Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Facts:
Held:
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners are employees of the company.
Held:
The Court ruled that there is no employer-employee relationship
and that petitioners are employees of the agent. The agent is a legitimate
independent contractor. Labor-only contractor occurs only when the
contractor merely recruits, supplies or places workers to perform a job for a
principal. The labor-only contractor doesnt have substantial capital or
investment and the workers recruited perform activities directly related to
the principal business of the employer. There is permissible contracting only
when the contractor carries an independent business and undertakes the
contract in his own manner and method, free from the control of the
principal and the contractor has substantial capital or investment. The agent,
and not the company, also exercises control over the petitioners. No
documents were submitted to prove that the companyexercised control over
them. The agent hired the petitioners. The agent also pays the petitioners,
no evidence was submitted showing that it was the company paying them
and not the agent. It was also the agent who terminated their services. By
petitioning for regularization, the petitioners concede that they are not
regular employees.
2) CORPORALSR.VS.NLRC 341 SCRA 658
Facts:
5 male barbers and 2 female manicurists (Petitioners) worked at
New Look Barbershop, a sole proprietorship owned and managed by Vicente
Lao which in 1982 was taken over by Lao Enteng Co., Inc., (respondent
corporation) a corporation formed by Vicente Laos children. The petitioners
were allowed to work there until April 1985 when they were told that the
barbershop building was sold and their services are no longer needed.
Petitioners filed with the Arbitration branch of NLRC a complaint for illegal
dismissal, illegal deduction, separation pay, non-payment of 13th month pay
and salary differential. Also they seek for refund ofP1.00 collected from each
of them daily as salary of the barbershops sweeper. Respondent Corporation
alleged that petitioners were Joint Venture (JV) partners receiving
50%commission (Petitioners admitted in receiving 50-60%), therefore no
employer-employee relationship existed. And assuming arguendo that
employer-employee relationship existed, petitioners were not entitled to
separation pay since cessation of the business was due to serious business
losses. Also, they allege that the barbershop had always been a JV
partnership with the operation and management left entirely to petitioners
and that the former had no control over the latter who could freely come
and goes they wish. Lastly, they allege that some of the petitioners were
allowed to register in SSS only as an act of accommodation. The Labor Arbiter
dismissed the complaint and found that there was a JV and no employeremployee relationship. Also that the business was closed due to serious
business losses or financial reverses and the law does not compel the
establishment to pay separation pay to whoever were its employees. On
appeal, NLRC affirmed the decision but held that petitioners were considered
independent contractors and not employees. The MR was also denied by
NLRC, hence, this petition on certiorari.
Issue:
were hired by SMC through its agent or intermediary Maerc. They were paid
on a per piece or pakiao basis except for a few who worked as checkers and
were paid on daily wage basis.
SMC denied liability for the claims and averred that the
complainants were not its employees but of MAERC. When the service
contract was terminated, complainants claimed that SMC stopped them from
performing their jobs; that this was tantamount to their being illegally
dismissed by SMC who was their real employer; and, that MAERC was merely
made a tool or a shield by SMC to avoid its liability under the Labor Code.
On 31 January 1995 the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision holding
that MAERC was an independent contractor. He dismissed the complaints for
illegal dismissal but held that MAERC and SMC were jointly and severally
liable to pay complainants their wage differentials. The National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in its 7 January 1997 decision that MAERC
was a labor-only contractor and that complainants were employees of SMC
but still held SMC to be jointly and severally liable with MAERC for
complainants' separation benefits. On 28 April 2000 the Court of Appeals
denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the NLRC.
Issue:
Whether or not the complainants are employees of petitioner
SMC or of respondent MAERC.
it instituted a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, but
the latter denied the same.
Issue:
Whether Nilo Layno Builders was an "independent contractor" or
a "labor-only" contractor
Ruling:
Under Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III, of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code, an independent contractor is one who
undertakes "job contracting," i.e., a person who: (a) carries on an
independent business and undertakes the contract work on his own account
under his own responsibility according to his own manner and method, free
from the control and direction of his employer or principal in all matters
connected with the performance of the work except as to the results thereof;
and (b) has substantial capital or investment in the form of tools,
equipments, machineries, work premises, and other materials which are
necessary in the conduct of the business. Jurisprudential holdings are to the
effect that in determining the existence of an independent contractor
relationship, several factors may be considered, such as, but not necessarily
confined to, whether or not the contractor is carrying on an independent
business; the nature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term and
duration of the relationship; the right to assign the performance of specified
pieces of work; the control and supervision of the work to another; the
employer's power with respect to the hiring, firing and payment of the
contractor's workers; the control of the premises; the duty to supply
premises, tools, appliances, materials and labor; and the mode, manner and
terms of payment.
