33879413 labor case digests[1]

8/13/2019 33879413 Labor Case Digests[1]

1/283

[G.R. No. 101279. August 6, 1992.]PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EPORTERS, INC. !"t#t#o$"%, &s. HON. R'(EN). TORRES, *s S"+%"t*% o- t" )"!*%t/"$t o- L*o% E/!o/"$t, *$3 4OSE N.SAR5IENTO, *s A3/#$#st%*to% o- t" PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS E5PLO5ENTA)5INISTRATION, %"s!o$3"$ts.

FACTS

DOLE Secretary Ruben D. Torres issued Department Order No. 16 Series of 11 temporari!ysuspendin" t#e recruitment by pri$ate emp!oyment a"encies of %Fi!ipino domestic #e!pers "oin"to &on" 'on"(. As a resu!t of t#e department order DOLE) t#rou"# t#e *OEA too+ o$er t#ebusiness of dep!oyin" &on" 'on" bound ,or+ers.

T#e petitioner) *ASE-) t#e !ar"est or"aniation of pri$ate emp!oyment and recruitment a"enciesdu!y !icensed and aut#oried by t#e *OEA to en"a"e in t#e business of obtainin" o$erseasemp!oyment for Fi!ipino !and/based ,or+ers fi!ed a petition for pro#ibition to annu! t#eaforementioned order and to pro#ibit imp!ementation.

-SS0ES

12 ,#et#er or not respondents acted ,it# "ra$e abuse of discretion and3or in e4cess of t#eirru!e/ma+in" aut#ority in issuin" said circu!ars52 ,#et#er or not t#e assai!ed DOLE and *OEA circu!ars are contrary to t#e Constitution) areunreasonab!e) unfair and oppressi$e5 and72 ,#et#er or not t#e re8uirements of pub!ication and fi!in" ,it# t#e Office of t#e Nationa!

Administrati$e Re"ister ,ere not comp!ied ,it#.

&ELD

F-RST) t#e respondents acted ,e!! ,it#in in t#eir aut#ority and did not commit "ra$e abuse of

discretion. T#is is because Artic!e 76 LC2 c!ear!y "rants t#e Labor Secretary to restrict andre"u!ate recruitment and placement activities) to ,it9

Art. 76. Re"u!atory *o,er. : T#e Secretary of Labor s#a!! #a$e t#e po,er to restrictand re"u!ate t#e recruitment and p!acement acti$ities of a!! a"encies ,it#in t#e co$era"eof t#is tit!e ;Re"u!ation of Recruitment and *!acement Acti$ities< and is #erebyaut#oried to issue orders and promu!"ate ru!es and re"u!ations to carry out t#eob=ecti$es and imp!ement t#e pro$isions of t#is tit!e.

SECOND) t#e $esture of 8uasi/!e"is!ati$e and 8uasi/=udicia! po,ers in administrati$e bodies isconstitutiona!. -t is necessitated by t#e "ro,in" comp!e4ities of t#e modern society.

T&-RD) t#e orders and circu!ars issued are #o,e$er) in$a!id and unenforceab!e. T#e reason is

t#e !ac+ of proper pub!ication and fi!in" in t#e Office of t#e Nationa! Administrati$e Re"istrar asre8uired in Artic!e of t#e Ci$i! Code to ,it9

Art. . La,s s#a!! ta+e effect after fifteen 1>2 days fo!!o,in" t#e comp!etion of t#eirpub!ication in t#e Officia! ?aatte) un!ess it is ot#er,ise pro$ided5

Artic!e > of t#e Labor Code to ,it9Art. >. Ru!es and Re"u!ations. : T#e Department of Labor and ot#er "o$ernmenta"encies c#ar"ed ,it# t#e administration and enforcement of t#is Code or any of itsparts s#a!! promu!"ate t#e necessary imp!ementin" ru!es and re"u!ations. Suc# ru!esand re"u!ations s#a!! become effecti$e fifteen 1>2 days after announcement of t#eir


2/283

adoption in ne,spapers of "enera! circu!ation5and Sections 712 and @) C#apter ) oo+ B-- of t#e Administrati$e Code of 1 ,#ic# pro$ide9

Sec. 7. Fi!in". : 12 E$ery a"ency s#a!! fi!e ,it# t#e 0ni$ersity of t#e *#i!ippines La,Center) t#ree 72 certified copies of e$ery ru!e adopted by it. Ru!es in force on t#e date ofeffecti$ity of t#is Code ,#ic# are not fi!ed ,it#in t#ree 72 mont#s s#a!! not t#ereafter bet#e basis of any sanction a"ainst any party or persons. C#apter ) oo+ B-- of t#e

Administrati$e Code of 1.2Sec. @. Effecti$ity. : -n addition to ot#er ru!e/ma+in" re8uirements pro$ided by !a, notinconsistent ,it# t#is oo+) eac# ru!e s#a!! become effecti$e fifteen 1>2 days from t#edate of fi!in" as abo$e pro$ided un!ess a different date is fi4ed by !a,) or specified in t#eru!e in cases of imminent dan"er to pub!ic #ea!t#) safety and ,e!fare) t#e e4istence of,#ic# must be e4pressed in a statement accompanyin" t#e ru!e. T#e a"ency s#a!! ta+eappropriate measures to ma+e emer"ency ru!es +no,n to persons ,#o may be affectedby t#em. C#apter ) oo+ B-- of t#e Administrati$e Code of 12.

*ro#ibition "ranted.

[G.R. No. 16208, No&"/"% 22, 2006]G 5 PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. RO5IL V. C'A5(OT, RESPON)ENT.

FACTS

Cuambot ,as an o$erseas ,or+er ,#o ,as dep!oyed to Saudi Arabia to ,or+ as a car bodybui!der in A! a#a or+s#op in 0naia# City) by petitioner ? G *#i!ippines. efore #is t,oyear contract ,as terminated Cuambot returned to t#e *#i!ippines ,#ere #e fi!ed a comp!aint int#e NLRC a"ainst #is recruitment a"ency) #erein petitioner) for unpaid ,a"es) ,it##e!d sa!aries)refund of p!ane tic+et and repatriation bond) !ater amended to inc!ude i!!e"a! dismissa!) c!aim for

t#e une4pired portion of #is emp!oyment contract) actua!) e4emp!ary and mora! dama"es) andattorneyHs fees.

*etitioner) in defense) presented copies of pays!ips issued in fa$or of Cuambot. Cuambotcountered t#at #is si"natures in t#e pays!ips ,ere for"ed and furt#er c!aims t#at #e ne$er "ot#is sa!aries e4cept on!y for t#e SAR1II as mont#!y a!!o,ance. ?G ans,ered bac+ by sayin"t#at t#ere ,as "reat possibi!ity t#at Cuambot #ad c#an"ed #is si"nature ,#i!e abroad so t#at #ecou!d fi!e a comp!aint or i!!e"a! dismissa! upon #is return.


3/283

-SS0ES

1. ,#et#er or not t#e respondentHs si"natures are mere for"eries. ,#et#er respondent e4ecuted t#e resi"nation !etter

&ELD

After e4amination of t#e e$idence on record) t#e petition must fai!.

T#e petitionerHs attempts at estab!is#in" its case are not enou"# to con$ince t#e court of t#e$eracity of its c!aims. Amon"st ot#er t#in"s) t#e petitioner fai!ed to submit t#e ori"ina! copies oft#e pay s!ips and t#e resi"nation !etter to pro$e t#at t#ey ,ere actua!!y penned by respondent)t#ey fai!ed to submit an ori"ina! copy of t#e emp!oyment contract to pro$e t#at t#ey #ad actua!!y"i$en a copy of suc# to respondent for #im to si"n) and a cursory !oo+ at t#e resi"nation !etterand t#e #and,ritten pays!ips s#o, t#at t#ey ,ere ,ritten by one person.

-ndeed) t#e ru!e is t#at a!! doubtsin t#e imp!ementation and t#e interpretation of t#e Labor Codes#a!! be reso!$ed in fa$or of !abor) in order to "i$e effect to t#e po!icy of t#e State to %afford

protection to !abor) promote fu!! emp!oyment) ensure e8ua! ,or+ opportunities re"ard!ess of se4)race or creed) and re"u!ate t#e re!ations bet,een ,or+ers and emp!oyers)( and to %assure t#eri"#ts of ,or+ers to se!f/or"aniation) co!!ecti$e bar"ainin") security of tenure) and =ust and#umane conditions of ,or+.

-t is a ,e!!/sett!ed doctrine) t#at if doubts e4ist bet,een t#e e$idence presented by t#e emp!oyerand t#e emp!oyee) t#e sca!es of =ustice must be ti!ted in fa$or of t#e !atter. -t is a time/#onoredru!e t#at in contro$ersies bet,een a !aborer and #is master) doubts reasonab!y arisin" from t#ee$idence) or in t#e interpretation of a"reements and ,ritin" s#ou!d be reso!$ed in t#e formerHsfa$or. T#e po!icy is to e4tend t#e doctrine to a "reater number of emp!oyees ,#o can a$ai! oft#e benefits under t#e !a,) ,#ic# is in consonance ,it# t#e a$o,ed po!icy of t#e State to "i$ema4imum aid and protection of !abor.

Goreo$er) one ,#o p!eads payment #as t#e burden of pro$in" it. T#e reason for t#e ru!e is t#att#e pertinent personne! fi!es) payro!!s) records) remittances and ot#er simi!ar documents J ,#ic#,i!! s#o, t#at o$ertime) differentia!s) ser$ice incenti$e !ea$e) and ot#er c!aims of ,or+ers #a$ebeen paid J are not in t#e possession of t#e ,or+er but in t#e custody and abso!ute contro! oft#e emp!oyer. T#us) t#e burden of s#o,in" ,it# !e"a! certainty t#at t#e ob!i"ation #as beendisc#ar"ed ,it# payment fa!!s on t#e debtor) in accordance ,it# t#e ru!e t#at one ,#o p!eadspayment #as t#e burden of pro$in" it. On!y ,#en t#e debtor introduces e$idence t#at t#eob!i"ation #as been e4tin"uis#ed does t#e burden s#ift to t#e creditor) ,#o is t#en under a dutyof producin" e$idence to s#o, ,#y payment does not e4tin"uis# t#e ob!i"ation -n t#is case)petitioner ,as unab!e to present amp!e e$idence to pro$e its c!aim t#at respondent #ad recei$eda!! #is sa!aries and benefits in fu!!.

*etition denied for !ac+ of merit.


4/283

[G.R. No. 1801 4u$" 10, 200:]4OSE . SON;A, !"t#t#o$"%,&s. A(S


5/283

indeed Sona did not possess suc# s+i!!s) AS CN ,ou!d not #a$e entered into t#e A"reementbut ,ou!d #a$e #ired #im t#rou"# t#e personne! department =ust !i+e an ordinary emp!oyee. -nany e$ent) t#e met#od of se!ectin" and en"a"in" does not conc!usi$e!y determine #is status.

. *ayment of a"esSona c!aims t#at because #is mont#!y fees a!! ,ent to #im and not to GKGDC as ,e!! as a!! t#e

benefits and pri$i!e"es indicate #is status as emp!oyee.T#e court said t#at t#e compensation and t#e mode of payment ,as a!! a resu!t of ne"otiationst#at !ed to t#e A"reement. -f indeed Sona ,ere an emp!oyee) t#ere ,ou!d be no need forne"otiation because t#ese benefits are deemed incorporated into t#e contract.&is ta!ent fees are !i+e,ise so #u"e and out of t#e ordinary t#at t#ey indicate more anindependent contractua! re!ations#ip rat#er t#an an emp!oyer/emp!oyee re!ations#ip. A!so) t#epo,er to bar"ain ta!ent fees is a circumstance indicati$e) but not conc!usi$e) of an independentcontractua! re!ations#ip.

C. *OER OF D-SG-SSALFor $io!ation of any pro$ision of t#e A"reement) eit#er party may terminate t#eir re!ations#ip.Sona fai!ed to s#o, t#at AS CN cou!d terminate #is ser$ices on "rounds ot#er t#an breac#

of contract) suc# as retrenc#ment to pre$ent !osses as pro$ided under !abor !a,s. -n fact)i!!ustrati$e of t#e po,er of t#e A"reement) AS CN continued to pay Sona mont#!y fees e$enof t#ey suffered !osses because it ,as ,#at t#e stipu!ations commanded.

