Mejilla was a barber-caretaker exercise thereof.

It is not essential for the

FISHBOWL LABOR REVIEWER – ATTY. FLJ who had an altercation with employer to actually supervise the performance of
3C 2018 –JEAH D
another barber and turned duties of the employee; it is enough that the
over his keys and materials. employer has the right to wield that power.
Abandoned.
CASE DOCTRINES Canlubang Security v NLRC RIGHT-OF-CONTROL TEST – where the person
for whom the services are performed reserves a
Security guards sued their right to control not only the end to be achieved but
CASES ON EE-ER RELATIONSHIP “principal employer” and not also the means to be used in reaching such as
the security agency end.
Case/Quick Facts Doctrine (contractor). A quitclaim not to
ER-EE RELATIONSHIP sue the contractor was made. It is the agency that recruits, hires, and assigns
CF Sharp v Pioneer The commencement of an EER must be the work of its watchmen. They had the power of
Insurance treated separately from perfection of control, not the principal employer.
employment contract. The perfection occurred Villamaria, Jr. v CA BOUNDARY SYSTEM
Applied to become when petitioner and respondent agreed on the The existence of an EER did not depend on how
sandblasters abroad. object and the cause & terms and conditions. Jeepney driver and employer worker was paid but on the presence or absence
Employment Contract Commencement would have taken place had they entered into a Kasunduan – of control over the means and method of the
perfected but they were never been deployed. outlined a boundary-hulog employee’s work. The fact that the “boundary”
deployed. system where driver would represented installment payments of the purchase
Jao v BCC Products CONTROL TEST (on the means and method) – pay boundary and a ‘hulog’ to price on the jeepney did not remove the parties’
the employer reserves the right to direct not only ultimately buy the jeepney. EER.
Jao was a “comptroller” sent the end to be achieved but also the means for
by another company to audit reaching such end. BOUNDARY-HULOG SYSTEM
BCC Products. He was “fired” Even though there was also a vendor-vendee
and barred from entering the relationship, the jeepney driver remained an
premises. employee because he was engaged to perform
Tenazas v R. Villegas Taxi Labor Cases – the quantum of proof necessary is activities, which were necessary or desirable to
substantial evidence. the trade or business. DUAL RELATIONSHIP.
Taxi drivers who were illegally PH Global Comm v De Vera The power to terminate the parties’ relationship
dismissed. One sideswiped There is no hard and fast rule designed to was mutually vested on both. Absent is the
another vehicle, another, establish elements of EER. Any competent and A physician offered services element of control in this case where the doctor
another a spare driver and the relevant evidence may be admitted (IDs, cash to PH Global Comm and outlined his own means and methods to his work
other one wasn’t an employee vouchers, SSS registration, appointment letters, extensions were made and even his own work hours.
at all. payrolls, employment contracts). verbally until the firm decided
Manila Hotel Corp v NLRC Under the rule forum non conveniens, a PH court to stop availing of the Further, De Vera paid “professional tax fees” – a
or agency may assume jurisdiction if: services. badge that he was not an ordinary employee.
HK corporation. Santos, while 1) the PH court is one to which the parties may Chavez v NLRC HE WAS NOT AN INDEPENDENT
working in Oman was asked conveniently resort to CONTRACTOR, unlike what the corporation was
to work in China as a printer. 2) the PH court is in a position to make an Truck driver for a company. trying to say.
NLRC had no jurisdiction in intelligent decision as to the law and facts He was paid on a per trip
this case. 3) the PH court has or is likely to have power to basis and can only park in The firm exercised control over him: where to
enforce its decision Makati/Bataan. park, which order to prioritize, what to wear. Also,
4) All incidents of the case, from the time of the he had no sufficient capital – he did not own the
recruitment to employment to dismissal occurred truck.
outside the PH. Francisco v NLRC ECONOMIC DEPENDENCY TEST
Jo v NLRC The power of control refers to the existence of
the power and not necessarily to the actual She was Kasei Corp’s There are instances when economic realities of

1 [3C 2018 – JEAH D]

Accountant and CorpSec.
Then she became a Liason
Officer then an Acting
Manager. She had no daily
time record and underwent no
formal selection process.
Orozco v CA
She was a columnist for
Inquirer. Her column got
discontinued. “Illegal
dismissal.”
SSS v CA
Widow alleged that husband
was the employee of a
farmland who had SSS
benefits from employer.
Employer said he was an
2 [3C 2018 – JEAH D]
the employment relations help provide a
comprehensive analysis of the true classification
of the individual. The better approach would
therefore be to adopt a TWO-TIERED TEST
involving:
1) the putative employer’s power to control the
employee with respect to the means and methods
by which the work is to be accomplished
2) the underlying economic realities of the activity
or relationship
The determination of the relationship depends
upon the circumstances of the whole economic
activity:
1) extent to which the services performed are an
integral part of the employer’s business
2) extent of the worker’s investment in equipment
and facilities
3) nature and degree of control exercised by the
employer
4) worker’s opportunity for profit and loss
5) the amount of initiative, skill, judgment or
foresight required
6) permanency and duration of the relationship
between the
worker and the employer
7) degree of dependency of the worker upon the
employer for
his continued employment in that line of business
The control as to time, space, and discipline exist
by reason of the very nature of newspaper
business. There were no restrains on petitioner’s
creativity. She was free to write in whatever
manner and style she wanted, and she could use
whatever method for her purpose. The was no
restraint to subject matter. The rule that she had
to write only on subjects for Lifestyle section did
not translate to control. She could only write within
the subject matter of the Lifestyle column, but PDI
did not dictate how she would write it or what she
wrote.
