Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Air Material Wing Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. NLRC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jazzy Alim
    1) Luis Salas was appointed as the legal counsel for Air Material Wings Savings and Loan Association in 1980, with his appointment renewed in 1987 for three years. 2) In 1990, when his contract was set to expire, Salas filed a complaint against AMWSLAI claiming various employee benefits. AMWSLAI claimed Salas was not an employee. 3) Both the NLRC and the Supreme Court ruled that Salas was an employee, as his selection, compensation, duties, and potential dismissal were controlled by AMWSLAI based on the elements of an employer-employee relationship.

    Copyright:

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

    Air Material Wing Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. NLRC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jazzy Alim
    16 views2 pages
    1) Luis Salas was appointed as the legal counsel for Air Material Wings Savings and Loan Association in 1980, with his appointment renewed in 1987 for three years. 2) In 1990, when his contract was set to expire, Salas filed a complaint against AMWSLAI claiming various employee benefits. AMWSLAI claimed Salas was not an employee. 3) Both the NLRC and the Supreme Court ruled that Salas was an employee, as his selection, compensation, duties, and potential dismissal were controlled by AMWSLAI based on the elements of an employer-employee relationship.

    Original Title

    Air Material Wing Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. NLRC case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Luis Salas was appointed as the legal counsel for Air Material Wings Savings and Loan Association in 1980, with his appointment renewed in 1987 for three years. 2) In 1990, when his contract was set to expire, Salas filed a complaint against AMWSLAI claiming various employee benefits. AMWSLAI claimed Salas was not an employee. 3) Both the NLRC and the Supreme Court ruled that Salas was an employee, as his selection, compensation, duties, and potential dismissal were controlled by AMWSLAI based on the elements of an employer-employee relationship.

    Copyright:

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

    Air Material Wing Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. NLRC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jazzy Alim
    1) Luis Salas was appointed as the legal counsel for Air Material Wings Savings and Loan Association in 1980, with his appointment renewed in 1987 for three years. 2) In 1990, when his contract was set to expire, Salas filed a complaint against AMWSLAI claiming various employee benefits. AMWSLAI claimed Salas was not an employee. 3) Both the NLRC and the Supreme Court ruled that Salas was an employee, as his selection, compensation, duties, and potential dismissal were controlled by AMWSLAI based on the elements of an employer-employee relationship.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Air Material Wing Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. NLRC, et.al.

    FACTS:
    Private respondent Luis S. Salas was appointed "notarial and legal counsel" for
    petitioner Air Material Wings Savings and Loan Association (AMWSLAI) in 1980. The
    appointment was renewed for three years in an implementing order dated January
    23, 1987 with monthly compensation and retainer’s fee as approved by the Board en
    banc with the following functions:

    1. To act on all legal matters pertinent to his Office.

    2. To seek remedies to effect collection of overdue accounts of members without


    prejudice to initiating court action to protect the interest of the association.

    3. To defend by all means all suit against the interest of the Association.

    On January 9, 1990, the petitioner issued another order reminding Salas of the
    approaching termination of his legal services under their contract. This prompted
    Salas to lodge a complaint against AMWSLAI for separation pay, vacation and sick
    leave benefits, cost of living allowances, refund of SSS premiums, moral and
    exemplary damages, payment of notarial services rendered from February 1, 1980 to
    March 2, 1990, and attorney's fees

    AMWSLAI moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. It averred that there was no
    employer-employee relationship between it and Salas and that his monetary claims
    properly fell within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. Salas opposed the motion
    and presented documentary evidence to show that he was indeed an employee of
    AMWSLAI.

    LA RULING:

    The motion was denied and both parties were required to submit their position
    papers. AMWSLAI filed a motion for reconsideration ad cautelam, which was also
    denied. The parties were again ordered to submit their position papers but
    AMWSLAI did not comply. most of Salas' claims were dismissed by the labor arbiter.

    It was there held that Salas was not illegally dismissed and so not entitled to collect
    separation benefits. His claims for vacation leave, sick leave, medical and dental
    allowances and refund of SSS premiums were rejected on the ground that he was a
    managerial employee. The petitioner was ordered to pay Salas his notarial fees from
    1987 up to March 2, 1990, and attorney's fee equivalent to 10% of the judgment
    award.

    NLRC RULING:

    The decision was affirmed in toto.


    ISSUE:

    WON Salas can be considered an employee of the petitioner company.

    HELD:

    SC affirms NLRC ruling than an employer-employee relationship existed between


    the petitioner and the private respondent. But his claim for notarial fees were denied
    since his notarial services were part of his regular functions and were thus already
    covered by his monthly compensation.

    The terms and conditions set out in the letter-contract entered into by the parties on
    January 23, 1987, clearly show that Salas was an employee of the petitioner. His
    selection as the company counsel was done by the board of directors in one of its
    regular meetings. The petitioner paid him a monthly compensation/retainer's fee for
    his services. Though his appointment was for a fixed term of three years, the
    petitioner reserved its power of dismissal for cause or as it might deem necessary for
    its interest and protection. No less importantly, AMWSLAI also exercised its power of
    control over Salas by defining his duties and functions as its legal counsel.

    Side Note: The elements of an employer-employee relationship are: (1) selection


    and engagement of the employee; (2) payment of wages; (3) power of dismissal;
    and (4) employer's own power to control employee's conduct.

    You might also like