G.R. No. 101279PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC., petitioner, vs.HON. RUBEN D. TORRES, as Secretary of the Department of Labor & Employment, and JOSE N. SARMIENTO, as Administrator of the PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, respondents.

FACTS:In view of published stories regarding the abuses suffered by Filipino domestic helpers in Hong Kong, the DOLE issued a Department Order which temporarily suspends the recruitment by private employment agencies of Filipino domestic helpers in Hong Kong and provides that DOLE shall take over the business of deploying Hong Kong bound workers. Pursuant to the Department Order issued by DOLE, POEA also issued a Memorandum Circular providing the guidelines on the government processing and deployment of Filipino domestic helpers to Hong Kong and the accreditation of Hong Kong recruitment agencies intending to hire Filipino domestic helpers. Another Circular was issued by the POEA Administrator providing that all recruitment agencies hiring domestic helpers from the Philippines shall recruit under the new scheme which requires prior accreditation with the POEA. Hence, Philippine Association of Service Exporters Inc. (PASEI), now filed this petition for prohibition to annul the said DOLE and POEA circulars and to prohibit their implementation because the respondent agencies exceeded their rule making authority in issuing said circulars and that said circulars are against the Constitution being unreasonable, unfair, oppressive.ISSUE:Did the respondent agencies have the authority to issue the assailed circulars under the Constitution or any other laws?

RULING:Yes, the respondents have authority to issue such circulars. Under Article 36 of the Labor Code, the Secretary of Labor has the power to restrict and regulate recruitment and placement activities. Further, the regulatory authority of the POEA was vested by Executive Order No. 797 which authorizes POEA to take over the functions of the Overseas Employment Development Board, National Seamen Board and the overseas employment function of the Bureau of Employment Services. These vesture of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers in administrative bodies is not constitutional, unreasonable, and oppressive. Such is necessary to help in the regulation of societys ramified activities. The circulars does not prohibit PASEI from engaging in the recruitment and deployment of Filipino land based workers but merely regulates hence it is but only a valid exercise of police power as delegated to the executive branch of the government. However, such circulars are legally invalid, defective and unenforceable because of its non-compliance with the requirements of publication and filing in the Office of Administrative Register as required in Article 2 of the Civil Code, Article 5 of the Labor Code, and Section 3 and 4, Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987. Hence, the writ is prohibition is granted and the implementation of the assailed circulars is suspended pending compliance with the statutory requirements of publication and filing under the aforementioned laws.G.R. No. L-16600December 27, 1961

ILOILO CHINESE COMMERCIAL SCHOOL, petitioner, vs.LEONORA FABRIGAR and THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS:

Santiago Fabrigar wad a janitor of Iloilo Chinese Commercial School (ICCS). When he died, his common-law wife filed a claim for compensation with the WCC alleging that Fabrigars cause of death was pulmonary tuberculosis contracted during and as a result of his employment as janitor. The Hearing Officer of WCC, however, denied the claim and dismissed the case finding that the claimant failed to prove the casual relation of the employment to Fabrigars death, sighting that the cause of death was beriberi adult as reflected in the Death Certificate. On the appeal before the WCC, the decision was reversed, ruling that the employment of the decease aggravated the latters pre-existing illness basing and putting more credence from the testimony of Dr. Villareal, Fabrigars attending physician, and therefore ordering the petitioner to a the claims. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence this appeal, with the contention that the deceased Santiago Fabrigar was not the petitioners employee since the Iloilo Chinese Chamber of Commerce was responsible for Fabrigars salary and therefore the petitioner is exempt from the scope of the Workmens Compensation Law. ISSUE:Does the Workmens Compensation Law apply to the petitioner given the fact that he was not the one actually paying the salary of the deceased but the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, who should likewise be the one responsible for the death compensation claim?RULING:

Yes, the Workmens Compensation Law applies to the petitioner because under the law he is considered as the employer of the deceased. There is substantial proof on evidence showing that Fabrigar was employed by and rendered service for the petitioner and was an employee within the purview of the Workmens Compensation Law. The most important test of employer-employee relation is the power to control the employees conduct. The records disclose that the person in charge of the ICCS supervised the deceased in his work and had control over the manner he performed the same. Therefore, it could indeed be concluded that there exists an employer-employee relationship between ICCS and Fabrigar, hence, the Workmens Compensation Law applies to them. In view thereof, the appeal interposed by the petitioner is dismissed and the decision appealed from is affirmed with costs against petitioner.

