Labor Case Digest 3

7/26/2019 Labor Case Digest 3

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/labor-case-digest-3 1/7

Compania Maritima vs. Ernesta Cabagnot

G.R. No. L-10675 April 2! 160

Facts:

Dionisio Hio, a member of the Manila Bay Watchmen's Association, a duly registered labor organization, was found dead !he deceased is sur"i"ed by his wife #rnesta $abagnot Hio and three

minor children all of whom were de%endent on his wages at the time of his death &%on a claim for

com%ensation made by the widow, in her behalf, and in behalf of her children, the Wormen's$om%ensation $ommission, finding that Dionisio Hio died of an accident that occurred in the course of

his em%loyment, and declaring the $om%a(ia Maritima as em%loyer thereof, ordered that com%any to

%ay these sur"i"ors the death com%ensation and other fees re)uired of the Wormen's $om%ensationAct, as amended !he %etitioner claims that it ne"er had any em%loyer*em%loyee relationshi% with the

deceased

+ssue: Whether or not the deceased was an em%loyee of the $om%a(ia Maritima, entitled to

com%ensation under the Wormen's $om%ensation Act

uling:While it is true that no written em%loyment contract between the %etitioner and the deceased

was %resented in e"idence, it is not dis%uted that the %etitioner com%any owns the "essel where the

deceased was assigned as gangwayman, and it was found by the $ommission that the salary of thedeceased was %aid directly from the funds of %etitioner From these circumstances, it would the a%%ear

that at the time of the accident the deceased was under %etitioner's em%loy

-#$ ./ 0b1 23aborer2 is used as a synonym of 2em%loyee2 and means e"ery %erson who hasentered the em%loyment of, or wors under a ser"ice or a%%renticeshi% contract for an em%loyer +t does

not include a %erson whose em%loyment is %urely casual and is not for the %ur%ose of the occu%ation or

business of the em%loyer

For an em%loyee to be e4cluded from the term 2laborer2 or 2em%loyee2 under the Act, his em%loymentmust be 2%urely casual and is not for the %ur%ose of the occu%ation or business of the em%loyer2



Anasta"io #iana vs. Ale$o Al-Laga%an

G.R. No. L-&67 Ma' (1! 156

Facts:

Anastacio 5ia(a owned the fishing sailboat which had a collision with a "essel of the &- 6a"y Ale7andro Al*3agadan, a member of the crew of the sailboat, disa%%eared with the craft !he

res%ondents, his %arents, filed the corres%onding claim for com%ensation !he rendered decision

fa"ored the res%ondents $onse)uently, 5iana filed a %etition for re"iew, and latter, a subse)uentmotion for reconsideration was both denied affirming the decision of the eferee 8etitioner contends

that the case does not fall within the %ur"iew of Act 6o .9;, because the gross income of his business

for the year </9= was allegedly less than 8<>,>>>, and because Ale7andro Al*3agadan was, at the timeof his death, his industrial %artner, not his em%loyee

+ssue: Whether or not Ale7andro Al*3agadan was his industrial %artner, not his em%loyee

uling:

+n determining the e4istence of em%loyer*em%loyee relationshi%, the following elements are

generally considered, namely: 0<1 the selection and engagement of the em%loyee? 01 the %ayment of wages?cha 0.1 the %ower of dismissal? and 091 the %ower to control the em%loyees@ conduct, although

the latter isthe most im%ortant element

Assuming that the share recei"ed by the deceased could %artae of the nature of wages, onwhich the $ourt need not, and do not, e4%ress their "iew, and that the second element, therefore, e4ists

in the case at bar, the record does not contain any s%ecific data regarding the third and fourth elements

With res%ect to the first element, the facts before the $ourt are insufficient to warrant a reasonableconclusion, one way or the other n the one hand, Atty Morente said, in his aforementioned re%ort,

that the contract commonly followed is on a share basis !he hiring of a crew is done by the %atron

himself &sually, when a %atron enters into a contract with the owner of the batel, he has a crew ready

with himC !his statement suggests that the members of the crew are chosen by the %atron, seemingly,u%on his sole res%onsibility and authority +t is noteworthy, howe"er, that said re%ort referred to a