Nilo Layno Builders is a duly licensed labor contractor carrying on
an independent business for a specialized work that involves the use of some
particular, unusual and peculiar skills and expertise, like concrete works,
form works and steel rebars works. As a licensed labor contractor, it
complied with the conditions set forth in Section 5, Rule VII-A, Book III, Rules
to Implement the Labor Code, among others, proof of financial capability and
list of equipment, tools, machineries and implements to be used in the
business. Further, it entered into a written contract with the petitioner, a
requirement under Section 3, Rule VII-A, Book III, Rules to Implement the
Labor Code to assure the employees of the minimum labor standards and
benefits provided by existing laws.
The test to determine the existence 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 to the results of the work.
This is exactly the situation obtaining in the case at bar. Nilo Layno
Builders hired its own employees, the private respondents, to do specialized
work in the Prince David Project of the petitioner. The means and methods
adopted by the private respondents were directed by Nilo Layno Builders
except that, from time to time, the engineers of the petitioner visited the site
to check whether the work was in accord with the plans and specifications of
the principal. As admitted by Nilo G. Layno, he undertook the contract work
on his own account and responsibility, free from interference from any other
persons, except as to the results; that he was the one paying the salaries of
private respondents; and that as employer of the private respondents, he
had the power to terminate or dismiss them for just and valid cause.
Indubitably, the Court finds that Nilo Layno Builders maintained effective
supervision and control over the private complainants.
8. Neri vs NLRC 224 scra 717
Facts:
Respondents are sued by two employees of Building Care
Corporation, which provides janitorial and other specific services to various
firms, to compel Far Bast Bank and Trust Company to recognize them as its
regular employees and be paid the same wages which its employees receive.
Building Care Corporation (BCC, for brevity), in the proceedings
below, established that it had substantial capitalization of P1 Million or a
stockholders equity of P1.5 Million. Thus the Labor Arbiter ruled that BCC
was only job contracting and that consequently its employees were not
employees of Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC, for brevity). on
appeal, this factual finding was affirmed by respondent National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC, for brevity). Nevertheless, petitioners insist
before us that BCC is engaged in "labor-only" contracting hence, they
conclude, they are employees of respondent FEBTC.
On 28 June 1989, petitioners instituted complaints against FEBTC
Accordingly, on 2 April 1984, the bank filed the present petition for certiorari
with this Court seeking to annul and set aside (a) the decision of respondent
Labor Arbiter Dogelio dated 12 September 1977 in Labor Case No. RB-IV1118-77 and (b) the decision of the NLRC promulgated on 29 December 1983
affirming with some modifications the decision of the Labor Arbiter. This
Court granted a temporary restraining order on 11 April 1984.
Issue:
Whether or not the relationship is one of employer and job
(independent) contractor or one of employer and "labor-only"
contractor.
SC Ruling:
Under the general rule set out in the first and second paragraphs
of Article 106, an employer who enters into a contract with a contractor for
the performance of work for the employer, does not thereby create an
employer-employee relationship between himself and the employees of the
contractor. Thus, the employees of the contractor remain the contractor's
employees and his alone. Nonetheless, when a contractor fails to pay the
wages of his employees in accordance with the Labor Code, the employer
who contracted out the job to the contractor becomes jointly and severally
liable with his contractor to the employees of the latter "to the extent of the
work performed under the contract" as if such employer were the employer
of the contractor's employees. The law itself, in other words, establishes an
employer-employee relationship between the employer and the job
contractor's employees for a limited purpose, i.e., in order to ensure that the
latter get paid the wages due to them.
principals or clients of service contractors who had already paid for the
wages of the contractor or subcontractor.
SC Ruling :
The petition is bereft of merit. In this case, the GSIS cannot evade
liability by claiming that it had fully paid complainants' salaries by
incorporating in the Security Service Contract the salary rate increases
mandated by Wage Order Nos. 1 and 2.
