Pointers: ( to be submitted in writing)

1. who is the father of Labor Code?

Mr. Blas Ople. The obj was not merely to consolidate the then existing pieces of labor legislation but
also to reorient them to the needs of economic development and justice.

2. What is meant by labor Code of the Phils. ? (Code it is a collection of law. It is a codification of all
labor laws in the country.

1. regulatory device

2. who is being regulated.

Give example:

1. law on termination of employment

2. hours of works

3. wages.

4. cost of living allowance, and other monetary and welfare benefits

2ndsubdvision

LR provide for regulating institutional relationship

1. right to self organization

2. To bargain collectively

Welfare law:

3. What is Pd 442. What is the name of the Decree?

4. What are the general principles about the EER.

Cases

* Fiati University v Bautista (Gr L-21278 12-07-1966)

Feati University v. Bautista

G.R. No.L-21278 December 27, 1966

Lessons Applicable: Applicability to certain specific persons – Professors in national interest

Laws Applicable:

FACTS:
 January 14, 1963: the President of Feati University Faculty Club (PAFLU) wrote a letter to
Mrs. Victoria L. Araneta, President of Feati University informing her that it is a registered as
a labor union.
 January 22, 1963: PAFLU sent a letter with 26 demands in relation to their employment and
requesting an answer within 10 days from receipt thereof.
 Araneta answered the letters, requesting that she be given at least 30 days to study
thoroughly the different phases of the demands. Meanwhile counsel for Feati, wrote a letter
to the President of PAFLU demanding proof of its majority status and designation as a
bargaining representative
o February 1, 1963: the President of PAFLU rejected the extension of time and filed a
notice of strike with the Bureau of Labor due to Feati’s refusal to bargain collectively.
 Conciliation Division of the Bureau of Labor made efforts to conciliate them but failed.
 February 18, 1963: PAFLU declared a strike and established picket lines in the premises of
Feati resulting in the disruption of classes in the University.
 March 21, 1963: the President of the Philippines certified to the Court of Industrial Relations
(CIR) the dispute between Feati and PAFLU pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 of
Republic Act No. 875.
 3 cases were filed with the CIR
 41-IPA – PAFLU’s petition to declare in contempt of court since Feati refused to accept them
back to work in violation of the return-to-work order of March 30, 1963 and has employed
professors and/or instructors to take their places
 1183-MC – PAFLU’s petition for certification election praying that it be certified as the sole
and exclusive bargaining representative
 Later withdrawn since the Case 41-IPA had already been certified by the President to the
CIR and has absorbed the issues herein
 V-30 – PAFLU’s complaint for indirect contempt of court filed against the administrative
officials of the Feati reiterating Case 41-IPA
 May 10, 1963: Feati filed before the SC a petition for certiorari and prohibition with writ of
preliminary injunction which was issued upon the Feati's filing a bond of P50,000 (increased
from P1,000), ordering CIR Judge Jose S. Bautista to desist and refrain from further
proceeding
 March 23, 1963: On the strength of the presidential certification, Judge Bautista set the case
for hearing
  Feati, thru counsel filed a motion to dismiss the case upon the ground that the CIR has no
jurisdiction over the case, because:
1. the Industrial Peace Act is NOT applicable to the University, it being an educational institution, nor to
the members of the Faculty Club, they being independent contractors
2. the presidential certification is violative of Section 10 of the Industrial Peace Act, as the University is
not an industrial establishment and there was no industrial dispute which could be certified to the
CIR
 Judge Bautista denied the motion to dismiss and ordered the strikers to return immediately to
work and the University to take them back under the last terms and conditions existing
before the dispute arose
 Without the motion for reconsideration having been acted upon by the CIR en banc, Judge
Bautista set the case for hearing on the merits for May 8, 1963 but was cancelled upon
Feati’s petition for certiorari alleging that Judge Jose S. Bautista acted without, or in excess
of, jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in taking cognizance of, and in issuing the
questioned orders in, CIR Cases Nos. 41-IPA 1183-MC and V-30
 Feati claims that it is not an employer within the contemplation of R.A. 875, because it is not
an industrial establishment
 Feati also claims that it is only a lessee of the services of its professors and/or instructors
pursuant to a contract of services entered into between them because the University does
not exercise control over their work

ISSUES: W/N Feati can be considered an employer and PAFLU as an employee to be covered by
R.A. 875 and have right to unionize

HELD: YES. petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction in Case G.R. No. L-
21278 is dismissed
 Section 2(c) of R.A. 875:
o The term employer include any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly, but
shall not include any labor organization (otherwise than when acting as an employer) or any one
acting in the capacity or agent of such labor organization.
 Congress did not intend to give a complete definition of "employer", but rather that such definition
should be complementary to what is commonly understood as employer
 Act itself specifically enumerated those who are not included in the term "employer" and educational
institutions are not included; hence, they can be included in the term "employer". However, those
educational institutions that are not operated for profit are not within the purview of Republic Act No.
875.
 Feati realizes profits and parts of such earning is distributed as dividends to private stockholders or
individuals
 It embraces not only those who are usually and ordinarily considered employees, but also those who
have ceased as employees as a consequence of a labor dispute.
 employee must be one who is engaged in the service of another; who performs services for
another; who works for salary or wages
 "workers" limited to those performing physical labor
o embrace stenographers and bookkeepers
o Teachers are not included
 Feati controls the work of the members of its faculty
o prescribes the courses or subjects that professors teach, and when and where to teach
o professors' work is characterized by regularity and continuity for a fixed duration
o professors are compensated for their services by wages and salaries, rather than by profits
o professors and/or instructors cannot substitute others to do their work without the consent of the
university
o professors can be laid off if their work is found not satisfactory
 Moreover, even if university professors are considered independent contractors, still they
would be covered by Rep. Act No. 875
 professors, instructors or teachers of private educational institutions who teach to earn a
living are entitled to the protection of our labor laws — and one such law is Republic Act No.
875.
 The term "labor dispute" includes any controversy concerning terms, tenure or conditions of
employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating,
fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment
regardless of whether the disputants stand in proximate relation of employer and employees.
 To certify a labor dispute to the CIR is the prerogative of the President under the law
(Because the strike declared by the members of the minority union threatens a major
industry of 18,000 students which affects the national interest), and this Court will not
interfere in, much less curtail, the exercise of that prerogative. The jurisdiction of the CIR in a
certified case is exclusive. The parties involved in the case may appeal to the Supreme
Court from the order or orders thus issued by the CIR.
 Section 10 of Republic Act No. 875 empowers the Court of Industrial Relations to issue an
order "fixing the terms of employment." This clause is broad enough to authorize the Court to
order the strikers to return to work and the employer to readmit them
 The return-to-work order cannot be considered as an impairment of the contract entered into
with the replacements. Besides, labor contracts must yield to the common good and such
contracts are subject to the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and
similar subjects
* Far Eastern Universtiy v CIR (GR. L-17620 08-31-1962)

* PL v Palea (GR L-21120 02-28-1967)

Resolution: directing the reinstatement of said employess "to their former or equivalent position in
the company, with back wages from the date of their reinstatement, and without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges.

Contention ogPAL

the clause therein "without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges" should be construed
prospectively, not retroactively

it is obvious that the resolution intended to restore the employees to their status immediately prior to their
dismissal.

The reinstatement was with back wages for the lay-off period, coupled with "seniority or other rights and
privileges", attached to the status of the employees when they were dismissed. To put it differently, the
CIR treated said employees as if they had not been absent form work and had been uninterruptedly
working during the lay-off period.1äwphï
(1) Christmas bonus from 1950 to 1958;

SC: the employees involved in the case at bar are entitled to the Christmas bonus that PAL had given to
all of its employees during said period, for said bonus, having been paid regularly, has become part of the
compensation of the employees.

(2) accumulated sick leave and transportation allowance during lay-off period; and

SC: 1 Said employees are, likewise, entitled to transportation allowance and the corresponding sick leave
privileges. These sick leave privileges are subject, however, to the following qualifications, namely: (1)
that the accumulated sick leave cannot exceed 140 days, pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement
between the PAL and the PALEA, effective in 1959; and (2) that, pursuant to the same agreement, which
denies sick leave privileges to retired employees, Onofre Griño and Bernardino Abarrientos, who have
retired, are not entitled to said privileges.

(4) accumulated free trip passes, both domestic and international.

the employees had no absolute right thereto, even if they had actually rendered services during the lay-off
period. The free trip passes were given, neither automatically, nor indiscriminately. The employees had to
apply therefore and their applications were subject PAL's approval.

* Aurora Land Project Corp. v NLRC GR 114733 01-02-1997

From 1953 until 1991, Honorio worked as maintenance man, carpenter, plumber, electrician and
mason at the Tanjangco apartments and residential buildings. In short, he took charge of the
maintenance and repair of the buildings. He reported for work from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.. He
earned P180 a day (latest salary). When Honorio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
 Tanjangco claimed that Honorio was an independent contractor. Tanjangco further claimed
that even assuming that Honorio can be considered an employee, he was merely a project
employee whose services were hired only with respect to a specific job and only while the same
exists.

(a) On the basis of this set of facts, can Honorio be considered an independent contractor?

A. No, Honorio was not an independent contractor but an employee of Tanjangco. He was not
compensated in terms of profits for his labor orservices like an independent contractor. Rather,
he was paid on a daily wage basis. It is absurd to expect that with such humble
resources, Honorio woulld have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools,
equipment, and machineries with which to conduct the business of supplying Tanjangco with
manpower and services for maintaining the apartments and buildings. The most important
requisite of control that determines the existence of an employer-employee relationship is
present. The power of control refers merely to the existence of the power and not to the actual
exercise thereof. Naturally, Honorio’s work as maintenance man had to be performed within
the premises of Tanjangco. It is not far-fetched to expect that Honorio had to observe the
instructions and specifications given by Tanjangco as to how his work had to be
performed. Tanjangco could easily exercise control on Honorio.

(b) What kind of an employee is Honorio?

A. Honorio is a regular employee. There are two kinds of regular employees: (1) those who are
engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual trade or
business of the employer; and (2) those who have rendered at least one year of service,
whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are
employed. Whichever standard is applied, Honorio qualifies as a regular employee. Honorio
cannot be considered a project employee. If he was employed as a project employee,
Tanjangco should have submitted a report of termination to the nearest public employment
office everytime his employment is terminated due to completion of each project, as required by
Policy Instruction No. 20. There should have been filed as many reports of termination as
there were projects actually finished
© issue whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists

Yes. Jurisprudence is firmly settled that whenever the existence of an employment relationship is in
dispute, four elements constitute the reliable yardstick: (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
the employee's conduct. All these elements are present in the case at bar. Private respondent was
hired in 1953 by Doña Aurora Suntay Tanjangco (mother of Teresita Tanjangco-Quazon), who was then
the one in charge of the administration of the Tanjangco's various apartments and other properties. He
was employed as a stay-in worker performing carpentry, plumbing, electrical and necessary work (sic)
needed in the repairs of Tanjangco's properties. 13 Upon the demise of Doña Aurora in 1982, petitioner
Teresita Tanjangco-Quazon took over the administration of these properties and continued to employ the
private respondent, until his unceremonious dismissal on June 8, 1991
(d) to whether or not private respondent Dagui was illegally dismissed?

Yes. The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due
process. This simply means that the employer shall afford the worker ample opportunity to be beard and
to defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires. These mandatory
requirements were undeniably absent in the case at bar. Petitioner Quazon dismissed private respondent
on June 8, 1991, without giving him any written notice informing the worker herein of the cause for his
termination. Neither was there any hearing conducted in order to give Dagui the opportunity to be heard
and defend himself. He was simply told: "Wala ka nang trabaho mula ngayon," allegedly because of poor
workmanship on a previous job

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA (Philippines), INC. vs. NLRC

[264 SCRA 4]
Facts:
Limjoco was a Sales Divison of Encyclopaedia Britannica and was in charge of selling the products
through some sales representatives. As compensation, he would receive commissions from the products
sold by his agents. He was also allowed to use the petitioner’s name, goodwill and logo. It was agreed
that office expenses would be deducted from Limjoco’s commissions. In 1974, Limjoco resigned to
pursue his private business and filed a complaint against petitioner for alleged non-payment of separation
pay and other benefits and also illegal deduction from sales commissions. Petitioner alleged that Limjoco
was not an employee of the company but an independent dealer authorized to promote and sell its
products and in return, received commissions therein. Petitioner also claims that it had no control and
supervision over the complainant as to the manners and means he conducted his business operations.
Limjoco maintained otherwise. He alleged he was hired by the petitioner and was assigned in the sales
department. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Limjoco was an employee of the company. NLRC also affirmed
the decision and opined that there was no evidence supporting allegation that Limjoco was an
independent contractor or dealer.