%ractice commonly and usuallyC obser"ed in a gi"en %lace !he record is silent on whether such

%ractice had been followed in the case under considerationMore im%ortant still, the language used in said re%ort may be construed as intimating, not only

that the %atronC selects and engages the crew, but, also, that the members thereof are sub7ect to his

control and may be dismissed by him !o%ut it differently, the literal im%ort of said re%ort is o%en to theconclusion that the crew has a contractual relation, not with the owner of the "essel, but with the

%atron, and that the latter, not the former, is either their em%loyer or their %artner



Geronimo )e Los Re'es vs. Gregorio Espineli

G.R. No. L-2&2&0-&1 November 2&! 16

Facts:

8etitioner, the owner of a coconut %lantation, has his o"erseer who too into the land the <=res%ondents under an agreement that the latter were to recei"e <= %ortion of e"ery coconut har"est

-ometime later, %etitioner dismissed said o"erseer u%on the sus%icion that the latter had been decei"ing

him, in conni"ance with the res%ondents es%ondents filed %etitions, seeing the deli"ery to them of the difference between the <= share which the %etitioner had been gi"ing them and the .>E share to

which they, as share tenants, were allegedly entitled &%on the finding that the res%ondents were mere

agricultural worers of the %etitioner, the $A ordered the latter to retain them as such and to %ay them

+ssue: Whether or not the relationshi% is that of agricultural share tenancy or that of farm em%loyer and

agricultural laborer

uling:

!he characteristics of a share tenancy contract are: 0<1 the %arties are a landholder, who is a

natural or 7uridical %erson and is the owner, lessee, usufructuary or legal %ossessor of agricultural land,and a tenant who, himself and with the aid a"ailable from within his immediate farm household,

culti"ates the land which is the sub7ect*matter of the tenancy? 01 the sub7ect*matter is agricultural land?

0.1 the %ur%ose of the contract is agricultural %roduction? and 091 the cause or consideration is that thelandholder and the share tenant would di"ide the agricultural %roduce between themsel"es in

%ro%ortion to their res%ecti"e contributions

A 2farm worer2 is 2any agricultural wage, salary or %iece worer but is not limited to a farmworer of a %articular farm em%loyer unless this $ode e4%licitly states otherwise, and any indi"idual

whose wor has ceased as a conse)uence of, or in connection with, a current agrarian dis%ute or an

unfair labor %ractice and who has not obtained a substantially e)ui"alent and regular em%loyment2 !he

term includes 2farm laborer andor farm em%loyees2<> An 2agricultural worer2 is not a whit differentfrom a 2farm worer2

+n determining the e4istence of an em%loyer*em%loyee relationshi%, the elements that are

generally considered are the following: 0<1 the selection and engagement of the em%loyee? 01 the %ayment of wages? 0.1 the %ower of dismissal? and 091 the em%loyer's %ower to control the em%loyee's

conduct +t is this last element that constitutes the most im%ortant inde4 of the e4istence of relationshi%

!he share tenant wors for that 7oint "enture !he agricultural laborer wors for the farmem%loyer, and for his labor he recei"es a salary or wage, regardless of whether the em%loyer maes a

%rofit n the other hand, the share tenant %artici%ates in the agricultural %roduce His share is

necessarily de%endent on the amount of the har"est!he record is de"oid of e"identiary su%%ort for the notion that the res%ondents are farm

laborers !hey do not obser"e set hours of wor !he %etitioner has not laid down regulations under

which they are su%%osed to do their wor !he argument tendered is that they are guards Howe"er, it

does not a%%ear that they are under obligation to re%ort for duty to the %etitioner or his agent !hey donot wor in shifts 6or has the %etitioner %rescribed the manner by which the res%ondents were and are

to %erform their duties as guards We do not find here that degree of control and su%er"ision e"inci"e of

an em%loyer*em%loyee relationshi% Furthermore, if the res%ondents are guards, then they are notagricultural laborers, because the duties and functions of a guard are not agricultural in nature



