Labor RR
Labor RR
Labor RR
It appears that the SSSEA went on strike after the Luz Lumanta with 54 other retrenched employees, filed
a complaint for unpaid retrenchment or separation pay
SSS failed to act on the union's demands, which
against private Food Terminal, Inc. (“FTI”) with the
included: implementation of the provisions of the Department of Labor and Employment.
old SSS-SSSEA collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) on check-off of union dues; payment of The complaint was later amended to include charges of
underpayment of wages and non-payment of
accrued overtime pay, night differential pay and emergency cost of living allowances (ECOLA).
holiday pay; conversion of temporary or
contractual employees with six (6) months or FTI moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground
more of service into regular and permanent of lack of jurisdiction.
employees and their entitlement to the same It argued that being a government-owned and
salaries, allowances and benefits given to other controlled corporation, its employees are governed by
regular employees of the SSS; and payment of the the Civil Service Law not by the Labor Code, and that
claims arising from employment fall within the
children's allowance of P30.00, and after the SSS jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission and not the
deducted certain amounts from the salaries of the Department of Labor and Employment.
employees and allegedly committed acts of
discrimination and unfair labor practices. The petitioners opposed the Motion to Dismiss
contending that:
ISSUE: Whether or not a labor law claim against a Petitioner Paper Industries Corporation of the
government-owned and controlled corporation, such as Philippines is engaged in the manufacture of
private respondent FTI, falls within the jurisdiction of the paper and timber products
Department of Labor and Employment
The Labor Arbiter held that the complainants are Respondents also admit that the petitioners were
part of a work pool wherein they attained the Ruling
status of regular employees because of the ff. Lagrama is an employee not an independent
requisites: (a) There is a continuous rehiring of contractor
project employees even after cessation of a Applying Four Fold Test
project; (b) The tasks performed by the alleged A. Power of Control - Evidence shows that
“project employees” are vital, necessary and the Lagrama performed his work as painter
indispensable to the usual business or trade of the and under the supervision and control of
employer; and (c) However, the length of time Tan.
which the employees are continually re-hired is 1. Lagrama worked in a
not controlling but merely serves as a badge of designated work area inside
regular employment. the theater of Tan for the use
of which petitioner prescribed
rules, which rules included
Since the producer and the crew members are the observance of cleanliness
employees of VIVA and that these employees’ and hygeine and prohibition
works deal with the making of movies. It can be against urinating in the work
area and any other place
said that VIVA is engaged of making movies and other than rest rooms and
not on the mere distribution of such. 2. Tan's control over Lagrama's
work extended not only the
The producer is not a job contractor because of use of work area but also the
result of Lagrama;s work and
the ff. reasons: (Sec. Rule VII, Book III of the
the manner and means by
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.) which the work was to be
accomplished
a. A contractor carries on an independent 3. Lagrama is not an
business and undertakes the contract work on his independent contractor
because he did not enjoy
own account under his own responsibility independence and freedom
according to his own manner and method, free from the control and
from the control and direction of his employer or supervision of Tan and he
principal in all matters connected with the was subjected to Tan's control
over the means and methods
performance of the work except as to the results
by which his work is to be
thereof. The said producer has a fix time frame performed and accomplished
and budget to make the movies. B. Payment of Wages
1. Lagrama worked for Tan on a fixed piece
b. The contractor should have substantial capital work basis is of no moment. Payment by
result is a method of compensation and does
and materials necessary to conduct his business. not define the essence of the relation.
The said producer, Del Rosario, does not have his 2. Tat Lagrama was not reported as an
own tools, equipment, machinery, work premises employee to the SSS is not conclusive, on the
and other materials to make motion pictures. Such question whether he was an employee,
otherwise Tan would be rewarded for his
materials were provided by VIVA. failure or even neglect to perform his
obligation.
It can be said that the producers are labor-only C. Power of Dismissal – by Tan stating that he
contractors. Under Article 106 of the Labor Code had the right to fire Lagrama, Tan in effect
(reworded) where the contractor does not have acknowledged Lagrama to be his employee
D. Power of Selection and Engagement of
the requisites as that of the job contractors. Employees – Tan engaged the services of Lagrama
without the intervention of third party
FACTS: Private respondent Dr. Fabros was employed as flight Upon learning about the incident, PAL Medical Director ordered
surgeon at petitioner company. He was assigned at the PAL the Chief Flight Surgeon to conduct an investigation. In his
Medical Clinic and was on duty from 4:00 in the afternoon until explanation, Dr. Fabros asserted that he was entitled to a thirty-
12:00 midnight. minute meal break; that he immediately left his residence upon
being informed by Mr. Eusebio about the emergency and he
On Feb.17, 1994, at around 7:00 in the evening, Dr. FAbros left arrived at the clinic a few minutes later; that Mr. Eusebio
the clinic to have his dinner at his residence, which was abou t5- panicked and brought the patient to the hospital without
minute drive away. A few minutes later, the clinic received an waiting for him.