D. *OER OF CONTROLT#is !ast test is based on t#e e4tent t#e #irer #as contro! o$er t#e ,or+er. T#e "reater t#esuper$ision and contro! o$er t#e #irer e4ercises) t#e more !i+e!y t#e ,or+er is deemed anemp!oyee. T#e con$erse #o!ds true as ,e!! J t#e !ess contro! t#e #irer e4ercises) t#e more !i+e!yt#e ,or+er is considered an independent contractor.First) SonaHs ar"ument t#at AS CN e4ercised contro! o$er t#e means and met#ods of #is,or+ is misp!aced. &e ,as en"a"ed to co/#ost a TB pro"ram and not#in" more. &o, #ede!i$ered is !ines) appeared on te!e$ision) and sounded on t#e radio ,ere outside t#e contro! of

AS CN. &e did not #a$e to render #ours of ,or+ dai!y. T#e on!y pro#ibition ,as t#at #ecou!d not criticie AS CN or its interests. Ob$ious!y SONA #ad a free #and on ,#at to sayor discuss in #is s#o,s pro$ided #e did not attac+ AS/CN or its interests. C!ear!y) AS/CNdid not e4ercise contro! o$er t#e means and met#ods of performance of SONAHs ,or+.Sona a!so c!aims t#at AS CNHs po,er not to broadcast #is s#o, te!!s of its po,er o$er t#emet#ods and means of #is ,or+. T#e ar"ument fai!s because a!t#ou"#t AS CN #ad t#is ri"#tunder t#e a"reement) it cou!d not e$en dismiss nor discip!ine Sona because it sti!! #ad tocontinue payin" #im. T#is s#o,s t#at AS CNHs contro! e4tended on!y to t#e resu!t of SonaHs,or+.Ne4t) Sona c!aims t#at AS CN e4ercise contro! by pro$idin" #im ,it# a!! t#e e8uipment andcre,. &o,e$er) t#ese are not t#e %too!s and instrumenta!ities( SONA needed to perform #is

=ob. #at SONA principa!!y needed ,ere #is ta!ent or s+i!!s and t#e costumes necessary for

#is appearance.SONA ur"es us to ru!e t#at #e ,as AS/CNHs emp!oyee because AS/CN sub=ected #im toits ru!es and standards of performance. T#e A"reement stipu!ates t#at SONA s#a!! abide ,it#t#e ru!es and standards of performance Mco$erin" ta!entsM of AS/CN. T#e A"reement doesnot re8uire SONA to comp!y ,it# t#e ru!es and standards of performance prescribed foremp!oyees of AS/CN.-n t#is case) SONA fai!ed to s#o, t#at t#ese ru!es contro!!ed #is performance. e find t#att#ese "enera! ru!es are mere!y "uide!ines to,ards t#e ac#ie$ement of t#e mutua!!y desiredresu!t) ,#ic# are top/ratin" te!e$ision and radio pro"rams t#at comp!y ,it# standards of t#e


6/283

industry.Last!y) SONA insists t#at t#e Me4c!usi$ity c!auseM in t#e A"reement is t#e most e4treme form ofcontro! ,#ic# AS/CN e4ercised o$er #im. T#is ar"ument is futi!e. E$en an independentcontractor can $a!id!y pro$ide #is ser$ices e4c!usi$e!y to t#e #irin" party.

GKGDC as A?ENT of SONA

Sona says t#at it is ,ron" to say t#at #e is a ta!ent of GKGDC. &e insists t#at GKGDC is a%!abor/on!y( contractor and AS CN is #is emp!oyer.-n a !abor/on!y contract) t#ere are t#ree parties in$o!$ed9 12 t#e M!abor/on!yM contractor5 2 t#eemp!oyee ,#o is ostensib!y under t#e emp!oy of t#e M!abor/on!yM contractor5 and 72 t#e principa!,#o is deemed t#e rea! emp!oyer. 0nder t#is sc#eme) t#e M!abor/on!yM contractor is t#e a"ent oft#e principa!. T#e !a, ma+es t#e principa! responsib!e to t#e emp!oyees of t#e M!abor/on!ycontractorM as if t#e principa! itse!f direct!y #ired or emp!oyed t#e emp!oyees.T#ese circumstances are not present in t#is case.

T#ere are essentia!!y on!y t,o parties in$o!$ed under t#e A"reement) name!y) SONA and AS/CN. GKGDC mere!y acted as SONAHs a"ent.

Ta!ents as -ndependent ContractorsAS/CN c!aims t#at t#ere e4ists a pre$ai!in" practice in t#e broadcast and entertainmentindustries to treat ta!ents !i+e SONA as independent contractors. SONA ar"ues t#at if suc#practice e4ists) it is $oid for $io!atin" t#e ri"#t of !abor to security of tenure. T#e ri"#t of !abor tosecurity of tenure as "uaranteed in t#e Constitution arises on!y if t#ere is an emp!oyer/emp!oyeere!ations#ip under !abor !a,s. Not e$ery performance of ser$ices for a fee creates an emp!oyer/emp!oyee re!ations#ip. To #o!d t#at e$ery person ,#o renders ser$ices to anot#er for a fee is anemp!oyee / to "i$e meanin" to t#e security of tenure c!ause / ,i!! !ead to absurd resu!ts.

-ndi$idua!s ,it# specia! s+i!!s) e4pertise or ta!ent en=oy t#e freedom to offer t#eir ser$ices asindependent contractors. T#e ri"#t to !ife and !i$e!i#ood "uarantees t#is freedom to contract asindependent contractors. T#e ri"#t of !abor to security of tenure cannot operate to depri$e an

indi$idua!) possessed ,it# specia! s+i!!s) e4pertise and ta!ent) of #is ri"#t to contract as anindependent contractor. An indi$idua! !i+e an artist or ta!ent #as a ri"#t to render #is ser$ices,it#out any one contro!!in" t#e means and met#ods by ,#ic# #e performs #is art or craft. T#isCourt ,i!! not interpret t#e ri"#t of !abor to security of tenure to compe! artists and ta!ents torender t#eir ser$ices on!y as emp!oyees. -f radio and te!e$ision pro"ram #osts can render t#eirser$ices on!y as emp!oyees) t#e station o,ners and mana"ers can dictate to t#e radio andte!e$ision #osts ,#at t#ey say in t#eir s#o,s. T#is is not conduci$e to freedom of t#e press.

*etition denied.


7/283

[G.R. No. 87098. No&"/"% :, 1996]ENCCLOPE)IA (RITANNICA =PHILIPPINES>, INC., !"t#t#o$"%, &s. NATIONAL LA(ORRELATIONS CO55ISSION, HON. LA(OR AR(ITER TEO)ORICO L. )OGELIO *$3

(EN4A5IN LI54OCO, %"s!o$3"$ts.

FACTS

en=amin Lim=oco ,as a Sa!es Di$ision mana"er of petitioner Encyc!opedia ritannica. &erecei$ed commissions from t#e products so!d by #is a"ents) ,#i!e office e4penses are deductedfrom #is commissions. Later) Lim=oco resi"ned to pursue #is pri$ate business. &e t#en fi!ed acomp!aint a"ainst petitioner ,it# DOLE for non/payment of separation pay and ot#er benefits)as ,e!! as i!!e"a! deduction from #is sa!es commissions. Lim=oco c!aimed t#at #e ,as #ired byt#e petitioner) ,as assi"ned in t#e sa!es department and ,as earnin" an a$era"e of *@I)III.IImont#!y as commissions5 t#at #e ,as under t#e super$ision of t#e officia!s of t#e petitioner ,#oissued to #im and ot#er personne!) memoranda) "uide!ines on company po!icies) instructions)

etc.

*etitioner) on its part) a!!e"ed t#at Lim=oco ,as not its emp!oyee but an independent dea!eraut#oried to promote and se!! its products and in return) recei$ed commissions t#erefrom.

-SS0E

#et#er or not Lim=oco ,as an independent contractor or an emp!oyee of Encyc!opediaritannica

&ELD

-n determinin" t#e e4istence of an emp!oyer/emp!oyee re!ations#ip) t#e fo!!o,in" e!ements mustbe present9 1. se!ection and en"a"ement of t#e emp!oyee5 . payment of ,a"es5 7. po,er ofdismissa!5 and @. t#e po,er to contro! t#e emp!oyeeHs conduct. Of t#e abo$e) contro! ofemp!oyeeHs conduct is common!y re"arded as t#e most crucia! and determinati$e factor of t#epresence or absence of an emp!oyer/emp!oyee re!ations#ip.

T#e fact t#at petitioner issued memoranda to pri$ate respondent and ot#er sa!es mana"ers didnot pro$e t#at petitioner #ad contro! o$er t#em. T#e memoranda ,ere mere "uide!ines oncompany po!icies ,#ic# sa!es mana"ers fo!!o, and furt#er re8uire on t#eir sa!es a"ents. T#e


8/283

issuance of memoranda to Lim=oco and ot#er sa!es mana"ers ,as on!y done to appraise t#emand t#eir respecti$e a"ents of t#e company po!icies and procedures. Lim=oco ,as free toconduct and promote t#eir sa!es operations. T#e occasiona! reports to t#e petitioner fromLim=oco ,ere re8uired in order to update t#e company of its dea!erHs performance. E$en t#ou"#petitioner #ad fi4ed t#e prices of t#e products for reason of uniformity and t#at Lim=oco cannota!ter t#em) #e) ne$ert#e!ess) #ad t#e free rein in t#e means and met#ods in se!!in" t#em.

&e ,as free to conduct #is ,or+ and #e ,as free to en"a"e in ot#er means of !i$e!i#ood. At t#etime #e ,as a dea!er for t#e petitioner) Lim=oco ,as a!so a director and !ater t#e president of t#eFarmerHs Rura! an+. &ad #e been an emp!oyee of t#e petioner) #e cou!d not be emp!oyede!se,#ere and #e ,ou!d be re8uired to de$ote fu!! time for petitioner.

*etition "ranted.

[G.R. No. 9107 4*$u*% 2:, 1991]SINGER SE?ING 5ACHINE CO5PAN, !"t#t#o$"% &s. HON. FRAN@LIN 5. )RILON, 5E). T#e co!!ection a"entsare paid strict!y on commission basis. T#e amounts paid to t#em are based so!e!y on t#eamounts of co!!ection eac# of t#em ma+e. T#ey do not recei$e any commission if t#ey do noteffect any co!!ection e$en if t#ey put a !ot of effort in co!!ectin". T#ey are paid commission on t#ebasis of actua! co!!ections.5 6. T#e commissions earned by t#e co!!ection a"ents are direct!ydeducted by t#em from t#e amount of co!!ections t#ey are ab!e to effect. T#e net amount is ,#atis t#en remitted to Sin"er.M Ro!!o) pp. /2

-f indeed t#e union members are contro!!ed as to t#e manner by ,#ic# t#ey are supposed toperform t#eir co!!ections) t#ey s#ou!d #a$e e4p!icit!y said so in detai! by specifica!!y denyin"

eac# of t#e facts asserted by t#e petitioner. As t#ere seems to be no ob=ections on t#e part oft#e respondents) t#e Court finds t#at t#ey miserab!y fai!ed to defend t#eir position.

A t#orou"# e4amination of t#e facts of t#e case !eads us to t#e conc!usion t#at t#e e4istence ofan emp!oyer/emp!oyee re!ations#ip bet,een t#e Company and t#e co!!ection a"ents cannot besustained.

T#e !ast and most important e!ement of t#e contro! test is not satisfied by t#e terms andconditions of t#e contracts. T#ere is not#in" in t#e a"reement ,#ic# imp!ies contro! by t#eCompany not on!y o$er t#e end to be ac#ie$ed but a!so o$er t#e means and met#ods in


10/283

ac#ie$in" t#e end.

T#e Court finds t#e contention of t#e respondents t#at t#e union members are emp!oyees underArtic!e I of t#e Labor Code to #a$e no basis. T#e Court a"rees ,it# t#e petitioners ar"umentt#at Artic!e I is not t#e yardstic+ for determinin" t#e e4istence of an emp!oyment re!ations#ipbecause it mere!y distin"uis#es bet,een t,o +inds of emp!oyees. T#e Court finds t#at since

pri$ate respondents are not emp!oyees of t#e Company) t#ey are not entit!ed to t#econstitutiona! ri"#t to =oin or form a !abor or"aniation for purposes of co!!ecti$e bar"ainin".Accordin"!y) t#ere is no constitutiona! and !e"a! basis for t#eir MunionM to be "ranted t#eir petitionfor direct certification.

Order of Ged/Arbiter and DOLE Secretary re$ersed and set aside.

[G.R. No. 19890 5* 28, 200:]E5PER5ACO (. A(ANTE, 4R., !"t#t#o$"%, &s. LA5A)RI) (EARING PARTS CORP. *$34OSE LA5A)RI), P%"s#3"$t, %"s!o$3"$ts.

FACTS

*etitioner ,as a sa!esman of respondent company earnin" a commission of 7P of t#e tota! paidup sa!es co$erin" t#e ,#o!e area of Gindanao. Aside from se!!in") #e ,as a!so tas+ed ,it#co!!ection. Respondent corporation t#rou"# its president) often re8uired Abante to report to aparticu!ar area and occasiona!!y re8uired #im to "o to Gani!a to attend conferences.

Later on) bad b!ood ensued bet,een t#e parties due to some bad accounts t#at Lamadridforced petitioner to co$er. Later petitioner found out t#at respondent #ad informed #is customersnot to dea! ,it# petitioner since it no !on"er reco"nied #im as a commission sa!esman.*etitioner fi!ed a comp!aint for i!!e"a! dismissa! ,it# money c!aims a"ainst respondent companyand its president) Kose Lamadrid.

y ,ay of defense) respondents countered t#at petitioner ,as not its emp!oyee but a free!ancesa!esman on commission basis.

-SS0E

#et#er or not petitioner) as a commission sa!esman) is an emp!oyee of respondentcorporation.

&ELD

To determine t#e e4istence of an emp!oyee/emp!oyer re!ations#ip) ,e app!y t#e four fo!d test9 12

t#e manner of se!ection and en"a"ement5 2 t#e payment of ,a"es5 72 t#e presence orabsence of t#e po,er of dismissa!5 and @2 t#e presence or absence of t#e po,er of contro!.