The payment on “pakyaw” basis is irrelevant to
determine employer- employee relationship,
because Tana was also hired as a plower, and did
other tasks in the plantations. Tana and his family
also lived in the plantation. If it were true that he
was a mere “pakyaw” worker or independent
contractor, then there would be no reason for
independent contractor. He
was not in the yellow pad
“payroll”.
Tongko v Manulife
He was the insurance agent
of Manulife. Agent to Unit
Manager to Branch Manager
to Regional Sales Manager.
Singer Sewing Machine v
Drilon
Collection Agency Agreement
expressly described that the
agents were independent
contrators.
Mafinco Trading v Ople
Peddling contracts for cosmos
softdrink delivery. Are
peddlers independent
contractors?
Besa v Trajano
Shoe shiners who could leave
or stay in the business’
premises anytime they
wanted.
Tan v Lagrama
Ayalde to allow them to live inside her property for
free.
The power of control refers merely to the
existence of the power; it is not essential to
actually supervise the performance of duties, for it
is sufficient that the employer has a right to wield
the power.
2008 CASE: EE-ER RELATIONSHIP.
There was a manual to follow – this signified
control.
2010 CASE: REVERSED. NO RELATIONSHIP.
He was merely a ‘lead agent,’ a manager for all
other agents. There was an express stipulation in
his contract that he was an independent
contractor and he had declared himself self-
employed throughout the whole duration of his
stay in Manulife.
Dissent of J. Carpio-Morales: A sales agent can
be both an agent and an employee at the same
time.
Dissent of J. Velasco: This should have been
resolved in favor of labor.
They were not employees as there was no control
on how they would collect. The receipts were NOT
a form of control but only for accounting purposes,
which is integral in every trade/business.
The peddlers in this case are independent
contractors. They had enough capital (in the form
of a bond to Cosmos) to support such claim of the
corporation that they were not employees.
The shoe shiner is distinct from a piece worker
because while the latter is paid for work
accomplished, he does not contribute anything to
the capital of the employer. The employer pays
the wages of the piece worker. The shoeshiner
is paid directly by customer. The shoeshiner
can take his share of proceeds everyday if he
wanted to or weekly.
Payment by result is a method of
compensation and does not define the
Lagrama was a painter who essence of the relation. It is a method of
was found urinating in his computing compensation, not a basis for
work area. determining the existence or absence of EER.
CASES ON CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES
Case/Quick Facts Doctrine
CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES
Peninsula Manila v Alipio An employment is deemed regular when the
activities performed by the employee are usually
Reliever nurse who worked necessary or desirable in the usual business of
with ManilaPen for 4 years. the employer. Any employee (previously a casual
Dismissed when hotel found employee) who has rendered at least 1-yr of
out that she photocopied her service is deemed regular with respect to the
payslips. activity performed.
Regular employees enjoy security of tenure.
Kimberly-Clark v DOLE Casual employees become regular
employees, by operation of law, which is one
Employees filing for petition of year after they were employed. While the actual
certification election. regularization entails mechanical act of issuing
Employer wants to disregard regular appointment papers, the status of regular
some votes because they employment attaches to the casual workers on the
were not “regular by duration” day immediately after the end of his first year of
just yet. service.
St. Mary’s University v CA For a private school teacher to acquire permanent
status:
Danelo was a part-time 1) full-time (15-24 units)
employee of the school who 2) rendered 3 consecutive years of service
taught less than 18 units a 3) service has been satisfactory
sem from 1992-1995.
A part-time employee does not attain
permanent status no mater how long he has
served in the school. The school could terminate
his services after a semester without being held
liable for illegal dismissal.
Robinsons Galleria v A probationary employee, like a regular
Ranchez employee, enjoys security of tenure. However,
in cases of probationary employment, aside from
Probationary Employee who just or authorized causes of termination, an
was sued for Qualified Theft additional ground is provided under Article 281 of
after losing P20k. Dismissed the Labor Code, i.e., the probationary employee
for “abandonment.” may also be terminated for failure to qualify as a
regular employee in accordance with reasonable
standards made known by the employer to the
employee at the time of the engagement.
3 [3C 2018 – JEAH D]
Canadian Opportunities v
Dalangin, Jr.
He was an immigration and
legal manager who was fired
for being “unfit” and
“unqualified” after refusing to
attend a Values Formation
Seminar.
Aliling v Feliciano
Aliling was hired as a
probationary account
executive but was suddenly
made to handle a different
job.