The joint and several liability of the employer or principal was
enacted to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Code, principally
those on statutory minimum wage. The contractor or subcontractor is made
liable by virtue of his or her status as a direct employer, and the principal as
the indirect employer of the contractor's employees. This liability facilitates,
if not guarantees, payment of the workers' compensation, thus, giving the
workers ample protection as mandated by the 1987 Constitution. This is not
unduly burdensome to the employer. Should the indirect employer be
constrained to pay the workers, it can recover whatever amount it had paid
in accordance with the terms of the service contract between itself and the
contractor (Rosewood Processing vs. NLRC).
Thus, the Court does not agree with the GSIS's claim that a double
burden would be imposed upon the latter because it would be paying twice
for complainants' services. Such fears are unfounded. Under Article 1217 of
the Civil Code, if the GSIS should pay the money claims of complainants, it
has the right to recover from LSWA whatever amount it has paid in
accordance with the terms of the service contract between the LSWA and
the GSIS. Joint and solidary liability is simply meant to assure aggrieved
workers of immediate and sufficient payment of what is due them. This is in
line with the policy of the State to protect and alleviate the plight of the
working class.
11. FILSYN vs NLRC, 257 SCRA 336
Facts:
On 4 April 1991 FILSYN, a domestic corporation engaged in the
manufacture of polyester fiber, contracted with De Lima Trading and General
Services (DE LIMA) for the performance of specific janitorial services Pursuant
to the agreement Felipe Loterte, among others, was deployed at FILSYN to
take care of the plants and maintain general cleanliness around the premises.
On 24 February 1992 Loterte sued FILSYN and DE LIMA as
alternative defendants for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, nonpayment of legal holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay
alleging that he was first assigned to perform janitorial work at FILSYN in
1981 by the La Saga General Services; that the La Saga was changed to DE
LIMA on August 1991; that when a movement to demand increased wages
and 13th month pay arose among the workers on December 1991 he was
accused by a certain Dodie La Flores of having posted in the bulletin board at
FILSYN an article attributing to management a secret understanding to block
the demand; and, for denying responsibility, his gate pass was
unceremoniously cancelled on 6 February 1992 and he was subsequently
dismissed.
Loterte was classified by the Labor Arbiter as a regular employee
on the ground that he performed tasks usually necessary or desirable in the
main business of FILSYN for more than ten (10) years or since 1981. FILSYN
was declared to be the real employer of Loterte and DE LIMA as a mere labor
contractor. Hence, FILSYN was adjudged liable for Loterte's reinstatement,
payment of salary differentials and back wages and other benefits. Hence,
this petition for certiorari by FILSYN.
Issue:
Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship
between FILSYN and private respondent Felipe Loterte.
SC Ruling:
DE LIMA is an independent job contractor, therefore no direct
employer-employee relationship exists between petitioner FILSYN and
private respondent Felipe Loterte. The relationship between petitioner
Filipinas Synthetic Fiber Corporation (FILSYN) and private respondent De Lima
Trading and General Services (DE LIMA) is one of job contractorship.
Under the Labor Code, two (2) elements must exist for a finding of
labor-only contracting: (a) 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 (b) the workers recruited
and placed by such persons are performing activities directly related to the
principal business of such employer.
These two (2) elements do not exist in the instant case. As pointed
out by petitioner, private respondent DE LIMA is a going concern duly
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission with substantial
capitalization of P1,600,000.00, P400,000.00 of which is actually subscribed.
Hence, it cannot be considered as engaged in labor-only contracting being a
highly capitalized venture. Moreover, while the janitorial services performed
by Felipe Loterte pursuant to the agreement between FILSYN and DE LIMA
may be considered directly related to the principal business of FILSYN which
is the manufacture of polyester fiber, nevertheless, they are not necessary in
its operation. On the contrary, they are merely incidental thereto, as
opposed to being integral, without which production and company sales will
not suffer. Judicial notice has already been taken of the general practice in
private as well as in government institutions and industries of hiring janitorial
services on an independent contractor basis.
Respondent De Lima Trading and General Services (DE LIMA) are
ordered to reinstate private respondent FELIPE LOTERTE to his former
position or its equivalent without loss of seniority rights. And private
respondent De Lima Trading and General Services (DE LIMA) is ordered
jointly and severally with petitioner Filipinas Synthetic Fiber Corporation
(FILSYN) to pay private respondent FELIPE LOTERTE hi salary differentials,
13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and backwages without
prejudice to FILSYN seeking reimbursement from DE LIMA for whatever
amount the former may pay or have paid the latter.