App!yin" t#e aforementioned test) an emp!oyer/emp!oyee re!ations#ip is notab!y absent in t#iscase. -t is true t#at #e ,as paid in commission yet no 8uota ,as imposed t#erefore a disma!performance ,ou!d not ,arrant a "round for dismissa!. T#ere ,as no specific office #ours #e,as re8uired to obser$e. &e ,as not desi"nated to conduct ser$ices at a particu!ar area or time.&e pursued #is se!!in" ,it#out interference or super$ision from t#e company. T#e company didnot prescribe t#e manner of se!!in" merc#andise. #i!e #e ,as sometimes re8uired to report to


11/283

Gani!a) t#ese ,ere on!y intended to "uide #im. Goreo$er) petitioner ,as free to offer #isser$ices to ot#er companies.

Art. I is not a crucia! factor because it on!y determines t,o +inds of emp!oyees. -t doen5tapp!y ,#ere t#ere is no emp!oyer/emp!oyee re!ations#ip. #i!e t#e term commission under

Artic!e 6 of t#e LC ,as construed as bein" inc!uded in t#e term %,a"e() t#ere is no cate"orica!

pronouncement t#at t#e payment of commission is conc!usi$e proof of t#e e4istence of anemp!oyee/emp!oyer re!ations#ip.

T#e decision of t#e CA is affirmed.

[G.R. No. 1721:. 4u$" 7, 200]PHILIPPINE GLO(AL CO55'NICATIONS, INC., !"t#t#o$"%, &s. RICAR)O )E VERA,

%"s!o$3"$t.

FACTS

De Bera and petitioner company entered into a contract ,#ere respondent ,as to attend to t#emedica! needs of petitionerHs emp!oyees ,#i!e bein" paid a retainer fee of *@)III per mont#.Later) De Bera ,as informed y petitioner t#at t#e retainers#ip ,i!! be discontinued. Respondentfi!ed a case for i!!e"a! dismissa!.


12/283

-SS0E

#et#er or not de Bera is an emp!oyee of *#i!Comm or an independent contractor.

&ELD

App!yin" t#e four fo!d test) de Bera is not an emp!oyee. T#ere are se$era! indicators apart fromt#e fact t#at t#e po,er to terminate t#e arran"ement !ay on bot# parties9

Q from t#e time #e started to ,or+ ,it# petitioner) #e ne$er ,as inc!uded in its payro!!5,as ne$er deducted any contribution for remittance to t#e Socia! Security System SSS25Q #e ,as sub=ected by petitioner to t#e ten 1IP2 percent ,it##o!din" ta4 for #isprofessiona! fee) in accordance ,it# t#e Nationa! -nterna! Re$enue Code) matters ,#ic# aresimp!y inconsistent ,it# an emp!oyer/emp!oyee re!ations#ip5Q t#e records are rep!ete ,it# e$idence s#o,in" t#at respondent #ad to bi!! petitionerfor #is mont#!y professiona! fees. -t simp!y runs a"ainst t#e "rain of common e4perience toima"ine t#at an ordinary emp!oyee #as yet to bi!! #is emp!oyer to recei$e #is sa!ary.

Fina!!y) t#e e!ement of contro! s absent.

*etition "ranted.


13/283

[G.R. No. 6:9:8 S"!t"/"% 27, 199:]5ANILA GOLF CO'NTR CL'(, INC., !"t#t#o$"%, &s. INTER5E)IATE APPELLATECO'RT *$3 FER5IN LLA5AR, %"s!o$3"$ts.

FACTS

A petition for certification ,as fi!ed ,it# t#e Labor Re!ations Di$ision of t#e Ginistry of Labor by*TCCEA in be#a!f of t#e caddies of petitioners. T#e petition ,as reso!$ed in fa$or of t#ecaddies. T#e same union !ater fi!ed for SSS co$era"e but t#e Socia! Security Commissiondenied t#em for absence of emp!oyee emp!oyer re!ations#ip.

-SS0E

#et#er or not persons renderin" caddyin" ser$ices for members of "o!f c!ubs and t#eir "uestsin said c!ubHs courses or premises are t#e emp!oyees of suc# c!ubs and t#erefore ,it#in t#ecompu!sory co$era"e of t#e SSS.

&ELD

T#e caddies are not emp!oyees for t#e fo!!o,in" reasons9/ru!es and re"u!ations are permissib!e means to impose order ,#ere t#e caddies are a!!o,ed topursue t#eir profession ,it#in t#e c!ubHs premises/t#ey do not obser$e a particu!ar ,or+in" #our and are not at t#e ca!! of t#e c!ub/t#e c!ub #as no measure of contro! o$er t#e incidents of t#e caddiesH ,or+ and compensation/t#e "roup rotation system is on!y an assurance t#at t#e ,or+ is distributed fair!y

Decision of t#e CA re$ersed and set aside.

[G.R. No. 1:::. 5*%+ 18, 200]RA'EL P. CONS'LTA, !"t#t#o$"%, &s. CO'RT OF APPEALS, PA5ANA PHILIPPINES,INC., RA;'L ;. RE'ESTO, *$3 ALETA TOLENTINO, %"s!o$3"$ts.

FACTS

Consu!ta ,as Gana"in" Associate of *amana. On 1 s#e ,as issued a certification


14/283

aut#oriin" #er to ne"otiate for and in be#a!f of *AGANA ,it# t#e Federation of Fi!ipino Ci$i!ianEmp!oyees Association. Consu!ta ,as ab!e to secure an account ,it# FFCEA in be#a!f of*AGANA. &o,e$er) Consu!ta c!aimed t#at *AGANA did not pay #er commission for t#e**CEA account and fi!ed a comp!aint for unpaid ,a"es or commission.

-SS0E

#et#er or not Consu!ta ,as an emp!oyee of *AGANA.

&ELD

T#e SC #e!d t#at *amana ,as an independent a"ent and not an emp!oyee.T#e po,er of contro! in t#e four fo!d test is missin". T#e manner in ,#ic# Consu!ta ,as topursue #er tas+ed acti$ities ,as not sub=ect to t#e contro! of *AGANA. Consu!ta fai!ed to s#o,t#at s#e ,or+ed definite #ours. T#e amount of time) t#e met#ods and means) t#e mana"ementand maintenance of #er sa!es di$ision ,ere !eft to #er sound =ud"ment.

Fina!!y) *amana paid Consu!ta not for !abor s#e performed but on!y for t#e resu!ts of #er !abor.

it#out resu!ts) Consu!taHs !abor ,as #er o,n burden and !oss. &er ri"#t to compensation) or tocommission) depended on t#e tan"ib!e resu!ts of #er ,or+ / ,#et#er s#e brou"#t in payin"recruits.

T#e fact t#at t#e appointment re8uired Consu!ta to so!icit business e4c!usi$e!y for *amana didnot mean *amana e4ercised contro! o$er t#e means and met#ods of Consu!taHs ,or+ as t#eterm contro! is understood in !abor =urisprudence. Neit#er did it ma+e Consu!ta an emp!oyee of*amana. *amana did not pro#ibit Consu!ta from en"a"in" in any ot#er business) or from bein"connected ,it# any ot#er company) for as !on" as t#e business or company did not compete,it# *amanaHs business. T#e e4c!usi$ity c!ause ,as a reasonab!e restriction to pre$ent simi!aracts pre=udicia! to *amanaHs business interest. Artic!e 17I6 of t#e Ci$i! Code pro$ides t#at %;t


15/283

Gana"ers Contract : and to imp!ement #is end of it asiao or"anied an a"ency or office to,#ic# #e "a$e t#e name G. asiao and Associates) ,#i!e concurrent!y fu!fi!!in" #iscommitments under t#e first contract ,it# t#e Company. -n Gay) 1) t#e Companyterminated t#e A"ency Gana"ers Contract. After $ain!y see+in" a reconsideration) asiao suedt#e Company in a ci$i! action and t#is) #e ,as !ater to c!aim) prompted t#e !atter to terminatea!so #is en"a"ement under t#e first contract and to stop payment of #is commissions startin"

Apri! 1) 1I.

asiao t#ereafter fi!ed ,it# t#e t#en Ginistry of Labor a comp!aint a"ainst t#e Company and itspresident. T#e comp!aint sou"#t to reco$er commissions a!!e"ed!y unpaid t#ereunder) p!usattorneys fees. T#e respondents disputed t#e Ginistrys =urisdiction o$er asiaos c!aim)assertin" t#at #e ,as not t#e Companys emp!oyee) but an independent contractor.

-SS0E

#et#er or not t#ere e4ist an emp!oyer/emp!oyee re!ations#ip bet,een asiao and -nsu!ar Life.

&ELD

T#e SC ru!ed in fa$or of -nsu!ar Life.

Not e$ery form of contro! t#at t#e #irin" party reser$es to #imse!f o$er t#e conduct of t#e party#ired in re!ation to t#e ser$ices rendered may be accorded t#e effect of estab!is#in" anemp!oyer/emp!oyee re!ations#ip bet,een t#em in t#e !e"a! or tec#nica! sense of t#e term. A !inemust be dra,n some,#ere) if t#e reco"nied distinction bet,een an emp!oyee and an indi$idua!contractor is not to $anis# a!to"et#er.

Lo"ica!!y) t#e !ine s#ou!d be dra,n bet,een ru!es t#at mere!y ser$e as "uide!ines to,ards t#eac#ie$ement of t#e mutua!!y desired resu!t ,it#out dictatin" t#e means or met#ods to beemp!oyed in attainin" it) and t#ose t#at contro! or fi4 t#e met#odo!o"y and bind or restrict t#e

party #ired to t#e use of suc# means. T#e first) ,#ic# aim on!y to promote t#e resu!t) create noemp!oyer/emp!oyee re!ations#ip un!i+e t#e second) ,#ic# address bot# t#e resu!t and t#emeans used to ac#ie$e it. T#e distinction ac8uires particu!ar re!e$ance in t#e case of anenterprise affected ,it# pub!ic interest) as is t#e business of insurance) and is on t#at accountsub=ect to re"u!ation by t#e State ,it# respect) not on!y to t#e re!ations bet,een insurer andinsured but a!so to t#e interna! affairs of t#e insurance company. Ru!es and re"u!ations"o$ernin" t#e conduct of t#e business are pro$ided for in t#e -nsurance Code and enforced byt#e -nsurance Commissioner. -t is) t#erefore) usua! and e4pected for an insurance company topromu!"ate a set of ru!es to "uide its commission a"ents in se!!in" its po!icies t#at t#ey may notrun afou! of t#e !a, and ,#at it re8uires or pro#ibits. Of suc# a c#aracter are t#e ru!es ,#ic#prescribe t#e 8ua!ifications of persons ,#o may be insured) sub=ect insurance app!ications toprocessin" and appro$a! by t#e Company) and a!so reser$e to t#e Company t#e determination

of t#e premiums to be paid and t#e sc#edu!es of payment. None of t#ese rea!!y in$ades t#ea"ents contractua! prero"ati$e to adopt #is o,n se!!in" met#ods or to se!! insurance at #is o,ntime and con$enience) #ence cannot =ustifiab!y be said to estab!is# an emp!oyer/emp!oyeere!ations#ip bet,een #im and t#e company.

T#e respondents !imit t#emse!$es to pointin" out t#at asiaos contract ,it# t#e Companybound #im to obser$e and conform to suc# ru!es and re"u!ations as t#e !atter mi"#t from time totime prescribe. No s#o,in" #as been made t#at any suc# ru!es or re"u!ations ,ere in factpromu!"ated) muc# !ess t#at any ru!es e4isted or ,ere issued ,#ic# effecti$e!y contro!!ed or


16/283

restricted #is c#oice of met#ods : or t#e met#ods t#emse!$es : of se!!in" insurance. Absentsuc# s#o,in") t#e Court ,i!! not specu!ate t#at any e4ceptions or 8ua!ifications ,ere imposedon t#e e4press pro$ision of t#e contract !ea$in" asiao M... free to e4ercise #is o,n =ud"ment asto t#e time) p!ace and means of so!icitin" insurance.M

T#e Court) t#erefore) ru!es t#at under t#e contract in$o+ed by #im) asiao ,as not an emp!oyee

of t#e petitioner) but a commission a"ent) an independent contractor ,#ose c!aim for unpaidcommissions s#ou!d #a$e been !iti"ated in an ordinary ci$i! action.

NLRC Decision set aside.


17/283

[G.R. No. 12::. A!%# 11, 2002.]ROGELIO E. RA5OS *$3 ERLIN)A RA5OS, #$ t"#% oB$ "*- *$3 *s $*tu%* gu*%3#*$so- t" /#$o%s, RO55EL RA5OS, RO RO)ERIC@ RA5OS, *$3 RON RA5ON) RA5OS,!"t#t#o$"%s, &s. CO'RT OF APPEALS, )E LOS SANTOS 5E)ICAL CENTER, )R. ORLINOHOSA@A *$3 )R. PERFECTA G'TIERRE;, %"s!o$3"$ts.

FACTS

Sometime in 1>) Er!inda Ramos) petitioner) ,as ad$ised to under"o an operation for t#eremo$a! of a stone in #er "a!! b!adder. S#e ,as referred to Dr. &osa+a) a sur"eon. Dr. ?utierre,as !i+e,ise appointed as anest#esio!o"ist.

Durin" operation) comp!ications arose resu!tin" to in=ury to Ramos.

-SS0E

-s t#ere an emp!oyee/emp!oyer re!ations#ip bet,een t#e #ospita! and $isitin" consu!tants

&ELD

T#ere is no emp!oyee/emp!oyer re!ations#ip.

