Labor Required Digest 2

LABOR | ATTY.
GOLANGCO MODULE 1- CASE DIGEST
1. Francisco v. NLRC August 21, 2006

2. Sonza v. ABS CBN, June 10, 2004
3. Locsin et. al. v. PLDT, October 2, 2009
4. People’s BroadcasIng Service v. Sec of Labor, March 6, 2012
5. Ymbong v. ABS-CBN, March 7, 2012
6. Professional Services v. CA, February 11, 2008
7. South East InternaIonal RaUan Inc. v. Coming, March 12, 2014
8. Tenazas et. al. v. R. Villegas Taxi Transport, April 2, 2014.
9. Tongko v. Manufacturer’s Life Insurance Co. , November 7, 2008
10. TAPE Inc. v. Servana, January 28, 2008
11. Encyclopedia Britannica v NLRC, November 4, 1996
12. Dumpit Murillo v. CA, June 28, 2011
LABOR STANDARD 13. Bernarte v. PBA, September 14, 2011

14. Jardin v. NLRC, February 23, 2000
15. Century Canning Corp v. CA, August 17, 2007
Case Digests
16. Coca-cola BoUlers Inc. v. Climaco, February 2007
17. Gabriel v. Bilon, February 2007
18. Felix v. Buenaseda, January 7, 1995
Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

LABOR | ATTY. GOLANGCO MODULE 1- CASE DIGEST
FRANCISCO vs NLRC ups with the company cashier but she was advised that the company was not earning well. When peIIoner asked
GR. No. 170087 fro her salary again, she was informed that she was no longer connected with the company. As such, peIIoner
31 August 2006 stopped reporIng for work and filed an acIon for construcIve dismissal before the Labor Arbiter.
Tickler: liaison officer; economic circumstance; two-5ered test
Private responders averred that peIIoner is not an employee of Kasei CorporaIon. They reasoned that peIIoner
Doctrines: was hired as one of its technical consultants on accounIng maUers, and act concurrently as Corporate Secretary. As
1. Two-1ered test  technical consultant, peIIoner performed her work at her own discreIon without control and supervision of Kasei
The be5er approach would therefore be to adopt a two-1ered test involving:   CorporaIon. PeIIoner had no daily Ime record and she came to the office any Ime she wanted. The company
(1) the puta1ve employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the never interfered with her work except that from Ime to Ime, the management would ask her opinion on maUers
work is to be accomplished; and   relaIng to her profession.
(2) the underlying economic reali1es of the ac1vity or rela1onship. This two-1ered test would provide a
framework of analysis, which would take into considera1on the totality of circumstances surrounding the true Issue:
nature of the rela1onship between par1es  WON there exists an employer-employee relaIonship between Francisco and Kasei
This is especially appropriate In cases where there is no wri5en agreement or terms of reference to base the
rela1onship on; and due to the complexity of the rela1onship based on the various posi1ons and responsibili1es Held:
given to the worker over the period of the la5er’s employment  Yes, there exists an employer-employee relaIonship between Francisco and Kasei CorporaIon.
2. The determina1on of the rela1onship between employer and employee depends upon the circumstances of the There has been no uniform test to determine the existence of an employer-employee relaIon. Generally, courts
whole economic ac1vity  have relied on the so-called right of control test where the person for whom the services are performed reserves a
The determina1on of the rela1onship between employer and employee depends upon the circumstances of the right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end. In addiIon to
whole economic ac1vity, such as:  the standard of right-of-control, the exisIng economic condiIons prevailing between the parIes, like the inclusion
(1) the extent to which the services performed are an integral part of the employer’s business;  of the employee in the payrolls, can help in determining the existence of an employer-employee relaIonship.
(2) the extent of the worker’s investment in equipment and facili1es; 
(3) the nature and degree of control exercised by the employer;  However, in certain cases the control test is not sufficient to give a complete picture of the relaIonship between the
(4) the worker’s opportunity for profit and loss;  parIes, owing to the complexity of such a relaIonship where several posiIons have been held by the worker. There
(5) the amount of ini1a1ve, skill, judgment or foresight required for the success fo the claimed independent are instances when, aside from the employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means and
enterprise;  methods by which the work is to be accomplished, economic realiIes of the employment relaIons help provide a
(6) the permanency and dura1on of the rela1onship between the worker and the employer; and  comprehensive analysis of the true classificaIon of the individual, whether as employee, independent contractor,
(7) the degree of dependency of the worker upon the employer for his con1nued employment in the line of corporate officer or some other capacity.
business
Facts: The beUer approach would therefore be to adopt a two-Iered test involving:
PeIIoner Angelina Francisco was hired by Kasei CorporaIon during its incorporaIon stage in 1995. She was 1. the putaIve employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the
designated as Accountant and Corporate Secretary and was assigned to handle all the accounIng needs of the work is to be accomplished; and
company. She was also designated as Liaison Officer. Although she was designated as Corporate Secretary, she was 2. the underlying economic realiIes of the acIvity or relaIonship. This two-Iered test would provide a framework
not entrusted with the corporate documents; neither did she aUend any board meeIng nor required to do so. of analysis, which would take into consideraIon the totality of circumstances surrounding the true nature of the
relaIonship between parIes
In 1996, peIIoner was designated AcIng Manager. As AcIng Manager, peIIoner was assigned to handle
recruitment of all employees and perform management administraIon funcIons, including maUers pertaining to This is especially appropriate In cases where there is no wriUen agreement or terms of reference to base the
the operaIon of Kasei Restaurant which is owned and operated by Kasei CorporaIon. relaIonship on; and due to the complexity of the relaIonship based on the various posiIons and responsibiliIes
given to the worker over the period of the laUer’s employment.
In 2001, peIIoner was replaced. PeIIoner alleged that she was required to sign a prepared resoluIon for her
replacement but she was assured that she would sIll be connected with Kasei CorporaIon.In a meeIng convened In addiIon to the standard of right-of-control like the inclusion of the employee in the payrolls, to give a clearer
by the company’s treasurer, peIIoner was assured that sIll was sIll connected with Kasei CorporaIon as Technical picture in determining the existence of an employer-employee relaIonship based on an analysis of the totality of
Assistant. Thereaaer, Kasei reduced her salary. PeIIoner was not paid her mid-year bonus allegedly because the economic circumstances of the worker. Thus, he determinaIon of the relaIonship between employer and employee
company was not earning well. On October 2001, peIIoner did not received her salary. She made repeated follow- depends upon the circumstances of the whole economic acIvity, 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 faciliIes; celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees, is a circumstance indica1ve, but not conclusive of an
3. the nature and degree of control exercised by the employer; independent contractual rela1onship 
4. the worker’s opportunity for profit and loss;  
5. the amount of iniIaIve, skill, judgment or foresight required for the success fo the claimed independent Benefits enjoyed by an independent contractor arise from contract, not from an employer-employee rela1onship 
enterprise;
6. the permanency and duraIon of the relaIonship between the worker and the employer; and 3. Right of labor to security of tenure 
7. the degree of dependency of the worker upon the employer for his conInued employment in the line of The right of labor to security of tenure as guaranteed in the Cons1tu1on arises only if there is an employer-
business employee rela1onship under labor laws. Not every performance of service for a fee creates an employer-
employee rela1onship. To hold that every person who renders services to another for a fee is an employee—to
The proper standard of economic dependence is whether the worker is dependent on the alleged employer for his give meaning to the security of tenure clause—will lead to absurd results
conInued employment in that line of business. The benchmark of economic reality in analysing possible Facts:
employment relaIonships for purposes of the Labor Code ought to be the economic dependence of the worker on In 1994, ABS-CBN signed an agreement with the Mel and Jay Management and Development CorporaIon (MJMDC)
his employer. where the laUer agree to provide Sonza’s services exclusively to the former as talent for radio and television. ABS-
CBN agreed to pay for Sonza’s services a month taken of P310,000 for the first year, and P317,000 for the second
By applying the control test, there is no doubt that peIIoner is an employee of Kasei CorporaIon because she was and third year of the agreement.
under the direct control and supervision of Seiji Kamura, the corporaIon’s Technical Consultant. She reported for
work regularly and served in various capaciIes with substanIally the same job funcIons, that is, rendering On April 1996, Sonza irrevocably resigned in view of recent events concerning his programs and career. H waived
accounIng and tax services to the company and performing funcIons necessary and desirable for the proper renouncing recovery of the remaining amount of the agreement but reserved the right to seek recovery of the other
operaIon of the corporaIon such as securing business permits and other licenses over an indefinite period of benefits under said agreement. In the same month, Sonza filed a complaint against ABS-CBN before the DOLE. Sonza
engagement. complained that ABS-CBN did not pay his salaries, separaIon pay, service incenIve leave pay, 13th month pay,
signing bonus, travel allowance and amounts due under the Employees Stock OpIon Plan. On July 1996, ABS CBN
Under the broader economic reality test, the peIIoner can likewise be said to be an employee of respondent filed a MoIon to Dismiss on the ground that no employer-employee relaIonship existed between the parIes. Sonza
corporaIon because she had served the company for 6 years before her dismissal, receiving check vouchers filed an opposiIon to the moIon.
indicaIng her salaries/wages, benefits 13th month pay, bonuses and allowances, as well as deducIons and SSS
contribuIons. Issue:
WON there exists an employer-employee relaIonship between Sonza and ABS-CBN
SONZA vs ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
GR. No. 138051 Held:
29 June 2010 No, there is no employer-employee relaIonship between Sonza and ABS CBN.
Tickler: independent contractor; four-fold test
Doctrines: Sonza maintains that all essenIal elements of an employer-employee relaIonship are present in this case. Case law
1. Essen1al elements of an employer-employee rela1onship  has consistently held that the elements of an employer-employee relaIonship are: (a) the selecIon and
Case law has consistently held that the elements of an employer-employee rela1onship are: (a) the selec1on and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power
engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished.
power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished. The last element,
the so-called “control test,” is the most important element.  Applying the control test to the present case, the Court finds that SONZA is not an employee but an independent
  contractor. The control test is the most important test our courts apply in disInguishing an employee from an
The greater the supervision and control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an employee; independent Contractor. This test is based on the extent of control the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the
the less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is considered on an independent contractor supervision and control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an employee. The converse holds
true as well – the less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is considered an independent
2. Independent contractor  contractor.
Independent contractors oTen present themselves to possess unique skills, exper1se or talent to dis1nguish them
from ordinary employees. The specific selec1on and hiring of SONZA, because of his unique skills, talent, and The Court finds that ABS-CBN was not involved in the actual performance that produced the finished product of
SONZA’s work. ABS-CBN did not instruct SONZA how to perform his job. ABS-CBN merely reserved the right to
modify the program format and airIme schedule “for more effecIve programming.” ABS-CBN’s sole concern was the
quality of the shows and their standing in the raIngs. Clearly, ABS-CBN did not exercise control over the means and The Secretary of labor and Employment may, by appropriate regula1ons, restrict or prohibit the contrac1ng-out
methods of performance of SONZA’s work. of labor to protect the rights of workers established under this Code. In so prohibi1ng or restric1ng, he may
make appropriate dis1nc1ons between labor-only contrac1ng and job contrac1ng as well as differen1a1ons
In any event, not all rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party indicate that the laUer is an employee of within these types of contrac1ng and determine who among the par1es involved shall be considered the
the former. In this case, SONZA failed to show that these rules controlled his performance. The Court finds that employer for purposes of this Code, to prevent any viola1on or circumven1on of any provision of this Code. 
these general rules are merely guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result, which are top-  
raIng television and radio programs that comply with standards of the industry. There is labor-only contract where the person supplying workers to an employer does not have substan1al
capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and the
Being an exclusive talent does not by itself mean that SONZA is an employee of ABS-CBN. Even an independent workers recruited and placed by such person are directly related to the principal business of such employer. In
contractor can validly provide his services exclusively to the hiring party. In the broadcast industry, exclusivity is not such cases, the person or intermediary shall be considered merely as an agent of the employer. In such cases, the
necessarily the same as control. person or intermediary shall be considered merely as an agent of the employer who shall be responsible to the
workers in the same manner and extent as if the la5er were directly employed by him.
*Not every performance of services for a fee creates an employer-employee relaIonship. To hold that every person 3. Sec. 5, DO No. 18-2002—Prohibi1on against labor-only contrac1ng 
who renders services to another for a fee is an employee – to give meaning to the security of tenure clause – will Labor-only contrac1ng is hereby declared prohibited. For this purpose, labor-only contrac1ng shall refer to an
lead to absurd results. arrangement where the contractor or subcontractor merely recruits, supplies, or places workers to perform a job,
work, or service for a principal, and any of the following elements are present:
LOCSIN vs PLDT (i) The contractor or subcontractor does not have substan1al capital or investment which related to the
GR. No. 185251 job, work or service to be performed and the employees recruited, supplied or placed by such
2 October 2009 contractor or subcontractor are performing ac1vi1es which are directly related to the main business of
Tickler: Security Guards; employer-employee rela5onship; four-fold test the principal; or
(ii) The contractor does not exercise the right to control over the performance of the work of the
Doctrines: contractual employee 
Evidence, to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible in itself  
—such as the common experience and observa1on of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. The forgoing provisions shall be without prejudice to the applica1on of Art. 248(c) of the Labor Code,
We have no test of the trough of human tes1mony, except its conformity to our knowledge, observa1ons, and as amended.
experience. Whatever is pregnant to these belongs tot he miraculous and is outside judicial cognisance.  4. Art. 284(c) of the Labor Code‚—Defini1on of Substan1al Capital or Investment 
  Substan5al Capital or investment refers to capital stocks and subscribed capitalisa1on in the case of corpora1ons, tools,
equipment, implements, machineries and work premises, actually and directly used by the contractor or subcontractor in the
Per1nent Laws/Provisions: performance or comple1on of the job, work or service contracted out. 
1. Sec. 3 (y), Rule 131, ROC—Disputable presump1ons   
The right to control shall refer to the right reserved to the person for whom the services of the contractual workers are
Disputable presump5ons—The following presump1ons are sa1sfactory if uncontradicted, but may be
performed, to determine not only the end to be achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end.
contradicted and overcome by other evidence:  5. Sec. 7 of DO No. 18-2002—Consequence of Labor-only contrac1ng 
  Existence of an employer-employee rela1onship—the contractor or subcontractor shall be considered the employer of the
(y) that things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life contractual employee for purposes of enforcing the provisions of the Labor Code and other social legisla1on. The principal,
2. Art. 106 of the Labor Code on Contractor or subcontractor  however, shall be solidarity liable with the contractor in the event of any viola1on of any provision of the Labor Code, including
Contractor or subcontractor. Whenever an employer enters into a contract with another person for the the failure to pay wages. 
performance of the former’s work, the employees of the contractor and of the la5er’s subcontractor, if any, shall  
be paid in accordance with the provisions of this Code.  The principal shall be deemed the employer of the contractual employee in any of the following cases as declared by a
  competent authority:
In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his employees in accordance with this a. Where there is labor-only contrac1ng; or
b. Where the contrac1ng arrangement falls within the prohibi1ons provided in Sec. 6
Code, the employer shall be jointly and severally liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to
the extent of the work performed under the contract, in the same manner and extent that he is liable to Facts:
employees directly employed by him.  Respondent PLDT entered a contract with Security and Safety CorporaIon of the Philippines whereby SSCP would
  provide armed security guards to PLDT to be assigned to its various office. Pursuant to such agreement, peIIoners

