LABOR RELATIONS LAW

C O N T E N T S

I. APPLICABLE LAWS

II. GENERAL PRINCILPES

Singer Sewing Machine vs. NLRC 193 SCRA 271Manila Golf Club vs. IAC 237 SCRA 207Encyclopedia Britanica vs. NLRC, 264 SCRA 4 [96]Carungcong vs. Sunlife, 283 SCRA 319Ramos vs. CA, 380 SCRA 467Sonza vs. ABS-CBN, G.R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004Lazaro vs. Social Security Commission, 435 SCRA 472 [2004]Phil. Global Communication vs. De Vera, 459 SCRA 260 [2005]ABS-CBN vs. Nazareno, G.R. No. 164156, Sept. 26, 2006Francisco vs. NLRC, 500 SCRA 690 [06]Nogales et al., vs. Capitol Medical Center et al., G.R. No. 142625, December 19, 2006Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., vs. Dr. Climaco, G.R. No. 146881, February 15, 2007Calamba Medical Center vs. NLRC et al., G.R. No. 176484, Nov. 25, 2008Escasinas et al., vs. Shangri-la Mactan Island Resort et al., G.R. No. 178827, March 4, 2009Tongko vs. Manufacturer Life Insurance Co. (Phils), Inc, G.R. No. 167622, January 25, 2011Atok Big Wedge Company vs. Gison, G.R. No. 169510, August 8, 2011Semblante et al., vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 196426, August 15, 2011Bernarte vs. Phil. Basketball Association et al., G.R. No. 192084, September 14, 2011Lirio vs. Genovia, G.R. No. 169757, November 23, 2011Jao vs. BCC Products Sales Inc. G.R. No. 163700, April 18, 2012Legend Hotel (Manila) vs. Realuyo G.R. No. 153511, July 18, 2012The New Philippine Skylanders, Inc., vs. Dakila, G.r. No. 199547, Sept. 24, 2012Tesoro et al., vs. Metro Manila Retreaders Inc., et al., GR No. 171482, March 12, 2014

Royal Homes Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 195190, July 28, 2014

III. SECURITY OF TENURE

ALU-TUCP vs. NLRC, 234 SCRA 678 [1994]Cosmos Bottling Corp., vs. NLRC, 255 SCRA 358 [1996]Purefoods vs. NLRC, 283 SCRA 136 [1997]Phil. Fruit & Vegetable Industries vs. NLRC, 310 SCRA 680 [1999]Philips Semiconductor vs. Fardiquela, G.R. No. 141717, April 14, 2004Alcira vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 149859, June 9, 2004Mitsubishi Motors Phils vs. Chrysler Phil Labor Union G.R. No. 148738, June 29, 2004Pangilinan vs. General Milling Co., G.R. No. 149329, July 2, 2004Hacienda Bino/Hortencia Stark vs. Cuenca, G.R. No. 150478, April 15, 2005,

Phil. Global Communication vs. De Vera, G.R. No. 157214, June 7, 2005Lacuesta vs. Ateneo De Manila, G.R. No. 152777, December 9, 2005Poseidon Fishing/Terry De Jesus vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 168052, February 20, 2006Cebu Metal Corp., vs. Saliling, G.R. No. 154463, September 5, 2006Liganza vs. RBL Shipyard Corp., G.R. No. 159862, October 17, 2006 citing MaraguinotFabeza vs. San Miguel Corp., G.R. No. 150658, February 9, 2007 citing Brent SchoolSoriano vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 165594, April 23, 2007,

Caseres vs. Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp., et al., G.R. No. 159343, September 28, 2007Pier 8 Arrastre & Stevedoring Services Inc., vs. Boclot, G.R. No. 173849, September 28, 2007Pacquing vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. G.R. No. 157966, January 31, 2008, citing Magsalin vs. National Organization of Workingmen, G.R. No. 148492, May 9, 2003Agusan Del Norte Electric Cooperative vs. Cagampang, G.R. No. 167627, October 10, 2008William Uy Construction Corp et al., vs. Trinidad G.R. No. 183250, March 10, 2010Dacuital et al., vs. L.M. Camus Engineering Corp. GR No. 176748, Sept. 1, 2010Millennium Erectors Corp. vs. Magallanes, GR No. 184362, Nov. 15, 2010Exodus International Construction Corp., vs. Biscocho, et al., G.R. No. 166109, Feb, 23, 2011Leyte Geothermal Power Progressive Employees Union vs. PNOC G.R. No. 170351, March 30, 2011St. Paul College Quezon City vs. Ancheta II, G.R. No. 169905, September 7, 2011Lynvil Fishing Enterprises vs. Ariola, et al., G.R. No. 181974, February 1, 2012D.M. Consunji Inc vs. Jamin, G.R. No. 192514, April 18, 2012, citing MaraguinotGapayao vs. Fulo et al., G.R. No. 193493, June 13, 2013Concrete Solutions Inc. et al., vs. Cabusas, G.R. No. 177812, June 19, 2013D.M. Consunji vs. Bello, G.R. No. 159371, July 29, 2013Colegio Del Santisimo Rosario et al., vs. Rojo, G.R. No. 170388, Sept. 4, 2013Herrera-Manaois vs. St. Scholasticas College, GR No. 188914, December 11, 2013Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp., vs. Acibo et al., GR No. 186439, January 15, 2014

Noblejas v. IMAPI, G.R. No. 207888, June 09, 2014

Omni hauling Services Inc. et al., vs. Tortoles, GR No. 199388, Sept. 3, 2014

Hacienda Leddy v. Villegas

IV. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE

Dosch vs. NLRC, 123 SCRA 296 [1983]PT&T vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152057, September 29, 2003Mendoza vs. Rural Bank of Lucban, G.R. No. 155421, July 7, 2004Duncan Association of Detailman vs. Glaxo Wellcome Phils., G.R. No. 162994, Sept. 17, 2004PLDT vs. Paquio, G.R. No. 152689, October 12, 2005Star Paper Corp., vs. Simbol, G.R. No. 164774, April 12, 2006Rivera vs. Solidbank, G.R. No. 163269, April 19, 2006Tiu vs. Platinum Plans, Inc. G.R. No. 163512, February 28, 2007Duldulao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164893, March 1, 2007Almario vs. Phil Airlines, G.R. No. 170928, September 11, 2007Bisig Manggagawa sa Tryco vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 151309, Oct. 15, 2008Manila Electric Co. et al., vs. Lim, GR No. 184769, Oct. 5, 2010Bello vs. Bonifacio Security Services G.R. No. 188086, Aug. 3, 2011Alert Security and Investigation Agency vs. Pasawilan, G.R. No. 182397, September 14, 2011Manila Pavilion Hotel vs. Delada, G.r. No. 189947, January 25, 2012Barba vs. Liceo De Cagayan University, G.R. No. 193857, November 28, 2012Best Wear Garments vs. De Lemos, G.R. No. 191281, December 5, 2012Royal Plant Workers Union vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils Inc, G.R. No. 198783, April 15, 2013Peckson vs. Robinsons Supermarket Corp. G.R. No. 198534, July 3, 2013

V. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

Retuya vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 148848, August 5, 2003, citing 1996 BustamanteAgabon vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004Jaka Food Processing vs. Pacot, G.R. No. 151378, March 28, 2005Mauricio vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 164635, November 17, 2005Industrial Timber Corp., vs. Ababon, G.R. No. 164518, January 25, 2006 and March 28, 2006Equitable Bank vs. Sadac, G.R. No. 164772, June 8, 2006Heirs of Sara Lee vs. Rey, G.R. No. 1499013, August 31, 2006Galaxi Steel Workers Union vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 165757, October 17, 2006Sy vs. Metro Bank, G.R. No. 160618, November 2, 2006King of Kings Transport vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 166208, June 29, 2007Asian Terminal vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 158458, December 19, 2007

Smart Communications vs. Astorga, G.R. No. 148142, January 28, 2008

RB Michael Press vs. Galit, G.R. No. 153510, February 13, 2008School of the Holy Spirit of Q.C. vs. Taguiam, G.R. No. 165565, July 14, 2008Flight Attendants and Steward Association of the Phils vs. PAL, G.R. No. 178083, July 22, 2008John Hancock Life Insurance Corp. vs. Davis, G.R. No. 169549, Sept. 3, 2008Yrasuegui vs. Phil Airlines, G.R. No. 168081, Oct 17, 2008Garcia vs. PAL, G.R. No. 164856, Jan. 20, 2009

Perez et al., vs., Phil Telegraph & Telephone Company et al., G.R. No. 152048, April 7, 2009 Telecommunications Distributors Specialists Inc., et al., vs. Garriel, GR No. 174981, May 25, 2009