*a+aiian ,ilippine Compan' vs. Re'nal%o Glmati"o

G.R. No. 1062(1 November 16! 1/

Facts:

es%ondent filed a com%laint against %etitioner for claims under e%ublic Act ;>/ 0!he -ugar Act of </1 !hey claimed that the sugar farm worers within %etitioner's milling district ha"e ne"er

a"ailed of the benefits due them under the law A ;>/, -ec / %ro"ides that in addition to the benefits

granted by the Minimum Wage 3aw, the %roceeds of any increase in %artici%ation granted to %lantersunder this Act and abo"e their %resent share shall be di"ided between the %lanter and his laborers in the

following %ro%ortions G>E of the increase %artici%ation for the laborers and 9>E forthe %lanters !he

distribution of the share corres%onding to the laborers shall be made under thesu%er"ision of theDe%artment of 3abor

8etitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that %ublic res%ondent 3abor Arbiter has no

7urisdiction to entertain and resol"e the case as %ro"ided in Article <= of the 3abor $ode becausethereis no em%loyer*em%loyee relationshi% between %etitioner milling com%any and res%ondent union

andfarmers, and that res%ondent union has no cause of action against %etitioner

+ssues: < Whether or not %ublic res%ondent 3abor Arbiter has 7urisdiction to hear and decide the caseagainst %etitioner

Whether or not res%ondent union andor the farm worers re%resented by it ha"e a cause of

action against %etitioner

uling:

< +n the case at bar, it is clear that there is no em%loyer*em%loyee relationshi% between %etitioner milling com%any and res%ondent union andor its members*worers Absent the 7urisdictional re)uisite

of an em%loyer*em%loyee relationshi% between %etitioner and%ri"ate res%ondent, the ine"itable

conclusion is that %ublic res%ondent is without 7urisdiction to hear and decide the case with res%ect to

%etitioner es%ondents do not ha"e a cause of action to institute the %resent case !o ha"e a cause of

action, the claimant must show that he has a legal right and the res%ondent a correlati"e duty in res%ect

thereof, which the latter "iolated by some wrongful act or omission +n the instant case, a sim%lereading of -ection / of A, would show that the %ayment of the worers' share is a liability of the

%lanters*em%loyers, and not of the milling com%anysugar central

8etitioner would be a %ro%er third %arty de%endent im%leaded because it is directly liable to the %lanters for all or %art of the worers' claim Howe"er, the %lanters in"ol"ed in this contro"ersy ha"e

not filed any com%laint of such a nature against %etitioner, thereby lending credence to the conclusion

that %etitioner has fulfilled its %art "is*a*"is its obligation under A ;>/



an Migel Corporation vs. NLRC

G.R. No. &077/ Ma' (1! 1&&

Facts:

8etitioner s%onsored an inno"ati"e %rogram granting cash awards to em%loyees who submit tothe $or%oration +deas and suggestions found to be beneficial to the $or%oration ustico 5ega

submitted a %ro%osal but %etitioner did not find the afore)uoted %ro%osal acce%table and conse)uently

refused Mr 5ega's subse)uent demands for a cash award under the +nno"ation 8rogramHence, a com%laint was filed against %etitioner $or%oration 5ega alleged that his %ro%osal had

been acce%ted by the methods analyst and im%lemented by the $or%oration, and that the same had

sol"ed the %roblem of the $or%oration !hus, he was claiming for the cash %rize 8etitioner, on theother hand, alleged that %ri"ate res%ondent had no cause of action +t denied e"er ha"ing a%%ro"ed or

ado%ted Mr 5ega's %ro%osal +t was also further alleged that the 3abor Arbiter had no 7urisdiction, Mr

