If the two eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and academic levels, this only

lends substance to the truism that the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know. SC in Evelyn Chua-Qua case

Q: Are all establishments required to pay holiday pay? A: Retail or service establishments that employ less than 10 workers are exempt from paying holiday pay. Holiday pay law applies to regular holiday only. Will it apply to special holidays? NO! Holiday pay is equivalent to 100 percent of the base pay, if the employee does not work on that day (regular holiday). If during a special holiday and the employee does not work, the worker is not entitled to a holiday pay. NO WORK. NO PAY! Eidul Adha- the latest regular holiday The President of the Philippines can move or fix the dates of the holidays by virtue of the Administrative Code of the Philippines. Scheduled rest day and there is a regular holiday falling on that day, and the employee does not work, does the employee get paid? A: Yes. He is entitled to a holiday pay equivalent to his basic pay. If the employee works, does he get paid? Yes. 200% + 30% (premium pay for rest day). The employer gets 230% additional compensation during that day. On the employees regular work day, then 2 regular holidays fall on that day, does the employee get a holiday pay if he does not work? 200%! What if the employee works on that day? Gets his full days wage + 300% (100% RH + 100% RH + 100%) 12 regular holidays reduced to 11? Can the employee demand from the employer his regular holiday pay (esp. where there are 2 RH falling on the same regular working day? In a compressed work week, work exceeding 8 hrs. is not compensable overtime. Is this compressed work week available to all types of establishments? No. Exception: construction industry, health services, occupation requiring heavy manual labor, and those which are susceptible to contaminants and other dangerous workplaces. Does this require the consent of the employees? There must be express and voluntary consent of the majority of the workers, no need of individual consent to adopt a CWW. GR: An employee cannot waive an overtime payment, except in a Compressed Work Week arrangement as long as it does not exceed 12 hours a day. What is the benefit of a CWW? The employee will be given more rest day (1 regular rest day + additional rest day).

CWW is always subject to the regulation of the DOLE. This is only temporary, only to address economic churvaness. CWW if you work for more than 8 hrs. a day. UNDERTIME CANNOT OFFSET OVERTIME Service Incentive Leave (5 days; vacation leave)- an incentive given to an employee who has rendered for at least 1 year service. Except: a. employees employing less than 10 workers; b. establishments exempted by law or regulation to give such incentive. Is vacation leave convertible to cash? Yes.

In the recent case of Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO and Pedro Tecson v. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc., the Court passed on the validity of the policy of a pharmaceutical company prohibiting its employees from marrying employees of any competitor company. We held that Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies and other confidential programs and information from competitors. The Court considered the prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor companies upon Glaxos employees reasonable under the circumstances because relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of Glaxo. In laying down the assailed company policy, the Court recognized that Glaxo only aims to protect its interests against the possibility that a competitor company will gain access to its secrets and procedures. The requirement that a company policy must be reasonable under the circumstances to qualify as a valid exercise of management prerogative was also at issue in the 1997 case of Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company v. NLRC. In said case, the employee was dismissed in violation of petitioners policy of disqualifying from work any woman worker who contracts marriage. We held that the company policy violates the right against discrimination afforded all women workers under Article 136 of the Labor Code, but established a permissible exception, viz.: A requirement that a woman employee must remain unmarried could be justified as a "bona fide occupational qualification," or BFOQ, where the particular requirements of the job would justify the same, but not on the ground of a general principle, such as the desirability of spreading work in the workplace. A requirement of that nature would be valid provided it reflects an inherent quality reasonably necessary for satisfactory job performance. The cases of Duncan and PT&T instruct us that the requirement of reasonableness must be clearly established to uphold the questioned employment policy. The employer has the burden to prove the existence of a reasonable business necessity. The burden was successfully discharged in Duncan but not in PT&T.

in British Columbia Public Service Employee Commission (BSPSERC) v. The British Columbia Government and Service Employees Union (BCGSEU), the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the so-called Meiorin Test in determining whether an employment policy is justified. Under this test, (1) the employer must show that it adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job; (2) the employer must establish that the standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that work-related purpose; and (3) the employer must establish that the standard is reasonably necessary in order to accomplish the legitimate work-related purpose. Similarly, in Star Paper Corporation v. Simbol, this Court held that in order to justify a BFOQ, the employer must prove that (1) the employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved; and (2) that there is factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting the qualification would be unable to properly perform the duties of the job. In short, the test of reasonableness of the company policy is used because it is parallel to BFOQ. BFOQ is valid provided it reflects an inherent quality reasonably necessary for satisfactory job performance. Agabon vs. NLRC Dismissals based on just causes contemplate acts or omissions attributable to the employee while dismissals based on authorized causes involve grounds under the Labor Code which allow the employer to terminate employees. A termination for an authorized cause requires payment of separation pay. When the termination of employment is declared illegal, reinstatement and full back wages are mandated under Article 279. If reinstatement is no longer possible where the dismissal was unjust, separation pay may be granted. Procedurally, (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282, the employer must give the employee two written notices and a hearing or opportunity to be heard if requested by the employee before terminating the employment: a notice specifying the grounds for which dismissal is sought a hearing or an opportunity to be heard and after hearing or opportunity to be heard, a notice of the decision to dismiss; and (2) if the dismissal is based on authorized causes under Articles 283 and 284, the employer must give the employee and the Department of Labor and Employment written notices 30 days prior to the effectivity of his separation. From the foregoing rules four possible situations may be derived: (1) the dismissal is for a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code, for an authorized cause under Article 283, or for health reasons under Article 284, and due process was observed; (2) the dismissal is without just or authorized cause but due process was observed; (3) the dismissal is without just or authorized cause and there was no due process; and (4) the dismissal is for just or authorized cause but due process was not observed. In the fourth situation, the dismissal should be upheld. While the procedural infirmity cannot be cured, it should not invalidate the