Carvajal v Luzon Dev Bank
Carvajal was a trainee teller
dismissed for her ‘chronic
tardiness.’
Abbot Laboratories v
Alcaraz
Alcaraz was hired as a
Regulatory Affairs Manager.
She was given an
organizational chart, job
description, and company
manuals.
SC: One month is enough to determine if an
employee is not qualified for permanent
employment.
The essence of a probationary period of
employment fundamentally lies in the purpose or
objective of both the employer and the employee
during the period. While the employer observes
the fitness, propriety and efficiency of a
probationer to ascertain whether he is qualified for
permanent employment, the latter seeks to prove
to the former that he has the qualifications to meet
the reasonable standards for permanent
employment.
While probationary employees do not enjoy
permanent status, they enjoy the constitutional
protection of security of tenure. They can only be
terminated for cause or when they otherwise
fail to meet the reasonable standards made
known to them by the employer at the time of
their engagement.
If a probationary employee is not informed of the
standardization requirements, they are deemed
regular employees.
GR: In probationary employment, employer is
required to make reasonable standards known to
employee.
E: COMMON SENSE/BASIC KNOWLEDGE
Punctuality is a reasonable standard imposed on
every employee, whether in government or private
sector. Satisfactory performance is and should be
one of the basic standards for regularization.
2013 CASE: An employer is deemed to have
made known the standards that would qualify a
probationary employee to be a regular employee
when it has exerted reasonable efforts to apprise
the employee of what he is expected to do or
accomplish during the trial period of probation.
The exception is when the job is self-
descriptive in nature, or instance in the case
of maids, cooks, drivers, or messengers.
2014 CASE: Application of discretion and intellect,
which would make the “adequate performance of
one’s duties” hard to reduce into figures or readily
articulable pre-engagement standards. Examples:

Filipinas PreFabricated
Systems v Puente
Hired by a construction
company as an installer then
a mobile crane operator.
Rehired for 10 years in
different projects.
Gadia v Sykes Asia
Sykes Asia is a BPO that
hired Gadia for a specific
project with another company.
Company terminated project
so Sykes Asia terminated
Gadia.
Omni Hauling Services v
Bon
They were hired for QC City’s
garbage hauling services.
There was no written
employment contract.
Hacienda Bino v Cuenca
4 [3C 2018 – JEAH D]
lawyers, artists, journalists, managerial role like
Alcaraz
Dissenting of J. Brion: The performance standards
to be met are the employer’s specific expectations
of how the probationary employee should perform.
Knowledge of duties and responsibilities is
different from the measure of how these
duties and responsibilities should be
delivered. Not only must there be express
performance standards, there must be effective
communication.
A project employee’s security of tenure exists only
when the project is ongoing.
Indicators of project employment:
1) Duration which the worker is engaged is
reasonably determinable
2) Duration is defined in an employment
agreement and is made clear
3) The work is in connection with the particular
project for which he is engaged
4) The employee, while awaiting engagement, is
free to offer his services to others
5) The termination is reported to DOLE within 30
days following the date of separation
6) completion bonus
The principal test for determining whether
particular employees are properly characterized
as “project-based” as distinguished from “regular”
is whether or not the employees were
assigned to carry out a “specific project” or
undertaking,” the duration (and scope) of
which were specified at the time they were
engaged for that project.
Even though the absence of a written contract
does not by itself grant regular status to
respondents, such a contract is evidence that
respondents were informed of the duration and
scope of their work and their status as project
employees; where no other evidence was
offered, the absence of the employment
contracts raises a serious question of whether
the employees were properly informed of their
employment status as project employees at
the time of their engagement.
To be excluded from those classified as regular
In this case, the hacienda
was so big that the
employees constantly had
work even after the end of
seasons.
Mercado Sr v NLRC
In this case, the hacienda
was too small. The
employees were only hired for
one season and rehired the
next season.
Universal Robina v Acibo
Employees in a sugar milling
business that were hired and
rehired for 1 month at a time.
Brent School v Zamora
Athletic director who had a
contract with a fixed period of
5 years.
Poseidon Fishing v NLRC
Estoquia was a Chief Mate
who failed to record a call and
got illegally dismissed.
Defense was that he was a
fixed-term employee that only
worked for the duration of the
trip of the vessel.
Fonterra Brands PH v
employees, it is not enough that they perform
work or services that are seasonal in nature. They
must have been employed only for the
duration of the season.
In this case, records show that respondents’ work
in the hacienda was seasonal in nature, but there
was no proof that they were hired for the duration
of one season only. In fact, the payrolls submitted
by petitioners show that they availed the services
of the respondents since 1991 (5 years already).
When called to work from time to time and are
only temporarily laid off during the off-season, the
law does not consider these employees separated
from the service during the off-season period –
they are simply on leave without pay.
The length of time (or the continuous rehiring of
the employee even after the cessation of the
project) may serve as a badge of regular
employment when the activities performed by the
purported project employee are necessary and
indispensable to the usual business or trade of the
employer.