emergency call from the PAL Cargo Services. One of its
employeeshad suffered a heart attack. The nurse on duty, Mr. Finding private respondent’s explanation unacceptable, the
Eusebio, called private respondent at home to inform him of management charged private respondent with abandonment of
the emergency. The patient arrived at the clinic at 7:50 in the post while on duty. He denied that he abandoned his post on
evening and Mr. Eusebio immediately rushed him to the February 17, 1994. He said that he only left the clinic to have his
hospital. When Dr. Fabros reached the clinic at around 7:51 in dinner at home. In fact, he returned to the clinic at 7:51 in the
the evening, Mr. Eusebio had already left with the patient to evening upon being informed of the emergency.
the hospital. The patient died the following day.
After evaluating the charge as well as the answer of private Petitioner appealed to the NLRC.The NLRC, however, dismissed
respondent, he was given a suspension for three months the appeal after finding that the decision of the Labor Arbiter is
effective December 16, 1994.Private respondent filed a supported by the facts on record and the law on the matter.
complaint for illegal suspension against petitioner.On July 16, The NLRC likewise denied petitioner’s motion for
1996, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring the reconsideration.
suspension of private respondent illegal. It also ordered
petitioner to pay private respondent the amount equivalent to
all the benefits he should have received during his period of
suspension plus P500,000.00 moral damages.
1. WON the nullifying of the 3-month suspension by the HELD: The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The portion of
NLRC erroneous. the assailed decision awarding moral damages to private
respondent is DELETED. All other aspects of the decision are
AFFIRMED
1. The legality of private respondent’s suspension: Dr. Fabros meals, except in the following cases when a meal period of not
left the clinic that night only to have his dinner at his house, less than twenty (20) minutes may be given by the employer
which was only a few minutes’ drive away from the clinic. His provided that such shorter meal period is credited as
whereabouts were known to the nurse on duty so that he could compensable hours worked of the employee; (a) Where the
be easily reached in case of emergency. Upon being informed of work is non-manual work in nature or does not involve
Mr. Acosta’s condition, private respondent immediately left his strenuous physical exertion; (b) Where the establishment
home and returned to the clinic. These facts belie petitioner’s regularly operates not less than sixteen hours a day; (c) In cases
claim of abandonment. Petitioner argues that being a full-time of actual or impending emergencies or there is urgent work to
employee, private respondent is obliged to stay in the company be performed on machineries, equipment or installations to
premises for not less than eight (8) hours. Hence, he may not avoid serious loss which the employer would otherwise suffer;
leave the company premises during such time, even to take his and (d) Where the work is necessary to prevent serious loss of
meals. We are not impressed. Art. 83 and 85 of the Labor Code perishable goods. Rest periods or coffee breaks running from
read: Art. 83. Normal hours of work. — The normal hours of five (5) to twenty (20) minutes shall be considered as
work of any employee shall not exceed eight (8) hours a day. compensable working time. Thus, the eight-hour work period
Health personnel in cities and municipalities with a population does not include the meal break. Nowhere in the law may it be
of at least one million (1,000,000) or in hospitals and clinics with inferred that employees must take their meals within the
a bed capacity of at least one hundred (100) shall hold regular company premises. Employees are not prohibited from going
office hours for eight (8) hours a day, for five (5) days a week, out of the premises as long as they return to their posts on
exclusive of time for meals, except where the exigencies of the time. Private respondent’s act, therefore, of going home to take
service require that such personnel work for six (6) days or his dinner does not constitute abandonment. 2. The award of
forty-eight (48) hours, in which case they shall be entitled to an moral damages: Not every employee who is illegally dismissed
additional compensation of at least thirty per cent (30%) of or suspended is entitled to damages. As a rule, moral damages
their regular wage for work on the sixth day. For purposes of are recoverable only where the dismissal or suspension of the
this Article, “health personnel” shall include: resident employee was attended by bad faith or fraud, or constituted an
physicians, nurses, nutritionists, dieticians, pharmacists, social act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to
workers, laboratory technicians, paramedical technicians, morals, good customs or public policy In the case at bar, there is
psychologists, midwives, attendants and all other hospital or no showing that the management of petitioner company was
clinic personnel. (emphasis supplied) Art. 85. Meal periods. — moved by some evil motive in suspending private respondent. It
Subject to such regulations as the Secretary of Labor may suspended private respondent on an honest, albeit erroneous,
prescribe, it shall be the duty of every employer to give his belief that private respondent’s act of leaving the company
employees not less than sixty (60) minutes time-off for their premises to take his meal at home constituted abandonment of
regular meals. Sec. 7, Rule I, Book III of the Omnibus Rules post which warrants the penalty of suspension. Under the
Implementing the Labor Code further states: Sec. 7. Meal and circumstances, we hold that private respondent is not entitled
Rest Periods. — Every employer shall give his employees, to moral damages.
regardless of sex, not less than one (1) hour time-off for regular