Orozco V Ca And Magalang V Ca

Orozco v CA

August 13, 2008 J. Nachura Subject Area: employer-employee relationship, control test, economic reality test Facts: Orozco was a columnist of PDI whose column was discontinued. She is now suing for illegal dismissal as an employee. Issue: (In the first place) WON a columnist is an employee of the newspaper. Decision: No. Ratio: Control Test - The main determinant of the ee-er relationship is whether the rules set by the er are meant to control not just the results of the work but also the means and methods to e used by the hired party in order to achieve the results. Petitioner was engaged as a columnist for her talent, skill, experience, and unique viewpoint as a feminist advocate. How she utilized all these in writing her column was not subject to dictation. Any rules imposed on her as to length of articles, time of submission, etc. are merely general guidelines dictated by the nature of the newspaper business itself. Economic Reality Test – This is especially appropriate when there is no written agreement, as in this case. The benchmark is the economic dependence of the worker on the employee. Petitioner’s main occupation is not as columnist but as women’s rights advocate, and she also contributes articles to other publications.

Magalang vs. CA February 26, 2008 J. Nachura

Subject area: CivPro, decisions – final and executor; effect, decisions – coordinate courts Facts: Magalang filed for illegal dismissal. NLRC rendered a decision, denied Motion for Reconsideration of Magalang who filed an appeal with the CA 9th Division; denied MFR of employer who filed an appeal with the CA 4th Division. CA 9th Division promulgated decision first, no appeal made. 4th Division subsequently rendered inconsistent decision. Issue: WON the decision of the 4th Division is valid Decision: No. Ratio: Various divisions of the CA are, in a sense, coordinate courts, and pursuant to the policy of judicial stability, a division of the appellate court should not interfere with the decision of other divisions. Further, no appeal was interposed against the 9th Division’s decision; therefore, it already attained finality. When a decision becomes final and executor, the court loses jurisdiction and not even an appellate court will have the power to review the said judgment. Just as the losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision.