Labor Case difest

8/20/2019 Labor Case difest

1/15

SEVILLA v. CA160 SCRA 171; April 15, 1998FACTS On the strength of a contract, Tourist orl! Ser"ice #nc$ %TS& lease! thepre'ises (elonging to )rs$ Segun!ina*oguera for the for'er s use as a (rancho+ce$ ina Se"illa (oun! herself soli!aril- lia(le .ith TS for the pro'pt pa-'entof

the 'onthl- rentals thereon$ hen the (ranch o+ce .as opene!, it .as run (-appellant Se"illa pa-a(le to TS (- an-airline for an- fare (rought in on the e/ortsof Se"illa, .as to go to Se"illa an! 2 .as to (e .ithhel! (- TS$

TS appears to ha"e (een infor'e! that Se"illa .as connecte! .ith a ri"al3r', the 4hilippine Tra"el ureau, an!,since the (ranch o+ce .as an-ho. losing,the TS consi!ere! closing !o.n its o+ce$ T.o resolutions of the TS (oar!of !irectors .ere passe! to a(olish the o+ce of the 'anager an! "ice presi!ent ofthe (ranch o+ce an! authoriing thecorporate secretar- to recei"e the properties inthe sai! (ranch o+ce$

Su(seuentl-, the corporate secretar- .ent to the (ranch o+ce, an! 3n!ingthe pre'ises loce! an! (eing una(le tocontact Se"illa, pa!loce! the pre'ises toprotect the interests of TS$hen neither Se"illa nor her e'plo-ees coul! enter the

loce! pre'ises, she 3le! a co'plaint against TS .ith apra-er for the issuance ofa 'an!ator- preli'inar- inunction$

The trial court !is'isse! the case hol!ing that TS, (eing the true lessee,.as .ithin its prerogati"e to ter'inate thelease an! pa!loc the pre'ises$ #tlie.ise foun! that Se"illa .as a 'ere e'plo-ee of TS an! as such, .as (oun! (-the actsof her e'plo-er$

The CA a+r'e!$ :ence this petition$ISSUES

1$hether or not there .as an e'plo-ere'plo-ee relationship (et.een TS an!Se"illa<

HELD 1$ *O$ #t .as a principalagent relationship$ #n this uris!iction, there has (een nounifor' test to !eter'ine the e=istence of an e'plo-ere'plo-ee relation$ #ngeneral, .e ha"e relie! on the socalle! right of control test, .here the personfor .ho' the ser"ices are perfor'e! reser"es a right to control not onl- the en! to(e achie"e! (ut also the 'eans to (e use! in reaching such en!$

#n a!!ition, the existing economic conditions previling !et"een the prties,lie the inclusion of the e'plo-ee in the pa-rolls, are also consi!ere! in !eter'iningthe e=istence of an e'plo-ere'plo-ee relationship$ Se"illa .as not su(ect to control (- TS either as to the result of the enterprise oras to the 'eans use! in connection there.ith$ Un!er the contract of lease, Se"illa(oun! herself in soli!u' for the rental pa-'ents; an arrange'ent that .oul! (eliethe clai's of 'asterser"ant relationship for a true e'plo-ee cannot (e 'a!e topart .ith his o.n 'one- in pursuance of his e'plo-er>s (usiness, or other.iseassu'e lia(ilit- thereof$


2/15

Also, Se"illa .as not in the co'pan->s pa-roll$ She retaine! in co''issions fro'airline (ooings, the re'aining 2 going toTS$ Unlie an e'plo-ee .ho usuall-earns a 3=e! salar-, she earne! co'pensation in ?uctuating a'ounts !epen!ing onher (ooing successes$

The fact that Se"illa has (een !esignate! (ranch 'anager !oes not 'ae her, ergo,

TS e'plo-ee$ @'plo-'ent is !eter'ine! (- the right of control test an!certain econo'ic para'eters$ Titles are .ea in!icators$ hen Se"illa agree! to 'an TS @r'ita (ranch o+ce, she !i! so pursuant to acontract of agenc-$ #t is the essence of this contract that the agent ren!ers ser"icesin representation or on (ehalf of another$ #n the case at (ar, Se"illa solicite! airlinefares, (ut she !i! so for an! on (ehalf of her principal, TS$


3/15

BOR@S $ *D@STRO160 SCRA 568

EA4, F$

BACTS The petitioner, :er'inio Blores an! his .ife, .ore! for respon!ent,

Bortunato*uestro in his funeral parlor since Fune 1976 as helperutilit- 'an an! as(ooeeper an! cahier respecti"el-$

On Octo(er 7, 1980, respon!ent registere! the petitioner spouses .ith theSSS, ashis e'plo-ee$ Thereafter, the spouses recei"e! an increase in their respecti"esalaries$