Raul Locsin and Eddie Tomaquin, among other security guards, were posted at a PLDT Office. 11 years aaer the
signing of the agreement, PLDT issued a leUer to SSCP terminaIng their contract effecIve October 2001. However, start, the DOLE has no jurisdic1on; and employer-employee rela1onship must exist for the exercise of the
despite such terminaIon, peIIoners conInued to secure the premises of their assigned office. They were allegedly visitorial and enforcement power of the DOLE
directed to remain ate their posts by representaIves of respondent. In support of their contenIon, peIIoners
provided the Labor arbiter with copies of peIIoner Locsin’s pay slips for the period of January to September 2002. 2. Employer-employee rela1onship 
Then, on September 30, 2002, peIIoners’ services were terminated. The DOLE, in determining the existence of an employer-employee rela1onship, has a ready set of guidelines to
follow, the same guide the courts themselves use. The elements to determine the existence of an employment
This prompted the peIIoners to file a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal and recovery of money rela1onship are: (1) the selec1on and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of
claims such as overIme pay, holiday pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day, service incenIve leave pay, dismissal; (4)the employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct. The use of this test is not solely limited to
Emergency Cost of Living Allowance, and moral and exemplary damages against PLDT. the NLRC. The DOLE Secretary, or his or her representa1ves, can u1lise the same test, even in the course of
The Labor Arbiter decided in favour of the peIIoners, finding that the same were employees of PLDT and not of inspec1on, making use of the same evidence that would have been presented before the NLRC. 
SCCP. As such, peIIoners were enItled to substanIve and procedural due process before terminaIon of
employment. PLDT appealed the decision with the NLRC, the laUer affirming in toto the Arbiter’s Decision. Thus, 3. Exclusion of NLRC 
PLDT filed a moIon for reconsideraIon of the NLRC’s ResoluIon, which was also denied. Consequently, PLDT filed a If a complaint is brought before the DOLE to give effect to the labor standards provisions of the Labor Code or
PeIIon for CerIorari with the CA asking for the nullificaIon of the ResoluIon issued by the NLRC as well as the other labor legisla1on, and there is a finding by the DOLE that there is an exis1ng employer-employee
Labor Arbiter’s Decision. The CA rendered the assailed decision granIng PLDT’s peIIon and dismissing peIIoners’ rela1onship, the DOLE exercises jurisdic1on to the exclusion of the NLRC. If the DOLE finds that there is no
complaint. employer-employee rela1onship, the jurisdic1on is properly with the NLRC. If a complaint is filed with the DOLE,
and it is accompanied by a claim for reinstatement, the jurisdic1on is properly with the Labor Arbiter, under Art.
The CA applied the four-fold test in order to determine the existence of an employer-employee relaIonship 217(3) of the Labor Code, which provides that the Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdic1on over those
between the parIes but did not find such relaIonship. It determined that SSCP was not a labor-only contractor and cases involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and condi1ons of employment, if
was an independent contractor having substanIal capital to operate and conduct its own business. Further, the CA accompanied by a claim for reinstatement. If a complaint is filed with the NLRC, and there is s1ll an exis1ng
Issue: employer-employee rela1onship, the jurisdic1on is properly with the DOLE. The findings of the DOLE, however,
WON peIIoners became employees of PLDT aaer the terminaIon of the agreement with SSCP may s1ll be ques1oned through a pe11on for cer1orari under Rule 65 of theRules of Court
Facts:
Held: Private respondent Jandeleon Juezan filed a complaint against peIIoner Bombo Radyo with the DOLE for illegal
Yes, peIIoners are deemed employees of PLDT based on Rule 131, Sec. 3(y) of the ROC on disputable deducIon, non-payment of service incenIve leave, 13th month pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day and
presumpIons. illegal diminuIon of benefits, delayed payment of wages and non-coverage of SSS, PAG-IBIG, and Philhealth. Aaer
the conduct of summary invesIgaIons, and aaer the parIes submiUed their posiIon papers, the DOLE Regional
In the ordinary course of things, responsible business owners or managers would not allow security guards of an Director found that private respondent was an employee of peIIoner, and was enItled to his money claims.
agency with whom the owners or managers have severed Ies with to conInue to stay within the business’ PeIIoner sought reconsideraIon but failed. The AcIng DOLE Secretary dismissed peIIoner’s appeal.
premises. This is because upon the terminaIon of the owners’ or managers’ agreement with the security agency,
the agency’s undertaking of liability for any damage that the security guard would cause has already been The CA dismissed the complaint against peIIoner, finding no employer-employee relaIonship between peIIoner
terminated. Thus, in the event of an accident or otherwise damage caused by such security guards, it would be the and private respondent. It was held that while the DOLE may make a determinaIon of the existence of an employer-
business owners and/or managers who would be liable and not the agency. The business owners or managers employee relaIonship, this funcIon could not be co-extensive with the visitorial and enforcement power provided
would, therefore, be opening themselves up to liability for acts of security guards over whom the owners or in Art. 128(b) of the LaborCode, as amended by RA 7730. The NaIonal Labor RelaIons Commission (NLRC) was held
managers allegedly have no control. to be the primary agency in determining the existence of an employer-employee relaIonship. This was the
interpretaIon of the Court of the clause “in cases where the relaIonship of employer-employee sIll exists” in Art.
PHILIPPINE BROADCASTING SERVICE (BOMBO RADYO PHILS., INC.), vs SECRETARY OF LABOR 128(b). From this Decision, the Public AUorney’s Office (PAO)filed a MoIon for ClarificaIon of Decision (with Leave
GR. No. 179652 ofCourt). The PAO sought to clarify as to when the visitorial and enforcement power of the DOLE be not considered
6 March 2012 as co-extensive with the power to determine the existence of an employer-employee relaIonship.
Tickler: jurisdic5on of DOLE in determining the existence of an employer-employee rela5onship
Doctrines: Issue:
1. Jurisdic1on of DOLE  WON the DOLE can make a determinaIon of whether or not an employer-employee relaIonship exists
If there is no employer-employee rela1onship, whether it has been terminated or it has not existed from the