The decisive determinant in fixed term
employment should not be the activities that the
employee is called upon to perform, but the day
certain agreed upon by the parties for the
commencement and termination of their
employment relationship, a day certain being
understood to be “that which must necessarily
come, although it may not be known when.”
Fixed-Term Employment is covered under
provisions of the Civil Code.
If from the circumstances it is apparent that
periods have been imposed to preclude
acquisition of tenurial security by the employee,
they should be disregarded for being contrary to
public policy.
By refusing to renew their contracts, respondents
Largado effectively resigned from the latter. Resignation is
the voluntary act of employees who are compelled
Complainants (fixed term) by personal reasons to dissociate themselves
were hired by a company to from their employment, done with the intention of
help with a marketing project relinquishing an office, accompanied
of Fonterra. When their fixed
term contract was to end, they
decided not to renew as they
wanted to work for Fonterra’s
new marketing company.
They now claim illegal
dismissal.
OKS Design Tech v NLRC The following are indicators under which fixed-
term employment could not be construed as a
circumvention of the law on security of tenure:
1) The fixed period of employment was knowingly
and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without
any force, duress, or improper pressure being
brought to bear upon the employee and absent
any other circumstances vitiating his consent; or
2) It satisfactorily appears that the employer and
the employee dealt with each other on more or
less equal terms with no moral dominance
exercised by the former or the latter.
CASES ON CONTRACTING
Case/Quick Facts Doctrine
CONTRACTING/SUB-CONTRACTING
Sonza v ABSCBN The court discussed that in this case, none of the
four elements of an EER were present:
Jay Sonza from Mel & Jay.
He wanted separation pay. 1) Selection and engagement – Independent
contractors often present themselves to possess
unique skills, expertise or talent to distinguish
them from ordinary employees.
2) Payment of Wages – All the talent fees and
benefits paid to SONZA were the result of
negotiations that led to the Agreement.
3) Power of dismissal – In this case, they could
both terminate the contract whenever they want.
4) Power of Control - ABS-CBN could not dictate
the contents of SONZA’s script. Even if the
5 [3C 2018 – JEAH D]
Fuji Television v Espiritu
Reporter who got fired after
she was diagnosed with
cancer. Remember: the main
difference in this case with the
Sonza case is that she had
no “unique skills and talents.”
She was declared an
employee.
TAPE v Servaña
Security guards that was
allegedly retained as a
“talent.”
Semblante v CA
2 people who worked in
cockpits – one as a masiador
and one as a sentenciador.
Aliviado v P&G
P&G employees were under 2
contractors. One was held as
legitimate, the other, labor-
only.
Coca-cola Bottlers v Dela
Cruz
Route helpers who operated
the trucks of Coca-Cola said
they were the firm’s
employees. Coca-cola
defense is that “distribution” is
not part of its main business
as it was only concered with
“manufacturing.”
Agreement prohibited SONZA from criticizing in
his shows ABS-CBN or its interests. SONZA had
a free hand on what to say or discuss in his shows
provided he did not attack ABS-CBN or its
interests.
Jurisprudence has recognized another kind of
independent contractor: individuals with unique
skills and talents that set them apart from ordinary
employees. There is no trilateral relationship in
this case because the independent contractor
himself or herself performs the work for the
principal. In other words, the relationship is
bilateral. In these cases, the workers were found
to be independent contractors because of their
unique skills and talents and the lack of control
over the means and methods in the performance
of their work.
Security guards aren’t talents. Chos.
Where there is control on the part of the principal,
as in this case evidenced by the bundy cards,
then the security guard must necessarily be an
employee of the principal.
Referees and bet-takers need to have the kind of
expertise that is characteristic of the game to
interpret messages conveyed by mere gestures.
They are akin to independent contractors who
possess unique skills, expertise, and talent to
distinguish from ordinary employees.
There is labor-only contracting where the person
supplying workers to an employer does not have
substantial capital or investment in the form of
tools, equipment, machineries, work premises,
among others, and the workers recruited and
placed by such person are performing activities
which are directly related to the principal business
of such employer.
The nature of the work performed must be viewed
from a perspective of the business or trade in its
entirety and not only in a confined scope. The
contracted personnel who served as route
helpers were really engaged in functions
directly related to the overall business of the
petitioner. Sale and distribution were in fact not
the purported contractors’ independent, discrete,
and separable activities, but were component
parts of sales and distribution operations that the
company controlled in its soft drinks business.
Petron v Caberte
Respondents were hired by
Petron Bacolod for utility and
maintenance services.
Temic v Temic Union
A warehouse got “forward
employees” from independent
contractors who now claim
they are regular employees.
New Golden City Builders v
CA
Prince David Condominum
Project. An employee wants
to be regularizaed but New
Golden says “you are an
employee of the contractor.”
Alilin v Petron
Employees were hired by
Petron for janitorial and
maintenance services.
ALPS Transportation V
Rodriguez
Bus conductor was dismissed
for allegedly committing
irregularities on the job.
Rosewood Processing v
NLRC
All respondents were security
guards who filed a case
against its agency and
impleaded the principal as a
third-party respondent.