12. Bro Labor Unity Movement vs Zamora Gr. No. 48645
Facts:
The petitioners are workers who have been employed at the San
Miguel Parola Glass Factory as pahinantes or kargadors for almost seven
years. They worked exclusively at the SMC plant, never having been assigned
to other companies or departments of San Miguel Corp, even when the
volume of work was at its minimum. Their work was neither regular nor
continuous, depending on the volume of bottles to be loaded and unloaded,
as well as the business activity of the company. However, work exceeded the
eight-hour day and sometimes, necessitated work on Sundays and holidays. for this, they were neither paid overtime nor compensation.
Sometime in 1969, the workers organized and affiliated
themselves with Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement (BLUM). They wanted
to be paid to overtime and holiday pay. They pressed the SMC management
to hear their grievances. BLUM filed a notice of strike with the Bureau of
Labor Relations in connection with the dismissal of some of its members. San
Miguel refused to bargain with the union alleging that the workers are not
their employees but the employees of an independent labor contracting firm,
Guaranteed Labor Contractor.
The workers were then dismissed from their jobs and denied entrance to the
glass factory despite their regularly reporting for work. A complaint was filed
for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practices.
Issue:
Whether or not there was employer-employee
EE)relationship between the workers and San Miguel Corp.
(ER-
Held:
YES. In determining if there is an existence of the (ER-EE)
relationship, the four-fold test was used by the Supreme Court. In the case,
the records fail to show that San Miguel entered into mere oral agreements
of employment with the workers. Considering the length of time that the
petitioners have worked with the company, there is justification to conclude
that they were engaged to perform activities necessary in the usual business
or trade. Despite past shutdowns of the glass plant, the workers promptly
returned to their jobs. The term of the petitioners employment appears
indefinite and the continuity and habituality of the petitioners work bolsters
the claim of an employee status.
As for the payment of the workers wages, the contention that the
independent contractors were paid a lump sum representing only the
salaries the workers were entitled to have no merit. The amount paid by San
Miguel to the contracting firm is no business expense or capital outlay of the
latter. What the contractor receives is a percentage from the total earnings
of all the workers plus an additional amount from the earnings of each
individual worker.
The power of dismissal by the employer was evident when the
petitioners had already been refused entry to the premises. It is apparent
that the closure of the warehouse was a ploy to get rid of the petitioners,
who were then agitating the company for reforms and benefits.
The inter-office memoranda submitted in evidence prove the
companys control over the workers. That San Miguel has the power to
recommend penalties or dismissal is the strongest indication of the
companys right of control over the workers as direct employer.
13. Broadway Motors, Inc vs NLRC 169 scra 841
FACTS
By virtue of a written undated "Work Contract," private
respondent Vicente Apolinario, sometime in March 1967, began work as an
auto painter in the premises
of petitioner Broadway Motors, Inc. Apolinario worked as an auto painter for
a period of eighteen (18) years, until 23 January 1985 when he was barred
from entering the premises of petitioner, and his relationship with it
effectively terminated, because of his alleged involvement in a fistfight with
the shop superintendent, Apolinario complained for illegal dismissal. The
Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint on the ground that Apolinario,
having supplied the workers-himself included-who performed the auto
painting jobs for petitioner, was a mere contractor thus not to be considered
as the latter's employee. Apolinario appealed to the NLRC. NLRC found that
there was a valid and binding employer-employee relationship. Since
Apolinario was dismissed without any investigation by petitioner Corporation
to ascertain his participation in the fistfight within company premises, his
dismissal was, illegal.
ISSUE
Whether or not the termination was valid or illegal.
HELD
YES. The dismissal is illegal. Firstly, there is an employer-employee
relationship and whenever there is such the employer cannot just validly
terminate the services of an employee without just cause. The petitioner
insists that there is a valid labor contract to justify its act of unilaterally
dismissing the services of Apolinario et. al. which he cannot do if there is a
valid and binding employer-employee relationship. Apolinario was hired
directly by petitioner to work as an auto painter, evidenced by the undated
Work Contract. That petitioner reserved unto itself the power of dismissal is
evident from the fact that petitioner unilaterally undertook to terminate
Apolinario's relationships with itself. Such act of termination is unjustified for
being in contravention of the procedural due process which is accorded to
employees to safeguard their constitutionally protected right of security of
tenure. Even though it appears that he was the one who supplied the labor,
their performance and work were closely supervised by the petitioner's
supervisior. Petitioner Corporation was the one who supplied all the tools
necessary for Apolinario and his men to carry out assigned painting jobs.