Held: 
Yes, the DOLE can make a determinaIon of whether or not an employer-employee relaIonship exists. listening public in it will not be in any way eroded. Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of the employees, it
must also protect the right of an employer to exercise what are clearly management preroga1ves. The free
No limitaIon in the law was placed upon the power of the DOLE to determine the existence of an employer- willof management to conduct its own business affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied.
employee relaIonship. No procedure was laid down where the DOLE would only make a preliminary finding, that Facts:
the power was primarily held by the NLRC. The law did not say that the DOLE would first seek the NLRC’s PeIIoner Ernest Ymbong started working for ABS CBN in 1993 at its regional staIon in Cebu as a news anchor.
determinaIon of the existence of an employer-employee relaIonship, or that should the existence of the employer- Because of the 1998 elecIons and based on his immediate recollecIon of the policy at that Ime, the Assistant
employee relaIonship be disputed, the DOLE would refer the maUer to theNLRC. The DOLE must have the power to StaIon Manager of DYAB issued a memorandum which directed employees/talents who want to run for any posiIon
determine whether or not an employer-employee relaIonship exists, and from there to decide whether or not to in the coming elecIon to file a leave of absence the moment s/he files his/her cerIficate of candidacy. The services
issue compliance orders in accordance with Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730. rendered by the concerned employee/talent to the company will then be temporarily suspended for the enIre
campaign/elecIon period.The Assistant StaIon Manager, however, admiUed that the text of the policy required
The determinaIon of the existence of an employer-employee relaIonship by the DOLE must be respected. The suspension for those who intend to campaign for a poliIcal party or candidate, and resignaIon for those who will
expanded visitorial and enforcement power of the DOLE granted by RA 7730 would be rendered nugatory if the actually run in the elecIons.
alleged employer could, by the simple expedient of dispuIng the employer-employee relaIonship, force the referral
of the maUer to the NLRC. The Court issued the declaraIon that at least a prima facie showing of the absence of an Aaer such issuance, Ymbong approached the Assistant StaIon Manager and told the laUer that he would leave
employer-employee relaIonship be made to oust the DOLE of jurisdicIon. But it is precisely the DOLE that will be radio for a couple of months because he will campaign for the administraIon Icket. It was only aaer the elecIons
faced with that evidence, and it is the DOLE that will weigh it, to see if the same does successfully refute the that they found out that Ymbong actually ran for public office himself at the eleventh hour. Ymbong, on the other
existence of an employer-employee relaIonship. hand, claims that in accordance with the March 25, 1998Memorandum, he informed Luzon through a leUer that he
would take a few months leave of absence from March 8,1998 to May 18, 1998 since he was running for councillor
YMBONG VS ABS-CBN of Lapu-Lapu City. Unfortunately, Ymbong lost. He then aUempted to regain his post from ABS CBN bu the Assistant
GR. No. 184885 StaIon Manager told him that such was not possible because company policy prohibited it.
7 March 2012
Tickler: resigna5on; company policy Ymbong contended that aaer the expiraIon of his leave of absence, he reported back to work as a regular talent
Doctrines: and in fact conInued to receive his salary. IN 1998, he received a memorandum staIng that his services are being
1. Termina1on of Employment; Resigna1on for the dura1on of the campaign period  terminated immediately, much to his surprise. Thus, he filed an illegal dismissal complaint against ABS CBN. The
What is involved in this case is an unwri5en company policy considering any employee who files a cer1ficate of laUer prayed for the dismissal of the complaints arguing that there is no employer-employee relaIonship between
candidacy for any elec1ve or local office as resigned from the company. Although §11(b) of R.A. No. 6646 does the company and Ymbong. ABS CBN contended that they are not employees but talents as evidenced by their talent
not require mass media commentators and announcers such as private respondent to resign from their radio or contracts. 
TV sta1ons but only to go on leave for the dura1on of the campaign period, we think that the company may
nevertheless validly require them to resign as a ma5er of policy. In this case, the policy is jus1fied on the Issue:
following grounds: Working for the government and the company at the same 1me is clearly disadvantageous WON the company policy of ABS CBN requiring employees/talents who are running for public office to resign is legal
and prejudicial to the rights and interest not only of the company but the public as well. In the event an and valid 
employee wins in an elec1on, he cannot fully serve, as he is expected to do, the interest of his employer. The
employee has to serve two (2) employers, obviously detrimental to the interest of both the government and the Held: 
private employer. In the event the employee loses in the elec1on, the impar1ality and cold neutrality of an Yes, the company policy is legal and valid.
employee as broadcast personality is suspect, thus readily eroding and adversely affec1ng the confidence and
trust of the listening public to employer’s sta1on The Court ruled that so long as a company’s management prerogaIves are exercised in good faith for the
advancement of the employer’s interest and not for the purpose of defeaIng or circumvenIng the rights of the
2. Management Preroga1ve  employees under special laws or under valid agreements, this Court will uphold them. In the instant case, ABS-CBN
So long as a company’s management preroga1ves are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the validly jusIfied the implementaIon of Policy No. HR-ER-016. It is well within its rights to ensure that it maintains its
employer’s interest and not for the purpose of defea1ng or circumven1ng the rights of the employees under objecIvity and credibility and freeing itself from any appearance of imparIality so that the confidence of the
special laws or under valid agreements, this Court will uphold them. In the instant case, ABS-CBN validly jus1fied viewing and listening public in it will not be in anyway eroded. Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of the
the implementa1on of Policy No. HR-ER-016. It is well within its rights to ensure that it maintains its objec1vity employees, it must also protect the right of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogaIves. The
and credibility and freeing itself from any appearance of impar1ality so that the confidence of the viewing and free will of management to conduct its own business affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC vs COURT OF APPEALS Aaer a couple of days, NaIvidad complained of excruciaIng pain in her anal region. She consulted both doctors
GR. No. 126297 about it. They told her that the pain was a natural consequence of the surgical operaIon performed upon her. Dr.
11 February 2008 Ampil recommended that NaIvidad consult with an oncologist to treat the cancerous nodes which were not
Tickler: medical malprac5ce removed during the operaIon. NaIvidad and her husband then traveled to the United States to seek further
treatment. Aaer 4 months of consultaIon and laboratory examinaIons, she was told that she was free of cancer.
Doctrines: Hence, she was advised to return to the Philippines.
1. Medical Negligence 
For the purpose of alloca1ng responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer-employee rela1onship On August of the same year, NaIvidad flew back to the Philippines, sIll suffering from pains. Two weeks thereaaer,
exists between hospitals and their consultant  her daughter found a piece of gauze protruding from her vagina. Dr. Ampil was immediately informed. He proceeded
to NaIvidad’s house to extract the gauze. He then assured NaIvidad that the pains would soon vanish. However, the
2. Doctrine of Apparent Authority  pains intensified, prompIng NaIvidad to seek treatment at the Polymedic General Hospital. While confined, Dr.
While in general, a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor-physician, the hospital Ramon GuIerrez detected the presence of foreign object in her vagina. The gauze had badly infected her vaginal
may be liable if the physician is the “ostensible” agent of the hospital, an excep1on also known as the “doctrine vault, causing the formaIon of a recotvaginal fistula in her reproducIve organ which forced stool to excrete through
of apparent authority” or some1mes referred to as the apparent or ostensible agency theory.   the vagina. To remedy the situaIon, NaIvidad underwent another surgical operaIon.
 
The act of a hospital in displaying the names of physicians in the public directory at the lobby of the hospital On November, the Agana spouses filed a complaint for damages against PSI (owner of Medical City) and her doctors.
amounts to holding out to the public that itoffers quality medical service through the listed physicians; Underthe On February 1986, pending the outcome of the above case, NaIvidad died. She was duly subsItuted by her
doctrine of apparent authority, the ques1on in every case is whether the principal has by his voluntary act placed children. On 1993, the trial court rendered judgment in favour of spouses Agana, finding PSI, Dr. Ampil, and Dr.
the agent in such a situa1on that a person of ordinary prudence, conversantwith business usages and the nature Fuentes jointly and severally liable.
of the par1cular business, isjus1fied in presuming that such agent has authority to perform the par1cular act in
ques1on  PSI, in its moIon for reconsideraIon, contends that the Court erred in finding it liable under Art. 2180 of the Civil
Code, there being no employer-employee relaIonship between it and its consultant.
3. Doctrine of Corporate Responsibility 
The duty of providing quality medical service is no longer the sole preroga1ve and responsibility of the physician Issue:
because the modern hospital now tends to organise a highly-professional medical staff whose competence and WON there exists an employer-employee relaIonship between Dr. Ampil and PSI
performance need also to be monitored by the hospital commensurate with its inherent responsibility to provide
quality medical care. Such responsibility includes the proper supervision of the members of its medical staff. Held:
Accordingly, the hospital has the duty to make a reasonable effort to monitor and oversee the treatment Yes, there exists an employer-employee relaIonship between Dr. Ampil and PSI.
prescribed and administered by the physicians prac1sing in its premises 
  As held in the case of Ramos, the unique pracIce (among private hospitals) of filling up specialist staff with
The corporate negligence doctrine imposes several du1es on a hospital: (1) to use reasonable care in the aUending and visiIng “consultants,” who are allegedly not hospital employees, presents problems in apporIoning
maintenance of safe and adequate facili1es and equipment; (2) to select and retain only competent physicians; responsibility for negligence in medical malpracIce cases. However, the difficulty is only more apparent than real.
(3) to oversee as to pa1ent care all persons who prac1ce medicine within its walls; and (4) to formulate, adopt,
and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality care for its pa1ents. These special tort du1es arise In the first place, hospitals exercise significant control in the hiring and firing of consultants and in the conduct of
from the special rela1onship exis1ng between a hospital or nursing home and its pa1ents, which are based on their work within the hospital premises. Doctors who apply for “consultant” slots, visiIng or aUending, are required
the vulnerability of the physically or mentally ill persons and their inability to provide care for themselves. to submit proof of compleIon of residency, their educaIonal qualificaIons; generally, evidence of accreditaIon by
Facts: the appropriate board(diplomate), evidence of fellowship in most cases, and references.These requirements are
In 1984, NaIvidad Agana was admiUed at the Medical City General Hospital (Medical City) because of difficulty of carefully scruInised by members of the hospital administraIon or by a review commiUee set up by the hospital who
bowel movement and bloody anal discharge. Dr. Ampil diagnosed her to be suffering from “cancer of the sigmoid.” either accept or reject the applicaIon. This is parIcularly true with respondent hospital.
This, Ampil, assisted by the medical staff of the hospital, performed an anterior resecIon surgery upon her. During
the surgery, he found that the malignancy in her sigmoid area had spread to her lea ovary, necessitaIng the removal Aaer a physician is accepted, either as a visiIng or aUending consultant, he is normally required to aUend
of certain porIons of it. Dr. Ampil gained consent from NaIvidad’s husband to permit Dr. Juan Fuentes to perform clinicopathological conferences, conduct bedside rounds for clerks, interns and residents, moderate grand
hysterectomy. The operaIon was completed however, the same appeared to be flawed. AUending nurses lea a roundsand paIent audits and perform other tasks and responsibiliIes, for the privilege of being able to maintain a
remark on the chart of the paIent that there were 2 missing sponges based on their count, and that the informaIon clinic in the hospital, and/or for the privilege of admirng paIents into the hospital. In addiIon to these, the
was relayed to Dr. Ampil but the laUer conInued closure. physician’s performance as a specialist is generally evaluated by a peer review commiUee on the basis of mortality

