Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SAPS.
3. Power of dismissal;
2. Payment of wages;
4. Power of control.
o Declared Promm-Gem and SAPS
legitimate job contractors.
Petitioners appealed to the NLRC.
NLRC: Dismissed the appeal, affirmed
the Labor Arbiters Decision. Motion for
reconsideration denied.
Petitioners sought recourse with the
Court of Appeals via a petition for
certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
CA: Denied the petition and affirmed
the NLRCs Decision with modification.
o P&G ordered to pay service incentive
leave pay to petitioners.
o Petitioners motion for reconsideration
was denied.
Hence, this petition for review by
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court.
ISSUES + RATIO:
contractor.
Promm-Gem.
with backwages.
DISPOSITION: Petition granted. Case
remanded to Labor Arbiter for
computation of backwages
and other benefits.
Aliviado v. Procter & Gamble Philippines,
Inc.
ISSUE + RATIO:
FACTS:
1995, Petitioner was hired by Kasei
Corporation during its incorporation stage.
She was designated as Accountant and
Corporate Secretary and was assigned to
handle all the accounting needs of the
ISSUES:
1. WON there was an employer-employee
relationship between petitioner and
private respondent; and if in the
affirmative,
2. Whether petitioner was illegally
dismissed.
RULING:
1. Generally, courts have relied on
the so-called right of control test where
the person for whom the services are
performed reserves a right to control not
only the end to be achieved but also the
means to be used in reaching such end. In
addition to the standard of right-of-control,
the existing economic conditions
prevailing between the parties, like the
inclusion of the employee in the payrolls,
can help in determining the existence of
an employer-employee relationship.
There are instances when, aside
from the employers power to control the
employee, economic realities of the
employment relations help provide a
comprehensive analysis of the true
classification of the individual, whether as
FACTS
The respondent company, Supreme
Packaging, Inc. engaged the services of
the petitioner, Pedro Chavez, as truck
driver. The respondent company furnished
the petitioner with a truck. The petitioner
expressed to respondent Alvin Lee,
respondent companys plant manager, his
desire to avail himself of the benefits that
the regular employees were receiving
such as overtime pay, nightshift
differential pay, and 13th month pay,
among others. Although he promised to
extend these benefits to the petitioner,
respondent Lee failed to actually do so.
Petitioner filed a complaint for
regularization with the Regional Arbitration
Branch. Before the case could be heard,
respondent company terminated the
services of the petitioner. Consequently,
the petitioner filed an amended complaint
against the respondents for illegal
dismissal, unfair labor practice and nonpayment of overtime pay, nightshift
differential pay, and 13th month pay,
among others. The respondents, for their
part, denied the existence of an employeremployee relationship between the
respondent company and the petitioner.
They averred that the petitioner was an
ISSUE:
whether or not there existed an employeremployee relationship between the
respondent company and the petitioner.
RULING:
Yes. There was an employer-employee
relationship in the case at bar.
The elements to determine the existence
of an employment relationship are: (1) the
selection and engagement of the
employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3)
the power of dismissal; and (4) the
employers power to control the
employees conduct. All the four elements
are present in this case.
Of the four elements of the employeremployee relationship, the control test is
the most important. Although the
respondents denied that they exercised
October 8, 2001
HELD: YES.
RATIO:
Elements in determining existence of
employer-employee relationship:
1) Selection and engagement of the
worker or the power to hire
2) The power to dismiss
3) Payment of wages by whatever means
4) Power to control the workers conduct
The above elements are present here.
PHCCI through its Manager Mr. Edilberto
Lantaca, Jr. hired respondents as
Computer programmer and clerks. They
worked regular working hours, were
assigned specific duties, were paid regular
wages, and made to accomplish regular
time records, and worked under the
supervision of the manager.
Art. 280, Labor Code comprehends 3 kinds
of employees:
1)REGULAR EMPLOYEES or those whose
work is necessary or desirable to the usual
business of the employer
2)PROJECT EMPLOYEES or those
whoseemployment has been fixed for a
specificproject or undertaking the
completion ortermination of which has
been determined at the time of the
engagement
of the employee or where the work or
services to be performed is seasonal in
nature and the employment is for the
duration of the season
3)CASUAL EMPLOYEES or those who are
neither regular nor project employees
There are 2 separate instances whereby it
can be determined that an employment is
regular:
ISSUE:
HELD:
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J.: