Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
- Deployment Ban of Female Domestic Helper; A decision in a certification case does not foreclose
Concept of Police Power. all further dispute between the parties as to the
existence, or non-existence, of employer-employee
The concept of police power is well-established in relationship between them.
this jurisdiction. It has been defined as the "state
authority to enact legislation that may interfere 5. Tan vs. Lagrama
with personal liberty or property in order to
promote the general welfare." Painter (urinates in his office) – not an
independent contractor, employee (apply
As defined, it consists of
(1) an imposition of requisites)
restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order to
foster the common good. In determining whether there is an employer-
employee relationship, we have applied a “four-
It is not capable of an exact definition but has fold test,” to wit:
been, purposely, veiled in general terms to
underscore its all-comprehensive embrace. "Its (1) whether the alleged employer has the power of
scope, ever-expanding to meet the exigencies of selection and engagement of employees;
the times, even to anticipate the future where it
(2) whether he has control of the employee with
could be done, provides enough room for an
respect to the means and methods by which work
efficient and flexible response to conditions and
is to be accomplished;
circumstances thus assuring the greatest
benefits." (3) whether he has the power to dismiss; and
2. Brew Master vs. NAFLU (4) whether the employee was paid wages.
Route helper- absent without permission – 1 6. Tongko vs. Manufacturer’s Life
month (lumayas ung asawa, inuwi mga anak sa
Samar) Insurance agents – remained an agent, not an
employee
Absence Without Leave; While an employee’s
failure to inform and seek his employer’s approval Control not only applies to the work or goal to be
of an absence which, under the circumstances is done but also to the means and methods to
justifiable, is an omission which must be corrected accomplish it; Not all forms of control would
and chastised, the same does not merit the establish an employer-employee relationship.
severest penalty of dismissal from the service.
7. Insular Life vs. NLRC
II. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
Commission agent – independent contractor
3. LVN vs. Philippine Musicians Guild
Not every form of control over the conduct of the
Musicians in the company – considered employees party hired in relation to the service rendered
- control test - entitled to join union establishes employer-employee relationship.
The relationship exists where the person for whom When an insurance agent is free to adopt his own
the services are performed reserves a right to selling methods or is free to sell insurance at his
control not only the end to be achieved but also own time, he is an independent contractor.
8. Brotherhood Labor Movement vs. Zamora does not have substantial capital or investment
in the form of tools, equipment, machineries,
Cargadores/pahinante at the SMC plant – work premises, among others; and
loading, unloading, piling or palleting empty
bottles and woosen shells to and from company (2) the workers recruited and placed by such
trucks and warehouses. person are performing activities which are
directly related to the principal business of such
In determining the existence of an employer- employer.
employee relationship, the elements that are
generally considered are the following: (a) the Distinction between Articles 106 and 107 lies in
selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the the fact that Article 106 deals with "labor-only"
payment of wages; (Q) the power of dismissal; and contracting; on the other hand, Article 107 deals
(d) the employer’s power to control the employee with "job contracting".
with respect to the means and methods by which
the work is to be accomplished. It is the so called The distinction between Articles 106 and 107 lies
“control test” that is the most important element. in the fact that Article 106 deals with "labor-only"
contracting. Here, by operation of law. the
9. Sonza vs. ABS-CBN contractor is merely considered as an agent of the
employer, who is deemed "responsible to the
Talent for radio and television – independent workers to the same extent as if the latter were
contractor – ABS not involved in the actual directly employed by him."
performance that produced the finished product
On the other hand, Article 107 deals with "job
Existence of an employer-employee relationship is contracting." In the later situation, while the
a question of fact; Appellate courts accord the contractor himself is the direct employer of the
factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC employees, the employer is deemed, by operation
not only respect but also finality when supported of law, as an indirect employer.
by substantial evidence; Court does not substitute
its own judgment for that of the tribunal in 11.Vinoya vs. NLRC
determining where the weight of evidence lies or
what evidence is credible. RFC (true employer) – despite the existence of
the alleged contracts of service and employment
III. JOB CONTRACTING & LABOR-ONLY – status of petitioner as employees not affected.
CONTRACTING
Labor-only contracting, a prohibited act, is an
10.Baguio vs. NLRC arrangement where the contractor or
subcontractor merely recruits, supplies or places
Carpenters, masons, laborers – hired to workers to perform a job, work or service for a
construct an annex building for the corporation’s principal.