and morbidity staIsIcs, and feedback from paIents, nurses, interns and residents. A consultant remiss in his duIes,
or a consultant who regularly falls short of the minimum standards acceptable to the hospital or its peer review respondent supposedly worked for SEIRI 
commiUee, is normally politely terminated.
3. Resolu1on in favour of labourer 
In other words, private hospitals hire, fire and exercise real control over their aUending and visiIng “consultant” In any controversy between a labourer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are resolved
staff. While“consultants” are not, technically employees, a point which respondent hospital asserts in denying all in favour of the labourer. As a regular employee, respondent enjoys the right to security of tenure under Ar1cle
responsibility for the paIent’s condiIon, the control exercised, the hiring, and the right to terminate consultants all 279of the Labor Code and may only be dismissed for a just or authorised cause, otherwise the dismissal becomes
fulfil the important hallmarks of an employer-employee relaIonship, with the excepIon of the payment of wages. In illegal 
assessing whether such a relaIonship in fact exists, the control test is determining.Accordingly, on the basis of the
foregoing, we rule that fort he purpose of allocaIng responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer- 4. Separa1on Pay 
employee relaIonship in effect exists between hospitals and their aUending and visiIng physicians. This being the Separa1on pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service should likewise be awarded as an
case, the quesIon now arises as to whether or not respondent hospital is solidarily liable with respondent doctors alterna1ve in case reinstatement is not possible
for peIIoner’s condiIon. Facts:
PeIIoner South East InternaIonal RaUan, Inc. (SEIRI) is a domesIc corporaIon engaged in the business of
The basis for holding an employer solidarily responsible for the negligence of its employee is found in ArIcle 2180 of manufacturing and exporIng furniture to various countries with principal place of business in Mandaue City, while
the CivilCode which considers a person accountable not only for his own acts but also for those of others based on peIIoner Estanislao Agbay is the President and General Manager of SEIRI.
the former’s responsibility under a relaIonship of par1a ptetas.
Respondent Jesus Coming filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, among others, against SEIRI, and alleged that he
In the instant cases, PSI merely offered a general denial of responsibility, maintaining that consultants, likeDr. Ampil, worked for peIIoners as Sizing Machine Operator since 1984. His compensaIon was iniIally arranged on a pakiao
are “independent contractors,” not employees of the hospital. Even assuming that Dr. Ampil is not an employee of basis (P150/day, paid weekly). SomeIme in 1990, his employment was interrupted as he was told by peIIoners to
Medical City, but an independent contractor, sIll the said hospital is liable to the Aganas. resume work in 2 months Ime. Being uneducated and fearing that any complaint might result to his permanent
dismissal, Coming followed the order of the management albeit the fact that no reason was given to jusIfy the
SOUTH EAST INTERNATIONAL RATTAN, INC vs COMING interrupIon. He then reported back for work aaer the period.
GR. No. 186621
12 March 2014 In 2002, Coming was dismissed without lawful cause, as the peIIoners reasoned that the company was facing
Tickler: separa5on pay; SSS financial issues, and he was told he would be called back to work only if they needed his services again. Coming
Doctrines: waited for almost a year but peIIoners never called. This prompted him to file a complaint before the regional
1. Jurisdic1on of the Supreme Court in determining the existence of an employer-employee rela1onship  arbitraIon branch.
The issue of whether or not an employer-employee rela1onship exists in a given case is essen1ally a ques1on of
fact. As a rule, this Court is not a trier of facts and this applies with greater force in labor cases. Only errors of PeIIoners denied having any employment relaIonship with Coming because they asserted that SEIRI that
law are generally reviewed by this Court. This rule is not absolute, however, and admits of excep1ons. For one, respondent actually worked for SEIRI’s furniture suppliers; that respondent was not included in the list of employees
the Court may look into factual issues in labor cases when the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, submiUed to the SSS. These claims were supported by Coming’s brother and alleged owners of furniture supplier.
and the CA are conflic1ng. Here, the findings of the NLRC differed from those of the Labor Arbiter and the CA,
which compels the Court’s exercise of its authority to review and pass upon the evidence presented and to draw For his part, Coming submiUed an affidavit signed by 5 former co-workers staIng that he was indeed one of the
its own conclusions therefrom  pioneer employees who worked in SEIRI for almost 20 years
2. SSS non-inclusion is not conclusive proof of the absence of employer-employee rela1onship  Issue:
The fact that a worker was not reported as an employee to the SSS is not conclusive proof of the absence of WON there exists an employer-employee relaIonship between SEIRI and COMING
employer-employee rela1onship.Otherwise, an employer would be rewarded for his failure or even neglect to
perform his obliga1on. Nor does the fact that respondent’s name does not appear in the payrolls and pay Held:
envelope records submi5ed by pe11oners negate the existence of employer-employee rela1onship. For a payroll Yes, an employer-employee relaIonship between peIIoners and respondent exists.
to be u1lised to disprove the employment of a person, it must contain a true and complete list of the employee.
In this case, the exhibits offered by pe11oners before the NLRC consis1ng of copies of payrolls and pay earnings To ascertain the existence of an employer–employee relaIonship jurisprudence has invariably adhered to the four–
records are only for the years 1999 and2000; they do not cover the en1re 18-year period during which fold test, to wit: (1) the selecIon and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of
dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct, or the so–called “control test.” In resolving the issue
of whether such relaIonship exists in a given case, substanIal evidence – that amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to jusIfy a conclusion – is sufficient. Although no parIcular form of necessarily rule out reinstatement which would, otherwise, become the rule rather the excep1on in illegal dismissal
evidence is required to prove the existence of the relaIonship, and any competent and relevant evidence to prove cases.
the relaIonship may be admiUed, a finding that the relaIonship exists must nonetheless rest on substanIal Facts:
evidence. In July 2007, Bernard Tenazas and Jaime Francisco filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against R. Villegas Taxi
Transport and/or Romualdo Villegas and Andy Villegas. At that Ime, a similar case had already been filed by Isidro
In Tan v. Lagrama, the Court held that the fact that a worker was not reported as an employee to the SSS is not Endraca against the same respondents. The two cases were subsequently consolidated.
conclusive proof of the absence of employer–employee relaIonship. Otherwise, an employer would be rewarded
for his failure or even neglect to perform his obligaIon.  PeIIoners alleged that they were hired and dismissed by the respondents. Tenazas alleged that on July 1, 2007, the
  taxi unit assigned to him was sideswiped by another vehicle, causing a dent on the lea fender near the driver seat.
Nor does the fact that respondent’s name does not appear in the payrolls and pay envelope records submiUed by Upon reporIng the incident to the company, he was scolded by respondents and was told to leave the garage for he
peIIoners negate the existence of employer–employee relaIonship. For a payroll to be uIlized to disprove the was fired. He was even threatened with physical harm should he ever be seen in the company’s premises again.
employment of a person, it must contain a true and complete list of the employee. In this case, the exhibits offered Despite the warning, Tenazas reported for work the following day but was told that he can no longer drive any of the
by peIIoners before the NLRC consisIng of copies of payrolls and pay earnings records are only for the years 1999 company’s units.
and 2000; they do not cover the enIre 18–year period during which respondent supposedly worked for SEIRI.
Francisco averred that his dismissal was brought about by the company’s unfounded suspicion that he was
PeIIoners’ admission that the five affiants were their former employees is binding upon them. While they claim organising a labour union. He was instantaneously dismissed without the benefit of procedural due process.
that respondent was the employee of their suppliers Mayol and Apondar, they did not submit proof that the laUer Endraca, for his part, alleged that his dismissal was insIgated by an occasion when he fell short of the required
were indeed independent contractors; clearly, peIIoners failed to discharge their burden of proving their own boundary for his taxi unit. He related that before he was dismissed, he brought his taxi unit to an auto shop for an
affirmaIve allegaIon. There is thus no showing that the five former employees of SEIRI were moIvated by malice, urgent repair. He was charged the amount of P700 for the repair and replacement parts, and as a result, he was not
bad faith or any ill–moIve in execuIng their affidavit supporIng the claims of respondent.  able to meet his boundary for the day. Upon returning to the company garage and informing the management of
  the incident, his driver’s license was confiscated and was told to seUle the deficiency in his boundary first before his
In any controversy between a labourer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are resolved in license will be returned to him. He was no longer allowed to drive a taxi unit despite his persistent pleas.
favour of the labourer.
TENAZAS vs R. VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT For their part, the respondents admiUed that Tenazas and Endraca were employees of the company, the former
GR. No. 192998 being a regular driver and the laUer a spare driver. The respondents, however, denied that Francisco was an
2 April 2014 employee of the company or that he was able to drive one of the company’s units at any point in Ime.
Tickler: illegal dismissal; social security records
Doctrines:   Issue:
Doctrine of Strained Rela1ons  WON there exists an employer-employee relaIonship between Francisco and respondent
This doctrine of strained rela1ons, however, should not be μsed recklessly or applied loosely nor be based on
impression alone. “It bears to stress that reinstatement is the rule and, for the excep1on of strained rela1ons to Held:
apply, it should be proved that it is likely that if reinstated, an atmosphere of an1pathy and antagonism would be No, there is no employer-employee relaIonship between Francisco and respondent.
generated as to adversely affect the efficiency and produc1vity of the employee concerned.”Moreover, the existence
of strained rela1ons, it must be emphasised, is a ques1on of fact. In Golden Ace Builders v. Talde, the Court “[I]n determining the presence or absence of an employer-employee relaIonship, the Court has consistently looked
underscored: Strained rela1ons must be demonstrated as a fact, however, to be adequately supported by evidence for the following incidents, to wit:
— substan1al evidence to show that the rela1onship between the employer and the employee is indeed strained as a (a) the selecIon and engagement of the employee;
necessary consequence of the judicial controversy.  (b) the payment of wages;
  (c) the power of dismissal; and
A bare claim of strained rela1ons by reason of termina1on is insufficient to warrant the gran1ng of separa1on pay. (d) the employer’s power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished.
Likewise, the filing of the complaint by the pe11oners does not necessarily translate to strained rela1ons between The last element, the so-called control test, is the most important element.”
the par1es. As a rule, no strained rela1ons should arise from a valid and legal act asser1ng one’s right. Although
li1ga1on may also engender a certain degree of hos1lity, the understandable strain in the par1es’ rela1on would not There is no hard and fast rule designed to establish the aforesaid elements. Any competent and relevant evidence to
prove the relaIonship may be admiUed. IdenIficaIon cards, cash vouchers, social security registraIon,

