, thirteenth month shell out, signing bonus, travel permitting and amounts due beneath the Employees Inventory Option Strategy (“ESOP”). About 10 Come july 1st 1996, ABS-CBN filed a Motion to Dismiss on a lawn that not any employer-employee marriage existed between your parties.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is employer-employee marriage that persisted between them, KEPT: Although Philippine labor laws and jurisprudence define obviously the elements of an employer-employee relationship, this can be the first time that the Court is going to resolve the size of the relationship between a television set and car radio station and one of its “talents. ” There is no case regulation stating which a radio and television software host is definitely an employee with the broadcast stop. Applying the control check to the present case, we find that SONZA is definitely not an employee but an independent contractor.

The control test out is the most important test our legal courts apply in distinguishing an employee from persistent contractor.[29] This test is based on the degree of control the hirer exercises over a worker. The more the direction and control the hirer exercises, the much more likely the worker is regarded an employee. The converse is true as well – the fewer control the hirer physical exercises, the more likely the worker is recognized as an independent service provider. We find that ABS-CBN was not involved in the real performance that produced the finished item of SONZA’s work. ABS-CBN did not instruct SONZA how to perform his job.

ABS-CBN merely appropriated the right to change the program formatting and airtime schedule “for more effective encoding. ” ABS-CBN’s sole concern was the quality of the shows and their standing in the evaluations. Clearly, ABS-CBN did not workout control over the means and methods of performance of SONZA’s work. SONZA insists the “exclusivity clause” in the Arrangement is the most extreme form of control which ABS-CBN exercised more than him. This kind of argument is usually futile.

Being an exclusive skill does not on its own mean that SONZA is a worker of ABS-CBN. Even persistent contractor may validly offer his providers exclusively for the hiring get together. In the transmit industry, exclusivity is not really the same as control. ADJUDICATION: The petition is usually denied. DETAILS: Consulta was Managing Affiliate of Pamana.

On 1987 she was issued a certification permitting her to negotiate for and in account of PAMANA with the Federation of Philippine Civilian Employees Association. Respuesta was able to protect an account with FFCEA in behalf of PAMANA. Nevertheless , Consulta claimed that PAMANA did not pay out her commission payment for the PPCEA bank account and filed a complaint for past due wages or commission. CONCERN: Whether or not Discutir was a staff of PAMANA. HELD: The SC held that Pamana was a completely independent agent and never an employee.

Finally, Pamana paid out Consulta not for labor your woman performed nevertheless only for the results of her labor. Without effects, Consulta’s labor was her own burden and loss. Her right to compensation, or to commission, depended on the tangible results of her work – whether she brought in paying employees. The fact that the appointment essential Consulta to solicit business exclusively for Pamana did not mean Pamana exercised control of the means and techniques of Consulta’s act as the term control is comprehended in labor jurisprudence. Not did it make Consulta a staff of Pamana.

Pamana did not prohibit Respuesta from engaging in any other business, or from being linked with any other firm, for provided that the business or company did not compete with Pamana’s business. The exclusivity offer was a sensible restriction in order to avoid similar acts prejudicial to Pamana’s organization interest. Article 1306 from the Civil Code provides that “[t]he contracting parties might establish this sort of stipulation, nature, terms and conditions because they may consider convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. There being zero employer-employee relationship between Pamana and Consulta, the Labor Arbiter plus the NLRC had no legal system to amuse and secret on Consulta’s money claim.

Consulta’s treatment is to data file an ordinary case to litigate her state Petition is definitely dismissed. ANGELINA FRANCISCO, Petitioner, vs . NATIONWIDE LABOR ASSOCIATIONS COMMISSION, KASEI CORPORATION, SEIICHIRO TAKAHASHI, TIMOTEO ACEDO, WAL LIZA, IRENE BALLESTEROS, TRINIDAD LIZA and RAMON ESCUETA, Respondents. G. R. Number 170087 Aug 31, 2006 FIRST SPLIT. YNARES-SANTIAGO, M. In 95, petitioner was hired by simply Kasei Company during their incorporation level. She was designated as Accountant and Corporate Secretary and was designated to handle all of the accounting needs of the business.

She was also specified as Liaison Officer to the City of Makati to secure business permits, construction permits and other licenses for the initial operation of the business. Although the girl was chosen as Corporate Secretary, the girl was not entrusted with the corporate and business documents; none did the girl attend any kind of board meeting nor necessary to do so. The girl never well prepared any legal document and never represented the corporation as its Corporate and business Secretary. Nevertheless , on a few occasions, the girl was prevailed upon to sign documentation for the corporation.