On Octo(er 20, 198G, :er'inio an! *uestro ha! an altercation, !uring .hichthelatter ph-sicall- assaulte! the for'er$

:er'inio then 3le! a co'plaint for ph-sical inuries against *uestro$ As aresult of the inci!ent, the Blores fa'il- ha! to lea"e their uarters at the funeral

parlor an! see protection fro' the 4ilar, ataan 4olice$ Thereafter, petitioners 3le!illegal !is'issal charges against respon!ent$ On the part of the respon!ent, he!enie! the e=istence of e'plo-ere'plo-ee relationship, an! further allege! thatpetitioners .ere the ones to "oluntaril- a(an!on their .or

#SSD@1$ as there an e'plo-eee'plo-er relationship in this case<G$ Ho the actions of the petitioners constitute a(an!on'ent<

:@H1$ E@S$ There .as an e'plo-eee'plo-er relationship$ That the respon!ent

registere! the petitioners .ith the Social Securit- S-ste' is proof that the-.ere in!ee! his e'plo-ees$ The co"erage of the Social Securit- a. ispre!icate! on the e=istence of an e'plo-ere'plo-ee relationship

G$ *O$ On the issue of a(an!on'ent, ho.e"er, .e 3n! the ruling of the *RCthat petitioners ha! a(an!one! their e'plo-'ent to (e contrar- to thee"i!ence$ To constitute a(an!on'ent, there 'ust (e a clear an! !eli(erateintent to !iscontinue oneIs e'plo-'ent .ithout an- intention of returning(ac$ The recor! sho.s that petitioners .ere onl- co'pelle! to lea"e thepre'ises, .hich the- regar!e! as their ho'e, .hen the respon!ent in?icte!ph-sical inuries upon petitioner :er'inio Blores$ Apparentl-, .hat the- ha!gi"en up .as onl- their place of resi!ence (ut not their o(s$ The i''e!iate3ling of a co'plaint for illegal !is'issal against respon!ent .ith a pra-er forreinstate'ent sho.s that petitioners .ere not a(an!oning their .or$ Asaptl- o(ser"e! (- the Solicitor Jeneral, to uphol! the ruling of therespon!ent Co''ission that the petitioners a(an!one! their o( Kis to put apre'iu' on the co''ission of a cri'e (- an e'plo-er against an e'plo-eeto force the latter to lea"e his e'plo-'ent so as to preclu!e sai! e'plo-eefro' seeing reinstate'ent .ith (ac.ages$K


4/15

@AST@R* S:#44#*J #*@S, #*C$, "s$ 4:##44#*@ O@RS@AS@)4OE)@*TAH)#*#STRAT#O* %4O@A&166 SCRA 522, J$R$ *o$ 76622, Octo(er 18, 1988

BactsL

italiano Saco .as Chief O+cer of the )M @astern 4olaris .hen he .as ille!in an acci!entin To-o, Fapan on )arch 15, 1985$ :is .i!o. sue! for !a'ages un!er@=ecuti"e Or!er *o$ 797 an! )e'oran!u' Circular *o$ G of the 4O@A$

The petitioner, as o.ner of the "essel, argue! that the co'plaint .ascognia(le not (- the 4O@A (ut (- the Social Securit- S-ste' an! shoul! ha"e (een3le! against the State Bun! #nsurance$ The 4O@A ne"ertheless assu'e! uris!ictionan! after consi!ering the position papers of the parties rule! in fa"our of theco'plainant an! .as a.ar!e! the su' of 419G,000$00 (- the 4O@A for the !eath of her hus(an!$

#ssueLhether or not the 4O@A ha! uris!iction o"er the case as the hus(an! .as not an

o"erseas.orer$

:el!L Ees$ The 4hilippine O"erseas @'plo-'ent A!'inistration .as create! un!er

@=ecuti"e Or!er *o$ 797, pro'ulgate! on )a- 1, 198G, to pro'ote an! 'onitor theo"erseas e'plo-'ent of Bilipinos an! to protect their rights$ #t replace! the *ationalSea'en oar! create! earlier un!er Article G0 of the a(or Co!e in 197$ Dn!erSection %a& of the sai! e=ecuti"e or!er, the 4O@A is "este! .ith Koriginal an!e=clusi"e uris!iction o"er all cases, inclu!ing 'one- clai's, in"ol"ing e'plo-eee'plo-er relations arising out of or (- "irtue of an- la. or contract in"ol"ing Bilipinocontract .orers, inclu!ing sea'en$K These cases, accor!ing to the 1985Rules an!Regulations on O"erseas @'plo-'ent issue! (- the 4O@A, inclu!e, Nclai's for!eath, !isa(ilit- an! other (ene3ts arising out of such e'plo-'ent$ The a.ar! of4180,000$00 for !eath (ene3ts an! 41G,000$00 for (urial e=penses .as 'a!e (-the 4O@A pursuant to its )e'oran!u' Circular *o$ G, .hich (eca'e e/ecti"e onBe(ruar- 1,198$ This circular prescri(e! a stan!ar! contract to (e a!opte! (- (othforeign an! !o'estic shipping co'panies in the hiring of Bilipino sea'en foro"erseas e'plo-'ent