plant
In labor-only contracting, the following elements
– not employees – work performed by them are are present:
not related to the principal business of
corporation (a) The contractor or subcontractor does not have
substantial capital or investment to actually
Classification of employment; When is a person perform the job, work or service under its own
deemed to be engaged in "labor-only" contracting. account and responsibility;
A person is deemed to be engaged in "labor- (b) The employees recruited, supplied or placed by
only" contracting where such contractor or subcontractor are performing
activities which are directly related to the main
(1) the person supplying workers to an employer business of the principal.
Permissible job contracting or subcontracting necessary in the conduct of its principal
refers to an arrangement whereby a principal business.
agrees to put out or farm out with a contractor or
subcontractor the performance or completion of a Where the control of the principal is limited only
specific job, work or service within a definite or to the result of the work, independent job
predetermined period, regardless of whether such contracting exists.
job, work or service is to be performed or
completed within or outside the premises of the IV. EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATION &/OR
principal. STATUS
12.Neri vs. NLRC and FEBTC 15.Price vs. Innodata, Phils., Inc.
Janitorial and other specific services – not Data encoders, formatters, programmers –
employees – independent contractors to perform regular employees – engaged to perform
special services activities which are necessary/desirable in the
usual business/trade of employer, regardless of
While the services may be considered directly length of service (1st type of regular employees)
related to the principal business of the employer,
nevertheless, they are not necessary in the conduct The employment status of a person is defined and
of the principal business of the employer. prescribed by law and not by what the parties say
it should be.
13.SMC vs. MAERC Integrated Services, Inc.
The applicable test to determine whether an
Petitioners – washed and segregated empty employment should be considered regular or non-
bottles used by SMC to sell and distribute its regular is the reasonable connection between the
beer beverages to the consuming public – paid particular activity performed by the employee in
per piece or pakiao basis relation to the usual business or trade of the
employer.
- Employees of SMC – MAERC is labor only
contractor, acts merely as an agent of SMC 16. Biboso vs. Victorias Milling Company, Inc.
No. L-44360. March 31, 1977
Jurisprudential holdings were to the effect that in Academic teachers – not notified by school
determining the existence of an independent that they are not going to be rehired
contractor relationship, several factors may be
considered, such as, but not necessarily confined
to, whether the contractor was carrying on an The employer may terminate the employment of
independent business; the nature and extent of the teachers on probationary status after their
work; the skill required; the term and duration of contracts have expired.
the relationship; the right to assign the
performance of specified pieces of work; the The security of tenure provision of the
control and supervision of the workers; the power Constitution applies to probationary
of the employer with respect to the hiring, firing employees during the duration of their
and payment of the workers of the contractor; the employment and before their contracts of
control of the premises; the duty to supply probationary employment expire.
premises, tools, appliances, materials and labor;
and the mode, manner and terms of payment.
Hired as an Immigration and Legal Manager – 25. De Leon vs. National Labor Relations
terminated because unfit and unqualified Commission G.R. No. 70705. August 21, 1989
to continue
Hired as maintenance man – mainly assigned to
A probationary appointment gives the employer paint the building – asked to be considered as
regular (hired for more than 1 year)
Regular Employment; When the activities 27. Pure Foods Corporation vs. NLRC G.R. No.
performed by the employee are usually necessary 122653. December 12, 1997
or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer, the employment is deemed regular Petitioners – hired in the tuna cannery plant –
notwithstanding contrary agreements.
