PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS vs DE VERA Case Digest [G.R. No. 157214. June 7, 2005] PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

, petitioner, vs. RICARDO DE VERA, respondent. FACTS: De Vera and petitioner company entered into a contract where respondent was to attend to the medical needs of petitioners employees while being paid a retainer fee of P4,000 per month. Later, De Vera was informed y petitioner that the retainership will be discontinued. Respondent filed a case for illegal dismissal. ISSUE: Whether or not de Vera is an employee of PhilComm or an independent contractor. HELD: Applying the four fold test, de Vera is not an employee. There are several indicators apart from the fact that the power to terminate the arrangement lay on both parties: from the time he started to work with petitioner, he never was included in its payroll; was never deducted any contribution for remittance to the Social Security System (SSS);

he was subjected by petitioner to the ten (10%) percent withholding tax for his professional fee, in accordance with the National Internal Revenue Code, matters which are simply inconsistent with an employer-employee relationship; the records are replete with evidence showing that respondent had to bill petitioner for his monthly professional fees. It simply runs against the grain of common experience to imagine that an ordinary employee has yet to bill his employer to receive his salary. Finally, the element of control s absent. Petition granted.

Sevilla vs. CA FACTS: A contract by and between Noguera and Tourist World Service (TWS), represented by Canilao, wherein TWS leased the premises belonging to Noguera as branch office of TWS. When the branch office was opened, it was run by appellant Sevilla payable to TWS by any airline for any fare brought in on the efforts of Mrs. Sevilla, 4% was to go to Sevilla and 3% was to be withheld by the TWS. Later, TWS was informed that Sevilla was connected with rival firm, and since the branch office was losing, TWS considered closing down its office. On January 3, 1962, the contract with appellee for the use of the branch office premises was terminated and while the effectivity thereof was January 31, 1962, the appellees no longer used it. Because of this, Canilao, the secretary of TWS, went over to the branch office, and finding the premises locked, he padlocked the premises. When neither appellant Sevilla nor any of his employees could enter, a complaint was filed by the appellants against the appellees. TWS insisted that Sevilla was a mere employee, being the branch manager of its branch office and that she had no say on the lease executed with the private respondent, Noguera. ISSUE: W/N ER-EE relationship exists between Sevilla and TWS HELD: The records show that petitioner, Sevilla, was not subject to control by the private respondent TWS. In the first place, under the contract of lease, she had bound herself in solidum as and f o r r e n t a l p a y m e n t s , a n arrangement that would belie claims of a master-servant relationship. That does not make her an employee of TWS, since a true employee cannot be made to part with his own money in pursuance of his employers business, or otherwise, assume any liability thereof. In the second place, when the branch office was opened, the same was run by the appellant Sevilla payable to TWS by any airline for any fare brought in on the effort of Sevilla. Thus, it cannot be said that Sevilla was under the control of TWS. Sevilla in pursuing the business, relied on her own capabilities. It is further admitted that Sevilla was not in the companys payroll. For her efforts, she retained 4% in commissions from airline bookings, the remaining 3% going to TWS. Unlike an employee, who earns a fixed salary, she earned compensation in fluctuating amount depending on her booking successes. The fact that Sevilla had been designated branch manager does not make her a TWS employee. It appears that Sevilla is a bona fide travel agent herself, and she acquired an interest in the business entrusted to her. She also had assumed personal obligation for the operation thereof, holding herself solidary liable for the payment of rentals. Wherefore, TWS and Canilao are jointly and severally liable to indemnify the petitioner, Sevilla.

Brotherhood Unity (BLUM) v Zamora FACTS BLUM filed a complaint charging San Miguel and some officers of unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal. Respondents moved for dismissal alleging that complainants are not their employees but of the independent contractor. Petitioners are workers employed at San Miguel, loading and piling empty bottles and shells. They first reported for work to the superintendent wherein the latter issues gate passes and they were provided with tools by the company. The warehousemen and checkers relays the orders to the group leaders who give orders to the workers. Work in the factory was neither regular nor continuous. It did not necessarily mean full 8 hours and they were neither paid overtime nor compensation for work on Sundays and holidays. Petitioners were paid every 10 days on a piece-rate basis according to the number of cartons they were able to load. ISSUE: W/N ER-EE relationship exists between workers and San Miguel

HELD: Yes. The existence of an independent contractor is established by the ff. criteria: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. whether or not contractor is carrying on an independent business nature and extent of work skill required term and duration of the relationship right to assign the performance of a specified piece of work control and supervision of the work to another employers power of hiring, firing and payment of workers control of premises duty to supply the tools with his own contract under his own responsibility according to his own method; 2) the contractor has substantial capital in the form of tools, equipment and other materials. In the case at bar, the contractors have neither substantial capital nor investment. The tools are supplied by the company. The power of SMC to recommend penalties or dismissal of the piece workers is the strongest indication that the company has right to control as direct employer. As to the change of unfair labor practice because of SMCs refusal to bargain with petitioners, it is clear that the company had an existing collective bargaining with IBM union which is the recognized union at the respondents company. Thus, the petitioners cannot merely form a union and demand bargaining because there is a recognized bargaining representative of all employees at the company.