5/15

CO*T#*@*TA )AR@ $ *RC161 SCRA 1514AH#A, F$

BACTS Ro!ito *asa-ao clai'e! that so'eti'e in )a- 197, he .as appointe! plant

'anager of Continental )ar(le .ith an allege! co'pensation of 42,000$00 a 'onthor G5 of the 'onthl- net inco'e of the co'pan-, .hiche"er is greater$

hen the co'pan- faile! to pa- his salar- for the 'onths of )a-, Fune an! Ful- 197, *asa-ao 3le! a co'plaint .ith *RC$ Continental )ar(le !enie! thatRo!ito *asa-ao .as its e'plo-ee$ The- clai'e! that the un!ertaing agree! (- theparties .as a oint "enture, a sort of partnership, .herein *asa-ao .as to eep the'achiner- in goo! .oring con!ition an! in return, he .oul! get the contracts fro'en!users for the installation of 'ar(le pro!ucts, in .hich the co'pan- .oul! notinterfere$

#n a!!ition, *asa-ao .as to recei"e an a'ount eui"alent to G5 of the netpro3ts that the petitioner corporation .oul! realie, shoul! there (e an-$ Since thereha! (een no pro3ts !uring sai! perio!, pri"ate respon!ent .as not entitle! to an-

a'ount$

#SSD@hether or not the pri"ate respon!ent *asa-ao .as e'plo-e! as plant 'anager of petitioner Continental )ar(le Corporation$

:@H*O$ There .as nothing in the recor! .hich .oul! support the clai' of Ro!ito

*asa-ao thathe .as an e'plo-ee of the petitioner corporation$ :e .as not inclu!e! in theco'pan- pa-roll nor in the list of co'pan- e'plo-ees furnishe! (- the SocialSecurit- S-ste'$

)ost of all the ele'ent of control is lacing$ #t appears that the petitioner ha!no control o"er the con!uct of Ro!ito *asa-ao in the perfor'ance of his .or$ :e!eci!e! for hi'self on .hat .as to (e !one an! .ore! at his o.n pleasure$ :e .asnot su(ect to in!e3nite hours or con!itions of .or an! in turn .as co'pensate!accor!ing to the results of his on e/ort$ :e has a free han! in running the co'pan-an! its (usiness, so 'uch so, that the petitioner !i! not no. until "er- later that*asa-ao collecte! ol! accounts recei"a(les, not co"ere! (- their agree'ent, .hichhe con"erte! to his personal use$


6/15

D*#O* OB B##4RO @)4OE@@S %DB@&, petitioner, "s$ @*#J*O #AR, FR$, *AT#O*AAOR R@AT#O*S CO))#SS#O* an! *@STP 4:##44#*@S, #*C$ %for'erl- B##4RO,#*C$&, respon!ents$J$R$ *o$ 79G55 Fanuar- G0, 199G

BACTSL This la(or !ispute ste's fro' the e=clusion of sales personnel fro' the

holi!a- pa- a.ar! an! the change of the !i"isor in the co'putation of (ene3ts fro'G51 to G61 !a-s$

On *o"e'(er 8, 1985, respon!ent Bilipro, #nc$ %no. *estle 4hilippines, #nc$& 3le!.ith the *ational a(or Relations Co''ission %*RC& a petition for !eclarator- relief seeing a ruling on its rights an! o(ligations respecting clai's of its 'onthl- pai!e'plo-ees for holi!a- pa- in the light of the CourtIs !ecision in Chartere! an@'plo-ees Association "$ Ople %128 SCRA G72 Q1985&$

oth Bilipro an! the Dnion of Bilipino @'plo-ees %DB@& agree! to su('it the case for"oluntar- ar(itration an! appointe! respon!ent enigno i"ar, Fr$ as "oluntar-ar(itrator$

On Fanuar- G, 1980, Ar(itrator i"ar ren!ere! a !ecision !irecting Bilipro to pa- its'onthl- pai! e'plo-ees holi!a- pa- pursuant to Article 9 of the Co!e, su(ect onl-to the e=clusions an! li'itations speci3e! in Article 8G an! such other legalrestrictions as are pro"i!e! for in the Co!e$

