Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Assessment
physician
by
company-designated
11
22
33
guarded
by
our
44
55
Rules.
Ordinarily, the infirmity in Llamas appeal
would have been fatal and would have
justified an end to the case. A careful
consideration of the circumstances of the
case, however, convinces us that the
NLRC should, indeed, have given due
course to Llamas appeal despite the initial
absence of the required certificate. We
note that in his motion for reconsideration
of the NLRCs May 30, 2006 resolution,
Llamas attached the required certificate of
non-forum shopping.
Moreover, Llamas adequately explained, in
his motion for reconsideration, the
inadvertence and presented a clear
justifiable
ground
to
warrant
the
relaxation of the rules. To recall, Llamas
was able to file his position paper, through
his new counsel, only on December 20,
2005. He hired the new counsel on
December
19,
2005
after
several
repeated, albeit failed, pleas to his former
counsel to submit, on or before October
25, 2005 per the LAs order, the required
position paper. On November 29, 2005,
however, the LA rendered a decision that
Llamas and his new counsel learned and
received a copy of only on January 5,
2006. Evidently, the LAs findings and
conclusions were premised solely on the
petitioners pleadings and evidence. And,
while not the fault of the LA, Llamas,
nevertheless, did not have a meaningful
opportunity to present his case, refute the
contents and allegations in the petitioners
position paper and submit controverting
evidence.
Faced with these circumstances, i.e.,
Llamas subsequent compliance with the
certification-against-forum-shopping
requirement; the utter negligence and
inattention of Llamas former counsel to
his pleas and cause, and his vigilance in
immediately securing the services of a
new counsel; Llamas filing of his position
paper before he learned and received a
copy of the LAs decision; the absence of a
meaningful opportunity for Llamas to
66
77
and
abandonment.
To reiterate and emphasize, abandonment
is a matter of
intention that cannot lightly be presumed
from certain equivocal acts of the
employee.
The CA, therefore, correctly
Llamas as constructively
regarded
88
99
10
presenting
such
documents,
the
petitioners would want to impress upon
the Court that their act of accommodating
Johnson was merely due to his being a
fellow Australian national.
As it could not be determined with
absolute certainty whether or not Johnson
rendered the services he mentioned
during the material time, doubt must be
construed in his favor for the reason that
the consistent rule is that if doubt exists
between the evidence presented by the
employer and that by the employee, the
scales of justice must be tilted in favor of
the latter.
What is clear upon the records is that
Johnson had already taken his place in the
hotel since July 2007.
For the petitioners failure to disprove that
Johnson started working on August 1,
2007, as stated on the employment
contract, payment of his salaries on said
date, even prior to the opening of the
hotel is warranted.
Another
argument
posited
by
the
petitioners is that the employment
contract executed by the parties is
inefficacious because the employment
contract is subject to the presentation of
Johnson of his Alien Employment Permit
(AEP) and Tax Identification Number
(TIN).
Again, this statement is wanting of merit.
Johnson has adduced proof that as a
permanent resident, he is exempted from
the requirement of securing an AEP as
expressed under Department Order No.
75-06, Series of 2006 of the Department
of Labor and Employment (DOLE),
Furthermore,
Johnson
submitted
a
Certification from DOLE Regional Office
III, stating that he is exempted from
securing an AEP as a holder of Permanent
Resident Visa. Consequently, the condition
imposed upon Johnsons employment, if
1010
11
1111
12
1212
13
1313
14
1414
15
1515
16
1616
17
illegally
the CA
1717
18
1818
19
Considering
that
the
companys
closure was due to serious financial
reverses, it is not legally bound to
give
the
separated
employees
separation pay.
G.R. No. 193107. March 24, 2014
Sutherland Global Serives (Philippines),
Inc. and Janette G. Lagazo Vs. Larry S.
Labrador
Sutherland insists that the failure
to state the material dates is fatal
to
Salvadors appeal to the NLRC and
to his present position in this case.
We do not find Sutherlands
argument meritorious as technical
1919
20
2020
21
2121
22
3.
4.
5.
6.
(g)The
company-designated
physician
declared him totally and permanently
disabled but the employer refuses to pay
him the corresponding benefits; and
(h)The
company-designated
physician
declared him partially and permanently
disabled within the 120-day or 240-day
period but he remains incapacitated to
perform his usual sea duties after the
lapse of said periods.
Paragraph (b) applies to Sibugs case. The
company-designated doctor failed to issue
a certification with a definite assessment
2222
23
2323
24
permanent.
2424
25
2525
26
selection
and
engagement
of
the
employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c)
the power of dismissal; and (d) the
employers power to control the employee
on the means and methods by which the
work is accomplished. The last element,
the so-called control test, is the most
important element.
There is no hard and fast rule designed to
establish the aforesaid elements. Any
competent and relevant evidence to prove
the relationship may be admitted.
Identification cards, cash vouchers, social
security registration, appointment letters
or
employment
contracts,
payrolls,
organization charts, and personnel lists,
serve as evidence of employee status.
In this case, however, Francisco failed to
present any proof substantial enough to
establish
his
relationship
with
the
respondents.
He
failed
to
present
documentary evidence like attendance
logbook, payroll, SSS record or any
personnel file that could somehow depict
his status as an employee. Anent his claim
that he was not issued with employment
records, he could have, at least, produced
his social security records which state his
contributions, name and address of his
employer, as his co-petitioner Tenazas
did. He could have also presented
testimonial
evidence
showing
the
respondents exercise of control over the
means and methods by which he
undertakes his work. This is imperative in
light of the respondents denial of his
employment and the claim of another taxi
operator, Emmanuel Villegas (Emmanuel),
that he was his employer. Specifically, in
his Affidavit, Emmanuel alleged that
Francisco was employed as a spare driver
in his taxi garage from January 2006 to
December 2006, a fact that the latter
failed to deny or question in any of the
pleadings attached to the records of this
case. The utter lack of evidence is fatal to
Franciscos case especially in cases like his
present predicament when the law has
been very lenient in not requiring any
particular form of evidence or manner of
proving the presence of employer-
2626
27
2727
28
except
to
employment.
forego
his
continued
There
was
here
no
discrimination
committed
by
petitioners.
While
respondent did not tender her resignation
wholeheartedly, circumstances of her own
making did not give her any other option.
With due process, she was found to have
committed the grave offense of leaking
test
questions.
Dismissal
from
employment was the justified equivalent
penalty. Having realized that, she asked
for, and was granted, not just a deferred
imposition of, but also an acceptable cover
for the penalty.
Respondents profession, the gravity of
her infraction, and the fact that she waited
until the close of the school year to
challenge her impending resignation
demonstrate
that
respondent
had
bargained for a graceful exit and is now
trying to renege on her obligation.
Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio
accordingly noted that petitioners should
not be punished for being compassionate
and granting respondent's request for a
lower penalty. Put differently, respondent
should not be rewarded for reneging on
her promise to resign at the end of the
school year. Otherwise, employers placed
in similar situations would no longer
extend
compassion
to
employees.
Compromise agreements, like that in the
instant case, which lean towards desired
liberality that favor labor, would be
discouraged.
G.R. No. 195687. April 7, 2014Land Bank
of the Philippines Vs. David G. Naval, Jr.,
et al.
Despite the convoluted claims of
the parties, the basic question
before us is whether or not
respondents and intervenors are
entitled to the COLA and the BEP
on top of their basic salaries from
1989 up to the present.
The SSL Remained Valid Despite the
Nullification of DBM-CCC No. 10
2828
29
it
is
all
specified
herein as may be determined by
the DBM.
Since the COLA and the BEP are among
those expressly excluded by the SSL from
integration, they should be considered as
deemed integrated in the standardized
salaries of LBP employees under the
general rule of integration.
Under the doctrine of stare decisis et non
quieta movere, a point of law already
established will be followed by the court in
subsequent cases where the same legal
issue is raised. Thus, we can come to no
other conclusion than to deny the
payment of the COLA on top of the LBP
employees basic salary from July 1, 1989
because (1) it has not been expressly
excluded from the general rule on
integration by the first sentence of Sec. 12
of the SSL and (2) as we have explained
in Gutierrez, the COLA is not granted in
order to reimburse employees for the
expenses incurred in the performance of
their official duties.
G.R. No. 170007. April 7, 2014Tabangao
Shell Refinery Employees Association Vs.
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation
ISSUE: unfair labor practice through bad
faith bargaining.
the nature of the duty to bargain, that is,
it does not compel any party to accept a
proposal or to make any concession. While
the purpose of collective bargaining is the
reaching of an agreement between the
employer and the employees union
resulting in a binding contract between
the parties, the failure to reach an
agreement after negotiations continued
for a reasonable period does not mean
lack of good faith. The laws invite and
contemplate
a
collective
bargaining
contract but do not compel one. For after
all, a CBA, like any contract is a product of
mutual consent and not of compulsion. As
such, the duty to bargain does not include
the obligation to reach an agreement.
2929
30
3030
31
3131
32
3232
33
suspension
during
variances
as
wage
3333
34
3434
35
3535
36
3636
37
is
3737
38
3838
39
3939
40
requires.
From this perspective, it is illogical for
Jardine to terminate the petitioners
employment and replace them with
contractual employees. The replacement
effectively belies Jardines claim that the
petitioners positions were abolished due
to superfluity. Redundancy could have
been justified if the functions of the
petitioners were transferred to other
existing employees of the company.
To dismiss the petitioners and hire new
contractual employees as replacements
necessarily give rise to the sound
conclusion that the petitioners services
have not really become in excess of what
Jardines business requires. To replace the
petitioners
who
were
all
regular
employees with contractual ones would
amount to a violation of their right to
security of tenure, and therefore illegal.
Guidelines
redundancy
We recognize
prerogative to
services as
sustainable,
terminable.
in
implementing
4040
41
4141
42
Permanent
total
disability
means
disablement of an employee to earn
wages in the same kind of work or work of
a similar nature that he was trained for or
accustomed to perform, or any kind of
work which a person of his mentality and
attainment can do.
Again, what is important is that he
was unable to perform his customary
work for more than 120 days which
constitutes permanent total disability,
and not the actual injury itself.
Undoubtedly, the illness of the respondent
which incapacitated him to work more
than 120 days after repatriation is
considered as work-related which entitles
him to disability benefits.
This Court, moreover, agrees with the CA
regarding the applicability of the doctrine
in the case of Crystal Shipping that a
seafarer's continuous inability to work due
to a work-related illness for a period of
more than 120 days need not be qualified
by a declaration of fitness to work by a
company- designated physician for it to be
considered as a permanent total disability
which is compensable. It would, thus, be
illogical to apply the ruling laid down in
Vergara which was promulgated on
October 6, 2008, or more than two years
from the time the complaint was filed. The
observance
of
the
principle
of
prospectivity dictates that Vergara should
not operate to strip the respondent of his
cause of action for total and permanent
disability that accrued since the time ofhis
inability to perform his customary work.
G.R. No. 192571. April 22, 2014 Abbott
Laboratories, Phils., Cecille A. Terrible,
Edwin D. Feist, Maria Olivia T. Yabut-Misa,
Teresita C. Bernardo, and Allan G.
Alamazar Vs. Pearlie Ann F. Alcaraz
Dissenting OpinionJ. Brion
B. Standards for regularization;
conceptual underpinnings.
4242
43
4343
44
While
the
adoption
and
enforcement
by
petitioner
corporation of its AntiDrugs Policy
is recognized as a valid exercise of
its management prerogative as an
employer, such exercise is not
4444
45
Petitioner
corporations
subject
AntiDrugs Policy fell short of being
fair and reasonable.
Second.
The
penalty
of
termination imposed by petitioner
corporation upon respondent fell
short
of
being
reasonable. Company policies and
regulations are generally valid and
binding between the employer and
the employee unless shown to be
grossly oppressive or contrary to
law50 as in the case at bar.
To be sure, the unreasonableness
of the penalty of termination as
imposed in this case is further
highlighted by a fact admitted by
petitioner corporation itself: that
for the tenyear period that
respondent had been employed by
petitioner corporation, he did not
have any record of a violation of its
company policies.
Finally, the petition avers that petitioner
Bautista should not be held personally
liable for respondents dismissal as he
acted in good faith and within the scope of
his official functions as then president of
petitioner corporation.
A corporation has a personality separate
and distinct from its officers and board of
4545
46
4646
47
4747
48
4848
49
4949
50
5050
51
5151
52
on
the
processing
and
documentation
of
Binallas
deployment
papers
to
Al
Adwani). Although the scheme
enabled Binalla to be employed
overseas,
his
two-year
employment was marred from the
start by violations of the law on
overseas employment.
5252
53
5353
54
5454
55
5555
56
5656
57
5757
58
however,
no
illegal
5858
59
illegally
dismissed.
All
circumstances
surrounding
the
alleged termination should also be
taken into account.
Philippine
Spring
Water
Resources,
Inc./Danilo Y. Lua Vs. Court of
Appeals and Juvenstein B. Mahilum
G.R. No. 205278. June 11, 2014
Mahilum was a regular employee
A probationary employee, like a regular
employee, enjoys security of tenure. In
cases
of
probationary
employment,
however, aside from just or authorized
causes of termination, an additional
ground is provided under Article 281 of
the Labor Code, that is, the probationary
employee 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.
Thus, the services of an employee who
has been engaged on probationary basis
may be terminated for any of the
following: (1) a just or (2) an authorized
cause and (3) when he fails to qualify as a
regular employee in accordance with
reasonable standards prescribed by the
employer.14
As applied to the petitioners arguments, it
would seem that PSWRI and Lua now
invoke the first and third ground for
Mahilums
termination.
