Case Digest in Labor

8/11/2019 Case Digest in Labor

1/5

DESCRIBE THE RELATIONSHIP THAT ARISES BETWEEN EER. Jurisprudence is frmly settled that the existence o an employment relationship is

ounded on our elements constituting as the reliable yardstick: (a) the selection andengagement o the employee; (b) the payment o wages; (c) the power o dismissal;and (d) the employer's power to control the employee's conduct. t is the so!called"control test#" and that is# whether the employer controls or has reser$ed the right to

control the employee not only as to the result o the work to be done but also as tothe means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished# which constitutethe most important index o the existence o the employer!employee relationship.%tated otherwise# an employer!employee relationship exists where the person orwhom the ser$ices are perormed reser$es the right to control not only the end to beachie$ed but also the means to be used in reaching such end.

G.R. No. L-29590 September 30 !9"2PHILIPPINE RE#INING CO. INC. petitioner#$s.CO$RT O# APPEALS SOCIAL SEC$RIT% CO&&ISSION SOCIAL SEC$RIT% S%STE&B$'LOD NG &ANGGAGAWA ()* +ICENTE GARCIA# respondents.&%:*espondent +arcia started working or the company in ,- as a copra carrier. n ,-/,# hewas promoted to oreman with , or men working under him. 0y ,-12# these men wereemployed under pakiao arrangements but the company paid the workers directly and theunction o their oreman insoar as wages were concerned was to distribute the money. hepakiao workers unloaded copra rom trucks or carriers# stored it in the company warehousesand deli$ered copra rom the warehouses to the company's 3ill 4ay 0in. n ,-55# the pakiaoarrangement were ormali6ed in writing through a series o written agreement and +arcia#the ormer copra carrier and oremen# was gi$en the authority to choose and hire the men todo the work assigned to him. nstead o the company paying the workers directly with +arciamerely distributing their wages# the work was compensated on a $olume basis at so manycenta$os per metric ton handled by all o them in the $arious phases o the 7ob ! receipt#storage# and distribution o copra ! with the money being gi$en to +arcia. he work o the laborers is an essential# permanent# and indispensable process it the business o thepetitioner company. 8hen the %ocial %ecurity ct was implemented#the petitioner companytook no steps to report the workers to the %ocial %ecurity %ystem or co$erage in thebelie that 9icente +arcia was an independent contractor and the workers he employedpursuant to the pakiao arrangement were his own employees or whom the company wasnot accountable in any manner. hus# in pril ,-,# respondent labor union fled a petitionor compulsory co$erage o the workers with the %ocial %ecurity ommission. herespondent ommission declared that +arcia and the workers were employees o thepetitioner company. he ourt o ppeals armed the ommission?: 8hether the public respondents are employees o the petitioner!appellant.

=?@4:opra is the basic raw material o the petitioner!appellant's business. he company mustha$e# and the acts show that it has# positi$e and direct control o$er the handling o copraimmediately prior to its being ed into the manuacturing process. he con$eyor is owned bythe company. he load it may carry and the time and manner o its operation are controlledby the appellant. company employee ordered the supposed independent contractor whereto store copra# when to bring out copra# how much to load and where# and what class ocopra to handle. he appellant limited the number o workers which 3r. +arcia could hire toassure that statutory minimum wages were paid rom the lump sum payments# gi$en or the


2/5

"pakiao " work. 3r. +arcia had no oce o his own. =e had no independent unds to pay themen working under him. =e could not work or any other company but was completelydependent on the appellant. 3r. 9icente +arcia denies that he is an independent contractor.

he control test is more than satisactorily met.

D% 'EH BENG ,. INTERNATIONAL LABOR AND &ARINE $NION O# THE PHILIPPINE

AIR &ATERIAL WING SA+INGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION INC. petitioner#$s.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS CO&&ISSION et (. respondents.

