There are 4 elements: 1.Selection and Hiring 2.
Payment of (f) "Authority" means a document issued by the
Wages 3. Power to Dismiss, and 4. Power to Control.
Social justice, according to Dr. Jose P. Laurel in Calalang vs.
Williams (70 Phil. 726 [1940]), is "neither communism, nor
despotism, nor atomism nor anarchy, but the humanization
of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces
by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively
secular conception may at least be approximated.
ART. 12. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES It is the
policy of the State:
(a) To promote and maintain a state of full employment
through improved manpower training, allocation and
utilization;
(b) To protect every citizen desiring to work locally or
overseas by securing for him the best possible terms and
condition of employment;
(c) To facilitate a free choice of available employment by
persons seeking work in conformity with the national
interest;
(d) To facilitate and regulate the movement of workers in
conformity with the national interest;
(e) To regulate the employment of aliens, including the
establishment of a registration and/or work permit system;
(f) To strengthen the network of public employment offices
and rationalize the participation of the private sector in the
recruitment and placement of workers, locally and overseas,
to serve national development objectives;
(g) To insure careful selection of Filipino workers for
overseas employment in order to protect the good name of
the Philippines abroad.
RESPONSIBILITY OF DOLE
"the primary policy-making, programming, coordinating,
and administrative entity of the Executive Branch of the
government in the field of labor and employment.
a) The promotion of gainful employment opportunities and
the optimization of the development and utilization of the
country's manpower resources;
b) The advancement of worker's welfare by providing for
just and humane working conditions and terms of
employment;
c) The maintenance of industrial peace by promoting
harmonious, equitable and stable employment relations that
assure protection for the rights of all concerned parties
ART. 13. DEFINITIONS ^) "Worker" means any member
of the labor force, whether employed or unemployed.
(b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract
services, promising or advertising for employment, locally
or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any
person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for
a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed
engaged in recruitment and placement.
(c) "Private fee-charging employment agency" means
any person or entity engaged in the recruitment and
placement of workers for a fee which is charged, directly or
indirectly, from the workers or employers or both.
(d) "License" means a document issued by the Department
of Labor authorizing a person or entity to operate a private
employment agency. (e) "Private recruitment entity"
means any person or association engaged in the recruitment
and placement of workers, locally or overseas, without
charging, directly or indirectly, any fee from the workers or
employers.
Department of Labor authorizing a person or association to
engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private
recruitment entity.
(g) "Seaman" means any person employed in a vessel
engaged in maritime navigation.
(h) "Overseas employment" means employment of a
worker outside the Philippines.
(i) "Emigrant" means any person, worker or otherwise,
who emigrates to a foreign country by virtue of an immigrant
visa or resident permit or its equivalent in the country of
destination.
People vs. Goce
the accused gave the complainant the distinct impression that
she had the power or ability to send the complainant abroad
for work, such that the latter was convinced to part with her
money in order to be so employed.
following entities are authorized to recruit and place
workers for local or overseas employment:
a. public employment offices
b. private recruitment entities
c. private employment agencies
d. shipping or manning agents or representatives
e. the POEA
f. construction contractors if authorized to operate by DOLE
and the Construction Industry Authority g- members of the
diplomatic corps although hirings done by them have to be
processed through the POEA
h. other persons or entities as may be authorized by the
DOLE secretary
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall
have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of
the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-
employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract
involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment
including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
forms of damages.
Millares and Lagda vs. NLRC
Seafarers are contractual employees. Their employment is
contractually fixed for a certain period.
ART. 34. PROHIBITED PRACTICES It shall be
unlawful for any individual, entity, licensee, or holder of
authority: (a) To charge or accept, directly or indirectly, any
amount greater than that specified in the schedule of
allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor, or to
make a worker pay any amount greater than that actually
received by him as a loan or advance; (b) To furnish or
publish any false notice or information or document in
relation to recruitment or employment; (c) To give any false
notice, testimony, information or document or commit any
act of misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license
or authority under this Code; (d) To induce or to attempt to
induce a worker already employed to quit his employment in
order to offer him to another unless the transfer is designed
to liberate the worker from oppressive terms and conditions
of employment; (e) To influence or to attempt to influence
any person or entity not to employ any worker who has not
applied for employment through his agency; (f) To engage
in the recruitment or placement of workers in jobs harmful
to public health or morality or to the dignity of the Republic
of the Philippines; (g) To obstruct or attempt to obstruct
inspection by the Secretary of Labor or by his duly
authorized representatives; (h) To fail to file reports on the
status of employment, placement, vacancies, remittances of
foreign exchange earnings, separation from jobs, departures
and such other matters or information as may be required by
the Secretary of Labor; (i) To substitute or alter employment
contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor
from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to
and including the periods of expiration of the same without
the approval of the Secretary of Labor; \/ (j) To become an
officer or member of the Board of any corporation engaged
in travel agency or to be engaged directly or indirectly in the
management of a travel agency; and
ART. 38. ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT1 (a) Any recruitment
activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated
under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-
licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal
and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The
Department of Labor and Employment or any law
enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this
Article.