The
Court,
however, cannot subscribe to the premise
that Mahilum failed to qualify as a regular
employee when he failed to perform at par
with the standards made known by the
company to him. In this case, it is clear
that the primary cause of Mahilums
dismissal from his employment was borne
out of his alleged lapses as chairman for
the inauguration of the Bulacan plant
companys Christmas party. In fact, the
termination letter to him cited loss of
trust and confidence as a ground for his
dismissal. Under the circumstances, the
petitioners may not be permitted to
belatedly harp on its choice not to extend
his alleged probationary status to regular
employment as a ground for his dismissal.
Besides, having been allowed to work
5959
60
6060
61
6161
62
we
are
unprepared
to
is
inconsistent
with
abandonment of employment. The filing of
this complaint is a proof of his desire to
return to work, effectively negating any
suggestion of abandonment.48 We also
cannot fault him for his continuous
absence because he faithfully relied on the
void NLRC rulings which ordered Grandeur
Security to pay backwages, separation
pay, and attorneys fees in lieu of the LAs
return to work order.
Marlo A. Deoferio Vs. Intel Technology
Philippines, Inc., et al. G.R. No.
202996. June 18, 2014
Intel had an authorized cause
to
dismiss
Deoferio
from
employment
6262
63
(1)
(2)
(3)
6363
64
6464
65
6565
66
set
therein
6666
67
6767
68
cannot
likewise
6868
69
To
say
the
least,
these
merchandisers are not, strictly
speaking, employees of JAKA, but
of a service provider company
which has a service contract with
JAKA. The merchandisers in this
case simply perform the work at
JAKAs outlets, wearing uniforms
approved by JAKA but provided by
the service company who is
actually their employer. There is
no employer-employee relationship
between
JAKA
and
these
merchandisers.
Receipt by these merchandisers of
a benefit such as transportation or
meal allowance is part of the
monies they receive from their
employer and embedded in the
contract price of the service
agreement the employer has with
JAKA.
The existence of an independent
and
permissible
contractor
relationship is generally established
by
considering
the
following
determinants:
whether
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 a specified
piece 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
the
premises,
tools,
appliances, materials and labor;
6969
70
7070
71
7171
72
7272
73
7373
74
workers overseas.
Accordingly, Section 20-B (2), paragraph
2, of the POEA-SEC imposes on the
employer the liability to provide, at its
cost, for the medical treatment of the
repatriated seafarer for the illness or
injury that he suffered on board the
vessel until the seafarer is declared fit to
work or the degree of his disability is
finally determined by the companydesignated physician. This liability for
medical expenses is conditioned upon the
seafarers compliance with his own
obligation to report to the companydesignated physician within three (3) days
from his arrival in the country for
diagnosis and treatment.28 The medical
treatment is aimed at the speedy recovery
of the seafarer and the restoration of his
previous healthy working condition.
Since the seafarer is repatriated to the
country to undergo treatment, his inability
to perform his sea duties would normally
result in depriving him of compensation
income. To address this contingency,
Section 20-B (3), paragraph 1, of the
POEA-SEC imposes on the employer the
obligation to provide the seafarer with
sickness allowance that is equivalent
to his basic wage until the seafarer is
declared fit to work or the degree of his
permanent disability is determined by the
company-designated physician. The period
for the declaration should be made within
the period of 120 days or 240 days, as the
case may be.
Once a finding of permanent (total or
partial) disability is made either within the
120-day period or the 240-day period,29
Section 20-B (6) of the POEA-SEC requires
the employer to pay the seafarer
disability benefits for his permanent
total or partial disability caused by the
work-related illness or injury. In practical
terms, a finding of permanent disability
means a permanent reduction of the
earning power of a seafarer to perform
future sea or on board duties;30
permanent disability benefits look to the
future as a means to alleviate the
7474
75
7575
76
7676
77
7777
78
7878
79
7979
80
8080
81
Otherwise
we
would
be
violating
petitioners due process rights. Petitioners
never controverted such claim precisely
because Simbajon never raised it as an
issue. Moreover, the CA and the labor
tribunals rulings never touched on this.
Hence, it is beyond the ambit of our
review.
On a final note, this Court would like to
point out the amendments made of the
POEA-SEC
which
now
provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In case of permanent total or partial
disability of the seafarer caused by either
injury or illness the seafarer shall be
compensated in accordance with the
schedule of benefits enumerated in
Section 32 of this Contract. Computation
of his benefits arising from an illness or
disease shall be governed by the rates
and the rules of compensation
applicable at the time the illness or
disease was contracted.
The disability shall be based solely on
the disability gradings provided under
Section 32 of this Contract, and shall
not be measured or determined by
the number of days a seafarer is
under treatment or the number of
days in which sickness allowance is
paid.74 [emphasis and underscoring ours]
8181
82
the
conclusions
of
the
companydesignated physicians28
Second. There is no dispute that under
the POEA-SEC, Constantino was not
precluded from seeking a second
opinion on his medical condition or
disability. The third paragraph of the
Section 20 (B)3 of the POEA-SEC states
that If a doctor appointed by the
seafarer
disagrees
with
the
assessment
(of
the
companydesignated physician), a third doctor
may be agreed jointly between the
Employer and the seafarer. The third
doctors decision shall be final and
binding on both parties
Republic of the Philippines, rep by the
Hon. Secretary, DOLE Vs. Namboku
Peak, Inc./Phil-Japan Workers UnionSolodarity of Union in the Philippines
for
Empowerment
and
Reforms
(PJWU-Super),
et
al. G.R. No.
169745/G.R. No. 170091. July 18, 2014
The court or tribunal exercising quasijudicial functions is bereft of any right or
personality to question the decision of an
appellate court reversing its decision.1
The Secretary of Labor is not the real
party-in- interest vested with personality
to file the present petitions. A real partyin-interest is the party who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in
the suit, or the party entitled to the avails
of the suit.40 As thus defined, the real
parties-in-interest in these cases would
have been PALCEA-SUPER and PJWUSUPER. It would have been their duty to
appear and defend the ruling of the
Secretary of Labor for they are the ones
who were interested that the same be
sustained. Of course, they had the option
not to pursue the case before a higher
court, as what they did in these cases. As
to the Secretary of Labor, she was
impleaded in the Petitions for Certiorari
filed before the CA as a nominal party
because one of the issues involved therein
was whether she committed an error of
jurisdiction. But that does not make her a
real party-in-interest or vests her with
authority to appeal the Decisions of the
CA in case it reverses her ruling. Under
Section 1,41 Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
8282
83
8383
84
8484
85
In
Benito
E.
Lorenzo
v.
Government
Service
Insurance
System (GSIS) and Department of
Education
(DepEd),16
a
case
involving a teacher, who likewise
died of leukemia, the Court ruled
that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
xxxx
xxxx
Commission:chanroblesvirtuallawli
brary
8585
86
8686
87
give
the
Regional
Director
ample
discretion in dealing with a petition for
cancellation of a union's registration,
particularly, determining whether the
union still meets the requirements
prescribed by law. It is sufficient to give
the Regional Director license to treat the
late filing of required documents as
sufficient
compliance
with
the
requirements of the law. After all, the law
requires the labor organization to submit
the annual financial report and list of
members in order to verify if it is still
viable and financially sustainable as an
organization so as to protect the employer
and employees from fraudulent or fly-bynight unions. With the submission of the
required documents by respondent, the
purpose of the law has been achieved,
though belatedly.
xxxx
Still, the petitioner assails the failure of
NUWHRAIN-HHMSC to submit its periodic
financial reports and updated list of its
members pursuant to Article 238 and
Article 239 of the Labor Code. It contends
that the serious challenges against the
legitimacy of NUWHRAIN-HHMSC as a
union raised in the petition for the
cancellation of union registration should
have cautioned the Med-Arbiter against
conducting the certification election.
