Labor CTRL F
Labor CTRL F
Labor CTRL F
1. WON Pres Exec Asst committed grave abuse of ISSUE: WON petitioners were dismissed without due process.
discretion for abolition of petitioner’s position;
2. WON Bondoc’s Security of Tenure was RULING: YES. The mere fact of seeking help from NAFLU, to
oppressively abridged question union’s funds, does not constitute disloyalty, and at most,
was an act of self-preservation driven by desperation. Absent any full-
RULING: (1) NO. His employment was lawful and justified. He was not blown investigation, petitioners were not afforded due process It is the
employed for a fixed period, and held a position at the BOD’s pleasure. policy of the state to assure the right of workers to "security of tenure"
OLD Termination law, absence of contract of employment ER has the (Article XIII, Sec. 3 of the New Constitution, Section 9, Article II of the
right of dismissal with or without just cause. (2) NO. He knew all along 1973 Constitution). The guarantee is an act of social justice. When a
that the tenure of his position rested with the bank’s BOD, and at person has no property, his job may possibly be his only possession
anytime his position may be abolished. Dismissal “without just cause” or means of livelihood. Therefore, he should be protected against any
defense may only be afforded by a regular employee ( Art 280). arbitrary deprivation of his job. You cannot be dismissed without just
cause.
and financial losses, which cannot be established by mere inspection.
Thus, action is premature and has worked injustice to the laborers.
.
8. Applicability of Labor Code a. When Presumptions of Recruitment and placement arises
a. Under Corporation Code > LABOR CODE To be engaged in the practice of recruitment and
b. GOCC > CIVIL SERVICE placement (regardless of number of persons dealt ). It is
Employees of government-owned or controlled plain that there must at least be a promise or an offer of
corporation (GOCC) created by special or original employment from the person posing as a recruiter
charter, such employees are governed by the Civil whether locally or abroad.
Service. The phrase “with original charter” refers to
corporations chartered by special law as distinguished
from corporations organized under the Corporation Code. b. People v. Panis
FACTS:
c. Government agencies > CIVIL SERVICE 4 separate claims filed against Abug for operating a fee-
The National Parks Development Committee is an charging employment agency without first securing a
agency of the government, not a GOCC its employees license.
are covered by Civil Service and regulations, since they Abug avers that he cannot be charged for such since only
are civil service employees. one person for each offense in each of the 4 information;
d. Local Water District > WATER CODE there will only be illegal recruitment when 2 or more
persons were promised employment for a fee.
Recruitment and Placement
ISSUE: WON the number of persons involved is essential (2 or
more)
1. What constitutes “Recruitment and Placement” CETCHUP-CRAP
RULING: Regardless of the number of persons dealt with, recruitment It is an economic sabotage when complex illegal
and placement is still constituted. The proviso merely lays down a rule recruitment is committed. It is considered as Qualified
of evidence that where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise Illegal Recruitment.
or offer of employment to 2 or more prospective workers, the No valid license or authority , undertakes recruitment and
individual or entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged placement and recruiters and victims are 3 or more.
in the act of recruitment and placement. The words “shall be deemed” Syndicated = carried out by group of 3 or more persons in
create that presumption. conspiracy or confederation with one another;
Large scale or qualified = committed against three or
more persons individually or as a group.
c. Distinction between illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and R.A 2. R.A 8042 – Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995
8042 a. Who is a migrant worker?
Under Article 38(a) of the Labor Code, Illegal recruitment “Overseas Filipino Worker” refers to a person who is to
means any recruitment activities, including the prohibited be engaged, is engaged or has been engaged in a
practices enumerated under Article 34 of this code, to be remunerated activity is a state of which he or she is not a
undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority. citizen or on board a vessel navigating the foreign seas
Under RA 8042, as amended by RA 10022 (license or other than a government ship used for military or non-
authority is IMMATERIAL), illegal recruitment shall mean commercial purposes or on an installation located
any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting. offshore on the high seas; to be used interchangeably
contracting, hiring, utilizing or procuring workers and with migrant worker.” (Sec.2)
includes contract services, referrals, advertising, or
promising employment, locally or abroad, whether for b. Pre-termination under R.A. 8042
profit or not, when undertaken by non-licensee or non- i. What is the migrant worker entitled to in case of illegal pre-
holder of authority. Provided, that any such non-licensee termination of overseas contractual employment?
or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for Full reimbursement of his placement free with 12%
a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall interest per annum;
be deemed so engaged. Plus, salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment
contract.