(b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in
large scale shall be considered an offense involving
economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance
with Article 39 hereof.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if
carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons
conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying
out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme
defined under the first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment
is deemed committed in large scale if committed against
three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
(c) The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly
authorized representatives shall have the power to cause the
arrest and detention of such non-licensee or non-holder of
authority if after investigation it is determined that his
activities constitute a danger to national security and public
order or will lead to further exploitation of job-seekers. The
Minister shall order the search of the office or premises and
seizure of documents, paraphernalia, properties and other
implements used in illegal recruitment activities and the
closure of companies, establishments and entities found to
be engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas
employment, without having been licensed or authorized to
do so.
SEC. 6. Definition. For purposes of this Act, illegal
recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring
workers and includes referring contract services, promising
or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or
not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of
authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential
Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor
Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-
licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or
promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more
persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include
the following acts, whether committed by any person,
whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of
authority:
(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount
greater than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees
prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, or to
make a worker pay any amount greater than that actually
received by him as a loan or advance;
(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or
document in relation to recruitment or employment;
(c) To give any false notice, testimony, information or
document or commit any act of misrepresentation for the
purpose of securing a license or authority under the Labor
Code; (d) To induce or attempt to induce a worker already
employed to quit his employment in order to offer him
another unless the transfer is designed to liberate a worker
from oppressive terms and conditions of employment; (e) To
influence or attempt to influence any person or entity not to
employ any worker who has not applied for employment
through his agency; (f) To engage in the recruitment or
placement of workers in jobs harmful to public health or
morality or to the dignity of the Republic of the Philippines;
(g) To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment or by his duly
authorized representative; (h) To fail to submit reports on the
status of employment, placement vacancies, remittance of
foreign exchange earnings, separation from jobs, departures
and such other matters or information as may be required by
the Secretary of Labor and Employment;
(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker,
employment contracts approved and verified by the
Department of Labor and Employment from the time of
actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the
period of the expiration of the same without the approval of
the Department of Labor and Employment;
(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement
agency to become an officer or member of the Board of any
corporation engaged in travel agency or to be engaged
directly or indirectly in the management of a travel agency;
(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant
workers before departure for monetary or financial
considerations other than those authorized under the Labor
Code and its implementing rules and regulations;
(1) Failure to actually deploy without valid reason as
determined by the Department of Labor and Employment;
and
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in
connection with his documentation and processing for
purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does
not actually take place without the worker's fault.
Persons Liable for Illegal Recruitment
The persons criminally liable for illegal recruitment are the
principals, accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical
persons, the officers having control, management or
direction of their business shall be liable.1
Employee, When Liable
An agency's employee who does not control, manage or
direct the business may not be held liable for illegal
recruitment. Where it is shown that the employee was merely
acting under the direction of his superiors and was unaware
that his acts constituted a crime, he may not be held
criminally liable for an act done for and in behalf of his
employer... Such employee has to be acquitted even where
the employer, in violation of POEA requirement, did not
register such employee, and the employee was unaware of
such violation.
ART. 58. DEFINITION OF TERMS As used in this Title:
(a) "Apprenticeship" means practical training on the job
supplemented by related theoretical instruction. (b) An
"apprentice" is a worker who is covered by a written
apprenticeship agreement with an individual employer or
any of the entities recognized under this Chapter. (c) An
"apprenticeable occupation" means any trade, form of
employment or occupation which requires more than three-
(3)^nonths of practical training on the job supplemented by
related theoretical instruction. (See R.A. No. 7796.) (d)
"Apprenticeship agreement" is an employment contract
wherein the employer binds himself to train the apprentice
and the apprentice in turn accepts the terms of training.
