1. SALAZAR V.
PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS, Thus, Duplicators was ordered to pay an indemnity of
INC., AND/OR FONTANILLA
FACTS
Petitioner Estrellita Salazar became Sales
Representative of respondent company, Philippine
Duplicators, Inc. on May 1, 1987. She was assigned at
the Southern Section of Metro Manila under the direct
supervision of respondent Leonora Fontanilla. Petitioner
received her last compensation in the amount of PhP
14,095.73 which covered her basic salary and monthly
commission.
Petitioner alleged that on December 7, 1998,
respondent Fontanilla called her to the latter’s office
and handed her a memorandum with a ball pen
requesting her to receive it. Petitioner refused to
receive it because it stated her termination from
employment and asked Fontanilla why she should be
terminated as she had done nothing wrong.
On December 9, 1998, respondent Fontanilla directed
Salazar, through a memorandum to explain, within 72
hours from receipt of said document, why no
disciplinary action should be taken against her in
violation of Section 8, Category V of the company’s
Handbook on Constructive Discipline for “falsifying
company records”.
On December 8, 1999, Labor Arbiter Manuel R. Caday
rendered his Decision finding that petitioner’s dismissal
was for a just cause, but respondent Duplicators
breached the twin-notice requirement for dismissal
under Section 2 (c), Rule XXIII, Book V of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code.
PhP 10,000.00 to petitioner Salazar.
On January 26, 2000, Salazar filed a Memorandum of
Appeal from the adverse Decision. On August 28, 2000,
the NLRC decided the appeal finding that there was
actually no termination of Salazar’s employment but
considering that reinstatement was not advisable due to
the strained relationship between the parties,
separation pay was ordered paid to petitioner in lieu of
reinstatement.
The CA AFFIRMED the decision of the NLRC with
modification. The dismissal of the petitioner is perforce
declared lawful and valid. Nonetheless, as a measure of
compassion and social justice, she is hereby
pronounced entitled to separation pay equivalent to one
month’s salary for every year of service rendered.
Simply stated, the CA ruled that the termination of
Salazar’s employment was legal and valid. While the
dismissed employee was not entitled to separation pay,
the CA nonetheless awarded severance pay pursuant to
settled jurisprudence and in the interest of social
justice. Lastly, it ruled that there was no breach of the
due process requirements prescribed for dismissal from
employment.
Under Petition for Review on Certiorari is before SC,
Salazar contends that NLRC should not have deleted the
award of indemnity of PhP 10,000.00 in her favor since
both Duplicators and Fontanilla did not interpose any
appeal from the Decision of Labor Arbiter Manuel Caday
and hence, no affirmative relief could be granted to said
respondents.
ISSUE
Whether or not the NLRC could validly delete the award
of indemnity in Salazar’s favor since respondents did
not appeal.
HELD
As a general rule, “a party who has not appealed cannot
obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief
other than the ones granted in the appealed decision.”
The reason for this rule is that since parties did not
appeal from the decision or resolution, they are
presumed to be satisfied with the adjudication.
Furthermore, Rule 141 on Legal Fees provides that if
the fee is not paid, then “the court may refuse to
proceed with the action until they are paid and may
dismiss the appeal or the action or proceeding.” The
case or appeal is deemed filed only upon payment of
the docket or appeal fee considering that jurisdiction is
acquired by the court over the case or the appeal only
upon full payment of the prescribed fee. Thus, the court
has no jurisdiction or authority to grant affirmative
relief to the party who did not appeal as there is no
obligation to pay any fee. Furthermore, in the interest
of fairness, it would not be proper and just to award
affirmative relief to the appellees since they did not
comply with the requirements of appeal. In this case,
Rule VI, Section 3 of the NLRC Rules of Procedure
[2000] prescribes the following:
Section 3. REQUISITES FOR PERFECTION OF APPEAL. a)
The Appeal shall be filed within the reglementary period
as provided in Section 1 of this Rule; shall be under
oath with proof of payment of the required appeal fee
and the posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in
Section 6 of this Rule; shall be accompanied by
memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds
relied upon and the arguments in support thereof; the
relief prayed for; and a statement of the date when the
appellant received the appealed decision, order or
award and proof of service on the other party of such
appeal.
Complying with these specifications is a difficult and
tedious process, specifically the posting of cash or
surety bond. It would be discriminatory and inequitable
if a party who has not complied with these requirements
will be granted affirmative relief.
In the instant case, did the NLRC violate the rule in
labor cases that an appellee cannot be awarded any
affirmative relief?
We find no deviation from the doctrine.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioner Salazar’s
dismissal was for a just cause but discovered an
infraction of the two-notice requirement on the
dismissal of an employee for which he ordered
Duplicators to pay the indemnity of PhP 10,000.00 to
Salazar. However, on petitioner’s appeal, the NLRC
believed that there was after all no dismissal of
petitioner Salazar but due to strained relationship, the
company was made to pay separation pay of PhP
14,095.73 instead of paying the indemnity of PhP
10,000.00 imposed by the Labor Arbiter. It is the
deletion of the PhP 10,000.00 indemnity that is being
assailed by the petitioner as a grant of affirmative relief
to respondent Duplicators.
We are not persuaded.

Petitioner’s first ground in her Memorandum of Appeal
before the NLRC stated that Labor Arbiter Caday’s
ruling–that she was not illegally dismissed was
“erroneous.” In resolving this issue, the NLRC
overturned Caday’s finding of petitioner’s valid
dismissal, and instead concluded that there was no
termination of petitioner’s employment. As a receive P12,000.00 as retirement pay. Paz, with two
consequence, the NLRC had to recall the award of PhP
10,000.00 indemnity imposed by Arbiter Caday
although not prayed for by respondent Duplicators since
the said award was inconsistent with the finding that
petitioner’s employment subsisted. Without petitioner’s
dismissal, there can be no legal basis for the indemnity;
hence, Duplicators is not obliged to comply with the two
(2)–notice requirement. In annulling the award, the
NLRC merely exercised its authority under Article 218
(d) of the Labor Code to correct or amend any error
committed by a labor arbiter in aid of its exclusive
appellate jurisdiction. Petitioner has no reason to
complain that she was deprived of monetary benefits
since the NLRC’s Decision did not actually benefit
Duplicators as the PhP 14,095.76 separation pay
granted to petitioner is certainly greater than the PhP
10,000.00 indemnity deleted by the NLRC.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the March 15,
2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals and the August 7,
2002 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 62556 are
AFFIRMED.
2. PAZ v. NORTHERN TOBACCO REDRYING CO.8
Facts:
Zenaida Paz filed this Petition praying that "the
computation of Petitioner's Retirement Pay as
determined by the National Labor Relations Commission
in its Decision dated 08 December 2008 be reinstated."
