Labrel Part 1 Digest

8/18/2019 Labrel Part 1 Digest

1/26

LVN vs Phil Musicians Guild

Facts:

- Review on certiorari – Certifying the Phil Musicians Guild FF!" as the sole

and e#clusive $argaining agency of all %usicians wor&ing with said

co%'anies( LVN) *a%'aguita Pictures) and Pre%iere Productions"- Guild – duly registered legiti%ate la$or organi+ation(- LVN and *a%'aguita Co%'any" – cor'orations duly organi+ed under the Phil

laws) engage in the %a&ing of %otion 'ictures and in the 'rocessing and

distri$ution thereof(- ,%'loys %usicians 'ur'ose of %a&ing %usic recordings for title %usic)

$ac&ground %usic) %usical nu%$ers) nale %usic and other incidental %usic(- Prayed $e declared as sole and e#clusive $argaining agency for all %usicians- Co%'any - 'etition for certication cannot $e entertained when the e#istence

of e%'loyer-e%'loyee relationshi' $etween the 'arties is contested(- .he %usical nu%$ers in the ling of the co%'anies are furnished $y

inde'endent contractors(

/ssue

- !0N the %usicians are e%'loyees of the said co%'anies 1 !0N there is ,R-

,, Relationshi' $etween the Musicians and the Co%'anies(

2eld:

- 3es( .he wor& of the %usical director and %usicians is a functional and

integral 'art of the enter'rise 'erfor%ed at the sa%e studio su$stantially

under the direction and control of the co%'any( .o deter%ine whether a

'erson who 'erfor%s wor& for another is the latter4s e%'loyee or an

inde'endent contractor) the National La$or Relations relies on 4the right to

control4 test( 5nder this test an e%'loyer-e%'loyee relationshi' e#ist where

the 'erson for who% the services are 'erfor%ed reserves the right to control

not only the end to $e achieved) $ut also the %anner and %eans to $e used

in reaching the end( Notwithstanding that the e%'loyees are called

inde'endent contractors4) the 6oard will hold the% to $e e%'loyees under

the 7ct where the e#tent of the e%'loyer4s control over the% indicates that

the relationshi' is in reality one of e%'loy%ent(- .he right of control of the l% co%'any over the %usicians is shown 8" $y

calling the %usicians through 4call sli's4 in 4the na%e of the co%'any9 " $yarranging schedules in its studio for recording sessions9 ;" $y furnishing

trans'ortation and %eals to %usicians9 and


2/26

'layed) nor the %usicians 'laying it( .he Pre%ier Production did not a''eal

the decision of the Court en $anc that@s why it@s not one of the 'etitioners in

the case" l% co%'anies su%%on the %usicians to wor&) through the

%usical directors( .he l% co%'anies) through the %usical directors) # the

date) the ti%e and the 'lace of wor&( .he l% co%'anies) not the %usical

directors) 'rovide the trans'ortation to and fro% the studio( .he l%co%'anies furnish %eal at dinner ti%e( /t is well settled that Aan e%'loyer-

e%'loyee relationshi' e#ists ( ( (where the 'erson for who% the services are

'erfor%ed reserves a right to control not only the end to $e achieved $ut also

the %eans to $e used in reaching such end ( ( ( (A

Legend 2otel vs 2ernani *( Realuyo

Facts:

- 7 case for illegal dis%issal and for other la$or standards $enets was led $y

Realuyo 7B7 oey R( Roa") a 'ianist e%'loyed to 'erfor% in the restaurant)

against Legend(- Realuyo – wor&ed as 'ianist9 rate


3/26

his security of tenure( .he ineIuality that characteri+es e%'loyer-e%'loyee

relationshi' generally ti's the scales in favor of the e%'loyer) such that the

e%'loyee is often scarcely 'rovided real and $etter o'tions(- .he argu%ent that Roa was receiving talent fee and not salary is $aseless(

.here is no denying that the re%uneration deno%inated as talent fees was

#ed on the $asis of his talent) s&ill) and the Iuality of %usic he 'layedduring the hours of his 'erfor%ance( Roa@s re%uneration) al$eit deno%inated

as talent fees) was still considered as included in the ter% wage in the sense

and conte#t of the La$or Code) regardless of how 'etitioner chose to

designate the re%uneration) as 'er 7rticle KEf" of the La$or Code(- .he 'ower of the e%'loyer to control the wor& of the e%'loyee is considered

the %ost signicant deter%inant of the e#istence of an e%'loyer-e%'loyee

relationshi'( .his is the so-called control test) and is 're%ised on whether the

'erson for who% the services are 'erfor%ed reserves the right to control

$oth the end achieved and the %anner and %eans used to achieve that end(

a( 2e could not choose the ti%e of his 'erfor%ance) which 'etitionershad #ed fro% E:DD '% to 8D:DD '%) three to si# ti%es a wee&9