Bilipro 3le! a 'otion for clari3cation seeing %1& the li'itation of the a.ar! to three-ears, %G& the e=clusion of sales'en, sales representati"es, truc !ri"ers,'erchan!isers an! 'e!ical representati"es %hereinafter referre! to as salespersonnel& fro' the a.ar! of the holi!a- pa-, an! %2& !e!uction fro' the holi!a-pa- a.ar! of o"erpa-'ent for o"erti'e, night !i/erential, "acation an! sic lea"e(ene3ts !ue to the use of G51 !i"isor$

4etitioner DB@ ans.ere! that the a.ar! shoul! (e 'a!e e/ecti"e fro' the !ate ofe/ecti"it- of the a(or Co!e, that their sales personnel are not 3el! personnel an!are therefore entitle! to holi!a- pa-, an! that the use of G51 as !i"isor is anesta(lishe! e'plo-ee (ene3t .hich cannot (e !i'inishe!$

On Fanuar- 1, 1986, the respon!ent ar(itrator issue! an or!er !eclaring that thee/ecti"it- of the holi!a- pa- a.ar! shall retroact to *o"e'(er 1, 197, the !ate ofe/ecti"it- of the a(or Co!e$ :e a!u!ge!, ho.e"er, that the co'pan-Is salespersonnel are 3el! personnel an!, as such, are not entitle! to holi!a- pa-$ :elie.ise rule! that .ith the grant of 10 !a-sI holi!a- pa-, the !i"isor shoul! (echange! fro' G51 to G61 an! or!ere! the rei'(urse'ent of o"erpa-'ent foro"erti'e, night !i/erential, "acation an! sic lea"e pa- !ue to the use of G51 !a-sas !i"isor$

#SSD@L

hether or not *estleIs sales personnel are entitle! to holi!a- pa-; an!

:@HL


7/15

*O$ #t is un!ispute! that these sales personnel start their 3el! .or at 8L00a$'$ after ha"ing reporte! to the o+ce an! co'e (ac to the o+ce at L00 p$'$ orL20 p$'$ if the- are )aati(ase!$ The reuire'ent for the sales'en an! othersi'ilarl- situate! e'plo-ees to report for .or at the o+ce at 8L00 a$'$ an! returnat L00 or L20 p$'$ is not .ithin the real' of .or in the 3el! as !e3ne! in the

Co!e (ut an e=ercise of purel- 'anage'ent prerogati"e of pro"i!ing a!'inistrati"econtrol o"er such personnel$ This !oes not in an- 'anner pro"i!e a reasona(le le"elof !eter'ination on the actual 3el! .or of the e'plo-ees .hich can (e reasona(l-ascertaine!$ The theoretical anal-sis that sales'en an! other si'ilarl-situate!.orers regularl- report for .or at 8L00 a$'$ an! return to their ho'e station atL00 or L20 p$'$, creating the assu'ption that their 3el! .or is super"ise!, issurface proection$ Actual 3el! .or (egins after 8L00 a$'$, .hen the salespersonnel follo. their 3el! itinerar-, an! en!s i''e!iatel- (efore L00 or L20 p$'$.hen the- report (ac to their o+ce$ The perio! (et.een 8L00 a$'$ an! L00 orL20 p$'$ co'prises their hours of .or in the 3el!, the e=tent or scope an! resultof .hich are su(ect to their in!i"i!ual capacit- an! in!ustr- an! .hich Kcannot (e!eter'ine! .ith reasona(le certaint-$K This is the reason .h- e/ecti"e super"ision

o"er 3el! .or of sales'en an! 'e!ical representati"es, truc !ri"ers an!'erchan!isers is practicall- a ph-sical i'possi(ilit-$ Conseuentl-, the- aree=clu!e! fro' the ten holi!a-s .ith pa- a.ar!

)oreo"er, the reuire'ent that Kactual hours of .or in the 3el! cannot (e!eter'ine! .ith reasona(le certaint-K 'ust (e rea! in conunction .ith Rule #,oo ### of the #'ple'enting Rules .hich pro"i!es that Biel! personnel an! othere'plo-ees .hose ti'e an! perfor'ance is unsuper"ise! (- the e'plo-er areentitle! to holi!a-s .ith pa-$