On May 18, 2003, Paz was 63 years old when NTRCI
informed her that she was considered retired under
company policy. A year later, NTRCI told her she would
other complainants, filed a Complaint for illegal
dismissal against NTRCI on March 4, 2004. She
amended her Complaint on April 27, 2004 into a
Complaint for payment of retirement benefits, damages,
and attorney's fees as P12,000.00 seemed inadequate
for her 29 years of service. NTRCI countered that no
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) existed between
NTRCI and its workers. Thus, it computed the
retirement pay of its seasonal workers based on Article
287 of the Labor Code. NTRCI raised the requirement of
at least six months of service a year for that year to be
considered in the retirement pay computation. The
Labor Arbiter in his Decision dated July 26, 2005
"[c]onfirm[ed] that the correct retirement pay of
Zenaida M. Paz [was] ?12,487.50." The National Labor
Relations Commission in its Decision[18] dated
December 8, 2008 modified the Labor Arbiter's
Decision. It likewise denied reconsideration. The Court
of Appeals in its Decision[20] dated May 25, 2011
dismissed the Petition and modified the National Labor
Relations Commission's Decision in that "financial
assistance is awarded to . . . Zenaida Paz in the amount
of P60,356.25" Since the exact number of days
petitioner Paz would have worked between May 18,
2003 until she would turn 65 in 2005 could not be
determined with specificity, this court thus awards full
backwages in the amount of P22,200.00 computed by
multiplying P185.00 by 20 days, then by... three
months, then by two years.
There was no showing that respondent NTRCI complied
with these due process requisites. Thus, consistent
with jurisprudence, petitioner Paz should be awarded
P30,000.00 as nominal damages.
Issues:
Both parties appear to agree on petitioner Paz's
entitlement to retirement pay. The issue before this
court involves its proper computation. We also resolve
whether there was illegal dismissal.
Ruling:
Again, petitioner Paz never abandoned her argument of
illegal dismissal despite the amendment of her
Complaint. This implied lack of intent to retire until she
reached the compulsory age of 65. Thus, she should be
considered as illegally dismissed from May 18, 2003...
until she reached the compulsory retirement age of 65
in 2005 and should be entitled to full backwages for this
period.
Based on these factual findings, retirement pay
pursuant to Article 287 of the Labor Code was correctly
computed at P12,487.50 and was awarded to petitioner
Paz.
Principles:
In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement
providing for retirement benefits of employees in the
establishment, an employee upon reaching the age of
sixty (60) years or more, but not beyond sixty-five (65)
years which is hereby declared the compulsory...
retirement age, who has served at least five (5) years
in the said establishment, may retire and shall be
entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least one-half
(1/2) month salary for every year of service, a fraction
of at least six (6) months being considered as one...
whole year.
INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA
EMPLOYEES’ UNION (IBAA-EU), petitioner,
vs. HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, and IBAA,
respondents.
G.R. No. L-52415; October 23, 1984
FACTS:
The Department of Labor promulgated the rules and
regulations for the implementation of holidays with pay.
The controversial section thereof reads: “Sec. 2. Status
of employees paid by the month. — Employees who are
uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the number
of working days therein, with a salary of not less than
the statutory or established minimum wage shall be
presumed to be paid for all days in the month whether
worked or not. For this purpose, the monthly minimum
wage shall not be less than the statutory minimum
wage multiplied by 365 days divided by twelve”
Later, Policy Instruction No. 9 was issued by the then
Secretary of Labor interpreting the above-quoted rule,
pertinent portions of which read:
“xxx xxx xxx
The ten (10) paid legal holidays law, to start with, is
intended to benefit principally daily employees. In the
case of monthly, only those whose monthly salary did
not yet include payment for the ten (10) paid legal
holidays are entitled to the benefit.”
Respondent IBAA by reason of the ruling laid down by
the aforecited rule implementing Article 94 of the Labor
Code and by Policy Instruction No. 9, stopped the
payment of holiday pay to all its employees.
Writ of execution of the previously decided case for
them to be paid their holiday pay was filed by the
petitioner. Labor arbiter and NLRC ruled in their favor.
IBAA filed an MR to the Office of the Minister of Labor
which set aside the decision of NLRC. Hence this
petition.
ISSUE:
WON holiday pay does not apply to monthly- paid
employees.
HELD:
No.
Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the implementing rules
and Policy Instruction No. 9 issued by the then
Secretary of Labor are null and void since in the guise
of clarifying the Labor Code’s provisions on holiday pay,
they in effect amended them by enlarging the scope of
their exclusion.
The provisions of the Labor Code on the entitlement to
the benefits of holiday pay are clear and explicit – it
provides for both the coverage of and exclusion from
the benefits. In Policy Instruction No. 9, the then
Secretary of Labor went as far as to categorically state
that the benefit is principally intended for daily paid
employees, when the law clearly states that every
worker shall be paid their regular holiday pay.
Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Phil. v.
Zamora
Facts:
The petitioners are workers who have been employed at
the San Miguel Parola Glass Factory as “pahinantes” or
“kargadors” for almost seven years. They worked
exclusively at the SMC plant, never having been
assigned to other companies or departments of San
Miguel Corp, even when the volume of work was at its
minimum. Their work was neither regular nor
continuous, depending on the volume of bottles to be
loaded and unloaded, as well as the business activity of
the company. However, work exceeded the eight-hour
day and sometimes, necessitated work on Sundays and
holidays. -for this, they were neither paid overtime nor
compensation.
Sometime in 1969, the workers organized and affiliated
themselves with Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement
(BLUM). They wanted to be paid to overtime and
holiday pay. They pressed the SMC management to
hear their grievances. BLUM filed a notice of strike with
the Bureau of Labor Relations in connection with the
dismissal of some of its members. San Miguel refused
to bargain with the union alleging that the workers are
not their employees but the employees of an
independent labor contracting firm, Guaranteed Labor
Contractor.
The workers were then dismissed from their jobs and
denied entrance to the glass factory despite their
regularly reporting for work. A complaint was filed for
illegal dismissal and unfair labor practices.
Issue:
Whether or not there was employer-employee (ER-
EE)relationship between the workers and San Miguel
Corp.
Held:
YES. In determining if there is an existence of the (ER-
EE) relationship, the four-fold test was used by the
Supreme Court. These are:
· The selection and engagement of the employee
· Payment of wages
· Power of dismissal
· Control Test- the employer’s power to control the
employee with respect to the means and methods by
which work is to be accomplished
In the case, the records fail to show that San Miguel
entered into mere oral agreements of employment with
the workers. Considering the length of time that the
petitioners have worked with the company, there is
justification to conclude that they were engaged to
perform activities necessary in the usual business or
trade. Despite past shutdowns of the glass plant, the
workers promptly returned to their jobs. The term of
the petitioner’s employment appears indefinite and the
continuity and habituality of the petitioner’s work
bolsters the claim of an employee status.
As for the payment of the workers’ wages, the
contention that the independent contractors were paid a
lump sum representing only the salaries the workers
where entitled to have no merit. The amount paid by
San Miguel to the contracting firm is no business
expense or capital outlay of the latter. What the
contractor receives is a percentage from the total
earnings of all the workers plus an additional amount
from the earnings of each individual worker.
The power of dismissal by the employer was evident
when the petitioners had already been refused entry to
the premises. It is apparent that the closure of the
warehouse was a ploy to get rid of the petitioners, who
were then agitating the company for reforms and
benefits.
The inter-office memoranda submitted in evidence
prove the company’s control over the workers. That San
Miguel has the power to recommend penalties or
dismissal is the strongest indication of the company’s
right of control over the workers as direct employer.
*SC ordered San Miguel to reinstate the petitioners with
3 years backwages.
LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION V. CA
GR. NO. 112139; JAN. 31, 2000
FACTS: Commando Security Service Agency provided
security guards to Lapanday Agricultural Development
Corporation under a contract of service. Subsequently,
a wage order was issued, with the stipulation that the
increase in wages for security services would be borne
by the client/principal, in this case Lapanday. The latter
refused to amend the contract to conform to the wage
order, and the said contract ran through its natural life
and expired, without the required adjustments having
been made. The security agency then filed a case for
the collection of a sum of money with the regional Trial
Court that had jurisdiction over the case. Lapanday
opposed, stating the NLRC was the proper forum for the
case.
ISSUE: Where is the proper venue of the case, the RTC
or the NLRC?
HELD: The RTC. There was no employer-employee
relationship in this case, since Commando simply
sought to collect a sum of money and damages for
breach of contract. The service contract had long since
expired. Hence, reference must be made to the Civil,
not Labor Code.
9. ALEJANDRO MARAGUINOT, JR. AND PAUILINO
ENERO v. NLRC, VIC DEL ROSARIO, VIVA FILMS
GR No. 120969
Facts:
Maraguinot and Enero were separately hired by Vic Del
Rosario under Viva Films as part of the filming crew.
Sometime in May 1992, sought the assistance of their
supervisor to facilitate their request that their salary be
adjusted in accordance with the minimum wage law.
On June 1992, Mrs. Cesario, their supervisor, told them
that Mr. Vic Del Rosario would agree to their request
only if they sign a blank employment contract.
Petitioners refused to sign such document. After which,
the Mr. Enero was forced to go on leave on the same
month and refused to take him back when he reported
for work. Mr. Maraguinot on the other hand was
dropped from the payroll but was returned days after.
He was again asked to sign a blank employment
contract but when he refused, he was terminated.
Consequently, the petitioners sued for illegal dismissal
before the Labor Arbiter. The private respondents claim
the following: (a) that VIVA FILMS is the trade name of
VIVA PRODUCTIONS, INC. and that it was primarily
engaged in the distribution & exhibition of movies- but
not then making of movies; (b) That they hire
contractors called “producers” who act as independent
contractors as that of Vic Del Rosario; and (c) As such,
there is no employee-employer relation between
petitioners and private respondents.
The Labor Arbiter held that the complainants are
employees of the private respondents. That the
producers are not independent contractor but should be
considered as labor-only contractors and as such act as
mere agent of the real employer. Thus, the said
employees are illegally dismissed.
The private respondents appealed to the NLRC which
reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter declaring that
the complainants were project employees due to the ff.
reasons: (a) Complainants were hired for specific movie
projects and their employment was co-terminus with
each movie project; (b)The work is dependent on the
availability of projects. As a result, the total working
hours logged extremely varied; (c) The extremely
irregular working days and hours of complainants work
explains the lump sum payment for their service; and
(d) The respondents alleged that the complainants are
not prohibited from working with other movie
companies whenever they are not working for the
independent movie producers engaged by the
respondents.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by the
complainants but was denied by NLRC. In effect, they
filed an instant petition claiming that NLRC committed a
grave abuse of discretion in: (a) Finding that petitioners
were project employees; (b) Ruling that petitioners
were not illegally dismissed; and (c) Reversing the
decision of the Labor Arbiter.
In the instant case, the petitioners allege that the NLRC
acted in total disregard of evidence material or decisive
of the controversy.
Issues:
(a) W/N there exist an employee- employer relationship
between the petitioners and the private respondents.
(b) W/N the private respondents are engaged in the
business of making movies.
(c) W/N the producer is a job contractor.
Held:
There exist an employee- employer relationship
between the petitioners and the private respondents
because of the ff. reasons that nowhere in the
appointment slip does it appear that it was the producer
who hired the crew members. Moreover, it was VIVA’s
corporate name appearing on heading of the slip. It can
likewise be said that it was VIVA who paid for the
petitioners’ salaries.
Respondents also admit that the petitioners were part
of a work pool wherein they attained the status of
regular employees because of the ff. requisites: (a)
There is a continuous rehiring of project employees
even after cessation of a project; (b) The tasks
performed by the alleged “project employees” are vital,
necessary and indispensable to the usual business or
trade of the employer; and (c) However, the length of
time which the employees are continually re-hired is not
controlling but merely serves as a badge of regular
employment.
Since the producer and the crew members are
employees of VIVA and that these employees’ works
deal with the making of movies. It can be said that
VIVA is engaged of making movies and not on the mere
distribution of such.
The producer is not a job contractor because of the ff.
reasons: (Sec. Rule VII, Book III of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code.)
a. A contractor carries on an independent business and
undertakes the contract work on his own account under
his own responsibility according to his own manner and
method, free from the control and direction of his
employer or principal in all matters connected with the
performance of the work except as to the results
thereof. The said producer has a fix time frame and
budget to make the movies.
b. The contractor should have substantial capital and
materials necessary to conduct his business. The said
producer, Del Rosario, does not have his own tools,
equipment, machinery, work premises and other
materials to make motion pictures. Such materials were
provided by VIVA.
It can be said that the producers are labor-only
contractors. Under Article 106 of the Labor Code
(reworded) where the contractor does not have the
requisites as that of the job contractors.
10. Air Material Wing Savings and Loan Association, Inc.
vs NLRC
Luis S. Salas was appointed "notarial and legal counsel"
for Air Material Wings Savings and Loan Association,
Inc. (AMWSLAI) in 1980. The appointment was renewed
for three years in an implementing order dated January
23, 1987, reading as follows:
SUBJECT: Implementing Order on the Reappointment of
the Legal Officer
TO: ATTY. LUIS S. SALAS
Per approval of the Board en banc in a regular meeting
held on January 21, 1987, you are hereby reappointed
as Notarial and Legal Counsel of this association for a
term of three (3) years effective March 1, 1987, unless
sooner terminated from office for cause or as may be
deemed necessary by the Board for the interest and
protection of the association.
Aside from notarization of loan & other legal
documents, your duties and responsibilities are hereby
enumerated in the attached sheet, per Articles IX,
Section 1-d of the by-laws and those approved by the
Board en banc.
Your monthly compensation/retainer's fee remains the
same.
This shall form part of your 201 file.
BY AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD:
LUVIN S. MANAY
President & Chief of the Board
AMWSLAI also defined some of his duties, as follows:
1. To act on all legal matters pertinent to his Office.
2. To seek remedies to effect collection of overdue
accounts of members without prejudice to initiating
court action to protect the interest of the association.