$( 2e could not choose the 'lace of his 'erfor%ance9

c( .he restaurant@s %anager reIuired hi% at certain ti%es to 'erfor%

only .agalog songs or %usic) or to wear $arong .agalog to confor% to the

Fili'iniana %otif9 and

d( 2e was su$Jected to the rules on e%'loyees@ re'resentation chec&

and chits) a 'rivilege granted to other e%'loyees(

y Bhe 6eng vs /N.,RN7./0N7L L760R and M7R/N, 5N/0N 0F .2, P2/L/PP/N,*) ,.

7L(

Facts:

- 7 charge of unfair la$or 'ractice was led against y Beh 6eng) a 'ro'rietor

of a $as&et factory) $y dis%issing *olano and .udla for their union activities(

y Beh 6eng contended that he did not &now .udla and *olano was not his

e%'loyee $ecause the latter ca%e to the esta$lish%ent only when there was

wor& which he did on 'a&iaw $asis(- *olano was not his e%'loyee for the following reasons:

8" *olano never stayed long enough at y4s esta$lish%ent9" *olano had to leave as soon as he was through with the;" order given hi% $y y9


4/26

" !hen orders ca%e to the sho' that his regular wor&ers could not ll

it was then that y went to his address in Caloocan and fetched hi%

for these orders9 and" *olano4s wor& with y4s esta$lish%ent was not continuous(

/ssue:

- !0N .udla and *olano are e%'loyees of y

2eld:

- 3es( ,vidence showed that the wor& of *olano and .udla was continuous

e#ce't in the event of illness) although their services were co%'ensated on

'iece $asis( .he control test calls for the e#istence of the right to control the

%anner of doing the wor&) not the actual e#ercise of the right considering

that y Beh 6eng is engaged in the %anufacture of $as&ets &nown as

>&aing?) those wor&ing under y would $e su$Ject to y@s s'ecications such

as the si+e and Iuality of the >&aing?( 7nd since the la$orers are done at y@sesta$lish%ents) it could $e inferred that y could easily e#ercise control u'on

the%(- /f indeed 'ay%ent $y 'iece is Just a %ethod of co%'ensation and does not

dene the essence of the relation( Pay%ent cannot $e construed $y 'iece

where wor& is done in such esta$lish%ent so as to 'ut the wor&er co%'letely

at li$erty to turn hi% out and ta&e it another at 'leasure(- A*unrise Coconut Products Co( v( Court of /ndustrial RelationsA - Judicial notice

of the fact that the so-called A'a&yawA syste% %entioned in this case as

generally 'racticed in our country) is) in fact) a la$or contract -$etween

e%'loyers and e%'loyees) $etween ca'italists and la$orers(

RL Martine+ Fishing vs NLRC

Facts:

- RL is 'rinci'ally engaged in the dee'-sea shing $usiness( *ince 8KE)

'rivate res'ondents were e%'loyed $y the% as stevedores at Navotas Fish

Port for the unloading of tuna sh catch fro% 'etitioners4 vessels and then

loading the% on refrigerated vans for shi'%ent a$road(

- 0n March E) 8K8) 'rivate res'ondents 7ntonio 6oticario) and thirty ;D"others) u'on the 're%ise that they are 'etitioners4 regular e%'loyees) led a

co%'laint against 'etitioners for non-'ay%ent of 0. 'ay) 're%iu% 'ay) legal

holiday 'ay) e%ergency allowance) */L and N*( 0n 7'ril 8) 8K8 another

co%'laint against 'etitioners for /llegal is%issal and for Violation of 7rticle

88 of the La$or Code(- RL - 'rivate res'ondents are contract la$orers whose wor& ter%inated u'on

co%'letion of each unloading) and that in the a$sence of any $oat arrivals)


5/26

'rivate res'ondents did not wor& for 'etitioners $ut were free to wor& or see&

e%'loy%ent with other shing $oat o'erators(- L7 – PR@s are contractual e%'loyees9 assu%ing they are e%'loyees) their

e%'loy%ent are coter%inous with each unloading and loading Jo$9 Pet are

not under o$ligation to hire PR@s e#clusively9 no ter%ination $ut %erely re-

hiring(- NLRC – there is ,R-,, relationshi'(

/ssue:

- !0N there is ,R-,, relationshi' $etween PR@s and RL(

2eld:

- 3es( .he continuity of e%'loy%ent is not the deter%ining factor) $ut rather

whether the wor& of the la$orer is 'art of the regular $usiness or occu'ation

of the e%'loyee(

- 7lthough it %ay $e that 'rivate res'ondents alternated their e%'loy%ent ondierent vessels when they were not assigned to 'etitioners4 $oats) that did

not aect their e%'loyee status( .he evidence also esta$lishes that

'etitioners had a =eet of shing vessels with a$out shi' ca'tains) and as

'rivate res'ondents contended) when they nished with one vessel) they

were instructed to wait for the ne#t(- /ndustrial-Co%%ercial-7gricultural !or&ers 0rgani+ation vs( C/R - Athat during

the te%'orary layo the la$orers are considered free to see& other

e%'loy%ent is natural) since the la$orers are not $eing 'aid) yet %ust nd

%eans of su''ortA and such te%'orary cessation of o'erations Ashould not

%ean starvation for e%'loyees and their fa%ilies(A

- /ndeed) considering the length of ti%e that 'rivate res'ondents have wor&ed

for 'etitioner O since 8KE O there is Justication to conclude that they were

engaged to 'erfor% activities usually necessary or desira$le in the usual

$usiness or trade of 'etitioners and are) therefore) regular e%'loyees) such

that they are entitled to the $enets awarded(

P2/L/PP/N, *0C/,.3 F0R .2, PR,V,N./0N 0F CR5,L.3 .0 7N/M7L* vs C07

Facts:

- .he 'etitioner was incor'orated as a Juridical entity over one hundred years

ago $y virtue of 7ct No( 8) enacted on anuary 8K) 8KD) $y the Phili''ine

Co%%ission( .he 'etitioner) at the ti%e it was created) was co%'osed of

ani%al acionados and ani%al 'ro'agandists( .he o$Jects of the 'etitioner)

as stated in *ection of its charter) shall $e to enforce laws relating to

cruelty in=icted u'on ani%als or the 'rotection of ani%als in the Phili''ine


6/26

/slands) and generally) to do and 'erfor% all things which %ay tend in any

way to alleviate the suering of ani%als and 'ro%ote their welfare(- 7t the ti%e of the enact%ent of 7ct No( 8) the original Cor'oration Law)

7ct No( 8


7/26

inter'reting others9 and " in case of laws creating new rights( None of the

e#ce'tions is 'resent in the instant case(- *,C( E( 7ny cor'oration or sociedad anoni%a for%ed) organi+ed) and

e#isting under the laws of the Phili''ine /slands and lawfully transacting

$usiness in the Phili''ine /slands on the date of the 'assage of this 7ct) shall

$e su$Ject to the 'rovisions hereof so far as such 'rovisions %ay $ea''lica$le and shall $e entitled at its o'tioneither to continue $usiness as

such cor'oration or to refor% and organi+e under and $y virtue of the

'rovisions of this 7ct) transferring all cor'orate interests to the new

cor'oration which) if a stoc& cor'oration) is authori+ed to issue its shares of

stoc& at 'ar to the stoc&holders or %e%$ers of the old cor'oration according

to their interests(- /n a legal regi%e where the charter test doctrine cannot $e a''lied) the %ere

fact that a cor'oration has $een created $y virtue of a s'ecial law does not

necessarily Iualify it as a 'u$lic cor'oration(- .he a%end%ents introduced $y C(7( No( 8


8/26

- 7raneta answered the letters) reIuesting that she $e given at least ;D days

to study thoroughly the dierent 'hases of the de%ands( Meanwhile counsel

for Feati) wrote a letter to the President of P7FL5 de%anding 'roof of its

%aJority status and designation as a $argaining re'resentative- Fe$ruary 8) 8K;: the President of P7FL5 reJected the e#tension of ti%e and

led a notice of stri&e with the 6ureau of La$or due to Feati@s refusal to$argain collectively(

- Conciliation ivision of the 6ureau of La$or %ade eorts to conciliate the%

$ut failed(- Fe$ruary 8) 8K;: P7FL5 declared a stri&e and esta$lished 'ic&et lines in the

're%ises of Feati resulting in the disru'tion of classes in the 5niversity(- March 8) 8K;: the President of the Phili''ines certied to the Court of

/ndustrial Relations C/R" the dis'ute $etween Feati and P7FL5 'ursuant to

the 'rovisions of *ection 8D of Re'u$lic 7ct No( E(- ; cases were led with the C/R-