Martinez vs. B& B Fish Broker, GR No. 179985, Sept 18, 2009Plantation Bay Resort and Spa, et al. vs. Dubrico, G.R. No. 182216, December 4, 2009Fulache, et al. vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp., G.R. No. 183810, January 21, 2010Ancheta vs. Destiny Financial Plans Inc et al., GR No. 179702, Feb 16, 2010Javellana, Jr. vs. Belen, G.R. Nos. 181913 & 182158, March 5, 2010,WPP Marketing Communications Inc., et al., vs. Galera, G.R. No. 169207, March 25, 2010Maribago Bluewater Beach Resort vs. Dual, GR No. 180660, July 20, 2010Artificio vs. NLRC et al., GR No. 172988, July 26, 2010Nacague vs. Sulpicio Lines Inc. GR. No. 172589, August 8, 2010St. Marys Academy of Dipolog City vs. Palacio, GR No. 164913, Sept 8, 2010PLDT vs. Teves, GR No. 143511, Nov. 15, 2010Shimizu Phils Contractors Inc., vs. Callanta, GR No. 165923, Sept. 29, 2010Manila Mining Corp. Employees Association-FFW vs. Manila Mining Corp. GR No. 178222-23, Sept. 29, 2010Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corp., vs. Ranchez, G.R. No. 177937, January 19, 2011University of the Immaculate Concepcion et al., vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 181146, January 26, 2011Hospital Management Services Inc vs. Hospital Management Services Inc-Medical Center Manila Employees Asso. GR No. 176287, Jan. 31, 2011Culili vs. Eastern Telecommunications Phils et al., GR No. 165381, Feb. 9, 2011Plastimer Industrial Corp., vs. Gopo et al., G.R. No. 183390, Feb. 16, 2011Lopez vs. Alturas Group of Companies, G.R. No. 191008, April 11, 2011Apacible vs. Multimed Industries Inc. G.R. No. 178903, May 30, 2011Barroga vs. Data Center College G.R. No. 174158, June 27, 2011Lopez vs. Keppel Bank Phils, G.R. No. 176800, September 5, 2011St. Paul College Quezon City et al., vs. Ancheta II, G.R. No. 169905, Sept. 7, 2011Jumuad vs. Hi-Flyer Food, G.R. No. 187887, Sept. 7, 2011Nissan Motor Phils vs. Angelo, G.R. No. 164181, Sept. 14, 2011Phil. National Bank vs. Padao, G.r. No. 180849, November 16, 2011Tamsons Enterprises Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.r. No. 192881, November 16, 2011Concepcion vs. Minex Import Corp. G.R. No. 153569, January 24, 2012, En bancMorales vs. Harbour Centre Port Terminal Inc. G.R. No. 174208, January 25, 2012Mansion Printing Center vs. Bitara, Jr. G.R. No. 168120, January 25, 2012Manila Electric Co. vs. Beltran, G.R. No. 173774, January 30, 2012Bank of Lubao vs. Manabat et al., G.R. No. 188722, February 1, 2012Canadian Opportunities Unlimited vs. Dalangin, Jr. G.R. No. 172223, February 6, 2012Manila Electric Co., vs. Gala, G.R. No. 191288 & 191304, March 7, 2012Aro et al., vs. NLRC et al., G.R. No. 174792, March 7, 2012Ymbong vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. G.R. No. 184885, March 7, 2012Blue Sky Trading Co. vs. Blas et al., G.R. No. 190559, March 7, 2012International Management Services vs. Logarta, G.R. No. 163657, April 18, 2012Jiao et al., vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 182331, April 18, 2012Realda vs. New Age Graphics Inc. G.R. No. 192190, April 25, 2012Kakampi & Its members Panuelosbvs. Kingspoint Express & Logistics, G.R. No. 194813, April 25, 2012Waterfront Cebu City Hotel vs. Jimenez et al., G.R. No. 174214, June 13, 2012Ramirez et al., vs. Mar Fishing Co Inc. et al., G.R. No. 168208, June 13, 2012Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Employee Labor Union vs. NLRC G.R. No. 185335, June 13, 2012Paulino vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 176184, June 13, 2012Manila Electric co., vs Dejan, G.r. No. 194106, June 18, 2012Apo Cement Corp., vs. Baptisma, G.R. No. 176671, June 20, 2012Cosmos Bottling Corp., vs. Fermin, G.R. No. 193676, June 20, 2012Reyes-Ravel vs. Philippine Luen Thai Holdings Corp., G.R. No. 174893, July 11, 2012Verdadero vs. Barney Autolines Group of Companies Transport Inc., G.R. No. 195428, August 29, 2012Naranjo et al., vs. Biomedica Health Care Inc. et al., G.R. No. 193789, September 19, 2012The New Philippine Skylanders Inc. vs. Dakila, G.R. No. 199547, September 24, 2012Morales vs. Metropolitan Bank G.R. No. 182475, November 21, 2012Mirant Phils Corp. vs. Sario, G.R. No. 197598, November 21, 2012Kakampi and Its Members Panuelos vs. Kingspoint Express & Logistics, G.R. No. 194813, April 25, 2012Sampaguita Auto Transport Corp. vs. NLRC et al., G.r. No. 197384, January 30, 2013Philippine holdings Inc. vs. Episcope, G.R. No. 192826, February 27, 2013The Orchard Golf & Country Club vs. Francisco, G.R. No. 178125, March 13, 2013Torres vs. Rural Bank of san Juan Inc. et al., G.R. No. 184520, March 13, 2013The Orchard Golf & Country Club vs. Francisco, G.R. No. 178125, March 15, 2013Banares vs. Tabaco Womens Transport Service Cooperative, G.R. No. 197353, April 1, 2013Reyes, et al., vs. RP Guardians security Agency Inc. G.R. No. 193756, April 10, 2013Celdran vs. Forza Integrated Services et al., G.R. No. 189460, June 5, 2013, Res.Surigao Del Norte Electric Cooperative Inc. vs. Gonzaga, G.R. No. 187722, June 10, 2013Univac Developments Inc. vs. Soriano, G.R. No. 182072, June 19, 2013Unilever Phils vs. Rivera, G.R. No. 201701, June 3, 2013Samr-med Distribution vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 162385, July 15, 2013Naranjo et al, vs. Biomedica Health Care Inc. G.R. No. 193789, Sept. 19, 2012Manila Jockey Club Inc. vs. Trajano, G.R. No. 160982, June 26, 2013Fianza vs. NLRC et al., G.R. No. 163061, June 26, 2013Pasos vs. Phil National Construction Corp. G.R. No. 192394, July 3, 2013Universal Robina Corp et al., v. Castillo G.R. No. 189686, July 10, 2013Martinez vs. Central Pangasinan Electric Cooperative, G.R. No. 192306, July 15, 2013Zuellig Pharma Corp vs. Sibal et al., G.R. No. 173587, July 15, 2013Zuellig Freight & Cargo System vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 157900, July 22, 2013Abbott Laboratrories Phils et al., vs. Alcaraz, G.R. No. 192571, July 23, 2013 En bancManila Polo Club Employees Union vs. Manila Polo Club, G.R. No. 172846, July 24, 2013Canedo vs. Kampilan Security & Detective Agency Inc. et al., G.R. No. 179326, July 31, 2013Ang vs. San Joaquin Jr et al., G.R. No. 185549, Aug. 7, 2013Sanoh Fulton Phils Inc. et al., vs. Bernardo et al., G.R. No. 187214, Aug. 14, 2013Daabay vs.Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils G.R. No. 199890, Aug. 19, 2013MZR Industries et al., vs. Colambot, G.R. No. 179001, Aug. 28, 2013IntegratedMicorelctronics Inc. vs. Pionella, G.R. No. 200222, Aug. 28, 2013Asia Brewery Inc. vs. Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia, G.R. No. 171594-96, Sept. 18, 2013Hormillosa vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils GR No. 198699, October 9, 2013Abbott Laboratories Phils., et al., vs. Alcaraz, GR No. 192571, April 22, 2013, En banc; see also Resolution, dated April 22, 2014Gemina Jr vs. Bankwise Inc. et al. GR No. 175365, October 23, 2013Baguio Central University vs. Gallente, GR No. 188267, December 2, 2013Sangwoo Phils Inc. et al., vs. Sangwoo Phils Inc Employees Union GR No. 173154, December 9, 2013International School Manila et al., vs. International School Alliance of Educators et al., GR No. 167286, February 5, 2014Dreamland Hotel Resort vs. Johnson, GR No. 191455, March 12, 2014Castillo et al., vs. Prudentialife Plans Inc., GR No. 196142, March 26, 2014Unibersidad De Sta Isabel vs. Sambajon, Jr. GR No. 196280 & 196286, April 2, 2014

Bluer Than Blue Joint Ventures Co., vs. Esteban, GR No. 192582, April 7, 2014Wenphil Corp., vs. Abing, et al., GR No. 207983, April 7, 2014Arabit et al., vs. Jardine Pacific Finance Inc. GR No. 181719, April 21, 2014Mirant (Philippines) Corp., et al., vs. Caro, GR No. 181490, April 23, 2014

Flight Attendants and Steward Assoc. of the Phils. Vs. Phil. Airlines; G.R. No. 178083. July 23, 2008

LIBCAP MARKETING CORP., JOHANNA J. CELIZ, and MA. LUCIA G. MONDRAGON, Petitioners, vs. LANNY JEAN B. BAQUIAL,

Ampeloquio vs. Jaka Distribution Inc. GR No. 196936, July 2, 2014

CONRADO A. LIM, Petitioner, v. HMR PHILIPPINES, INC., TERESA SANTOS-CASTRO, HENRY BUNAG AND NELSON CAMILLER, Respondents., G.R. No. 201483, August 04, 2014

BENSON INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU-TUCP AND/OR Vilma Genon et al., vs BENSON INDUSTRIES, INC.