There was, furthermore, no evidence adduced by petitioner to show that
Apolinario had substantial capital investment. We conclude that while there
is present in the relationship between petitioner Corporation and private
respondent some factors suggestive of an owner-independent contractor
relationship (e.g., the manner of payment of compensation to Apolinario and
his 'Contract Workers"), many other factors are present which demonstrate
that the relationship is properly characterized as one of employer-employee.
FACTS
FACTS
Rodito Nasayao claimed that sometime in May 1974, he was
appointed plant manager of Continental Marble with an alleged
compensation of P3,000.00 a month or 25% of the monthly net income of
the company, whichever is greater. When the company failed to pay his
salary for the months of May, June and July 1974, Nasayao filed a complaint
with NLRC. Continental Marble denied that Rodito Nasayao was its
employee. They claimed that the undertaking agreed by the parties was a
joint venture, a sort of partnership, wherein Nasayao was to keep the
machinery in good working condition and in return, he would get the
contracts from end-users for the installation of marble products, in which the
company would not interfere. In addition, Nasayao was to receive an amount
equivalent to 25% of the net profits that the petitioner corporation would
realize, should there be any. Since there had been no profits during said
period, private respondent was not entitled to any amount.
ISSUE
Whether or not the private respondent Nasayao was employed as
plant manager of petitioner Continental Marble Corporation.
HELD
NO. There was nothing in the record which would support the
claim of Rodito Nasayao that he was an employee of the petitioner
corporation. He was not included in the company payroll nor in the list of
company employees furnished by the Social Security System. Most of all the
element of control is lacking. It appears that the petitioner had no control
over the conduct of Rodito Nasayao in the performance of his work. He
decided for himself on what was to be done and worked at his own pleasure.
He was not subject to indefinite hours or conditions of work and in turn was
compensated according to the results of his on effort. He has a free hand in
running the company and its business, so much so, that the petitioner did not
know until very later that Nasayao collected old accounts receivables, not
covered by their agreement, which he converted to his personal use.
and reasonable value. These requirements were not met in the instance
case. More significantly, the food and lodging or the electricity and water
consumed by the petitioner were not facilities but supplements. A benefit or
privilege granted to an employee for the convenience of the employer is not
a facility. The criterion in making a distinction between the two not so much
lies in the king (food, lodgingn) but the purpose. Considering therefore, that
hotel workers are required to work different shifts and are expected to be
available at various odd hours, their ready availability is necessary matter in
the operations of a small hotel, such as the private respondents hotel.
19. Eagle Security Agency vs NLRC 173 SCRA 479
FACTS:
Employees of Eagle Security Agency, security guards in the
Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.,filed a complaint against ESA and PTSI for
unpaid wage increases granted under four wage orders. PTSIalleged that the
wage increases should be borne exclusively by ESA, pursuant to the provision
in theircontract, while the latter contended that, under the wage orders, the
former should be held liable for thesame.
HELD
ISSUE:
WON ESA and PTSI should be jointly and severally liable for the
wage increases.
HELD:
YES. The joint and several liability of the contractor and the
principal is mandated by the LaborCode to assure compliance of the
provisions therein including the statutory minimum wage. The contractoris
made liable by virtue of his status as direct employer. The principal, on the
other hand, is made theindirect employer of the contractor's employees for
purposes of paying the employees their wages shouldthe contractor be
unable to pay them. The solidary liability, however, does not preclude the
right ofreimbursement from the co-debtor by the one who paid.
ISSUE:
WON there was wage distortion, which should be corrected.
HELD:
NO. There are four elements of wage distortion: (1) an existing
hierarchy of positions with corresponding salary rates; (2) a significant
change in the salary rate of a lower pay class without a concomitant increase
in the salary rate of a higher one; (3) the elimination of the distinction
between the two levels; and (4) the existence of the distortion in the same
region of the country. The entry of new employees to the company ipso facto
places them under any of the levels mentioned in the new salary scale.
The mere factual existence of wage distortion does not ipso facto
result to an obligation to rectify it, absent a law or other source of obligation
which requires its rectification.
21. KILU VS Drilon
ISSUE
Whether or not the wages received by the employees of private
respondent are below the minimum set by law.