3. To defend by all means all suit against the interest of
the Association.
On January 9, 1990, the company issued another order
reminding Salas of the approaching termination of his
legal services under their contract. This prompted Salas
to file a complaint with NLRC against AMWSLAI for
separation pay, vacation and sick leave benefits, cost of
living allowances, refund of SSS premiums, moral and
exemplary damages, payment of notarial services and
attorney's fees.
AMWSLAI moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The
company held that there was no employer-employee
relationship and that Salas’ monetary claims properly
fell within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. They
contended that the NLRC is not empowered to
adjudicate claims for notarial fees
Issue: Whether or not an employee-employer
relationship exists between AMWSLAI and Atty. Salas
Ruling:
Employee-employer relationship exists. The Labor
Arbiter has jurisdiction over money claims arising out of
or in connection with the employer-employee
relationship or some aspect or incident of such
relationship.
The terms and conditions set out in the letter-contract
entered by the parties show that Salas was an
employee of AMWSLAI. His selection as the company
counsel was done by the board of directors in one of its
regular meetings. The company paid him a monthly
compensation/retainer's fee for his services. Though his
appointment was for a fixed term of three years, the
employer reserved its power of dismissal for cause or as
it might deem necessary. AMWSLAI also exercised its
power of control over Salas by defining his duties and
functions.
The two classes of lawyers
The Court quoted an earlier case Hydro Resources
Contractors Corp. v. Pagalilauan:
A lawyer, like any other professional, may very well be
an employee of a private corporation or even of the
government. It is not unusual for a big corporation to
hire a staff of lawyers as its in-house counsel, pay them
regular salaries, rank them in its table of organization,
and otherwise treat them like its other officers and
employees. At the same time, it may also contract with
a law firm to act as outside counsel on a retainer basis.
The two classes of lawyers often work closely together
but one group is made up of employees while the other
is not. A similar arrangement may exist as to doctors,
nurses, dentists, public relations practitioners and other
professionals.
11. 12. Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the
Phil. v. Zamora

Facts:
The petitioners are workers who have
been employed at the San Miguel
Parola Glass Factory as “pahinantes” or
“kargadors” for almost seven years.
They worked exclusively at the SMC
plant, never having been assigned to
other companies or departments of
San Miguel Corp, even when the
volume of work was at its minimum.
Their work was neither regular nor
continuous, depending on the volume
of bottles to be loaded and unloaded,
as well as the business activity of the
company. However, work exceeded the
eight-hour day and sometimes,
necessitated work on Sundays and
holidays. -for this, they were neither
paid overtime nor compensation.
Sometime in 1969, the workers
organized and affiliated themselves
with Brotherhood Labor Unity
Movement (BLUM). They wanted to be
paid to overtime and holiday pay. They
pressed the SMC management to hear
their grievances. BLUM filed a notice of
strike with the Bureau of Labor
Relations in connection with the
dismissal of some of its members. San
Miguel refused to bargain with the
union alleging that the workers are not
their employees but the employees of
an independent labor contracting firm,
Guaranteed Labor Contractor.
The workers were then dismissed from their jobs and
denied entrance to the glass factory despite their
regularly reporting for work. A complaint was filed for
illegal dismissal and unfair labor practices.
Issue:
Whether or not there was employer-employee (ER-
EE)relationship between the workers and San Miguel
Corp.
Held:
YES. In determining if there is an existence of the (ER-
EE) relationship, the four-fold test was used by the
Supreme Court. These are:
· The selection and engagement of the employee
· Payment of wages
· Power of dismissal
· Control Test- the employer’s power to control the
employee with respect to the means and methods by
which work is to be accomplished
In the case, the records fail to show that San Miguel
entered into mere oral agreements of employment with
the workers. Considering the length of time that the
petitioners have worked with the company, there is
justification to conclude that they were engaged to
perform activities necessary in the usual business or
trade. Despite past shutdowns of the glass plant, the
workers promptly returned to their jobs. The term of
the petitioner’s employment appears indefinite and the
continuity and habituality of the petitioner’s work
bolsters the claim of an employee status.
As for the payment of the workers’ wages, the
contention that the independent contractors were paid a
lump sum representing only the salaries the workers
where entitled to have no merit. The amount paid by
San Miguel to the contracting firm is no business
expense or capital outlay of the latter. What the
contractor receives is a percentage from the total
earnings of all the workers plus an additional amount
from the earnings of each individual worker.
The power of dismissal by the employer was evident
when the petitioners had already been refused entry to
the premises. It is apparent that the closure of the
warehouse was a ploy to get rid of the petitioners, who
were then agitating the company for reforms and
benefits.
The inter-office memoranda submitted in evidence
prove the company’s control over the workers. That San
Miguel has the power to recommend penalties or
dismissal is the strongest indication of the company’s
right of control over the workers as direct employer.
*SC ordered San Miguel to reinstate the petitioners with
3 years backwages.
13. Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc. vs. Maalat
Nature of the Case
A petition for certiorari seeking to annul the decision of
NLRC that there exists employer-employee relationship
between the parties.
Facts
Maalat was engaged sometime in 1962 as a
“supervisor” selling funeral services and was paid by
petitioner Cosmo on commission basis for the amounts
he has collected and remitted. Maalat was dismissed on
15 January 1987 for violation of certain conditions
despite him being
forewarned. He thereafter filed a complaint of
illegal dismissal seeking for payment of his
commissions which was granted by the labor
arbiter, ordering petitioner to pay separation pay,
commission, interests and attorneys fees totaling to P
205,571.52. On appeal before the NLRC, the labor
arbiters decision was modified declaring the dismissal of
Maalat as valid and remanding the case to the Regional
Arbitration in consideration of his monetary claims
in accordance with NLRCs decision over the case,
which has ordered petitioner to pay Maalat
separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2%) month
average income for every year of service by way of
equitable relief and in the interest of social and
compassionate justice. Petioners motion for
reconsideration was fatal. Thus, this petition.
Issue(s)
(1). Is there employer-employee (E2e) relationship
between the parties?
(2). Is there equitable basis for the separation pay?
Held
(1). Yes.
Pertinent to determining E2e relationship is the
right of control test. Under this test, an employer-
employee relationship exists where the person for
whom the services are performed reserves the right to
control not only the end to be achieved, but also the
manner and means to be used in reaching that end.
The petitioners’ argument that Maalat’s work is
approximated to that of an independent contractor is
bereft of merit for the facts, as aptly considered by
NLRC, disclose that: (1) petitioner failed to overcome
NLRCs factual finding that E2e relationship existed; (2)
that it had prohibitive rules which subject Maalat to
control despite petitioner’s allegation that these rules
had no direct bearing on the means and methods
ordinarily required of a supervisor; (3) petitioner failed
to show proof that indeed a mere contract of agency
existed; that in fact Maalat needs to be on the job most
of the time as people die at all times of the day or
night; and (4) Maalat was covered as an employee
under the SSS. All of which satisfy the control test.
