Legend Hotel (Manila) vs Realuyo

G.R. No. 153511

July 18, 2012

Facts

On August 9, 1999, the respondent filed a complaint for alleged unfair labor practice,
constructive illegal dismissal, and the underpayment/nonpayment of his premium pay for
holidays, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, and 13th month.

Respondent averred that he had worked as a pianist at the Legend Hotels Tanglaw
Restaurant from September 1992 with an initial rate of 400.00 per night which was given to
him after his performance; his rate then had increased to 750.00 per night. Also, during his
employment he could not choose the time of performance which had been fixed from 7pm
to 10pm for three to six times per week. Respondent added that the manager of the hotels
restaurant had required him to conform with the venues motif and he had been subjected
to the rules on employees representation checks and chits which is a privilege granted to
other employees.

On July 9, 1999, the management had notified the respondent his services as a pianist will
no longer be required effective July 30, 1999 due to the cost-cutting measure. The
respondent insisted that petitioner had been lucratively operating as of the filing of his
complaint and that the loss of his employment made him bring his complaint.

In its defense, the petitioner denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship

with respondent, insisting that he was only a talent engaged to provide live music for three
hours per day on two days each week. Also, petitioner stated that the economic crisis that
had hit the country constrained management to dispense his services.

On December 29, 1999, the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint for lack of merit
upon finding that the parties had no employer-employee relationship. Respondent
appealed but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA on May 31,
2001. And Respondent also assailed the decision of the NLRC in the Court of Appeals (CA)
on certiorari.

On February 11, 2002, the CA set aside the decision of the NLRC. The CA answered the
question whether the four elements of employer-employee relationship at present in this
case and the answer was in the affirmative.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred when it ruled that there is the existence of employer-
employee relationship between the Petitioner, Legend Hotel and Respondent, Realuyo.

Whether or not the termination of the Respondent was valid?

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Realuyo, the respondent and held that the four
elements of employer-employee relationship are present in the case. And on the issue of
validity of termination, the Court held that there was failure to present sufficient and
convincing evidence to prove that retrenchment was reasonably necessary to avert such
losses. Thus, Respondents termination due to retrenchment is not allowed.
Television and Product Exponents, Inc. vs Servan a

G.R. No. 167648

January 28, 2008

Facts

TAPE is a domestic corporation engaged in the production of television programs wherein

the Respondent had served as a security guard from March 1987 until he was terminated
on March 3, 2000. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of
benefits against the petitioner.

In a motion to dismiss, TAPE countered that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the
case since there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties.

TAPE averred that Respondent was an independent contractor falling under the talent
group category and was working under a special arrangement which is recognized in the
industry. While, Respondent for his part insisted that he was a regular employment having
been engaged to perform an activity that is necessary and desirable to TAPES business for
13 years.

On June 29, 2001, the Labor Arbiter (LA) declared respondent to be a regular employee of
TAPE because the services of respondent which is securing and maintaining order in the
studio as necessary and desirable in the usual business activities of TAPE.

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), dated April 22, 2002,
reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and considered respondent a mere program
employee. According to the NLRC the Respondent is a program employee since he did not
observe working hours and he worked for other companies such as M-Zet TV Production,
Inc at the same time as he was working for TAPE. Moreover, the nature of business of
Petitioner, security services may not be deemed necessary and desirable in the usual
business.

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in a Resolution dated June
28, 2002.

Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) contending that
the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
when it reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Respondent also asserted that he was a
regular employee considering the nature and length of service rendered.

Revising the decision of the NLRC, the Court of Appeals found Respondent to be a regular
employee. And finding the motion for reconsideration of TAPE without merit, the CA issued
a resolution on April 8, 2005 denying the said motion.

In the decision of the CA, it applied the four-fold test which proves that the respondent is
an employee of the petitioner because selection and hiring was done by the Petitioner and
the memorandum date March 2, 2000 which states the termination of the Respondent in
effect acknowledged that Respondent is their employee. Payment was also given by the
Petitioner on a monthly basis at a rate of 5,444.44. Moreover, the bundy cards are form of
control by the management of TAPE which presents the time Respondent had reported for
work are evident proofs of Petitioners control over Respondent. The Petitioner then
asseverates that the CA erred in applying the four-fold test.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred when it ruled that there is an employer-employee
relationship between TAPE and respondent

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Servan a, the Respondent and held that there
was no reversible error committed by the CA in its decision since four-fold test proves
that the Respondent was an employee of the Petitioner. However, Tuviera, the president of
TAPE is not solidarily liable with TAPE.
Consulta vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 145443

March 18, 2005

Pamana Philippines, Inc. (PAMANA) is engaged in health care business and appointed
Raquel P. Consulta, the petitioner as a Managing Associate of PAMANA.

Sometime in 1987, Consulta negotiated with Federation of Filipino Civilian Employees

Association (FFCEA). PAMAN then issued Consulta the certification dated November 23,
1987 which authorizes the Petitioner to negotiate for and in behalf of PAMANA with the
FFCEA.

On March 4, 1988, PAMANA and the U.S Naval Supply Depot signed the FFCEA account. The
Petitioner claiming that PAMANA did not pay her commission for the FFCEA account filed a
complaint for unpaid wages or commission against PAMANA, its President R. Requesto and
its Executive Vice President A. Tolentino.

In a decision promulgated on June 23, 1993, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ordered PAMANA to pay
the unpaid commission to be computed as against actual transactions between PAMANA
and the contracting Department of U.S Naval Supply Depot.

PAMANA, et al. appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. On July 22, 1994 the NLRC
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the LA. And in its order promulgated on
October 3, 1994, the NLRC denied the motion for reconsideration of PAMANA, et al.

PAMANA, et al. filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA in its
decision promulgated on August 28, 2000 reversed the decision of NLRC and ruled that
Consulta was a commission agent, not an employee of PAMANA. The power of control is
missing since in the fulfillment of the petitioners responsibilities were left to her sound
judgment.

Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that Consulta was not
an employee of PAMANA.

Or Whether or not Consulta was an employee of PAMANA

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of PAMANA, et al. and held that the power
of control, which is the most important element in determining employer-employee
relationship is missing did not err is in its decision.