Montinola vs. Philippine Airlines, GR No. 198656, Sept. 8, 2014VI. SUSPENSION OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS

JPL Marketing Promotion vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 151966, July 8, 2005Pido vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 169812, February 23, 2007Megaforce Security & Allied Services vs. Lactao, G.R. No. 160940, July 21, 2008National Mines and Allied Workers Union vs. Marcopper Mining Corp., G.R. No. 174641, Nov. 11, 2008Eagle Star Security Services Inc., vs. Mirando, et al., GR No. 179512, July 30, 2009Nationwide Security & Allied Services vs. Valderama, G.R. No. 186614, Feb. 23, 2011Nippon Housing Phils vs. Leynes, G.R. No. 177816, August 3, 2011Mindanao Terminal & Brokerage Service Inc et al., vs. Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Minterbro-Southern Phils Federation of Labor, G.R. No. 174300, December 5, 2012Leopard Security and Investigation Agency vs. Quitoy et al., G.R. No. 186344, February 28, 2013SKM Art Craft Corp., vs. Bauca, et al., GR No. 171282, November 27, 2013Navotas Shipyard Corp., vs. Montallana et al., GR No. 190053, March 24, 2014Emeritus Security & Maintenance Systems Inc., vs. Dailig, GR No. 204761, April 2, 2014

CRISPIN B. LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. IRVINE CONSTRUCTION CORP. AND TOMAS SY SANTOS,Respondents.

EXOCET SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES CORPORATION and/or MA. TERESA MARCELO, VS ARMANDO D. SERRANO GR NO 198538, Sept. 29, 2014

VII. DISEASE AS A GROUND FOR TERMINATION

Sy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142293, February 27, 2003Manly Express vs. Payong, G.R. No. 167462, October 25, 2005Duterte vs. Kingswood Trading Co., G.R. No. 160325, October 4, 2007Villaruel vs. Yeo Han Guan G.R. No. 169191, June 1, 2011

Deoferio vs. Intel Technology Phils., GR No. 202996, June 18, 2014

VIII. OTHER CAUSES OF SEVERANCE OF EMPLOYMENT

Pantranco North Express vs. NLRC, 259 SCRA 161 [1996]Phil. Airlines vs. Airline Pilots Asso. Of Phils., G.R. No. 143686, January 15, 2002Cainta Catholic School vs. Cainta Catholic School Employees Union, G.R. No. 151021, May 4, 2006 Jaculbe vs. Silliman University, G.R. No. 156934, March 16, 2007Globe Telecom vs. Crisologo, G.R. No. 17644, August 10, 2007BMG Records Phils et al., vs. Aparecio, et al., G.R. No. 153290, September 5, 2007, citing Phil Today vs. NLRC, 267 SCRA 202 [1996]Blue Angel Manpower and Security Services vs. CA, G.R. No. 161196, July 28, 2008Guerzon Jr et al vs. Pasig Industries Inc., et al., G.R. No. 170266, Sept. 12, 2008Suarez Jr. et al., vs. National Steel Corp., G.R. No. 150180, Oct. 17, 2008Goodrich Mfg Corp vs. Ativo et al., GR No. 188002, Feb. 1, 2010Korean Air Co Ltd vs. Yuson, GR No. 170369, June 16, 2010Cercado vs. Uniprom Inc. GR No. 188154, Oct. 13, 2010Bilbao vs. Saudi Arabian Airlines, G.R. No. 183915, December 14, 2010San Miguel Properties vs. Gucaban, G.R. No. 153982, July 18, 2011Skippers United Pacific vs. Doza et al., G.R. No. 175558, February 8, 2012Auza, Jr. et al., vs. Mol Phils Inc. G.R. No. 175481, November 21, 2012Gan vs. Galderma Philippines, Inc. G.R. No. 177167, January 17, 2013Padillo vs. Rural Bank of Nabunturan Inc. G.R. No. 199338, January 21, 2013Intel Technology Phils Inc. vs. NLRC et al., GR No. 200575, February 5, 2014Sutherland & Global Services Phils Inc., vs. Labrador, GR No. 193107, March 24, 2014Chiang Kai Shek College et al., vs. Torres, GR No. 189456, April 2, 2014

IX. PRESCRIPTION OF CLAIMS

Ludo & Luym vs. Saornido, G.R. No. 140960, January 20, 2003Degamo vs. Avant Lard Shipping Lines, G.R. No. 154460, November 22, 2005Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp., vs. Panganiban, G.R. No. 151407, February 6, 2007Far East Agricultural Supply vs. Lebatigue, G.R. No. 162813, February 12, 2007Victory Liner vs. Race, G.R. No. 164820, March 28, 2007J.K Mercado & Sons Agricultural Enterprises vs. Hon. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 158084, Aug. 29, 2008Reyes vs. NLRC, CCBPI, G.R. No. 180551, Feb. 10, 2009LWV Construction Corp., vs. Dupo, GR No. 172342, July 13, 2009PLDT vs. Pingol, GR No. 182622, Sept. 8, 2010Medline Management Inc. vs. Roslinda, GR No. 168715, Sept. 15, 2010University of East vs. University of East Employees Asso. G.r. No. 179593, September 14, 2011

X. JURISDICTION OF THE LABOR ARBITER

Tolosa vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 149578, April 10, 2003Austria vs. NLRC, 312 SCRA 413Eviota vs. Court of Appeals, 407 SCRA 394Dynamic Signmaker Outdoor Advertising Services vs. Potongan, G.R. No. 156589, June 27, 2005Metromedia Times Corp., vs. Pastorin, G.R. No. 154295, July 29, 2005Yusen Air & Sea Service Phils vs. Villamor, G.R. No. 154942, August 16, 2005Duty Free Phils., vs. Mojica, G.R. No. 166365, September 30, 2005Easycall Communication Phils., vs. King, G.R. No. 145901, December 15, 2005San Miguel Foods Inc., vs. San Miguel Corp Employees Union-PTGWO, G.R. No. 168569, October 5, 2007Leyte IV Electric Cooperative Inc vs. LEYECO IV Employees Union-ALU, G.R. No. 1577745, October 19, 2007Garcia vs. Eastern Telecommunications Phils., et al., GR No. 173115 & 173163-64, April 16, 2009Halaguena et al., vs. Phil Airlines GR No. 172013, Oct 2, 2009Okol vs. Slimmers World International, et al., G.R. No. 160146, December 11, 2009Hugo et al., vs. Light Rail Transit Authority, G.R. No. 181866, March 18, 2010Matling Industrial and Commercial Corp et al., vs. Coros, GR No. 157802, Oct. 13, 2010Manila Electric Co. et al., vs. Lim, GR No. 184769, Oct. 5, 2010Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp., vs. Sps. Broqueza, GR No. 178610, Nov. 17, 2010Real vs. Sangu Phils., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 168757, January 19, 2011Portillo vs. Rudolf Lietz, Inc. et al., G.R. No. 196539, October 10, 2012Ace Navigation Co. Inc. et al., vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 197309, October 10, 2012Cosare vs. Broadcom Asia, Inc. GR No. 201298, February 5, 2014,

Amecos v. Lopez

XI. 2011 NLRC RUES OF PROCEDURE

Mindanao Times Corp vs. Confesor, GR No. 183417, Feb. 5, 2010College of the Immaculate Concepcion vs. NLRC et al., G.R. No. 167563, March 22, 2010Oriental Shipmanagement Co. vs. Bastol, GR No. 186280, June 29, 2010Millennium Erectors Corp. vs. Magallanes, GR No. 184362, Nov> 15, 2010Islriz Trading/Lu vs. Capada et al., G.R. No. 168501, January 31, 2011Panlilio et al., vs. RTC Br. 51, City of Manila, G.R. No. 173846, Feb. 2, 2011Ando vs. Campo, G.R. No. 184007, Feb. 16, 2011Exodus International Construction Corp., vs. Biscocho, et al., G.R. No. 166109, Feb, 23, 2011Pfizer Inc., et al., vs. Velasco, G.R. No. 177467, March 9, 2011Luna vs. Allado Construction, G.R. No. 175251, May 30, 2011Banahaw Broadcasting vs. Pacana III et al., G.R. No. 171673, May 30, 2011Social Security Commission vs. Rizal Poulty et al., G.R. No. 167050, June 1, 2011University Plans Inc. vs. Solano, G.R. No. 170416, June 22, 2011BPI Employees Union-Metro manila vs. Bank of the Phil Islands, G.R. No. 178699, September 21, 2011DUP Sound Phils vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 168317, November 21, 2011Aujero vs. Phil Communications Satellite Corp. G.R. No. 193484, January 18, 2012Sarona vs. NLRC G.R. No. 185280, January 18, 2012Salenga et al., vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 174941, February 1, 2012Lockheed Detective & Watchman Agency, G.R. No. 185918, April 18, 20123rd Alert Security & Detective Services Inc. vs. Navia, G.r. No. 200653, June 13, 2012Radio Philippines Network Inc et al., vs. Yap et al., G.R. No. 187713, August 1, 2012Gonzales vs. Solid Cement Corp., G.R. No. 198423, October 23, 2012Martos et al., vs. New San Jose Builders, G.R. No. 192650, October 24, 2012Loon et al., vs. Power Master Inc. et al., GR No. 189404, December 11, 2013Lepanto Consolidated Mining Corp., vs. Icao, GR No. 196047, January 15, 2014Building Care Corp. vs. Macaraeg, G.R. No. 198357, December 10, 2012Co Say Coco Products Phils Inc., vs. Baltasar, et al., GR No. 188828, March 5, 2014Olores vs. Manila Doctors College et al., GR No. 201663, March 31, 2014Bergonio et al., vs. South east Asian Airlines, GR No. 195227,.April 21, 2014Arabit et al., vs. Jardine Pacific Finance Inc. GR No. 181719, April 21, 2014Mirant (Phils) Corp., vs. Caro, GR No. 181490, April 23, 2014

McBurnie vs. Ganzon et al., GR Nol. 178034 & 178117 & 186984-85, Oct. 17, 2013, En banc

CRISANTO F. CASTRO, JR. vs. ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY, GR No. 175293

Phil. Touristers Inc et al., vs. Mas Transit Workers Union-ANGLO-KMU GR No. 201237, Sept. 3, 2014

I. THE APPLICABLE LAWSII. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Singer Sewing Machine vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 91307 January 24, 1991

FACTS:

Singer Machine Collectors Union-Baguio (SIMACUBA), the respondent union, filed a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all collectors of the Singer Sewing Machine Company, Baguio City branch (hereinafter referred to as "the Company").