Maalat, paid on commission basis, does not belie his
status was not an employee.
(2). No.
The Court cannot disturb the findings of NLRC that
Maalat was indeed dishonest in the discharge of his
duties. Additionally, Maalat did not appeal NLRC’s
decision that he was validly dismissed, thereby
impliedly accepting the validity of his dismissal. Thus,
the court takes exception on the award of separation
pay.
A grant for separation pay to employee who has been
validly dismissed for dishonesty finds no legal basis. As
held in PLDT vs. NLRC:
“[S]eparation pay shall be allowed as a measure of
social justice only in those instances where the
employee is validly dismissed for causes other than
serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral
character. Where the reason for the valid dismissal is,
for example, habitual intoxication or an offense
involving moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual
relations with a fellow worker, the employer may
not be required to give the dismissed employee
separation pay, or financial assistance, or whatever
other name it is called, on the ground of social justice.
A contrary rule would, as the petitioner correctly
argues, have the effect of rewarding rather than
punishing the erring
employee for his offense. xxx
The policy of social justice is not intended to
countenance wrongdoing simply because it is
committed by the underprivileged. At best it may
mitigate the penalty but it certainly will not condone the
offense. Compassion for the poor is an imperative of
every humane society but only when the recipient is not
a rascal claiming an undeserved privilege”. xxx
The further proceedings conducted by the labor arbiter
computing the separation pay and unpaid commission
of Maalat is hereby modified, ordering petitioner to pay
only the unpaid commissions of Maalat and 2% interest
for interest attorneys fees.
15. Insular Life Assurance v. NLRC and Melecio
Basiao (G.R. No. 84484)
Facts:
Petitioner Insular Life entered into a contract with
respondent Basiao where the latter is authorized to
solicit for insurance policies. Sometime later, the parties
entered into another contract which caused Basiao to
organize an agency in order to fulfill its terms. The
contract being subsequently terminated by petitioner,
Basiao sued the latter which prompted also for the
termination of their engagement under the first
contract. Basiao thus filed before the Ministry of Labor
seeking to recover alleged unpaid commissions.
Petitioner contends that Basiao is not an employee but
an independent contractor for which they have no
obligation to pay said commissions. The Labor Arbiter
found for Basiao ruling that there exists employer-
employee relationship between him and petitioner.
NLRC affirmed.
Issue:
Whether or not employer-employee relationship existed
between petitioner and Basiao.
Ruling: NO.
In determining the existence of employer-employee
relationship, the following elements are generally
considered, namely: (1) the selection and engagement
of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the
power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the
employees’ conduct — although the latter is the most
important element. It should, however, be obvious that
not every form of control that the hiring party reserves
to himself over the conduct of the party hired in relation
to the services rendered may be accorded the effect of
establishing an employer-employee relationship
between them in the legal or technical sense of the
term.
Rules and regulations governing the conduct of the
business are provided for in the Insurance Code and
enforced by the Insurance Commissioner. It is,
therefore, usual and expected for an insurance company
to promulgate a set of rules to guide its commission
agents in selling its policies that they may not run afoul
of the law and what it requires or prohibits. None of
these really invades the agent’s contractual prerogative
to adopt his own selling methods or to sell insurance at
his own time and convenience, hence cannot justifiably
be said to establish an employer-employee relationship
between him and the company.
The Court, therefore, rules that under the contract
invoked by him, Basiao was not an employee of the
petitioner, but a commission agent, an independent
contractor whose claim for unpaid commissions should
have been litigated in an ordinary civil action.

14.
GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE
INSURANCE CO., GR No. 167622, 2008-11-07
Facts:
Manulife... is a domestic corporation
engaged in life insurance business. Vergel
De Dios... was, during the period
material, its President and Chief
Executive Officer. Tongko started his
professional... relationship with Manulife
on... by virtue of a Career Agent's
Agreement. In the Agreement, it is
provided that: It is understood and
agreed that the Agent is an independent
contractor and nothing contained herein
shall be construed or interpreted as
creating an employer-employee
relationship between the Company and
the Agent. In 1990, he became a Branch
Manager. The problem started... in 2001,
when Manulife instituted manpower
development programs. Relative thereto,
De Dios addressed a letter... regarding
Metro North Sales Managers Meeting
reduce your span of control.
Subsequently, De Dios wrote Tongko
another letter... terminating Tongko's
services. Tongko filed a Complaint... with
the NLRC against Manulife for illegal
dismissal. Tongko, in a bid to establish an
employer-employee relationship, alleged
that De Dios gave him specific directives
on how to manage his area of responsibility. He further
claimed that Manulife exercised control over... him as
follows: It was Manulife who hired, promoted and gave
various assignments to him. Manulife then filed a
Motion to Dismiss... in which it alleged that Tongko is
not its employee, and that it did not exercise "control"
over him. Labor Arbiter... dismissed the complaint for
lack of an employer-employee relationship. Tongko
appealed the arbiter's Decision to the NLRC which
reversed the same and... finding Tongko to have been
illegally dismissed. Manulife filed a motion for
reconsideration which was denied by the NLRC. Thus,
Manulife filed an appeal with the CA. Thereafter, the
CA... finding the absence of an employer-employee
relationship between the parties. Hence, Tongko filed
this petition
Issues:
Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion...
in finding that there is no employer-employee
relationship between petitioner and respondent.
Ruling:
This petition is meritorious.
Tongko Was An Employee of Manulife... if the specific
rules and regulations that are enforced against
insurance agents or managers are such that would
directly affect the means and methods by which such
agents or managers would achieve the objectives set by
the insurance company, they... are employees of the
insurance company.
In the instant case, Manulife had the power of control
over Tongko that would make him its employee. Several
factors contribute to this conclusion.
In the Agreement executed between Tongko and
Manulife, it is provided that:
The Agent hereby agrees to comply with all regulations
and requirements of the Company as herein provided as
well as maintain a standard of knowledge and
competency in the sale of the Company's products
which satisfies those set by the Company and
sufficiently meets... the volume of new business
required of Production Club membership.
Under this provision, an agent of Manulife must comply
with three (3) requirements: (1) compliance with the
regulations and requirements of the company; (2)
maintenance of a level of knowledge of the company's
products that is satisfactory to the company; and (3)
compliance with... a quota of new businesses.
Among the company regulations of Manulife are the
different codes of conduct such as the Agent Code of
Conduct, Manulife Financial Code of Conduct, and
Manulife Financial Code of Conduct Agreement, which
demonstrate the power of control exercised by the
company over
Tongko. The fact that Tongko was obliged to obey and
comply with the codes of conduct was not disowned by
respondents.
Thus, with the company regulations and requirements
alone, the fact that Tongko was an employee of
Manulife may already be established. Certainly, these
requirements controlled the means and methods by
which Tongko was to achieve the company's goals.