ART. 59. QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRENTICE To
qualify as an apprentice, a person shall: (a) Be at least
fourteen (14) years of age;
(b) Possess vocational aptitude and capacity for appropriate
tests;
and
(c) Possess the ability to comprehend and follow oral and
written instructions. Trade and industry associations may
recommend to the Secretary of Labor appropriate
educational requirements for different occupations.
ART. 73.LEARNERS DEFINED / Learners are persons
hired as trainees in semi-skilled and other industrial
occupations which are non-apprenticeable and which may be
learned through practical training on the job in a relatively
short period of time which shall not exceed three (3) months.
ART. 75. LEARNERSHIP AGREEMENT Any employer
desiring to employ learners shall enter into a learnership
agreement with them, which agreement shall include: (a)
The names and addresses of the learners; (b) The duration of
the learnership period, which shall not exceed three (3)
months; (c) The wages or salary rates of the learners which
shall begin at not less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the
applicable minimum wage; and (d) A commitment to
employ the learners if they so desire, as regular employees
upon completion of the learnership. All learners who have
been allowed or suffered to work during the first two (2)
months shall be deemed regular employees if training is
terminated by the employer before the end of the stipulated
period through no fault of the learner. The learnership
agreement shall be subject to inspection by the Secretary of
Labor, or his duly authorized representatives.
ART. 78. DEFINITION Handicapped workers are those
whose eaxruBgcajjadj^isunp^iredby, age or physical or
mental deficiency or injury.
ART. 79. WHEN EMPLOYABLE Handicapped workers
may be employed when their employment is necessary to
prevent curtajhjBentoXemployment or^ortunities and when
it does not create unfair competition in labor costs or impair
or lower working standards.
ART. 80. EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT Any employer
who employs handicapped workers shall enter into an
employment agreement with them, which agreement shall
include: (a) The names and addresses of the handicapped
workers to be employed; (b) The rate to be paid the
handicapped workers which shall be not less than seventy-
five (75%) percent of the applicable legal minimum wage;
(c) The duration of employment period; and (d) The work to
be performed by handicapped workers. The employment
agreement shall be subject to inspection by the Secretary of
Labor or his duly authorized representatives.
ART. 81. ELIGIBILITY FOR APPRENTICESHIP Subject
to the appropriate provisions of this Code, handicapped
workers maybe hired as apprentices or learners if their
handicap is not such as to effectively impede the
performance of job operations in the particular occupations
for which they are hired.
Section 5. Equal Opportunity for Employment. No
disabled person shall be denied access to opportunities for
suitable employment. A qualified disabled employee shall
be subject to the same terms and conditions of employment
and the same compensation, privileges, benefits, fringe
benefits, incentives or-ahotyances as a qualified able-bodied
person.
CASES:
. Pp V Bulu Chowdry Feb 15 2000
No, an employee of a company or corporation engaged in
illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together
with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and
consciously participated in illegal recruitment.
In this case, Chowdury merely performed his tasks under the
supervision of its president and managing director.
The prosecution failed to show that the accused-appellant is
conscious and has an active participation in the commission
of the crime of illegal recruitment.
Moreover, accused-appellant was not aware of Craftrade's
failure to register his name with the POEA and the
prosecution failed to prove that he actively engaged in
recruitment despite this knowledge. The obligation to
register its personnel with the POEA belongs to the officers
of the agency.
et. al. can be convicted only of two counts of "simple" illegal
recruitment.
People V Segun
The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed
when three elements concur.
1. the offender has no valid license or authority required by
law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and
placement of workers.
2. he or she undertakes either any activity within the meaning
of "recruitment and placement" defined under Article 13 (b),
or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of
the Labor Code.
3. the offender commits said acts against three or more
persons, individually or as a group.
There is no dispute that the first element is present in this
case. The certification dated May 17, 1993 and issued by
DOLE Region XII Director, states that appellants "were not
authorized to conduct recruitment for local and overseas
employment." Both appellants conceded they have no license
to recruit.
The next question is whether appellants undertook any
activity constituting recruitment and placement as defined by
Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code, which states:
Recruitment and Placement refers to any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes
referrals, contract services, promising or
advertising for employment, locally or abroad,
whether for profit or not: Provided, That any
person or entity which, in any manner, offers or
promises for a fee employment to two or more
persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment
and placement.
A conviction for large scale illegal recruitment must be
based on a finding in each case of illegal recruitment of
three (3) or more persons whether individually or as a
group.
While the law does not require that at least three (3) victims
testify at the trial, it is necessary that there is sufficient
evidence proving that the offense was committed against
three (3) or more persons.
The prosecution failed to elicit from many of its witnesses
the specific acts constituting the recruitment of the other
alleged victims. The prosecution was able to prove that
appellants performed recruitment activities only in the cases
of Victoria Collantes and Loreta Cavan.
The third element of illegal recruitment, i.e., that the
offender commits the acts of recruitment against three or
more persons is, therefore, absent. Consequently,
appellants can be convicted only of two counts of "simple"
illegal recruitment.
Salazar V Marquez
No. The certain provision in the Labor code is already
abrogated. It is only a judge who may issue warrants of
search and arrest. Neither may it be done by a mere
prosecuting body.
People V Panis
No. The Court ruled that the number of persons is not an
essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and
placement of workers. - As we see it, the proviso was
intended neither to impose a condition on the basic rule nor
to provide an exception thereto but merely to create a
presumption.
The presumption is that the individual or entity is
engaged in recruitment and placement whenever he or it
is dealing with two or more persons to whom, in
consideration of a fee, an offer or promise of employment
is made in the course of the canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring
(of) workers. The number of persons dealt with is not an
essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and placement
of workers.
Any of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article
13(b) will constitute recruitment and placement even if
only one prospective worker is involved. The proviso
merely lays down a rule of evidence that where a fee is
collected in consideration of a promise or offer of
employment to two or more prospective workers, the
individual or entity dealing with them shall be deemed to
be engaged in the act of recruitment and placement. The
words shall be deemed create that presumption.
that to prove that the accused was engaged in recruitment
activities, it must be shown that the accused gave the
complainant the distinct impression that she had the
power or ability to send the complainant abroad for
work, such that the'latter was convinced to part with her
money in order to be so employed. Where such act or
representation is not proven, there is no recruitment activity
and conviction for illegal recruitment has no basis.
People V Ocden
It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted
separately of illegal recruitment under Republic Act No.
8042 in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under
Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
We explicated in People v. Yabut[30] that:
In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who
commits illegal recruitment may be charged and
convicted separately of illegal recruitment under
the Labor Code and estafa under par. 2(a) of Art.
315 of the Revised Penal Code.
The offense of illegal recruitment is malum
prohibitum where the criminal intent of the
accused is not necessary for conviction, while
estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of
the accused is crucial for conviction. Conviction
for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar
conviction for offenses punishable by other laws.
Conversely, conviction for estafa under par. 2(a)
of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code does not bar
a conviction for illegal recruitment under the
Labor Code. It follows that ones acquittal of the
crime of estafa will not necessarily result in his
acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in large
scale, and vice versa.[31]
The ELEMENTS of estafa are:
(a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of
confidence or by means of deceit, and
(b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation
is caused to the offended party or third person
Bernardo vs. NLRC and Far East Bank
Handicapped Workers:
Legal Issue: Whether different-abled persons in this case
should be considered regular employees.
Held:
YES. The facts, viewed in light of the Labor Code and the
Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, indubitably show that the
petitioners, except sixteen of them, should be deemed
regular employees. As such, they have acquired legal rights
that this Court is duty-bound to protect and uphold, not as a
matter of compassion but as a consequence of law and
justice. The stipulations in the employment contracts
indubitably conform with the aforecited provision.
Succeeding events and the enactment of RA No. 7277 (the
Magna Carta for Disabled Persons), however, justify the
application of Article 280 of the Labor Code.
Respondent bank entered into the aforesaid contract with a
total of 56 handicapped workers and renewed the contracts
of 37 of them. In fact, two of them worked from 1988 to
1993. Verily, the renewal of the contracts of the handicapped
workers and the hiring of others lead to the conclusion that
their tasks were beneficial and necessary to the bank. More
important, these facts show that they were qualified to
perform the responsibilities of their positions. In other
words, their disability did not render them unqualified or
unfit for the tasks assigned to them.
In this light, the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates
that a qualified disabled employee should be given the same
terms and conditions of employment as a qualified able-
bodied person. Section 5 of the Magna Carta provides:
Sec. 5. Equal Opportunity for Employment. No
disabled person shall be denied access to opportunities for
suitable employment. A qualified disabled employee shall
be subject to the same terms and conditions of employment
and the same compensation, privileges, benefits, fringe
benefits, incentives or allowances as a qualified able bodied
person.