8/15

Ra!a "s *RC Fanuar- 9, 199G

BACTSL #n 1977, Ra!a .as contracte! (- 4hilnor Consultants an! 4lanners, #nc as a!ri"er$ :e .as assigne! to a speci3c proect in )anila$The contract he signe! .as

for G$2 -ears$ :is tas .as to !ri"e e'plo-ees to the proect fro' 7a' to p'$ :e.as allo.e! to (ring ho'e the co'pan- "ehicle in or!er to pro"i!e a ti'el-transportation ser"ice to the other proect .orers$ The proect he .as assigne! to.as not co'plete! as sche!ule! hence, since he has a satisfactor- recor!, he .asrecontracte! for an a!!itional 10 'onths$ After 10 'onths the proect .as not -etco'plete!$ Se"eral contracts thereafter .ere 'a!e until the proect .as 3nishe!in1985$ At the co'pletion of the proect, Ra!a .as ter'inate! as his e'plo-'ent.as coter'inous .ith the proect$ :e later sue! 4hilnorfor nonpa-'ent ofseparation pa- an! o"erti'e pa-$ :e sai! he is entitle! to (e pai! OT pa- (ecausehe uses e=tra ti'e to get to the proect site fro' his ho'e an! fro' the proect siteto his ho'e e"er- !a- in total, he spen!s an a"erage of 2 hours OT e"er- !a-$

#SSD@Lhether or not Ra!a is entitle! to separation pa- an! OT pa-$:@HL

Separation 4a- *O The SC rule! that Ra!a .as a proect e'plo-ee .hose .or .as coter'inous .iththe proect for .hich he .as hire!$ 4roect e'plo-ees, as !istinguishe! fro' regularor nonproect e'plo-ees, are 'entione! in Section G81 of the a(or Co!e as thoseI.here the e'plo-'ent has (een 3=e! for a speci3c proect or un!ertaing theco'pletion or ter'ination of .hich has (een !eter'ine! at the ti'e of theengage'ent of the e'plo-ee$ 4roect e'plo-ees are not entitle! to ter'ination pa-if the- are ter'inate! as a result of the co'pletion of the proect or an- phasethereof in .hich the- are e'plo-e!, regar!less of the nu'(er of proects in .hichthe- ha"e (een e'plo-e! (- a particular construction co'pan-$ )oreo"er, theco'pan- is not reuire! to o(tain clearance fro' the Secretar- of a(or inconnection .ith such ter'ination$I

OT 4a- E@SRa!a is entitle! to OT pa-$ The fact that he pics up e'plo-ees of 4hilnor at certainspeci3e! points along @HSA in going to th proect site an! !rops the' o/ at thesa'e points on his .a- (ac fro' the 3el! o+ce going ho'e to )ariina, )etro)anila is not 'erel- inci!ental to Ra!aIs o( as a !ri"er$ On the contrar-, sai!transportation arrange'ent ha! (een a!opte!, not so 'uch for the con"enience ofthe e'plo-ees, (ut pri'aril- for the (ene3t of 4hilnor$ As e'(o!ie! in 4hilnor>s'e'oran!u', the- allo.e! their !ri"ers to (ring ho'e their transport "ehicles inor!er for the' to pro"i!e a ti'el- transport ser"ice an! to a"oi! !ela- not reall-so that the !ri"ers coul! eno- the (ene3ts of the co'pan- "ehicles nor for the' tosa"e on fair


9/15

CAJA)4A* S$ *RC195 SCRA 522

BACTSOn April 17 an! 18,1985, petitioners, all sea'en, entere! into separate

contracts of e'plo-'ent .ith the Jol!en ight Ocean Transport, t!$, through its

local agenc-, pri"ate respon!ent AC@ )AR#T#)@ AJ@*C#@S, #*C$4etitioners .ere !eplo-e! on )a- 7, 1985, an! !ischarge! on Ful- 1G, 1986$

Thereafter, petitioners collecti"el- an!Mor in!i"i!uall- 3le! co'plaints fornonpa-'ent of o"erti'e pa-, "acation pa- an! ter'inal pa- against pri"aterespon!ent$ #n a!!ition, the- clai'e! that the- .ere 'a!e to sign their contracts in(lan$ ie.ise, petitioners a"erre! that although the- agree! to ren!er ser"ices on(oar! the "essel Rio Colora!o 'anage! (- Jol!en ight Ocean Transport, t!$, the"essel the- actuall- (oar!e! .as ) KSO#C #K 'anage! (- Colu'(us *a"igation$

T.o %G& petitioners, Forge !e Castro an! Fuanito !e Fesus, charge! thatalthough the- .ere e'plo-e! as or!inar- sea'en %OS&, the- actuall- perfor'e! the.or an! !uties of A(le Sea'en %A&$

4ri"ate respon!ent .as furnishe! .ith copies of petitionersI co'plaints an!

su''ons, (ut it faile! to 3le its ans.er .ithin the regle'entar- perio!$ Thus, on Fanuar- 1G, 1987, an Or!er .as issue! !eclaring that pri"ate respon!ent has .ai"e!its right to present e"i!ence in its (ehalf an! that the cases are su('itte! for!ecision$ On August 5, 1987, the 4hilippine O"erseas @'plo-'ent A!'inistration%4O@A& ren!ere! a Hecision !is'issing petitionersI clai' for ter'inal pa- (utgrante! their pra-er for lea"e pa- an! o"erti'e pa-$ On appeal, the *RC re"erse!the !ecision;