9/26

discretion) in ta&ing cogni+ance of) and in issuing the Iuestioned orders in)

C/R Cases Nos(


10/26

o 'rofessors are co%'ensated for their services $y wages and salaries)

rather than $y 'rotso 'rofessors and1or instructors cannot su$stitute others to do their wor&

without the consent of the universityo 'rofessors can $e laid o if their wor& is found not satisfactory

- Moreover) even if university 'rofessors are considered inde'endentcontractors) still they would $e covered $y Re'( 7ct No( E

- 'rofessors) instructors or teachers of 'rivate educational institutions who

teach to earn a living are entitled to the 'rotection of our la$or laws O and

one such law is Re'u$lic 7ct No( E(- .he ter% Ala$or dis'uteA includes any controversy concerning ter%s) tenure

or conditions of e%'loy%ent) or concerning the association or re'resentation

of 'ersons in negotiating) #ing) %aintaining) changing) or see&ing to arrange

ter%s or conditions of e%'loy%ent regardless of whether the dis'utants

stand in 'ro#i%ate relation of e%'loyer and e%'loyees(- .o certify a la$or dis'ute to the C/R is the 'rerogative of the President under

the law 6ecause the stri&e declared $y the %e%$ers of the %inority unionthreatens a %aJor industry of 8)DDD students which aects the national

interest") and this Court will not interfere in) %uch less curtail) the e#ercise of

that 'rerogative( .he Jurisdiction of the C/R in a certied case is e#clusive(

.he 'arties involved in the case %ay a''eal to the *u're%e Court fro% the

order or orders thus issued $y the C/R(- *ection 8D of Re'u$lic 7ct No( E e%'owers the Court of /ndustrial Relations

to issue an order A#ing the ter%s of e%'loy%ent(A .his clause is $road

enough to authori+e the Court to order the stri&ers to return to wor& and the

e%'loyer to read%it the%- .he return-to-wor& order cannot $e considered as an i%'air%ent of the

contract entered into with the re'lace%ents( 6esides) la$or contracts %ust

yield to the co%%on good and such contracts are su$Ject to the s'ecial laws

on la$or unions) collective $argaining) stri&es and si%ilar su$Jects(

7**0C/7., L760R 5N/0N vs udge 6orro%eo

Facts:- 7L5 O is a duly registered la$or organi+ation( 7%ong the %e%$ers thereof

are e%'loyees of *u'erior Gas and ,Iui'%ent Co%'any of Ce$u) /nc

*5G,C0"- *5G,C0 O a do%estic cor'oration with oces at uan Luna *treet) Ce$u City

and a factory 'lant in 6asa&) Mandaue) 'rovince of Ce$u(- 0n anuary 8) 8K 7L5 and *5G,C0 entered into a collective $argaining

contract eective u' to anuary 8) 8K( .here was an ongoing negotiations

for renewal of contract late in Fe$ruary 8K(- 8 *5G,C0 %e%$ers resigned fro% 7L5( .hereu'on negotiations sto''ed(

7L5 reIuested that 8 e%'loyees not $e allowed to re'ort to wor&) *5G,C0

reJected the reIuest due to irre'ara$le inJury and that the contract la'sed(

*5G,C0 stated that the 8 e%'loyees should reJoin 7L5 to resu%e the


11/26

negotiations( 7L5 wrote to *5G,C0 of $argaining in $ad faith( 7L5 struc& and

'ic&eted in the *5G,C0 'lant in Mandaue(- *5G,C0 led a case against 7L5 with CF/ Ce$u to restrain the sa%e fro%

'ic&eting in the said 'lant and oces elsewhere in the Phili''ines( CF/ Ce$u

issued a 'reli%inary inJunction 'rayed for $y *5G,C0(

- 7L5 led charges of 5LP against *5G,C0 with C/R9 led a %otion forreconsideration on the issuance of the inJunction( CF/ denied the %otion9 led

a 'etition for certiorari and 'rohi$ition against udge Go%e+ and 6orro%eo

and *5G,C0) 'rayed that CF/ of Ce$u has no Jurisdiction over the case(- *C annulled the 'reli%inary inJunction issued $y CF/ Ce$u and directed to

dis%iss the case( .he writ of inJunction sought $y 7L5 was granted May 8)