1. As e4p!ained by respondent #ospita!) t#at t#e admission of a p#ysician to members#ip inDLSGCs medica! staff as acti$e or $isitin" consu!tant is first decided upon by t#e Credentia!sCommittee t#ereof) ,#ic# is composed of t#e #eads of t#e $arious specia!ty departments suc#as t#e Department of Obstetrics and ?yneco!o"y) *ediatrics) Sur"ery ,it# t#e department #eadof t#e particu!ar specia!ty app!ied for as c#airman. T#e Credentia!s Committee t#enrecommends to DLSGCs Gedica! Director or &ospita! Administrator t#e acceptance or re=ectionof t#e app!icant p#ysician) and said director or administrator $a!idates t#e committeesrecommendation. Simi!ar!y) in cases ,#ere a discip!inary action is !od"ed a"ainst a consu!tant)

t#e same is initiated by t#e department to ,#om t#e consu!tant concerned be!on"s and fi!ed,it# t#e Et#ics Committee consistin" of t#e department specia!ty #eads. T#e medica!director3#ospita! administrator mere!y acts as e4/officio member of said committee.. Neit#er is t#ere any s#o,in" t#at it is DLSGC ,#ic# pays any of its consu!tants for medica!ser$ices rendered by t#e !atter to t#eir respecti$e patients.7. Goreo$er) t#e contract bet,een t#e consu!tant in respondent #ospita! and #is patient isseparate and distinct from t#e contract bet,een respondent #ospita! and said patient. T#e first#as for its ob=ect t#e rendition of medica! ser$ices by t#e consu!tant to t#e patient) ,#i!e t#esecond concerns t#e pro$ision by t#e #ospita! of faci!ities and ser$ices by its staff suc# asnurses and !aboratory personne! necessary for t#e proper treatment of t#e patient.

Furt#er) no e$idence ,as adduced to s#o, t#at t#e in=ury suffered by petitioner Er!inda ,as due

to a fai!ure on t#e part of respondent DLSGC to pro$ide for #ospita! faci!ities and staff necessaryfor #er treatment.

For t#ese reasons) DLSGC is abso!$ed from !iabi!ity and Dr. &osa+a and Dr. ?utierre are#ereby dec!ared to be so!idari!y !iab!e.


18/283

G.R. No. 118086 )"+"/"% 1, 1997S'SAN G. CAR'NGCONG, !"t#t#o$"%, &s. NATIONAL LA(OR RELATIONS CO55ISSION,S'N LIFE ASS'RANCE CO. OF CANA)A, LANCE @E5P *$3 5ERTON )EVE;A,%"s!o$3"$ts.

FACTS

Susan Carun"con" ,as an insurance a"ent for Sun Life assurance Company of Canada. As ana"ent s#e si"ned a number of a"reements ,it# Sun Life some concernin" an a"entHscommission) ob!i"ations) !imitations on aut#ority and termination of a"reement. -t ,as a!sostressed t#at s#e s#a!! be considered as an independent contractor and not and emp!oyee foSun Life.

-n 1) #er connection ,it# Sun Life ,as terminated due to accountin" discrepancies.*etitioner fi!ed a comp!aint ,it# t#e NLRC/RA for i!!e"a! dismissa!.

-SS0E

#et#er or not t#ere e4ists a) emp!oyee/emp!oyer re!ations#ip.

&ELD

-t ,as emp#asied in t#e a"reements bet,een t#e parties t#at Carun"con" ,ou!d beconsidered as an independent contractor and not an emp!oyee.


19/283

-t is "ermane to ad$ert to t#e fact) ,#ic# s#ou!d by no, be apparent) t#at Carun"con" ,as notyour ordinary run/of/t#e/mi!! emp!oyee) nor e$en your a$era"e mana"eria! emp!oyee orsuper$isor. &er stated annua! income from #er occupation is impressi$e by any standards9 Mine4cess of *7)III)III.II)M e4c!usi$e of o$erridin" commissions. Certain!y) s#e may not be!i+ened to an ordinary person app!yin" for emp!oyment) or an ordinary emp!oyee stri$in" to +eep#is =ob) under t#e mora! dominance of t#e #irin" entity or indi$idua!.

T#ese considerations impe! concurrence ,it# t#e conc!usions of t#e c#a!!en"ed decision andreso!ution of respondent Commission ,#ic# considered Carun"con" as an independentcontractor) not an emp!oyee of Sun Life. -t is si"nificant t#at t#is issue of t#e precise status ofCarun"con" as an independent contractor) e$ident!y deemed decisi$e by respondentCommission) ,as discussed by it at some !en"t# not once) but t,ice) first in its Decision of Ku!y) 1@) and t#en in its second Decision of October ) 1@ reso!$in" t#e separate motionsfor reconsideration of t#e parties.

Goreo$er) it is true t#at comp!ainant Carun"con"s duties and functions deri$ed from #er t#ene4istin" a"reements3contracts ,ere made sub=ect to ru!es and re"u!ations issued by respondentcompany) and for t#at matter) #a$e !i+e,ise been made sub=ect of certain !imitations imposed by

said respondent company. Nonet#e!ess) t#ese are not sufficient to accord t#e effect ofestab!is#in" emp!oyer/emp!oyee re!ations#ip absent in t#is case. T#is is so because t#einsurance business is not =ust any ot#er ordinary business. -t is one t#at is imbued ,it# pub!icinterest #ence) it must be "o$erned buy t#e ru!es and re"u!ations of t#e state. T#e contro!sad$erted to by comp!ainant are !atent in t#e +ind of business s#e is into and are main!y aimed atpromotin" t#e resu!ts t#e parties so desire and do not necessari!y create any emp!oyer/emp!oyee re!ations#ips) ,#ere t#e emp!oyers contro!s #a$e to interfere in t#e met#ods andmeans by ,#ic# t#e emp!oyee ,ou!d !i+e to emp!oy to arri$e at t#e desired resu!ts.

For t#at matter) comp!ainant Carun"con" ,as ne$er paid a fi4ed ,a"e or sa!ary but ,as main!ypaid by commissions) dependin" on t#e !e$e! and $o!ume of #er performance3production) t#enumber of trained a"ents) ,#en ta+en in and assi"ned to #er) bein" responsib!e for #er added

income as s#e "ets a certain percenta"e from t#e said a"ents production as part of #ercommission.

Comp!ainants Mt#eory of t#e caseM appears to be !imited to pointin" out t#at respondentcompany issued ru!es and re"u!ations to ,#ic# s#e s#ou!d conform. &o,e$er) no s#o,in" #asbeen made t#at suc# ru!es and re"u!ations effecti$e!y and actua!!y contro!!ed or restricted #erc#oice of met#ods in performin" #er duties as Ne, usiness Gana"er. it#out suc# proof)t#ere can be no p!ausib!e reason to be!ie$e t#at #er contractua! dec!aration t#at s#e ,as anindependent contractor #as been 8ua!ified.

T#us) ,e see no reason to de$iate from our ori"ina! conc!usion t#at comp!ainant ,as ne$errespondents emp!oyee. Comp!ainants motion for reconsideration is) t#erefore) denied.

*etition is dismissed.


20/283

[G.R. No. 1:6881 F"%u*% , 2007]COCA COLA (OTTLERS =PHILS.>, INC.ERIC 5ONTINOLA, 5*$*g"%, P"t#t#o$"%s, &s. )R.

)EAN N. CLI5ACO, R"s!o$3"$t.

FACTS

Dr. Dean N. C!imaco is a medica! doctor ,#o ,as #ired by petitioner Coca/Co!a by $irtue of aRetainer A"reement. T#e compensation to be paid is fi4ed at *7)III.II per mont#. &e mayc#ar"e professiona! fee for #ospita! ser$ices rendered in !ine ,it# #is specia!iation. &e is toobser$e c!inic #ours at t#e company premises from Gonday to Saturday at !east t,o 2 #ourseac# day un!ess suc# sc#edu!e is ot#er,ise c#an"ed by t#e company as t#e situation so,arrants) sub=ect to t#e !abor Code pro$isions on Occupationa! Safety and &ea!t# Standards ast#e Company may determine. -t ,as a!so e4press!y stated in t#e contract t#at no emp!oyer/emp!oyee re!ations#ip s#a!! e4ist bet,een t#e retainer and t#e company. T#e doctor a!so a"rees

to perform t#e duties and ob!i"ations enumerated in t#e Compre#ensi$e Gedica! *!an. After t#ee4piration of t#e 1/year retainer a"reement) respondent continued to perform #is functions as acompany doctor to Coca/Co!a unti! #e recei$ed a !etter from t#e !atter conc!udin" t#eirretainers#ip a"reement effecti$e 7I days from receipt t#ereof.

Respondent t#en fi!ed a comp!aint before t#e NLRC) see+in" reco"nition as a re"u!ar emp!oyeeof petitioner company and prayed for t#e payment of a!! benefits of a re"u!ar emp!oyee)inc!udin" 17t# Gont# *ay) Cost of Li$in" A!!o,ance) &o!iday *ay) Ser$ice -ncenti$e Lea$e *ay)and C#ristmas onus. T#is ,as !ater amended to inc!ude i!!e"a! dismissa!.

-SS0E

3n t#ere e4isted an emp!oyee/emp!oyer re!ations#ip bet,een C!imaco and Coca Co!a.

&ELD

T#e SC #e!d t#at t#ere is no emp!oyer/emp!oyee re!ations#ip bet,een petitioner andrespondent company. T#e Court) in determinin" t#e e4istence of an emp!oyer/emp!oyeere!ations#ip) #as in$ariab!y ad#ered to t#e four/fo!d test9 12 t#e se!ection and en"a"ement oft#e emp!oyee5 2 t#e payment of ,a"es5 72 t#e po,er of dismissa!5 and @2 t#e po,er tocontro! t#e emp!oyeeHs conduct) or t#e so/ca!!ed %contro! test)( considered to be t#e mostimportant e!ement.

T#e circumstances of t#is case s#o, t#at no emp!oyer/emp!oyee re!ations#ip e4ists bet,eent#e parties because t#e company !ac+ed t#e po,er of contro! o$er t#e performance byrespondent of #is duties. T#e company in pro$idin" a Compre#ensi$e Gedica! *!an) mere!yissued "uide!ines in order to ensue t#at t#e end resu!t ,as ac#ie$ed) but did not contro! t#emeans and met#ods by ,#ic# respondent performed #is assi"ned tas+s. T#e company !ac+st#e po,er of contro! t#at t#e contract pro$ides t#at t#e respondent s#a!! be direct!y responsib!eto t#e emp!oyee concerned and t#eir dependents for any in=ury) #arm or dama"e causedt#rou"# professiona! ne"!i"ence) incompetence) or ot#er $a!id causes of action. T#e Court a!sofinds t#at t#e sc#edu!e of ,or+ and t#e re8uirement to be on ca!! for emer"ency cases do not


21/283

amount to suc# contro!) but are necessary incidents to t#e Retainers#ip A"reement. T#e Courta!so notes t#at t#e Retainers#ip A"reement "ranted to bot# parties t#e po,er to terminate t#eirre!ations#ip upon "i$in" a 7I/day notice. &ence) petitioner company did not ,ie!d t#e so!epo,er of dismissa! or termination. T#ere is not#in" ,ron" ,it# t#e emp!oyment of respondent asa retained p#ysician of petitioner company and up#o!ds t#e $a!idity of t#e retainers#ipa"reement ,#ic# c!ear!y states t#at no emp!oyer/emp!oyee re!ations#ip e4isted bet,een t#e

parties.

*etition is "ranted.

[G.R. No. 170087 August 1, 2006]ANGELINA FRANCISCO, P"t#t#o$"%, &s. NATIONAL LA(OR RELATIONS CO55ISSION,@ASEI CORPORATION, SEIICHIRO TA@AHASHI, TI5OTEO ACE)O, )ELFIN LI;A, IRENE(ALLESTEROS, TRINI)A) LI;A *$3 RA5ON ESC'ETA, R"s!o$3"$ts.

FACTS

Sometime in 1>) petitioner ,as #ired by 'asei Corporation durin" its incorporation sta"e. S#e,as desi"nated as Accountant and Corporate Secretary and ,as assi"ned to #and!e a!! t#eaccountin" needs of t#e company. S#e ,as a!so desi"nated as Liaison Officer to t#e City ofGa+ati to secure business permits) construction permits and ot#er !icenses for t#e initia!

operation of t#e company.

-n 16) petitioner ,as desi"nated Actin" Gana"er. As Actin" Gana"er) petitioner ,as assi"nedto #and!e recruitment of a!! emp!oyees and perform mana"ement administration functions5represent t#e company in a!! dea!in"s ,it# "o$ernment a"encies) especia!!y ,it# t#e ureau of-nterna! Re$enue -R2) Socia! Security System SSS2 and in t#e city "o$ernment of Ga+ati5 andto administer a!! ot#er matters pertainin" to t#e operation of 'asei Restaurant ,#ic# is o,nedand operated by 'asei Corporation.


22/283

For fi$e years) petitioner performed t#e duties of Actin" Gana"er. As of December 71) III #ersa!ary ,as *)>II.II p!us *7)III.II #ousin" a!!o,ance and a 1IP s#are in t#e profit of 'aseiCorporation.

-n Kanuary II1) petitioner ,as rep!aced by Lia R. Fuentes as Gana"er. *etitioner a!!e"ed t#ats#e ,as re8uired to si"n a prepared reso!ution for #er rep!acement but s#e ,as assured t#at

s#e ,ou!d sti!! be connected ,it# 'asei Corporation. Timoteo Acedo) t#e desi"nated Treasurer)con$ened a meetin" of a!! emp!oyees of 'asei Corporation and announced t#at not#in" #adc#an"ed and t#at petitioner ,as sti!! connected ,it# 'asei Corporation as Tec#nica! Assistant toSei=i 'amura and in c#ar"e of a!! -R matters.

T#ereafter) 'asei Corporation reduced #er sa!ary by *)>II.II a mont# be"innin" Kanuary upto September II1 for a tota! reduction of *)>II.II as of September II1. *etitioner ,as notpaid #er mid/year bonus a!!e"ed!y because t#e company ,as not earnin" ,e!!. On OctoberII1) petitioner did not recei$e #er sa!ary from t#e company. S#e made repeated fo!!o,/ups,it# t#e company cas#ier but s#e ,as ad$ised t#at t#e company ,as not earnin" ,e!!.

On October 1>) II1) petitioner as+ed for #er sa!ary from Acedo and t#e rest of t#e officers but

s#e ,as informed t#at s#e is no !on"er connected ,it# t#e company.

Since s#e ,as no !on"er paid #er sa!ary) petitioner did not report for ,or+ and fi!ed an action forconstructi$e dismissa! before t#e !abor arbiter.

-SS0E

#et#er or not t#ere ,as an emp!oyer/emp!oyee re!ations#ip bet,een petitioner and pri$aterespondent 'asei Corporation.

&ELD

T#e SC #e!d t#at t#ere #as been no uniform test to determine t#e e4istence of an emp!oyer/emp!oyee re!ation. ?enera!!y) courts #a$e re!ied on t#e so/ca!!ed ri"#t of contro! test ,#ere t#eperson for ,#om t#e ser$ices are performed reser$es a ri"#t to contro! not on!y t#e end to beac#ie$ed but a!so t#e means to be used in reac#in" suc# end. -n addition to t#e standard ofri"#t/of/contro!) t#e existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties, like theinclusion of the employee in the payrolls, can help in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

&o,e$er) in certain cases t#e contro! test is not sufficient to "i$e a comp!ete picture of t#ere!ations#ip bet,een t#e parties) o,in" to t#e comp!e4ity of suc# a re!ations#ip ,#ere se$era!positions #a$e been #e!d by t#e ,or+er. T#ere are instances ,#en) aside from t#e emp!oyerHspo,er to contro! t#e emp!oyee ,it# respect to t#e means and met#ods by ,#ic# t#e ,or+ is to

be accomp!is#ed) economic realities of the employment relations help provide a comprehensiveanalysis of the true classification of the individual) ,#et#er as emp!oyee) independentcontractor) corporate officer or some ot#er capacity.

T#e better approac# ,ou!d t#erefore be to adopt a t,o/tiered test in$o!$in"9 (1) the putativeemployers power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which thework is to be accomplished and (!) the underlying economic realities of the activity orrelationship.T#is t,o/tiered test ,ou!d pro$ide us ,it# a frame,or+ of ana!ysis) ,#ic# ,ou!dta+e into consideration t#e tota!ity of circumstances surroundin" t#e true nature of t#e


23/283

re!ations#ip bet,een t#e parties. T#is is especia!!y appropriate in t#is case ,#ere t#ere is no,ritten a"reement or terms of reference to base t#e re!ations#ip on5 and due to t#e comp!e4ityof t#e re!ations#ip based on t#e $arious positions and responsibi!ities "i$en to t#e ,or+er o$ert#e period of t#e !atterHs emp!oyment.

T#us) t#e determination of t#e re!ations#ip bet,een emp!oyer and emp!oyee depends upon t#e

circumstances of t#e ,#o!e economic acti$ity) suc# as9 12 t#e e4tent to ,#ic# t#e ser$icesperformed are an inte"ra! part of t#e emp!oyerHs business5 2 t#e e4tent of t#e ,or+erHsin$estment in e8uipment and faci!ities5 72 t#e nature and de"ree of contro! e4ercised by t#eemp!oyer5 @2 t#e ,or+erHs opportunity for profit and !oss5 >2 t#e amount of initiati$e) s+i!!)

=ud"ment or foresi"#t re8uired for t#e success of t#e c!aimed independent enterprise5 62 t#epermanency and duration of t#e re!ations#ip bet,een t#e ,or+er and t#e emp!oyer5 and 2 t#ede"ree of dependency of t#e ,or+er upon t#e emp!oyer for #is continued emp!oyment in t#at!ine of business.

T#e proper standard of economic dependence is ,#et#er t#e ,or+er is dependent on t#ea!!e"ed emp!oyer for #is continued emp!oyment in t#at !ine of business. -n t#e 0nited States) t#etouc#stone of economic rea!ity in ana!yin" possib!e emp!oyment re!ations#ips for purposes of

t#e Federa! Labor Standards Act is dependency. y ana!o"y) t#e benc#mar+ of economic rea!ityin ana!yin" possib!e emp!oyment re!ations#ips for purposes of t#e Labor Code ou"#t to be t#eeconomic dependence of t#e ,or+er on #is emp!oyer.

y app!yin" t#e contro! test) t#ere is no doubt t#at petitioner is an emp!oyee of 'aseiCorporation because s#e ,as under t#e direct contro! and super$ision of Sei=i 'amura) t#ecorporationHs Tec#nica! Consu!tant. S#e reported for ,or+ re"u!ar!y and ser$ed in $ariouscapacities as Accountant) Liaison Officer) Tec#nica! Consu!tant) Actin" Gana"er and CorporateSecretary) ,it# substantia!!y t#e same =ob functions) t#at is) renderin" accountin" and ta4ser$ices to t#e company and performin" functions necessary and desirab!e for t#e properoperation of t#e corporation suc# as securin" business permits and ot#er !icenses o$er anindefinite period of en"a"ement.

ased on t#e fore"oin") t#ere can be no ot#er conc!usion t#at petitioner is an emp!oyee ofrespondent 'asei Corporation. S#e ,as se!ected and en"a"ed by t#e company forcompensation) and is economica!!y dependent upon respondent for #er continued emp!oymentin t#at !ine of business. &er main =ob function in$o!$ed accountin" and ta4 ser$ices rendered torespondent corporation on a re"u!ar basis o$er an indefinite period of en"a"ement. Respondentcorporation #ired and en"a"ed petitioner for compensation) ,it# t#e po,er to dismiss #er forcause. Gore important!y) respondent corporation #ad t#e po,er to contro! petitioner ,it# t#emeans and met#ods by ,#ic# t#e ,or+ is to be accomp!is#ed.

T#e corporation constructi$e!y dismissed petitioner ,#en it reduced #er sa!ary by *)>II amont# from Kanuary to September II1. T#is amounts to an i!!e"a! termination of emp!oyment)

,#ere t#e petitioner is entit!ed to fu!! bac+,a"es. Since t#e position of petitioner as accountantis one of trust and confidence) and under t#e princip!e of strained re!ations) petitioner is furt#erentit!ed to separation pay) in !ieu of reinstatement.

*etition is "ranted.


24/283

[G.R. No. 16:16 S"!t"/"% 26, 2006]A(S


25/283

-SS0E

3n respondents are re"u!ar emp!oyees of AS CN.

&ELD

"espondents are "egular employees of the petitioner, #$% &$'.

#ere a person #as rendered at !east one year of ser$ice) re"ard!ess of t#e nature of t#eacti$ity performed) or ,#ere t#e ,or+ is continuous or intermittent) t#e emp!oyment isconsidered re"u!ar as !on" as t#e acti$ity e4ists) t#e reason bein" t#at a customary appointmentis not indispensab!e before one may be forma!!y dec!ared as #a$in" attained re"u!ar status.

Artic!e I of t#e Labor Code pro$ides9

ART. I. RE?0LAR AND CAS0AL EG*LOGENT.:T#e pro$isions of ,ritten a"reement tot#e contrary not,it#standin" and re"ard!ess of t#e ora! a"reement of t#e parties) anemp!oyment s#a!! be deemed to be re"u!ar ,#ere t#e emp!oyee #as been en"a"ed to perform

acti$ities ,#ic# are usua!!y necessary or desirab!e in t#e usua! business or trade of t#eemp!oyer e4cept ,#ere t#e emp!oyment #as been fi4ed for a specific pro=ect or underta+in" t#ecomp!etion or termination of ,#ic# #as been determined at t#e time of t#e en"a"ement of t#eemp!oyee or ,#ere t#e ,or+ or ser$ices to be performed is seasona! in nature and t#eemp!oyment is for t#e duration of t#e season.

T#e primary standard) t#erefore) of determinin" re"u!ar emp!oyment is t#e reasonableconnectionbet,een t#e particu!ar acti$ity performed by t#e emp!oyee in re!ation to t#e usua!trade or business of t#e emp!oyer. T#e test is ,#et#er t#e former is usua!!y necessary ordesirab!e in t#e usua! business or trade of t#e emp!oyer. T#e connection can be determined byconsiderin" t#e nature of ,or+ performed and its re!ation to t#e sc#eme of t#e particu!arbusiness or trade in its entirety. A!so) if t#e emp!oyee #as been performin" t#e =ob for at !east a

year) e$en if t#e performance is not continuous and mere!y intermittent) t#e !a, deems repeatedand continuin" need for its performance as sufficient e$idence of t#e necessity if notindispensabi!ity of t#at acti$ity to t#e business. &ence) t#e emp!oyment is considered re"u!ar)but on!y ,it# respect to suc# acti$ity and ,#i!e suc# acti$ity e4ists.

Not considered re"u!ar emp!oyees are %pro=ect emp!oyees)( t#e comp!etion or termination of,#ic# is more or !ess determinab!e at t#e time of emp!oyment) suc# as t#ose emp!oyed inconnection ,it# a particu!ar construction pro=ect) and %seasona! emp!oyees( ,#ose emp!oymentby its nature is on!y desirab!e for a !imited period of time. E$en t#en) any emp!oyee ,#o #asrendered at !east one year of ser$ice) ,#et#er continuous or intermittent) is deemed re"u!ar ,it#respect to t#e acti$ity performed and ,#i!e suc# acti$ity actua!!y e4ists.

-t is of no moment t#at petitioner #ired respondents as %ta!ents.( T#e fact t#at respondentsrecei$ed pre/a"reed %ta!ent fees( instead of sa!aries) t#at t#ey did not obser$e t#e re8uiredoffice #ours) and t#at t#ey ,ere permitted to =oin ot#er productions durin" t#eir free time are notconc!usi$e of t#e nature of t#eir emp!oyment. Respondents cannot be considered %ta!ents(because t#ey are not actors or actresses or radio specia!ists or mere c!er+s or uti!ity emp!oyees.T#ey are re"u!ar emp!oyees ,#o perform se$era! different duties under t#e contro! and directionof AS/CN e4ecuti$es and super$isors.

T#us) t#ere are t,o +inds of re"u!ar emp!oyees under t#e !a,9 12 t#ose en"a"ed to perform


26/283

acti$ities ,#ic# are necessary or desirab!e in t#e usua! business or trade of t#e emp!oyer5 and2 t#ose casua! emp!oyees ,#o #a$e rendered at !east one year of ser$ice) ,#et#er continuousor bro+en) ,it# respect to t#e acti$ities in ,#ic# t#ey are emp!oyed.

Additiona!!y) respondents cannot be considered as pro=ect or pro"ram emp!oyees because noe$idence ,as presented to s#o, t#at t#e duration and scope of t#e pro=ect ,ere determined or

specified at t#e time of t#eir en"a"ement. 0nder e4istin" =urisprudence) pro=ect cou!d refer tot,o distin"uis#ab!e types of acti$ities. First) a pro=ect may refer to a particu!ar =ob or underta+in"t#at is ,it#in t#e re"u!ar or usua! business of t#e emp!oyer) but ,#ic# is distinct and separate)and identifiab!e as suc#) from t#e ot#er underta+in"s of t#e company. Suc# =ob or underta+in"be"ins and ends at determined or determinab!e times. Second) t#e term pro=ect may a!so referto a particu!ar =ob or underta+in" t#at is not ,it#in t#e re"u!ar business of t#e emp!oyer. Suc# a

=ob or underta+in" must a!so be identifiab!y separate and distinct from t#e ordinary or re"u!arbusiness operations of t#e emp!oyer. T#e =ob or underta+in" a!so be"ins and ends atdetermined or determinab!e times.T#e principa! test is ,#et#er or not t#e pro=ect emp!oyees ,ere assi"ned to carry out a specificpro=ect or underta+in") t#e duration and scope of ,#ic# ,ere specified at t#e time t#eemp!oyees ,ere en"a"ed for t#at pro=ect.

As "!eaned from t#e records of t#is case) petitioner itse!f is not certain #o, to cate"orierespondents. -n its ear!ier p!eadin"s) petitioner c!assified respondents as pro"ram emp!oyees)and in !ater p!eadin"s) independent contractors. *ro"ram emp!oyees) or pro=ect emp!oyees) aredifferent from independent contractors because in t#e case of t#e !atter) no emp!oyer/emp!oyeere!ations#ip e4ists.