HELD
YES. The Labor Arbiter accepted hook, line and sinker the private
respondents bare claim that the reason the monetary benefits received by
petitioner between 1981 to 1987 were less than the minimum wage was
because petitioner did not factor in the meals, lodging, electric consumption
and the water she received during the period in her computations. Granting
that means and lodging were provided and indeed constituted facilities, such
facilities could not be deducted without the employer complying first with
certain legal requirements. Without satisfying these requirements, the
employer simply cannot deduct the value from the employees wages. First
proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the
trade. Second, the provision of deductible facilities must be voluntarily
accepted in writing by the employee. Finally, facilities must be charged at fair
FACTS
Kimberly-Clark Philippines, Inc. (KIMBERLY, for brevity) executed a
three-year collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with United Kimberly-Clark
Employees Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers' Organization
(UKCEU-PTGWO) which expired on June 30, 1986. Within the 60-day freedom
period prior to the expiration of and during the negotiations for the renewal
of the aforementioned CBA, some members of the bargaining unit formed
another union called "Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Solidarity,
Activism and Nationalism- Organized Labor Association in Line Industries and
Agriculture (KILUSAN-OLALIA). On April 21, 1986, KILUSAN-OLALIA filed a
petition for certification election in the Ministry of Labor and Employment
(MOLE). KIMBERLY and (UKCEU-PTGWO) did not object to the holding of a
certification election but objected to the inclusion of the so-called
contractual workers whose employment with KIMBERLY was coursed
through an independent contractor, Rank Manpower Company (RANK for
contracts of services with Peers and Excellent (contractor2) who retained the
right to select, hire, dismiss, supervise, control and discipline and pay the
salaries of all personnel. They also pointed out that they are in the business
of manufacturing, not distribution, hence not necessary and desirable
ISSUE:
W/N the CA erred in holding that there was an ER-EE. (NO)
HELD:
ISSUE
The CA noted that both the contracts for Peerless and the
Excellent show that their obligation was solely to provide the company with
the services of contractual employees, and nothing more. These contracted
services were for the handling and delivery of the companys products and
allied services. Following D.O. 18-02 and the contracts that spoke purely of
the supply of labor. The case of Magsalin described in a very significant way
the manufacture of soft drinks and the
companys sales and distribution activities in relation with one another. The
CA was correct when it concluded that the contracted personnel who served
as route helpers were really engaged in functions directly related to the
overall business of the petitioner. This led to the further CA conclusion that
the contracted personnel were under the companys supervision and control
since sales 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.
HELD
FACTS:
YES. The law thus provides for two kinds of regular employees,
namely: 1. those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and 2. those who
have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken,
with respect to the activity in which they are employed. The individual
petitioners herein who have been adjudged to be regular employees fall
under the second category. These are the mechanics, electricians, machinists
machine shop helpers, warehouse helpers, painters, carpenters, pipefitters
and masons. It is not disputed that these workers have been in the employ of
KIMBERLY for more than one year at the time of the filing of the Petition for
certification election by KILUSAN-OLALIA. Owing
to their length of service with the company, these workers became regular
employees, by operation of law, one year after they were employed by
KIMBERLY through RANK. While the actual regularization of these employees
entails the mechanical act of issuing regular appointment papers and
compliance with such other operating procedures as may be adopted by the
employer, it is more in keeping with the intent and spirit of the law to rule
that the status of regular employment attaches to the casual worker on the
day immediately after the end of his first year of service. To rule otherwise,
and to instead make their regularization dependent on the happening of
some contingency or the fulfillment of certain requirements, is to impose a
burden on the employee which is not sanctioned by law. That the first stated
position is the situation contemplated and sanctioned by law is further
enhanced by the absence of a statutory limitation before regular status can
be acquired by a
casual employee. The law is explicit. As long as the employee has rendered at
least one year of service, he becomes a regular employee with respect to the
activity in which he is employed. The law does not provide the qualification
that the employee must first be issued a regular appointment or must first be
formally declared as such before he can acquire a regular status. Obviously,
where the law does not distinguish, no distinction should be drawn.