More importantly, Manulife's evidence establishes the
fact that Tongko was tasked to perform administrative
duties that establishes his employment with Manulife.
Additionally, it must be pointed out that the fact that
Facts:
Tongko was tasked with recruiting a certain number of
agents, in addition to his other administrative functions,
leads to no other conclusion that he was an employee of Respondent ABS-CBN signed an Agreement with the Mel
Manulife.
and Jay Management Development Corporation where
In his letter De Dios harped on the direction of Manulife
of becoming a major agency-led distribution company the latter agreed to provide petitioner Sonza’s services
whereby greater agency recruitment is required of the exclusively to ABS-CBN as talent for radio and
managers, including Tongko. De Dios made it clear that
agent recruitment has become the... primary means by television. Later, Sonza tendered a letter rescinding
which Manulife intends to sell more policies. More their agreement and filed a complaint before the DOLE
importantly, it is Tongko's alleged failure to follow this
principle of recruitment that led to the termination of for payment of his labor standard benefits. ABS-CBN
his employment with Manulife. With this, it is contends on the ground that no employer-employee
inescapable that Tongko was an employee of Manulife.
relationship existed between the parties. The Labor
Tongko Was Illegally Dismissed
Arbiter found for respondent citing that Sonza as a
Manulife... failed to cite a single iota of evidence to
‘talent’ cannot be considered an employee of petitioner.
support its claims. Manulife did not even point out
which order or rule that Tongko disobeyed. More Both NLRC and CA affirmed.
importantly, Manulife did not point out the... specific
acts that Tongko was guilty of that would constitute
gross and habitual neglect of duty or disobedience. Issue:
Manulife merely cited Tongko's alleged "laggard
performance," without substantiating such claim, and Whether or not employer-employee relationship existed
equated the same to disobedience and neglect of duty.
between petitioner and ABS-CBN.
To repeat, mere conjectures cannot work... to deprive
employees of their means of livelihood. Thus, it must be
concluded that Tongko was illegally dismissed. Ruling: NO.

Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (G.R. Applying the control test to the present case, we find
No. 138051) that SONZA is not an employee but an independent
contractor. The control test is the most important test
Date: August 12, 2016Author: jaicdn0 Comments
our courts apply in distinguishing an employee from an
independent Contractor. This test is based on the extent
of control the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater
the supervision and control the hirer exercises, the
more likely the worker is deemed an employee. The
converse holds true as well – the less control the hirer
merely guidelines towards the achievement of the
mutually desired result, which are top-rating television
and radio programs that comply with standards of the
industry.
Being an exclusive talent does not by itself mean that

exercises, the more likely the worker is considered an SONZA is an employee of ABS-CBN. Even an

independent contractor. independent contractor can validly provide his services

exclusively to the hiring party. In the broadcast
We find that ABS-CBN was not involved in the actual industry, exclusivity is not necessarily the same as
performance that produced the finished product of control.
SONZA’s work. ABS-CBN did not instruct SONZA how to
perform his job. ABS-CBN merely reserved the right to *Not every performance of services for a fee

modify the program format and airtime schedule “for creates an employer-employee relationship. To

more effective programming.” ABS-CBN’s sole concern hold that every person who renders services to

was the quality of the shows and their standing in the another for a fee is an employee – to give

ratings. Clearly, ABS-CBN did not exercise control over meaning to the security of tenure clause – will

the means and methods of performance of SONZA’s lead to absurd results.

work.
Dumpit-Murillo vs Court of Appeals
GR No. 164652 June 8, 2007
In any event, not all rules imposed by the hiring party
on the hired party indicate that the latter is an Facts: On October 2, 1995, under talent contract no.
NT95-1805, private respondent Associated Broadcasting
employee of the former. In this case, SONZA failed to
Company (ABC) hired petitioner Thelma Dumpit-Murillo
show that these rules controlled his performance. We as a newscaster and co-anchor of Balitang-Balita, an
early evening news program. The contract was for a
find that these general rules are
period of 3 months. It renewed under talent contract
nos. NT95-1915, NT96-3002, NT98-4984, and NT99-
5649. In addition, petitioner’s services were engaged
for the program “Live on Five.” On September 30, 1999,
after 4 years of repeated renewals, petitioner’s talent
contract expired. Two weeks after the expiration of the
last contract, petitioner sent a letter to Mr. Jose Javier,
Vice President for news and public affairs of ABC,
informing the latter that she was still interested in
renewing her contract subject to a salary increase,
thereafter, petitioner stopped reporting for work. On
November 5, 1999 she wrote Mr. Javier another letter.
Issue: Whether or not the continuous renewal of
petitioner’s talent contracts constitute regularity in the
employment status.
Held: Yes. An employer-employee relationship was
created when the private respondents started to merely
renew the contracts repeatedly 15 times for 4
consecutive years.
Petitioner was a regular employee under contemplation
of law. The practice of having fixed-term contracts in
the industry does not automatically make all talent
contracts valid and compliant with labor law. The
assertion that a talent contract exists does not
necessarily prevent a regular employment status.
The elements to determine the existence of an
employment relationship are: a.) The selection and
engagement of the employee; b.) The payment of
wages; c.) The power of dismissal; and d.) The
employer’s control of the employee’s conduct, not only
as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to
the means and methods to accomplish it.
The duties of petitioner as enumerated in her
employment contract indicate that ABC had control over
the work or petitioner. Aside from control, ABC also
dictated the work assignments and payment of
petitioner’s wages. ABC also had power to dismiss her.
All these being present, clearly there existed an
employment relationship between petitioner and ABC.
Concerning regular employment, the law provides for 2
kinds of employees, namely: 1.) Those who are
engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade 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.
In other words, regular status arises from either the
nature of work of the employee or the duration of his
employment.
The primary standard of determining regular
employment is the reasonable connection between the
particular activity performed by the employee vis-a-vis
the usual trade or business of the employer. This
connection can be determined by considering the nature
of the work performed and its relation to the scheme of
the particular business or trade in its entirety. If the
employee has been performing the job for at least a
year, even if the performance is not continuous and
merely intermittent, the law deems repeated and
continuing need for its performance as sufficient
evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that
activity to the business.
FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S.
ESPIRITU, GR No. 204944-45, 2014-12-03
Facts:
Arlene S. Espiritu ("Arlene") was engaged by Fuji
Television Network, Inc. ("Fuji") as a news
correspondent/producer[4] "tasked to report Philippine
news to Fuji through its Manila Bureau field office."[5]
Arlene's employment... contract initially provided for a
term of one (1) year but was successively renewed on a
yearly basis with salary adjustment upon every
renewal.[6]
Arlene was diagnosed with lung cancer.[7] She
informed Fuji about her condition. In turn, the Chief of
News Agency of Fuji, Yoshiki Aoki, informed Arlene "that
the company will have a problem renewing her
contract"[8] since it would be difficult for her to perform
her job.[9] She "insisted that she was still fit to work as
certified by her attending physician.
