Second Assignment.docx

Francisco vs. NLRC G.R. No. 170087, August 31, 2006 Facts: In 1995, petitioner was hired by Kasei Corporation and was designated as Accountant and Corporate Secretary. She was also designated as Liaison Officer to the City of Makati to secure business permits, construction permits and other licenses for the initial operation of the company. In 1996, petitioner was designated Acting Manager. The corporation also hired Gerry Nino as accountant in lieu of petitioner. For five years, petitioner performed the duties of Acting Manager. As of December 31, 2000 her salary was P27,500.00 plus P3,000.00 housing allowance and a 10% share in the profit of Kasei Corporation. In January 2001, petitioner was replaced by Liza R. Fuentes as Manager. Petitioner alleged that she was required to sign a prepared resolution for her replacement but she was assured that she would still be connected with Kasei Corporation as Technical Assistant to Seiji Kamura and in charge of all BIR matters. Thereafter, Kasei Corporation reduced her salary by P2,500.00 a month for a total reduction of P22,500 as of September 2001. On October 15, 2001, petitioner asked for her salary from Acedo and the rest of the officers but she was informed that she is no longer connected with the company. Since she was no longer paid, petitioner did not report for work and filed an action for constructive dismissal before the labor arbiter. The Labor Arbiter found that petitioner was illegally dismissed. NLRC affirmed with modification the decision of the LA. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC decision. Hence, the present recourse. Issue: Whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship between Kasei Corp and Francisco and whether or not Francisco was illegally dismissed. Held: Yes. The Court held in Sevilla v. CA 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. However, in certain cases the control test is not sufficient to give a complete picture of the relationship between the parties, owing to the complexity of such a relationship where several positions have been held by the worker. 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. 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. 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. 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. The corporation constructively dismissed petitioner when it reduced her salary by P2,500 a month from January to September 2001. This amounts to an illegal termination of employment, where the petitioner is entitled to full backwages.

T.A.P.E. vs. Servana G.R. No. 167648, January 28, 2008

Facts: TAPE is a domestic corporation engaged in the production of television programs, such as the long-running variety program, Eat Bulaga!. Respondent Roberto C. Servana had served as a security guard for TAPE from March 1987 until he was terminated on 3 March 2000.Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of benefits against TAPE. He alleged that he was first connected with Agro-Commercial Security Agency but was later on absorbed by TAPE as a regular company guard. He was detailed at Broadway Centrum in Quezon City where Eat Bulaga! regularly staged its productions. On 2 March 2000, respondent received a memorandum informing him of his impending dismissal on account of TAPEs decision to contract the services of a professional security agency. TAPE averred that respondent was an independent contractor falling under the talent group category and was working under a special arrangement which is recognized in the industry. Respondent for his part insisted that he was a regular employee having been engaged to perform an activity that is necessary and desirable to TAPEs business for thirteen (13) years. On 29 June 2001, Labor Arbiter Daisy G. Cauton-Barcelona declared respondent to be a regular employee of TAPE. On appeal, the NLRC in a decision, reversed the Labor Arbiter and considered respondent a mere program employee. Reversing the decision of the NLRC, the Court of Appeals found respondent to be a regular employee. Finding TAPEs motion for reconsideration without merit, the CA issued a Resolution denying said motion. TAPE filed the instant petition for review raising substantially the same grounds as those in its petition for certiorari before the CA. Issue: Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship between TAPE and Servana. Held: Yes. Jurisprudence is abound with cases that recite the factors to be considered in determining the existence of employer-employee relationship, namely: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the means and method by which the work is to be accomplished. The most important factor involves the control test. Under the control test, there is an employer-employee relationship when the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved but also the manner and means used to achieve that end. TAPE failed to adduce any evidence to prove that it complied with the requirements laid down in the policy instruction. It did not even present its contract with respondent. Neither did it comply with the contract-registration requirement. More importantly, respondent had been continuously under the employ of TAPE from 1995 until his termination in March 2000, or for a span of 5 years. Regardless of whether or not respondent had been performing work that is necessary or desirable to the usual business of TAPE, respondent is still considered a regular employee under Article 280 of the Labor Code. As a regular employee, respondent cannot be terminated except for just cause or when authorized by law.