The petitioner does not convince us.
In The Heritage Hotel Manila v. National
Union of Workers in the Hotel, Restaurant
and Allied Industries-Heritage Hotel Manila
Supervisors
Chapter
(NUWHRAINHHMSC),38 the Court declared that the
dismissal
of
the
petition
for
the
cancellation
of
the
registration
of
NUWHRAIN-HHMSC was proper when
viewed against the primordial right of the
workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining negotiations and peaceful
concerted
actions,
viz:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
xxxx
[Articles 238 and 239 of the Labor Code]
8787
88
8888
89
8989
90
Unions
claim for service charges on the
specified entries/transactions
Article 96 of the Labor Code provides for
the minimum percentage distribution
between the employer and the employees
of the collected service charges, and its
integration in the covered employees
wages in the event the employer
terminates its policy of providing for its
collection. It pertinently reads:
Art. 96. Service Charges.
x x x In case the service charge is
abolished, the share of the covered
employees shall be considered integrated
in their wages.
This last paragraph of Article 96 of the
Labor Code presumes the practice of
collecting service charges
and the
employers
termination
of
this
practice. When this happens, Article 96
requires the employer to incorporate the
amount that the employees had been
receiving as share of the collected service
charges into their wages. In cases where
no service charges had previously been
collected (as where the employer never
had any policy providing for collection of
service charges or had never imposed the
collection of service charges on certain
specified transactions), Article 96 will not
operate.
In this case, the CA found that the PPHI
had not in fact been collecting services
charges
on
the
specified
entries/transactions that we pointed out
as either falling under negotiated
contracts and/or special rates or did not
involve a sale of food, beverage,
etc. Accordingly, Article 96 of the Labor
Code finds no application in this case; the
PPHI did not abolish or terminate the
implementation of any company policy
providing for the collection of service
charges on specified entries/transactions
that could have otherwise rendered it
liable to pay an amount representing the
covered employees share in the alleged
abolished service charges.
9090
91
9191
92
9292
93
competent
evidence
showing
that
respondents have repeatedly violated said
policy in the past.
True, an employer has the discretion to
regulate all aspects of employment and
the workers have the corresponding
obligation to obey company rules and
regulations. Deliberately disregarding or
disobeying
the
rules
cannot
be
countenanced, and any justification that
the disobedient employee might put forth
is deemed inconsequential.20 However,
the Court must emphasize that the
prerogative of an employer to dismiss an
employee on the ground of willful
disobedience to company policies must be
exercised in good faith and with due
regard to the rights of labor.21
Royale Homes Marketing Corporation Vs.
Fidel P. AlcantaraG.R. No. 195190. July
28, 2014
Not every form of control that a
hiring party imposes on the hired
party is indicative of employeeemployer relationship. Rules and
regulations that merely serve as
guidelines
towards
the
achievement of a mutually desired
result without dictating the means
and methods of accomplishing it do
not establish employer-employee
relationship.1cralawre
The juridical relationship of the
parties
based on their written contract
The primary evidence of the nature of the
parties relationship in this case is the
written contract that they signed and
executed in pursuance of their mutual
agreement.
While the existence of
employer-employee relationship is a
matter of law, the characterization made
by the parties in their contract as to the
nature of their juridical relationship cannot
be simply ignored, particularly in this case
where the parties written contract
unequivocally states their intention at the
time they entered into it.
n this case, the contract,27 duly signed
and not disputed by the parties,
9393
94
deemed to exist.33cralawred
In concluding that Alcantara is an
employee of Royale Homes, the CA
ratiocinated that since the performance of
his tasks is subject to company rules,
regulations, code of ethics, and periodic
evaluation, the element of control is
present.
The Court disagrees.
Not every form of control is indicative of
employer-employee
relationship.
A
person who performs work for another
and is subjected to its rules, regulations,
and code of ethics does not necessarily
become an employee.34 As long as the
level of control does not interfere with the
means and methods of accomplishing the
assigned tasks, the rules imposed by the
hiring party on the hired party do not
amount to the labor law concept of control
that is indicative of employer-employee
relationship.
In this case, the Court agrees with Royale
Homes that the rules, regulations, code of
ethics, and periodic evaluation alluded to
by Alcantara do not involve control over
the means and methods by which he was
to perform his job.
Understandably,
Royale Homes has to fix the price, impose
requirements on prospective buyers, and
lay down the terms and conditions of the
sale, including the mode of payment,
which the independent contractors must
follow. It is also necessary for Royale
Homes to allocate its inventories among
its independent contractors, determine
who has priority in selling the same, grant
commission or allowance based on
predetermined criteria, and regularly
monitor the result of their marketing and
sales efforts. But to the mind of this
Court, these do not pertain to the means
and methods of how Alcantara was to
perform and accomplish his task of
soliciting sales. They do not dictate upon
him the details of how he would solicit
sales or the manner as to how he would
transact business with prospective clients.
Payment of Wages
9494
95
employment
9595
96
9696
97
9797
98
9898
99
article.43
Only if there is such a
connection with the other claims can a
claim for damages be considered as
arising
from
employer-employee
relations.44cralawred
In the case at bench, we find that such
connection is nil.
True, the maintenance of a safe and
healthy workplace is ordinarily a subject of
labor cases. More, the acts complained of
appear to constitute matters involving
employee-employer
relations
since
respondent used to be the Civil Engineer
of petitioner. However, it should be
stressed that respondents claim for
damages is specifically grounded on
petitioners gross negligence to provide a
safe, healthy and workable environment
for its employees - a case of quasi-delict.
In the case at bar, respondent alleges that
due to the continued and prolonged
exposure to textile dust seriously inimical
to his health, he suffered work-contracted
disease which is now irreversible and
incurable, and deprived him of job
opportunities.52
Clearly,
injury
and
damages were allegedly suffered by
respondent,
an
element
of
quasidelict. Secondly, the previous contract of
employment between petitioner and
respondent cannot be used to counter the
element of no pre-existing contractual
relation since petitioners alleged gross
negligence in maintaining a hazardous
work environment cannot be considered a
mere breach of such contract of
employment, but falls squarely within the
elements of quasi-delict under Article
2176 of the Civil Code since the
negligence is direct, substantive and
independent
It also bears stressing that respondent is
not praying for any relief under the Labor
Code of the Philippines. He neither claims
for reinstatement nor backwages or
separation pay resulting from an illegal
termination. The cause of action herein
pertains to the consequence of petitioners
omission which led to a work-related
9999
10
0
10
1
together
with
attorneys
fees
and
reimbursement of amounts withheld from
her salary.
Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042,
otherwise known as the Migrant Workers
and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, states
that
overseas
workers
who
were
terminated
without
just,
valid,
or
authorized cause shall be entitled to the
full reimbursement of his placement fee
with interest of twelve (12%) per annum,
plus his salaries for the unexpired portion
of his employment contract or for three
(3) months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less.
We uphold the finding that respondent is
entitled to all of these awards. The award
of the three-month equivalent of
respondents salary should, however,
be
increased
to
the
amount
equivalent to the unexpired term of
the employment contract.
In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services,
Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc.,82
this court ruled that the clause or for
three (3) months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less83 is
unconstitutional for violating the equal
protection clause and substantive due
process.84cralawred
A statute or provision which was declared
unconstitutional is not a law. It confers
no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords
no protection; it creates no office; it is
inoperative as if it has not been passed at
all.85cralawred
We are aware that the clause or for three
(3) months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less was
reinstated in Republic Act No. 8042 upon
promulgation of Republic Act No. 10022 in
2010. Republic Act No. 10022 was
promulgated on March 8, 2010. This
means that the reinstatement of the
clause in Republic Act No. 8042 was not
yet in effect at the time of respondents
termination from work in 1997.86 Republic
Act No. 8042 before it was amended by
101101
10
2
102102
10
3
As
we
already
held,
gross
inefficiency is closely related to
gross neglect because both involve
specific acts of omission resulting
in damage to another.17 Gross
neglect of duty or gross negligence
refers to negligence characterized
by the want of even slight care,
acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to
act, not inadvertently but willfully
and intentionally, with a conscious
indifference
to
consequences
insofar as other persons may be
affected.18cralawred
As
borne
by
the
records,
petitioners actions fall within the
purview of the above-definitions.
Petitioner
failed
to
diligently
perform
her
duties.
It
was
unrefuted that: (1) there were
dates when a medical examination
was supposed to have been
conducted and yet the dates fell on
weekends; (2) failure to conduct
medical
examination
on
all
students for two (2) to five (5)
consecutive years; (3) lack of
medical records on all students;
and (4) students having medical
records prior to their enrollment.
Our Haus Realty Development Corporation
Vs. Alexander Parian, et al. G.R. No.
204651. August 6, 2014
No substantial distinction between
deducting and charging a facilitys
value from the employees wage;
the
legal
requirements
for
creditability
apply to both
To justify its non-compliance with the
requirements for the deductibility of a
facility, Our Haus asks us to believe that
there is a substantial distinction between
the deduction and the charging of a
facilitys value to the wages. Our Haus
103103
10
4
104104
10
5
105105
10
6
106106
10
7
107107
10
8
108108
10
9
109109
11
0
110110
11
1
barred.
Article 291 covers claims for overtime
pay,43 holiday pay,44 service incentive
leave
pay,45
bonuses,46
salary
differentials,47 and illegal deductions by an
employer.48 It also covers money claims
arising from seafarer contracts.49cralawred
The provision, however, does not cover
money claims consequent to an illegal
dismissal such as backwages. It also does
not cover claims for damages due to
illegal dismissal.
These claims are
governed by Article 1146 of the Civil Code
of
the
Philippines,
which
provides:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Art. 1146. The following actions must be
instituted
within
four
years:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(1) Upon injury to the rights of the
plaintiff[.]
This court ruled that Callantas complaint
for
illegal
dismissal
had
not
yet
prescribed. Although illegal dismissal is a
violation of the Labor Code, it is not the
offense
contemplated
in
Article
290.56 Article 290 refers to illegal acts
penalized under the Labor Code, including
committing any of the prohibited activities
during strikes or lockouts, unfair labor
practices,
and
illegal
recruitment
activities.57 The three-year prescriptive
period under Article 290, therefore, does
not apply to complaints for illegal
dismissal.
Instead, by way of supplement,58 Article
1146 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
governs
complaints
for
illegal
dismissal. Under Article 1146, an action
based upon an injury to the rights of a
plaintiff must be filed within four
years.
This
court
explained:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
. . . when one is arbitrarily and unjustly
deprived of his job or means of livelihood,
the action instituted to contest the legality
of one's dismissal from employment
constitutes,
in
essence,
an
action
111111
11
2
112112
11
3
The
foregoing
provision
is
applicable where (a) there is no
CBA or other applicable agreement
providing for retirement benefits to
employees, or (b) there is a CBA or
other
applicable
agreement
providing for retirement benefits
but it is below the requirement set
by law.33 Verily, the determining
factor in choosing which retirement
scheme to apply is still superiority
in
terms
of
benefits
provided.34cralawred
In the present case, GCHS has a
retirement plan for its faculty and
non-faculty members, which gives
it the option to retire a teacher who
has rendered at least 20 years of
service, regardless of age, with a
retirement pay of one-half ()
month for every year of service.
Considering, however, that GCHS
computed Filipinas retirement pay
without
including
one-twelfth
(1/12) of her 13th month pay and
the cash equivalent of her five (5)
days SIL, both the NLRC and the
CA correctly ruled that Filipinas
retirement benefits should be
computed in accordance with
Article 287 of the Labor Code, as
amended by RA 7641, being the
more
beneficent
retirement
scheme. They differ, however, in
the resulting benefit differentials
113113
11
4
xxxx
SEC. 5. Retirement Benefits.
xxxx
5.2 Components of One-half () Month
Salary. For the purpose of determining
the minimum retirement pay due an
employee under this Rule, the term onehalf month salary shall include all the
following:cralawlawlibrary
(a) Fifteen (15) days salary of the
employee based on his latest salary
rate. As used herein, the term salary
includes all remunerations paid by an
employer to his employees for services
rendered during normal working days and
hours, whether such payments are fixed
or ascertained on a time, task, piece or
commission basis, or other method of
calculating the same, and includes the fair
and reasonable value, as determined by
114114
11
5
115115
11
6
Due
to
the
grim
economic
consequences to the employee,
case law states that the employer
should also bear the burden of
proving that there are no posts
available
to
which
the
employee temporarily out of
work can be assigned.52
The same can be said of the
employee in this case as no
evidence was submitted by Irvine
to show any dire exigency which
rendered it incapable of assigning
Lopez to any of its projects. Add to
this the fact that Irvine did not
proffer any sufficient justification
for singling out Lopez for lay-off
among its other three hundred
employees, thereby casting a cloud
of doubt on Irvine's good faith in
pursuing this course of action.
Verily, Irvine cannot conveniently
suspend the work of any of its
employees in the guise of a
temporary lay-off when it has not
shown compliance with the legal
parameters under Article 286 of
116116
11
7
Section
94.
Causes
for
Terminating Employment In
addition
to
the
just
causes
enumerated in the Labor Code, the
employment of school personnel,
including
faculty,
may
be
terminated for any of the following
causes:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
xxx
b) Negligence in keeping school
or
student
records,
or
tampering with or falsification
of the same;80
117117
11
8
Indubitably,
respondent
was
dismissed from employment for a
just cause and in accordance with
due process under existing labor
laws,
rules
and
regulations.