*etition is denied.[G.R. No. 1608: 5*%+ , 2006](IG AA 5AN'FACT'RER, P"t#t#o$"%, &s. E'TI'IO ANTONIO, 4A ANTONIO,FELICISI5O ANTONIO, *$3 LEONAR)O ANTONIO, SR., R"s!o$3"$ts.

FACTS

*etitioner is a so!e proprietors#ip re"istered in t#e name of its proprietor) Enrico E. A!e=o.Respondents Euti8uio Antonio)Kay Antonio) Fe!icisimo Antonio) Leonardo Antonio) Sr. andRoberto Fabian fi!ed a comp!aint for i!!e"a! !ay/off and i!!e"a! deductions before t#e NLRCHsRe"iona! Arbitration ranc# No. ---. T#ey c!aimed t#at t#ey ,ere dismissed on Kanuary 11) IIIand sou"#t separation pay from petitioner.

T#e respondents a!!e"ed t#at as re"u!ar emp!oyees) t#ey ,or+ed from 9II a.m. to >9II p.m. atpetitionerHs premises usin" petitionerHs too!s and e8uipment and t#ey recei$ed *>I per day.Euti8uio ,as emp!oyed as carpenter/foreman from 11/15 Kay as carpenter from 17/15 Fe!icisimo as carpenter from 1@/15 and Leonardo) Sr. a!so as carpenter from 1/

1. Accordin" to respondents) t#ey ,ere dismissed ,it#out =ust cause and due process5#ence) t#eir prayer for reinstatement and fu!! bac+,a"es. T#ey a!so imp!eaded one &ermie

A!e=o) a re!ati$e of t#e petitionerHs o,ner) as co/respondent in t#eir comp!aint.

On t#e ot#er #and) petitioner i" AA Ganufacturer) affirmed it is a so!e proprietors#ip re"isteredin t#e name of Enrico A!e=o and en"a"ed in manufacturin" office furniture) but it denied t#atrespondents ,ere its re"u!ar emp!oyees. -nstead) petitioner c!aimed t#at Euti8uio Antonio ,asone of its independent contractors ,#o used t#e ser$ices of t#e ot#er respondents. Accordin" topetitioner) its independent contractors ,ere paid by resu!ts and ,ere responsib!e for t#e sa!aries


27/283

of t#eir o,n ,or+ers. A!!e"ed!y) t#ere ,as no emp!oyer/emp!oyee re!ations#ip bet,eenpetitioner and respondents. &o,e$er) petitioner stated it a!!o,ed respondents to use its faci!itiesto meet =ob orders. *etitioner a!so denied t#at respondents ,ere !aid/off by i" AAGanufacturer) since t#ey ,ere pro=ect emp!oyees on!y. -t added t#at since Euti8uio Antonio #adrefused a =ob order of office tab!es) t#eir contractua! re!ations#ip ended. *etitioner surmised t#atEuti8uio resented t#e Kanuary 1I) III -mp!ementin" ?uide!ines it issued to impro$e efficiency

and performance.

-SS0E

#et#er or not respondents are re"u!ar emp!oyees of petitioner i" AA.

&ELD

T#e SC #e!d t#at considerin" t#e submission of t#e parties) it is constrained to a"ree ,it# t#eunanimous ru!in" of t#e Court of Appea!s) NLRC and Labor Arbiter t#at respondents arepetitionerHs re"u!ar emp!oyees. Respondents ,ere emp!oyed for more t#an one year and t#eir,or+ as carpenters ,as necessary or desirab!e in petitionerHs usua! trade or business of

manufacturin" office furniture. 0nder Artic!e I of t#e Labor Code) t#e app!icab!e test todetermine ,#et#er an emp!oyment s#ou!d be considered re"u!ar or non/re"u!ar is t#ereasonab!e connection bet,een t#e particu!ar acti$ity performed by t#e emp!oyee in re!ation tot#e usua! business or trade of t#e emp!oyer.

True) certain forms of emp!oyment re8uire t#e performance of usua! or desirab!e functions ande4ceed one year but do not necessari!y resu!t to re"u!ar emp!oyment under Artic!e I of t#eLabor Code.1Some specific e4ceptions inc!ude pro=ect or seasona! emp!oyment. et) in t#iscase) respondents cannot be considered pro=ect emp!oyees. *etitioner #ad neit#er s#o,n t#atrespondents ,ere #ired for a specific pro=ect t#e duration of ,#ic# ,as determined at t#e time oft#eir #irin" nor identified t#e specific pro=ect or p#ase t#ereof for ,#ic# respondents ,ere #ired.

-t a!so a"reed t#at Euti8uio ,as not an independent contractor for #e does not carry a distinctand independent business) and #e does not possess substantia! capita! or in$estment in too!s)e8uipment) mac#inery or ,or+ premises.&e ,or+s ,it#in petitionerHs premises usin" t#e !atterHstoo!s and materia!s) as admitted by petitioner. Euti8uio is a!so under petitionerHs contro! andsuper$ision. Attestin" to t#is is petitionerHs admission t#at it a!!o,ed respondents to use itsfaci!ities for t#e Mproper imp!ementationM of =ob orders. Goreo$er) t#e -mp!ementin" ?uide!inesre"u!atin" attendance) o$ertime) dead!ines) pena!ties5 pro$idin" petitionerHs ri"#t to fireemp!oyees or McontractorsM5 re8uirin" t#e carpentry di$ision to =oin petitionerHs e4ercise pro"ram5and pro$idin" ru!es on mac#ine maintenance) a!! ref!ect contro! and super$ision o$errespondents.

*etition is denied.


28/283

[G.R. No. 1268. No&"/"% 28, 1997.]

SAN 4'AN )E )IOS HOSPITAL E5PLOEES ASSOCIATION@ re!ies and purports to imp!ement Repub!ic

Act No. >I1) ot#er,ise +no,n as MAn Act *rescribin" Forty &ours A ee+ of Labor For?o$ernment And *ri$ate &ospita!s Or C!inic *ersonne!M) enacted on Kune 1) 16. Re!iance onRepub!ic Act No. >I1) #o,e$er is misp!aced for t#e said statute) as correct!y ru!ed byrespondent NLRC) #as !on" been repea!ed ,it# t#e passa"e of t#e Labor Code on Gay 1) 1@)

Artic!e 7I of ,#ic# e4p!icit!y pro$ides9 MA!! !abor !a,s not adopted as part of t#is Code eit#erdirect!y or by reference are repea!ed. A!! pro$isions of e4istin" !a,s) orders) decrees) ru!es andre"u!ations inconsistent #ere,it# are !i+e,ise repea!ed.M. -D.5 LAOR CODE5 ART-CLE 7 T&EREOF CONSTR0ED5 ADG-N-STRAT-BE-NTER*RETAT-ON5 T&E CO0RT GA STR-'E DON -NTER*RETAT-ON T&AT DEB-ATESFROG T&E *ROB-S-ON OF T&E STAT0TE. : On!y Artic!e 7 of t#e Labor Code ,#ic#appears to #a$e substantia!!y incorporated or reproduced t#e basic pro$isions of Repub!ic ActNo. >I1 may support *o!icy -nstructions No. >@ on ,#ic# t#e !atters $a!idity may be "au"ed. A

cursory readin" of Artic!e 7 of t#e Labor Code betrays petitioners position t#at M#ospita!emp!oyeesM are entit!ed to Ma fu!! ,ee+!y sa!ary ,it# paid t,o 2 days off if t#ey #a$e comp!etedt#e @I/#ours3>/day ,or+ ,ee+M. #at Artic!e 7 mere!y pro$ides are9 12 t#e re"u!ar office #ourof ei"#t #ours a day) fi$e days per ,ee+ for #ea!t# personne!) and 2 ,#ere t#e e4i"encies ofser$ice re8uire t#at #ea!t# personne! ,or+ for si4 days or forty/ei"#t #ours t#en suc# #ea!t#personne! s#a!! be entit!ed to an additiona! compensation of at !east t#irty percent of t#eirre"u!ar ,a"e for ,or+ on t#e si4t# day. T#ere is not#in" in t#e !a, t#at supports t#en Secretaryof Labors assertion t#at Mpersonne! in sub=ect #ospita!s and c!inics are entit!ed to a fu!! ,ee+!y,a"e for se$en 2 days if t#ey #a$e comp!eted t#e @I/#ours3>/day ,or+,ee+ in any "i$en,or+,ee+.M Need!ess to say) t#e Secretary of Labor e4ceeded #is aut#ority by inc!udin" a t,odays off ,it# pay in contra$ention of t#e c!ear mandate of t#e statute. Suc# act t#e Court s#a!!not countenance. Administrati$e interpretation of t#e !a, is at best mere!y ad$isory) and t#e

Court ,i!! not #esitate to stri+e do,n an administrati$e interpretation t#at de$iates from t#epro$ision of t#e statute.7. -D.5 SECRETAR OF LAORS *OL-C -NSTR0CT-ONS NO. >@5 DECLAREDBO-D T&E CO0RT5 RAT-ONALE. : E$en if t#e Court ,as to subscribe ,it# petitionerserroneous assertion t#at Repub!ic Act No. >I1 #as neit#er been amended nor repea!ed by t#eLabor Code) ,e ne$ert#e!ess find *o!icy -nstructions No. >@ in$a!id. A perusa! of Repub!ic ActNo. >I1 re$ea!s not#in" t#erein t#at "i$es t,o days off ,it# pay for #ea!t# personne! ,#ocomp!ete a @I or >/day ,or+,ee+. -n fact) t#e E4p!anatory Note of &ouse i!! No. 1667I !aterpassed into !a, as Repub!ic Act No. >I12 e4p!icit!y states t#at t#e bi!!s so!e purpose is to


29/283

s#orten t#e ,or+in" #ours of #ea!t# personne! and not to do!e out a t,o/days off ,it# pay.Furt#er) petitioners position is a!so ne"ated by t#e $ery ru!es and re"u!ations promu!"ated byt#e ureau of Labor Standards ,#ic# imp!ement Repub!ic Act No. >I1. -f petitioners areentit!ed to t,o days off ,it# pay) t#en t#ere appears to be no sense at a!! ,#y Section 1> of t#eimp!ementin" ru!es "rants additiona! compensation e8ui$a!ent to t#e re"u!ar rate p!us at !eastt,enty/fi$e percent t#ereof for ,or+ performed on Sunday to #ea!t# personne!) or an Madditiona!

strai"#t/time pay ,#ic# must be e8ui$a!ent at !east to t#e re"u!ar rateM M;f@ to t#e Courts mind undu!y e4tendedt#e statute. T#e Secretary of Labor moreo$er erred in in$o+in" t#e Mspirit and intentM of Repub!ic

Act No. >I1 and Artic!e 7 of t#e Labor Code for it is an e!ementary ru!e of statutoryconstruction t#at ,#en t#e !an"ua"e of t#e !a, is c!ear and une8ui$oca!) t#e !a, must be ta+ento mean e4act!y ,#at it says. No additions or re$isions may be permitted. *o!icy -nstructions No.>@ bein" inconsistent ,it# and repu"nant to t#e pro$isions of Artic!e 7 of t#e Labor Code) as,e!! as to Repub!ic Act No. >I1) s#ou!d be) as it is #ereby5 dec!ared $oid.

FACTS

T#e ran+/and/fi!e emp!oyee/union officers and members of San Kuan De Dios &ospita!

Emp!oyees Association) sent on Ku!y I) 11) a !etter ,it# attac#ed support si"naturesre8uestin" and p!eadin" for t#e e4peditious imp!ementation and payment by respondentM KuanDe Dios &ospita! Mof t#e @I/&O0RS3>/DA OR'EE' ,it# compensab!e ,ee+!y t,o 2days off pro$ided for by Repub!ic Act >I1 as c!arified for enforcement by t#e Secretary ofLabors *o!icy -nstructions No. >@ dated Apri! 1) 1.M Respondent #ospita! fai!ed to "i$e afa$orab!e response5 t#us) petitioners fi!ed a comp!aint re"ardin" t#eir Mc!aims for statutorybenefits under t#e abo$e/cited !a, and po!icy issuance. T#e Labor Arbiter dismissed t#ecomp!aint. *etitioners appea!ed before pub!ic respondent Nationa! Labor Re!ations CommissionNLRC2) ,#ic# affirmed t#e Labor Arbiters decision. *etitioners subse8uent motion forreconsideration ,as denied5 #ence) t#is petition under Ru!e 6> of t#e Ru!es of Court ascribin""ra$e abuse of discretion on t#e part of NLRC in conc!udin" t#at *o!icy -nstructions No. >@Mproceeds from a ,ron" interpretation of RA >I1M and Artic!e 7 of t#e Labor Code.