- work consisted in the receiving, skinning,
Determination of whether employment is casual loining, packing, and casing-up tuna fish
or regular does not depend on the will or word of
the employer, and the procedure for hiring and “Specific Project or Undertaking,” Explained;
manner of paying, but on the nature of the The fact that an employer repeatedly and
activities performed by the employee, and to some continuously hired workers to do the same
extent, the length of performance, and its kind of work as that performed by those
continued existence. whose contracts had expired negates its
contention that those workers were hired
26. Kimberly Independent Labor Union For for a specific project or undertaking only.
Solidarity, Activism And Nationalism-
Organized Labor Association In Line The scheme of an employer in hiring
Industries And Agriculture vs. Drilon G.R. No. workers on a uniformly fixed contract basis
77629. May 9, 1990 and replacing them upon the expiration of
their contracts with other workers on the
64 employees are considered regular at the time same employment status was apparently
of the certification election designed to prevent the “casual” employees
from attaining the status of a regular
Article 280 of the Labor Code provides for two employee.
kinds of regular employees —The law thus
provides for two kinds of regular employees, 28. Magsalin vs. National Organization of
namely: Working Men G.R. No. 148492. May 9,
2003
(1) those who are engaged to perform activities
which are usually necessary or desirable in the Sales route helpers (SRH) – hired to substitute
usual business or trade of the employer; and the regular SRH when unavailable or unexpected
shortage of manpower occurs
(2) those who have rendered at least one year of
service, whether continuous or broken, with In determining whether an employment should be
respect to the activity in which they are considered regular or non-regular, the applicable
employed. test is the reasonable connection between the
particular activity performed by the employee in
- It is more in keeping with the relation to the usual business or trade of the
intent and spirit of the law to rule that the employer.
status of regular employment attached to
the casual worker on the day immediately The nature of the work performed must be viewed
after the end of his first year of service. from a perspective of the business or trade in its
entirety and not on a confined scope.
- As long as the employee has
rendered at least one year of service, he 29. Millares vs. NLRC G.R. No. 110524. July 29
becomes a regular employee with respect 2002
to the activity in which he is employed.
Seafarers are considered contractual employees.
They cannot be considered as regular
employees under Article 280 of the Labor
Code.
There are certain forms of employment which
also require the performance of usual and
desirable functions and which exceed one 32. Cielo vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 78693. January
year but do not necessarily attain regular 28, 1991
employment status under Article 280.
Petitioner – truck driver – illegally dismissed
Filipino seamen are governed by the Rules and (expired contract) – considered regular
Regulations of the POEA; Contract of by the Court (employer engaged in
seamen shall be for a fixed period, not trucking business – requires the services
longer than 12 months.
of drivers)
The burden is on the employer to prove Transfer; Court has recognized and upheld
that the termination was for a valid and the prerogative of management to transfer
authorized cause. an employee from one office to another
within the business establishment provided
V. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES that there is no demotion in rank or a
diminution of his salary, benefits and other
privileges. Employer may terminate an employment
for serious misconduct or for fraud or
Managerial prerogative to transfer willful breach by the employee of the trust
personnel must be exercised without grave reposed in him by his employer.
abuse of discretion and putting in mind the
basic elements of justice and fair play.
CPA – abolished position (redundancy) – Employer’s rules cannot preclude the State
replaced from inquiring whether the strict and rigid
application or interpretation thereof
Discretion in terminating employment; An would be harsh to the employee.
employer has a much wider discretion in
terminating employment relationship of It should be noted that the term “trust and
managerial personnel compared to rank confidence” is restricted to managerial
and file employees. employees; Cash shortages in a cashier’s
work may happen, and when there is no
Prerogatives of Management; The proof that the same was deliberately done
determination of the qualification and for a fraudulent or wrongful purpose, it
fitness of workers for hiring and firing, cannot constitute breach of trust so as to
promotion or reassignment are exclusive render the dismissal from work invalid.
prerogatives of management.
46. Phil Airlines, Inc. (PAL) vs. NLRC
43. Caltex Refinery vs. NLRC
PAL new Code of Discipline
Mechanic – saw a bottle of Clarete in his
bag (item recovered) Company rules on discipline; Management
prerogative not boundless.
Prerogative of employers to regulate all
aspects of employment subject to the Line drawn between policies which are
limitation of special law is recognized. purely business-oriented and those which
affect rights of employees.
The right of the employer must not be
exercised arbitrarily and without just 47. Star Paper Corp. vs. Simbol
cause. Otherwise, the constitutional
mandate of security of tenure of the Management Prerogatives; Employer
workers would be rendered nugatory. Policies; Nepotism; It is true that the policy
of the petitioners prohibiting close
Penalty of dismissal must commensurate relatives from working in the same
with the act, conduct or omission imputed company takes the nature of an anti-
to the employee and imposed in connection nepotism employment policy.
with the employer’s disciplinary authority.