In mil novecentos e noventa e seis, petitioner was designated Behaving Manager. While Acting Director, petitioner was assigned to manage recruitment of most employees and perform supervision administration features; represent the organization in all transactions with government agencies; and to dispense all other issues pertaining to the operation of Kasei Restaurant which is held and controlled by Kasei Corporation. To get five years, petitioner performed the tasks of Operating Manager so that as of 12 , 31, 2150 her wage was P27, 500. 00 plus P3, 000.

00. In January 2001, petitioner was substituted by Disputa R. Fuentes as Supervisor. Petitioner so-called that she was required to sign a prepared resolution for her alternative but the lady was guaranteed that she’d still be linked to Kasei Company.

Thereafter, Kasei Corporation lowered her salary by P2, 500. 00 a month commencing January approximately September 2001 for a total reduction of P22, 500. 00 by September 2001.

Petitioner had not been paid her mid-year bonus allegedly since the company had not been earning well. On August 2001, petitioner did not acquire her salary from the business. She manufactured repeated follow-ups with the company cashier although she was advised the fact that company has not been earning well. On March 15, 2001, petitioner called for her earnings but she was knowledgeable that she’s no longer connected with the company. On the other hand, the Private respondents averred that petitioner is not an employee of Kasei Company.

They so-called that petitioner was employed in 95 as one of its technical consultants on accounting matters and act concurrently as Business Secretary. Since technical expert, petitioner performed her work at her own discretion uncontrollable and direction of Kasei Corporation. Petitioner had no daily period record and she reached the office whenever she needed. She also did not go through the usual procedure of selection of employees.

Also, the private participants submitted a summary of employees to get the years 99 and 2k duly received by the BIR showing that petitioner was not among the personnel reported for the BIR. Problems: (1) Whether there was an employer-employee romance between petitioner and private respondent Kasei Organization; and if inside the affirmative, (2) whether petitioner was unlawfully dismissed. Lording it over: Yes. The court switches into a two-tiered test concerning: (1) the putative employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods in which the work shall be accomplished; and (2) the underlying monetary realities of the activity or perhaps relationship.

As a result, there is no doubt that petitioner can be an employee of Kasei Firm because the girl was underneath the direct control and oversight of Seiji Kamura, the corporation’s Specialized Consultant. The girl reported to get work regularly and served in various capabilities as Accountant, Liaison Officer, Technical Advisor, Acting Manager and Corporate Admin, with substantially the same task functions, that may be, rendering accounting and tax services to the company and performing functions necessary and desirable to get the proper procedure of the firm such as acquiring business enables and other permit over an indefinite period of proposal.

She was selected and engaged by company pertaining to compensation, and it is economically dependent upon respondent on her continued work in that occupation. Respondent company hired and engaged petitioner for reimbursement, with the power to dismiss her for cause. More importantly, respondent corporation had the power to manage petitioner while using means and methods in which the work shall be accomplished.

The corporation constructively terminated petitioner mainly because it reduced her salary by simply P2, five-hundred a month by January to September 2001. This portions to an illegitimate termination of employment, in which the petitioner can be entitled to complete backwages. Hence this petition is GRANTED and is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the recomputation of petitioner Angelina Francisco’s full backwages from the time she was illegally ended until the date of finality of this decision, and parting pay symbolizing one-half month pay for annually of service, where a fraction of by least half a year shall be viewed as one whole year.

ANGEL JARDIN, DEMETRIO CALAGOS, URBANO MARCOS, ROSENDO MARCOS, LUIS DE LOS ANGELES, JOEL ORDENIZA and BIENQUISTO CENTENO, petitioners, vs . COUNTRYWIDE LABOR ASSOCIATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) and GOODMAN TAXI (PHILJAMA INTERNATIONAL, INC. ) respondents. G. 3rd there�s r. No . 119268. February twenty three, 2000 Beneath this agreement, the petitioners earned typically P400.

00 daily. On the other hand, private respondent admittedly frequently deducts via petitioners, daily earnings the amount of P30. 00 supposedly pertaining to the cleansing of the taxi units. Trusting that the discount is unlawful, petitioners chose to form a labor union to protect their particular rights and interests.

Upon learning about the routine of petitioners, private respondent refused to leave petitioners drive their taxicabs when they reported for work on August 6th, 1991, and on succeeding days and nights. Petitioners supposed that they had been singled out mainly because they were the leaders and active associates of the proposed union. Aggrieved, petitioners filed with the labor arbiter a complaint against private surveys takers for unfair labor practice, illegal termination and unlawful deduction of washing charges.

In a decision, dated Aug 31, 1992, the labor arbiter ignored said grievance for not enough merit. Upon appeal, the NLRC (public respondent herein), in a decision dated Apr 28, 1994, reversed and set aside the judgment in the labor arbiter. The labor tribunal reported that petitioners are personnel of private respondent, and, as such, their termination must be for just cause after due method. Private respondent’s first action for reconsideration was rejected. Remaining positive, private surveys takers filed another motion intended for reconsideration.

