Mayor v.

Macaraig

Fact:
RA No. 6715 Declaring Vacant all positions of the Commissioners, Executive Labor Arbiters and Labor
Arbiters
of
the
present
National
Labor
Relations
Commissions
The old positions were declared vacant because of the need to professionalize the higher levels of officialdom
invested with adjudicatory powers and functions, and upgrade their qualifications, ranks and salaries or
emoluments.
Issue:
The constitutionality of the provisions of RA No. 6715.
Held:
The petitioners have the right to remain in office until the expiration of the terms for which they have been
appointed, unless sooner removed for cause provided by law.
A recognized cause for removal or termination is the abolition by law of his office as a result of reorganization
carried out by reason of economy or to remove redundancy of functions, or clear and explicit constitutional
mandate for such termination of employment.
Abolition of office is not the same as declaring that office is vacant. The latter would constitute an infringement
of the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.

GR NO. 165881 APRIL 19, 2006 OSCAR VILLAMARIA, JR. (Petitioner) Vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND
JERRY V. BUSTAMANTE, (respondents)
FACTS:
Petitioner was the owner of the jeepneys which the private respondent is the one who is driving
in a boundary basis. Villamaria and Bustamante entered into a contract were the petitioner agreed to sell the
jeepney entitled Kasunduan ng Bilihan ng Sasakayan sa Pamamagitan ng Boundary-Hulog were Bustamante
would remit to Villamaria P550.00 a day for a period of four years. Both parties agreed in such terms and
stipulations of the contract.When the private respondent failed to pay the boundary-hulog, Villarama took back
the jeepney driven by Bustamante and barred the latter from driving the vehicle. Due to the action of petitioner,
Bustamante files a complaint before the court.
ISSUE:
Whether employer-employee relations exists.
HELD:
The juridical relationship of employer-employee between petitioner and respondent was not negated by
the foregoing stipulation in the Kasunduan, considering that petitioner retained control of respondents conduct
as driver of the vehicle. Even if the petitioner was allowed to let some other person drive the unit, it was not
shown that he did so; that the existence of an employment relation is not dependent on how the worker is paid
but on the presence or absence of control over the means and method of the work; that the amount earned in
excess of the boundary hulog is equivalent to wages; and that the fact that the power of dismissal was not
mentioned in the Kasunduan did not mean Villamaria never exercised such power, or could not exercise such
power. Hence, the employer- employee relationship exists.

Santiago vs. CF Sharp Crew Management, Inc.

PAUL V. SANTIAGO, petitioner, vs. CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., respondent.
G.R. No. 162419
July 10, 2007
TINGA, J.:
FACTS:
Petitioner had been working as a seafarer for Smith Bell Management, Inc. (respondent) for about five (5)
years. He signed a new contract of employment with the duration of 9 months on Feb 3 1998 and he was to be
deployed 10 days after. This contract was approved by POEA. A week before the date of departure, the
respondent received a phone call from petitioners wife and some unknown callers asking not to send the latter
off because if allowed, he will jump ship in Canada.
Because of the said information, petitioner was told that he would not be leaving for Canada anymore. This
prompted him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal against the respondent. The LA held the latter responsible.
On appeal, the NLRC ruled that there is no employer-employee relationship between petitioner and
respondent, hence, the claims should be dismissed. The CA agreed with the NLRCs finding that since
petitioner had not departed from the Port of Manila, no employer-employee relationship between the parties
arose and any claim for damages against the so-called employer could have no leg to stand on.
ISSUE: When does the employer-employee relationship involving seafarers commence?
RULING:
A distinction must be made between the perfection of the employment contract and the commencement of the
employer-employee relationship. The perfection of the contract, which in this case coincided with the date of
execution thereof, occurred when petitioner and respondent agreed on the object and the cause, as well as the
rest of the terms and conditions therein. The commencement of the employer-employee relationship, as earlier
discussed, would have taken place had petitioner been actually deployed from the point of hire. Thus, even
before the start of any employer-employee relationship, contemporaneous with the perfection of the
employment contract was the birth of certain rights and obligations, the breach of which may give rise to a
cause of action against the erring party. Thus, if the reverse had happened, that is the seafarer failed or
refused to be deployed as agreed upon, he would be liable for damages.
Respondents act of preventing petitioner from departing the port of Manila and boarding "MSV Seaspread"
constitutes a breach of contract, giving rise to petitioners cause of action. Respondent unilaterally and
unreasonably reneged on its obligation to deploy petitioner and must therefore answer for the actual damages
he suffered.