Continental Marble V NLRC
ISSUE:
WON Nasayao was employed as plant manager of
Continental Marble Corporation with a monthly salary of
P3,000.00 or 25% of its monthly income, whichever is
greater, or entitled to receive only an amount equivalent to
25% of net profits, if any, that the company would realize.
HELD: NO, NASAYAO is not an Employee of
CONTINENTAL. There is no basis for an award of
unpaid salaries or wages to NASAYAO.
While the Court has accorded great respect for, and finality
to, findings of fact of a voluntary arbitrator and
administrative agencies which have acquired expertise in
their respective fields, like the Labor Department and the
NLRC, their findings of fact and the conclusions drawn
therefrom have to be supported by substantial evidence. In
that instant case, the finding of the voluntary arbitrator that
Rodito Nasayao was an employee of the petitioner
corporation is not supported by the evidence or by the law.
On the other hand, we find the version of CONTINENTAL
to be more plausible and in accord with human nature and
the ordinary course of things. As pointed out by
CONTINENTAL, it was illogical for them to hire
NASAYAO as plant manager with a monthly salary of
P3,000.00, an amount which they could ill-afford to pay,
considering that the business was losing, at the time he was
hired, and that they were about to close shop in a few
months time.
Besides, there is nothing in the record which would
support the claim of Rodito Nasayao that he was an
employee of CONTINENTAL. He was not included in
the company payroll, nor in the list of company
employees furnished the Social Security System.
Most of all, the ELEMENT OF CONTROL IS
LACKING.
In Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement in the Philippines v.
Zamora, the Court enumerated the factors in determining
whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists, to
wit:
"In determining the existence of an employer-
employee relationship, the elements that are
generally considered are the following: (a) the
selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the
payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and
(d) the employers power to control the employee
with respect to the means and methods by which
the work is to be accomplished. It is the so-called
control test that is the most important element
(Investment Planning Corp. of the Phils. v. The
Social Security System, 21 SCRA 924; Mafinco
Trading Corp. v. Ople, supra, and Rosario
Brothers, Inc. v. Ople, 131 SCRA 72)."
In the instant case, it appears that CONTINENTAL 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 definite hours or conditions of work and, in turn,
was compensated according to the results of his own effort.
He had a free hand in running the company and its business,
so much so, that the petitioner Felipe David did not know,
until very much later, that Rodito Nasayao had collected old
accounts receivables, not covered by their agreement, which
he converted to his own personal use. It was only after
Rodito Nasayao had abandoned the plant following
discovery of his wrong-doings, that Felipe David assumed
management of the plant.
ABSENT THE POWER TO CONTROL THE
EMPLOYEE WITH RESPECT TO THE MEANS AND
METHODS BY WHICH HIS WORK WAS TO BE
ACCOMPLISHED, THERE WAS NO EMPLOYER-
EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
PARTIES. Hence, there is no basis for an award of
unpaid salaries or wages to Rodito Nasayao.
JARDIN V NLRC
Held: Yes. 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. Now,
in the determination the existence of employer-employee
relationship, the Supreme Court has applied the following
four-fold test: (1) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of
dismissal; and (4) the power of control the employees
conduct.
Among the four (4) requisites, the Supreme Court stresses
that control is deemed the most important that the other
requisites may even be disregarded. Under the control test,
an employer-employee relationship exists if the employer
has reserved the right to control the employee not only as to
the result of the work done but also as to the means and
methods by which the same is to be accomplished.
Otherwise, no such relationship exists. (Ibid.)
The relationship between jeepney owners/operators on
one hand and jeepney drivers on the other under the
boundary system is that of employer-employee and not
of lessor-lessee. In the lease of chattels, the lessor loses
complete control over the chattel leased although the lessee
cannot be reckless in the use thereof, otherwise he would be
responsible for the damages to the lessor. In the case of
jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers, the former
exercise supervision and control over the latter. The
management of the business is in the owners hands. The
owner as holder of the certificate of public convenience must
see to it that the driver follows the route prescribed by the
franchising authority and the rules promulgated as regards
its operation. Now, the fact that the drivers do not receive
fixed wages but get only that in excess of the so-called
"boundary" they pay to the owner/operator is not
sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them
from that of employer and employee. We have applied by
analogy the above stated doctrine to the relationships
between bus owner/operator and bus conductor, auto-calesa
owner/operator and driver and recently between taxi
owners/operators and taxi drivers Hence, petitioners 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.