appointment leUers or employment contracts, payrolls, organisaIon charts, and personnel lists, serve as evidence of
employee status 4. Backwages 
An illegally dismissed employee shall be en1tled to backwages and separa1on pay, if reinstatement is no longer
In this case, however, Francisco failed to present any proof substanIal enough to establish his relaIonship with the viable
respondents. He failed to present documentary evidence like aUendance logbook, payroll, SSS record or any Facts:
personnel file that could somehow depict his status as an employee. Anent his claim that he was not issued with In 1993, respondents Simeon Dejero and Teodor Permejo filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal, nonpayment
employment records, he could have, at least, produced his social security records which state his contribuIons, of salaries and overIme pay, refund of transportaIon expenses, damages, and aUorney’s fees against PRO Agency
name and address of his employer, as his co-peIIoner Tenazas did. He could have also presented tesImonial Manila, Inc. (PAMI) and Abdul Rahman Al Mahwes. Aaer due proceedings in 1997, Labor Arbiter Pedro Ramos
evidence showing the respondents’ exercise of control over the means and methods by which he undertakes his rendered a decision holding PAMI and Mahwes jointly and severally liable.
work. This is imperaIve in light of the respondents’ denial of his employment and the claim of another taxi
operator,Emmanuel Villegas (Emmanuel), that he was his employer.Specifically, in his Affidavit, Emmanuel alleged TPerInent provisions of the agreement state that:
thatFrancisco was employed as a spare driver in his taxi garage from January 2006 to December 2006, a fact that the
laUer failed to deny or quesIon in any of the pleadings aUached to the records of this case. The uUer lack of It is understood and agreed that the Agent is an independent contractor and nothing contained herein shall be
evidence is fatal to Francisco’s case especially in cases like his present predicament when the law has been very construed or interpreted as creaIng an employer-employee relaIonship between the Company and the Agent.
lenient in not requiring any parIcular form of evidence or manner of proving the presence of employer-employee
relaIonship. a) The Agent shall canvass for applicaIons for Life Insurance, AnnuiIes, Group policies and other products offered
by the Company, and collect, in exchange for provisional receipts issued by the Agent, money due or to become due
TONGKO vs MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. to the Company in respect of applicaIons or policies obtained by or through the Agent or from policyholders
GR. No. 167622 alloUed by the Company to the Agent for servicing, subject to subsequent confirmaIon of receipt of payment by the
7 November 2008 Company as evidenced by an Official Receipt issued by the Company directly to the policyholder.
Tickler: backwashes; insurance agent
Doctrines: b) The Company may terminate this Agreement for any breach or violaIon of any of the provisions hereof by the
1. Control test  Agent by giving wriUen noIce to the Agent within fiaeen (15) days from the Ime of the discovery of the breach. No
Control not only applies to the work or goal to be done but also to the means and methods to accomplish it; Not waiver, exInguishment, abandonment, withdrawal or cancellaIon of the right to terminate this Agreement by the
all forms of control would establish an employer-employee rela1onship.  Company shall be construed for any previous failure to exercise its right under any provision of this Agreement.
 
Logically, the line should be drawn between rules that merely serve as guidelines towards the achievement of c) Either of the parIes hereto may likewise terminate his Agreement at any Ime without cause, by giving to the
the mutually desired result without dicta1ng the means or methods to be employed in a5aining it, and those other party fiaeen (15) days noIce in wriIng.
that control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict the party hired to the use of such means. The first, which
aim only to promote the result, create no employer-employee rela1onship unlike the second, which address both SomeIme in 2001, De Dios addressed a leUer to Tongko, then one of the Metro North Managers, regarding
the result and the means used to achieve it  meeIngs wherein De Dios found Tongko's views and comments to be unaligned with the direcIons the company
was taking. De Dios also expressed his concern regarding the Metro North Managers' interpretaIon of the
2. Insurance Agents  company's goals. He maintains that Tongko's allegaIons are unfounded. Some allegaIons state that some Managers
If the specific rules and regula1ons that are enforced against insurance agents or managers are such that would are unhappy with their earnings, that they're earning less than what they deserve and that these are the reasons
directly affect the means and methods by which such agents or managers would achieve the objec1ves set by why Tonko's division is unable to meet agency development objecIves. However, not a single Manager came forth
the insurance company, they are employees of the insurance company  to confirm these allegaIons. Finally, De Dios related his worries about Tongko's inability to push for company
development and growth.
3. Termina1on of Employment 
When there is no showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for the termina1on of employment, the law considers De Dios subsequently sent Tongko a leUer of terminaIon in accordance with Tongko's Agents Contract. Tongko filed
the ma5er a case of illegal dismissal and the burden is on the employer to prove that the termina1on was for a a complaint with the NLRC against Manulife for illegal dismissal, alleging that he had an employer-employee
valid or authorised cause  relaIonship with De Dios instead of a revocable agency by poinIng out that the laUer exercised control over him
through direcIves regarding how to manage his area of responsibility and serng objecIves for him relaIng to the
business. Tongko also claimed that his dismissal was without basis and he was not afforded due process. The NLRC
ruled that there was an employer-employee relaIonship as evidenced by De Dios's leUer which contained the

manner and means by which Tongko should do his work. The NLRC ruled in favor of Tongko, affirming the existence
of the employer-employee relaIonship. measure but to mainly iden1fy the holder thereof as a bona fide employee of the firm who issues it 
The Court of Appeals, however, set aside the NLRC's ruling. It applied the four-fold test for determining control and 2. Defini1on of wages 
found the elements in this case to be lacking, basing its decision on the same facts used by the NLRC. It found that Wages, as defined in the Labor Code, are remunera1on or earnings, however designated, capable of being
Manulife did not exert control over Tongko, there was no employer-employee relaIonship and thus the NLRC did expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a 1me, task, piece or commission basis, or other
not have jurisdicIon over the case. method of calcula1ng the same, which is payable by an employer to an employee under a wri5en or unwri5en
contract of employment for work done or to be done, or for service rendered or to be rendered
The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals and ruled in favor of Tongko. However, the Supreme Facts:
Court issued another ResoluIon dated June 29, 2010, reversing its decision. Tongko filed a moIon for TAPE is a domesIc corporaIon engaged in the producIon of television programs, such as the long-running variety
reconsideraIon, which is now the subject of the instant case. program, “Eat Bulaga!.” Its president is Antonio P. Tuviera (Tuviera). Respondent Roberto C. Servaña had served as a
security guard for TAPE from March 1987 unIl he was terminated on 3 March 2000.
Issue:
WON peIIoner may be held jointly and severally liable with PRO Agency Manila, Inc. in accordance with Sec. 10 of Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of benefits against TAPE. He alleged that he was
RA No. 8042, despite not having been impleaded in the Complaint and named in the Decision first connected with Agro-Commercial Security Agency but was later on absorbed by TAPE as a regular company
guard. He was detailed at Broadway Centrum where Eat Bulaga! Regularly staged its producIon. In 200, respondent
Held: received a memorandum informing him of his impending dismissal on account of TAPE’s decision to contract the
No, peIIoner may not be held jointly and severally liable, absent a finding that she was remiss in direcIng the services of a professional security agency. Respondent claimed that several monetary consideraIons were withheld
affairs of the agency. from him.
RA No. 8042 is a police power measure intended to regulate the recruitment and deployment of OFWs. It aims to PeIIoner contended that aaer the severance of their relaIonship with RPN-9. TAPE engaged respondent’s services,
curb, if not eliminate, the injusIces and abuses suffered by numerous OFWs seeking to work abroad. Sec.10 of RA as part of the support group and thus a talent, to provide security service to producIon staff, stars and guests of
No. 8042 provides that “the liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all “Eat Bulaga!” as well as to control the audience during the one-and-a-half hour noonIme program and that it was
claims under this secIon shall be joint and several. This provision shall be incorporated in the contract for overseas agreed that complainant would render his services unIl such Ime that respondent company shall have engaged the
employment and shall be a condiIon precedent for its approval. In Sto. Tomas vs Salac, the Court had the services of a professional security agency. TAPE averred that respondent was an independent contractor falling
opportunity to pass upon the consItuIonality of this provision. The Court held, pending adjudicaIon of the case, under the talent group category and was working under a special arrangement which is recognised in the industry.
that the liability of corporate directors and officers is not automaIc. To make them jointly and solidarily liable with
their company, there must be a finding that they were remiss in direcIng the affairs of that company, such as Issue:
sponsoring or toleraIng the conduct of illegal acIviIes. WON the Servaña was an independent contractor
Hence, for peIIoner to be found jointly and solidarily liable, there must be a separate finding that she was remiss in Held:
direcIng the affairs of the agency, resulIng in the illegal dismissal of respondents. ExaminaIon of the records would No, Servaña is an employee of TAPE.
reveal that there was no finding of neglect on the part of the peIIoner in direcIng the affairs of the agency. In fact,
respondents made no menIon of any instance when peIIoner allegedly failed to manage the agency in accordance Jurisprudence is abound with cases that recite the factors to be considered in determining the existence of
with law, thereby contribuIng to their illegal dismissal. employer-employee relaIonship, namely: (a) the selecIon and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of
wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means
TELEVISION AND PRODUCTION EXPONENTS, INC. vs SERVAÑA and method by which the work is to be accomplished.
GR. No. 167648
28 January 2008 Sevaña was hired by TAPE when the laUer absorbed by him upon the expiraIon of his security agency contract with
Tickler: security guard in Eat Bulaga RPN-9. The monthly salary received by Servaña is considered wages despite being designated as talent fees by TAPE.
Doctrines: The Memorandum informing Servaña of disconInuance of his services also proves that TAPE and the power to
1. Iden1fica1on card as evidence of an employer-employee rela1onship  dismiss him. Control is also manifested in the bunny cards submiUed by Servaña. He was required to report daily
It has been held that in a business establishment, an iden1fica1on card is usually provided not just as a security and observe definite work hours. He is also considered a regular employee by reason of his 5 year conInuous