Sonza vs. ABS-CBN G.R. No. 138051. June 10, 2004 Facts: Referred to in the Agreement as AGENT, MJMDC agreed to provide Sonza's services exclusively to ABSCBN 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. On 1 April 1996, Sonza wrote a letter to ABS-CBNs President, to serve notice of rescission of said Agreement. Mr. Sonza informed us that he is waiving and renouncing recovery of the remaining amount stipulated in the Agreement but reserves the right to seek recovery of the other benefits under said Agreement. On 30 April 1996, SONZA filed a complaint against ABS-CBN before the DOLE-NCR in Quezon City. The Labor Arbiter rendered his decision dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. SONZA appealed to the NLRC. On 24 February 1998, the NLRC rendered a Decision affirming the Labor Arbiters decision. SONZA filed a motion for reconsideration, which the NLRC denied in its Resolution. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRCs finding that no employer-employee relationship existed between SONZA and ABS-CBN. Hence, the present petition.

Issue: Whether or not Sonza is an employee of ABS-CBN. Held: No. There is no case law stating that a radio and television program host is an employee of the broadcast station. 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. Moreover, all the talent fees and benefits paid to SONZA were the result of negotiations that led to the Agreement. Whatever benefits SONZA enjoyed arose from contract and not because of an employer-employee relationship. For violation of any provision of the Agreement, either party may terminate their relationship. SONZA failed to show that ABS-CBN could terminate his services on grounds other than breach of contract, such as retrenchment to prevent losses as provided under labor laws. Finally, applying the control test to the present case, the Court finds that SONZA is not an employee but an independent contractor.

Dumpit-Murillo vs. CA G.R. No. 164652, June 8, 2007 Facts: Private respondent ABC hired petitioner Thelma Dumpit-Murillo as a newscaster and co-anchor for BalitangBalita, an early evening news program. The contract was for a period of three months. In addition, petitioners services were engaged for the program Live on Five. On September 30, 1999, after four years of repeated renewals, petitioners talent contract expired. Two weeks after the expiration of the last contract, petitioner sent a letter to Mr. Jose Javier, VP for News and Public Affairs of ABC informing the latter that she was still interested in renewing her contract subject to a salary increase. A month later, petitioner sent a demand letter to ABC. Consequently, petitioner filed a complaint against ABC. On March 29, 2000, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter in a Resolution. The NLRC held that an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and ABC. Thereafter, the appellate court ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion, and reversed the decision of the NLRC. Issue: Whether or not petitioner is an employee of ABC. Held: Yes. The practice of having fixed-term contracts in the industry does not automatically make all talent contracts valid and compliant with labor law. Further, the Sonza case is not applicable. In Sonza, the television station did not instruct Sonza how to perform his job. In the case at bar, ABC had control over the performance of petitioners work. Noteworthy too, is the comparatively low P28,000 monthly pay of petitioner vis the P300,000 a month salary of Sonza. Concerning regular employment, the law provides for two kinds of employees, namely: (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and (2) those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed. In the Court's view, the requisites for regularity of employment have been met in the instant case. Gleaned from the description of the scope of services aforementioned, petitioners work was necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer which includes, as a precondition for its enfranchisement, its participation in the governments news and public information dissemination. In addition, her work was continuous for a period of four years. This repeated engagement under contract of hire is indicative of the necessity and desirability of the petitioners work in private respondent ABCs business.

