Lab Stan Case Digest 1

8/11/2019 Lab Stan Case Digest 1

1/10


2/10

Francisco v. NLC A!"!s# $%, &''( G. NO.%)''*) +'' SCA ('

Fac#s-

Petitioner as +ired by Basei *orporation durin! its

in$orporation sta!e. S+e as desi!nated as &$$ountant and*orporate Se$retary and as assi!ned to +and%e a%% t+e a$$ountin!

needs o- t+e $o#pany, +oever s+e as not entrusted it+ t+e

$orporate do$u#ents> neit+er did s+e attend any board #eetin!

nor re0uired to do so. S+e never prepared any %e!a% do$u#ent and

never represented t+e $o#pany as its *orporate Se$retary, but s+e

as prevai%ed upon to si!n do$u#entation -or t+e $o#pany. S+e

as a%so desi!nated as ;iason O$er to se$ure business per#its,

$onstru$tion per#its and ot+er %i$enses -or t+e initia% operation o-

t+e $o#pany.

In 199@, petitioner as desi!nated &$tin! Mana!er, s+e

as assi!ned to +and%e re$ruit#ent o- a%% e#p%oyees and per-or#

#ana!e#ent ad#inistration -un$tions. For A years, petitioner

per-or#ed t+e duties o- &$tin! Mana!er.

In January 221, petitioner as rep%a$ed by ;iCa R.

Fuentes as Mana!er and t+e petitioner as assured t+at s+e ou%d

sti%% be $onne$ted it+ Basei *orporation as Te$+ni$a% &ssistant to

Sei=i Ba#ura and in $+ar!e o- a%% (IR #atters. Petitioner did not

re$eive +er sa%ary -ro# t+e $o#pany and as in-or#ed t+at s+e is

no %on!er $onne$ted it+ t+e $o#pany. Petitioner


3/10

rea%ities o- t+e a$tivity or re%ations+ip. T+is to"tiered test ou%d

provide us it+ a -ra#eor' o- ana%ysis, +i$+ ou%d ta'e into

$onsideration t+e tota%ity o- $ir$u#stan$es surroundin! t+e true

nature o- t+e re%ations+ip beteen t+e parties. T+is is espe$ia%%y

appropriate in t+is $ase +ere t+ere is no ritten a!ree#ent orter#s o- re-eren$e to base t+e re%ations+ip on> and due to t+e

$o#p%e/ity o- t+e re%ations+ip based on t+e various positions and

responsibi%ities !iven to t+e or'er over t+e period o- t+e %atters

e#p%oy#ent.

T+e deter#ination o- t+e re%ations+ip beteen e#p%oyer

and e#p%oyee depends upon t+e $ir$u#stan$es o- t+e +o%e

e$ono#i$ a$tivity, su$+ as7 14 t+e e/tent to +i$+ t+e servi$es

per-or#ed are an inte!ra% part o- t+e e#p%oyers business> 4 t+e

e/tent o- t+e or'ers invest#ent in e0uip#ent and -a$i%ities> 34

t+e nature and de!ree o- $ontro% e/er$ised by t+e e#p%oyer> D4 t+e

or'ers opportunity -or pro A4 t+e a#ount o- initiative,

s'i%%, =ud!#ent or -oresi!+t re0uired -or t+e su$$ess o- t+e $%ai#ed

independent enterprise> @4 t+e per#anen$y and duration o- t+e

re%ations+ip beteen t+e or'er and t+e e#p%oyer> and 4 t+e

de!ree o- dependen$y o- t+e or'er upon t+e e#p%oyer o- +is

$ontinued e#p%oy#ent in t+at %ine o- business.

T+e proper standard o- e$ono#i$ dependen$e is +et+er

t+e or'er is dependent on t+e a%%e!ed e#p%oyer -or +is $ontinued

e#p%oy#ent in t+at %ine o- business. (ased on t+e -ore!oin!, t+ere

$an be no ot+er $on$%usion t+at petitioner is an e#p%oyee o-

respondent Basei *orporations. S+e as se%e$ted and en!a!ed by

t+e $o#pany -or $o#pensation, and is e$ono#i$a%%y dependent

upon respondent -or +er $ontinued e#p%oy#ent in t+at %ine o-

business. er #ain =ob -un$tion invo%ved a$$ountin! and ta/

servi$es rendered to respondent $orporation on a re!u%ar basis

over an inde


4/10

Coca Co/a Bo##/rs Inc. v. C/i0aco F1r!ar2 +,

&'') G.. No. %3(**% +%3 SCA %(3

Fac#s-

Respondent 5r. 5ean ?. *%i#a$o is a #edi$a% do$tor +o

as +ired by petitioner *o$a"*o%a (ott%ers P+i%s., In$ *o$a"

