FRANCISCO V. NLRC (G.R. NO.
170087) receiving check vouchers
Facts:
Petitioner Angelina Francisco was hired by
respondent Kasei Corporation during its
incorporation stage as Accountant and Corporate
Secretary and later as Liaison Officer.
Subsequently she was also designated Acting
Manager until replaced, but was assured by the
company that she was still connected as Technical
Consultant. Thereafter, Kasei Corporation reduced
petitioner’s salary until it was later withheld despite
repeated follow-ups. Petitioner once again asked
for her salary but was informed that she is no
longer connected with the company. Petitioner thus
filed an action for constructive dismissal before the
Labor Arbiter. Respondent Kasei Corporation
averred that petitioner is not their employee as she
performed her work at her own discretion without
their control and supervision. Both the Labor Arbiter
and NLRC tribunal found for petitioner. CA
reversed the decision.
Issue:
Whether or not there was employer-employee
relationship between the parties.
Ruling: YES.
In certain cases the control test is not sufficient to
give a complete picture of the relationship between
the parties, owing to the complexity of such a
relationship where several positions have been
held by the worker. The better approach would
therefore be to adopt a two-tiered test involving: (1)
the putative employer’s power to control the
employee with respect to the means and methods
by which the work is to be accomplished; and (2)
the underlying economic realities of the activity or
relationship.
By applying the control test, there is no doubt that
petitioner is an employee of Kasei Corporation
because she was under the direct control and
supervision of Seiji Kamura, the corporation’s
Technical Consultant. She reported for work
regularly and served in various capacities as
Accountant, Liaison Officer, Technical Consultant,
Acting Manager and Corporate Secretary, with
substantially the same job functions, that is,
rendering accounting and tax services to the
company and performing functions necessary and
desirable for the proper operation of the corporation
such as securing business permits and other
licenses over an indefinite period of engagement.
Under the broader economic reality test, the
petitioner can likewise be said to be an employee of
respondent corporation because she had served
the company for six years before her dismissal,
indicating her
salaries/wages, benefits, 13th month pay, bonuses
and allowances, as well as deductions and Social
Security contributions. Petitioner’s membership in
the SSS as manifested by a copy of the SSS
specimen signature card which was signed by the
President of Kasei Corporation and the inclusion of
her name in the on-line inquiry system of the SSS
evinces the existence of an employer-employee
relationship between petitioner and respondent
corporation. It is therefore apparent that petitioner
is economically dependent on respondent
corporation for her continued employment in the
latter’s line of business.
Magsalin v. National Organization of Working
Men
Facts: 1. The private respondents worked as sales
route helpers for the petitioner (Coca Cola) for 5
months and thereafter they were hired on a daily
basis. According to the petitioner, the respondents
were merely hired as substitutes for regular helpers
when the latter were unavailable or due to shortage
of manpower/high volume of work. These workers
would then wait every morning outside the gates
and if hired, they would be paid their wages at the
end of the day.
2. The respondents asked the petitioner to make
them regular but the latter refused. Hence, 23 of
these temporary workers filed a case for illegal
dismissal.
Issue: W/N the respondents' work is deemed
necessary and desirable in the usual business
or trade of the petitioner
RULING: Yes. The repeated hiring of the
respondent workers and continuing need of their
daily services clearly attest to the necessity or
desirability of their services in the regular conduct
of the business/trade of petitioner.
In determining whether employment is regular or
not, the applicable test is the reasonable
connection between a particular activity performed
in relation to the usual business or trade of the
employer. The nature of work must be viewed from
the perspective of the business in its entirety and
not confined scope.