David vs. Macasio G.R. No. 195466 July 2, 2014

Facts: In January 2009, Macasio filed before the LA a complaint against petitioner Ariel L. David, doing business under the name and style "Yiels Hog Dealer," for non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay and 13th month pay. Macasio alleged before the LA that he had been working as a butcher for David since January 6, 1995. Macasio added that David owned the hogs delivered for chopping, as well as the work tools and implements; the latter also rented the workplace. In his defense, David hired Macasio as a butcher or chopper on "pakyaw" or task basis who is, therefore, not entitled to overtime pay, holiday pay and 13th month pay pursuant to the provisions of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Labor Code. The LA concluded that as Macasio was engaged on "pakyaw" or task basis, he is not entitled to overtime, holiday, SIL and 13th month pay. The NLRC affirmed the LA ruling. Macasio moved for reconsideration but the NLRC denied his motion. Macasio elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari. The CA partly granted Macasio’s certiorari petition and reversed the NLRC’s ruling for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion. While the CA agreed with the LAand the NLRC that Macasio was a task basis employee, it nevertheless found Macasio entitled to his monetary claims. Issue: Whether or not Macasio is entitled to the labor standards benefits. Held: Yes. Engagement on "pakyaw" or task basis does not characterize the relationship that may exist between the parties, i.e., whether one of employment or independent contractorship. Article 97(6) of the Labor Code defines wages as "xxx the remuneration or earnings, however designated, capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered." In relation to Article 97(6), Article 10136 of the Labor Code speaks of workers paid by results or those whose pay is calculated in terms of the quantity or quality of their work output which includes "pakyaw" work and other non-time work. The Court finds his claim that no employer-employee relationship exists baseless. Employing the control test, we find that such a relationship exist in the present case. Macasio is engaged on "pakyaw" or task basis. A distinguishing characteristic of "pakyaw" or task basis engagement, as opposed to straight-hour wage payment, is the non-consideration of the time spent in working. In a task-basis work, the emphasis is on the task itself, in the sense that payment is reckoned in terms of completion of the work, not in terms of the number of time spent in the completion of work. Once the work or task is completed, the worker receives a fixed amount as wage, without regard to the standard measurements of time generally used in pay computation. In Macasio’s case, the established facts show that he would usually start his work at 10:00 p.m. Thereafter, regardless of the total hours that he spent at the workplace or of the total number of the hogs assigned to him for chopping, Macasio would receive the fixed amount of ₱700.00 once he had completed his task. Accordingly, Macasio is David’s employee, albeit engaged on "pakyaw" or task basis. The general rule is that holiday and SIL pay provisions cover all employees. Under the IRR, exemption from the coverage of holiday and SIL pay refer to "field personnel and other employees whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer including those who are engaged on task or contract basis. In short, the payment of an employee on task or pakyaw basis alone is insufficient to exclude one from the coverage of SIL and holiday pay. They are exempted from the coverage of Title I (including the holiday and SIL pay) only if they qualify as "field personnel." Macasio does not fall under the classification of "field personnel" and is therefore entitled to the holiday and SIL pay.

Autobus vs. Bautista G.R. No. 156367. May 16, 2005 Facts: Since 24 May 1995, respondent Antonio Bautista has been employed by petitioner Auto Bus, as driverconductor with travel routes Manila-Tuguegarao. Respondent was paid on commission basis, seven percent (7%) of the total gross income per travel, on a twice a month basis. On 03 January 2000, while respondent was driving Autobus No. 114, he accidentally bumped the rear portion of Autobus No. 124. Respondent averred that the accident happened because he was compelled by the management to go back to Roxas, Isabela, although he had not slept for almost

twenty-four (24) hours. Respondent further alleged that he was not allowed to work until he fully paid the amount of P75,551.50, representing thirty percent (30%) of the cost of repair of the damaged buses. Thus, on 02 February 2000, respondent instituted a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal with Money Claims. Petitioner, on the other hand, maintained that respondents employment was replete with offenses involving reckless imprudence, gross negligence, and dishonesty. All other claims of both complainant and respondent are dismissed by the Labor Arbiter. On appeal, the NLRC modified the assailed decision by deleting the award of 13th month pay to the complainant. Petitioner sought the review of said decision with the Court of Appeals which was subsequently denied by the appellate court. Hence, the instant petition. Issue: Whether or not respondent is entitled to service incentive leave. Held: Yes. Article 95 of the Labor Code states that "every employee who has rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five days with pay." According to the Implementing Rules, Service Incentive Leave shall not apply to employees classified as field personnel. In order to conclude whether an employee is a field employee, it is also necessary to ascertain if actual hours of work in the field can be determined with reasonable certainty by the employer. In the case at bar, it is of judicial notice that along the routes that are plied by these bus companies, there are its inspectors assigned at strategic places who board the bus and inspect the passengers, the punched tickets, and the conductors reports. Therefore, as correctly concluded by the appellate court, respondent is not a field personnel but a regular employee who performs tasks usually necessary and desirable to the usual trade of petitioners business. Accordingly, respondent is entitled to the grant of service incentive leave.

