Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 161 views

    ANGELINA FRANCISCO vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Joseph Gabutina
    The court held that there was an employer-employee relationship between Angelina Francisco and Kasei Corporation based on a two-tiered test examining both control and economic realities. Francisco worked for Kasei for many years performing accounting, management, and liaison duties. When her salary was reduced and then stopped without notice, it constituted constructive dismissal. The court considered factors like control over work, economic dependence on the job, and integration into the company to determine an employment relationship existed under labor law.

    Copyright:

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

    ANGELINA FRANCISCO vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Joseph Gabutina
    161 views2 pages
    The court held that there was an employer-employee relationship between Angelina Francisco and Kasei Corporation based on a two-tiered test examining both control and economic realities. Francisco worked for Kasei for many years performing accounting, management, and liaison duties. When her salary was reduced and then stopped without notice, it constituted constructive dismissal. The court considered factors like control over work, economic dependence on the job, and integration into the company to determine an employment relationship existed under labor law.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court held that there was an employer-employee relationship between Angelina Francisco and Kasei Corporation based on a two-tiered test examining both control and economic realities. Francisco worked for Kasei for many years performing accounting, management, and liaison duties. When her salary was reduced and then stopped without notice, it constituted constructive dismissal. The court considered factors like control over work, economic dependence on the job, and integration into the company to determine an employment relationship existed under labor law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    161 views2 pages

    ANGELINA FRANCISCO vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Joseph Gabutina
    The court held that there was an employer-employee relationship between Angelina Francisco and Kasei Corporation based on a two-tiered test examining both control and economic realities. Francisco worked for Kasei for many years performing accounting, management, and liaison duties. When her salary was reduced and then stopped without notice, it constituted constructive dismissal. The court considered factors like control over work, economic dependence on the job, and integration into the company to determine an employment relationship existed under labor law.

    Copyright:

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

    ANGELINA FRANCISCO vs.

    NLRC 
    500 SCRA 690 (2006)

    Facts: Petitoner was hired by Kasei Corporation during the incorporation stage. She was designated
    as accountant and corporate secretary and was assigned to handle all the accounting needs of the
    company. She was also designated as Liason Officer to the City of Manila to secure permits for the
    operation of the company. 

    In 1996, Petitioner was designated as Acting Manager. She was assigned to handle recruitment of
    all employees and perform management administration functions. In 2001, she was replaced by Liza
    Fuentes as Manager. Kasei Corporation reduced her salary to P2,500 per month which was until
    September. She asked for her salary but was informed that she was no longer connected to the
    company. She did not anymore report to work since she was not paid for her salary. She filed an
    action for constructive dismissal with the Labor Arbiter. 

    The Labor Arbiter found that the petitioner was illegally dismissed. NLRC affirmed the decision while
    CA reversed it. 

    Issue: Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship. 

    Ruling: The court held that in this jurisdiction, there has been no uniform test to determine the
    existence of an employer-employee relation. Generally, courts have relied on the so-called right of
    control test where the person for whom the services are performed reserves a right to control not
    only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end. In addition to the
    standard of right-of-control, the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties, like the
    inclusion of the employee in the payrolls, can help in determining the existence of an employer-
    employee relationship. 

    The better approach would therefore be to adopt a two-tiered test involving: (1) the putative
    employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work
    is to be accomplished; and (2) the underlying economic realities of the activity or relationship. 

    In Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, the court observed the need to consider the existing economic
    conditions prevailing between the parties, in addition to the standard of right-of-control like the
    inclusion of the employee in the payrolls, to give a clearer picture in determining the existence of an
    employer-employee relationship based on an analysis of the totality of economic circumstances of
    the worker. 

    Thus, the determination of the relationship between employer and employee depends upon the
    circumstances of the whole economic activity, such as: (1) the extent to which the services
    performed are an integral part of the employer’s business; (2) the extent of the worker’s investment
    in equipment and facilities; (3) the nature and degree of control exercised by the employer; (4) the
    worker’s opportunity for profit and loss; (5) the amount of initiative, skill, judgment or foresight
    required for the success of the claimed independent enterprise; (6) the permanency and duration of
    the relationship between the worker and the employer; and (7) the degree of dependency of the
    worker upon the employer for his continued employment in that line of business. The proper
    standard of economic dependence is whether the worker is dependent on the alleged employer for
    his continued employment in that line of business. 

    By applying the control test, there is no doubt that petitioner is an employee of Kasei Corporation
    because she was under the direct control and supervision of Seiji Kamura, the corporation’s
    Technical Consultant. It is therefore apparent that petitioner is economically dependent on
    respondent corporation for her continued employment in the latter’s line of business. 

    There can be no other conclusion that petitioner is an employee of respondent Kasei Corporation.
    She was selected and engaged by the company for compensation, and is economically dependent
    upon respondent for her continued employment in that line of business. Her main job function
    involved accounting and tax services rendered to Respondent Corporation on a regular basis over
    an indefinite period of engagement. Respondent Corporation hired and engaged petitioner for
    compensation, with the power to dismiss her for cause. More importantly, Respondent Corporation
    had the power to control petitioner with the means and methods by which the work is to be
    accomplished.

    You might also like