10. mode of payment Job contracting is permissible under the ff. conditions: 1) the contractor carries an independent business

CONTINENTAL MARBLE V. NLRC161 SCRA 151PADILLA, J. FACTS 1.Rodito Nasayao claimed that sometime in May 1974, he was appointed plantmanager of Continental Marble with an alleged compensation of P3,000.00 a monthor 25% of the monthly net income of the company, whichever is greater. 2.When the company failed to pay his salary for the months of May, June and July1974, Nasayao filed a complaint with NLRC. 3.Continental Marble denied that Rodito Nasayao was its employee. They claimedthat the undertaking agreed by the parties was a joint venture, a sort of partnership,wherein Nasayao was to keep the machinery in good working condition and in return,he would get the contracts from end-users for the installation of marble products, inwhich the company would not interfere. 4.In addition, Nasayao was to receive an amount equivalent to 25% of the net profitsthat the petitioner corporation would realize, should there be any. Since there hadbeen no profits during said period, private respondent was not entitled to anyamount. ISSUE Whether or not the private respondent Nasayao was employed as plant manager of petitioner Continental Marble Corporation. HELD NO. There was nothing in the record which would support the claim of Rodito Nasayao that he was an employee of the petitioner corporation. He was not included in the company payroll nor in the list of company employees furnished by the Social Security System. Most of all the element of control is lacking. It appears that the petitioner had no control over the conduct of Rodito Nasayao in the performance of his work. He decided for himself on what was to be done and worked at his own pleasure. He was not subject to indefinite hours or conditions of work and in turn was compensated according to the results of his on effort. He has a free hand in running thecompany and its business, so much so, that the petitioner did not know until very later that Nasayao collected old accounts receivables, not covered by their agreement, which he converted to his personal use.

FEATI UNIVERSITY V. BAUTISTA 18 SCRA 1191 ZALDIVAR, J. FACTS 1.On January 14, 1963, the President of the respondent Feati University Faculty Club-PAFLU wrote a letter to the President of petitioner Feati University informing her of the organization of the Faculty Club into a registered labor union. 2.The Faculty Club is composed of members who are professors and/or instructors of the University. 3.The President of the Faculty Club sent another letter containing twenty-six demands that have connection with the employment of the members of the Faculty Club by theUniversity. 4.The University administration refused to bargain collectively and so PAFLUs president filed a notice of strike with the Bureau of Labor. Thereafter, the members of the Faculty Club declared a strike resulting to disruption of classes. 5.Despite further efforts of the officials of the Department of Labor, no settlement can be reached between the parties. Subsequently, the President of the Philippines certified to the Court of Industrial Relations the dispute between the management ofthe University and the Faculty Club. 6.The University filed a motion to dismiss the case upon the ground that CIR has no jurisdiction over the case because the Industrial Peace Act is not applicable to the faculty members, they being independent contractors and not employees. The respondent judge denied the motion but ordered the strikers to return to work and the University to take them back. ISSUE Whether or not a charitable institution or one organized for profit is included in the definition of employer? HELD YES. The term employer encompasses all employers except those specifically excluded in the Industrial Peace Act. The Act itself specifically enumerated those who are not included in term employer namely: (1) labor organization; (2) anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization (3) the Government and any political subdivision or instrumentality. Among these statutory exemptions, educational institutions are not included; hence they can be included in the term employer. The Industrial Court has jurisdiction over unfair labor practice charges against institutions that are organized, operated and maintained for profit. The Industrial Peace Act is applicable to any organization or entity whatever may be its purpose when it was created that is operated for profit or gain.

