Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 110 views

    Cosmopolitan Vs Maalat Digest

    Uploaded by

    HEROPROVIDO
    The petitioner Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes engaged Noli Maalat as a supervisor to handle funeral arrangements and collections, paying him on commission. Maalat was later dismissed for underreporting sales and misappropriating funds. Maalat filed for illegal dismissal and unpaid commissions. The NLRC ruled in Maalat's favor but the CA reversed, finding his dismissal justified. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, finding an employment relationship did exist but that Maalat's dismissal was lawful. While Maalat was entitled to claim unpaid commissions, separation pay was disallowed as his dismissal was for cause.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cosmopolitan Vs Maalat Digest

    Uploaded by

    HEROPROVIDO
    110 views2 pages
    The petitioner Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes engaged Noli Maalat as a supervisor to handle funeral arrangements and collections, paying him on commission. Maalat was later dismissed for underreporting sales and misappropriating funds. Maalat filed for illegal dismissal and unpaid commissions. The NLRC ruled in Maalat's favor but the CA reversed, finding his dismissal justified. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, finding an employment relationship did exist but that Maalat's dismissal was lawful. While Maalat was entitled to claim unpaid commissions, separation pay was disallowed as his dismissal was for cause.

    Original Description:

    LABOR

    Original Title

    Cosmopolitan vs Maalat Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes engaged Noli Maalat as a supervisor to handle funeral arrangements and collections, paying him on commission. Maalat was later dismissed for underreporting sales and misappropriating funds. Maalat filed for illegal dismissal and unpaid commissions. The NLRC ruled in Maalat's favor but the CA reversed, finding his dismissal justified. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, finding an employment relationship did exist but that Maalat's dismissal was lawful. While Maalat was entitled to claim unpaid commissions, separation pay was disallowed as his dismissal was for cause.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    110 views2 pages

    Cosmopolitan Vs Maalat Digest

    Uploaded by

    HEROPROVIDO
    The petitioner Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes engaged Noli Maalat as a supervisor to handle funeral arrangements and collections, paying him on commission. Maalat was later dismissed for underreporting sales and misappropriating funds. Maalat filed for illegal dismissal and unpaid commissions. The NLRC ruled in Maalat's favor but the CA reversed, finding his dismissal justified. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, finding an employment relationship did exist but that Maalat's dismissal was lawful. While Maalat was entitled to claim unpaid commissions, separation pay was disallowed as his dismissal was for cause.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    COSMOPOLITAN vs MAALAT

    FACTS:
    1962, petitioner Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc. engaged the services of private respondent Noli Maalat as a
    supervisor to handle the solicitation of mortuar! arrangements, sales and collections. "he funeral services #hich
    he sold refer to the ta$ing of the corpse, em%alming, cas$eting, vie#ing and deliver!.
    "he private respondent #as paid on a commission %asis of &.'( of the amounts actuall! collected and remitted.
    19)*, respondent Maalat #as dismissed %! the petitioner for commission of the follo#ing violations despite
    previous #arnings+
    ,a- .nderstatement of the reported contract price against the actual contract price charged to and paid %! the
    customers/
    ,%- Misappropriation of funds or collections %! non0remittance of collections and non0issuance of 1fficial
    2eceipt/
    ,c- Charging customers additional amount and poc$eting the same for the cost of medicines, linen, and securit!
    services #ithout issuing 1fficial 2eceipt/
    ,d- Non0reporting of some em%alming and re0em%alming charges and poc$eting the same and non0issuance of
    1fficial 2eceipt/
    ,e- 3ngaging in tom% ma$ing and inclusion of the price of the tom% in the pac$age price #ithout prior $no#ledge
    of the customers and the compan!. ,4t p. 16, 2ecords-
    Maalat filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non0pa!ment of commissions.
    54612 426I"32 2.537+
    o Maalat8s dismissal is illegal and ordering the petitioner to pa! separation pa!, commission, interests and
    attorne!8s fee in the total amount of 92:','*1.'2.
    N52C 2.537+
    o "he decision of the 4r%iter is reversed and a ne# decision is rendered.
    o "he dismissal of complainant Noli Maalat %! respondent0appellant as ;ustified and #ith la#ful cause.
    ISSUE:
    <hether or not the N52C erred in ruling that an emplo!ment relationship e=isted %et#een the parties>
    <hether or not there #as e?uita%le %asis for the a#ard of 1@2 month separation pa! for ever! !ear of service>
    HELD:
    "he decision of N52C is affirmed. Aeparation pa! is disallo#ed. Msslst is entitled to claim for unclaimed commissions
    and attorne!Bs fees.
    RATIO:
    In determining #hether a person #ho performs #or$ for another is the latter8s emplo!ee or an independent
    contractor, the prevailing test is the right of control test. .nder this test, an emplo!er0emplo!ee relationship
    e=ists #here the person for #hom the services are performed reserves the right to control not onl! the end to %e
    achieved, %ut also the manner and means to %e used in reaching that end.
    "he N52C, after its perusal of the facts and evidence on record, stated that there e=ists an emplo!ment relationship
    %et#een the parties. "he petitioner has failed to overcome this factual finding.
    C A S I P L E
    "he fact that the petitioner imposed and applied its rule prohi%iting superiors from engaging in other funeral
    %usiness #hich it considered inimical to compan! interests proves that it had the right of control and actually
    exercised its control over the private respondent. In other #ords, Maalat #or$ed e=clusivel! for the petitioner.
    "he petitioner admits that these prohi%itive rules %ound the private respondent %ut states that these rules have no
    %earing on the means and methods ordinaril! re?uired of a supervisor. "he overall picture is one of emplo!ment.
    "he petitioner failed to prove that the contract #ith private respondent #as %ut a mere agenc!, #hich indicates that
    a supervisor is free to accomplish his #or$ on his o#n terms and ma! engage in other means of livelihood.
    C A S I P L E

    You might also like