This time, public respondent, in its decision dated October 28, year 1994, granted aforesaid second motion for reconsideration. It reigned over that it falls short of jurisdiction within the case because petitioners and respondent don’t have any employer-employee romantic relationship. Issue: The rationale for allowing for only one action for reconsideration from the same party is to assist the parties in obtaining an expeditious and inexpensive settlement of labor cases. For apparent reasons, holds off cannot be countenanced in the resolution of labor disputes.

The dispute may well involve a minimum of the sustenance of an staff and that of his family who happen to be dependent upon him for food, shelter, garments, medicine, and education. It may well as well require the survival of a business or an industry. The second movement for reconsideration filed by simply private respondent is indubitably a restricted pleading that ought to have not recently been entertained whatsoever.

Thus, the public respondent seriously abused its discretion in taking cognizance and granting private respondent’s second action for reconsideration as it accidents the orderly procedure in seeking bosse in labor cases. Yes also intended for the second issue. Under the boundary system which is observed in the partnership of the petitioners and the non-public respondent, it is that of employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee.

Regarding jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers, the former exercise direction and control of the latter. The management from the business with the owner’s hands. The owner as holder in the certificate of public comfort must see to it that the driver comes after the route prescribed by the franchising authority and the rules enacted as regards the operation.

Today, the fact the drivers usually do not receive fixed wages nevertheless get only that more than the alleged “boundary” that they pay towards the owner/operator can be not sufficient to take away the relationship together from that of employer and employee. Therefore, the employees of personal respondent, could be dismissed only for just and authorized trigger, and after affording them see and hearing prior to end of contract. In the instant case, private respondent acquired no valid cause to terminate the employment of petitioners.

Not were there two (2) created notices sent by non-public respondent educating each of the petitioners that they have been dismissed coming from work. Thereby, instant request is APPROVED. Private surveys takers is directed to reinstate petitioners to their positions held at the time of the complained dismissal.

Private respondent is definitely likewise purchased to pay out petitioners their particular full backwages, to be computed from the time of termination until their particular actual reinstatement. However , the order of public surveys takers that petitioners be refunded the amount paid out as washing charges is deleted. In November 1992, private surveys takers had an altercation with his co-barber, Jorge Tinoy.

The bickerings, characterized by constant exchange of private insults during working hours, became significant so that personal respondent reported the matter to Atty. Allan Macaraya in the labor section. Meanwhile, non-public respondent extended reporting to get work at the barbershop.

However on January 2, 93, he turned over the duplicate keys with the shop towards the cashier and took away almost all his things therefrom. In January almost 8, 1993, started working like a regular barber at the recently opened Goldilocks Barbershop also in Iligan City. In January doze, 1993, exclusive respondent registered a issue for unlawful dismissal with prayer pertaining to payment of separation shell out, other economic benefits, attorney’s fees and damages. Considerably, the complaint did not seek reinstatement as being a positive relief.

ISSUES: Can there be an employer-employee relationship among petitioners and respondent? Was the private respondent dismissed by his work? No . The labor arbiter was persuaded that non-public respondent was not dismissed but left his work on his own choice because he could no longer bear the incessant squabbles with his co-worker. Nevertheless, public surveys takers did not provide credence to petitioners’ declare that private respondent abandoned his job. With this score, community respondent gravely erred while hereunder mentioned.

FACTS: JPL Marketing and Offers is a home-based corporation engaged in the business of recruitment and placement of staff. On the other hand, private respondents Noel Gonzales, Ramon Abesa III and Faustino Aninipot were employed by JPL as merchandisers on individual dates and assigned at different companies in Naga City and Daet, Camarines Norte while attendants towards the display of California Advertising Corporation, one among petitioner’s clientele. Executive Labor Arbiter Gelacio L. Rivera, Jr. dismissed the issues for deficiency of merit.

The Labor Arbiter found that Gonzales and Abesa applied with and were employed by the store wherever they were originally assigned by JPL even before the intervalle of the 6 (6)-month period given by regulation to JPL to provide exclusive respondents a brand new assignment. Therefore, they may be considered to have unilaterally severed their very own relation with JPL, and cannot fee JPL with illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter held that it was incumbent upon personal respondents to hold back until they were reassigned by simply JPL, and if after 6 months they were certainly not reassigned, they can file a task for separating pay but not for against the law dismissal.