G.R. No. 116960April 2, 1996

BERNARDO JIMENEZ and JOSE JIMENEZ, as Operators of JJ's TRUCKING, petitioners, vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PEDRO JUANATAS and FREDELITO JUANATAS, respondents.

FACTS:Pedro and Fredelito Juanatas, Father and son, filed a claim for unpaid wages/commissions, separation pay and damages against Bernardo Jimenez, the owner of JJs Trucking. The petitioners were allegedly hired by Jimenez as driver/mechanic and helper but Jimenez did not pay them the entire amount of commission for the year 1989 and illegally terminated them which further entitled both of them to a separation pay. The Labor Arbiter granted the commission and separation pay claims of Pedro Juanatas but dismissed that of Fredelito Juanatas for lack of merit. On appeal with the NLRC, affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision with modifications such that Fredelito is considered an employee of Jimenez thus entitling him a share from the commission and separation pay granted to Pedro. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied, hence, this appeal contending that NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Fredelito was an employee of Jimenez and that the latter did not pay the commission in full.

ISSUE:Does the provisions of the Labor Code cover Fredelito Junatas, who works with his father as the latters helper and receives part of his fathers salary and commission as his compensation?

RULING:

No, it does cover Frederico Juanatas there being no employer-employee relationship between him and Jimenez. The four elements considered in determining such relationship does not exist in the case at bar, particularly the fourth element which is the power to control the employees conduct. The agreement was merely between Pedro Juanatas and Jimenez. The hiring of a helper was discretionary on the part of Pedro. Should he hire a helper, the contract states that he would be responsible for the latters compensation. With or without the helper, Pedro would be receiving the same salary/commission. Fredelito was hired by his father and the compensation he received was paid by his father out of the latters commission. Furthermore, Fredelito was not subject to the control, supervision and dismissal by Jimenez. Hence, he is not an employee of Jimenez entitled to the payment of separation pay and commission. In view thereof, the decision of the NLRC is affirmed with modification that Fredelito Juanatas is not entitled to the award for commission and separation pay.

G.R. No. 114787June 2, 1995

MAM REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and MANUEL CENTENO, petitioners, vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and CELSO B. BALBASTRO respondents.

FACTS:Celso Balbastro filed a case before the Labor Arbiter against MAM Realty Development Corporation (MAM) and its Vice President Manuel Centeno for wage differentials, overtime pay, incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, holiday pay and rest day pay. He alleged that he was employed by MAM as a pump operator at Rancho Estate, earning a basic monthly salary of P 1,590, for seven days of work starting at 6:00am up to 6:00pm. MAM contended that he was working merely as a service contractor and not as a regular employee. His task was simply to close/open the water supply system of the subdivision on a daily basis and had to work only for a maximum of three hours. He makes use of his free time by offering plumbing services to homeowners of the subdivision. MAM maintains that he was not at all subject to the control and supervision of MAM. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Upon appeal with the NLRC, the decision of the Labor Arbiter was set aside and the petitioners MAM and Manuel Centeno jointly and severally liable for the money claims. Hence, these appeal.

ISSUE: Can the NLRC hold MAM and its Vice President Manuel Centeno jointly and severally liable for the money claims awarded to private respondent?

RULING:No, in this case, the NLRC erred in holding Manuel Centeno jointly and severally liable for the money claims awarded to private respondent. While it is true that in labor cases, corporate officers may be held solidarily liable with the corporation for the termination of the employment of employees done with malice or in bad faith, it may only be possible when exceptional circumstances warrant such, generally, in cases provided for by law. In the present case, there is nothing substantial on record that can justify, rescinding from the foregoing, petitioner Centenos solidary liability with the corporation. Nonetheless, it is settled that Celso Balbastro is an employee of MAM and the latter is liable for the claimed payments. In view thereof, the decision of the NLRC is affirmed with modification that MAM shall solely pay that compensations awarded.