Arlene and Fuji signed a non-renewal contract... the day
after Arlene signed the non-renewal contract, she filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal
She alleged that she was forced to sign the... non-
renewal contract when Fuji came to know of her illness
and that Fuji withheld her salaries and other benefits
Labor Arbiter Corazon C. Borbolla dismissed Arlene's
complaint... rlene appealed before the National Labor
Relations Commission.
the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the
Labor Arbiter's decision.[21] It held that Arlene was a
regular employee with respect to the activities... for
which she was employed since she continuously
rendered services that were deemed necessary and
desirable to Fuji's business.
n the assailed decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the National Labor Relations Commission with the
modification that Fuji immediately reinstate Arlene to
her position as News Producer without loss of seniority
rights,
Issues:
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly determined that
no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the
National Labor Relations Commission when it ruled that
Arlene was a regular employee, not an independent
contractor, and that she was illegally dismissed; and
Whether the Court of Appeals properly modified the
National Labor Relations Commission's decision by
awarding reinstatement, damages, and attorney's fees
Ruling:
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the
National Labor Relations Commission's finding that
Arlene was a regular employee
Fuji alleges that Arlene was an independent contractor,
citing Sonza v. ABS-CBN and relying on the following
facts: (1) she was hired because of her skills; (2) her
salary was US$1,900.00, which is higher than the
normal rate; (3) she had the power to bargain with
her... employer; and (4) her contract was for a fixed
term.
Arlene argues that she was a regular employee because
Fuji had control and supervision over her work. The
news events that she covered were all based on the
instructions of Fuji.[142] She maintains that the
successive renewal of her employment contracts for...
four (4) years indicates that her work was necessary
and desirable.
On her illness, Arlene points out that it was not a
ground for her dismissal because her attending
physician certified that she was fit to work.[147]
Fuji's argument that Arlene was an independent
contractor under a fixed-term contract is contradictory.
Employees under fixed-term contracts cannot be
independent contractors because in fixed-term
contracts, an employer-employee relationship exists.
The test in this kind of... contract is not the necessity
and desirability of the employee's activities, "but the
day certain agreed upon by the parties for the
commencement and termination of the employment
relationship."[179] For regular employees, the necessity
and desirability of... their work in the usual course of
the employer's business are the determining fac... tors.
On the other hand, independent contractors do not have
employer-employee relationships with their principals.
Arlene was hired by Fuji as a news producer, but there
was no showing that she... was hired because of unique
skills that would distinguish her from ordinary
employees. Neither was there any showing that she had
a celebrity status. Her monthly salary amounting to
US$1,900.00 appears to be a substantial sum,
especially if compared to her salary when she was... still
connected with GMA.[199] Indeed, wages may indicate
whether one is an independent contractor. Wages may
also indicate that an employee is able to bargain with
the employer for better pay. However, wages should
not be the conclusive factor in... determining whether
one is an employee or an independent contractor.
Fuji had the power to dismiss Arlene, as provided for in
paragraph 5 of her professional employment
contract.[200] Her contract also indicated that Fuji had
control over her work because she was required to work
for eight (8) hours from Monday to Friday,... although
on flexible time.[201] Sonza was not required to work
for eight (8) hours, while Dumpit-Murillo had to be in
ABC to do both on-air and off-air tasks.
The expiration of Arlene's contract does not negate the
finding of illegal dismissal by Fuji. The manner by which
Fuji informed Arlene that her contract would no longer
be renewed is tantamount to constructive dismissal. To
make matters worse, Arlene was asked to sign a
letter... of resignation prepared by Fuji.[235] The
existence of a fixed-term contract should not mean that
there can be no illegal dismissal. Due process must still
be observed in the pre-termination of fixed-term
contracts of employment.
There is no evidence showing that Arlene was accorded
due process. After informing her employer of her lung
cancer, she was not given the chance to present
medical certificates. Fuji immediately concluded that
Arlene could no longer perform her duties because of
chemotherapy. It... did not ask her how her condition
would affect her work. Neither did it suggest for her to
take a leave, even though she was entitled to sick
leaves. Worse, it did not present any certificate from a
competent public health authority. What Fuji did was to
inform her that her... contract would no longer be
renewed, and when she did not agree, her salary was
withheld.
ell-entrenched is the rule that an illegally dismissed
employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of
right. . . .
To protect labor's security of tenure, we emphasize that
the doctrine of "strained relations" should be strictly
applied so as not to deprive an illegally dismissed
employee of his right to reinstatement. Every labor
dispute almost always results in "strained relations" and
the... phrase cannot be given an overarching
interpretation, otherwise, an unjustly dismissed
employee can never be reinstated.[245] (Citations
omitted)
The Court of Appeals reasoned that strained relations
are a question of fact that must be supported by
evidence.[246] No evidence was presented by Fuji to
prove that reinstatement was no longer feasible. Fuji
did not allege that it ceased operations or that
Arlene's position was no longer available. Nothing in the
records shows that Arlene's reinstatement would cause
an atmosphere of antagonism in the workplace. Arlene
filed her complaint in 2009. Five (5) years are not yet a
substantial period[247] to bar... reinstatement.
Principles:
It is the burden of the employer to prove that a person
whose services it pays for is an independent contractor
rather than a regular employee with or without a fixed
term. That a person has a disease does not per se
entitle the employer to terminate his or... her services.
Termination is the last resort. At the very least, a
competent public health authority must certify that the
disease cannot be cured within six (6) months, even
with appropriate treatment.
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original
action where the issue is limited to grave abuse of
discretion. As an original action, it cannot be considered
as a continuation of the proceedings of the labor
tribunals.
On the other hand, a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 is a mode of appeal where the issue is
limited to questions of law. In labor cases, a Rule 45
petition is limited to reviewing whether the Court of
Appeals correctly determined the presence or absence
of grave... abuse of discretion and deciding other
jurisdictional errors of the National Labor Relations
Commission.
Another classification of employees, i.e., employees
with fixed-term contracts, was recognized in Brent
School, Inc. v. Zamora[150] where this court discussed
that:
Logically, the decisive determinant in the term
employment should not be the activities that the
employee is called upon to perform, but the day certain
agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and
termination of their employment relationship, a day...
certain being understood to be "that which must
necessarily come, although it may not be known
when."[151] (Emphasis in the original)
GMA Network, Inc. v. Pabriga[154] expounded the
doctrine on fixed-term contracts laid down in Brent in
the following manner:
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:
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.
On the other hand, an independent contractor is defined and talents and the lack of control over the means and
as: methods in the performance of their work.
. . . one who carries on a distinct and independent Since no employer-employee relationship exists
business and undertakes to perform the job, work, or between independent contractors and their principals,
service on its own account and under one's own their contracts are governed by the Civil Code
responsibility according to one's own manner and provisions on contracts and other applicable laws.
method, free from the control and direction of the
However, there may be a situation where an employee's
principal in... all matters connected with the
work is necessary but is not always desirable in the
performance of the work except as to the results
usual course of business of the employer. In this
thereof.[
situation, there is no regular employment.