The failure to prove a legitimate business
44. Firestone Tire and Rubber vs. concern in imposing an employer policy
Lariosa cannot prejudice the employee’s right to be
free from arbitrary discrimination based
Tire builder – entrusted with his certain upon stereotypes of married persons
materials – uses a few swabs but keeps working together in one company.
the rest
48. Duncan Association of Detailman until and unless the rules or orders
vs. Glaxo Welcome Phil., Inc. imposed by the employers are declared to
be illegal or improper by competent
Glaxo’s policy prohibiting an employee authority, the employees ignore or disobey
from having a relationship with an them at their peril.
employee of a competitior company is a
valid exercise of management prerogative. 51. UST Faculty Union vs Bitonio Jr.
G.R. No. 131235. November 16, 1999
While our laws endeavor to give life to the
constitutional policy on social justice and General assembly was held
the protection of labor, it does not mean wherein USTFU’s officers were elected by
that every labor dispute will be decided in clapping of hands and acclamation
favor of the workers; The law also
recognizes that management has rights Right to Self-Organization; Unions;
which are also entitled to respect and Employees have the right to form, join or
enforcement in the interest of fair play. assist labor organizations for the purpose
of collective bargaining or for their mutual
Glaxo does not impose an absolute aid and protection.
prohibition against relationships between
its employees and those of competitor To become a union member, an
companies; What the company merely employee must, as a rule, not only signify
seeks to avoid is a conflict of interest the intent to become one, but also to take
between the employee and the company some positive steps to realize that intent.
that may arise out of such relationships.
Members’ frustration over the
performance of the union officers, as well
49. Union of Nestle Workers CDO as their fears of a “fraudulent” election to
Factory vs. Nestle Philippines be held under the latter’s supervision,
could not justify the disregard of the
Simultaneous drug tests on all employees union’s constitution and by-laws.
from different factories and plants – employees
refused (conducted during the height of war on An employee belonging to the
drugs) appropriate bargaining unit but who is not
a member of the union cannot vote in the
Personnel Policies; Drug Testing; Company union election, unless otherwise authorized
personnel policies are guiding principles by the constitution and by-laws of the
stated in broad, long-range terms that union—union affairs and elections cannot
express the philosophy or beliefs of an be decided in a non-union activity.
organization’s top authority regarding
personnel matters. A union’s constitution and by-laws
embody a covenant between a union and
50. GTE Directories vs. Sanchez its members and constitute the
fundamental law governing the members’
The practice was for its sales rights and obligations.
representatives to be given work assignments
within specific territories by the so- called "draw Collective Bargaining Agreements;
method. Ratification of a new Collective Bargaining
Agreement executed between the new
Deliberate disregard or disobedience of officers of the union and management does
rules, defiance of management authority not have the effect of validating a void
by the employees cannot be countenanced, union election—the ratification refers only
to the terms of the new Collective employees are those who (1) assist or act
Bargaining Agreement, not the issue of in a confidential capacity, (2) to persons
union leadership. who formulate, determine, and effectuate
management policies in the field of labor
52. Reyes vs Trajano relations. The two criteria are cumulative,
G.R. No. 84433. June 2, 1992 and both must be met if an employee is to
be considered a confidential employee—
INK votes were being questioned that is, the confidential relationship must
because they don’t have a union and exist between the employee and his
didn’t vote during the previous elections supervisor, and the supervisor must
handle the prescribed responsibilities
The right to self-organization relating to labor relations.
includes the right not to form or join a
union. Reason behind the confidential
employee rule.— The exclusion from
The purpose of a certification bargaining units of employees who, in the
election is precisely the ascertainment of normal course of their duties, become
the wishes of the majority of the aware of management policies relating to
employees in the appropriate bargaining labor relations is a principal objective
unit. sought to be accomplished by the
“confidential employee rule.” The broad
INK employees have the right to rationale behind this rule is that employees
participate in a certification election and should not be placed in a position involving
vote for "No Union." a potential conflict of interests.