d. When is illegal recruitment considered economic sabotage Included in unexpired salary are: His basic salary, unless
(QUALIFIED ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT)? it is a guaranteed benefit and Separation pay, back
wages and reinstatement reliefs for an Illegally dismissed RULING: On the amount of salaries due private respondent,
employee. the rule has always been that an illegally dismissed worker
Attorney’s Fees whose employment is for a fixed period is entitled to payment
Damages of his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his
1. Moral Damages employment. On 15 July 1995, RA 8042 otherwise known as
2. Exemplary Damages the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995"
3. Nominal Damages – if termination is without due took effect, Sec. 10
process
Repatriation
RULING: NO. The claim for 13th month pay is a personal obligation of RULING: NO. Under the boundary-hulog scheme a dual juridical
Raul and cannot survive his death, unless expressly assumed ( labor relationship is created (ER-EE & VR-VE). The kasunduan did not
contracts are not enforceable against the transferee of an enterprise ). extinguish the ER-EE relationship of the parties existing before the
Labor contracts are IN PERSONAM. Taxi drivers under the execution of the deed. Villamaria exercises control and supervision
“boundary” system are employees of the taxi/jeepney operators; also over the driver. The driver performs activities which are usually
the passenger bus drivers and conductors. ER-EE cannot assume necessary or desirable in the usual business of the operator. The
continuance unless supported by evidence, consideration of the issue existence of an employment relation is not dependent on how the
on illegal dismissal is futile and irrelevant worker is paid, but on the presence or absence of control over the
means and method of the work
b. Boundary-hulog driver (Villamaria v. CA and Bustamante)
FACTS: c. Piece-rate Workers (Makati Haberdashery, Inc. v NLRC)
Villamaria is the owner of Villiamaria Motors with a public FACTS:
utility franchise. They stopped making jeepney, and Complainants are tailors, seamstress, sewers, basters
retained only 9 which operated by employing drivers in and plantsadoras of Haberdashery, paid on a piece-rate
“boundary basis” basis with allowance if they report every 9:30 AM
Bustamante paid his boundary and retained the residue, Complainants filed a complaint for underpayment of
consequently, villiamaria verbally agreed to sell the wages, allowance, OT, HP SI Pay and other benefits
jeepney to him under a “boundary-hulog scheme”, where Haberdashery dismissed them for alleged acceptance
Bustamante would remit P550 per day for 4 years, also from another
with a P10,000 downpayment Complainants filed for illegal dismissal
They executed a contract that stated if Bustamante fails
to pay for 3 days, Villamaria will hold the vehicle until ISSUES: (1) WON ER-EE exists; (2) WON they are entitled to
arrears are paid and a penalty of 50 per day; if 1 week, monetary claims; and (3) WON they are illegally dismissed
cease to have legal effect; He failed to pay boundary-
hulog RULINGS: (1) YES. The most important requisite of control is
indubitably present. For, the company directs the designation of the
employees, and supervision is actively manifested in all aspects of the as independent contractors. Furthermore, said respondent did not
work such as cutting, sewing and ironing; (2) YES. Because they are contradict petitioner’s allegation that it paid wages directly to these
proven as regular employees. For, as piece-rate workers they are workers without the intervention of any third-party independent
paid fixed amounts for performing their work irrespective of the time contractor. It also wielded the power of dismissal over petitioners; in
consumed; and (3) NO. For, disciplinary sanctions upon an employee fact, its exercise of this power was the progenitor of the illegal
for just and valid cause is within the rights of the ER (guilty of copying dismissal case. Clearly, the workers are not independent contractors.
of Barong designs) Assuming that they did work with other rice mills, this was required by
the imperative of meeting their basic needs.
d. Street-hired Cargadores (Caurdanetahan Piece Workers Union v.
Usec. Laguesma) e. Handicraft Workers on “pakyaw” system (Dy Keh Beng v. Int’l Labor)
FACTS: FACTS:
Petitioners worked as cargadores for the respondent. Dy Keh Beng (Dy) dismissed Solano & Tudla for their
They were paid on piece rate basis union activities (ULP); thus, a cased filed before the CIR
Upon denial of some benefits, they formed a union , and Dy did not know Tudla and Solano were employees
upon learning of such, respondent barred them from because they came to the establishment for pakyaw
working and were replaced by non-members; Thus, they basis under a separate contract.
filed for certification of election with DOLE as well as a Dy’s reasons: (1) Solano did not stay long enough in the
complaint for illegal dismissal establishment; (2) He leaves as soon as he was done; (3)
Respondent denies power of control for they are street- Orders were given to him by DY; (4) there were no orders
hired workers, no supervision, nor tools and equipment of there is nothing for him to do; (5) Only when his regular
issued; further contended that ER-EE is negated, since workers could not perform the work, will he contact him;
the workers also perform the same work to various rice and (6) his work was not continuous
mills in Pangasinan
LA: affirmed illegal dismissal; Laguesma: Affirmed LA ISSUE: WON there existed ER-EE
ISSUE: WON there was an ER-EE RULING: YES. Although Solano worked on a piece basis.