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA (PHILS) INC. vs NLRC Private respondent was merely an agent or an independent dealer of the peIIoner. He was free to conduct his work
GR. No. 87098 and he was free to engage in other means of livelihood. At the Ime he was connected with the peIIoner company,
4 November 1996 private respondent was also a director and later the president of the Farmers’ Rural Bank. Had he been an employee
Tickler: independent contractor of the company, he could not be employed elsewhere and he would be required to devote full Ime for peIIoner. If
private respondent was indeed an employee, it was rather unusual for him to wait for more than a year from his
Doctrines: separaIon from work before he decided to file his claims.
1. Ascertaining the existence of an employer-employee rela1onship  
In ascertaining whether the rela1onship is that of employer-employee or one of independent contractor, each In ascertaining whether the relaIonship is that of employer-employee or one of independent contractor, each case
case must be determined by its own facts and all features of the rela1onship are to be considered. The records of must be determined by its own facts and all features of the relaIonship are to be considered.6 The records of the
the case at bar showed that there was no such employer-employee rela1onship. case at bar showed that there was no such employer-employee relaIonship
2. Independent Contractor  
Where a person who works for another does so more or less at his own pleasure and is not subject to definite As stated earlier, “the element of control is absent; where a person who works for another does so more or less at
hours or condi1ons of work, and in turn is compensated according to the result of his efforts and not the amount his own pleasure and is not subject to definite hours or condiIons of work, and in turn is compensated according to
thereof, we should not find that the rela1onship of employer and employee exists the result of his efforts and not the amount thereof, we should not find that the relaIonship of employer and
Facts: employee exists.7 In fine, there is nothing in the records to show or would “indicate that complainant was under the
Private respondent Benjamin Limjoco was a Sales Division Manager of peIIoner Encylopaedia Britannica and was in control of the peIIoner” in respect of the means and methods in the performance of complainant’s work.
charge of selling peIIoner’s products through some sales representaIves. As compensaIon, private respondent
received commissions from the products sold by his agents. He was also allowed to use peIIoner’s name, goodwill Consequently, private respondent is not enItled to the benefits prayed for.
and logo. It was, however, agreed upon that office expenses should be deducted from private respondent’s
commissions. PeIIoner would also be informed about appointments, promoIons, and transfers of employees in DUMPIT-MURILLO vs COURT OF APPEALS
private respondent’s district. GR. No. 164652
8 June 2007
In 1974, private respondent Limjoco resigned from office to pursue his private business. The year aaer, he filed a Tickler: regular employment; renewal of contract
complaint against peIIoner with the DOLE claiming for non-payment of separaIon pay and other benefits, and also Doctrines:
illegal deducIon from his sales commissions. PeIIoner alleged that the complainant was not its employee but an 1. Fixed-term contracts 
independent dealer authorised to promote and sell its products and in return, received commissions therefrom. The prac1ce of having fixed-term contracts in the industry does not automa1cally make all talent contracts valid
Limjoco did not have any salary and his income from the peIIoner companies was dependent on the volume of and compliant with labor law. The asser1on that a talent contract exists does not necessarily prevent a regular
sales accomplished. He also had his own separate office, financed the business expenses, and maintained his own employment status. 
workforce. The salaries of his secretary, uIlity man, and sales representaIves were chargeable to his commissions.  
Thus, peIIoner argued that it had no control and supervision over the complainant as to the manner and means he For a fixed-term contract to be valid, it should be shown that the fixed period was knowingly and voluntarily
conducted his business operaIons. The laUer did not even report to the office of the peIIoner and did not observe agreed upon by the par1es—there should have been no force, duress or improper pressure brought to bear upon
fixed office hours.Consequently, there was no employer-employee relaIonship. the employee, neither should there be any other circumstance that vi1ates the employee’s consent. It should
sa1sfactorily appear that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with
Issue: no moral dominance being exercised by the employer over the employee. Moreover, fixed-term employment will
WON Limjaoco was an employee of Encyclopaedia BriUanica not be considered valid where, from the circumstances, it is apparent that periods have been imposed to
preclude acquisi1on of tenurial security by the employee.
Held:
No, peIIoner wasn’t an employee of Encyclopaedia BriUanica but rather, an independent contractor. 2. Regular Employment 
Concerning regular employment, the law provides for two kinds of employees, namely: (1) those who are
While it was true that the peIIoner had fixed the prices of the products for reason of uniformity and private engaged to perform ac1vi1es which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
respondent could not alter them, the laUer, nevertheless, had free rein in the means and methods for conducIng employer; and (2) those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether con1nuous or broken, with
the markeIng operaIons. He selected his own personnel and the only reason why he had to noIfy the peIIoner respect to the ac1vity in which they are employed. In other words, regular status arises from either the nature of
about such appointments was for purpose of deducIng the employees’ salaries from his commissions work of the employee or the dura1on of his employment. 
 

Further, the Sonza case is not applicable. In Sonza, the television staIon did not instruct Sonza how to perform his
The primary standard for determining regular employment is the reasonable connec1on between the par1cular job. How Sonza delivered his lines, appeared on television, and sounded on radio were outside the television
ac1vity performed by the employee vis-à-vis the usual trade or business of the employer. This connec1on can be staIon’s control. Sonza had a free hand on what to say or discuss in his shows provided he did not aUack the
determined by considering the nature of the work performed and its rela1on to the scheme of the par1cular television staIon or its interests. Clearly, the television staIon did not exercise control over the means and methods
business or trade in its en1rety. If the employee has been performing the job for at least a year, even if the of the performance of Sonza’s work. In the case at bar, ABC had control over the performance of peIIoner’s work.
performance is not con1nuous and merely intermi5ent, the law deems repeated and con1nuing need for its Noteworthy too, is the comparaIvely low P28,000 monthly pay of peIIoner vis the P300,000 a month salary of
performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that ac1vity to the business. Hence, Sonza, that all the more bolsters the conclusion that peIIoner was not in the same situaIon as Sonza.
the employment is considered regular, but only with respect to such ac1vity and while such ac1vity exists.
Facts: The duIes of peIIoner as enumerated in her employment contract indicate that ABC had control over the work of
Under a talent contract, private respondent Associated BroadcasIng Company (ABC) hired peIIoner Thelma peIIoner. Aside from control, ABC also dictated the work assignments and payment of peIIoner’s wages. ABC also
Dumpit-Murillo as a newscaster and co-anchor for Balitang-Balita, an early evening news program. The contract was had power to dismiss her. All these being present, clearly, there existed an employment relaIonship between
for a period of three months. PeIIoner’s contract was renewed for fiaeen Imes or for four consecuIve years. peIIoner and ABC.
In 1999, two weeks aaer the expiraIon of the last contract, peIIoner sent a leUer to Mr. Jose Javier, Vice President Concerning regular employment, the law provides for two kinds of employees, namely: (1) those who are engaged
for News and Public Affairs of ABC, informing the laUer that she was sIll interested in renewing her contract subject to perform acIviIes which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and (2)
to a salary increase. Thereaaer, peIIoner stopped reporIng for work. A month later, peIIoner sent a demand those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether conInuous or broken, with respect to the acIvity in
leUer7 to ABC, demanding: (a) reinstatement to her former posiIon; (b) payment of unpaid wages for services which they are employed. In other words, regular status arises from either the nature of work of the employee or
rendered from September 1 to October 20, 1999 and full backwages; (c) payment of 13th month pay, vacaIon/sick/ the duraIon of his employment.
service incenIve leaves and other monetary benefits due to a regular employee starIng March 31, 1996. ABC
replied that a check covering peIIoner’s talent fees for September 16 to October 20, 1999 had been processed and In the Court’s view, the requisites for regularity of employment have been met in the instant case. Gleaned from the
prepared, but that the other claims of peIIoner had no basis in fact or in law. descripIon of the scope of services aforemenIoned, peIIoner’s work was necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer which includes, as a pre-condiIon for its enfranchisement, its parIcipaIon in the
On December 20, 1999, peIIoner filed a complaint8 against ABC, Mr. Javier and Mr. Edward Tan, for illegal government’s news and public informaIon disseminaIon. In addiIon, her work was conInuous for a period of four
construcIve dismissal, nonpayment of salaries, overIme pay, premium pay, separaIon pay, holiday pay, service years. This repeated engagement under contract of hire is indicaIve of the necessity and desirability of the
incenIve leave pay, vacaIon/sick leaves and 13th month pay in NLRC-NCR Case No. 30-12-00985-99. She likewise peIIoner’s work in private respondent ABC’s business.
demanded payment for moral, exemplary and actual damages, as well as for aUorney’s fees.
BERNARTE vs PHILIPPINE BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION
The parIes agreed to submit the case for resoluIon aaer seUlement failed during the mandatory conference/ GR. No. 192084
conciliaIon. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case while the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter in a resoluIon. The 14 September 2011
NLRC held that an employer-employee relaIonship existed between peIIoner and ABC; that the subject talent Tickler: referee; illegal dismissal
contract was void; that the peIIoner was a regular employee illegally dismissed; and that she was enItled to Doctrines:
reinstatement and backwages or separaIon pay, aside from 13th month pay and service incenIve leave pay, moral 1. Four-fold Test 
and exemplary damages and aUorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the NLRC. To determine the existence of an employer-employee rela1onship, case law has consistently applied the four-fold
test, to wit: (a) the selec1on and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of
Issue: dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is
WON there was an employer-employee relaIonship between Dumpit-Morillo and ABC accomplished. The so-called “control test” is the most important indicator of the presence or absence of an
employer-employee rela1onship. 
Held:
Yes, there was an employer-employee relaIonship between peIIoner and private respondent. 2. Applicable foreign laws  
The applicable foreign case law declares that a referee is an independent contractor, whose special skills and
The Court of Appeals commiUed reversible error when it held that peIIoner was a fixed-term employee. PeIIoner independent judgment are required specifically for such posi1on and cannot possibly be controlled by the hiring
was a regular employee under contemplaIon of law. The pracIce of having fixed-term contracts in the industry does party. The very nature of pe11oner’s job of officia1ng a professional basketball game undoubtedly calls for
not automaIcally make all talent contracts valid and compliant with labor law. The asserIon that a talent contract freedom of control by respondents.
exists does not necessarily prevent a regular employment status.