Meralco Industrial
Engineering Services v
NLRC
6 [3C 2018 – JEAH D]
The law presumes a contractor to be a labor-only
contractor and the employees are not expected to
prove the negative fact that the contractor is a
labor-only contractor. Where the principal is the
one claiming that the contractor is a legitimate
contractor, the burden of proving the
supposed status of the contractor rests on the
principal.
Outsourcing is a legitimate activity when we held
that a company can determine in its best
judgment whether it should contract out a part of
its work for as long as the employer is motivated
by good faith; the contracting is not for
purposes of circumventing the law; and does
not involve or be the result of malicious or
arbitrary action.
The test to determine w/n independent
contractorship exists is whether the contractor
does the work according to his own methods and
without being subject to the control of the
employer, except only as to the results of the
work.
While the jobs performed by petitioners may be
menial and mechanical, they are nevertheless
necessary and related to Petron’s business
operations. If not for these tasks, Petron’s
products will not reach the consumers in their
proper state.
The presumption is always that the contract is of
labor-only contracting. When a principal alleges
legitimate contracting, it bears the burden of
proving that the contractor is an independent
contractor.
Should the contractor fail to pay the wages of its
employees in accordance with law, the indirect
employer (the petitioner in this case), is jointly and
severally liable with the contractor, but such
responsibility should be understood to be limited
to the extent of the work performed under the
contract, in the same manner and extent that he is
liable to the employees directly employed by him.
Indirect Employer (the principal) =/= Actual
employer.
An indirect employer (as defined by Article 107)
Employers worked as janitors
for Rockwell Thermal Power
Plant.
Polyfoam-RGC v
Concepcion
Concepcion was a packer and
an “all around” employee of
Polyfoam.
Vigilla v PCC
Philippine College of
Criminology got janitorial
employees from MBSI. When
MBSI’s Cert of Incorporation
was revoked, the employees
were fired. Quitclaim with
MBSI.
Diamond Farms v
DARBMUPCO
Big banana plantation given
to farmers because of
agrarian reform. Framers
formed a cooperative.
CASES ON RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT
Case/Quick Facts
RECRUITMENT & PLACEMENT
Marsaman Manning Agency
v NLRC
Chief Cook Steward who quit
work. Employer said he quit
bec paranoia (something was
crawling all over his body).
Serrano v Gallant Maritime
Services
Chief Officer when hired but
can only be held solidarily liable with the
independent contractor or subcontractor (as
provided under Article 109) in the event that the
latter fails to pay the wages of its employees (as
described in Article 106).
The test of independent contractorship is “whether
one claiming to be an independent contractor has
contracted to do the work according to his own
methods and without being subject to the
control of the employer, except only as to the
results of the work.”
In legitimate job contracting, the law creates an
employer-employee relationship for a limited
purpose, i.e., to ensure that the employees are
paid their wages. The principal employer becomes
jointly and severally liable with the job contractor
only for the payment of the employees’ wages
whenever the contractor fails to pay the same.
Other than that, the principal employer is not
responsible for any claim made by the employees.
Random but Re Quitclaim: Never contested so
valid. Wawa employees doe but yeah. L
That the farmer’s cooperative owns the awarded
plantation where the respondent- contractors and
respondent-workers were working is immaterial.
This does not change the situation as to who the
real employee of the farmers are – Diamond
Farms.
Doctrine
An overseas worker who only has 8 months of
work left during contract termination can only be
given the unexpired portion of his contract.
The three (3) months’ salary for every year of the
unexpired term,comes into play only when the
employment contract concerned has a term of at
least one (1) year or more. This is evident from
the words “for every year of the unexpired term.”
Sec 10 of RA 8042 is unconstitutional. The subject
clause creates a sub-layer of discrimination
among OFWs whose contract periods are for
more than one year: those who are illegally
when he got to the ship he
was demoted and never
promoted.
Pert/CPM Manpower v
Vinuya
Aluminum Fabricators in
Dubai. HORRIBLE WORKING
CONDITIONS like 9 hours a
day, 27 people in place of
lodging, etc.
Skippers United Pacific v
Doza
Four Filipino seafarers
allegedly got drunk and got
ratchet.
Sameer Overseas
Placement Agency v
Cabiles
Deployed in Taiwan Wacoal
factory as cutter. She was
dismissed for alleged
inefficiency.
Cadalin v POEA
Administrator
7 [3C 2018 – JEAH D]
dismissed with less than one year left in their
contracts shall be entitled to their salaries for the
entire unexpired portion thereof, while those who
are illegally dismissed with one year or more
remaining in their contracts shall be covered by
the subject clause, and their monetary benefits
limited to their salaries for three months only.
This was a case of contract substitution.
Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A.
8042,35 defined “illegal recruitment” to include the
following act:
(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the
worker, employment contracts approved and
verified by the Department of Labor and
Employment from the time of actual signing
thereof by the parties up to and including the
period of the expiration of the same without the
approval of the Department of Labor and
Employment.
RA 10022 reintroduced the provision struck down
in Serrano allowing the award of salaries
corresponding to the unexpired portion of the
contract or 3 months out of every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less. However, the
termination here was in 1999, before RA 10022
was passed.