22. Coca Cola Phil. vs Dela Cruz GR No. 184977
FACTS
Respondents Dela Cruz and company filed complaints with money
claims for regularization against Coca-Cola Bottlers (company) and Peers
Integrated Service (contractor1). Respondents claim to be regular employees
based on the fact that they are route helpers which are necessary and
desirable to regular business of the employer. They also claimed that they
worked under the control and supervision of the company while the
contractors did not have sufficient capital making said contract a labor-only
contract. The company denied the relationship stating that they entered into
FACTS:
Lorenzo Shipping Corporation (LSC) is a duly organized domestic
corporation engaged in the shipping industry. LSC entered into a General
Equipment Maintenance Repair and Management Services Agreement
(Agreement) with Best Manpower Services, Inc. (BMSI). Under the
Agreement, BMSI undertook to provide maintenance and repair services to
LSCs container vans, heavy equipment, trailer chassis, and generator sets.
BMSI further undertook to provide checkers to inspect all containers
received for loading to and/or unloading from its vessels. Simultaneous with
the execution of the Agreement, LSC leased its equipment, tools, and
tractors to BMSI. The period of lease was coterminous with the Agreement.
BMSI then hired petitioners on various dates to work at LSC as checkers,
welders, utility men, clerks, forklift operators, motor pool and machine shop
workers, technicians, trailer drivers, and mechanics. In September 2003,
petitioners filed with the Labor Arbiter (LA) a complaint for regularization
against LSC and BMSI. On October 1, 2003, LSC terminated the Agreement,
effective October 31, 2003.
Consequently, petitioners lost their
employment. BMSI asserted that it is an independent contractor. It averred
that it was willing to regularize petitioners; however, some of them lacked
the requisite qualifications for the job. LSC averred that petitioners were
employees of BMSI and were assigned to LSC by virtue of the Agreement.
BMSI is an independent job contractor with substantial capital or investment
in the form of tools, equipment, and machinery necessary in the conduct of
its business. The Agreement between LSC and BMSI constituted legitimate
job contracting. Thus, petitioners were employees of BMSI and not of LSC.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioners complaint on the ground that
petitioners were employees of BMSI. It was BMSI which hired petitioners,
paid their wages, and exercised control over them. The NLRC reversed the
Labor Arbiter
Issue:
Whether or not respondent was engaged in labor-only contracting.
Held:
Yes. In De Los Santos v. NLRC, the character of the business, i.e.,
whether as labor-only contractor or as job contractor, should be measured in
terms of, and determined by, the criteria set by statute. The parties cannot
dictate by the mere expedience of a unilateral declaration in a contract the
character of their business. The CA erred in considering BMSIs Certificate of
Registration as sufficient proof that it is an independent contractor.
Jurisprudence states that a Certificate of Registration issued by the
Department of Labor and Employment is not conclusive evidence of such
status. The fact of registration simply prevents the legal presumption of
being a mere labor-only contractor from arising.
25. Sevilla Trading Co. vs Semana, 428 scra 239
new computation reduced the employees thirteenth month pay. The daily
piece-rate workers represented by private respondent Sevilla Trading
Workers Union SUPER (Union, for short), a duly organized and registered
union, through the Grievance Machinery in their Collective Bargaining
Agreement, contested the new computation and reduction of their
thirteenth month pay. The parties failed to resolve the issue. The Union
alleged that petitioner violated the rule prohibiting the elimination or
diminution of employees benefits as provided for in Art. 100 of the Labor
Code, as amended. They claimed that paid leaves, like sick leave, vacation
leave, paternity leave, union leave, bereavement leave, holiday pay and
other leaves with pay in the CBA should be included in the base figure in the
computation of their 13th-month pay.
ISSUE:
WONa voluntary act of the employer which was favorable to the
employees though not conforming to law, has ripened into a practice and
therefore can be withdrawn, reduced, diminished, discontinued or
eliminated?
HELD:
NO. As such the SC affirms the decision of the Accredited
Voluntary Arbitrator Tomas E. Semana granting to pay corresponding back
wages to all covered and entitled employees arising from the exclusion of
said benefits in the computation of 13th-month pay. With regard to the
lenght of time the company practice should have been exercised to
constitute voluntary employer practice which cannot be unilaterally
withdrawn by the employer. In the case at bar
26. Nestle Philippines VS NLRC 193 scra 504
FACTS
After the four (4) bargaining agreements separately covering Nestle
Philippines employees expired, the Union of Filipro Employees (UFE) was
certified the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all rank-and-file
employees at the Cagayan de Oro factory as well as in the Cebu/Davao Sales
Office. During negotiations, the employees at the Cabuyao factory resorted
to a slowdown and walkouts prompting the petitioner to shut down the
factory. Thereafter, UFE declared a bargaining deadlock. On September 2,
1987, the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction and issued a return to
work order. In spite of that order, the union struck without notice in
Alabang/Cabuyao factory, the Cagayan de Oro factory and Makati office. The
company dismissed the union officers and members of the negotiating panel
who participated in the illegal strike. On March 30, 1988, the petitioner were
able to conclude a CBA with the union at the
Cebu/Davao Sales office and on August 5, 1988 with the Cagayan de Oro
factory workers. UFE assailed the validity of the agreements and filed a case
of unfair labor practice against Nestle. After the conciliation efforts of the
National Conciliation and Mediation Board yielded negative results, the
dispute was certified to the NLRC by the Secretary of Labor.