Accordingly, she is not entitled to
reinstatement or separation pay,
x
x
x
x
(Emphasis
and
underscoring supplied)
118118
11
9
viz.:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
119119
12
0
The
determination
that
respondents are regular and not
merely
project
employees
resultantly
means
that
their
services could not have been
validly terminated at the expiration
of the project, or, in this case, the
service contract of Omni with the
Quezon
City
government.
As
regular employees, it is incumbent
upon petitioners to establish that
respondents had been dismissed
for a just and/or authorized cause.
However, petitioners failed in this
respect; hence, respondents were
illegally dismissed.
Philippine
Touristers,
Inc.
and/or
Alejandro R. Yague, Jr. Vs. Mas
Transit Workers Union-Anglo KMU and
its members represented by Abraham
Tumala, Jr.G.R. No. 201237. September
3, 2014
For an appeal from the LAs ruling to the
NLRC to be perfected, Article 223 (now
Article 229)61 of the Labor Code requires
the posting of a cash or surety bond in an
amount equivalent to the monetary award
in the judgment appealed
While it has been settled that the posting
of a cash or surety bond is indispensable
to the perfection of an appeal in cases
involving monetary awards from the
decision of the LA,62 the Rules of
Procedure of the NLRC63 (the Rules),
particularly Section 6, Rule VI thereof,
nonetheless allows the reduction of the
bond upon a showing of (a) the existence
of a meritorious ground for reduction,
and (b) the posting of a bond in a
reasonable amount in relation to the
monetary award.
In this regard, it bears stressing that the
reduction of the bond provided thereunder
is not a matter of right on the part of the
movant and its grant still lies within the
sound discretion of the NLRC upon a
showing of meritorious grounds and the
120120
12
1
Willaware
Products
Corporation
Vs.
Jesichris Manufacturing Corporation
G.R. No. 195549. September 3, 2014
We find the petition bereft of merit.
Hence, the present Petition for
Review wherein petitioner raises
Article 28 of the Civil Code provides that
the following issues for our
unfair
competition
in
agricultural,
resolution:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibr
commercial or industrial enterprises or in
ary
labor
through
the
use
of
force,
intimidation,
deceit,
machination
or not
any
(1) Whether or not there is unfair competition under human
relations
when the
parties re
unjust,
oppressive or high-handed
competitors and there is actually no damage on theother
part of
Jesichris?
give
to adamages
right of action
(2) Consequently, if there is no unfair competition,method
shouldshall
there
berise
moral
and
by the person who thereby suffers
attorneys fees?
(3) Whether or not the addition of nominal damagesdamage.
is proper although no rights have been
established?
From on
theautomotive
foregoing, itparts,
is clear
that what
(4) If ever the right of Jesichris refers to its copyright
should
it beis
being sought
bebyprevented
is this
not
considered in the light of the said copyrights were considered
to betovoid
no less than
competition per se but the use of unjust,
Honorable Court in SC GR No. 161295?
high- handed
methods
(5) If the right involved is goodwill then the issue is:oppressive
whether or or
not Jesichris
has established
6
which
may
deprive
others
of
a
fair
chance
goodwill?
to
engage
in
business
or
to
earn
a
living.
Plainly,
what
the
law
prohibits
is
unfair
In essence, the issue for our
competition
and
not
competition
where
resolution is: whether or not
the means used are fair and legitimate.
petitioner
committed
acts
amounting to unfair competition
Prepared by: ATTY. RESCI ANGELLI RIZADA, RN
Ateneo de Davao University
121121
12
2
122122
12
3
123123
12
4
Montinola
124124
12
5
faith
in the pilferage.
Moral damages are, thus, appropriate. In
Almira v. B.F. Goodrich Philippines, this
court noted that unemployment brings
untold hardships and sorrows on those
dependent on the wage-earner.81 This is
also true for the case of suspension.
Suspension is temporary unemployment.
During the year of her suspension,
Montinola and her family had to survive
without her usual salary. The deprivation
of economic compensation caused mental
anguish,
fright,
serious
anxiety,
besmirched reputation, and wounded
feelings. All these are grounds for an
award of moral damages under the Civil
Code.82cralawr
II
Montinola is also entitled to exemplary
damages.
Under Article 2229 of the Civil Code,
[e]xemplary or corrective damages are
imposed, by way of example or correction
for the public good, in addition to the
moral,
temperate,
liquidated
or
compensatory damages. As this court has
stated in the past: Exemplary damages
are designed by our civil law to permit the
courts to reshape behaviour that is
socially deleterious in its consequence by
creating negative incentives or deterrents
against such behaviour.83cralawred
If the case involves a contract, Article
2332 of the Civil Code provides that the
court may award exemplary damages if
the defendant acted in a wanton,
fraudulent,
reckless,
oppressive
or
malevolent manner. Thus, in Garcia v.
NLRC,84 this court ruled that in labor
cases, the court may award exemplary
damages if the dismissal was effected in
a wanton, oppressive or malevolent
manner.85cralawred
It is socially deleterious for PAL to
suspend Montinola without just cause in
the manner suffered by her. Hence,
exemplary damages are necessary to
deter future employers from committing
125125
12
6
III
Montinola is also entitled to attorneys
fees.
Article 2208 of the Civil Code enumerates
the instances when attorneys fees can be
awarded:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
ART. 2208. In the absence of stipulation,
attorneys fees and expenses of litigation,
other than judicial costs, cannot be
recovered,
except:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(1) When
awarded;
exemplary
damages
are
126126
12
7
127127
12
8
128128
12
9
129129
13
0
130130
13
1
is work-related.
Jebsen Maritime Inc., et al. Vs. Wilfredo E.
RavenaG.R. No. 200566. September 17,
2014
Ravena is not entitled to
disability benefits;
he failed to comply with the
prescribed procedures
and to prove the required
connection or aggravation
between his illness and work
conditions
131131
13
2
132132
13
3
133133
13
4
134134
13
5
135135
13
6
instance.24
Considering
that
reinstatement is no longer feasible
because of strained relations between the
employee and the employer, separation
pay should be granted. The basis for
computing separation pay is usually the
length of the employees past service,
while that for backwages is the actual
period when the employee was unlawfully
prevented from working.25 It should be
emphasized, however, that the finality of
the illegal dismissal decision becomes the
reckoning point. In allowing separation
pay, the final decision effectively declares
that the employment relationship ended
so that separation pay and backwages are
to be computed up to that point. The
decision also becomes a judgment for
money from which another consequence
flows the payment of interest in case of
delay.26cralawlawlibrary
Government
Service
Insurance
Corporation Vs. Jose M. CapaciteG.R.
No. 199780. September 24, 2014
We
find
the
petition
meritorious.