Hence, the Migrant Workers Act must be applied
unamended, and the unconstitutionality of the
provision as held in Serrano v. Gallant must be
retroactively applied. Unconstitutional provisions
confer no rights.
The provision of RA No. 10022, limiting the
recovery of an illegally dismissed overseas worker
to three months, is declared in violation of due
process and the equal protection clauses of the
Constitution. AGAIN. Same reasons as in
Sameer.
The 12% interest per annum only applies to the
placement fees but not the case of salary for the
unexpired portion of the employment contract –
these awards are covered by BSP Circular No.
799 (6%) because the law does not provide for a
specific interest rate that should apply.
FOR BENEFITS: In ruling, the Amiri Deere, No.
23 of 1976, which provides for greater benefits
Amiri Decree.
This was the case that FLJ
said was pro-laborer.
Blablabla. Social Justice.
(Kiel’s recit J)
Maersk-Filipinas Crewing v
Avestruz
Chief cook who got in trouble
because the garbage bin was
oily.
De la cruz v Maersk
Filipinas
Third engineer who was doing
unsatisfactory performance
according to the logbook.
GBMLT Manpower v
Malinao
Teacher in Ethiopia who quit.
lol.
People v Panis
Motion to Quash because he
only “illegally recruited” one
person.
People v Goce
Injured parties met Agustin
who said that the Goce
spouses were recruiters and
than those stipulated in the overseas-employment
contracts of the claimants was applied. Where the
laws of the host country are more favorable and
beneficial to the workers, then the laws of the host
country shall form part of the overseas
employment contract.
FOR PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD: The prescriptive
period in Philippine law, which is that of 3 years,
provides better protection than the prescriptive
period in the Amiri Decree, which is that of 1 year.
The evidence in this case was uncorroborated
and self-serving, and therefore do not satisfy the
requirement of substantial evidence that would
sufficiently discharge the burden of proving that
the employee was legally dismissed.
Seafarers are not covered by the term regular
employment. They are considered contractual
employees whose rights and obligations are
governed primarily by the POEA Standard
Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen, the
Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas
Employment, and, R.A. NO. 8042 or The Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
Even the POEA Standard Employment Contract
itself mandates that in no case shall a contract of
employment concerning seamen exceed 12
months. It is an accepted maritime industry
practice that the employment of seafarers is
for a fixed period only.
In this case, there was a POEA-approved contract
that allowed for two-way termination.
Either party may terminate a POEA-approved
contract even without cause as long as the right is
exercised in good faith.
The number of persons dealt with is not an
essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and
placement of workers. Any of the acts mentioned
in the basic rule in Article 13(b) will constitute
recruitment and placement even if only one
prospective worker is involved.
To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that
appellant gave complainants the distinct
impression that he had the power or ability to
send complainants abroad for work such that the
latter were convinced to part with their money in
that he could help them get a
job in Saudi.
Darvin v CA
“I can get you US Visa and air
fare for P150,000”
People v Gallo
Injured parties met Gallo at a
recruitment agency that
changed names and
addresses a lot. Gallo says “I
tried to apply also.”
People v Lalli
Human trafficking! Malaysia!
OMG
People v Ocden
Two complainants + a mother
complainant suing for her two
boys who got stuck in
Zamboanga thinking they
could be sent to Italy.
People v Ong
Ong convinced an optometrist
that he should work in Taiwan
first as a factory worker.
8 [3C 2018 – JEAH D]
order to be employed.
Procuring a passport, airline tickets and foreign
visa for another individual, without more, can
hardly qualify as recruitment activities. Aside from
the testimony of private respondent, there is
nothing to show that accused-appellant engaged
in recruitment activities.
There is estafa only where there is pecuniary
damage.
The elements of estafa in general are:
1) that the accused defrauded another
a. by abuse of confidence, or
b. by means of deceit; and
2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is
caused to the offended party or third person.
The three elements of syndicated illegal
recruitment are present in this case, in particular:
1) the accused have no valid license or authority
required by law to enable them to lawfully engage
in the recruitment and placement of workers;
2) the accused engaged in this activity of
recruitment and placement by actually recruiting,
deploying and transporting Lolita to Malaysia; and
3) illegal recruitment was committed by three
persons (In this case, Aringoy, Lalli and
Relampagos), conspiring and confederating with
one another.
The law does not require that at least three
victims testify at the trial, nevertheless, it is
necessary that there is sufficient evidence proving
that the offense was committed against three or
more persons. In this case, there is conclusive
evidence that Ocden recruited at least 5 people or
purported employment as factory workers in Italy.
Referral - the act of passing along or forwarding
of an applicant for employment after an initial
interview of a selected applicant for employment
to a selected employer, placement officer or
bureau.
CASES ON WORKING CONDITIONS
Case/Quick Facts
WORKING CONDITIONS
Penaranda v Baganga
Plywood Corporation
Foreman who was in charge
of the steam plant boiler.
Autobus Transport System
v Bautista
Driver-conductor who they
claim to be a field personnel
paid on commission basis.
