1) Escario VS NLRC 333 SCRA 257

Facts:
Petitioners are merchandisers of respondent company. They withdraw stocks from the warehouse , fix
the prices, price-tagging, displaying the products and inventory. They were paid by the
company through an agent to avoid liability. They claim that they were under the
control and supervision of the company. They asked for regularization of their status. They were then
given notice of their termination. The company denied any employer-employee relationship. They claim
that they used an agent or independent contractors to sell the merchandise. The Labor Arbiter ruled
that there was an employer-employee relationship. The NLRC set aside the decision and said that there
was no such relationship. The agent was a legitimate independent contractor.

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) CORPORAL SR. 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 employeremployee 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 goas 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 employer-employee 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:
WON there was an employer-employee relationship.

Held:
YES. Petitioners are employees of Respondent Corporation and shall be accorded the benefits given in
Art. 283 of the Labor Code granting separation pay equivalent to 1 month pay for every year of service
and also to 13th month pay. The other claims of petitioners are found to be without basis.

3. SMC VS Semillano July 05, 2010

Facts:
AMPCO hired Vicente et al on different dates assigned to work in SMCs Bottling Plant situated at Brgy.
Granada Sta. Fe, Bacolod City, in order to perform the following tasks: segregating bottles
removing dirt filing them in designated placesloading and unloading bottles to and from the delivery
trucks, and performing other tasks as ordered by SMCs officers. They were required to work inside the
SMC premises using SMCs equipment. They rendered service with SMC for more than 6 months.

Subsequently, SMC entered into a Contract of Services with AMPCO designating the latter as the
employer of Vicente, et al. Vicente et al. failed to claim the rights & benefits ordinarily accorded a
regular SMC employee. They were not paid their 13th month pay. On June 6, 1995, they were not
allowed to enter the SMC premises as the AMPCO project manager told them to wait for further
instructions from SMCs supervisor. Unfortunately, Vicente et al. never heard from SMC. They filed a
COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL

ISSUE:
Is AMPCO a legitimate job contractor?

Held:
Respondent performed activities which directly related to petitioners main line of business.
Petitioner is primarily engaged in manufacturing and marketing of beer products, and
respondents work of segregating and cleaning bottles is unarguably an important part of its
manufacturing
and
marketing
process.
SMC, as principal employer, is solidarily liable with AMPCO, the labor-only contractor. AMPCO,
as the "labor-only" contractor, is deemed an agent of SMC. The law makes the principal
responsible over the employees of the "labor-only" contractor as if the principal itself directly
hired the employees.

4. Baguio vs NLRC, 202 SCRA 465

Facts:
Baguio Country Club Corporation (corporation) is a recreational establishment certified by the
ministry of labor and employment as an entertainment-service establishment. Private
respondent Jimmy Calamba was employed by corporation on a day to day basis in various
capacities as laborer and dishwasher for a period of ten months. Calamba was hired again as a
gardener and rehired as such when he was dismissed by the petitioner corporation. Calamba
filed a complaint against petitioner corporation with the ministry of labor (DOLE) for unfair labor
practice, illegal dismissal and non-payment of 13th month pay. The executive labor arbiter ruled
in favor of Calamba, declaring the latter as a regular employee and ordering petitioner
corporation to reinstate Calamba to the position of gardener without loss of seniority and with
full backwages, benefits and privileges from the time of his dismissal up to the reinstatement
including 13th month pay. Petitioner corporation filed an appeal to the NLRC contending that
Calamba was a contractual employee whose employment was for a fixed and specific period as
set forth and evidenced by Calambas contracts of employment. However, the NLRC dismissed
the appeal for lack of merit. The latter argued that Calamba having rendered services as
laborer, gardener, and dishwasher for more than one year, was a regular employee at the time
his employment was terminated. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not Calamba is a regular employee at the time his employment was terminated.
Held:
YES. The court held that an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee
has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual

business or trade of the employer. Also, if the employee has been performing the job for at least
one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the
repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not
indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is also considered
regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists. In the case at bar,
the records reveal that Calamba was repeatedly re-hired to perform tasks ranging from
dishwashing and gardening, aside from performing maintenance work. Such repeated rehiring
and the continuing need for his service are sufficient evidence of the necessity and
indispensability of his service to the petitioners business or trade. Owing to Calambas length of
service with the petitioners corporation, he became a regular employee, by operation of law,
one year after he was employed.
4. PAL vs Ligan, 548 scra 181
Facts:
PAL (as owner) and Synergy Services Corp (as contractor) entered into an Agreement where the latter
undertook to provide loading, unloading, delivery and other related services. It was expressly stated that
Synergy was an independent contractor and that no employer-employee relationship would exist
between its employees and PAL. Ligan et al (laborer-respondents) filed complaints against PAL and
Synergy for 1) underpayment, on-payment of 13thmonth pay/holiday pay/premium pay etc and for 2)
regularization of employment. The Labor Arbiter found Synergy an independent contractor and
dismissed the complaint against PAL for regularization. NLRC set aside this decision and held that
Synergy was a labor-only contractor.CA affirmed NLRCs decision.
Issue:
WON Synergy is a legitimate contractor? No. SC held Synergy a labor-only contractor.
Held:
In this case, the work performed by the respondents were directly related to the main business of PAL.
Also, the equipment used as station loaders such as trailers and conveyors were all owned by PAL.PAL
and Synergy also failed to substantiate their claim that the latter had substantial capital, and only after
the CA decision was rendered did it try to prove such fact. It was found that respondents worked
alongside PALs regular employees who performed the same work.PAL tried to disprove the its right to
control; however, the Court found that the Agreement stipulated that the contractor shall comply with
the owners rules, regulations, procedures, and directives.PAL in fact admitted that it fixes the work
schedule of respondents. Also, PALs managers and supervisors approved respondents weekly work
assignments and were referred to as station attendants "of cargo operation and airfreight services of
PAL. Respondents having performed tasks which are usually necessary and desirable in the air
transportation business of PAL, they should be deemed its regular employees and Synergy as a laboronly contractor. The Court ordered PAL to accept respondents as regular employees, pay wages and
benefits due, plus salary differentials. Case remanded to LA for determination of monetary liabilities.