The Company opposed the petition mainly on the ground that the union members are actually not employees but are independent contractors as evidenced by the collection agency agreement which they signed. The respondent Med-Arbiter, finding that there exists an employer-employee relationship between the union members and the Company, granted the petition for certification election. On appeal, Secretary of Labor Franklin M. Drilon affirmed it.ISSUE:

Whether or not there exists an employee-employer relationship between the parties.

RULING:

SC ruled in favor of petitioner. Private respondents are independent contractors, not employees. As such, they cannot enter into a collective bargaining agreement with the petitioner.

The present case mainly calls for the application of the control test, which if not satisfied, would lead us to conclude that no employer-employee relationship exists. Hence, if the union members are not employees, no right to organize for purposes of bargaining, nor to be certified as such bargaining agent can ever be recognized. The following elements are generally considered in the determination of the employer-employee relationship; "(1) the selection 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 although the latter is the most important element".

The nature of the relationship between a company and its collecting agents depends on the circumstances of each particular relationship. Not all collecting agents are employees and neither are all collecting agents independent contractors. The collectors could fall under either category depending on the facts of each case.

A thorough examination of the facts of the case leads us to the conclusion that the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the Company and the collection agents cannot be sustained. The plain language of the agreement reveals that the designation as collection agent does not create an employment relationship and that the applicant is to be considered at all times as an independent contractor.

The Court finds that since private respondents are not employees of the Company, they are not entitled to the constitutional right to join or form a labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining. Accordingly, there is no constitutional and legal basis for their "union" to be granted their petition for direct certification.

Manila Golf Club vs. IAC

G.R. No. 64948 September 27, 1994

FACTS:

This is originally filed with the Social Security Commission (SSC) via petition of 17 persons who styled themselves as Caddies of Manila Golf and Country Club-PTCCEA for the coverage and availment of benefits of the Social Security Act as amended, PTCCEA (Philippine Technical, Clerical, Commercial Employees Association) a labor organization where which they claim for membership.

The same time two other proceedings were filed and pending. These are certification election case filed by PTCCEA on behalf of the same caddies of Manila Golf and Country club which was in favor of the caddies and compulsory arbitration case involving PTCCEA and Manila Golf and Country Club which was dismissed and ruled that there was no employer-employee relationship between the caddies and the club.

ISSUE:

Whether or not persons rendering caddying services for members of golf clubs and their guests in said clubs' courses or premises are the employees of such clubs and therefore within the compulsory coverage of the Social Security System (SSS).

RULING:

SC ruled in favor of the petitioner. Llamar is not an employee of the Manila Golf and Country Club, Inc. The club is under no obligation to report him for compulsory coverage to the SSS.

In the very nature of things, caddies must submit to some supervision of their conduct while enjoying the privilege of pursuing their occupation within the premises and grounds of whatever club they do work in. They work for the club to which they attach themselves on sufferance but, on the other hand, also without having to observe any working hours, free to leave anytime they please, to stay away for as long they like.

These considerations clash frontally with the concept of employment. It can happen that a caddy who has rendered services to a player on one day may still find sufficient time to work elsewhere. Under such circumstances, the caddy may leave the premises and to go to such other place of work that he wishes. These are things beyond the control of the petitioner.

Encyclopedia Britanica vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 87098 November 4, 1996

FACTS:

Private respondent Benjamin Limjoco was a Sales Division Manager of petitioner Encyclopaedia Britannica and was in charge of selling petitioner's products through some sales representatives. As compensation, private respondent received commissions from the products sold by his agents. He was also allowed to use petitioner's name, goodwill and logo. It was, however, agreed upon that office expenses would be deducted from private respondent's commissions. Petitioner would also be informed about appointments, promotions, and transfers of employees in private respondent's district.

Limjoco resigned from office to pursue his private business. Then on October 30, 1975, he filed a complaint against petitioner Encyclopaedia Britannica with the Department of Labor and Employment, claiming for non-payment of separation pay and other benefits, and also illegal deduction from his sales commissions.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship between the parties.

RULING:

SC ruled that Limjoco was not an employee of the petitioner company. He was merely an agent or an independent dealer of the petitioner.

The records of the case at bar showed that there was no such relationship. He was free to conduct his work and he was free to engage in other means of livelihood. At the time he was connected with the petitioner company, private respondent was also a director and later the president of the Farmers' Rural Bank. Had he been an employee of the company, he could not be employed elsewhere and he would be required to devote full time for petitioner. If private respondent was indeed an employee, it was rather unusual for him to wait for more than a year from his separation from work before he decided to file his claims.

Carungcong vs. Sunlife

G.R. No. 118086 December 15, 1997

FACTS:

Susan Carungcong began her career in the insurance industry in 1974 as an agent of Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. She signed an Agent Agreement with Sun Life. In virtue of which she was designated the latters agent to solicit applications for its insurance and annuity policies.

This contract was superseded some five years later when she signed two (2) new agreements. The first, denominated Career Agents or Unit Managers Agreement, dealt with such matters as the agents commissions, his obligations, limitations on his authority, and termination of the agreement by death, or by written notice with or without cause. The second was titled, Managers Supplementary Agreement. It explicitly described as a further agreement. Carungcong and Sun Life executed another Agreement named New Business Manager with the function generally to manage a New Business Office established. This latest Agreement stressed that the New Business Manager in performance of his duties defined herein, shall be considered an independent contractor and not an employee of Sun Life, and that under no circumstance shall the New Business Manager and/or his employees be considered employees of Sun Life.

Ms. Eleizer Sibayan, Manager of Sun Lifes Internal Audit Department, commenced an inquiry into the special fund availments of Carungcong and other New Business Managers. Respondent Lance Kemp, had been receiving reports of anomalies in relation thereto from unit managers and agents. Thereafter, on January 1990, Carungcong was confronted with and asked to explain the discrepancies set out in Sibayans report. She was given a letter signed by Metron V. Deveza, CLU, Director, Marketing, which advised of the termination of her relationship with Sun Life.

Carungcong promptly instituted proceedings for vindication in the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commissions on January 16, 1990. There she succeeded in obtaining a favorable judgment. Labor Arbiter found that there existed an employer-employee relationship between her and Sun Life. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the Arbiters judgment. It affirmed that no employment relationship existed between Carungcong and Sun Life.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship between the parties.

RULING:

SC held that Carungcong is not an employee of Sun Life Co. She was an independent contractor.

Noteworthy is that this last agreement which emphasized, like the Career Agents or Unit Managers Agreement first signed by her, that in performance of her duties defined herein. Carungcong would be considered an independent contractor and not an employee of Sun Life, and that under no circumstance shall the New Business Manager and/or his employees be considered employees of Sun Life.

Carungcong is an independent contractor. It was indicated in the very face of the contract. The rules and regulations of the company is not sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship. It does not necessarily create any employer-employee relationship where the employers controls have to interfere in the methods and means by which employee would like employ to arrive at the desired results.

Carungcong admitted that she was free to work as she pleases, at the place and time she felt convenient for her to do so. She was not paid to a fixed salary and was mainly paid by commissions depending on the volume of her performance.

Ramos vs. CA

G.R. No. 124354; April 11, 2002

FACTS:

Petitioner Erlinda Ramos, after seeking professional medical help, was advised to undergo an operation for the removal of a stone in her gall bladder (cholecystectomy). She was referred to Dr. Hosaka, a surgeon, who agreed to perform the operation on her. The operation was scheduled for June 17, 1985 at 9:00 in the morning at private respondent De Los Santos Medical Center (DLSMC). Since neither petitioner Erlinda nor her husband, petitioner Rogelio, knew of any anesthesiologist, Dr. Hosaka recommended to them the services of Dr. Gutierrez. On the following day, she was ready for operation as early as 7:30 am. Around 9:30, Dr. Hosaka has not yet arrived. By 10 am, Rogelio wanted to pull out his wife from the operating room. Dr. Hosaka finally arrived at 12:10 pm more than 3 hours of the scheduled operation.

Dr. Guiterres tried to intubate Erlinda. The nail beds of Erlinda were bluish discoloration in her left hand. At 3 pm, Erlinda was being wheeled to the Intensive care Unit and stayed there for a month. Since the ill-fated operation, Erlinda remained in comatose condition until she died.

The family of Ramos sued them for damages.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship between the medical center and Drs. Hosaka and Guiterrez.

RULING:

SC ruled that there was no employee-employer relationship between de Los Santos Medical Center and Drs. Hosaka and Gutierrez.