“Management should not be required to
Failure to take part in previous handle labor relations matters through
elections no bar to right to participate in employees who are represented by the
future elections. union with which the company is
required to deal and who in the normal
53. Sampang vs Inciong performance of their duties may obtain
G.R. No. L-50992. June 19, 1985 advance information of the company’s
position with regard to contract
Dismissal of president of a labor negotiations, the disposition of
union who has worked for the company for grievances, or other labor relations
30 years on the ground that she instigated matters.”
laborers not to work overtime for two days
resulting in the loss of cigarettes worth 55. Benguet Electric Cooperative vs
P2,716.00 is too disproportionate. Ferrer-Calleja
G.R. No. 79025. December 29, 1989
54. SMC Supervisors vs Laguesma
Cooperatives; Collective bargaining;
Supervisory employees filed a CE among The right to collective bargaining is not
the employees of 3 plants. Contested that available to an employee of a cooperative
they fall under confidential employees who at the same time is a member and co-
(NO) and can three diff plants employees owner thereof; Employees who are neither
can form a single bargaining unit (YES, if members nor co-owners of the cooperative
the communal/mutual interest not are entitled to exercise the rights to self-
sacrificed) organization, collective bargaining and
negotiation
Criteria to Determine who are
Confidential Employees.—Confidential
The fact that the members enjoy the constitutional right to self-
employees of the cooperative do not organization and collective bargaining
participate in its actual management does
not make them, eligible to form, assist or A “bargaining unit” has been
join a labor organization; It is the fact of defined as a group of employees of a
ownership of the cooperative, not given employer, comprised of all or less
involvement in management, which than all of the entire body of employees,
disqualifies a member from joining any which the collective interest of all the
labor organization within the cooperative. employees, consistent with equity to the
employer, indicate to be the best suited to
56. International Catholic Migration serve the reciprocal rights and duties of
Commission vs Calleja the parties under the collective
G.R. No. 85750. September 28, 1990 bargaining provisions of the law.
The bank was being accused of ULP for Fact that the retirement plan is
surface bargaining. The bank bargained in non-contributory does not make it a non-
good faith since it had counter proposals issue in the CBA negotiations.
everytime the union will file its proposals.
Petitioner’s contention that
Labor Union; Interference, restraints or employees have no vested or demandable
coercion of employees by the employer in right to a non-contributory retirement
the exercise of their right to self- plan has no merit for employees do have a
organization or the right to form vested and demandable right over
association considered unfair labor existing benefits voluntarily granted to
practice; In order to show that the them by their employer. The latter may
employer committed ULP under the Labor not unilaterally withdraw, eliminate or
Code, substantial evidence is required to diminish such benefits.
support such claim.
Surface bargaining is defined as “going 77. Mactan Workers Union vs. Aboitiz
through the motions of negotiating” GR. No. L-30241 (1072)
without any legal intent to reach an
agreement. The resolution of surface ALU was the seba. company agreed to a
bargaining allegations never presents an profit sharing bonus to its employees.
easy issue. The determination of whether Members of MWU was not given their
a party has engaged in unlawful surface bonus because ALU advised the company
bargaining is usually a difficult one not to unless ordered by court.
because it involves, at bottom, a question
of the intent of the party in question, and Industrial Peace Act; Collective bargaining
usually such intent can only be inferred agreement; Effect of.—The terms and
from the totality of the challenged party’s conditions of a collective bargaining
conduct both at and away from the contract constitute the law between the
bargaining table. It involves the question parties. Those who are entitled to its
of whether an employer’s conduct benefits can invoke its provisions. In the
demonstrates an unwillingness to bargain event that an obligation therein imposed
in good faith or is merely hard bargaining. is not fulfilled, the aggrieved party has the
The duty to bargain “does not compel right to go to court for redress.
either party to agree to a proposal or
require the making of a concession.” Collective bargaining agreement
benefits extend even to non-union
76. Nestlé Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC members.
G.R. No. 91231. February 4, 1991
Enforcement of collective 80. Malayang Samahan ng mga
bargaining agreement cognizable by Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield vs.
ordinary courts. Ramos G.R. No. 113907. February 28,
2000
78. Juat vs. Court of Industrial Relations
No. L-20764. November 29, 1965 federation advised company of expulsion
of the union officers and demanded they
The closed-shop proviso' of a collective be terminated from employment. The
bargaining agreement entered into twin requirement was not observed by
between an employer and a duly the company.
authorized Iabor union is- applicable not
only to the employees or laborers that are Although union security clauses
employed after the collective bargaining embodied in the collective bargaining
agreement had been entered into but also agreement may be validly enforced and
to old employees who are not members of dismissals pursuant thereto may likewise
any labor union at the time the said be valid, this does not erode the
collective bargaining agreement was fundamental requirement of due process.
entered into.