Manila Golf and Country Club 237 SCRA 207 1994
"caddies in a golf club"
In the very nature of things, caddies must submit to some
supervision of their conduct while enjoying the privilege of
pursuing their occupation within the premises and grounds
of whatever club they do their work in. For all that is made
to appear, they work for the club to which they attach
themselves on sufference but, on the other hand, also without
having to observe any working hours, free to leave anytime
they please, to stay away for as long they like. It is not
pretended that if found remiss in the observance of said
rules, any discipline may be meted them beyond barring
them from the premises which, it may be supposed, the Club
may do in any case even absent any breach of the rules, and
without violating any right to work on their part. All these
considerations clash frontally with the concept of
employment.
Dy Keh Beng V International Labor Marine Union
Yes. An employee-employer relationship was found
to have existed between Dy Keh Beng and complainants
Tudla and Solano, although Solano was admitted to have
worked on piece basis.
The evidence presented shows that Solano and Tudla
became employees of Dy Keh Beng from May 2, 1953 and
July 15, 1955, respectively, and that except in the event of
illness, their work with the establishment was continuous
although their services were compensated on piece basis.
The court ruled that circumstances must be construed
to determine indeed if payment by the piece is just a method
of compensation and does not define the essence of the
relation.
Justice Perfecto opined that judicial notice of the fact
that the so-called "pakyaw" system mentioned in this case
as generally practiced in our country, is, in fact, a labor
contract -between employers and employees, between
capitalists and laborers.
The test ... of the existence of employee and employer
relationship is whether there is an understanding between
the parties that one is to render personal services to or for
the benefit of the other and recognition by them of the right
of one to order and control the other in the performance of
the work and to direct the manner and method of its
performance.
THE COURT upholds the control test under which an
employer-employee relationship exists "where the person for
whom the services are performed reserves a right to control
not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used
in reaching such end, "
SONZA V ABS CBN
Legal Issue: Whether Sonza is an employee of ABS-CBN
on the account of the payment of wages.
Held: NO.
ABS-CBN directly paid SONZA his monthly talent fees
with no part of his fees going to MJMDC. SONZA asserts
that this mode of fee payment shows that he was an
employee of ABS-CBN. SONZA also points out that ABS-
CBN granted him benefits and privileges which he would
not have enjoyed if he were truly the subject of a valid job
contract.
All the talent fees and benefits paid to SONZA were the
result of negotiations that led to the Agreement. If SONZA
were ABS-CBNs employee, there would be no need for
the parties to stipulate on benefits such as SSS, Medicare,
x x x and 13th month pay which the law automatically
incorporates into every employer-employee contract.
Whatever benefits SONZA enjoyed arose from contract
and not because of an employer-employee relationship.
SONZAs talent fees, amounting to P317,000 monthly in the
second and third year, are so huge and out of the ordinary
that they indicate more an independent contractual
relationship rather than an employer-employee relationship.
ABS-CBN agreed to pay SONZA such huge talent fees
precisely because of SONZAs unique skills, talent and
celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees.
Obviously, SONZA acting alone possessed enough
bargaining power to demand and receive such huge talent
fees for his services. The power to bargain talent fees way
above the salary scales of ordinary employees is a
circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an
independent contractual relationship.
The payment of talent fees directly to SONZA and not to
MJMDC does not negate the status of SONZA as an
independent contractor. The parties expressly agreed on such
mode of payment. Under the Agreement, MJMDC is the
AGENT of SONZA, to whom MJMDC would have to turn
over any talent fee accruing under the Agreement.
Investment Planning Corp Nov 18 1967 "commission
agents"
SC: We are convinced from the facts that the work of
petitioner's agents or registered representatives more
nearly approximates that of an independent contractor
than that of an employee. An employee is paid for the labor
he performs, while an independent contractor is paid for the
results. His right to compensation depends upon and is
measured by the tangible results he produces.
. Theres NO ER-EE relationship.
Applying the Control Test (whether the "employer"
controls or has reserved the right to control the "employee"
not only as to the result of the work to be done but also as to
the means and methods by which the same is to be
accomplished.), there is no indication that the registered
representatives are under the control of Investment in
the performance of their work.
The fact that for certain specified causes the relationship
may be terminated (e.g., failure to meet the annual quota of
sales, inability to make any sales production during a six-
month period, conduct detrimental to petitioner, etc.) does
not mean that such control exists, for the causes of
termination thus specified have no relation to the means and
methods of work that are ordinarily required of or imposed
upon employees.