-SS0E

#et#er *o!icy -nstructions No. >@ issued by t#en Labor Secretary Fran+!in G. Dri!on is $a!id ornot

&ELD

Content of *OL-C -NSTR0CT-ONS NO. >@ pro$ides personne! in sub=ect #ospita! and c!inicsentit!ed to a fu!! ,ee+!y ,a"e for se$en 2 days if t#ey #a$e comp!eted t#e @I/#our3>/day,or+,ee+ in any "i$en ,or+,ee+ ,#ic# ,as dec!ared $oid by SC.

e note t#at *o!icy -nstruction No. >@ re!ies and purports to imp!ement Repub!ic Act No. >I1)ot#er,ise +no,n as MAn Act *rescribin" Forty &ours A ee+ Of Labor For ?o$ernment and*ri$ate &ospita!s Or C!inic *ersonne!M) enacted on Kune 1) 16. Re!iance on Repub!ic Act No.>I1) #o,e$er) is misp!aced for t#e said statute) as correct!y ru!ed by respondent NLRC) #as!on" been repea!ed ,it# t#e passa"e of t#e Labor Code on Gay 1) 1@) Artic!e 7I of ,#ic#e4p!icit!y pro$ides9 MA!! !abor !a,s not adopted as part of t#is Code eit#er direct!y or by referenceare #ereby repea!ed. A!! pro$isions of e4istin" !a,s) orders) decree) ru!es and re"u!ationsinconsistent #ere,it# are !i+e,ise repea!ed.M Accordin"!y) on!y Artic!e 7 of t#e Labor Code,#ic# appears to #a$e substantia!!y incorporated or reproduced t#e basic pro$isions of Repub!ic


30/283

Act No. >I1 may support *o!icy -nstructions No. >@ on ,#ic# t#e !atters $a!idity may be"au"ed.

A cursory readin" of Artic!e 7 of t#e Labor Code betrays petitioners position t#at M#ospita!emp!oyeesM are entit!ed to Ma fu!! ,ee+!y sa!ary ,it# paid t,o 2 days off if t#ey #a$e comp!etedt#e @I/#our3>/day ,or+,ee+M. #at Artic!e 7 mere!y pro$ides are9 12 t#e re"u!ar office #our of

ei"#t #ours a day) fi$e days per ,ee+ for #ea!t# personne!) and 2 ,#ere t#e e4i"encies ofser$ice re8uire t#at #ea!t# personne! ,or+ for si4 days or forty/ei"#t #ours t#en suc# #ea!t#personne! s#a!! be entit!ed to an additiona! compensation of at !east t#irty percent of t#eirre"u!ar ,a"e for ,or+ on t#e si4t# day. T#ere is not#in" in t#e !a, t#at supports t#en Secretaryof Labors assertion t#at Mpersonne! in sub=ect #ospita!s and c!inics are entit!ed to a fu!! ,ee+!y,a"e for se$en 2 days if t#ey #a$e comp!eted t#e @I/#our3>/day ,or+,ee+ in any "i$en,or+,ee+M. Need!ess to say) t#e Secretary of Labor e4ceeded #is aut#ority by inc!udin" a t,odays off ,it# pay in contra$ention of t#e c!ear mandate of t#e statute. Suc# act t#e Court s#a!!not countenance. Administrati$e interpretation of t#e !a,) ,e reiterate) is at best mere!yad$isory) and t#e Court ,i!! not #esitate to stri+e do,n an administrati$e interpretation t#atde$iates from t#e pro$ision of t#e statute.

-ndeed) e$en if ,e ,ere to subscribe ,it# petitioners erroneous assertion t#at Repub!ic Act No.>I1 #as neit#er been amended nor repea!ed by t#e Labor Code) ,e ne$ert#e!ess find *o!icy-nstructions No. >@ in$a!id. A perusa! of Repub!ic Act No. >I1 re$ea!s not#in" t#erein t#at "i$est,o days off ,it# pay for #ea!t# personne! ,#o comp!ete a @I/#our ,or+ or >/day ,or+,ee+. -nfact) t#e E4p!anatory Note of &ouse i!! No. 1667I !ater passed into !a, as Repub!ic Act No.>I12 e4p!icit!y states t#at t#e bi!!s so!e purpose is to s#orten t#e ,or+in" #ours of #ea!t#personne! and not to do!e out a t,o days off ,it# pay.

T#e Secretary of Labor moreo$er erred in in$o+in" t#e Mspirit and intentM of Repub!ic Act No.>I1 and Artic!e 7 of t#e Labor Code for it is an e!ementary ru!e of statutory construction t#at,#en t#e !an"ua"e of t#e !a, is c!ear and une8ui$oca!) t#e !a, must be ta+en to mean e4act!y,#at it says. No additions or re$isions may be permitted. *o!icy -nstructions No. >@ bein"

inconsistent ,it# and repu"nant to t#e pro$ision of Artic!e 7 of t#e Labor Code) as ,e!! as toRepub!ic Act No. >I1) s#ou!d be) as it is #ereby) dec!ared $oid.

[G.R. No. 106600 5*%+ 29, 1996]COS5OS (OTTLING CORPORATION, !"t#t#o$"%, &s. NATIONAL LA(OR RELATIONSCO55ISSION *$3 GIL C. CASTRO, %"s!o$3"$ts.

FACTS

Respondent Castro ,as emp!oyed by petitioner for a specific period from Sept. >) 1 to Oct.@) 1. &e ,as re#ired for anot#er specific period from Gay 7I) 1 to No$. 6) 1. After t#e terms) #e ,as recommended for re/emp!oyment ,it# t#e companyHs Gaintenance Team fort#e Da$ao pro=ect on No$. ) 1. On Dec. ) 1) #e ,as a"ain re/#ired and assi"ned tot#e Gaintenance Di$ision of Da$ao *ro=ect tas+ed to insta!! its anne4 p!ant mac#ines. On Gay1) 1I) CastroHs emp!oyment ,as terminated due to t#e comp!etion of t#e specia! pro=ect.

Castro t#en fi!ed a comp!aint for i!!e"a! dismissa! ,it# t#e NLRC/RA contendin" t#at bein" a


31/283

re"u!ar emp!oyee) #e cou!d not be dismissed ,it#out a =ust and $a!id cause. T#e petitioner) ont#e ot#er #and) a!!e"ed t#at Castro ,as a mere pro=ect emp!oyee ,#ose emp!oyment ,as co/terminus ,it# t#e pro=ect for ,#ic# #e ,as #ired) #ence) may be terminated upon t#e end orcomp!etion of t#e pro=ect for ,#ic# #e ,as #ired.

On Gay ) 1I) petitioner retrenc#ed some re"u!ar emp!oyees and Castro ,as not

named one of t#ose.T#e Labor Arbiter decided in fa$or of Castro and dec!ared t#at #e is a re"u!ar emp!oyee ofpetitioner) but in !i"#t of t#e recent retrenc#ment) #is emp!oyment ,as $a!id!y terminated. 0ponappea!) t#e NLRC ru!ed t#at petitioner is "ui!ty of i!!e"a! dismissa! and ordered t#e company toreinstate #im. &ence) t#is petition.

-SS0E

#et#er or not pri$ate respondent ?i! C. Castro is a re"u!ar emp!oyee or ,as a mere pro=ectemp!oyee of petitioner.

&ELD

T#e SC #e!d t#at Castro is not a re"u!ar emp!oyee of t#e petitioner and t#us) ,as not i!!e"a!!ydismissed. T#e first para"rap# of Art I pro$ides t#at re"ard!ess of any ,ritten or ora!a"reement to t#e contrary) an emp!oyee is deemed re"u!ar ,#ere #e is en"a"ed in necessaryor desirab!e acti$ities in t#e usua! trade or business of t#e emp!oyer.

A pro=ect emp!oyee) on t#e ot#er #and) #as been defined to be one ,#ose emp!oyment #asbeen fi4ed for a specific pro=ect or underta+in") t#e comp!etion or termination of ,#ic# #as beendetermined at t#e time of t#e en"a"ement of t#e emp!oyee or ,#ere t#e ,or+ or ser$ice to beperformed is seasona! in nature and t#e emp!oyment is for t#e duration of t#e season.

T#e second para"rap# of t#e pro$ision defines casua! emp!oyees as t#ose ,#o do not fa!! under

t#e definition of t#e first para"rap#.&o,e$er) ,it# respect to t#e first t,o +inds of emp!oyees) t#e principa! test for determinin",#et#er an emp!oyee is a pro=ect emp!oyee or a re"u!ar emp!oyee is ,#et#er or not t#e pro=ectemp!oyee ,as assi"ned to carry out a Mspecific pro=ect or underta+in")M t#e duration and scopeof ,#ic# ,ere specified at t#e time t#e emp!oyee ,as en"a"ed for t#at period.

-n t#e course of its business) petitioner Cosmos underta+es distinct identifiab!e pro=ects as it didin t#e instant case ,#en it formed specia! teams assi"ned to insta!! and dismant!e its anne4p!ant mac#ines in $arious p!ants a!! o$er t#e country. T#ese pro=ects are distinct and separate)and are identifiab!e as suc#) from its usua! business of bott!in" be$era"e. T#eir duration andscope are made +no,n prior to t#eir underta+in" and t#eir specified "oa! and purpose arefu!fi!!ed once t#e pro=ects are comp!eted. #en pri$ate respondent ,as initia!!y #ired for a period

of one mont# and re/#ired for anot#er fi$e mont#s) and t#en subse8uent!y re/#ired for anot#erfi$e mont#s) #e ,as assi"ned to t#e petitioners Gaintenance Di$ision tas+ed ,it# t#einsta!!ation and dismant!in" of its anne4 p!ant mac#ines. E$ident!y) t#ese pro=ects orunderta+in"s) t#e duration and scope of ,#ic# #ad been determined and made +no,n to pri$aterespondent at t#e time of #is emp!oyment) can proper!y be treated as Mpro=ectsM ,it#in t#emeanin" of t#e MfirstM +ind. Considered as suc#) t#e ser$ices rendered by pri$ate respondent#ired t#erein for t#e duration of t#e pro=ects may !a,fu!!y be terminated at t#e end or comp!etionof t#e same.


32/283

T#e mere fact t#at a pro=ect emp!oyee #as ,or+ed on t#e Specific pro=ect for more t#an one 12year) does not necessary c#an"e #is status as pro=ect emp!oyee and con$ert it to re"u!ar orpermanent emp!oyment. For it is ob$ious t#at t#e second para"rap# of Artic!e I of t#e LaborCode) 8uoted abo$e) pro$idin" t#at an emp!oyee ,#o #as ser$ed for at !east one 12 year) s#a!!be considered a re"u!ar emp!oyee) re!ates on!y to casua! emp!oyees) not to pro=ect emp!oyees.Conse8uent!y) pri$ate respondents protestation is comp!ete!y base!ess because bein" a pro=ect

emp!oyee) #e does not fa!! ,it#in t#e ambit of t#e pertinent pro$ision abo$e/stated.

C!ear!y) t#erefore) pri$ate respondent bein" a pro=ect emp!oyee) or to use t#e correct term)seasona! emp!oyee) considerin" t#at #is emp!oyment ,as !imited to t#e insta!!ation anddismant!in" of petitioners anne4 p!ant mac#ines after ,#ic# t#ere ,as no more ,or+ to do) #isemp!oyment !e"a!!y ended upon comp!etion of t#e pro=ect. T#at bein" so) t#e termination of #isemp!oyment cannot and s#ou!d not constitute an i!!e"a! dismissa!. Neit#er s#ou!d it constituteretrenc#ment as pri$ate respondent ,as a seasona! emp!oyee ,#ose ser$ices ,ere a!readyterminated on Gay 1) 1I prior to t#e termination of t#e ot#er re"u!ar emp!oyees of Cosmosby reason of retrenc#ment.*etition is "ranted.

[G.R. No. 109902 August 2, 199:]AL'


33/283

T#e SC ru!ed t#at petitioners are pro=ect emp!oyees. it is e$ident!y important to become c!earabout t#e meanin" and scope of t#e term Mpro=ectM in t#e present conte4t. T#e Mpro=ectM for t#ecarryin" out of ,#ic# Mpro=ect emp!oyeesM are #ired ,ou!d ordinari!y #a$e some re!ations#ip tot#e usua! business of t#e emp!oyer.

-n t#e rea!m of business and industry) ,e note t#at Mpro=ectM cou!d refer to one or t#e ot#er of at!east t,o 2 distin"uis#ab!e types of acti$ities. F#%st) a pro=ect cou!d refer to a particu!ar =ob orunderta+in" t#at is ,it#in t#e re"u!ar or usua! business of t#e emp!oyer company) but ,#ic# isdistinct and separate) and identifiab!e as suc#) from t#e ot#er underta+in"s of t#e company.Suc# =ob or underta+in" be"ins and ends at determined or determinab!e times. T#e typica!e4amp!e of t#is first type of pro=ect is a particu!ar construction =ob or pro=ect of a constructioncompany. A construction company ordinari!y carries out t,o or more discrete identifiab!econstruction pro=ects9 e.".) a t,enty/fi$e/ storey #ote! in Ga+ati5 a residentia! condominiumbui!din" in a"uio City5 and a domestic air termina! in -!oi!o City. Emp!oyees ,#o are #ired fort#e carryin" out of one of t#ese separate pro=ects) t#e scope and duration of ,#ic# #as beendetermined and made +no,n to t#e emp!oyees at t#e time of emp!oyment) are proper!y treatedas Mpro=ect emp!oyees)M and t#eir ser$ices may be !a,fu!!y terminated at comp!etion of t#e

pro=ect.