Tenazas et. al. v. R. Villegas Taxi Transport G.R. No. 192998 April 2, 2014 Facts: Tenazas and Francisco filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against R. Villegas Taxi Transport. At that time, a similar case had already been filed by Endraca against the same respondents. Tenazas alleged that the taxi unit assigned to him was sideswiped by another vehicle, causing a dent on the left fender near the driver seat. Upon reporting the incident to the company, he was scolded by respondents Romualdo and Andy and was told to leave the garage for he is already fired. Meanwhile, Francisco averred that his dismissal was brought about by the company’s unfounded suspicion that he was organizing a labor union and was dismissed without due process of law. Endraca, for his part, alleged that his dismissal was instigated by an occasion when he fell short of the required boundary for his taxi unit. For their part, the respondents admitted that Tenazas and Endraca were employees of the company, the former being a regular driver and the latter a spare driver. The respondents, however, denied that Francisco was an employee of the company or that he was able to drive one of the company’s units at any point in time. Issue: Whether or not Tenazas, Francisco or Francisco have been validly dismissed. Held: It is an oft-repeated rule that in labor cases, the burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. Corollarily, as Francisco was claiming to be an employee of the respondents, it is incumbent upon him to proffer evidence to prove the existence of said relationship. In this case, however, Francisco failed to present any proof substantial enough to establish his relationship with the respondents. He failed to present documentary evidence. Here, Francisco simply relied on his allegation that he was an employee of the company without any other evidence supporting his claim. Unfortunately for him, a mere allegation in the position paper is not tantamount to evidence. Bereft of any evidence, the CA correctly ruled that Francisco could not be considered an employee of the respondents. Meanwhile, the CA’s order of reinstatement of Tenazas and Endraca, instead of the payment of separation pay, is also well in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. In effect, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to

either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable, and backwages. This doctrine of strained relations, however, should not be used recklessly or applied loosely nor be based on impression alone. A bare claim of strained relations by reason of termination is insufficient to warrant the granting of separation pay. Likewise, the filing of the complaint by the petitioners does not necessarily translate to strained relations between the parties. As a rule, no strained relations should arise from a valid and legal act asserting one’s right. Thus, it was a prudent call for the CA to delete the award of separation pay and order for reinstatement instead, in accordance with the general rule stated in Article 279 of the Labor Code.

Felix vs. Buenaseda G.R. No. 109704 January 17, 1995 Facts: After passing the Physician's licensure examinations given by the PRC in June of 1979, petitioner, Dr. Felix, joined the then National Mental Hospital as a Resident Physician. In August of 1983, he was promoted to the position of Senior Resident Physician, a position he held until the Ministry of Health reorganized the institution in January 1988, pursuant to Executive Order No. 119. Under the reorganization, petitioner was appointed to the position of Senior Resident Physician in a temporary capacity immediately after he and other employees of the NMH allegedly tendered their courtesy resignations to the Secretary of Health. In August of 1988, petitioner was promoted to the position of Medical Specialist I (Temporary Status), which position was renewed the following year. In 1988, the DOH issued D.O. No. 347 which required board certification as a prerequisite for renewal of specialist positions in various medical centers, hospitals and agencies of the said department. Specifically, D.O. No. 347 provided that specialists working in various hospitals and branches of the Department of Health be recognized as "Fellows" of their respective specialty societies and/or "Diplomates" of their specialty boards or both. Petitioner was one of the hundreds of government medical specialist who would have been adversely affected by D.O. No. 347 since he was not yet accredited by the Psychiatry Specialty Board. On August 20, 1991, after reviewing petitioner's service record and performance, the Medical Credentials Committee of the National Center for Mental Health recommended non-renewal of his appointment as Medical Specialist I, informing him of its decision on August 22, 1991. He was, however, allowed to continue in the service. On November 25, 1991, an emergency meeting of the Chiefs of Service was held pointing out petitioner's poor performance, frequent tardiness and inflexibility as among the factors responsible for the recommendation not to renew his appointment. Petitioner filed a petition with the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) complaining about the alleged harassment by respondents and questioning the non-renewal of his appointment which the MSPB dismissed for lack of merit. Said decision was appealed to the CSC which dismissed the same in its Resolution. Said decision was appealed to the Civil Service Commission which dismissed the same. Hence, the instant action. Issue: Whether or not petitioner had effectively divested himself of his security of tenure by submitting his courtesy resignation and accepting his temporary appointment Held: A residency or resident physician position in a medical specialty is never a permanent one. Residency connotes training and temporary status. A physician who desires to specialize in Cardiology takes a required threeyear accredited residency in Internal Medicine (four years in DOH hospitals) and moves on to a two or three-year fellowship or residency in Cardiology before he is allowed to take the specialty examinations given by the appropriate accrediting college. In a similar manner, the accredited Psychiatrist goes through the same stepladder process which culminates in his recognition as a fellow or diplomate (or both) of the Psychiatry Specialty Board. The nature of the contracts of resident physicians meet traditional tests for determining employer-employee relationships, but because the focus of residency is training, they are neither here nor there. There are weighty reasons of public policy and convenience which demand that any claim to any position in the civil service, permanent, temporary of otherwise, or any claim to a violation of the constitutional provision on security of tenure be made within a reasonable period of time.