Auto Bus Transport May 16 2005 field personnel"
ISSUES: WON BAUTISTA is a FIELD PERSONNEL and
thus NOT entitled to service incentive leave.
NO, BAUTISTA is not a field personnel but a regular
employee who performs tasks usually necessary and
desirable to the usual trade of AUTO BUS business.
Accordingly, BAUTISTA is entitled to the grant of
service incentive leave.
definition of a FIELD PERSONNEL is not merely
concerned with the location where the employee
regularly performs his duties but also with the fact that
the employees performance is unsupervised by the
employer. As discussed above, field personnel are those
who regularly perform their duties away from the
principal place of business of the employer and whose
actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined
with reasonable certainty. Thus, in order to conclude
whether an employee is a field employee, it is also
necessary to ascertain if actual hours of work in the field
can be determined with reasonable certainty by the
employer. In so doing, an inquiry must be made as to
whether or not the employees time and performance are
constantly supervised by the employer.
It is of judicial notice that along the routes that are plied by
these bus companies, there are its inspectors assigned at
strategic places who board the bus and inspect the
passengers, the punched tickets, and the conductors reports.
There is also the mandatory once-a-week car barn or shop
day, where the bus is regularly checked as to its mechanical,
electrical, and hydraulic aspects, whether or not there are
problems thereon as reported by the driver and/or conductor.
They too, must be at specific place as [sic] specified time, as
they generally observe prompt departure and arrival from
their point of origin to their point of destination. In each and
every depot, there is always the Dispatcher whose function
is precisely to see to it that the bus and its crew leave the
premises at specific times and arrive at the estimated proper
time. These, are present in the case at bar. The driver, the
complainant herein, was therefore under constant
supervision while in the performance of this work. He cannot
be considered a field personnel
UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN FACULTY UNION,
Petitioner, v. UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN And
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners members are entitled to ECOLA
during the semestral break from November 7 December 5,
1981 of the 1981-1982 school year.
RULING: Yes.
The petitioners members are full-time employees receiving
their monthly salaries irrespective of the number of working
days or teaching hours in a month. However, they find
themselves in a situation where they are forced to go on leave
during semestral breaks. These semestral breaks are in the
nature of work interruptions beyond the employees
control. As such, these breaks cannot be considered as
absences within the meaning of the law for which
deductions may be made from monthly allowances. The
No work, no pay principle does not apply in the instant
case. The petitioners members received their regular
salaries during this period. It is clear from the provision of
law that it contemplates a no work situation where the
employees voluntarily absent themselves. Petitioners, in the
case at bar, do not voluntarily absent themselves during
semestral breaks. Rather, they are constrained to take
mandatory leave from work. For this they cannot be faulted
nor can they be begrudged that which is due them under the
law.
BERNARDO JIMENEZ and JOSE JIMENEZ, as
Operators of JJs TRUCKING, vs. NLRC,
TOPIC: Proof of Wage payment
ISSUE: Whether private respondents were not
paid their commissions in full?
HELD: NO.
The entire amount of commissions was not paid, by reason
of the evident failure of herein petitioners to present
evidence that full payment thereof has been made. As a
general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of
proving it.
The testimony of petitioners which merely denied the claim
of private respondents, unsupported by documentary
evidence, is not sufficient to establish payment. Although
petitioners submitted a notebook showing the alleged vales
of private respondents for the year 1990, the same is
inadmissible and cannot be given probative value
considering that it is not properly accomplished, is undated
and unsigned, and is thus uncertain as to its origin and
authenticity.
TRIPLE EIGHT INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., vs. NLRC
In case of termination of overseas employment without just,
valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the
worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his
placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per
annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract or for three (3) months for every year
of the unexpired term, whichever is less.
San Miguel Corp.Employees union-PTGWO June 13
1990 "contracting is a proprietary right"
HELD: YES. The case is indisputably linked with a
labor dispute, jurisdiction belongs to the labor tribunals.
In the instant case, what the Union seeks is to
regularize the status of the employees contracted by
Lipercon and D'Rite in effect, that they be absorbed into
the working unit of SanMig. This matter definitely dwells
on the working relationship between said employees vis-
a-vis SanMig. Terms, tenure and conditions of their
employment and the arrangement of those terms are thus
involved bringing the matter within the purview of a
labor dispute.