The claims to get 13th month pay and service bonus leave pay out was also denied seeing that private respondents were paid way over a applicable lowest wage throughout their employment. NLRC. agreed together with the Labor Arbiter’s finding that when private respondents filed their complaints, the six-month period had not however expired, and this CMC’s decision to stop its operations inside the areas was beyond the control of JPL, thus, these were not unlawfully dismissed. Nevertheless , it discovered that in spite of JPL’s hard work to look for customers to which non-public respondents may be reassigned it absolutely was unable to do it, and hence they may be entitled to separation pay.

The Court of Appeals ignored the petition and affirmed in toto the NLRC resolution. While conceding that there was zero illegal termination, it validated the award of parting pay because of equity and social proper rights. ISSUE: Set up respondents are entitled to separation spend?

However , separating pay will be allowed as a measure of sociable justice in those situations where the worker is validly dismissed for causes apart from serious wrong doings or all those reflecting in the moral persona, but only when he was intend to dismissed. In addition , Sec. 4(b), Rule I, Book MIRE of the Implementing Rules to Implement the Labor Code provides for the payment of separation shell out to an worker entitled to reinstatement but the institution where he is to be reinstated offers closed or has stopped operations or his present position no longer exists at the time of reinstatement for factors not owing to the employer.

The most popular denominator with the instances where payment of separation pay is called for is that the worker was terminated by the workplace. In the immediate case, there is no dismissal to speak of. Private participants were simply not dismissed at all, whether lawfully or illegally. What they received from JPL was not a notice of termination of employment, although a idiota informing all of them of the end of contract of CMC’s contract with JPL. Most importantly, they were recommended that they were to be reassigned.

During that time, there was zero severance of employment of talking of. Furthermore, Art. 286 of the Labor Code allows the genuine suspension in the operation of a business or perhaps undertaking for any period not exceeding 6 (6) a few months, wherein a great employee/employees are placed on the apparent “floating status. ” When that “floating status” of the employee takes more than 6 months, he may be looked at to have recently been illegally ignored from the assistance.

Thus, he’s entitled to the corresponding benefits pertaining to his parting, and this will apply to suspension system either of the entire organization or of a specific component thereof. Since clearly paid for out by records on this case, exclusive respondents searched for employment from all other establishments could the expiration of the half a dozen (6)-month period provided by legislation. As they admitted in their comment, all three of those applied for and were utilized by another organization after they received the see from JPL.

JPL did not terminate their particular employment; they themselves cut their associations with JPL. Thus, they are really not eligible for separation spend. non-etheless, JPL cannot break free the repayment of thirteenth month pay and assistance incentive leave pay to private participants. Said benefits are decided by law and should be given to employees being a matter of right. Petitioner corporation hired the private respondent Aban as its “Legal Assistant” and received basic regular monthly salary of P one particular, 500.

00 plus a preliminary living permitting of G 50. 00 which steadily increased to P 320. 00. On September 4, 1980, Aban received a letter from your corporation educating him that he would be looked at terminated successful October 4, 1980 because of his supposed failure to do his responsibilities well.

Aban filed a complaint resistant to the petitioner to get illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter dominated that Aban was unlawfully dismissed. This ruling was affirmed by the NLRC on appeal. Therefore, this present petition.

CONCERN: Whether or not there was clearly an employer-employee relationship between your petitioner Organization and Aban. HELD: The Supreme Court docket dismissed the petition for lack of merit, and re-establish, reintroduce, reimpose, re-enforce, reconstitute Aban to his ex – or a identical position devoid of loss of seniority rights and also to pay three (3) years back pay without certification or deductions and P5, 000. 00 in attorney’s fees.

Ought to reinstatement certainly not be feasible, the petitioner shall spend the personal respondent end of contract benefits beyond the above explained three years backside pay and P5, 500. 00 attorney’s fees. A legal representative, like any additional professional, could really be an employee of your private company or even in the government. This kind of Court features consistently ruled that the willpower of whether or not there exists an employer-employee relation is determined by four standards: (1) the way in which of collection and engagement of the putative employee; (2) the setting of repayment of wages; (3) the presence or absence of a power of dismissal; and (4) the occurrence or absence of a capacity to control the putative employee’s conduct.

With the four, the right-of-control evaluation has been organised to be the decisive factor. In cases like this, Aban received basic salary plus living allowance, performed solely intended for the petitioner, dealt just with legal matters involving the said firm and its staff and also aided the Workers Officer in processing scheduled appointment papers of employees that is not act of your lawyer in the exercise of his occupation. These specifics showed that petitioner has the power to hire and fire the respondent worker and more important, exercised control of Aban by defining the duties and functions of his job which achieved the four standards in determining if there is a great employee-employer romance. Tecson met Bettsy, a branch manager of Astra Pharma, a competitor of Glaxo.

