Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

San Miguel Brewery v.

Democratic Labor The employees leave the plant of the company to go on their respective sales routes. They do not have a daily time record. The company never require them to start their work as outside sales personnel earlier than the above schedule. The moment these outside or field employees leave the plant and while in their sales routes they are on their own, and often times when the sales are completed, or when making short trip deliveries only, they go back to the plant, load again, and make another round of sales.Besides the monthly salary, they are paid sales commission. WON they should be paid overtime pay? NO. The reasons for excluding an outside salesman are fairly apparent. Such salesman, to a greater extent, works individually. There are no restrictions respecting the time he shall work and he can earn as much or as little, within the range of his ability, as his ambition dictates. In lieu of overtime he ordinarily receives commissions as extra compensation. He works away from his employer's place of business, is not subject to the personal supervision of his employer, and his employer has no way of knowing the number of hours he works per day.

Mercidar Fishing v NLRC Respondent Fermin Agao, Jr. had been employed as a "bodegero" or ship's quartermaster. He complained that he had been constructively dismissed by petitioner when the latter refused him assignments aboard its boats after he had reported to work despite that he had been sick and thus allowed to go on leave without pay for one month. WON fishermen are field personnel? NO. Contrary to the contention of the petitioner, the Court finds that the aforementioned rule did not add another element to the Labor Code definition of field personnel. The clause "whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer" did not amplify but merely interpreted and expounded the clause "whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty." The former clause is still within the scope and purview of Article 82 which defines field personnel. Hence, 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 contrast, in the case at bar, during the entire course of their fishing voyage, fishermen employed by petitioner have no choice but to remain on board its vessel. Although they perform non-agricultural work away from petitioner's business offices, the fact remains that throughout the duration of their work they are under the effective control and supervision of petitioner through the vessel's patron or master as the NLRC correctly held. Maraguinot Jr. v NLRC Petitioners' tasks consisted of loading, unloading and arranging movie equipment in the shooting area as instructed by the cameraman, returning the equipment to Viva Films' warehouse, assisting in the "fixing" of the lighting system, and performing other tasks that the cameraman and/or

director may assign. They were illegally dismissed when they refused to sign a blank employment contract. WON there is er- ee relationship? The relationship between VIVA and its producers or associate producers seems to be that of agency, as the latter make movies on behalf of VIVA, whose business is to "make" movies. As such, the employment relationship between petitioners and producers is actually one between petitioners and VIVA, with the latter being the direct employer. The employer-employee relationship between petitioners and VIVA can further be established by the "control test." While four elements are usually considered in determining the existence of an employment relationship, namely: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control of the employee's conduct, the most important element is the employer's control of the employee's conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done but also as to the means and methods to accomplish the same VIVA's control is evident in its mandate that the end result must be a "quality film acceptable to the company." The means and methods to accomplish the result are likewise controlled by VIVA, viz., the movie project must be finished within schedule without exceeding the budget, and additional expenses must be justified; certain scenes are subject to change to suit the taste of the company; and the Supervising Producer, the "eyes and ears" of VIVA and del Rosario, intervenes in the movie-making process by assisting the associate producer in solving problems encountered in making the film. Tan v Lagrama Respondent Leovigildo Lagrama is a painter, making ad billboards and murals for the motion pictures shown at the Empress, Supreme, and Crown Theaters for more than 10 years. He charged Tan (president of Supreme) for illegal dismissal. Petitioner Tan denied that Lagrama was his employee. He asserted that Lagrama was an independent contractor who did his work according to his methods, while he (petitioner) was only interested in the result thereof and that he was paid on a fixed piece-work basis, i.e., that he was paid for every painting turned out as ad billboard or mural for the pictures shown in the three theaters, on the basis of a no mural/billboard drawn, no pay policy. WON there is er-ee relationship? YES Of the four elements of the employer-employee relationship, the control test is the most important. Compared to an employee, an independent contractor is one who carries on a distinct and independent business and undertakes to perform the job, work, or service on its own account and under its own responsibility according to its own manner and method, free from the control and direction of the principal in all matters connected with the performance of the work except as to the results thereof. Hence, while an independent contractor enjoys independence and freedom from the control and supervision of his principal, an employee is subject to the employers power to control the means and methods by which the employees work is to be performed and accomplished. In the case at bar, respondent performed his work as painter under the supervision and control of petitioner. Lagrama worked in a designated work area inside the Crown Theater of petitioner, for the use of which petitioner prescribed rules. The rules included the observance of cleanliness and hygiene and a prohibition against urinating in the work area and any place other than the toilet or the rest rooms. Petitioners control extended to the result of Lagramas work, and the manner and means by which the work was to be accomplished.

Moreover, it would appear that petitioner not only provided the workplace, but supplied as well the materials used for the paintings, because he admitted that he paid Lagrama only for the latters services. Also, Lagrama worked for at least 3 to 4 days a week proves regularity in his employment by petitioner.