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA (PHILIPPINES), INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABORRELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. LABOR ARBITER TEODORICO L. DOGELIO and BENJAMIN LIMJOCO, respondents. FACTS Benjamin Limjoco was a Sales Division manager of petitioner Encyclopedia Britannica. He received commissions from the products sold by his agents, while office expenses are deducted from his commissions. Later, Limjoco resigned to pursue his private business. He then filed a complaint against petitioner with DOLE for non-payment of separation pay and other benefits,as well as illegal deduction from his sales commissions. Limjoco claimed that he was hired by the petitioner, was assigned in the sales department and was earning an average of P40,000.00monthly as commissions; that he was under the supervision of the officials of the petitioner who issued to him and other personnel, memoranda, guidelines on company policies, instructions,etc. Petitioner, on its part, alleged that Limjoco was not its employee but an independent dealer authorized to promote and sell its products and in return, received commissions therefrom. ISSUE Whether or not Limjoco was an independent contractor or an employee of Encyclopedia Britannica? HELD In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the following elements must be present: 1. selection and engagement of the employee; 2. payment of wages; 3.power of dismissal; and 4. the power to control the employees conduct. Of the above, control of conduct is commonly regarded as the most crucial and determinative factor of the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship. The fact that petitioner issued memoranda to private respondent and other sales managers did not prove that petitioner had control over them. The memoranda were mere guidelines on company policies which sales managers follow and further require on their sales agents. The issuance of memoranda to Limjoco and other sales managers was only done to appraise the mand their respective agents of the company policies and procedures. Limjoco was free to conduct and promote their sales operations. The occasional reports to the petitioner from Limjoco were required in order to update the company of its dealers performance. Even though petitioner had fixed the prices of the products for reason of uniformity and that Limjoco cannot alter them, he, nevertheless, had the free rein in the means and methods in selling them. He was free to conduct his work and he was free to engage in other means of livelihood. At the time he was a dealer for the petitioner, Limjoco was also a director and later the president of the Farmers Rural Bank. Had he been an employee of the petioner, he could not be employed elsewhere and he would be required to devote full time for petitioner. Petition granted.

OPULENCIA ICE PLANT AND STORAGE AND/OR DR. MELCHOR OPULENCIA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION), LABOR ARBITER NUMERIANO VILLENA AND MANUEL P. ESITA, respondents. Facts: MANUEL P. ESITA was for twenty (20) years a compressor operator of Tiongson Ice Plant in San Pablo City. In 1980 he was hired as compressor operator-mechanic for the ice plants of petitioner Dr. Melchor Opulencia located in Tanauan, Batangas, and Calamba, Laguna. Initially assigned at the ice plant in Tanauan, Esita would work from seven o'clock in the morning to five o'clock in the afternoon receiving a daily wage of P35.00. In 1986, Esita was transferred to the ice plant in Calamba, which was then undergoing overhauling, taking the place of compressor operator Lorenzo Eseta, who was relieved because he was already old and weak. For less than a month, Esita helped in the construction-remodeling of Dr. Opulencia's house. In February 1989, for demanding the correct amount of wages due him, Esita was dismissed from service. Consequently, he filed with Sub-Regional Arbitration in San Pablo City, a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment, non-payment for overtime, legal holiday, premium for holiday and rest day, 13th month, separation/retirement pay and allowances against petitioners. Petitioners deny that Esita is an employee. They claim that Esita could not have been employed in 1980 because the Tanauan ice plant was not in operation due to low voltage of electricity and that Esita was merely a helper/peon of one of the contractors they had engaged to do major repairs and renovation of the Tanauan ice plant in 1986. Petitioners further allege that when they had the Calamba ice plant repaired and expanded, Esita likewise rendered services in a similar capacity, and thus admitting that he worked as a helper/peon in the repair or remodeling of Dr. Opulencia's residence in Tanauan. In December 1989, Labor Arbiter Villena rendered a decision 1 finding the existence of an employer-employee relationship between petitioners and Esita and accordingly directed them to pay him separation pay, underpayment of wages, allowances, 13th month, holiday, premium for holiday, and rest day pays. Almost a year after, NLRC affirmed the decision of Labor Arbiter Villena but reduced the monetary award as it was not proven that Esita worked every day including rest days and on the days before the legal holidays. In March 1991, petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. Issue: W/N there was an employee-employer relationship between Opulencia and Esita. Ruling: Yes. Ratio: No particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted. For, if only documentary evidence would be required to show that relationship, no scheming employer would ever be brought before the bar of justice, as no employer would wish to come out with any trace of the illegality he has authored considering that it should take much weightier proof to invalidate a written instrument. On the claim that Esita's construction work could not ripen into a regular employment in the ice plant because the construction work was only temporary and unrelated to the ice-making business, needless to say, the one month spent by Esita in construction is insignificant compared to his nine-year service as compressor operator in determining the status of his employment as such, and considering further that it was Dr. Opulencia who requested Esita to work in the construction of his house. In allowing Esita to stay in the premises of the ice plant and permitting him to cultivate crops to augment his income, there is no doubt that petitioners should be commended; however, in view of the existence of an employer-employee relationship as found by public respondents, we cannot treat humanitarian reasons as justification for emasculating or taking away the rights and privileges of employees granted by law. Benevolence, it is said, does not operate as a license to circumvent labor laws. If petitioners were genuinely altruistic in extending to their employees privileges that are not even required by law, then there is no reason why they should not be required to give their employees what they are entitled to receive. Moreover, as found by public respondents, Esita was enjoying the same privileges granted to the other employees of petitioners, so that in thus treating Esita, he cannot be considered any less than a legitimate employee of petitioners.