Because fate may have it, they eventually fell in love and got wedded in Sept. 2010 1998. Tecson’s superiors had been worried because the marriage provided rise to a conflict of interest and hence, gave him the option to pick whether to settle with the company and let his wife resign from her job or Tecson himself will decide so that his wife may possibly continue dealing with her firm.

Tecson by no means made a decision therefore Glaxo relocated to transfer Tecson to the Butuan-Surigao-Agusan del Sur sales region considering that he was from said area. Then again, Tecson brought the matter to Glaxo’s Complaint Committee. During the pendency with the grievance procedures, Tecson was paid his salary. Nevertheless , he was certainly not issued samples of products that were competing with similar products manufactured by Astra.

They did not resolve the conflict therefore they published the matter for voluntary settlement. The company provided Tecson a separation pay out of one-half month pay for every year of service, nevertheless he declined the give. The National Conciliation and Mediation Plank decided in favor of Glaxo.

The Board reported Glaxo’s policy on associations between their employees and person applied with competitor companies because valid, and affirmed Glaxo’s right to copy Tecson to a new sales territory. Upon charm, the Justice of Charm affirmed the NCMB decision. It reasoned that the company’s policy can be described as valid physical exercise of their management prerogatives. Tecson filed for reconsideration but was rejected hence the situation was taken to the Supreme Court.

No . the policy does not break the the same protection terms of the Metabolism. Glaxo would not impose a complete prohibition against relationships among its workers and those of competitor companies. It is not a plan against relationship. An employee can easily still marry any person of his/her own picking. However , the company still has the ideal from working out management prerogatives to ensure maximum profit and business achievement.

It was as well stressed that Tecson was aware of the restriction when he signed his employment deal and when he married Betssy. Hence, he can stopped via questioning explained policy. a few. No . the Supreme The courtroom ruled that Tecson’s reassignment to another area was not equivalent to his work termination. Tecson was not demoted nor unduly discriminated upon by explanation of these kinds of transfer.

It ought to be noted that Glaxo possibly considered the well being of Tecson’s family. The reassignment was merely on keeping with the policy in the company in avoidance of conflict of interest, and so valid. ANDRES VILLAVILLA and ESTER GADIENTE VILLAVILLA sixth is v. COURT OF APPEALS, INTERPERSONAL SECURITY COMMISSION RATE, REYNALDO RAMO, and MARCELO COSUCO, participants, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM G. 3rd there�s r. No . 79664 August 10, 1992 BELLOSILLO, J.: The Social Security alarm (SSS) recorded a petition in intervention alleging that petitioners must prove that Arturo was a worker of Reynaldo.

If explained employment was proven, then Reynaldo ought to be held responsible in injuries equivalent to the benefits due the petitioners for failure to report Arturo for insurance coverage pursuant to Sec. 24 (a) in the Social Security Act, as amended. 6On November twenty eight, 1984, respondent Social Protection Commission issued an Order dismissing the petition to get lack of reason behind action. on the lookout for The parents of Arturo then brought their very own case towards the Court of Appeals. About appeal, the CA avowed the inhibited Order with the Social Security Commission delete word no invertable error. Therefore, they increased their circumstance to the Great Court.

PROBLEMS: 1 . If there was a company – staff relationship between Arturo Villavilla and Reynaldo Mercado? installment payments on your Whether Reynaldo Mercado is liable for fatality compensation great things about Arturo Villavilla? 3. If there was a violation with the Social Protection Act, since amended, simply by Reynaldo Ramo for not signing up Arturo Villavilla with the Program as his employee because mandated legally. The team members did not receive fixed compensation as they only distributed in their get. d) Reynaldo had zero power of control or acquired reserved the right to control for the result of the effort to be carried out as well as the means and methods by which precisely the same is to be completed.

They embarked to the ocean irrespective of the recommendations of the motorboat owner. After their own finest judgment regarding when, the length of time, and where to go fishing. 2) No . Since there was no employer – employee romance, then Ramo is not obliged to remit any kind of employer’s input to the SSS accounts of said fishermen. Hence they can not compel him to pay for any kind of death settlement benefits.

3) non-e. Since it is extremely hard to determine the regular monthly wage or perhaps earning with the fishermen when it comes to fixing the number of their plus the supposed employer’s contributions, there is every cause to exempt the parties to this sort of undertaking coming from compulsory sign up with the Social Security System. Each appealed to respondent Nationwide Labor Relationships Commission (NLRC) which, about 28 Nov 1984, rendered a decision: 1) directing NASECO to reinstate Credo with her former situation, or significantly equivalent location, with six (6) months’ backwages and without loss of eldership elders rights and other privileges appertaining thereto, and 2) dismissing Credo’s state for attorney’s fees, ethical and exemplary damages.