FACTS:
On appeal is the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) sustaining
the sustaining the Decision of Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator Tomas E.
Semana.
For two to three years prior to 1999, petitioner Sevilla Trading Company
(Petitioner), a domestic corporation engaged in trading business, organized
and existing under Philippine laws, added to the base figure, in its
computation of the 13th-month pay of its employees, the amount of other
benefits received by the employees which are beyond the basic pay.
Petitioner claimed that it entrusted the preparation of the payroll to its office
staff, including the computation and payment of the 13th-month pay and
other benefits. When it changed its person in charge of the payroll in the
process of computerizing its payroll, and after audit was conducted, it
allegedly discovered the error of including non-basic pay or other benefits in
the base figure used in the computation of the 13th-month pay of its
employees. It cited the Rules and Regulations Implementing P.D. No. 851
which stated:Basic salary shall include all remunerations or earnings paid by
an employer to an employee for services rendered but may not include costof-living allowances granted pursuant to P.D. No. 525 or Letter of Instruction
No. 174, profit-sharing payments, and all allowances and monetary benefits
which are not considered or integrated as part of the regular or basic salary
of the employee at the time of the promulgation of the Decree on December
16, 1975.Petitioner then effected a change in the computation of the
thirteenth month pay, as follows: 13th-month pay = net basic pay Hence, the
The NLRC issued a resolution regarding the retirement plan of the workers
which provides:
a. For 15 years of service or less = 100% of the employees monthly salary for
year of service
b. More than 15 but less than 20 = 125% of the employees monthly salary
for
year of service
c. 20 years or more = 150% of the employees monthly salary for year of
service
Petitioner questions the retirement plan contending that since it
is non-contributory, Nestle has the sole and exclusive prerogative to define
the terms of the plan because workers have no vested and demandable
rights thereunder, the grant thereof being not contractual but gratuitous.
ISSUE
Whether or not Nestle has the sole and exclusive prerogative to
define the terms of the plan being non-contributory.
HELD
NO. The companys contention that the retirement plan is nonnegotiable, is not well taken. The inclusion of the retirement plan in the
collective bargaining agreements part of the package of economic benefits
extended by the company to its employees to provide them a measure of
Issue:
Are the irregular workers are entitle to commutation of their
unenjoyed sick leave with pay benefits?
Held:
Yes. The CBA was clear: the CBA considers two kinds of workers
who enjoy the sick leave benefits:
* REGULAR EMPLOYEES enjoy the 15-day fixed sick leave
* INTERMITTENT EMPLOYEES enjoy variable number of sick leave but should
not exceed 15 days
It is not disputed that both classes of workers are entitled to sick
leave with pay benefits provided they comply with the conditions set forth
under Section 1 in relation to the last paragraph of Section 3, to wit:
(1) the employee-applicant must be regular or must have rendered at least
one year of service with the company; and
(2) the application must be accompanied by a certification from a companydesignated physician.
points out that they can no longer accept the petitioner for they have
already lost their trust and confidence in him.
Ruling:
Issues:
No, the suspension of the monthly ration of fuel and LPG of the
petitioner as a cost-reduction measure would not constitute a diminution of
benefits.
The temporary revocation had been occasioned
FACTS:
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Held:
No. The right to preference given to workers under Article 110 of
the Labor Code cannot exist in any effective way prior to the time its
presentation in distribution proceedings. It will find application when, in
proceedings such as insolvency, such unpaid wages shall be paid in full
before the " claims of the Government and other creditors" may be paid But,
for an orderly settlement of a debtors assets. all creditors must be convened,
their claims ascertained and inventoried, and thereafter the preferences
determined in the course of judicial proceedings which have for their object
the subjection of the property of the debtor to the payment oh his debts or
other lawful obligations. Thereby, an orderly determination of preference of
creditors' claims is assured.