ZAMUDIO VS. NLRC GR NO. 76723 March 25, 1990 Facts: Petitioners rendered services essential for the cultivation of respondents farm. While the services were not continuous in t he sense that they were not rendered everyday throughout the year, as is the nature of farm work, petitioners had never stopped working for respondent from year to year from the time he hired them to the time he dismissed. Issue: Are the petitioners considered as employees? Ruling: The nature of their employment, i.e. Pakyao basis, does not make petitioner independent contractors. Pakyao workers are considered employees as long as the employer exercises control over the means by which such workers are to perform their work inside private respondents farm, the latter necessarily exercised control over the performed by petitioners. The seasonal nature of petitioners work does not detract from the conclusion that employer employee relationship exits. Seasonal workers whose work is not merely for the duration of the season, but who are rehired every working season are considered regular employees. The circumstances that petitioners do not apears in respondents payroll does not destroy the employer employee relationship between them. Omission of petitioners in the payroll was not within their control, they had no hand in the preparation of the payroll. This circumstance, even if true, cannot be taken against petitioners.

JARDIN VS NLRC Case Digest ANGEL JARDIN, DEMETRIO CALAGOS, URBANO MARCOS, ROSENDO MARCOS, LUIS DE LOS ANGELES, JOEL ORDENIZA and AMADO CENTENO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) and GOODMAN TAXI (PHILJAMA INTERNATIONAL, INC.), respondents. 326 SCRA 299 / G.R. No. 119268, February 23, 2000 Ponente: QUISUMBING, J.

FACTS: Petitioners were drivers of private respondent, Philjama International Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in the operation of "Goodman Taxi." Petitioners used to drive private respondents taxicabs every other day on a 24 -hour work schedule under the boundary system. Under this arrangement, the petitioners earned an average of P400.00 daily. Nevertheless, private respondent admittedly regularly deducts from petitioners daily earnings the amount of P30.00 supposedly for the washing of the taxi units. Believing that the deduction is illegal, petitioners decided to form a labor union to protect their rights and interests. Upon learning about the plan of petitioners, private respondent refused to let petitioners drive their taxicabs when they reported for work on August 6, 1991, and on succeeding days. Petitioners suspected that they were singled out because they were the leaders and active members of the proposed union. Aggrieved, petitioners filed with the labor arbiter a complaint against private respondent for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and illegal deduction of washing fees. The labor arbiter dismissed said complaint for lack of merit. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision of the labor arbiter. Private Respondent then filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Private Respondent filed another motion for reconsideration which eventually was granted dismissing the complaint of the petitioners for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship. Petitioners sought reconsideration of the labor tribunals latest decision which was denied. ISSUE: 1. 2. RULING: 1. Yes. On the issue of whether or not employer-employee relationship exists, admitted is the fact that complainants are taxi drivers purely on the boundary system. Under this system the driver takes out his unit and pays the owner/operator a fee commonly called boundary for the use of the unit. Petitio ners are undoubtedly employees of private respondent because as taxi drivers they perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of their employer. The fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship from that of employer and employee. 2. Yes. The termination of employment must be effectuated in accordance with law. The just and authorized causes for termination of employment are enumerated under Articles 282, 283 and 284 of the Labor Code. The requirement of notice and hearing is set-out in Article 277 (b) of the said Code. Hence, petitioners, being employees of private respondent, can be dismissed only for just and authorized cause, and after affording them notice and hearing prior to termination. In the instant case, private respondent had no valid cause to terminate the employment of petitioners. Neither were there two (2) written notices sent by private respondent informing each of the petitioners that they had been dismissed from work. These lack of valid cause and failure on the part of private respondent to comply with the twin-notice requirement underscored the illegality surrounding petitioners dismissal. WON an employee-employer relationship exists? WON the petitioners were illegally dismissed?

Under the law, an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. With regard to the amount deducted for washing of the taxi units, such was not illegal as such is indeed a practice in the taxi industry and is dictated by fair play