After a careful consideration of the arguments raised by DLSMC, the Court finds that respondent hospitals position on this issue is meritorious. There is no employer-employee relationship between DLSMC and Drs. Gutierrez and Hosaka which would hold DLSMC solidarily liable for the injury suffered by petitioner Erlinda under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

As explained by respondent hospital, that the admission of a physician to membership in DLSMCs medical staff as active or visiting consultant is first decided upon by the Credentials Committee. Neither is there any showing that it is DLSMC which pays any of its consultants for medical services rendered by the latter to their respective patients. Moreover, the contract between the consultant in respondent hospital and his patient is separate and distinct from the contract between respondent hospital and said patient. The first has for its object the rendition of medical services by the consultant to the patient, while the second concerns the provision by the hospital of facilities and services by its staff such as nurses and laboratory personnel necessary for the proper treatment of the patient.

The hospital does not hire consultants but it accredits and grants him the privilege of maintaining a clinic and/or admitting patients. It is the patient who pays the consultants. The hospital cannot dismiss the consultant but he may lose his privileges granted by the hospital. The hospitals obligation is limited to providing the patient with the preferred room accommodation and other things that will ensure that the doctors orders are carried out.

Sonza vs. ABS-CBN

G.R. No. 138051; June 10, 2004

FACTS:

Respondent ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation ("ABS-CBN") signed an Agreement ("Agreement") with the Mel and Jay Management and Development Corporation ("MJMDC"). ABS-CBN was represented by its corporate officers while MJMDC was represented by SONZA, as President and General Manager, and Carmela Tiangco ("TIANGCO"), as EVP and Treasurer. Referred to in the Agreement as "AGENT," MJMDC agreed to provide SONZAs services exclusively to ABS-CBN as talent for radio and television.ABS-CBN agreed to pay for SONZAs services a monthly talent fee of P310,000 for the first year and P317,000 for the second and third year of the Agreement. ABS-CBN would pay the talent fees on the 10th and 25th days of the month. SONZA filed a complaint against ABS-CBN before the Department of Labor and Employment, National Capital Region in Quezon City. SONZA complained that ABS-CBN did not pay his salaries, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, signing bonus, travel allowance and amounts due under the Employees Stock Option Plan ("ESOP").

ISSUE:

Whether Jay Sonza is an employee of ABS-CBN or an independent contractor.

RULING:

SC ruled that Sonza is an independent contractor.

Selection and Engagement of Employees. Independent contractors often present themselves to possess unique skills, expertise or talent to distinguish them from ordinary employees. The specific selection and hiring of SONZA, because of his unique skills, talent and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees, is a circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an independent contractual relationship. If SONZA did not possess such unique skills, talent and celebrity status, ABS-CBN would not have entered into the Agreement with SONZA but would have hired him through its personnel department just like any other employee.

Payment of Wages. All the talent fees and benefits paid to SONZA were the result of negotiations that led to the Agreement. If SONZA were ABS-CBNs employee, there would be no need for the parties to stipulate on benefits such as "SSS, Medicare, x x x and 13th month pay"20 which the law automatically incorporates into every employer-employee contract. Whatever benefits SONZA enjoyed arose from contract and not because of an employer-employee relationship. SONZAs talent fees, amounting to P317,000 monthly in the second and third year, are so huge and out of the ordinary that they indicate more an independent contractual relationship rather than an employer-employee relationship.

Power of Dismissal. During the life of the Agreement, ABS-CBN agreed to pay SONZAs talent fees as long as "AGENT and Jay Sonza shall faithfully and completely perform each condition of this Agreement."24 Even if it suffered severe business losses, ABS-CBN could not retrench SONZA because ABS-CBN remained obligated to pay SONZAs talent fees during the life of the Agreement. This circumstance indicates an independent contractual relationship between SONZA and ABS-CBN.

Power of Control. Applying the control test to the present case, we find that SONZA is not an employee but an independent contractor. The control test is the most important test our courts apply in distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor.29 This test is based on the extent of control the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the 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 contractor.30

Lazaro vs. Social Security Commission

G.R. No. 138254; July 30, 2004

FACTS:

Private respondent Rosalina M. Laudato ("Laudato") filed a petition before the SSC for social security coverage and remittance of unpaid monthly social security contributions against her three (3) employers. Among the respondents was herein petitioner Angelito L. Lazaro ("Lazaro"), proprietor of Royal Star Marketing ("Royal Star"), which is engaged in the business of selling home appliances. Laudato alleged that despite her employment as sales supervisor of the sales agents for Royal Star from April of 1979 to March of 1986, Lazaro had failed during the said period, to report her to the SSC for compulsory coverage or remit Laudato's social security contributions.ISSUE:

Whether or not there exists an employee-employer relationship between Laudato and Royal Star Marketing.

RULING:

SC ruled that there exists such relationship between the parties.

It is an accepted doctrine that for the purposes of coverage under the Social Security Act, the determination of employer-employee relationship warrants the application of the "control test," that is, whether the employer controls or has reserved the right to control the employee, not only as to the result of the work done, but also as to the means and methods by which the same is accomplished.

Suffice it to say, the fact that Laudato was paid by way of commission does not preclude the establishment of an employer-employee relationship. The relevant factor remains, as stated earlier, whether the "employer" controls or has reserved the right to control the "employee" not only as to the result of the work to be done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished.

Phil. Global Comm. vs. De Vera

G.R. No. 157214; June 7, 2005

FACTS:

Philippine Global Communications inc. is a corporation engaged in the business of communication services and allied activities while Ricardo de Vera is a physician by profession whom petitioner enlisted to attend to the medical needs of its employees. The controversy rose when petitioner terminated his engagement.

In 1981, Dr. de Vera offered his services to petitioner. The parties agreed and formalized the respondents proposal in a document denominated as retainership contract which will be for a period of one year, subject to renewal and clearly stated that respondent will cover the retainership the company previously with Dr. Eulau. The agreement went until 1994, in the years 1995-1996, it was renewed verbally. The turning point of the parties relationship was when petitioner, thru a letter bearing the subject TERMINATION RETAINERSHIP CONTRACT, informed Dr. de Vera of its decision to discontinue the latters retainer contract because the management has decided that it would be more practical to provide medical services to its employees through accredited hospitals near the company premises.

On January 1997, de Vera fileda complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC, alleging that he had been actually employed by the company as its company physician since 1991. The commission rendered decision in favor of Philcom and dismissed the complaint saying that de Vera was an independent contractor. On appeal to NLRC, it reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter stating that de Vera is a regular employee and directed the company to reinstate him. Philcom appealed to the CA where it rendered decision deleting the award but reinstating de Vera. Philcom filed this petition involving the difference of a job contracting agreements from employee-employer relationship.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there exists an employee-employer relationship between the parties.

RULING:

SC ruled that there was no such relationship existing between Dr. de Vera and Phil. Com.

The elements of an employer-employee relationship are wanting in this case. The record are replete with evidence showing that respondent had to bill petitioner for his monthly professional fees. It simply runs against the grain of common experience to imagine that an ordinary employee has yet to bill his employer to receive his salary.

The power to terminate the parties relationship was mutually vested on both. Either may terminate the arrangement at will, with or without cause.

Remarkably absent is the element of control whereby the employer has reserved the right to control the employee not only as to the result of the work done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished.

Petitioner had no control over the means and methods by which respondent went about performing his work at the company premises. In fine, the parties themselves practically agreed on every terms and conditions of the engagement, which thereby negates the element of control in their relationship.

ABS-CBN vs. Nazareno

G.R. No. 164156; September 26, 2006

FACTS:

Petitioner ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN) is engaged in the broadcasting business and owns a network of television and radio stations, whose operations revolve around the broadcast, transmission, and relay of telecommunication signals. It sells and deals in or otherwise utilizes the airtime it generates from its radio and television operations. It has a franchise as a broadcasting company, and was likewise issued a license and authority to operate by the National Telecommunications Commission.

Petitioner employed respondents Nazareno, Gerzon, Deiparine, and Lerasan as production assistants (PAs) on different dates. They were assigned at the news and public affairs, for various radio programs in the Cebu Broadcasting Station. On December 19, 1996, petitioner and the ABS-CBN Rank-and-File Employees executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to be effective during the period from December 11, 1996 to December 11, 1999. However, since petitioner refused to recognize PAs as part of the bargaining unit, respondents were not included to the CBA.

In October 2000, respondents filed a Complaint for Recognition of Regular Employment Status, Underpayment of Overtime Pay, Holiday Pay, Premium Pay, Service Incentive Pay, Sick Leave Pay, and 13th Month Pay with Damages against the petitioner before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of the respondents, and declared that they were regular employees of petitioner as such, they were awarded monetary benefits. NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but CA dismissed it.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondents were considered regular employees of ABS-CBN.

RULING:

SC ruled that Production Assistants (Pas) are regular workers. Thus, they are entitled to the benefits in the CBA between ABS-CBN and its rank-and-file employees.

It was held that where a person has rendered at least one year of service, regardless of the nature of the activity performed, or where the work is continuous or intermittent, the employment is considered regular as long as the activity exists, the reason being that a customary appointment is not indispensable before one may be formally declared as having attained regular status.

The Court states that the primary standard, therefore, of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The connection can be determined by considering the nature of work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety. Also, if the employee has been performing the job for at least a year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely intermittent, the law deems repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists.

Additionally, respondents cannot be considered as project or program employees because no evidence was presented to show that the duration and scope of the project were determined or specified at the time of their engagement. In the case at bar, however, the employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondents has been proven. In the selection and engagement of respondents, no peculiar or unique skill, talent or celebrity status was required from them because they were merely hired through petitioners personnel department just like any ordinary employee. Respondents did not have the power to bargain for huge talent fees, a circumstance negating independent contractual relationship. Respondents are highly dependent on the petitioner for continued work. The degree of control and supervision exercised by petitioner over respondents through its supervisors negates the allegation that respondents are independent contractors.