5ega ha"ing im%ro%erly by%assed the grie"ance machinery %rocedure %rescribed under a then e4istingcollecti"e bargaining agreement between management and em%loyees, and a"ailable administrati"e

remedies %ro"ided under the rules of the +nno"ation 8rogram

+ssue: Whether or not the 3abor Arbiter has 7urisdiction o"er money claims which aroseout of or inconnection with the %ri"ate res%ondent's em%loyment

uling:Money claims of worers which now fall within the original and e4clusi"e 7urisdiction of 3abor

Arbiters are those money claims which ha"e some reasonable causal connection with the em%loyer*

em%loyee relationshi% !he %etitioner's +nno"ation 8rogram is an em%loyee incenti"e scheme o eredff

and o%en only to em%loyees of %etitioner $or%oration, more s%ecically to em%loyees below the ran

of manager Without the e4isting em%loyer*em%loyee relationshi% between the %arties here,there would

ha"e been no occasion to consider the %etitioner's +nno"ation 8rogram or the submission by Mr 5ega

of his %ro%osal? without that relationshi%,%ri"ate res%ondent 5ega's suit against %etitioner $or%orationwould ne"er ha"e arisen

!he money claim of %ri"ate res%ondent 5ega in this case, therefore, arose out of or in

connection with his em%loyment relationshi% with %etitioner Howe"er, the fact that the money claim of %ri"ate res%ondent 5ega arose out of or in connection with his em%loyment relation with %etitioner

$or%oration, is not enough to bring such money claim within the original and e4clusi"e 7urisdiction of

3abor Arbiters



eresita Monto'a vs. eresita Es"a'o

G.R. No. &2211-12 Mar" 21! 1&

Facts:

All formerly em%loyed as salesgirls in Montoya@s store filed com%laints for the collection of sums of money against the %etitioner for alleged un%aid o"ertime %ay, holiday %ay, <.th month %ay,

#$3A, and ser"ice lea"e %ay: for "iolation of the minimum wage law, illegal dismissal, and

attorney's fees 8etitioner mo"ed for the dismissal of the com%laints claiming that among others,salesgirls failed to refer the dis%ute to the 3u%ong !aga%aya%a for %ossible settlement and to secure the

certification re)uired from the 3u%on $hairman %rior to the filing of the cases with the 3abor Arbiter

!hese actions were allegedly "iolati"e of the %ro"isions of 8D 6o <>;

+ssue: Whether or not 8D <>;, the Iatarungang 8ambarangay 3aw, is a%%licable to labor dis%utes

uling:

!he %ro"isions of 8D 6o <>; re)uiring the submission of dis%utes before the barangay

3u%ong !aga%aya%a %rior to their filing with the court or other go"ernment offices are not a%%licable to

labor cases e)uiring conciliation of labor dis%utes before the barangay courts would defeat the "erysalutary %ur%oses of the law +nstead of sim%lifying labor %roceedings designed at e4%editious

settlement or referral to the %ro%er court or office to decide it finally, the %osition taen by the

%etitioner would only du%licate the conciliation %roceedings and unduly delay the dis%osition of thelabor case !hus, it is not a%%licable



LA3R RELA43N

Case )igests

< $M8A6+A MA+!+MA "s #6#-!A $ABAJ6!, J 6o 3*<>G=, A%ril /, </G> A6A-!A$+ 5+A6A "s A3#K A3*3AJADA6, J 6o 3*;/G=, May .<, </G

. J#6+M D# 3- #L#- "s J#J+ #-8+6#3+, J 6o 3*;;>*;<, 6o"ember

;, </G/9 HAWA++A6 8H+3+88+6# $M8A6L "s #L6A3D J&3MA!+$, J 6o <>G.<,

6o"ember <G, <//9

-A6 M+J&#3 $8A!+6 "s 63$, J 6o ;>==9, May .<, </;;G !##-+!A M6!LA "s !##-+!A #-$AL, J 6o ;<<*<, March <, </;/

Submitted by: $elina May !ang, Bloc A

Professor : Atty Mila a)uid*Arroyo

Documents

Labor Case Digest 3