T#e term Mpro=ectM cou!d a!so refer to) s"+o$3) a particu!ar =ob or underta+in" t#at is not ,it#int#e re"u!ar business of t#e corporation. Suc# a =ob or underta+in" must a!so be identifiab!yseparate and distinct from t#e ordinary or re"u!ar business operations of t#e emp!oyer. T#e =obor underta+in" a!so be"ins and ends at determined or determinab!e times. T#e case at barpresents ,#at appears to our mind as a typica! e4amp!e of t#is +ind of Mpro=ect.M

T#e carryin" out of t#e Fi$e ear E4pansion *ro"ram or more precise!y) eac# of its componentpro=ects2 constitutes a distinct underta+in" identifiab!e from t#e ordinary business and acti$ity ofNSC. Eac# component pro=ect) of course) be"ins and ends at specified times) ,#ic# #ada!ready been determined by t#e time petitioners ,ere en"a"ed. e a!so note t#at NSC did t#e

,or+ #ere in$o!$ed : t#e construction of bui!din"s and ci$i! and e!ectrica! ,or+s) insta!!ation ofmac#inery and e8uipment and t#e commissionin" of suc# mac#inery : on!y for itse!f. *ri$aterespondent NSC ,as not in t#e business of constructin" bui!din"s and insta!!in" p!ant mac#ineryfor t#e "enera! business community) i.e.) for unre!ated) t#ird party) corporations. NSC did not#o!d itse!f out to t#e pub!ic as a construction company or as an en"ineerin" corporation.

#ic# e$er type of pro=ect emp!oyment is found in a particu!ar case) a common basic re8uisiteis t#at t#e desi"nation of named emp!oyees as Mpro=ect emp!oyeesM and t#eir assi"nment to aspecific pro=ect) are effected and imp!emented in "ood fait#) and not mere!y as a means ofe$adin" ot#er,ise app!icab!e re8uirements of !abor !a,s.

T#us) t#e particu!ar component pro=ects embraced in t#e Fi$e ear E4pansion *ro"ram) to

,#ic# petitioners ,ere assi"ned) ,ere distin"uis#ab!e from t#e re"u!ar or ordinary business ofNSC ,#ic#) of course) is t#e production or ma+in" and mar+etin" of stee! products. Durin" t#etime petitioners rendered ser$ices to NSC) t#eir ,or+ ,as !imited to one or anot#er of t#especific component pro=ects ,#ic# made up t#e FAE* - and --. T#ere is not#in" in t#e recordto s#o, t#at petitioners ,ere #ired for) or in fact assi"ned to) ot#er purposes) e.".) for operatin"or maintainin" t#e o!d) or pre$ious!y insta!!ed and commissioned) stee!/ma+in" mac#inery ande8uipment) or for se!!in" t#e finis#ed stee! products.

e) t#erefore) a"ree ,it# t#e basic findin" of t#e NLRC and t#e Labor Arbiter2 t#at t#e


34/283

petitioners ,ere indeed Mpro=ect emp!oyees9M

T#e present case t#erefore strict!y fa!!s under t#e definition of Mpro=ect emp!oyeesM on para"rap#one of Artic!e I of t#e Labor Code) as amended. Goreo$er) it #as been #e!d t#at t#e !en"t# ofser$ice of a pro=ect emp!oyee is not t#e contro!!in" test of emp!oyment tenure but ,#et#er or notMt#e emp!oyment #as been fi4ed for a specific pro=ect or underta+in" t#e comp!etion or

termination of ,#ic# #as been determined at t#e time of t#e en"a"ement of t#e emp!oyeeM.

T#e pro$iso in t#e second para"rap# of Artic!e I re!ates on!y to casua! emp!oyees and is notapp!icab!e to t#ose ,#o fa!! ,it#in t#e definition of said Artic!es first para"rap#) i.e.) pro=ectemp!oyees. T#e fami!iar "rammatica! ru!e is t#at a pro$iso is to be construed ,it# reference tot#e immediate!y precedin" part of t#e pro$ision to ,#ic# it is attac#ed) and not to ot#er sectionst#ereof) un!ess t#e c!ear !e"is!ati$e intent is to restrict or 8ua!ify not on!y t#e p#rase immediate!yprecedin" t#e pro$iso but a!so ear!ier pro$isions of t#e statute or e$en t#e statute itse!f as a,#o!e. No suc# intent is obser$ab!e in Artic!e I of t#e Labor Code) ,#ic# #as been 8uotedear!ier.

*etition is dismissed.

[G.R. No. 1226 )"+"/"% 12, 1997]P'RE FOO)S CORPORATION, !"t#t#o$"%, &s. NATIONAL LA(OR RELATIONSCO55ISSION, RO)OLFO COR)OVA, VIOLETA CR'SIS, ET AL., %"s!o$3"$ts.

FACTS

T#e pri$ate respondents ,ere #ired by petitioner *ure Foods to ,or+ for a fi4ed period of fi$emont#s at its tuna cannery p!ant in ?enera! Santos City. After t#e e4piration of t#eir respecti$econtracts of emp!oyment) t#eir ser$ices ,ere terminated. T#ey fort#,it# e4ecuted a MRe!easeand uitc!aimM statin" t#at t#ey #ad no c!aim ,#atsoe$er a"ainst t#e petitioner. *ri$aterespondents t#en fi!ed before t#e NLRC/Sub/RA a comp!aint for i!!e"a! dismissa! a"ainst t#epetitioner.


35/283

T#e Labor Arbiter dismissed t#e comp!aint on t#e "round t#at t#e pri$ate respondents ,eremere contractua! ,or+ers) and not re"u!ar emp!oyees5 #ence) t#ey cou!d not a$ai! of t#e !a, onsecurity of tenure. T#e termination of t#eir ser$ices by reason of t#e e4piration of t#eir contractsof emp!oyment ,as) t#erefore) =ustified.

T#e pri$ate respondents appea!ed t#e decision to t#e NLRC ,#ic# affirmed t#e LAHs decision.

&o,e$er) on pri$ate respondents motion for reconsideration) t#e NLRC rendered anot#erdecision #o!din" t#at t#e pri$ate respondent and t#eir co/comp!ainants ,ere re"u!ar emp!oyees.-t dec!ared t#at t#e contract of emp!oyment for fi$e mont#s ,as a Mc!andestine sc#emeemp!oyed by t#e petitioner to stif!e pri$ate respondents ri"#t to security of tenureM and s#ou!dt#erefore be struc+ do,n and disre"arded for bein" contrary to !a,) pub!ic po!icy) and mora!s.&ence) t#eir dismissa! on account of t#e e4piration of t#eir respecti$e contracts ,as i!!e"a!. -tsmotion for reconsideration #a$in" been denied) t#e petitioner came to t#is Court contendin" t#atrespondent NLRC committed "ra$e abuse of discretion amountin" to !ac+ of =urisdiction inre$ersin" t#e decision of t#e Labor Arbiter.

-SS0E

#et#er or not pri$ate respondents are re"u!ar emp!oyees of petitioner company or merecontractua! emp!oyees.

&ELD

T#e SC #e!d t#at t#e petition de$oid of merit. 0nder Art. I) t#ere are t,o +inds of re"u!aremp!oyees are 12 t#ose ,#o are en"a"ed to perform acti$ities ,#ic# are necessary ordesirab!e in t#e usua! business or trade of t#e emp!oyer5 and 2 t#ose casua! emp!oyees ,#o#a$e rendered at !east one year of ser$ice) ,#et#er continuous or bro+en) ,it# respect to t#eacti$ity in ,#ic# t#ey are emp!oyed.

-n t#e instant case) t#e pri$ate respondents acti$ities consisted in t#e recei$in") s+innin")

!oinin") pac+in") and casin"/up of tuna fis# ,#ic# ,ere t#en e4ported by t#e petitioner.-ndisputab!y) t#ey ,ere performin" acti$ities ,#ic# ,ere necessary and desirab!e in petitionersbusiness or trade. Contrary to petitioners submission) t#e pri$ate respondents cou!d not bere"arded as #a$in" been #ired for a specific pro=ect or underta+in". T#e term Mspecific pro=ect orunderta+in"M under Artic!e I of t#e Labor Code contemp!ates an acti$ity ,#ic# is notcommon!y or #abitua!!y performed or suc# type of ,or+ ,#ic# is not done on a dai!y basis buton!y for a specific duration of time or unti! comp!etion5 t#e ser$ices emp!oyed are t#ennecessary and desirab!e in t#e emp!oyers usua! business on!y for t#e period of time it ta+es tocomp!ete t#e pro=ect. T#e fact t#at t#e petitioner repeated!y and continuous!y #ired ,or+ers todo t#e same +ind of ,or+ as t#at performed by t#ose ,#ose contracts #ad e4pired ne"atespetitioners contention t#at t#ose ,or+ers ,ere #ired for a specific pro=ect or underta+in" on!y.

A!t#ou"#) t#is Court #as up#e!d t#e !e"a!ity of fi4ed/term emp!oyment) none of t#e criteria #adbeen met in t#e present case. -t cou!d not be supposed t#at pri$ate respondents and a!! ot#erso/ca!!ed Mcasua!M ,or+ers of t#e petitioner 'NO-N?L and BOL0NTAR-L a"reed to t#e >/mont# emp!oyment contract. Cannery ,or+ers are ne$er on e8ua! terms ,it# t#eir emp!oyers.

A!most a!,ays) t#ey a"ree to any terms of an emp!oyment contract =ust to "et emp!oyedconsiderin" t#at it is difficu!t to find ,or+ "i$en t#eir ordinary 8ua!ifications. T#eir freedom tocontract is empty and #o!!o, because t#eirs is t#e freedom to star$e if t#ey refuse to ,or+ ascasua! or contractua! ,or+ers. -ndeed) to t#e unemp!oyed) security of tenure #as no $a!ue. -tcou!d not t#en be said t#at petitioner and pri$ate respondents Mdea!t ,it# eac# ot#er on more or


36/283

!ess e8ua! terms ,it# no mora! dominance ,#ate$er bein" e4ercised by t#e former o$er t#e!atter.

T#e petitioner does not deny or rebut pri$ate respondents a$erments 12 t#at t#e main bu!+ ofits ,or+force consisted of its so/ca!!ed Mcasua!M emp!oyees5 2 t#at as of Ku!y 11) Mcasua!M,or+ers numbered 1)7>5 and re"u!ar emp!oyee) 675 72 t#at t#e company #ired Mcasua!M e$ery

mont# for t#e duration of fi$e mont#s) after ,#ic# t#eir ser$ices ,ere terminated and t#ey ,ererep!aced by ot#er Mcasua!M emp!oyees on t#e same fi$e/mont# duration5 and @2 t#at t#eseMcasua!M emp!oyees ,ere actua!!y doin" ,or+ t#at ,ere necessary and desirab!e in petitionersusua! business. T#is sc#eme of t#e petitioner ,as apparent!y desi"ned to pre$ent t#e pri$aterespondents and t#e ot#er Mcasua!M emp!oyees from attainin" t#e status of a re"u!ar emp!oyee.-t ,as a c!ear circum$ention of t#e emp!oyees ri"#t to security of tenure and to ot#er benefits!i+e minimum ,a"e) cost/of/!i$in" a!!o,ance) sic+ !ea$e) #o!iday pay) and 17t# mont# pay.-ndeed) t#e petitioner succeeded in e$adin" t#e app!ication of !abor !a,s. A!so) it sa$ed itse!ffrom t#e troub!e or burden of estab!is#in" a =ust cause for terminatin" emp!oyees by t#e simp!ee4pedient of refusin" to rene, t#e emp!oyment contracts.

T#e fi$e/mont# period specified in pri$ate respondents emp!oyment contracts #a$in" been

imposed precise!y to circum$ent t#e constitutiona! "uarantee on security of tenure s#ou!d)t#erefore) be struc+ do,n or disre"arded as contrary to pub!ic po!icy or mora!s. To up#o!d t#econtractua! arran"ement bet,een t#e petitioner and t#e pri$ate respondents ,ou!d) in effect)permit t#e former to a$oid #irin" permanent or re"u!ar emp!oyees by simp!y #irin" t#em on atemporary or casua! basis) t#ereby $io!atin" t#e emp!oyees security of tenure in t#eir =obs.*etition is dismissed.

[G.R. No. 122122. 4u 20, 1999]PHILIPPINE FR'IT VEGETA(LE IN)'STRIES, INC. *$3 #ts P%"s#3"$t *$3 G"$"%*

5*$*g"%, 5R. PE)RO CASTILLO, !"t#t#o$"%s, &s. NATIONAL LA(OR RELATIONSCO55ISSION, *$3 P##!!#$" F%u#t *$3 V"g"t*" ?o%"%s '$#o$) 16) 1 and 1. T#eyfurt#er a!!e"ed t#at t#e dismissa!s ,ere due to comp!ainants in$o!$ement in union acti$ities and,ere ,it#out =ust cause.

-SS0E


37/283

#et#er or not pri$ate respondents are seasona! emp!oyees ,#ose emp!oyments ceaseddurin" t#e off/season due to no ,or+.

&ELD

T#e SC #e!d t#at pri$ate respondents are re"u!ar emp!oyees because t#ey #a$e been en"a"ed

to perform acti$ities ,#ic# are usua!!y necessary or desirab!e in t#e usua! business or trade oft#e emp!oyer) under t#e 1st par of Artic!e I.

Additiona!!y) t#e pro$iso under t#e nd par of Artic!e I considers as Mcasua!M emp!oyees) a!!ot#er emp!oyees ,#o do not fa!! under t#e definition of t#e 1st para"rap#. T#e pro$iso) in saidsecond para"rap#) deems as re"u!ar emp!oyees t#ose Mcasua!M emp!oyees ,#o #a$e renderedat !east one year of ser$ice re"ard!ess of t#e fact t#at suc# ser$ice may be continuous orbro+en.

0nder Artic!e I of t#e Labor Code) an

33879413 labor case digests[1]

Documents