Orozco v. Court of Appeals,[163] Wilhelmina Orozco
San Miguel Corporation v. National Labor Relations
was a columnist for the Philippine Daily Inquirer. This
Commission,[206] Francisco de Guzman was hired to
court ruled that she was an independent contractor
repair furnaces at San Miguel Corporation's Manila glass
because of her "talent, skill, experience, and her unique
plant. He had a separate contract for every furnace that
viewpoint as a feminist... advocate."[164] In addition,
he repaired. He filed a... complaint for illegal dismissal
the Philippine Daily Inquirer did not have the power of
three (3) years after the end of his last contract.[207]
control over Orozco, and she worked at her own
In ruling that de Guzman did not attain the status of a
pleasure.[165]
regular employee, this court explained:
Semblante v. Court of Appeals[166] involved a
The process of manufacturing glass requires a furnace,
masiador[167] and a sentenciador.[168] This court
which has a... limited operating life. Petitioner resorted
ruled that "petitioners performed their functions as
to hiring project or fixed term employees in having said
masiador and sentenciador... free from the direction
furnaces repaired since said activity is not regularly
and control of respondents"[169] and that the masiador
performed. Said furnaces are to be repaired or
and sentenciador "relied mainly on their 'expertise that
overhauled only in case of need and after being used
is characteristic of the cockfight gambling.'"[170]
continuously for a... varying period of five (5) to ten
Hence, no employer-employee... relationship existed.
(10) years.
Bernarte v. Philippine Basketball Association[171]
s stated in Price, et al. v. Innodata Corp., et al.:[228]
involved a basketball referee. This court ruled that "a
referee is an independent contractor, whose special The employment status of a person is defined and
skills and independent judgment are required prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it
specifically for such position and cannot... possibly be should be. Equally important to consider is that a
controlled by the hiring party."[172] contract of employment is impressed with public
interest such that labor contracts must yield to the
In these cases, the workers were found to be
common good.
independent contractors because of their unique skills
Thus, provisions of applicable statutes are deemed
written into the contract, and the parties are not at
liberty to insulate themselves and their relationships
from the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply
contracting with each other.[
JOSE MEL BERNARTE v. PHILIPPINE BASKETBALL
ASSOCIATION, GR No. 192084, 2011-09-14
Facts:
Complainants (Jose Mel Bernarte and Renato Guevarra)
aver that they were invited to join the PBA as referees.
They were made to sign contracts on a year-to-year
basis. Bernarte received a letter from the Office of the
Commissioner advising him that his contract would not
be renewed citing his unsatisfactory performance on
and off the court. O... n the other hand, complainant
Guevarra... alleges that... he was no longer made to
sign a contract. Respondents aver... that
complainants... were not illegally dismissed because
they were not employees of the PBA. Their respective
contracts of retainer were simply not renewed. the
Labor Arbiter... declared petitioner an employee whose
dismissal by respondents was illegal. the NLRC affirmed
the Labor Arbiter's judgment. Respondents filed a
petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which
overturned the decisions of the NLRC and Labor Arbiter.
Issues:
Whether petitioner is an employee of respondents,
which in turn determines whether petitioner was
illegally dismissed
Ruling:
The petition is bereft of merit.
To determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, case law has consistently applied the four-
fold test, to wit: (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 on the means and methods by which
the work is accomplished. The so-called "control test" is
the most important indicator of the presence or absence
of an employer-employee relationship.
In this case, PBA admits repeatedly engaging
petitioner's services, as shown in the retainer contracts.
PBA pays petitioner a retainer fee, exclusive of per diem
or allowances, as stipulated in the retainer contract.
PBA can terminate the retainer contract for
petitioner's... violation of its terms and conditions.
The contractual stipulations do not pertain to, much less
dictate, how and when petitioner will blow the whistle...
and make calls. On the contrary, they merely serve as
rules of conduct or guidelines in order to maintain the
integrity of the professional basketball league.
We agree with respondents that once in the playing
court, the referees exercise their own independent
judgment, based on the rules of the game, as to when
and how a call or decision is to be made.
In other words, unlike regular employees who ordinarily
report for work eight hours per day for five days a
week, petitioner is required to report for work only
when PBA games are scheduled or three times a week
at two hours per game.
Furthermore, the applicable foreign case law declares
that a referee is an independent contractor, whose
special skills and independent judgment are required
specifically for such position and cannot possibly be
controlled by the hiring party. we DENY the petition
WILHELMINA S. OROZCO, petitioner, 
 vs.
 THE
FIFTH DIVISION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, et. al., respondents.
FACTS:
Private respondent Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI)
engaged the services of petitioner to write a weekly
column for its Lifestyle section. Later, she was advised
that the PDI Chairperson had asked to stop publication
of her column because the Lifestyle section already had
many columnists.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and other
money claims before the NLRC. Labor Arbiter rendered
a Decision in favor of petitioner, including the order tto
pay her 13th month pay and service incentive leave
pay. Upon appeal by private respondents, NLRC
dismissed the appeal. CA however reversed NLRC’s
decision. Thus, this petition.
ISSUE:
WON a columnist who admits that she is not considered
by an employer as its employee, and had no
employment contract with the latter may claim for
backwages and other money claims upon termination of
the publication of her column.
HELD:
No. Considering that PDI was not petitioner’s employer,
it cannot be held guilty of illegal dismissal, and she
cannot claim for backwages, etc.
The line should be drawn between rules that merely
serve as guidelines towards the achievement of the
mutually desired result without dictating the means or
methods to be employed in attaining it, and those that
control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict the
party hired to the use of such means. The first, which
aim only to promote the result, create no employer-
employee relationship, as in the case of a columnist,
unlike the second, which address both the result and
the means used to achieve it.
PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
petitioner, vs. RICARDO DE VERA, respondent.
FACTS: De Vera and petitioner company entered into a
contract where respondent was to attend to the medical
needs of petitioner’s employees while being paid a
retainer fee of P4,000 per month. Later, De Vera was
informed y petitioner that the retainership will be
discontinued. Respondent filed a case for illegal
dismissal.
ISSUE: Whether or not de Vera is an employee of
PhilComm or an independent contractor.
HELD: Applying the four fold test, de Vera is not an
employee. There are several indicators apart from the
fact that the power to terminate the arrangement lay on
both parties:
 from the time he started to work with petitioner,
he never was included in its payroll; was never
deducted any contribution for remittance to the Social
Security System (SSS);
 he was subjected by petitioner to the ten (10%)
percent withholding tax for his professional fee, in
accordance with the National Internal Revenue Code,
matters which are simply inconsistent with an
employer-employee relationship;
 the records are replete with evidence showing
that respondent had to bill petitioner for his monthly
professional fees. It simply runs against the grain of
common experience to imagine that an ordinary
employee has yet to bill his employer to receive his
salary.
 Finally, the element of control s absent. Petition
granted.