Inspectors were assigned in
specific places.
David v Macasio
Employee is a butcher
allegedly hired on a “pakyaw”
basis.
Labor Congress v NLRC
Cheese curls that died
because factory workers had
rallies.
PAL v NLRC
Flight surgeon who ate dinner
at home when an employee of
PAL got a heart attack. Got
back to the office at 7:51 but
Doctrine
Like managerial employees, officers and
members of the managerial staff are not entitled
to the provisions of law on labor standards.
The definition of a “field personnel” is not merely
concerned with the location where the employee
regularly performs his duties but also with the fact
that the employee’s performance is unsupervised
by the employer. Thus, in order to conclude
whether an employee is a field employee, it is also
necessary to ascertain if actual hours of work in
the field can be determined with reasonable
certainty by the employer.
To not be covered by provisions on Holiday Pay
and SIL, an employee must be a field personnel
whose time and performance is unsupervised by
the employer AND engaged on task or contract
basis, purely commission basis, or those who are
paid a fixed amount for performing work
irrespective of the time consumed in the
performance thereof.
Petitioners, as piece-rate workers, were entitled to
these benefits:
HOLIDAY PAY: Section 8 of the IRR on Holiday
Pay tells us that piece-rate workers are entitled to
Holiday Pay.
TH th
13 MONTH PAY: The law on 13 Month Pay
specifically say that piece-rate workers are
entitled to this.
SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE: To be exempted,
one has to be piece-rate AND a field personnel. In
this case, they were NOT field personnels.
OVERTIME PAY: Exempted ONLY IF the
employer complies with the standards set forth by
the DOLE. If not, overtime pay should be given.
The eight-hour work period does not include the
meal break. Nowhere in the law may it be inferred
that employees must take their meals within the
company premises. Employees are not prohibited
from going out of the premises as long as they
return to their posts on time.
injured person left at 7:50.
Arica v NLRC
Workers wanted their
assembly time t 5:30 to 6:00
to be counted as ‘working
hours.’
Rada v NLRC
Driver whose contract got
renewed several times. Wants
to include “pauwi” in working
hours because he dropped
other employees off. Wanted
overtime.
RB Michael Press v Galit
Worker who was always tardy
and when asked to do
overtime, refused because he
was ‘sick.’
Caltex Regular Employees
v Caltex
Old CBA had a provision of “2
rest days”. Further, Annex
talked of “2 rest days” as well.
Petitioners contend that
Saturday work is considered
overtime because of this.
Other contention: petitioners
leave early on workdays and
“overtime” on Saturdays so it
was claimed that there was
illegal offsetting.
9 [3C 2018 – JEAH D]
The thirty (30)-minute assembly time was not
primarily intended for the interests of the
employer, but ultimately for the employees to
indicate their availability or non-availability for
work during every working day.
Dissenting: The 30 minutes could not be used for
the employee’s personal interests. It should be
considered in computing the working hours.
When a transportation arrangement had been
adopted primarily for the benefit of the employer,
the time used there in should be included in the
computation of the employee’s working hours.
This work is indispensable and consequently
mandatory, then the time required of and used by
petitioner in going from his residence to the field
office and back, that is, from 5:30 A.M. to 7:00
A.M. and from 4:00 P.M. to around 6:00 P.M.,
which the labor arbiter rounded off as averaging
three hours each working day, should be paid as
overtime work.
Art. 89(c): EMERGENCY OVERTIME WORK
Any employee may be required by the employer
to perform overtime work in any of the following
cases:
(c) When there is urgent work to be performed on
machines, installations, or equipment, in order to
avoid serious loss or damage to the employer or
some other cause of similar nature.
If emergency overtime work is needed and the
employee refuses for no valid reason, it can be
considered willful disobedience.
First, Annex is NOT binding because well, it’s an
Annex.
Also, hours worked on a Saturday do not, by that
fact alone, necessarily constitute overtime work
compensable at premium rates of pay, contrary to
petitioner’s assertion. It is only when an employee
has been required on a Saturday to render work in
excess of the 40 hours, which constitute the
regular workweek, that such employee may be
considered as performing overtime work on that
Saturday. The statutory prohibition against
offsetting under-time one day with overtime
another day has no application in the case at
bar.
Union of Filipro Employees
v Vivar Jr
Motion for clarification.
Employees went to office in at
8am and also at 4:30pm. Now
they contend that they are
NOT field personnel.
Trans-Asia Phils v NLRC
New CBA that had a “holiday
pay” clause were used by the
union to prove that there was
no holiday pay previously
given.
PNCC Workers Org v PNCC
Skyway Corp
Employer scheduled the
employee’s vacation leaves.
Phil. Hoteliers Inc v
National Union of Workers
Employers were found not to
be paying COLA. They claim
that since they give a large
amount for service charge, it
should be offset with the
unpaid COLA.
CASES ON WAGES
Case/Quick Facts
Songco v NLRC
Ex-sales agents who were
computing their separation
pay. They claim that
‘commissions are part of
wages.’