:ence, the petition$ 4etitioner conten!s, inter alia, that the- are entitle! tolea"e pa- an! o"erti'e pa-$

#SSD@hether or not petitioners are entitle! to lea"e pa- an! o"erti'e pa-

:@H The court sustains the 3n!ing of respon!ent *RC that petitioners .ere

actuall- pai! 'ore than the a'ounts 3=e! in their e'plo-'ent contracts$ @"en asthe !enial of petitionersI ter'inal pa- (- the *RC has (een usti3e!, such !enialshoul! not ha"e (een applie! to petitioners Fulio Caga'pan an! Sil"ino icera$ Bor,a !eeper scrutin- of the recor!s (- the Solicitor Jeneral has re"eale! that the factof o"erpa-'ent !oes not co"er the aforena'e! petitioners since the a'ountsa.ar!e! the' .ere eual onl- to the a'ounts stipulate! in the cre. contracts$Since petitioners Caga'pan an! icera .ere not o"erpai! (- the co'pan-, the-shoul! (e pai! the a'ounts of DS582$22 an! DS922$22, respecti"el-$

As regar!s the uestion of o"erti'e pa-, the *RC cannot (e faulte! for!isallo.ing the pa-'ent of sai! pa- (ecause it 'erel- straightene! out the!istorte! interpretation asserte! (- petitioners an! !e3ne! the correctinterpretation of the pro"ision on o"erti'e pa- e'(o!ie! in the contractconfor'a(l- .ith settle! !octrines on the 'atter$ *ota(l-, the *RC ruling on the!isallo.ance of o"erti'e pa- is a(l- supporte! (- the fact that petitioners ne"erpro!uce! an- proof of actual perfor'ance of o"erti'e .or$ #n short, the contractpro"ision guarantees the right to o"erti'e pa- (ut the entitle'ent to such (ene3t


10/15

'ust 3rst (e esta(lishe!$ Realisticall- speaing, a sea'an, (- the "er- nature of his o(, sta-s on (oar! a ship or "essel (e-on! the regular eighthour .or sche!ule$Bor the e'plo-er to gi"e hi' o"erti'e pa- for the e=tra hours .hen he 'ight (esleeping or atten!ing to his personal chores or e"en ust lulling a.a- his ti'e .oul!(e e=tre'el- unfair an! unreasona(le$


11/15

STOT*#@S@* )AR#*@ S@R#C@S $ *RCG58 SCRA 62

BACTSL Respon!ent )e-nar!o F$ :ernan!e .as hire! (- Stolt*ielsen )arineSer"ices %4hils$& #nc$ as ra!io o+cer on (oar! )MT Stolt Con!or for a perio! of ten'onths$ :e (oar!e! the "essel on Fanuar- G0, 1990$

On April G6, 1990, the ship captain or!ere! pri"ate respon!ent to carr- the(aggage of cre. 'e'(er ito o"eria .ho .as (eing repatriate!$ :e refuse! too(e- the or!er out of fear in "ie. of the utterance of sai! cre. 'e'(erK'aaasasa aoK an! also (ecause he !i! not percei"e such tas as one of his!uties as ra!io o+cer$ As a result of such refusal, pri"ate respon!ent .as or!ere! to!ise'(ar on April 20, 1990 an! .as hi'self repatriate! on )a- 15, 1990$ :e .aspai! his salaries an! .ages onl- up to )a- 16, 1990$

4ri"ate respon!ent 3le! (efore pu(lic respon!ent 4O@A a co'plaint for illegal!is'issal an! (reach of contract pa-ing for, a'ong other things, pa-'ent ofsalaries, .ages, o"erti'e an! other (ene3ts !ue hi' for the une=pire! portion ofthe contract .hich .as si= %6& 'onths an! three %2& !a-s$

4etitioner in its ans.er allege! that pri"ate respon!ent refuse! to follo. the

KreuestK of the 'aster of the "essel to e=plain to olito o"eria, the reason for thelatterIs repatriation an! to assist hi' in carr-ing his (aggage, all in "iolation ofArticle UU#, Section # of the Collecti"e argaining Agree'ent %CA& an! the 4O@AStan!ar! Contract$ :ence, pri"ate respon!ent, after (eing a/or!e! the opportunit-to e=plain his si!e, .as !is'isse! for gross insu(or!ination an! serious 'iscon!uct$