Issue:
Whether or not there was an employee-employer relationship between the parties.
SC Ruling:
There was no employee-employer relationship. In determining the relationship, the following elements
must be present: selection and engagement of the employee, payment of wages, power of dismissal and
power to control the employee’s conduct. The power of control is commonly regarded as the most crucial
and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employee-employer relationship. Under the
control test, an employee-employer relationship exists where the person for whom the services are
performed reserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved, but also the manner and means to be
employed in reaching that end. The issuance of guidelines by the petitioner was merely guidelines on
company policies which sales managers follow and impose on their respective agents. Limjoco was not an
employee of the company since he had the free rein in the means and methods for conducting the
marketing operations. He was merely an agent or an independent dealer of the petitioner. He was free to
conduct his work and he was free to engage in other means of livelihood. In ascertaining the employee-
employer relationship, the factual circumstances must be considered. The element of control is absent
where a person who works for another does so more or less at his own pleasure and is not subject to
definite hours or conditions of work, and in turn is compensated in according to the result of his efforts
and not the amount thereof. Hence, there was no employee-employer relationship
* Silva v ChurvaGR 44182 04-15-1988

Sevilla vs CA
G..R. No. L-41182-3
April 16, 1988

Employer-Employee Relationship

Facts:

The petitioners invoke the provisions on human relations of the Civil Code in this appeal by certiorari.

Mrs. Segundina Noguera, party of the first part; the Tourist World Service, Inc., represented by Mr.
Eliseo Canilao as party of the second part, and hereinafter referred to as appellants, the Tourist World
Service, Inc. leased the premises belonging to the party of the first part at Mabini St., Manila for the
former-s use as a branch office. In the said contract the party of the third part held herself solidarily
liable with the party of the part for the prompt payment of the monthly rental agreed on. When the
branch office was opened, the same was run by the herein appellant Una 0. Sevilla payable to Tourist
World Service Inc. by any airline for any fare brought in on the efforts of Mrs. Lina Sevilla, 4% was to go
to Lina Sevilla and 3% was to be withheld by the Tourist World Service, Inc.

On November 24, 1961 the Tourist World Service, Inc. appears to have been informed that Lina Sevilla
was connected with a rival firm, the Philippine Travel Bureau, and, since the branch office was anyhow
losing, the Tourist World Service considered closing down its office.

On June 17,1963, appellant Lina Sevilla refiled her case against the herein appellees and after the issues
were joined, the reinstated counterclaim of Segundina Noguera and the new complaint of appellant Lina
Sevilla were jointly heard following which the court ordered both cases dismiss for lack of merit.

In her appeal, Lina Sevilla claims that a joint bussiness venture was entered into by and between her and
appellee TWS with offices at the Ermita branch office and that she was not an employee of the TWS to
the end that her relationship with TWS was one of a joint business venture appellant made
declarations.

Issue:

Whether or not the padlocking of the premises by the Tourist World Service, Inc. without the knowledge
and consent of the appellant Lina Sevilla entitled the latter to the relief of damages prayed for and
whether or not the evidence for the said appellant supports the contention that the appellee Tourist
World Service, Inc. unilaterally and without the consent of the appellant disconnected the telephone
lines of the Ermita branch office of the appellee Tourist World Service, Inc.?

Held:

The trial court held for the private respondent on the premise that the private respondent, Tourist
World Service, Inc., being the true lessee, it was within its prerogative to terminate the lease and
padlock the premises. It likewise found the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, to be a mere employee of said Tourist
World Service, Inc. and as such, she was bound by the acts of her employer. The respondent Court of
Appeal rendered an affirmance.