136136
13
7
by
the
working
137137
13
8
138138
13
9
139139
14
0
140140
14
1
141141
14
2
142142
14
3
143143
14
4
incapacity
wages.
to
work
and
earn
his
144144
14
5
145145
14
6
146146
14
7
147147
14
8
weakness or disease,
Clearly,
Nancings
injury
was
the
proximate
cause
of
his
death
considering that the same, unbroken by
any efficient, intervening cause, triggered
the following sequence of events: (a)
Nancings hospitalization at the Shanghai
Seamens Hospital47 where he was
diagnosed with bilateral closed traumatic
haemothorax;48(b) his repatriation and
eventual admission to the Manila Doctors
Hospital;49 and (c) his acute respiratory
failure, which was declared to be the
immediate
cause
of
his
death.50cralawlawlibrary
Second Requirement:
The Seafarers Death Should Occur
During The Term Of Employment.
With respect to the second requirement
for death compensability, the Court takes
this opportunity to clarify that while the
general rule is that the seafarers death
should occur during the term of his
employment,
the
seafarers
death
occurring after the termination of his
employment
due
to
his
medical
repatriation on account of a work-related
injury or illness constitutes an exception
thereto. This is based on a liberal
construction of the 2000 POEA-SEC as
impelled by the plight of the bereaved
heirs who stand to be deprived of a just
and reasonable compensation for the
seafarers death, notwithstanding its
evident work-connection. The present
petition is a case in point.
Here, Nancings repatriation occurred
during the eighth (8th) month of his one
(1) year employment contract. Were it not
for his injury, which had been earlier
established as work-related, he would not
have been repatriated for medical reasons
and his contract consequently terminated
pursuant to Part 1 of Section 18 (B) of the
148148
14
9
149149
15
0
150150
15
1
significantly
observed
that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Even assuming that the ailment of the
worker was contracted prior to his
employment, this still would not deprive
him of compensation benefits. For what
matters
is that
his
work had
contributed, even in a small degree,
to the development of the disease and
in bringing about his eventual death.
Neither is it necessary, in order to recover
151151
15
2
Thus,
considering
the
constitutional
mandate on labor as well as relative
jurisprudential context, the rule, restated
for a final time, should be as follows: if
the seafarers work-related injury or
illness (that eventually causes his
medical repatriation and, thereafter,
his death, as in this case) occurs
during the term of his employment,
then the employer becomes liable for
death compensation benefits under
152152
15
3
153153
15
4
154154
15
5
155155
15
6
156156
15
7
157157
15
8
158158
15
9
159159
16
0
160160
16
1
respondent's
difficult
and
complicated delivery. But there is
no indication in the records that
petitioner duly informed or referred
the matter to the other doctors or
the administrators of OMPH.
161161
16
2
accordance
with
the
current
standards of care, compassion,
independence and respect for
human dignity.28
Bernardina P.
Bartolome
Vs. Social
Security
System
and
Scanmar
Maritime Services, Inc. G.R. No.
192531. November 12, 2014
In resolving the case, the pivotal
issue is this: Are the biological
parents of the covered, but legally
adopted,
employee
considered
secondary beneficiaries and, thus,
entitled, in appropriate cases, to
receive
the
benefits
under
the
ECP?ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The rule limiting death benefits
claims to the legitimate
parents is contrary to law
This brings us to the question of whether
or not petitioner is entitled to the death
benefits claim in view of John's workrelated demise. The pertinent provision, in
this regard, is Article 167 (j) of the Labor
Code,
as
amended,
which
reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
ART. 167. Definition of terms. - As used in
this Title unless the context indicates
otherwise:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
xxxx
(j) 'Beneficiaries' means the dependent
spouse until he remarries and dependent
children,
who
are
the
primary
beneficiaries. In their absence, the
dependent parents and subject to the
restrictions
imposed
on
dependent
children, the illegitimate children and
legitimate descendants who are the
secondary beneficiaries; Provided, that
the dependent acknowledged natural child
shall be considered as a primary
beneficiary when there are no other
dependent children who are qualified and
eligible for monthly income benefit.
(Emphasis supplied)
Concurrently, pursuant to the succeeding
Article 177(c) supervising the ECC "[T]o
approve rules and regulations governing
162162
16
3
As
applied,
this
Court
held
in
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
Fortune
Tobacco
Corporation16
that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
As we have previously declared, rulemaking power must be confined to details
for regulating the mode or proceedings in
order to carry into effect the law as it has
been enacted, and it cannot be extended
to amend or expand the statutory
requirements or to embrace matters not
covered by the statute. Administrative
regulations
must
always
be
in
harmony with the provisions of the
law
because
any
resulting
discrepancy between the two will
always be resolved in favor of the
basic law. (Emphasis supplied)
Guided by this doctrine, We find that Rule
XV of the Amended Rules on Employees'
Compensation is patently a wayward
restriction of and a substantial deviation
from Article 167 (j) of the Labor Code
when it interpreted the phrase "dependent
parents" to refer to "legitimate parents."
In the same vein, the term "parents" in
the phrase "dependent parents" in the
afore-quoted Article 167 (j) of the Labor
Code is used and ought to be taken in its
general sense and cannot be unduly
limited to "legitimate parents" as what the
ECC did. The phrase "dependent parents"
should, therefore, include all parents,
whether legitimate or illegitimate and
whether by nature or by adoption. When
the law does not distinguish, one should
not
distinguish.
Plainly,
"dependent
parents" are parents, whether legitimate
or illegitimate, biological or by adoption,
who are in need of support or assistance.
Moreover, the same Article 167 (j), as
couched, clearly shows that Congress did
not intend to limit the phrase "dependent
parents" to solely legitimate parents. At
the risk of being repetitive, Article 167
provides that "in their absence, the
dependent parents and subject to the
restrictions
imposed
on
dependent
children, the illegitimate children and
163163
16
4
164164
16
5
165165
16
6
166166
16
7
the
employment
of
Filipino
seafarers on board foreign oceangoing
vessels.47chanroblesvirtuallawlibrar
y
167167
16
8
Nonetheless,
Hipe
was
subsequently declared fit to work
by
the
company-designated
physician on October 9, 2008, or
merely
65
days
after
his
repatriation, thus negating the
existence
of
any
permanent
disability for which compensability
is
sought.
Said
fit-to-work
certification must stand for two (2)
reasons:cralawlawlibrary
In
fine,
given
that
Hipes
permanent
disability
was
not
established through substantial
evidence for the reasons abovestated, the NLRC did not gravely
abuse its discretion in dismissing
the
complaint
for
permanent
disability
benefits,
thereby
warranting the reversal of the CAs
contrary ruling. Verily, while the
Court adheres to the principle of
liberality in favor of the seafarer in
construing the POEA-SEC, when
the
evidence
presented
then
168168
16
9
169169
17
0
170170
17
1
171171
17
2
(Emphasis
original)
and
underscoring
in
the
172172
17
3
173173
17
4
is due him.23chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In sum, the failure to deploy respondent
was an exercise of a management
prerogative that went beyond its limits
and resulted in a breach of contract. In
turn, petitioner's breach gave rise to
respondent's cause of action to claim
actual damages for the pecuniary loss
suffered by the latter in the form of the
loss of nine months' worth of salary as
provided in the POEA-approved contract of
employment.
174174
17
5
regular employee.