The presumption is that when the work done is an integral part of the regular business of the employer and when the worker, relative to the employer, does not furnish an independent business or professional service, such work is a regular employment of such employee and not an independent contractor. As regular employees, respondents are entitled to the benefits granted to all other regular employees of petitioner under the CBA . Besides, only talent-artists were excluded from the CBA and not production assistants who are regular employees of the respondents. Moreover, under Article 1702 of the New Civil Code: In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living of the laborer.

Francisco vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 170087; August 31, 2006

FACTS:

Angelina Francisco was hired by Kasei Corporation during the incorporation stage. She was designated as accountant and corporate secretary and was assigned to handle all the accounting needs of the company. She was also designated as Liason Officer to the City of Manila to secure permits for the operation of the company.

In 1996, Petitioner was designated as Acting Manager. She was assigned to handle recruitment of all employees and perform management administration functions. In 2001, she was replaced by Liza Fuentes as Manager. Kasei Corporation reduced her salary to P2,500 per month which was until September. She asked for her salary but was informed that she was no longer connected to the company. She did not anymore report to work since she was not paid for her salary. She filed an action for constructive dismissal with the Labor Arbiter.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship.

RULING:

SC held that there was such relationship. Francisco was constructively dismissed. To ascertain if such relationship exists, the Court used two-tiered testcontrol test and economic reality test.

The court held that in this jurisdiction, there has been no uniform test to determine the existence of an employer-employee relation. Generally, courts have relied on the so-called right of control test where the person for whom the services are performed reserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end. In addition to the standard of right-of-control, the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties, like the inclusion of the employee in the payrolls, can help in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

The better approach would therefore be to adopt a two-tiered test involving: (1) the putative employers power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished; and (2) the underlying economic realities of the activity or relationship.

The court observed the need to consider the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties, in addition to the standard of right-of-control like the inclusion of the employee in the payrolls, to give a clearer picture in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship based on an analysis of the totality of economic circumstances of the worker.

Thus, the determination of the relationship between employer and employee depends upon the circumstances of the whole economic activity, such as: (1) the extent to which the services performed are an integral part of the employers business; (2) the extent of the workers investment in equipment and facilities; (3) the nature and degree of control exercised by the employer; (4) the workers opportunity for profit and loss; (5) the amount of initiative, skill, judgment or foresight required for the success of the claimed independent enterprise; (6) the permanency and duration of the relationship between the worker and the employer; and (7) the degree of dependency of the worker upon the employer for his continued employment in that line of business. The proper standard of economic dependence is whether the worker is dependent on the alleged employer for his continued employment in that line of business.

By applying the control test, there is no doubt that petitioner is an employee of Kasei Corporation because she was under the direct control and supervision of Seiji Kamura, the corporations Technical Consultant. It is therefore apparent that petitioner is economically dependent on respondent corporation for her continued employment in the latters line of business.

There can be no other conclusion that petitioner is an employee of respondent Kasei Corporation. She was selected and engaged by the company for compensation, and is economically dependent upon respondent for her continued employment in that line of business. Her main job function involved accounting and tax services rendered to Respondent Corporation on a regular basis over an indefinite period of engagement. Respondent Corporation hired and engaged petitioner for compensation, with the power to dismiss her for cause. More importantly, Respondent Corporation had the power to control petitioner with the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished.Nogales et. al. vs. Capitol Medical Center et. al.

G.R. No. 142625; December 19, 2006

FACTS:

Pregnant with her fourth child, Corazon Nogales ("Corazon"), who was then 37 years old, was under the exclusive prenatal care of Dr. Oscar Estrada ("Dr. Estrada") beginning on her fourth month of pregnancy or as early as December 1975. Around midnight of 25 May 1976, Corazon started to experience mild labor pains prompting Corazon and Rogelio Nogales ("Spouses Nogales") to see Dr. Estrada at his home. After examining Corazon, Dr. Estrada advised her immediate admission to the Capitol Medical Center ("CMC"). t 6:13 a.m., Corazon started to experience convulsionsAt 6:22 a.m., Dr. Estrada, assisted by Dr. Villaflor, applied low forceps to extract Corazon's baby. In the process, a 1.0 x 2.5 cm. piece of cervical tissue was allegedly torn.At 6:27 a.m., Corazon began to manifest moderate vaginal bleeding which rapidly became profuse. Corazon died at 9:15 a.m. The cause of death was "hemorrhage, post partum.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Capitol Medical Center is solidarily liable.

RULING:

SC held CMC solidarily liable together with Dr. Estrada. The doctrine of apparent authority was used to make CMC vicariously liable even if Dr. Estrada is an independent contractor.

Private hospitals, hire, fire and exercise real control over their attending and visiting "consultant" staff. The basis for holding an employer solidarily responsible for the negligence of its employee is found in Article 2180 of the Civil Code which considers a person accountable not only for his own acts but also for those of others based on the former's responsibility under a relationship of patria potestas.

In general, a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor-physician. There is, however, an exception to this principle. The hospital may be liable if the physician is the "ostensible" agent of the hospital. This exception is also known as the "doctrine of apparent authority.

For a hospital to be liable under the doctrine of apparent authority, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the hospital, or its agent, acted in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the hospital; (2) where the acts of the agent create the appearance of authority, the plaintiff must also prove that the hospital had knowledge of and acquiesced in them; and (3) the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary care and prudence. In the instant case, CMC impliedly held out Dr. Estrada as a member of its medical staff. Through CMC's acts, CMC clothed Dr. Estrada with apparent authority thereby leading the Spouses Nogales to believe that Dr. Estrada was an employee or agent of CMC.

Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. vs. Dr. Climaco

G.R. No. 146881; February 5, 2007

FACTS:

Dr. Climaco is a medical doctor who was hired by the petitioner by virtue of retainer agreement. The agreement states that there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties. The retainer agreement was renewed annually. The last one expired on Dec. 31, 1993. Despite of the non-renewal of the agreement, respondent continued to perform his functions as company doctor until he received a letter in March 1995 concluding their retainer agreement.

Respondent filed a complaint before the NLRC seeking recognition as a regular employee of the petitioner company and prayed for the payment of all benefits of a regular employee. In the decision of the Labor Arbiter, the company lacked control over the respondents performance of his duties. Respondent appealed where it rendered that no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties.

The CA ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship between the parties.

RULING:

SC ruled that there is no such relationship between the parties.

The Court, in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, has invariably adhered to the four-fold test: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employees conduct, or the so-called control test, considered to be the most important element.

The Court agrees with the finding of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the circumstances of this case show that no employer-employee relationship exists between the parties. The Comprehensive Medical Plan, provided guidelines merely to ensure that the end result was achieved, but did not control the means and methods by which respondent performed his assigned tasks. In addition, the 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 necessary incidents to the Retainership Agreement.

Considering that there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties, the termination of the Retainership Agreement, which is in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, does not constitute illegal dismissal of respondent.

Calamba Medical Center vs. NLRC et. al.

G.R. No. 176484; November 25, 2008

FACTS:

The Calamba Medical Center (petitioner), a privately-owned hospital, engaged the services of medical doctors-spouses Ronaldo Lanzanas (Dr. Lanzanas) and Merceditha Lanzanas (Dr. Merceditha) in March 1992 and August 1995, respectively, as part of its team of resident physicians. Reporting at the hospital twice-a-week on twenty-four-hour shifts, respondents were paid a monthly "retainer" of P4,800.00 each. It appears that resident physicians were also given a percentage share out of fees charged for out-patient treatments, operating room assistance and discharge billings, in addition to their fixed monthly retainer.The work schedules of the members of the team of resident physicians were fixed by petitioner's medical director Dr. Raul Desipeda (Dr. Desipeda). And they were issued identification cards by petitioner and were enrolled in the Social Security System (SSS). Income taxes were withheld from them.

Dr. Meluz Trinidad (Dr. Trinidad), also a resident physician at the hospital, inadvertently overheard a telephone conversation of respondent Dr. Lanzanas with a fellow employee, Diosdado Miscala, through an extension telephone line. Apparently, Dr. Lanzanas and Miscala were discussing the low "census" or admission of patients to the hospital.

Dr. Trinidad issued to Dr. Lanzanas a memorandum asking her to explain within 24 hours why no disciplinary action should be taken against him. Pending investigation, he was placed under a 30-day preventive suspension.

Inexplicably, petitioner did not give respondent Dr. Merceditha, who was not involved in the said incident, any work schedule after sending her husband Dr. Lanzanas the memorandum, nor inform her the reason therefor, albeit she was later informed by the Human Resource Department (HRD) officer that that was part of petitioner's cost-cutting measures.

Dr. Lanzanas filed a complaint for illegal suspension before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)-Regional Arbitration Board (RAB) IV. Dr. Merceditha subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and the spouses-respondents.

Whether or not the spouses-respondents were legally dismissed.

RULING:

SC held that there exists such relationship. The spouses-respondents were illegally dismissed.

On the first issue

Under the "control test," an employment relationship exists between a physician and a hospital if the hospital controls both the means and the details of the process by which the physician is to accomplish his task.

As priorly stated, private respondents maintained specific work-schedules, as determined by petitioner through its medical director, which consisted of 24-hour shifts totaling forty-eight hours each week and which were strictly to be observed under pain of administrative sanctions.