In this jurisdiction, there has been no uniform test to determine the evidence of an employer-employee
relation. In general, we 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." Subsequently, however, we have considered, 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, in determining the existence of an employer-employee
relationship.

the Decision promulgated on January 23, 1975 as well as the Resolution issued on July 31, 1975, by the
respondent Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The private respondent, Tourist World
Service, Inc., and Eliseo Canilao, are ORDERED jointly and severally to indemnify the petitioner, Lina
Sevilla, the sum of 25,00.00 as and for moral damages, the sum of P10,000.00, as and for exemplary
damages, and the sum of P5,000.00, as and for nominal and/or temperate damages

*SMC v MAERC GR 144672 07-10-2003

(EER is a question of law and a question of fact)

* GR 152459 06-15-2006 Very Important (might ask)

Similar with trilateral relationship/ Who’s the employer in Company in as much as the power of
Company. Control test is not applied. Company B is the employer

*GR 148508 05-20-2004

* Crystal Shipping Et al v Natividad GR 154798 10-20-2005

5. The persons employment status is not affected if he participated in strike or lock out.

6. When may a person who is not at work is considered as an employee.

Best answer daw..

1. If an employee has been illegally terminated or suspended, he remains to be an employee;

2. Under preventive suspension (immediate executory) and suspended as form of penalty (distinguish
the two)

7. Its necessary to physically control on how the work is done. Ans. NO (Aurora) It is enough that the
power is preserved.

8. WON nurses, doctors and lawyers are considered employees. You have to qualify.

When may a without just cause or due process may justitied termination?

*Ans: The termination is justified if it involves expiration of employment contract,

Generally: when it is illegally person. Is entitled Reinstatement and full backwagesand separation pay

When may an illegally dismissed person entitled to reinstatement, full backwages and separation pay.

*OFW, Sec 10 RA

When employment relationship is suspended? Note. No termination it is merely suspended.

 In cases of preventive suspension,

 If the employee is in floating status (Art 286) eg security guard, and janitors
(take not of the rules on floating status employee) mag.formulate cxag question ani

May a Labor tribunal assume jurisdiction over a case involving parties who do not stand in the
proximate relationship of the Employer and employee?

 Answer: Labor dispute (define)

 EG. Picketing, the ee of the contractor wanted to be regular ee of the clients and member of
the Union, for them to be part of the agency’s ee. This is an example of a labor dispute.
Hence, the regular court has no jurisdiction, it is a labor tribunal.

Piercing the Viel of Corporate Fiction

Management Perogative

 What are the limitations.. eg collective Bargaining.

Offense for the violation: unfair labor practise

What is the charteristic of International Labor Organization?

ILO sets minimum standard of the basic labor rights

** Tripartism, it is composed not only of government representatives but also of employers and workers
organizations: a popular participation in national policy-making by those 3 mentioned.
** Philippines meembershi:L June 26, 1945 signed as a member June 15, 1948

 Take note of the def of social justice, reason or aim, purpose, what is the basis on enacting
the labor code (police power)

Art. 4 in general and what is the exception.

GR: All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this code, including its
implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of the labor

EXPN: when the employer creates the doubt.

MGM’t prerogative:

1. right ot return of investment, prescribe rules, select employees. Transfer or discharges EE.

RE: transfer or discharge: The ER has right, provided the transfer or dismissal is not abused but is done in
good faith and is due to causes beyond control.

What is the operative act doctrine and ultra vires act.

RR to become valid it must be published to bind the public.

By whom: BY DOLE, and other govt agencies charged with the administration and enforcement:

The RR shall become effective 15 days after announcement of their adoption in newspaper of genereal
circulation.

When the RR which are not published but considered valid?

GOCC with original charter ( have the right to form a union and self-organization) and GOCC
incorporated under Corporation COde

** Government corporation created by congress are subject to Civil Service rules (RTC) , while those
incorporated under the general Corporation law are covered by the Labor Code (NLRC).

Name Hire (def) , gender sensitivity

Distinction of Private Employment Entity and Priv Recruitment Entity

Who can engage recruitment and placement?

Who are qualified to participate in the overseas employment program

Who are disqualified “””””””””””

When is it considered valid even when there’s no approval of the POEA. Note: (Employment contract
of an OFW maybe valid if theres an approval of the POEA otherwise its is invalid.)
What is the percentage of foreign remittances (*performing artist)?

Joint and the solidary liaibility of the local and