Further, the Union also seeks to represent those
workers, who have signed up for Union membership, for the
purpose of collective bargaining. SanMig, for its part, resists
that Union demand on the ground that there is no employer-
employee relationship between it and those workers and
because the demand violates the terms of their CBA.
Obvious then is that representation and association, for the
purpose of negotiating the conditions of employment are
also involved. In fact, the injunction sought by SanMig was
precisely also to prevent such representation. Again, the
matter of representation falls within the scope of a labor
dispute.
Sebuguero V NLRC
The NLRC affirmed the retrenchment of Sebuguero et.al. as
a ground for termination. This is a distinct ground for
termination under Art. 283 of the Labor Code, as opposed to
redundancy.
Redundancy exists where the services of an employee are in
excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual
requirements of the enterprise. A position is redundant
where it is superfluous, and superfluity of a position or
positions may be the outcome of a number of factors, such
as overhiring of workers, decreased volume of business, or
dropping of a particular product line or service activity
previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise.10
Retrenchment, on the other hand, is used interchangeably
with the term "lay-off." It is the termination of employment
initiated by the employer through no fault of the employee's
and without prejudice to the latter, resorted to by
management during periods of business recession, industrial
depression, or seasonal fluctuations, or during lulls
occasioned by lack of orders, shortage of materials,
conversion of the plant for a new production program or the
introduction of new methods or more efficient machinery, or
of automation. Simply put, it is an act of the employer of
dismissing employees because of losses in the operation of a
business, lack of work, and considerable reduction on the
volume of his business, a right consistently recognized and
affirmed by this Court.
ABOITIZ V Dela CERNA
Issue: Who has jurisdiction over the money claims?
Ruling:
Under the foregoing provisions of Articles 129
and 217 of the Labor Code, as amended, the Regional
Director is empowered, through summary proceeding and
after due notice, to hear and decide cases involving recovery
of wages and other monetary claims and benefits, including
legal interest, provided the following requisites are present,
5 to wit:
1) the claim is presented by an employee or person
employed in domestic or household service, or
househelper;
2) the claim arises from employer-employee
relations;
3) the claimant does not seek reinstatement; and
4) the aggregate money claim of each employee or
househelper does not exceed P5,000.00 (Art. 129,
Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 6715).
Article 129. Recovery of wages, simple money claims and
other benefits. Upon complaint of any interested party,
the Regional Director of the Department of Labor and
Employment or any of the duly authorized hearing officers
of the Department is empowered, through summary
proceeding and other monetary claims and benefits,
including legal interest, owing to an employee or person
employed in domestic or household service or househelper
under this Code, arising from employer-employee relations:
Provided, that such complaint does not include a claim for
reinstatement: Provided, further That the aggregate money
claims of each employee of househelper do not exceed five
thousand pesos (P5,000.00).
The Court ruled in Lapanday that the RTC has jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the present case. It is well settled
in law and jurisprudence that where no employer-employee
relationship exists between the parties and no issue is
involved which may be resolved by reference to the Labor
Code, other labor statutes or any collective bargaining
agreement, it is the Regional Trial Court that has
jurisdiction. In its complaint, private respondent is not
seeking any relief under the Labor Code but seeks payment
of a sum of money and damages on account of petitioners
alleged breach of its obligation under their Guard Service
Contract. The action is within the realm of civil law hence
jurisdiction over the case belongs to the regular courts.
While the resolution of the issue involves the application of
labor laws, reference to the labor code was only for the
determination of the solidary liability of the petitioner to the
respondent where no employer-employee relation exists.
1. In the case at bar, PT&Ts policy of not
accepting or considering as disqualified from
work any woman worker who contracts
marriage runs afoul of the test of, and the right
against, discrimination, afforded all women
workers by our labor laws and by no less than
the Constitution. Contrary to PT&Ts assertion
that it dismissed DE GUZMAN from employment
on account of her dishonesty, the record discloses
clearly that her ties with the company were
dissolved principally because of the companys
policy that married women are not qualified for
employment in PT&T, and not merely because of
her supposed acts of dishonesty.
Delfin G. Villarama vs. NLRC and Golden Donuts, Inc.
Yes, as a managerial employee, petitioner is bound by more
exacting work ethics. He failed to live up to his higher
standard of responsibility when he succumbed to his moral
perversity. And when such moral perversity is perpetrated
against his subordinate, he provides a justifiable ground for
his dismissal for lack of trust and confidence. It is the right,
the duty of every employer to protect its employees from
oversexed superiors."