That petitioner exercised control over respondents gains light from the undisputed fact that in the emergency room, the operating room, or any department or ward for that matter, respondents' work is monitored through its nursing supervisors, charge nurses and orderlies. Without the approval or consent of petitioner or its medical director, no operations can be undertaken in those areas. For control test to apply, it is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee, it being enough that it has the right to wield the power.

On the second issue

Petitioner thus failed to observe the two requirements,before dismissal can be effected notice and hearing which constitute essential elements of the statutory process; the first to apprise the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and the second to inform the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. Non-observance of these requirements runs afoul of the procedural mandate.

The termination notice sent to and received by Dr. Lanzanas on April 25, 1998 was the first and only time that he was apprised of the reason for his dismissal. He was not afforded, however, even the slightest opportunity to explain his side. His was a "termination upon receipt" situation. While he was priorly made to explain on his telephone conversation with Miscala, he was not with respect to his supposed participation in the strike and failure to heed the return-to-work order.

As for the case of Dr. Merceditha, her dismissal was worse, it having been effected without any just or authorized cause and without observance of due process. In fact, petitioner never proferred any valid cause for her dismissal except its view that "her marriage to [Dr. Lanzanas] has given rise to the presumption that her sympath[y] [is] with her husband; [and that when [Dr. Lanzanas] declared that he was going to boycott the scheduling of their workload by the medical doctor, he was presumed to be speaking for himself [and] for his wife Merceditha."

Escasinas et. al. vs. Shangri-la

G.R. No. 178827; March 4, 2009

FACTS:

Registered nurses Jeromie D. Escasinas and Evan Rigor Singco (petitioners) were engaged in 1999 and 1996, respectively, by Dr. Jessica Joyce R. Pepito (respondent doctor) to work in her clinic at respondent Shangri-las Mactan Island Resort (Shangri-la) in Cebu of which she was a retained physician.

In late 2002, petitioners filed with the NLRC a complaint for regularization, underpayment of wages, non-payment of holiday pay, night shift differential and 13th month pay differential against respondents, claiming that they are regular employees of Shangri-la. Shangri-la claimed, however, that petitioners were not its employees but of respondent doctor whom it retained via Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) pursuant to Article 157 of the Labor Code, as amended. Respondent doctor for her part claimed that petitioners were already working for the previous retained physicians of Shangri-la before she was retained by Shangri-la; and that she maintained petitioners services upon their request.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was an employee-employer relationship between Shangri-La and the petitioners.

Whether or not Dr. Pepito is an independent contractor

RULING:

SC ruled that there no such relationship. The petitioners are under the direct supervision of Dr. Pepito, an independent contractor.

On the first issue

The resolution of the case hinges, in the main, on the correct interpretation of Art. 157 vis a vis Art. 280 and the provisions on permissible job contracting of the Labor Code, as amended. Under the foregoing provision, Shangri-la, which employs more than 200 workers, is mandated to furnish its employees with the services of a full-time registered nurse, a part-time physician and dentist, and an emergency clinic which means that it should provide or make available such medical and allied services to its employees, not necessarily to hire or employ a service provider. The term full-time in Art. 157 cannot be construed as referring to the type of employment of the person engaged to provide the services, for Article 157 must not be read alongside Art. 280[9] in order to vest employer-employee relationship on the employer and the person so engaged. The phrase services of a full-time registered nurse should thus be taken to refer to the kind of services that the nurse will render in the companys premises and to its employees, not the manner of his engagement.

On the second issue

The existence of an independent and permissible contractor relationship is generally established by considering the following determinants: whether the contractor is carrying on an independent business; the nature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term and duration of the relationship; the right to assign the performance of a specified piece of work; the control and supervision of the work to another; the employer's power with respect to the hiring, firing and payment of the contractor's workers; the control of the premises; the duty to supply the premises, tools, appliances, materials and labor; and the mode, manner and terms of payment.

Against the above-listed determinants, the Court holds that respondent doctor is a legitimate independent contractor. That Shangri-la provides the clinic premises and medical supplies for use of its employees and guests do not necessarily prove that respondent doctor lacks substantial capital and investment. Besides, the maintenance of a clinic and provision of medical services to its employees is required under Art. 157, which are not directly related to Shangri-las principal business operation of hotels and restaurants.

Tongkovs. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., Inc. November 7, 2008

G.R. No. 167622, November 07, 2008

FACTS:

Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (Phils.), Inc. (Manulife) is a domestic corporation engaged in life insurance business.Renato A. Vergel De Dios was, during the period material, its President and Chief Executive Officer. Gregorio V.Tongkostarted his professional relationship with Manulife on July 1, 1977 by virtue of a Career Agent's Agreement (Agreement) he executed with Manulife. In the Agreement, it is provided that: It is understood and agreed that the Agent is an independent contractor and nothing contained herein shall be construed or interpreted as creating an employer-employee relationship between the Company and the Agent. The Company may terminate this Agreement for any breach or violation of any of the provisions hereof by the Agent by giving written notice to the Agent within fifteen (15) days from the time of the discovery of the breach. No waiver, extinguishment, abandonment, withdrawal or cancellation of the right to terminate this Agreement by the Company shall be construed for any previous failure to exercise its right under any provision of this Agreement.

Either of the parties hereto may likewise terminate his Agreement at any time without cause, by giving to the other party fifteen (15) days notice in writing. In 1983,Tongkowas named as a Unit Manager in Manulife's Sales Agency Organization. In 1990, he became a Branch Manager. As the CA found, Tongko's gross earnings from his work at Manulife, consisting of commissions, persistency income, and management overrides. The problem started sometime in 2001, when Manulife instituted manpower development programs in the regional sales management level. Relative thereto, De Dios addressed a letter dated November 6, 2001 toTongkoregarding an October 18, 2001 Metro North Sales Managers Meeting. Stating thatTongkos Region was the lowest performer (on a per Manager basis) in terms of recruiting in 2000 and, as of today, continues to remain one of the laggards in this area.

Other issues were:"Some Managers are unhappy with their earnings and would want to revert to the position of agents." And "Sales Managers are doing what the company asks them to do but, in the process, they earn less." Tongkowas then terminated. Therefrom,Tongkofiled a Complaint dated November 25, 2002 with the NLRC against Manulife for illegal dismissal in the Complaint. In a Decision dated April 15, 2004, Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of an employer-employee relationship. The NLRC's First Division, while finding an employer-employee relationship between Manulife andTongkoapplying the four-fold test, held Manulife liable for illegal dismissal. Thus, Manulife filed an appeal with the CA. Thereafter, the CA issued the assailed Decision dated March 29, 2005, finding the absence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties and deeming the NLRC with no jurisdiction over the case.Hence,Tongkofiled this petition.

ISSUES:

1.WONTongkowas an employee of Manulife

2.WONTongkowas illegally dismissed.

RULING:

1. Yes

In the instant case, Manulife had the power of control overTongkothat would make him its employee. Several factors contribute to this conclusion. In the Agreement dated July 1, 1977 executed betweenTongkoand Manulife, it is provided that: The Agent hereby agrees to comply with all regulations and requirements of the Company as herein provided as well as maintain a standard of knowledge and competency in the sale of the Company's products which satisfies those set by the Company and sufficiently meets the volume of new business required of Production Club membership.Under this provision, an agent of Manulife must comply with three (3) requirements: (1) compliance with the regulations and requirements of the company; (2) maintenance of a level of knowledge of the company's products that is satisfactory to the company; and (3) compliance with a quota of new businesses. Among the company regulations of Manulife are the different codes of conduct such as the Agent Code of Conduct, Manulife Financial Code of Conduct, and Manulife Financial Code of Conduct Agreement, which demonstrate the power of control exercised by the company overTongko. The fact thatTongkowas obliged to obey and comply with the codes of conduct was not disowned by respondents. Thus, with the company regulations and requirements alone, the fact that Tongkowas an employee of Manulife may already be established. Certainly, these requirements controlled the means and methods by whichTongkowas to achieve the company's goals.

More importantly, Manulife's evidence establishes the fact thatTongkowas tasked to perform administrative duties that establishes his employment with Manulife. Additionally, it must be pointed out that the fact thatTongkowas tasked with recruiting a certain number of agents, in addition to his other administrative functions, leads to no other conclusion that he was an employee of Manulife.

2. Yes

In its Petition for Certiorari dated January 7, 2005[26]filed before the CA, Manulife argued that even ifTongkois considered as its employee, his employment was validly terminated on the ground of gross and habitual neglect of duties, inefficiency, as well as willful disobedience of the lawful orders of Manulife. Manulife stated: In the instant case, private respondent, despite the written reminder from Mr. De Dios refused to shape up and altogether disregarded the latter's advice resulting in his laggard performance clearly indicative of his willful disobedience of the lawful orders of his superior. As private respondent has patently failed to perform a very fundamental duty, and that is to yield obedience to all reasonable rules, orders and instructions of the Company, as well as gross failure to reach at least minimum quota, the termination of his engagement from Manulife is highly warranted and therefore, there is no illegal dismissal to speak of. It is readily evident from the above-quoted portions of Manulife's petition that it failed to cite a single iota of evidence to support its claims. Manulife did not even point out which order or rule thatTongkodisobeyed. More importantly, Manulife did not point out the specific acts thatTongkowas guilty of that would constitute gross and habitual neglect of duty or disobedience. Manulife merely citedTongko's alleged "laggard performance," without substantiating such claim, and equated the same to disobedience and neglect of duty. Apropos thereto, Art. 277, par. (b), of the Labor Code mandates in explicit terms that the burden of proving the validity of the termination of employment rests on the employer. Failure to discharge this evidential burden would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified, and, therefore, illegal. The Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate the services of an employee for just cause and this must be supported by substantial evidence. The settled rule in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings is that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in determining the legality of an employer's dismissal of an employee, and not even a preponderance of evidence is necessary as substantial evidence is considered sufficient. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence or relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise. Here, Manulife failed to overcome such burden of proof. It must be reiterated that Manulife even failed to identify the specific acts by whichTongko's employment was terminated much less support the same with substantial evidence.To repeat, mere conjectures cannot work to deprive employees of their means of livelihood. Thus, it must be concluded thatTongkowas illegally dismissed. Moreover, as to Manulife's failure to comply with the twin notice rule, it reasons thatTongkonot being its employee is not entitled to such notices. Since we have ruled thatTongkois its employee, however, Manulife clearly failed to affordTongkosaid notices. Thus, on this ground too, Manulife is guilty of illegal dismissal.