In deciding whether or not an employee's actual
working hours in the field can be determined with
reasonable certainty, query must be made as to
whether or not such employee's time and
performance is constantly supervised by the
employer. In this case, there was no supervision
+ paid on a commission basis. Therefore, they are
exempted from night shift differential and service
incentive leave.
The inclusion of holiday pay in petitioner’s monthly
salary is clearly established by its consistent use
of the divisor of “286” days in the computation of
its employees’ benefits and deductions. The ten
(10) legal holidays in a year are already
accounted for with the use of the said divisor.
In the grant of vacation leave privileges to an
employee, the employer is given the leeway to
impose conditions on the entitlement to and
commutation of the same, as the grant of vacation
leave is not a standard of law, but a prerogative
of management. Scheduling of leaves was
allowed.
The right of a worker to COLA and his right to
Service Charges are distinct. One cannot offset
the other.
Doctrine
WAGES
Salary means a recompense or consideration
made to a person for his pains or industry in
another man’s business. Commission is the
recompense, compensation or reward of an
agent, salesman, executor, trustees, receiver,
factor, broker, or bailee, when the same is
calculated as a percentage on the amount of his
transactions on the profit of the principal.

Millares v NLRC
Lodging Allowance – given if
there is a vacancy only.
Transportation Expenses –
given as reimbursements only
to those with cars
Bislig Allowance – due to
hostile environment
SLL Int’l Cables v NLRC
Cable linemen who were
underpaid. Petitioner’s
defense was that their lodging
and food formed part of
wages and so they were not
underpaid.
Our Haus Realty v Parian
Construction company
suspended workers because
of budget cuts. When they
tried to rehire workers,
workers filed for
underpayment. Company
claims lodging and food
expenses should form part of
wages.
CASES ON NON DIMINUTION
Case/Quick Facts
NON DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS
American Wire Employees For a bonus to be enforceable,
Union v American Wire
10 [3C 2018 – JEAH D]
To rule that commission does not form part of the
salary would be absurd as it would entail that
employees paid on a purely commission basis do
not receive wages.
THE PURPOSE TEST. In determining whether a
privilege is a facility, the criterion is not so much
its kind but its purpose. That the assailed
allowances were for the benefit and convenience
of respondent company was supported by the
circumstance that they were not subjected to
withholding tax and they were not given
unconditionally.
Under the purpose test, what were given (food
and lodging) were supplements as they were
mainly for the benefit of the employer. As
supplements, they cannot be counted as part of
the wage.
Supplements – extra remuneration or special
privileges or benefits given to or received by the
laborers over and above their ordinary earnings or
wages.
Before the value of the facilities can be deducted
from the employees’ wages, the following
requisites must all concur:
1) Proof must be shown that such facilities are
customarily furnished by the trade
2) Voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee
3) Charged at fair and reasonable value
In this case, while there was a circular for
construction companies to have lodging, this
expense for lodging is already taken into account
in the price paid by the firm that hires the
construction company. As part of the project
cost that construction companies already
charge to their clients, the value of the
housing of their workers cannot be charged
again to their employees’ salaries.
Doctrine
(1) it must have been promised by the
Union alleges that there is
diminution of benefits when
Christmas bonus + party was
cancelled.
TSPIC Corp v TSPIC Corp
Union
CBA had a provision to
absorb any increase by Wage
Order.
Lepanto Ceramics v
Lepanto Ceramics Union
Employer wanted to give
P600 in cash as Christmas
bonus unlike the previously
given P3k Certificates
because of business losses.
Eastern
Telecommunications v
Eastern
Telecommunications Union
Company wanted to defer
th th
payment of the 14 , 15 , and
th
16 month pay to the next
year. SC: NO.
employer and expressly agreed upon by
the parties OR
(2) it must have had a fixed amount and had
been a long and regular practice on the
part of the employer.
To be considered a “regular practice,” the giving
of the bonus should have been done over a long
period of time, and must be shown to have been
consistent and deliberate.
There is diminution of benefits when it is shown
that:
1) the grant or benefit is founded on a policy or
has ripened into a practice over a long period;
2) the practice is consistent and deliberate;
3) the practice is not due to error in the
construction or application of a doubtful or difficult
question of law; and
4) the diminution or discontinuance is done
unilaterally by the employer.
In this case, the increase was due to an ERROR
and was NOT unilateral (because of the CBA).
Business losses are a feeble ground for to
repudiate obligation under the CBA. The rule is
settled that any benefit and supplement being
enjoyed by the employees cannot be reduced,
diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the
employer. The principle of non- diminution of
benefits is founded on the constitutional mandate
to protect the rights of workers and to promote
their welfare and to afford labor full protection.
GR: The grant of a bonus is basically a
management prerogative which cannot be forced
upon the employer who may not be obliged to
assume the onerous burden of granting bonuses.
E: A bonus becomes a demandable obligation
when it is made part of the wage or salary or
compensation of the employee and is given
WITHOUT CONDITION.
th th
In thic case, the CBA that granted the 14 – 16
month pay was given WITHOUT CONDITION.
Deferring it would be a violation on the principle of
nondiminution of benefits.