Because of this, both parties submitted their particular motions for reconsideration, that the NLRC rejected in a quality of sixteen January 1985. In the case for bar, the court discovered that NASECO did not adhere to these recommendations in altering Credo’s dismissal. Although the lady was updated and “given the chance to clarify her side” of the costs filed against her, this kind of chance was handed so perfunctorily, thus object rendering illusory Credo’s right to reliability of period. That Credo was not provided ample chance to be read and to guard herself is definitely evident through the fact that the compliance with all the injunction to apprise her of the fees filed against her and also to afford her a chance to plan for her security was furnished in only every day.

This is not successful compliance with all the legal requirements. Furth, Credo’s simply noncompliance with Lorens memorando regarding the access procedures in the company’s Statement of Billings Adjustment would not warrant the severe fees of termination NLRC dominated ordering her reinstatement. NASECO argues that NLRC does not have jurisdiction to order her reinstatement. NASECO as a government corporation due to its becoming a subsidiary with the NIDC, which is wholly owned or operated by the Phil.

National Financial institution which is consequently a GOCC, the conditions of career of their employees are governed by the Civil Assistance Law citing National Housing v Juco. ISSUE: Whether or not employees of NASECO, a GOCC without original hire, are ruled by the Civil Service Regulation. HELD: NO . The possessing in NHC v Juco should not be offered retroactive result, that is to cases that arose just before its promulgation of January 17, 85. To do or else would be oppressive to Dogma and other staff similarly situated because within the 1973 Metabolic rate prior to the judgment in NHC v Juco, this courtroom recognized the applicability with the Labor legal system over disputes involving terms and conditions of employment in GOCC’s, among them NASECO.

In the matter of insurance by the civil service of GOCC, the 1987 Metabolic rate starkly varies from the 1973 Constitution wherever NHC versus Juco was based. It offers that the “civil service sees all limbs, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and companies of the Federal government including federal government owned or controlled corporation with first charter. ” Therefore simply by clear inference, the civil service is not sold with GOCC which can be organized since subsidiaries of GOCC under the general corporation law. ADJUDICATION: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the challenged decision of the NLRC is AFFIRMED with modifications.

Petitioners in G. 3rd there�s r. No . 69870, who are definitely the private respondents in G. R. No . 70295, will be ordered to: 1) reestablish Eugenia C. Credo with her former location at the time of her termination, or if this kind of reinstatement is not possible, to place her in a substantially equal position, with three (3) years backwages, from 1 December 1983, without diploma or deduction, and without loss in seniority privileges and other benefits appertaining thereto, and 2) pay Eugenia C. Dogma P5, 500. 00 for moral problems and P5, 000. 00 for attorney’s fees.

Ipagugulpi kita social fear labas in kaya kitang ipakaladkad wiewohl sa loob ng compound palabas ng gate sa mga kamag-anak ko. ” And meeting action towards the word, she thereupon encased Tamondong inside the stomach. The motive pertaining to the strike was Zenaida’s resentment in having been reprimanded, together with various other employees, two days earlier by simply Tamondong to get wasting period by doing Idle gossip. 1 Tamondong forthwith reported the incident to the firm’s Administrative Supervisor 2 in addition to the Chairman of Barangay Balombato, Quezon Town.

3 In September 35, 1982, Zenaida Alonzo was handed a Nota by the company’s Executive Vice President & General Manager terminating her job as of Oct 1, 1982 on several grounds: poor work, regular absences and tardiness, spending time, insubordination and low disrespect. The service of these memorandum of dismissal onto her was not forwent by any kind of complaint, ability to hear or other formality. They were apparently considered unnecessary by simply Management 4 in view of the provision in the Company Regulations (embodied inside the Collective Negotiating Agreement between the company and the union which represents the employees) that: Struggling with or looking to inflict problems for another employee, will give (sic) the aggressor to outright termination.

It was just at the experiencing of the problem for against the law dismissal (and nonpayment of proportionate 13th month pay) instituted by simply Zenaida on October 4, 1982 inside the NCR Arbitration Branch, that evidence was presented by company not merely of the attack by Zenaida on her superior but likewise of many other violations by her of company rules and regulations, in an attempt to verify the validity of her dismissal from work. The Labor Arbiter found that Alonzo acquired indeed by speaking abused and struck her superior, Tamondong, and rejected her a contentious that the assault was not punishable since it was “not work-connected and was provoked/instigated by Ernesto Tamondong. ” five The Arbiter also announced as “fully established the prior infractions of complainant, ” these getting “a couple of record but not denied by simply complainant (Zenaida). ” The Arbiter was of the look at, however , that Alonzo was entitled to relief, because (a) the fees imposed was “harsh and severe and never commensurate together with the offense,… suspension of three (3) weeks.. (being) the right, just and reasonable penalty…; ” and because (b) the company had failed “to look into complainant ahead of she was dismissed. ” Acting on the employer’s charm, the National Labor Contact Commission made judgment about March twenty three, 1987, keeping the Labor Arbiter’s studies Pacific Mills Inc. has instituted in this Court the special case of certiorari at tavern praying for nullification with the judgment of the NLRC for achieveing been delivered with serious abuse of discretion.