dismissal. However, the employer should be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due process. The present case squarely falls under the fourth situation. The dismissal should be upheld because it was established that the petitioners abandoned their jobs to work for another company. Private respondent, however, did not follow the notice requirements and instead argued that sending notices to the last known addresses would have been useless because they did not reside there anymore. Unfortunately for the private respondent, this is not a valid excuse because the law mandates the twin notice requirements to the employees last known address. Thus, it should be held liable for noncompliance with the procedural requirements of due process. The Court ruled that respondent is liable for petitioners holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and 13 th month pay without deductions. The evident intention of Presidential Decree No. 851 is to grant an additional income in the form of the 13th month pay to employees not already receiving the same so as to further protect the level of real wages from the ravages of world-wide inflation. Clearly, as additional income, the 13th month pay is included in the definition of wage under Article 97(f) of the Labor Code.

Jardin vs. NLRC But, there is another compelling reason why we cannot leave untouched the flip-flopping decisions of the public respondent. As mentioned earlier, its October 28, 1994 judgment is not in accord with the applicable decisions of this Court. The labor tribunal reasoned out as follows: On the issue of whether or not employer-employee relationship exists, admitted is the fact that complainants are taxi drivers purely on the "boundary system". Under this system the driver takes out his unit and pays the owner/operator a fee commonly called "boundary" for the use of the unit. Now, in the determination the existence of employer-employee relationship, the Supreme Court in the case of Sara, et al., vs. Agarrado, et al. (G.R. No. 73199, 26 October 1988) has applied the following four-fold test: "(1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power of control the employees conduct." "Among the four (4) requisites", the Supreme Court stresses that "control is deemed the most important that the other requisites may even be disregarded". Under the control test, an employer-employee relationship exists if the "employer" has reserved the right to control the "employee" not only as to the result of the work done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished. Otherwise, no such relationship exists. (Ibid.)

Applying the foregoing parameters to the case herein obtaining, it is clear that the respondent does not pay the drivers, the complainants herein, their wages. Instead, the drivers pay a certain fee for the use of the vehicle. On the matter of control, the drivers, once they are out plying their trade, are free to choose whatever manner they conduct their trade and are beyond the physical control of the owner/operator; they themselves determine the amount of revenue they would want to earn in a day's driving; and, more significantly aside from the fact that they pay for the gasoline they consume, they likewise shoulder the cost of repairs on damages sustained by the vehicles they are driving. Verily, all the foregoing attributes signify that the relationship of the parties is more of a leasehold or one that is covered by a charter agreement under the Civil Code rather than the Labor Code.18 The foregoing ratiocination goes against prevailing jurisprudence. In a number of cases decided by this Court,19 we ruled that the relationship between jeepney owners/operators on one hand and jeepney drivers on the other under the boundary system is that of employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee. We explained that in the lease of chattels, the lessor loses complete control over the chattel leased although the lessee cannot be reckless in the use thereof, otherwise he would be responsible for the damages to the lessor. In the case of jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers, the former exercise supervision and control over the latter. The management of the business is in the owner's hands. The owner as holder of the certificate of public convenience must see to it that the driver follows the route prescribed by the franchising authority and the rules promulgated as regards its operation. Now, the fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages but get only that in excess of the so-called "boundary" they pay to the owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them from that of employer and employee. We have applied by analogy the abovestated doctrine to the relationships between bus owner/operator and bus conductor,20 auto-calesa owner/operator and driver,21 and recently between taxi owners/operators and taxi drivers.22 Hence, petitioners are undoubtedly employees of private respondent because as taxi drivers they perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of their employer.

The 13th-month pay mandated by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 851 represents an additional income based on wage but not part of the wage. It is equivalent to one-twelfth (1/12) of the total basic salary earned by an employee within a calendar year. All rank-and-file employees, regardless of their designation or employment status and irrespective of the method by which their wages are paid, are entitled to this benefit, provided that they

have worked for at least one month during the calendar year. If the employee worked for only a portion of the year, the 13th-month pay is computed pro rata.