*o%a4, by virtue o- a Retainer &!ree#ent. T+e Retainer &!ree#ent,

+i$+ be!an on January 1, 19::, as reneed annua%%y. T+e %ast

one e/pired 5e$e#ber 31, 1993. 5espite t+e non"renea% o- t+e

Retainer &!ree#ent, respondent $ontinued to per-or# +is

-un$tions as $o#pany do$tor to *o$a"*o%a unti% +e re$eived a %etter

-ro# petitioner $o#pany $on$%udin! t+eir retainers+ip a!ree#ent.

It is noted t+at as ear%y as Septe#ber 199, petitioner as a%ready

#a'in! in0uiries re!ardin! +is status it+ petitioner $o#pany.Petitioner $o#pany, +oever, did not ta'e any a$tion. Respondent

in0uired -ro# t+e #ana!e#ent o- petitioner $o#pany +et+er it

as a!reeab%e to re$o!niCe +i# as a re!u%ar e#p%oyee. T+e

#ana!e#ent re-used to do so.

Respondent


5/10

e#p%oyer"e#p%oyee re%ations+ip e/ist beteen t+e parties, t+ey

$orre$t%y -ound t+at petitioner $o#pany %a$'ed t+e poer o- $ontro%

over t+e per-or#an$e by respondent o- +is duties. T+e ;abor

&rbiter reasoned t+at t+e *o#pre+ensive Medi$a% P%an, +i$+

$ontains t+e respondents ob=e$tives, duties and ob%i!ations, doesnot te%% respondent +o to $ondu$t +is p+ysi$a% e/a#ination, +o

to i##uniCe, or +o to dia!nose and treat +is patients, e#p%oyees

o- $o#pany, in ea$+ $ase.H

In ee$t, t+e ;abor &rbiter +e%d t+at petitioner $o#pany,

t+rou!+ t+e *o#pre+ensive Medi$a% P%an, provided !uide%ines

#ere%y to ensure t+at t+e end resu%t as a$+ieved, but did not

$ontro% t+e #eans and #et+ods by +i$+ respondent per-or#ed

+is assi!ned tas's.

T+e ?;R* ar#ed t+e


6/10

!on!luded that respondent !ommitted the o%%enses o% e:!essi#e ,OP and

%alsi%i!ation o% !ompany re!ords or do!uments+ and a!!ordingly dismissed

him. Respondent %iled a !omplaint %or illegal dismissal against SMC.

$""ue# ,O; Ibias was illegally dismissed.

Ruling#

,hen SMC imposed the penalty o% dismissal %or the 31thand

3


7/10

a!ainst Soriano +i$+ is $ate!oriCed as an oense under t+e

*o#pany *ode o- 5is$ip%ine.

*onse0uent%y, petitioner as suspended -or 3 days it+out

pay, +oever, petitioner sti%% reported -or or'. (y reason t+ereo-,

respondent sent petitioner a %etter deno#inated as 1

st

?oti$e o-Ter#ination. Petitioner in0uired -ro# respondent +et+er +e is

a%ready dis#issed or #ere%y suspended sin$e +e as re-used entry

to t+e $o#pany pre#ises but t+e respondent rep%ied t+at +e as

#ere%y suspended. Petitioner t+en rote to respondent re0uestin!

-or -urt+er investi!ation on +is a%%e!ed a$t o- spreadin! ru#ors but

+is re0uest as denied.

Petitioner sub#itted to respondent +is ritten e/p%anation

averrin! t+at +e sti%% reported -or or' on t+e


8/10

to %inan!ial di%%i!ulties brought about by the low #olume o% sales and orders

%or industrial paper produ!ts. owe#er petitioner ree!ted the trans%er+ thus a

noti!e o% termination o% employment was sent as his position was de!alred

redundant by the !losure o% Paper Mill ;o. 2.