&%:

Ari$ate respondent @uis %. %alas was appointed "notarial and legal counsel" or petitioner ir3aterial 8ings %a$ings and @oan ssociation (38%@) in ,-2B. he appointment wasrenewed or three years in an implementing order that he is reappointed as Cotarial and@egal ounsel by the association or another term o / years. he petitioner issued anotherorder reminding %alas o the approaching termination o his legal ser$ices under theircontract. his prompted %alas to lodge a complaint against 38%@ or separation pay#

$acation and sick lea$e benefts# cost o li$ing allowances# reund o %%% premiums# moraland exemplary damages# payment o notarial ser$ices rendered rom &ebruary ,# ,-2B to3arch # ,--B# and attorney's ees.

%%>?:

8hether or not %alas can be considered an employee o the petitioner company.

=?@4:

he terms and conditions set out in the letter!contract entered into by the parties on January/# ,-2D# clearly show that %alas was an employee o the petitioner. =is selection as the

company counsel was done by the board o directors in one o its regular meetings. hepetitioner paid him a monthly compensationEretainer's ee or his ser$ices. hough hisappointment was or a fxed term o three years# the petitioner reser$ed its power odismissal or cause or as it might deem necessary or its interest and protection. Co lessimportantly# 38%@ also exercised its power o control o$er %alas by defning his dutiesand unctions as its legal counsel# to wit:o act on all legal matters pertinent to his Fce; oseek remedies to eGect collection o o$erdue accounts o members without pre7udice toinitiating court action to protect the interest o the association; o deend by all means allsuit against the interest o the ssociation.


3/5

he claims or the notarial ee should be dismissed because it arose out o %alas'employment contract with the petitioner which assigned him the duty to notari6e loanagreements and other legal documents.

&(r(/1)ot r. ,. NLRC

#ACTSAetitioners were employed by pri$ate respondents (9i$a). 3araguinot# Jr. as electrician and?nero as shooting member# petitioners< tasks consisted o loading# unloading and arrangingmo$ie eHuipment in the shooting area as instructed by the cameraman# returning theeHuipment to 9i$a &ilms< warehouse# assisting in the Ifxing o the lighting system# andperorming other tasks that the cameraman andEor director may assign. Aetitioners soughtthe assistance o their super$isor# 3rs. le7andriaesario# to acilitate their reHuest thatpri$ate respondents ad7ust their salary in accordance with the minimum wage law. n June,--# 3rs. esario inormed petitioners that 3r. 9ic del *osario would agree to increase theirsalary only i they signed a blank employment contract. *eusing to sign# pri$ate respondentterminated their ser$ice.Aetitioners thus sued or illegal dismissal beore the @abor rbiter and thus# it declared thecomplainants were illegally dismissed. he C@*# in re$ersing the @abor rbiter# thenconcluded that herein petitioners were pro7ect employees.ISS$E8hether the petitioners were pro7ect employees.HELD pro4et empo6ee or ( member o7 ( 8or poo m(6 (:1re t;e t(t o7 (re/(r empo6eewhen:

a. there is a continuous rehiring o pro7ect employees e$en ater a cessation o pro7ect ;b. the tasks perormed by the alleged pro7ect employee are $ital and necessary to the

business oemployer.n the instant case# the e$idence on record shows that petitioner ?nero was employed or atotal o two () years and engaged in at least eighteen (,2) pro7ects# while petitioner3araguinot was employed or some three (/) years and worked on at least twenty!three (/)pro7ects. 3oreo$er# as petitioners< tasks in$ol$ed# among other chores# the loading#unloading and arranging o mo$ie eHuipment in the shooting area as instructed by thecameramen# returning the eHuipment to the 9i$a &ilms< warehouse# and assisting in theIfxing o the lighting system# it may not be gainsaid that these tasks were $ital# necessaryand indispensable to the usual business or trade o the employer.

he cessation o construction acti$ities at the end o e$ery pro7ect is a oreseeable

suspension o work. Co compensation can be demanded rom the employer because thestoppage o operations at the end o the pro7ect and beore the start o a new one is regularand expected by both parties to the labor relations. %imilar to the case o regular employees#the employment is not se$ered but merely being suspended. he employees are# strictlyspeaking# not separated rom ser$ice but merely on lea$e o absence without pay until theyare re!employed.


4/5

NELL% ACTA &ARTINE


5/5

Documents

Case Digest in Labor