Facts: that the all-important element of control is lacking in this case, making peIIoner an independent contractor and
PeIIoner Jose Bernarte averred that he was invited to join the PBA as a referee. During the term of Commissioner not an employee of respondents.
Emilio Bernardino, he was made to sign a contract on a year-to-year basis. During the term of Commissioner Eala,
however, changes were made on the terms of their employment. The sIpulaIons of the peIIoner hardly demonstrate control over the means and methods by which peIIoner
performs his work as a referee officiaIng a PBA basketball game. The contractual sIpulaIons do not pertain to,
Bernarte, for instance, was not made to sign a contract during the first conference of the All-Filipino Cup which was much less dictate, how and when peIIoner will blow the whistle and make calls. On the contrary, they merely serve
from February 23, 2003 to June 2003. It was only during the second conference when he was made to sign a one as rules of conduct or guidelines in order to maintain the integrity of the professional basketball league.
and a half month contract for the period July 1 to August 5, 2003.
Moreover, the following circumstances indicate that peIIoner is an independent contractor: (1) the referees are
On January 15, 2004, Bernarte received a leUer from the Office of the Commissioner advising him that his contract required to report for work only when PBA games are scheduled, which is three Imes a week spread over an
would not be renewed ciIng his unsaIsfactory performance on and off the court. It was a total shock for Bernarte average of only 105 playing days a year, and they officiate games at an average of two hours per game; and (2) the
who was awarded Referee of the year in 2003. He felt that the dismissal was caused by his refusal to fix a game only deducIons from the fees received by the referees are withholding taxes.
upon order of Ernie De Leon.
In other words, unlike regular employees who ordinarily report for work eight hours per day for five days a week,
Respondents averred, on the other hand, that Bernarte entered into two contracts of retainer with the PBA in the peIIoner is required to report for work only when PBA games are scheduled or three Imes a week at two hours per
year 2003. The first contract was for the period January 1, 2003 to July 15, 2003; and the second was for September game. In addiIon, there are no deducIons for contribuIons to the Social Security System, Philhealth or Pag-Ibig,
1 to December 2003. Aaer the lapse of the laUer period, PBA decided not to renew Bernarte’s contract. which are the usual deducIons from employees’ salaries. These undisputed circumstances buUress the fact that
peIIoner is an independent contractor, and not an employee of respondents.
The Labor Arbiter declared peIIoner as an employee whose dismissal by respondent was illegal. Accordingly, the LA
ordered the reinstatement of peIIoner and the payment of backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and Furthermore, the applicable foreign case law declares that a referee is an independent contractor, whose special
aUorney’s fees. The NLRC affirmed the LA’s judgment. However, the Court of Appeals found peIIoner as an skills and independent judgment are required specifically for such posiIon and cannot possibly be controlled by the
independent contractor since respondents did not exercise any form of control over the means and methods by hiring party.
which peIIoner performed his work as a basketball referee.
JARDIN vs NLRC
Issue: GR. No. 119268
WON the peIIoner is an employee of PBA 23 February 2000
Tickler: jeepney; labor union
Held:
No, peIIoner is an independent contractor and this, there was no illegal dismissal. Doctrines:
Employer-employee rela1onship between jeepney owners and operators 
The existence of an employer-employee relaIonship is ulImately a quesIon of fact. As a general rule, factual issues In the case of jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers, the former exercise supervision and control over the
are beyond the province of this Court. However, this rule admits of excepIons, one of which is where there are la5er. The management of the business is in the owner’s hands. The owner as holder of the cer1ficate of public
conflicIng findings of fact between the Court of Appeals, on one hand, and the NLRC and Labor Arbiter, on the convenience must see to it that the driver follows the route prescribed by the franchising authority and the rules
other, such as in the present case. promulgated as regards its opera1on. 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 rela1onship
To determine the existence of an employer-employee relaIonship, case law has consistently applied the four-fold between them from that of employer and employee.
test, to wit: (a) the selecIon and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of Facts:
dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is PeIIoners were drivers of private respondent, Philjama InternaIonal, Inc., a domesIc corporaIon engaged in the
accomplished. The so-called “control test” is the most important indicator of the presence or absence of an operaIon of “Goodman Taxi.” PeIIoners used to drive private respondent’s taxicabs every other day on a 24-hour
employer-employee relaIonship. work schedule under the boundary system. Under this arrangement, the peIIoners earned an average of P400.00
daily. Nevertheless, private respondent admiUedly regularly deducts from peIIoners’ daily earnings the amount of
In this case, PBA admits repeatedly engaging peIIoner’s services, as shown in the retainer contracts. PBA pays P30.00 supposedly for the washing of the taxi units. Believing that the deducIon is illegal, peIIoners decided to
peIIoner a retainer fee, exclusive of per diem or allowances, as sIpulated in the retainer contract. PBA can form a labor union to protect their rights and interests.
terminate the retainer contract for peIIoner’s violaIon of its terms and condiIons.However, respondents argue Upon learning about the plan of peIIoners, private respondent refused to let peIIoners drive their taxicabs when
they reported for work. PeIIoners suspected that they were singled out because they were the leaders and acIve
members of the proposed union. Aggrieved, peIIoners filed with the labor arbiter a complaint against private CENTURY CANNING CORPORATION vs COURT OF APPEALS
respondent for unfair labor pracIce, illegal dismissal and illegal deducIon of washing fees. GR. No. 152894
17 August 2007
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The NLRC reversed and set aside the judgment, Tickler:
declaring that peIIoners are employees of private respondent, and, as such, their dismissal must be for cause and
aaer due process. Doctrines:
1. Appren1ceship 
Issue: One of the objec1ves of Title II (Training and Employment of Special Workers) of the Labor Code is to establish
WON peIIoners are employees of private respondent appren1ceship standards for the protec1on of appren1ces; an appren1ceship program should first be approved
by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) before an appren1ce may be hired, otherwise the person
Held: hired will be considered a regular employee; An appren1ceship program should first be approved by the
Yes, peIIoners are employees of the respondent and as such, they were illegally dismissed. Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) before an appren1ce may be hired, otherwise the person hired
will be considered a regular employee. 
In a number of cases decided by this Court, we ruled that the relaIonship 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 Appren1ceship agreements providing for wage rates below the legal minimum wage, which in no case shall start
lessor-lessee. We explained that in the lease of chaUels, the lessor loses complete control over the chaUel leased below 75 percent of the applicable minimum wage, may be entered into only in accordance with appren1ceship
although the lessee cannot be reckless in the use thereof, otherwise he would be responsible for the damages to programs duly approved by the Minister of Labor and Employment. 
the lessor. In the case of jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers, the former exercise supervision and control  
over the laUer. The management of the business is in the owner’s hands. The owner as holder of the cerIficate of An appren1ceship agreement which lacks prior approval from the Technical Educa1on and Skills Development
public convenience must see to it that the driver follows the route prescribed by the franchising authority and the Authority (TESDA) is void. Prior approval from the Technical Educa1on and Skills Development Authority (TESDA)
rules promulgated as regards its operaIon. Now, the fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages but get only is necessary to ensure that only employers in the highly technical industries may employ appren1ces and only in
that in excess of the so-called “boundary” they pay to the owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the appren1ceable occupa1ons 
relaIonship between them from that of employer and employee. We have applied by analogy the above stated
doctrine to the relaIonships between bus owner/operator and bus conductor, auto-calesa owner/operator and 2. Defini1on of Appren1ce 
driver, and recently between taxi owners/operators and taxi drivers.22 Hence, peIIoners are undoubtedly “Appren1ce” is a person undergoing training for an approved appren1ceable occupa1on during an established
employees of private respondent because as taxi drivers they perform acIviIes which are usually necessary or period assured by an appren1ceship agreement; l) “Appren1ce Agreement” is a contract wherein a prospec1ve
desirable in the usual business or trade of their employer. employer binds himself to train the appren1ce who in turn accepts the terms of training for a recognized
appren1ce-able occupa1on emphasising the rights, du1es and responsibili1es of each party; m) “Appren1ceable
As consistently held by this Court, terminaIon of employment must be effected in accordance with law. The just and Occupa1on” is an occupa1on officially endorsed by a tripar1te body and approved for appren1ceship by the
authorised causes for terminaIon of employment are enumerated under ArIcles 282, 283 and 284 of the Labor Authority [TESDA] 
Code. The requirement of noIce and hearing is set-out in ArIcle 277 (b) of the said Code. Hence, peIIoners, being
employees of private respondent, can be dismissed only for just and authorised cause, and aaer affording them 3. Dismissal 
noIce and hearing prior to terminaIon. In the instant case, private respondent had no valid cause to terminate the Under Sec1on 25, Rule VI, Book II of the Implemen1ng Rules of the Labor Code, habitual absenteeism and poor
employment of peIIoners. Neither were there two (2) wriUen noIces sent by private respondent informing each of efficiency of performance are among the valid causes for which the employer may terminate the appren1ceship
the peIIoners that they had been dismissed from work. These lack of valid cause and failure on the part of private agreement aTer the proba1onary period. 
respondent to comply with the twin-noIce requirement underscored the illegality surrounding peIIoners’
dismissal. 4. Illegal dismissal 
Under the law, an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be enItled to reinstatement without loss of When the alleged valid cause for the termina1on of employment is not clearly proven, as in this case, the law
seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or considers the ma5er a case of illegal dismissal
their monetary equivalent computed from the Ime his compensaIon was withheld from him up to the Ime of his Facts:
actual reinstatement. In 1997, Century Canning CorporaIon hired Gloria Palad at peIIoner’s tuna and sardines factory. Palad signed an
apprenIceship agreement with peIIoner. She received an apprenIceship allowance daily. She also submiUed its
apprenIceship program for approval to TESDA of DOLE. In September 1997, TESDA approved peIIoner’s
apprenIceship program.

According to peIIoner, a performance evaluaIon was conducted on 15 November 1997, where peIIoner gave was hired not as an apprenIce but as a delivery boy (“kargador” or “pahinante”) deserves credence. He should
Palad a raIng of N.I. or “needs improvement” since she scored only 27.75% based on a 100% performance indicator. rightly be considered as a regular employee of peIIoner as defined by ArIcle 280 of the Labor Code x x x.
Furthermore, according to the performance evaluaIon, Palad incurred numerous tardiness and absences. As a
consequence, peIIoner issued a terminaIon noIce5 dated 22 November 1997 to Palad, informing her of her Republic Act No. 779615 (RA 7796), which created the TESDA, has transferred the authority over apprenIceship
terminaIon effecIve at the close of business hours of 28 November 1997. programs from the Bureau of Local Employment of the DOLE to the TESDA. RA 7796 emphasizes TESDA’s approval of
the apprenIceship program as a pre-requisite for the hiring of apprenIces.
Palad then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and non-payment of pro-rated 13th
month pay for the year 1997. Since Palad is not considered an apprenIce because the apprenIceship agreement was enforced before the TESDA’s
approval of peIIoner’s apprenIceship program, Palad is deemed a regular employee performing the job of a “fish
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but ordered peIIoner to pay Palad her last salary and cleaner.” Clearly, the job of a “fish cleaner” is necessary in peIIoner’s business as a tuna and sardines factory.
her pro-rated 13th month pay. Under ArIcle 28021 of the Labor Code, an employment is deemed regular where the employee has been engaged
to perform acIviIes which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.
On appeal, the NaIonal Labor RelaIons Commission (NLRC) affirmed with modificaIon the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
Upon denial of Palad’s moIon for reconsideraIon, Palad filed a special civil acIon for cerIorari with the Court of COCA-COLA BOTTLERS vs CLIMACO
Appeals. The appellate court rendered its decision finding the dismissal of peIIoner to be illegal and ordering GR. No. 146881
Century Canning CorporaIon to pay Palad her underpayments in wages and to reinstate the same. The Court of 5 February 2007
Appeals held that the apprenIceship agreement which Palad signed was not valid and binding because it was Tickler: medical doctor; retainer
executed more than two months before the TESDA approved peIIoner’s apprenIceship program. The Court of Facts:
Appeals also held that peIIoner illegally dismissed Palad. The Court of Appeals ruled that peIIoner failed to show Respondent Dr. Dean N. Climaco is a medical doctor The Retainer Agreement, which began on January 1, 1988, was
that Palad was properly apprised of the required standard of performance. The Court of Appeals likewise held that renewed annually (original contract was only good for one year). The last one expired on December 31, 1993.
Palad was not afforded due process because peIIoner did not comply with the twin requirements of noIce and Despite the non-renewal of the Retainer Agreement, respondent conInued to perform his funcIons as company
hearing. doctor to Coca-Cola unIl he received a leUer4 dated March 9, 1995 from peIIoner company concluding their
retainership agreement effecIve 30 days from receipt thereof.
Issue:
WON the private respondent was an apprenIce It is noted that as early as September 1992, peIIoner was already making inquiries regarding his status with
peIIoner company. PeIIoner company, however, did not take any acIon. Hence, respondent made another inquiry
Held: with the DOLE and SSS. Thereaaer, respondent inquired from the management of peIIoner company whether it
No, Palad was not an apprenIce. was agreeable to recognizing him as a regular employee. The management refused to do so.
In the case at bench, the apprenIceship agreement between peIIoner and private respondent was executed on
May 28, 1990 allegedly employing the laUer as an apprenIce in the trade of “care maker/molder.” On the same Climaco filed two complaint with the NLRC (1) seeking recogniIon as a regular employee of peIIoner company and
date, an apprenIceship program was prepared by peIIoner and submiUed to the Department of Labor and prayed for the payment of all benefits of a regular employee, including 13th Month Pay, Cost of Living Allowance,
Employment. However, the apprenIceship agreement was filed only on June 7, 1990. Notwithstanding the absence Holiday Pay, Service IncenIve Leave Pay, and Christmas Bonus; (2) a complaint for illegal dismissal against peIIoner
of approval by the Department of Labor and Employment, the apprenIceship agreement was enforced the day it company with the NLRC, Bacolod City.
was signed. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the first case, finding that peIIoner company lacked the power of control over
respondent’s performance of his duIes, and recognized as valid the Retainer Agreement between the parIes. The
Prior approval by the Department of Labor and Employment of the proposed apprenIceship program is, therefore, a second case was also dismissed in view of the previous finding of Labor Arbiter that complainant therein,
condiIon sine qua non before an apprenIceship agreement can be validly entered into. respondent is not an employee of Coca-Cola BoUlers Phils., Inc.
The act of filing the proposed apprenIceship program with the Department of Labor and Employment is a Respondent appealed both decisions to the NLRC, Fourth Division, Cebu City; Dismissed for lack of merit. MR
preliminary step towards its final approval and does not instantaneously give rise to an employer-apprenIce denied.
relaIonship.
The Court of Appeals found that an employer-employee relaIonship existed between peIIoner company and
Hence, since the apprenIceship agreement between peIIoner and private respondent has no force and effect in respondent aaer applying the four-fold test. As a response to the MoIon for ReconsideraIon filed by the peIIoner,
the absence of a valid apprenIceship program duly approved by the DOLE, private respondent’s asserIon that he The Court of Appeals clarified that respondent was a “regular part-Ime employee and should be accorded all the
proporIonate benefits due to this category of employees of [peIIoner] CorporaIon under the CBA.” It sustained its