Within the circumstances, the dismissal from the private surveys takers for just cause should be taken care of. He does not have right to come back to his ex – employer. Yet , the petitioner (employer) must nevertheless be held to account for inability to extend to private surveys takers his right to an investigation prior to causing his dismissal. The rule is usually explicit as above talked about. The dismissal of an worker must be for only or official cause and after due procedure (Section one particular, Rule XIV, Implementing Polices of the Labor Code).

Whilst it is true that Pacific Mills, Inc. had not complied with the requirements of due procedure prior to getting rid of Zenaida Alonzo from work, it is also true that therefore, in the actions before the Labor Arbiter through which Zenaida Alonzo had obviously taken lively part, completely succeeded in satisfactorily showing the commission payment by Zenaida of many violations of firm rules and regulations justifying termination of her career. Under the situations, it is very clear that, while the Solicitor General features pointed out, the continuance in the service in the latter is usually patently inimical to her employer’s interests and this, citing San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, 11 what the law states, in safeguarding the privileges of the worker authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction in the employer.

And it was oppressive and unjust in the premises to require reinstatement of the employee. WHEREFORE, the petition is granted and the questioned decision in the respondent Commission payment dated Mar 23, 1987 and that from the Labor Arbiter thereby affirmed, are NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE. However , the petitioner can be ordered to pay private respondent a proportionate part of the 13th month pay due her, amounting to P351. 00 as well as to indemnify her in the total of P1, 000.

00. No costs. FACTS: Petitioner was a sales person of respondent company getting a percentage of 3% of the total paid up sales in the whole area of Mindanao.

Aside from selling, having been also tasked with collection. Respondent firm through it is president, frequently required Abante to report to a particular location and occasionally required him to visit Manila to go to conferences. Later on, bad blood vessels ensued between the parties because of some negative accounts that Lamadrid pressured petitioner to cover. Later petitioner found out that respondent acquired informed his customers to not deal with petitioner since it not anymore recognized him as a percentage salesman. Petitioner filed a complaint pertaining to illegal dismissal with cash claims against respondent firm and its leader, Jose Lamadrid.

By way of security, respondents countered that petitioner was not its employee nevertheless a freelance jeweler on commission rate basis. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner, as a percentage salesman, is an employee of respondent corporation. HELD: To look for the existence of an employee-employer romantic relationship, the SC applied the four fold test: 1) the manner of selection and engagement; (2) the repayment of income; (3) the presence or perhaps absence of the strength of dismissal; and (4) the presence or absence of the power of control. Making use of the aforementioned test out, an employer-employee relationship is notably lacking in this case.

It is true that he was paid out in commission rate yet zero quota was imposed consequently a depressing performance will not warrant a ground intended for dismissal. There was clearly no particular office hours he was necessary to observe. He was not chosen to execute services for a particular place or period. He pursued his providing without interference or oversight from the firm. The company would not prescribe the way in which of providing merchandise.

Although he was at times required to report to Manila, they were only meant to guide him. Moreover, petitioner was free to offer his services to other companies. Fine art.

280 can be not a essential factor since it only establishes two sorts of employees. This doen; capital t apply where there is no employer-employee relationship. While the term commission under Article 96 with the LC was construed as being included in the term “wage”, there is no categorical pronouncement that the payment of percentage is conclusive proof of the presence of an employee-employer relationship.

L Transport rejected Ejandra’s allegations and claimed that this individual abandoned his job; that he lied about his license becoming confiscated; and that he was not a worker because theirs was a deal of lease and not of employment, staying paid upon commission basis. 2 . Certainly. R Transportation invoked the Supreme Court’s rulings on the right of your employer to dismiss a staff.

By implementing said rulings, R Transfer impliedly confessed that it was the employer of Ejandra. The fact that Ejandra was paid on commission basis did not rule out the presence of an employee-employer romance (Article 97(f), Labor Code). 3. No . It also broken Ejandra’s directly to procedural because of process simply by not supplying him the required notice and hearing presented to in Section 2, Rule XXIII, Publication V of Department Purchase No . 9., series of 97 (Rules Employing Book Versus of the Labor Code). Erlinda was publicly stated to the medicalcenter the day prior to operation.

On the following day, she was ready for operation since 7: 30am. Around 9: 30, Dr . Hosaka hasn’t yet showed up. By 15 am, Rogelio wanted to get his better half from theoperating room. Dr . Hosaka finally arrived at doze: 10 pm more than a few hours of the scheduled procedure. Dr . Guiterres tried to intubate Erlinda.