Respon!ent !enie! that the 'aster of the "essel reueste! hi' to e=plain too"eria the reason for the latterIs repatriation$ Thereafter, 4O@A A!'inistratorren!ere! an a.ar! in fa"or of pri"ate respon!ent$ Aggrie"e!, petitioner Stolt*ielsen appeale! to the *ational a(or Relations Co''ission %*RC&$ The *RCconcurre! .ith the 4O@A A!'inistrator in ruling that pri"ate respon!ent, ha"ing(een illegall- !is'isse!, .as, therefore, entitle! to the 'onetar- a.ar!$

#t further state! that pri"ate respon!entIs !ut- as a ra!io o+cer or ra!iooperator !oes not inclu!e the carr-ing of the luggage of an- sea'an or e=plainingto sai! sea'an the reason for his repatriation$ Thus, conclu!e! the *RC, hister'ination on this groun! .as not proper an!, therefore, he ha! e"er- right to the'onetar- a.ar!$ The *RC lie.ise grante! pri"ate respon!entIs clai' for 3=e!o"erti'e pa- an! attorne-Is fees$

#SSD@Shether or not pri"ate respon!ent .as entitle! to the a.ar! of o"erti'e pa-$

:@H

*O$ The Court reiterate! that the ren!ition of o"erti'e .or an! thesu('ission of su+cient proof that sai! .or .as actuall- perfor'e! are con!itionsto (e satis3e! (efore a sea'an coul! (e entitle! to o"erti'e pa- .hich shoul! (eco'pute! on the (asis of 20 of the (asic 'onthl- salar-$ #n short, the contractpro"ision guarantees the right to o"erti'e pa- (ut the entitle'ent to such (ene3t'ust 3rst (e esta(lishe!$ Realisticall- speaing, a sea'an, (- the "er- nature of his

o(, sta-s on (oar! a ship or "essel (e-on! the regular eighthour .or sche!ule$Bor the e'plo-er to gi"e hi' o"erti'e pa- for the e=tra hours .hen he 'ight (e


12/15

sleeping or atten!ing to his personal chores or e"en ust lulling a.a- his ti'e .oul!(e e=tre'el- unfair an! unreasona(le$


13/15

RA)OS "s$ CA Case HigestROJ@#O RA)OS an! @R#*HA RA)OS "s$ CA280 SCRA 67 BactsL

4etitioner @rlin!a Ra'os .as a!"ise! to un!ergo an operation for there'o"al of her stone in the gall (la!!er$ She .as referre! to Hr$ :osaa, a surgeon,

.ho agree! to !o the operation$ The operation .as sche!ule! on Fune 17, 1985 inthe He los Santos )e!ical Center$ @rlin!a .as a!'itte! to the 'e!ical center the!a- (efore the operation$ On the follo.ing !a-, she .as rea!- for operation as earl-as 7L20 a'$ Aroun! 9L20, Hr$ :osaa has not -et arri"e!$ - 10 a', Rogelio .ante!to pull out his .ife fro' the operating roo'$ Hr$ :osaa 3nall- arri"e! at 1GL10 p''ore than 2 hours of the sche!ule! operation$ Hr$ Juiterres trie! to intu(ate@rlin!a$ The nail (e!s of @rlin!a .ere (luish !iscoloration in her left han!$ At 2 p',@rlin!a .as (eing .heele! to the #ntensi"e care Dnit an! sta-e! there for a 'onth$Since the illfate! operation, @rlin!a re'aine! in co'atose con!ition until she !ie!$

The fa'il- of Ra'os sue! the' for !a'ages$

#ssueL

hether or not there .as an e'plo-eee'plo-er relationship that e=iste! (et.eenthe 'e!ical center an! Hrs$ :osaa an! Juiterre$

RulingL4ri"ate :ospitals hire, 3re an! e=ercise real control o"er their atten!ing an!

"isiting consultant sta/$ hile consultants are not technicall- e'plo-ees, thecontrol e=ercise!, the hiring an! the right to ter'inate consultants ful3ll thehall'ars of an e'plo-ere'plo-ee relationship .ith the e=ception of pa-'ent of.ages$ The control test is !eter'ining$

#n appl-ing the four fol! test, HS)C cannot (e consi!ere! an e'plo-er ofthe respon!ent !octors$ #t has (een consistentl- hel! that in !eter'ining .hetheran e'plo-ere'plo-ee relationship e=ists (et.een the parties, the follo.ingele'ents 'ust (e presentL %1& selection an! engage'ent of ser"ices; %G& pa-'entof .ages; %2& the po.er to hire an! 3re; an! %& the po.er to control not onl- theen! to (e achie"e!, (ut the'eans to (e use! in reaching such an en!$