decision on all other maUers sought to be reconsidered. Hence, this peIIon.  GABRIEL vs BILON
GR. No. 146989
Issue: 7 February 2007
WON there exists an employer-employee relaIonship between the parIes; The resoluIon of the main issue will Tickler: jeepney driver
determine whether the terminaIon of respondent’s employment is illegal. Facts:
Nelson Bilon, Angel Brazil and Ernesto Pagaygay were jeepney drivers of jeepneys owned by Melencio Gabriel. They
Held: are paying P400/day for their boundary. Later, the drivers were required to pay an addiIonal P50.00 to cover police
No, there was no employer-employee relaIonship between the two parIes. protecIon, car wash, deposit fee, and garage fees.
The Court agrees with the finding of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the circumstances of this case show that The three drivers refused to pay the addiIonal P50.00. On April 30, 1995, when the drivers reported to work, they
no employer-employee relaIonship exists between the parIes. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC correctly found that were not given any jeepney to drive. Eventually, they were dismissed. The three drivers sued Gabriel for illegal
peIIoner company lacked the power of control over the performance by respondent of his duIes. The Labor dismissal.
Arbiter reasoned that the Comprehensive Medical Plan, which contains the respondent’s objecIves, duIes and
obligaIons, does not tell respondent “how to conduct his physical examinaIon, how to immunize, or how to The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the drivers and ordered Gabriel to pay the drivers their backwages and their
diagnose and treat his paIents, employees of [peIIoner] company, in each case.” separaIon pay amounIng to about a total of P1.03M.
peIIoner company, through the Comprehensive Medical Plan, provided guidelines merely to ensure that the end On April 18, 1997, the LA promulgated its decision and on the same day sent a copy thereof to Gabriel but Flordeliza
result was achieved, but did not control the means and methods by which respondent performed his assigned tasks. (wife of Gabriel) refused to receive the copy. Apparently, Gabriel died on April 4, 1997. The copy was re-sent via
Because the company lacks the power of control that the contract provides that respondent shall be directly registered mail on May 28, 1997. Flordeliza appealed to the LA on June 5, 1997.
responsible to the employee concerned and their dependents for any injury, harm or damage caused through
professional negligence, incompetence or other valid causes of acIon. The LA dismissed the appeal; it ruled that the appeal was not on Ime because the promulgaIon was made on April
18, 1997 and that the appeal on June 5, 1997 was already beyond the ten day period required for appeal.
Respondent is not at all further required to just sit around in the premises and wait for an emergency to occur so as
to enable him from using such hours for his own benefit and advantage. In fact, complainant maintains his own The NaIonal Labor RelaIons Commission reversed the LA. It ruled that there was no employee-employer
private clinic aUending to his private pracIce in the city, where he services his paIents, bills them accordingly — and relaIonship between the drivers and Gabriel. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC but it ruled that the
if it is an employee of respondent company who is aUended to by him for special treatment that needs separaIon pay should not be awarded but rather, the employees should be reinstated.
hospitalizaIon or operaIon, this is subject to a special billing.
Issues:
An employee is required to stay in the employer’s workplace or proximately close thereto that he cannot uIlize his WON there exists an employer-employee relaIonship between the drivers and Gabriel
Ime effecIvely and gainfully for his own purpose. Such is not the prevailing situaIon here.1awphi1. Court finds that
the schedule of work and the requirement to be on call for emergency cases do not amount to such control, but are Held:
necessary incidents to the Retainership Agreement. In MarInez v. NaIonal Labor RelaIons Commission, ciIng NaIonal Labor Union v. Dinglasan, the Court
ruled that:
The Court also notes that the Retainership Agreement granted to both parIes the power to terminate their [T]he relaIonship between jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers under the boundary system is that of
relaIonship upon giving a 30-day noIce. Hence, peIIoner company did not wield the sole power of dismissal or employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee because in the lease of chaUels the lessor loses complete control over
terminaIon. the chaUel 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 exercises
Considering that there is no employer-employee relaIonship between the parIes, the terminaIon of the supervision and control over the laUer. The fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages but get only that in
Retainership Agreement, which is in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, does not consItute illegal excess of the so-called “boundary" [that] they pay to the owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the
dismissal of respondent. relaIonship between them from that of employer and employee. Thus, private respondents were employees …
because they had been engaged to perform acIviIes which were usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer.
The Court also agrees that respondents were illegally dismissed by peIIoner. Respondents were not accorded due
process. Moreover, peIIoner failed to show that the cause for terminaIon falls under any of the grounds

enumerated in ArIcle 282 (then ArIcle 283) of the Labor Code. Consequently, respondents are enItled to Held:
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to their full backwages computed from the No, peIIoner was not illegally dismissed from his posiIon.
date of dismissal up to the Ime of their actual reinstatement in accordance with ArIcle 279 of the Labor Code.
Reinstatement is obtainable in this case because it has not been shown that there is an ensuing "strained relaIons" Solicitor General contends that 1) the peIIoner's temporary appointment aaer the reorganizaIon pursuant to
between peIIoner and respondents. GABRIEL vs BILON E.O. No. 119 were valid and did not violate his consItuIonal right of security of tenure; 2) peIIoner is guilty of
estoppel or laches, having acquiesced to such temporary appointments from 1988 to 1991; and 3) the
FELIX vs BUENASEDA respondent Commission did not act with grave abuse of discreIon in affirming the peIIoner's non-renewal of his
GR. No. 109704 appointment at the NaIonal Center for Mental Hospital. And the Court agrees.
17 January 1995
Tickler: The court held that the patent absurdity of peIIoner’s posture is readily obvious. A residency or resident
Facts: physician posiIon in a medical specialty is never a permanent one. Residency connotes training and temporary
PeIIoner joined the NCMH as a Resident Physician in June 1979. Shortly, he was promoted as Senior Resident status. It is the step taken by a physician right aaer post-graduate internship (and aaer hurdling the Medical
Physician unIl the Ministry of Health reorganized the NCMH pursuant to EO 119. Under the reorganizaIon, he Licensure ExaminaIons) prior to his recogniIon as a specialist or sub-specialist in a given field.
was appointed to the posiIon of Senior Resident Physician in a temporary capacity.
PeIIoner's insistence on being reverted back to the status quo prior to the reorganizaIons made pursuant to
In August of 1988, he was elevated to the position of Medical Specialist I (Temporary Status) which was ExecuIve Order No. 119 would therefore be akin to a college student asking to be sent back to high school and
renewed the following year. DOH issued Department Order No. 347 which required board certification staying there. From the posiIon of senior resident physician, which he held at the Ime of the government
as a prerequisite for the renewal of specialist posiIons in various medical centers and it also extend reorganizaIon, the next logical step in the stepladder process was obviously his promoIon to the rank of Medical
appointments of Medical Specialist posiIons in cases where the terminaIon of medical specialist who failed to Specialist I, a posiIon which he apparently accepted not only because of the increase in salary and rank but
meet the requirements for board cerIficaIon. because of the presIge and status which the promoIon conferred upon him in the medical community.
PeIIoner was one of the hundreds of government medical specialist who would have been adversely affected by Such status, however, clearly carried with it certain professional responsibiliIes including the responsibility of
Department Order No. 347 since he was not yet accredited by the Psychiatry Specialty Board. Under Department keeping up with the minimum requirements of specialty rank, the responsibility of keeping abreast with current
Order No. 478, extension of his appointment remained subject to the guidelines set by the said department knowledge in his specialty rank, the responsibility of compleIng board cerIficaIon requirements within a
order. On August 20, 1991, aaer reviewing peIIoner's service record and performance, the Medical CredenIals reasonable period of Ime. The evaluaIon made by the peIIoner's peers and superiors clearly showed that he
CommiUee of the NaIonal Center for Mental Health recommended non-renewal of his appointment as Medical was deficient in a lot of areas, in addiIon to the fact that at the Ime of his non-renewal, he was not even board-
Specialist I, informing him of its decision on August 22, 1991. He was, however, allowed to conInue in the service, cerIfied.
and receive his salary, allowances and other benefits even aaer being informed of the terminaIon of his
appointment. The court also took noIce of the fact that peIIoner made no aUempt to oppose earlier renewals of his
temporary Specialist I contracts, clearly demonstraIng his acquiescence to — if not his unqualified acceptance of
A subsequent meeIng took place and discussed the Dr. Felix’s status. Dr. Felix’s immediate supervisor, pointed the promoIon (albeit of a temporary nature) made in 1988. Whatever objecIons peIIoner had against the
out his poor performance, frequent tardiness and inflexibility as among the factors responsible for the earlier change from the status of permanent senior resident physician to temporary senior physician were
recommendaIon not to renew his appointment. With one excepIon, other department heads present in the neither pursued nor menIoned at or aaer his designaIon as Medical Specialist I (Temporary).
meeIng expressed the same opinion, and the overwhelming concensus was for non-renewal. The court ruled then that he is therefore estopped from insisIng upon a right or claim which he had plainly
abandoned when he, from all indicaIons, enthusiasIcally accepted the promoIon. His negligence to assert his
Aaer having been issued a memorandum ordering Dr. Felix to vacate the coUage, he filed a peIIon with the claim within a reasonable Ime, coupled with his failure to repudiate his promoIon to a temporary posiIon,
Merit System ProtecIon Board (MSPB) complaining about the alleged harassment by respondents and warrants a presumpIon, in the words of this Court in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, that he "either abandoned (his
quesIoning the non-renewal of his appointment. claim) or declined to assert it."
Issue:
WON peIIoner was illegally dismissed from his posiIon

Labor Required Digest 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor Required Digest 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor Required Digest 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LABOR | ATTY.

GOLANGCO MODULE 1- CASE DIGEST

1. Francisco v. NLRC August 21, 2006

LABOR STANDARD 13. Bernarte v. PBA, September 14, 2011

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

You might also like