Petitioner %iled a !omplaint %or illegal dismissal against respondentassailing his termination as without any #alid !ause. e a#erred that the

alleged redundan!y ne#er o!!urred as there was no permanent shutdown o%

Paper Mill no. 2 due to its !ontinuous operation sin!e his termination. In its

de%ense+ respondent re%uted petitioner*s !laim o% illegal dismissal. It argued

that petitioner has #oluntarily separated himsel% %rom ser#i!e by opting to

a#ail o% the separation bene%its o% the !ompany instead o% a!!epting

reassignment=trans%er to another position o% e9ual ran" and pay.

$""ue# ,O; petitioner was illegally dismissed.

Ruling#

;o. Respondent*s right o% management prerogati#e was e:er!ised

in good %aith.

In this !ase+ the abolishment o% Paper Mill ;o. 2 was undoubtedly

a business udgment arri#ed at in the %a!e o% the low demand %or the

produ!tion o% industrial paper at the time. >espite an apparent reason to

implement a retren!hment program as a !ost!utting measure+ respondent+

howe#er+ did not outrightly dismiss the wor"ers a%%e!ted by the !losure o%

Paper Mill ;o. 2 but ga#e them an option to be trans%erred to post o% e9ual

ran" and pay. s !an be seen+ retren!hment was utili&ed by respondent only

as an a#ailable option in !ase the e%%e!ted employee would not want to be

trans%erred. Respondent did not pro!eed dire!tly to retren!h. /his+ to our

mind+ is an indi!ation o% good %aith on respondent*s part as it e:hausted

other possible measures other than retren!hment.

'esides+ the employer*s prerogati#e to bring down labor !osts by

retren!hing must be e:er!ised essentially as a measure o% last resort+ a%ter

less drasti! means ha#e been tried and %ound wanting. ?i#ing the wor"ersan option to be trans%erred without any diminution in ran" and pay

spe!i%i!ally belie petitioner*s allegation that the alleged streamlining s!heme

was implemented as a ploy to ease out employees+ thus+ the absen!e o% bad

%aith. pparently+ respondent implemented its streamlining or reorgani&ation

plan with good %aith+ not in an arbitrary manner and without preudi!ing the

tenurial rights o% its employees.

ICMC vs. Ca//6aG *+)+', S7#. &*, %'

FACTS-

&s an a-ter#at+ o- t+e ietna# )ar, t+e p%i!+t o- ietna#ese

re-u!ees eein! -ro# Sout+ ietna#Ks $o##unist ru%e $on-rontedt+e internationa% $o##unity.

In response to t+is $risis, an &!ree#ent as -or!ed beteen t+eP+i%ippine Govern#ent and t+e Lnited ?ations i!+ *o##issioner-or Re-u!ees +ereby an operatin! $enter -or pro$essin! Indo"*+inese re-u!ees -or eventua% resett%e#ent to ot+er $ountries asto be estab%is+ed in (ataan.

I*M* as one o- t+ose a$$redited by t+e P+i%ippine Govern#ent tooperate t+e re-u!ee pro$essin! $enter in Moron!, (ataan. It asin$orporated in ?e 8or', LS&, at t+e re0uest o- t+e o%y See, as a


9/10

non"pro


10/10

&rti$%e III, Se$tion :, and &rti$%e III, Se$tion 3 supra4, o- t+e 19:*onstitution.

For, I*M* e#p%oyees are not it+out re$ourse +enever t+ere aredisputes to be sett%ed. Se$tion 31 o- t+e *onvention on t+e

Privi%e!es and I##unities o- t+e Spe$ia%iCed &!en$ies o- t+e Lnited?ations 1 provides t+at Nea$+ spe$ia%iCed a!en$y s+a%% #a'eprovision -or appropriate #odes o- sett%e#ent o-7 a4 disputesarisin! out o- $ontra$ts or ot+er disputes o- private $+ara$ter to+i$+ t+e spe$ia%iCed a!en$y is a party.N Moreover, pursuant to&rti$%e I o- t+e Me#orandu# o- &!ree#ent beteen I*M* t+e t+eP+i%ippine Govern#ent, +enever t+ere is any abuse o- privi%e!eby I*M*, t+e Govern#ent is -ree to it+dra t+e privi%e!es andi##unities a$$orded.

T+e i##unity !ranted bein! N-ro# every -or# o- %e!a% pro$esse/$ept in so -ar as in any parti$u%ar $ase t+ey +ave e/press%yaived t+eir i##unity,N it is ina$$urate to state t+at a $erti

Documents

Lab Stan Case Digest 1