The hospital !oes not hire consultants (ut it accre!its an! grants hi' thepri"ilege of 'aintaining a clinic an!Mor a!'itting patients$ #t is the patient .ho pa-sthe consultants$ The hospital cannot !is'iss the consultant (ut he 'a- lose hispri"ileges grante! (- the hospital$ The hospital>s o(ligation is li'ite! to pro"i!ingthe patient .ith the preferre! roo' acco''o!ation an! other things that .illensure that the !octor>s or!ers are carrie! out$ The court 3n!s that there is no e'plo-ere'plo-ee relationship (et.een the!octors an! the hospital$


14/15

Africa "s )O@ 170 Scra 776VReal case na'eJ$R$ *o$ 78G10 Be(ruar- G8, 1989

#ALI$%T Sino n &so.. HAHAHA

T@OB#O AR#CA, HA*#O @R*A@, )@WD#AH@S HO:#*O, AO*H#O O)@RTA, J# TA*J#:A*, SA)D@ AAFO, *@STOR *OR@, ROHOBO CO*C@4C#O*, R#CARHOR#C:A, ROHOBO *@*O, A@RTO AATRO, @*FA)#* FD)A)OE, B@R)#* HAARO,

FO@*A @*R#WD@X, OSCAR ASA, RA)O* AC@*A, FA#)@ DJTAE, an! 561OT:@RS, :@R@#* R@4R@S@*T@H E YORO*AHO $ A4DX@*, petitioners"s$*AT#O*A AOR R@AT#O*S CO))#SS#O*, :O*ORA@ BRA*Y#* HR#O*,:O*ORA@ CO*RAHO $ )AJAEA, :O*ORA@ ROSAR#O $ @*CAR*AC#O*, an!STA*HARH %4:##44#*@S& BRD#T COR4ORAT#O*, respon!ents$

BACTSL 4etitioners, .ho are e'plo-ees of the Stan3lco, 3le! a suit for asse'(l-ti'e, 'oral !a'ages an! attorne-Is fees$ The- conten! that (eing reuire! to

arri"e! 20 'inutes (efore .or is co'pensa(le un!er the a(or co!e$*RC !is'isse! the case on the groun!s that NSurel-, the custo'ar-

functions referre! to in the a(o"e uote! pro"ision of the agree'ent inclu!es thelongstan!ing practice an! institutionalie! nonco'pensa(le asse'(l- ti'e$ This,in e/ect, estoppe! co'plainants fro' pursuing this case$

Thus, this appeal$

#SSD@L hether or not the 20'inute acti"it- of the petitioners (efore the sche!ule!.oring ti'e is co'pensa(le un!er the a(or Co!e$

:@HL *O$ 4etitioners conten! that the preli'inar- acti"ities as .orers ofrespon!ents STA*B#CO in the asse'(l- area is co'pensa(le as .oring ti'e %fro'5L20 to 6L00 oIcloc in the 'orning& since these preli'inar- acti"ities arenecessaril- an! pri'aril- for pri"ate respon!entIs (ene3t$

These preli'inar- acti"ities of the .orers are as follo.sL

%a& Birst there is the roll call$ This is follo.e! (- getting their in!i"i!ual .orassign'ents fro' the fore'an$

%(& Thereafter, the- are in!i"i!uall- reuire! to acco'plish the a(orerIs Hail-Acco'plish'ent Report !uring .hich the- are often 'a!e to e=plain a(out theirreporte! acco'plish'ent the follo.ing !a-$

%c& Then the- go to the stocroo' to get the .oring 'aterials, tools an!euip'ent$

%!& astl-, the- tra"el to the 3el! (ringing .ith the' their tools, euip'ent an!'aterials$

All these acti"ities tae 20 'inutes to acco'plish %Rollo, 4etition, p$ 11&$


15/15

Contrar- to this contention, respon!ent a"ers that the instant co'plaint is not ne.,the "er- sa'e clai' ha"ing (een (rought against herein respon!ent (- the sa'egroup of ran an! 3le e'plo-ees in the case of Associate! a(or Dnion an!Stan!ar! Bruit Corporation, *RC Case *o$ G6SU#76 .hich .as 3le! .a- (acApril G7, 1976 .hen AD .as the (argaining agent of respon!entIs ran an! 3le.orers$ The sai! case in"ol"e! a clai' for K.aiting ti'eK, as the co'plainants

purporte!l- .ere reuire! to asse'(le at a !esignate! area at least 20 'inutesprior to the start of their sche!ule! .oring hours Kto ascertain the .or forcea"aila(le for the !a- (- 'eans of a roll call, for the purpose of assign'ent orreassign'ent of e'plo-ees to such areas in the plantation .here the- are 'ostnee!e!$K

Labor Case difest

Documents

Transcript of Labor Case difest