Atok Big Wedge Company vs. Gison

G.R. No. 169510 August 8, 2011

FACTS:

Sometime in February 1992, respondent Jesus P. Gison was engaged as part-time consultant on retainer basis by petitioner Atok Big Wedge Company, Inc. through its then Asst. Vice-President and Acting Resident Manager, Rutillo A. Torres. As a consultant on retainer basis, respondent assisted petitioner's retained legal counsel with matters pertaining to the prosecution of cases against illegal surface occupants within the area covered by the company's mineral claims. Respondent was likewise tasked to perform liaison work with several government agencies, which he said was his expertise.

Sometime thereafter, since respondent was getting old, he requested that petitioner cause his registration with the Social Security System (SSS), but petitioner did not accede to his request. He later reiterated his request but it was ignored by respondent considering that he was only a retainer/consultant. On February 4, 2003, respondent filed a Complaint with the SSS against petitioner for the latter's refusal to cause his registration with the SSS.

On the same date, Mario D. Cera, in his capacity as resident manager of petitioner, issued a Memorandum advising respondent that within 30 days from receipt thereof, petitioner is terminating his retainer contract with the company since his services are no longer necessary.

On September 26, 2003, after the parties have submitted their respective pleadings, Labor Arbiter Rolando D. Gambito rendered a Decision ruling in favor of the petitioner. Finding no employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondent, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.

On July 30, 2004, the NLRC, Second Division, issued a Resolution affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied in the Resolution dated September 30, 2004.

ISSUES:

Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship.

HELD:

To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship jurisprudence has invariably adhered to the four-fold test, to wit: (1) the selection 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." Of these four, the last one is the most important. The so-called "control test" is commonly regarded as the most crucial and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship. Under the control test, an employer-employee relationship exists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end.

Applying the aforementioned test, an employer-employee relationship is apparently absent in the case at bar. Among other things, respondent was not required to report everyday during regular office hours of petitioner. Respondent's monthly retainer fees were paid to him either at his residence or a local restaurant. More importantly, petitioner did not prescribe the manner in which respondent would accomplish any of the tasks in which his expertise as a liaison officer was needed; respondent was left alone and given the freedom to accomplish the tasks using his own means and method. Respondent was assigned tasks to perform, but petitioner did not control the manner and methods by which respondent performed these tasks. Verily, the absence of the element of control on the part of the petitioner engenders a conclusion that he is not an employee of the petitioner.

Contrary to the conclusion of the CA, respondent is not an employee, much more a regular employee of petitioner. The appellate court's premise that regular employees are those who perform activities which are desirable and necessary for the business of the employer is not determinative in this case. In fact, any agreement may provide that one party shall render services for and in behalf of another, no matter how necessary for the latter's business, even without being hired as an employee. Hence, respondent's length of service and petitioner's repeated act of assigning respondent some tasks to be performed did not result to respondent's entitlement to the rights and privileges of a regular employee.

Furthermore, despite the fact that petitioner made use of the services of respondent for eleven years, he still cannot be considered as a regular employee of petitioner. Article 280 of the Labor Code, in which the lower court used to buttress its findings that respondent became a regular employee of the petitioner, is not applicable in the case at bar. Indeed, the Court has ruled that said provision is not the yardstick for determining the existence of an employment relationship because it merely distinguishes between two kinds of employees, i.e., regular employees and casual employees, for purposes of determining the right of an employee to certain benefits, to join or form a union, or to security of tenure; it does not apply where the existence of an employment relationship is in dispute. It is, therefore, erroneous on the part of the Court of Appeals to rely on Article 280 in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists between respondent and the petitioner.

Considering that there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties, the termination of respondent's services by the petitioner after due notice did not constitute illegal dismissal warranting his reinstatement and the payment of full backwages, allowances and other benefits.

Semblante et al., vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 196426 August 15, 2011

FACTS:

Petitioners Marticio Semblante (Semblante) and Dubrick Pilar (Pilar) assert that they were hired by respondents-spouses Vicente and Maria Luisa Loot, the owners of Gallera de Mandaue (the cockpit), as the official masiador and sentenciador, respectively, of the cockpit sometime in 1993.

As the masiador, Semblante calls and takes the bets from the gamecock owners and other bettors and orders the start of the cockfight. He also distributes the winnings after deducting the arriba, or the commission for the cockpit. Meanwhile, as the sentenciador, Pilar oversees the proper gaffing of fighting cocks, determines the fighting cocks' physical condition and capabilities to continue the cockfight, and eventually declares the result of the cockfight.

They work every Tuesday, Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday every week, excluding monthly derbies and cockfights held on special holidays. Their working days start at 1:00 p.m. and last until 12:00 midnight, or until the early hours of the morning depending on the needs of the cockpit. Petitioners had both been issued employees' identification cards that they wear every time they report for duty. They alleged never having incurred any infraction and/or violation of the cockpit rules and regulations.

On November 14, 2003, however, petitioners were denied entry into the cockpit upon the instructions of respondents, and were informed of the termination of their services effective that date. This prompted petitioners to file a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents.

Labor Arbiter Julie C. Rendoque found petitioners to be regular employees of respondents as they performed work that was necessary and indispensable to the usual trade or business of respondents for a number of years. The Labor Arbiter also ruled that petitioners were illegally dismissed, and so ordered respondents to pay petitioners their backwages and separation pay.

The respondents filed an Appeal during the 10-day appeal period but was unable to post a cash or surety bond. Thus for an unperfected appeal the NLRC dismissed the same. It was only on October 11, 2006 they were able to post bond dated October 6, 2006. The NLRC ruled on the Motion for Reconsideration although there was belated filing of the cash or surety bond. The NLRC held in its Resolution of October 18, 2006 that there was no employer-employee relationship between petitioners and respondents, respondents having no part in the selection and engagement of petitioners, and that no separate individual contract with respondents was ever executed by petitioners.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Appeal has been perfected even after a belated filing of the cash or surety bond.

2. Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and respondent.

HELD:

Time and again, however, this Court, considering the substantial merits of the case, has relaxed this rule on, and excused the late posting of, the appeal bond when there are strong and compelling reasons for the liberality, such as the prevention of miscarriage of justice extant in the case or the special circumstances in the case combined with its legal merits or the amount and the issue involved. After all, technical rules cannot prevent courts from exercising their duties to determine and settle, equitably and completely, the rights and obligations of the parties. This is one case where the exception to the general rule lies.

While respondents had failed to post their bond within the 10-day period provided above, it is evident, on the other hand, that petitioners are NOT employees of respondents, since their relationship fails to pass muster the four-fold test of employment We have repeatedly mentioned in countless decisions: (1) the selection 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, which is the most important element.

As found by both the NLRC and the CA, respondents had no part in petitioners' selection and management; petitioners' compensation was paid out of the arriba (which is a percentage deducted from the total bets), not by petitioners; and petitioners performed their functions as masiador and sentenciador free from the direction and control of respondents. In the conduct of their work, petitioners relied mainly on their "expertise that is characteristic of the cockfight gambling," and were never given by respondents any tool needed for the performance of their work.

Respondents, therefore, could never have been illegally dismissed since they are not employees of the respondents.

Jose Mel Bernarte vs. Philippine Basketball Association (PBA), Jose Emmanuel Eala, and Perry Martinez

G.R. No. 192084. September 14, 2011FACTS:

Complainants (Jose Mel Bernarte and Renato Guevarra) aver that they were invited to join the PBA as referees. During the term of Commissioner Eala, however, changes were made on the terms of their employment. Bernarte, for instance, was not made to sign a contract during the first conference of the All-Filipino Cup which was from February 23, 2003 to June 2003. It was only during the second conference when he was made to sign a one and a half month contract for the period July 1 to August 5, 2003. On January 15, 2004, Bernarte received a letter from the Office of the Commissioner advising him that his contract would not be renewed citing his unsatisfactory performance on and off the court. On the other hand, complainant Guevarra alleges that he was invited to join the PBA pool of referees in February 2001, and signed a contract as a trainee on March 1, 2001. Beginning 2002, he signed a yearly contract as Regular Class C referee. On May 6, 2003, respondent Martinez issued a memorandum to Guevarra expressing dissatisfaction over his questioning on the assignment of referees officiating out-of-town games. Beginning February 2004, he was no longer made to sign a contract.

Respondents aver that complainants were not illegally dismissed because they were not employees of the PBA.

31 March 2005 Decision, the Labor Arbiter declared petitioner an employee whose dismiss