Evidence showed that the work of Solano and Tudla was
RULING: YES. They performed work which is directly related, continuous except in the event of illness. Although their
necessary and vital to the operations of Corfarm. Moreover, Corfarm services were compensated on piece basis. The control
did not even allege, much less prove, that petitioner’s members have test calls for the existence of the right to control the
“substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, manner of doing the work, not actual exercise of the right
machineries, [and] work premises, among others. To be considered considering that Dy Key Beng is engaged in the
manufacture of baskets known as “kaing”, those working Basiao filed with MIL for recovery of alleged unpaid
under Dy would be subject to Dy’s specifications such as commissions; Insular contends that he was just an
the size and quality of the “kaing”. And since the laborers independent contractor and had no obligation to pay the
are done at Dy’s establishment, it could be inferred that said commissions
Dy could easily exercise control upon them. LA: ER-EE exists; NLRC: affirm LA
7. Examples where employment relationship does not exist ISSUE: WON ER-EE exists
a. Insurance company vis-à-vis commission agents
here are built-in elements of control specific to an RULING: NO. Rules and regulations governing the conduct of the
insurance agency [that] do not amount to the elements of business are provided in the Insurance Code and enforced by the
control that characterize an employment relationship Insurance Commissioner. Therefore, it is expected for an insurance
governed by the Labor Code. company to promulgate rules to guide commission agents in selling
controls aimed only at specific results in undertaking an their policies. None of these really invades the agent’s contractual
insurance agency, and are, in fact, parameters set by law prerogative to adapt his own methods of selling, at his own time and
in defining an insurance agency and the attendant duties convenience, hence he cannot justifiably be said to establish ER-EE
and responsibilities an insurance agent must observe relationship between him and the company. Thus, Basiao is a
and undertake. They do not reach the level of control into commission agent – independent contractor whose claim for unpaid
the means and manner of doing an assigned task that commissions and should have been litigated in an ordinary civil
invariably characterizes an employment relationship, as action.
defined by labor law.
In determining the status of the management contract that one is an
employee of an insurance company:
b. Insular Life v. NLRC 1. Exclusivity of Service
FACTS: 2. Control of assignments and removal of agents
Insular entered into a contract with Basiao authorizing the under private respondent’s unit.
latter to solicit for insurance policies; Later, entered into 3. Collection of premiums.
another contract causing the latter to organize an agency 4. Furnishing of company facilities and materials.
for the same purpose
Insular terminated the second contract prompting the c. Company v. Collecting Agents on Commission Basis
termination of the first contract as well Under the collection agency agreement, the collection
agents were paid their compensation for their services on
a commission basis, particularly six percent of all While it may be true that the nature of the work of a
collection made by the collecting agent. From here, it is house helper, domestic servant or laundrywoman in a
clear that the agreement did not fix an amount for wages home or in a company staff house may be similar in
nor the required number working hours the collecting nature, the difference in their circumstances is that in the
agents must put it. former instance they are actually serving the family while
Considered as independent contractors. The company in the latter case, whether it is a corporation or a single
does not pass the control test because the company has proprietorship engaged in business or industry or any
no control over the collecting agent’s performance of other agricultural or similar pursuit, service is being
collection services. rendered in the staff houses or within the premises of the
In order to pass, company should have control over the business of the employer. In such instance, they are
end or result to be achieved but also over the means and employees of the company or employer in the business
methods in achieving the end. concerned entitled to the privileges of a regular
employee.
d. Singer Sewing Machine v. Drilon There mere fact that the house helper or domestic
The last and most important element of the control test is servant is working within the premises of the business of
not satisfied by the terms and conditions of the contracts. the employer and in relation to or in connection with its
There is nothing in the agreement which implies control business, as in its staff houses for its guest or even for its
by the Company not only over the end to be achieved but officers and employees, warrants the conclusion that
also over the means and methods in achieving the end. such house helper or domestic servant is a and should be
The collection agent does his work “more or less at his considered as a regular employee of the employer and
own pleasure” without a regular daily time frame imposed not as a mere family house helper or domestic servant as
on him. contemplated in RULE XIII, Section 1(b), Book 3 of the
Labor Code.
8. Family Members
They are not covered by this title because the amounts
given by the employer by way of support may far exceed
the benefits to which the employee is entitled under the
provisions of law.