G.R. No. 119930March 12, 1998

INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., petitioner, vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Fourth Division, Cebu City), LABOR ARBITER NICASIO P. ANINON and PANTALEON DE LOS REYES, respondents.

FACTS:Pantaleon Delos Reyes (Delos Reyes) and Insular Life Assurance Co. Inc., (Insular Life) entered into a contract of agency which contained a stipulation that no employer-employee relationship shall be created between the parties and that the agent shall be free to exercise his own judgement as to time, place and means of soliciting insurance. There were other stipulations requiring Delos Reyes to submit reports, turn over sums of money collected, and other conditions and limitations as to how the work was done, including a quota that should be met. He was also promoted to work as a Unit Manager and was pasked by the company to participate on company programs until the management gave him a notice that he is terminated from work. De los Reyes filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter complaining that he was illegally terminated and was not given separation pay. The Labor Arbiter dismissed his petition on grounds that there was no employee-employer relationship between him and Insular Life having failed to meet the four-fold test. The NLRC on appeal however, sighted that respondent De los Reyes was under the effective control of petitioner in the critical and most important aspects of his work as Unit Manager. This conclusion was derived from the provisions in the contract which appointed private respondent as Acting Unit Manager. De los Reyes was to serve exclusively the company, therefore, he was not an independent contractor. He was required to meet certain manpower and production quota and petitioner controlled the assignment to and removal of soliciting agents from his unit. Thus, he must be considered an employee of Insular Life. NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Hence this appeal.

ISSUE:Is a contract containing stipulations that there shall be no employer-employee relationship shall be created between the parties binding in determining whether there is an employer-employee relationship or not, in deciding labor cases?

RULING:No, the employer-employee relationship cannot be solely based from the stipulations of contract signed by the parties. What is important is that all the elements in the four-fold test is met considering the actual nature of the employees work. In the case at bar, the exclusivity of service, control of assignments and removal of agents under private respondent's unit, collection of premiums, furnishing of company facilities and materials as well as capital described as Unit Development Fund are but hallmarks of the management system in which herein private respondent worked. This obtaining, there is no escaping the conclusion that private respondent Pantaleon de los Reyes was an employee of herein petitioner. Hence he is entitled to the benefits granted by law to employees. The petition of Insular Life is denied and the decision of the NLRC is affirmed.

G.R. No. L-18873September 30, 1963

MANILA HOTEL COMPANY, petitioner, vs.COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS: The Pines Hotel Association filed a petition before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) asking that the workers who rendered service beyond the regular hours be given overtime pay for services rendered due to the exigencies of the business, as well as additional compensation for Sunday, legal holiday and nighttime work. The Manila hotel filed an answer denying the averments and contended that the overtime was not authorized by them and was rendered voluntarily. The presiding judge rendered a decision favorable to the employees. A motion for consideration was filed by Manila Hotel but was denied. The Examining Division of the CIR determined the amount to be paid by Manila Hotel in a report which listed the employees entitled to payment. However, the management of Manila Hotel objected on the ground that 22 names of employees should not be included in the list since they were not employees of Manila Hotel at the time the petition was filed. The trial judge, however overruled the objection holding that while the 22 employees were actually not in the service at the time of the filing of the petition, they were however subsequently employed even during the pendency of the incident, and so their claim comes within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations. Hence, the present petition for review.

ISSUE:Is the employer-employee relationship between the employer and the employee severed when seasonal employees are temporarily not in service during off season?

RULING: No, the employer-employee relationship is not severed in such a case. They are merely suspended. While it is true that the 22 employees whose claim is objected to,P were not actually in the service at the time the instant petition was filed, they were however, subsequently reemployed even while the present incident was pending consideration by the trial court. Moreover, it appears that the questioned employees were never separated from the service. Their status is that of regular seasonal employees who are called to work from time to time, mostly during summer season. Their relationship being such, the 22 employees can be considered as in the regular employment of the hotel. Hence they are entitled to the award. The decision appealed from is affirmed.