The nail mattresses of Erlinda were bluish discoloration in her left. At three or more pm, Erlinda was being wheeled to the Intense care Device and remained there to get a month. Since theill-fated procedure, Erlinda remained in comatose condition till she passed away. The group of Ramos sued them intended for damages.

Concern: The control test can be determining. In applying the four collapse test, DLSMC cannot be deemed an employer of the respondent doctors. Ithas recently been consistently held that in determining if an employer- employee relationship existsbetween the parties, the next elements must be present: (1) selection and engagement of services; (2) payment of wages; (3) the power to use and fire; and (4) the power to regulate not only the end to beachieved, but the methods to be used in reaching this kind of end. The hospital does not hire consultants however it accredits and grants him the advantage of preserving a clinicand/or admitting individuals. It is the sufferer who will pay the consultants.

The school vehicle had to be brought home so that the institution driver may use it to fetch learners in the morning of thenext institution day. Therefore, in learning how to drive whilst taking the automobile home?n the direction of Allan’s residence, Funtechadefinitely has not been having a happiness ride or perhaps for entertainment, but in the end, for the service that the jeepwas intended by the petitioner university. (School director had familiarity with Funtecha’s wish to learn how to drive. ) Court docket is as a result constrained in conclusion that the action of Funtecha in taking over the steering wheel was onedone for and in behalf of his company for which work the school simply cannot deny any responsibility byarguing that it was performed beyond the scope of his sanitizing duties.

The fact that Funtecha was not the school driver does not relieve the college from the burden of rebutting the presumption of negligence on its portion. It is sufficient that the work of driving a car at the time of theincident was pertaining to the benefit of the school. Petitioner college has failed to demonstrate that it worked out diligence of any good daddy of a family.

Petitioner has not shown that this has set forth rules and guidelines while would forbid any one of itsemployees from taking control over its automobiles if the first is not the state driver or perhaps prohibiting theauthorized driver coming from letting anyone than him to drive the automobile. Furthermore, university had failed toshow which it impose sanctions or cautioned its workers against the usage of its automobiles by people other than the driver. Thus, Filamer has an requirement to pay damages pertaining to injury as a result of the not skilled manner simply by whichFuntecha forced the vehicle considering that the law imposes upon the employers vicarious liability pertaining to acts or perhaps omissions of its staff.

The liability from the employer, below Article 2180, is primary and solidary. However , the employer shallhave alternative against the negligent employee to get whatever problems are paid to the spouse, children or other loved ones of theplaintiff.

On Labor Code’s Guideline X The clause “within the scope of their assigned tasks” (found in CC) for functions of bringing up thepresumption of liability associated with an employer, comes with any act done by an employee, in promotion of theinterests of the workplace or pertaining to the consideration of the employe at the time of the infliction from the injury or damage Regardless if somehow, the employee driving your vehicle derived several benefit from the action, the existence of a presumptive responsibility of the company is determined by responding to the question of whether or not really theservant just visited the time in the accident carrying out any action in promotion of his master’s organization. Rule By, which provides intended for the exclusion of operating scholars inside the employment insurance and on whichthe petitioner can be anchoring the defense, is just a guide to the enforcement with the substantive regulation onlabor.

It is not necessarily the important law within a civil match for harm instituted simply by an hurt person during avehicular accident against a working student of a school and against the institution itself. Present casedoes not really involve a labor question. An employing rule in labor can not be used by a company s a shield to avoid liability beneath thesubstantive conditions of the CLOSED CIRCUIT.

Motion approved Allan Masa turned within the vehicle to Funtecha just after driving by a road, a fast shifting truck with glaring lights nearly hit them so they had to steer to the directly to avoid a collision. After swerving, they will heard a sound like something got bumped against the vehicle, nonetheless they did not stop to check. Basically, the Pinoy jeep swerved towards the people, Potenciano Kapunan who was strolling in his side of the road in the way against vehicular traffic, and hit him. ISSUE: WON there exists an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and its co-defendant Funtecha. HELD: Yes.

Funtecha is a staff of petitioner Filamer. This individual need not provide an official visit for a driver’s position to ensure the petitioner may be held responsible for his grossly negligent act, it being enough that the take action of driving at the time of the incident was for the main advantage of the petitioner. Hence, the simple fact that Funtecha was not the school driver or was not acting within the range of his janitorial responsibilities does not reduce the petitioner of the burden of rebutting the presumption juris tantum that there was neglect on it is part possibly in the number of a servant or staff, or inside the supervision above him.

The petitioner has failed to show proof of its having exercised the mandatory diligence of a good father of a friends and family over it is employees Funtecha and Allan.