Although it is true that the length of time
of the employees service is not a
controlling
determinant
of
project
employment, it is vital in determining
whether he was hired for a specific
undertaking or in fact tasked to perform
functions
vital,
necessary
and
indispensable to the usual business or
trade of the employer.34 Petitioners
successive re-engagement in order to
perform the same kind of work firmly
manifested the necessity and desirability
of their work in the usual business of TNS
as a market research facility.35 Undisputed
also is the fact that the petitioners were
assigned office-based tasks from 9:00
oclock in the morning up to 6:00 oclock
in the evening, at the earliest, without any
corresponding remuneration.
175175
17
6
176176
17
7
III
Determination of employment status;
burden of proof
177177
17
8
educational
institutions.153chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Distinctions among fixed-term
employees, independent contractors,
and regular employees
GMA
Network,
Inc.
v.
Pabriga154
expounded the doctrine on fixed-term
contracts laid down in Brent in the
following
manner:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Cognizant of the possibility of abuse in the
utilization of fixed-term employment
contracts, we emphasized in Brent that
where from the circumstances it is
apparent that the periods have been
imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial
security by the employee, they should be
struck down as contrary to public policy or
morals. We thus laid down indications or
criteria under which term employment
cannot be said to be in circumvention of
the
law
on
security
of
tenure,
namely:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
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.
These indications, which must be read
together, make the Brent doctrine
applicable only in a few special cases
wherein the employer and employee are
on more or less in equal footing in
entering into the contract. The reason for
this is evident: when a prospective
employee, on account of special skills or
market forces, is in a position to make
demands upon the prospective employer,
such prospective employee needs less
protection than the ordinary worker.
Lesser limitations on the parties freedom
of contract are thus required for the
178178
17
9
179179
18
0
180180
18
1
181181
18
2
The
test
for
determining
regular
employment is whether there is a
reasonable
connection
between
the
employees activities and the usual
business of the employer. Article 280
provides that the nature of work must be
necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer as the
test for determining regular employment.
As stated in ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corporation
v.
Nazareno:204chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
182182
18
3
183183
18
4
184184
18
5
185185
18
6
186186
18
7
(a)
The
company-designated
physician
failed
to
issue
a
declaration as to his fitness to
engage in sea duty or disability
even after the lapse of the 120-day
period and there is no indication
that further medical treatment
would address his temporary total
187187
18
8
he
remains
incapacitated
to
perform his usual sea duties after
the lapse of said periods.34
Significantly,
however,
when
petitioner filed his complaint with
the arbitration office on April 5,
2010, he had yet to consult his
own physician, Dr. Jacinto. It
means that, at that time, he was
simply armed with: 1] the medical
findings
of
the
companydesignated physician that he was
fit to work; and 2] his Affidavit
Complaint35 where he made his
own conclusion that his right leg
was again fractured because of the
incident that occurred in the M/V
Ibis Arrow
Petitioner is not
Entitled to his
Monetary Claims
188188
18
9
necessary
arrangement.25chanRoblesvirtualLa
wlibrary
189189
19
0
190190
19
1
191191
19
2
192192
19
3
193193
19
4
(a)
The
company-designated
physician
failed
to
issue
a
declaration as to his fitness to
engage in sea duty or disability
even after the lapse of the 120-day
period and there is no indication
that further medical treatment
would address his temporary total
disability,
hence,
justify
an
extension of the period to 240
days;
(b) 240 days had lapsed without
any certification issued by the
company designated physician;
(c) The company-designated
physician declared that he is fit
for sea duty within the 120-day
or 240-day period, as the case
may be, but his physician of
choice and the doctor chosen
under Section 20-B(3) of the
POEA-SEC are of a contrary
opinion;
(d)
The
company-designated
physician acknowledged that he is
partially permanently disabled but
other doctors who he consulted, on
his own and jointly with his
employer,
believed
that
his
disability is not only permanent but
total as well;
(e)
The
company-designated
physician recognized that he is
totally and permanently disabled
but there is a dispute on the
disability grading;
(f)
The
company-designated
physician determined that his
medical
condition
is
not
compensable or work-related under
the POEA-SEC but his doctor-ofchoice and the third doctor
selected under Section 20-B(3) of
the POEA-SEC found otherwise and
declared him unfit to work;
(g)
The
company-designated
(h)
The
company-designated
physician declared him partially
and permanently disabled within
the 120-day or 240-day period but
he
remains
incapacitated
to
perform his usual sea duties after
the lapse of said periods.25
194194
19
5
II
Institution of clearance procedures
has legal bases
Requiring clearance before the release of
last payments to the employee is a
standard procedure among employers,
whether public or private. Clearance
procedures are instituted to ensure that
the properties, real or personal, belonging
to the employer but are in the possession
of the separated employee, are returned
to the employer before the employees
departure.
As a general rule, employers are
prohibited from withholding wages from
employees. The Labor Code provides:
Art. 116. Withholding of wages and
kickbacks prohibited. It shall be
unlawful for any person, directly or
indirectly, to withhold any amount from
the wages of a worker or induce him to
give up any part of his wages by force,
stealth, intimidation, threat or by
any other means whatsoever without the
workers consent.
The Labor Code also prohibits the
elimination or diminution of benefits.
Thus:
Art.
100.
Prohibition
against
elimination or diminution of benefits.
Nothing in this Book shall be construed to
eliminate or in any way diminish
supplements, or other employee benefits
being enjoyed at the time of promulgation
of this Code.
However, our law supports the employers
institution of clearance procedures before
the release of wages. As an exception to
the general rule that wages may not be
withheld and benefits may not be
diminished,
The Civil Code provides that the employer
is authorized to withhold wages for debts
195195
19
6
196196
19
7
Teodora Mahilom is
separation benefits.
not
entitled
to
Both
the
National
Labor
Relations
Commission and the Court of Appeals
found that Teodora Mahilom already
retired long before respondent Solid Mills
closure. They found that she already
received her retirement benefits. We have
no reason to disturb this finding. This
court is not a trier of facts. Findings of the
National Labor Relations Commission,
especially when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, are binding upon this court.
Moreover, Teodora Mahiloms claim for
retirement benefits was not included in
her complaint filed before the Labor
Arbiter. Hence, it may not be raised in the
appeal.
Similarly, the National Labor Relations
Commission and the Court of Appeals
found that Carlito Damian already
received his terminal benefits. Hence, he
may no longer claim terminal benefits.
The fact that respondent Solid Mills has
not yet demolished Carlito Damians house
in SMI Village is not evidence that he did
not receive his benefits. Both the National
Labor Relations Commission and the Court
of Appeals found that he executed an
affidavit stating that he already received
the benefits.
Our laws provide for a clear preference for
labor. This is in recognition of the
asymmetrical power of those with capital
w~en they are left to negotiate with their
workers without the standards and
protection of law. In cases such as these,
the collective bargaining unit of workers
are able to get more benefits and in
exchange, the owners are able to continue
with the program of cutting their losses or
wind down their operations due to serious
business losses. The company in this case
197197
19
8
198198
19
9
20
0
200200
20
1
201201