Disaffiliations; Freedom of
In other words, if an employee or Association; A local union has the right to
laborer is already a member of labor disaffiliate from its mother union or
union different from the contracting labor declare its autonomy, and such
unions said employee or worker cannot disaffiliation cannot be considered
be obliged to become a member of that disloyalty; In the absence of specific
union as a condition for his continued provisions in the federation’s constitution
employment, Upon the other hand, if said prohibiting disaffiliation or the declaration
employee or worker is a non-member of of autonomy of a local union, a local union
any labor union, he can be compelled to may dissociate from its parent union.
join the contracting labor union, and his
refusal to do so would constitute a 81. Metropolitan Bank & Trust
justifiable basis for dismissal. Company Employees Union-ALU-TUCP
vs. National Labor Relations
Commission
79. Ferrer vs. National Labor Relations G.R. No. 102636. September 10, 1993
Commission
G.R. No. 100898. July 5, 1993 Wages; The issue of whether or not
a wage distortion exists as a consequence
Petitioners move to stage a strike of the grant of a wage increase to certain
based on economic demands, they were employees is a question of fact the
expelled by SAMAHAN. Subsequently they determination of which is the statutory
were dismissed from employment. Twin function of the NLRC.
requirements of notice and hearing must
be met in employment termination cases. In mandating an adjustment, the
law did not require that there be an
A CBA provision for a closed shop is elimination or total abrogation of
a valid form of union security and it is not quantitative wage or salary differences, a
a restriction on the right or freedom of severe contraction thereof is enough.
association guaranteed by the
Constitution. The Solicitor General has correctly
emphasized that the intention of the
parties, whether the benefits under a
collective bargaining agreement should be assumes all the personal undertakings —
equated with those granted by law or not like the no-strike stipulation here — in
unless there are compelling reasons the collective bargaining agreement made
otherwise must prevail and be given effect. by the deposed union.
92. Wise and Co., Inc. vs. Wise & Co., Inc. 95. Salanga vs. Court of Industrial
Employees Union Relations
G.R. No. 87672. October 13, 1989 No. L-22456. September 27, 1967
A profit sharing scheme was made petitioner resigned from the union, but he
for the managers and supervisors and latter learned that there was a closed
also to all other rank and file employees shop proviso. He tried to take back his
no covered by the CBA. resignation but the union still considered
him resigned from being a member and
There can be no discrimination where the told the company to terminate him.
employees concerned are not similarly
situated. When company was not guilty of unfair
labor practice.
Rule that labor law does not
authorize the substitution of judgment of Right of employee dismissed from
the employer in the conduct of its business, service due to unfair labor practice.
established.
96.United Restauror's Employees &
Grant by petitioner of profit sharing Labor Union vs. Torres
benefits to the employees outside the No. L-24993. December 18, 1968
bargaining unit falls under the ambit of its
managerial prerogative. Delta denied the request of union to conduct
picketing activities because it may be held liable
93. Balmar Farms, Inc. vs. NLRC for any incident. No er-ee between the parties.
G.R. No. 73504. October 15, 1991 Union lost in the CE that is why it may no longer
demand a CBA.
ALU was the seba. President of the
employees of Balmar sent a letter to the Collective bargaining unit; In whom
company stating their disregarding ALU vested; Consent election.
as their representatives and asked Balmar
Where petition for certiorari to
annul writ of preliminary injunction has
become moot and academic because
petitioner lost in a consent election and is
no longer a proper collective bargaining
unit.
A closed-shop agreement is an
agreement whereby an employer binds
himself to hire only members of the
contracting union who must continue to
remain members in good standing to keep
their jobs. It is "the most prized
achievement of unionism." It adds
membership and compulsory dues. By
holding out to loyal members a promise
of employment in the closed-shop, it
welds group solidarity.
A closed-shop is a valid form of
union security.