8K(- 7L5 resu%ed 'ic&eting and $egan to 'ic&et at the house of *5G,C04s

General Manager Mr( Mrs( Lua and Ce$u 2o%e store(- Mr( Lua led a co%'laint with CF/ Ce$u to restrain 7L5 fro% 'ic&eting the

store and residence and recover da%ages(

- udge 6orro%eo issued an order reIuiring 7L5 to show cause order why thewrit should not $e issued(

- 7L5 led a %otion to dis%iss assailed the Jurisdiction of CF/ Ce$u to hear the

case on the ground that it has grown out fro% a la$or dis'ute(- .he Judge denied the %otion to dis%iss and to reconsider his order and

dissolve the writ of inJunction of une ;D 8K(- 7L5 co%%enced the 'resent action for certiorari and 'rohi$ition with

'reli%inary inJunction to annul the writs dated une ;D and uly 8K and

to restrain the lower court fro% hearing the case(

/ssue:

- !0N the stri&e conducted at the Ce$u ho%e involves a la$or dis'ute(

2eld:- 3es( *ection a" of Re'u$lic 7ct No( E vests in the Court of /ndustrial

Relations e#clusive Jurisdiction over the 'revention of any unfair la$or

'ractice( Moreover) for an issue Aconcerning ter%s) tenure or conditions of

e%'loy%ent) or concerning the association or re'resentation of 'ersons in

negotiating) #ing) %aintaining) changing) or see&ing to arrange ter%s or

conditions of e%'loy%entA to 'arta&e of the nature of a Ala$or dis'uteA) it is

not necessary that Athe dis'utants stand in the 'ro#i%ate relation of

e%'loyer and e%'loyee(A

- to a''ly the 'rovisions of *ec( K of Re'u$lic 7ct No( E) governing theconditions under which Aany restraining orderA or Ate%'orary or 'er%anent

inJunctionA %ay issue in any Acase involving or growing out of a la$or

dis'uteA) it is not indis'ensa$le that the 'ersons involved in the case $e

Ae%'loyees of the sa%e e%'loyerA) although this is the usual case( *ec( K)

li&ewise) governs cases involving 'ersons:o 8" Awho are engaged in the sa%e industry) trade) craft) or occu'ationA9

or


12/26

o " Awho ((( have direct or indirect interests thereinA) or

o ;" Awho are %e%$ers of the sa%e or an aliated organi+ation of

e%'loyers or e%'loyeesA9 oro


13/26

- 6autista was e%'loyed $y 7L5 as 40rgani+er4 in 8KE with a starting salary

of PD(DD a %onth( 7s such he 'aid his %onthly *** contri$utions) with the

res'ondent as his e%'loyer( 0n March 8) 8KEK) 2e was left in the oce of

7L5 while his other co-organi+ers were in Cainta) Ri+al attending a

certication election at Chrysler Phili''ines) as he was not the organi+er

assigned in said co%'any( 0n March 8) 8KEK) he went on sic& leave for ten8D" days( 2is *** sic&ness $enet a''lication for% signed $y 7L54s

'hysician was given to 7L5 for su$%ission to the ***( 0n March 8) 8KEK)

co%'lainant re'orted $ac& for wor& u'on e#'iration of his leave $ut was

infor%ed $y 7L54s 7rea Vice-President for Lu+on of his ter%ination eective

March 8) 8KEK( 2ence) this co%'laint led on March ) 8KEK( 0n 7'ril 8)

8KEK) however) 7L5 led a clearance a''lication to ter%inate co%'lainant4s

services eective March 8) 8KEK on the ground of a$andon%ent of wor&(- Ministry of La$or – 6autista was %erely acco%%odated $y the res'ondent

union after he was dis%issed $y his for%er e%'loyer so%eti%e in 8KE and

that his %e%$ershi' coverage with the *** which shows that 7L5 is the one

'aying the e%'loyer4s share in the 're%iu%s is not conclusive 'roof that 7L5

is the 6autista e%'loyer $ecause such 'ay%ents were 'erfor%ed $y the

res'ondent as a favor for all those who were 'erfor%ing full ti%e union

activities with it to entitle the% to *** $enets(

/ssue:- !0N /nciong is an e%'loyee of 7L5

2eld:- 3es( .he %ere fact that the res'ondent is a la$or union does not %ean that it

cannot $e considered an e%'loyer of the 'ersons who wor& for it( Much less

should it $e e#e%'ted fro% the very la$or laws which it es'ouses as la$or

organi+ation(- /n deter%ining the e#istence of an e%'loyer-e%'loyee relationshi') the

ele%ents that are generally considered are the following :o a" the selection and engage%ent of the e%'loyee9

o $" the 'ay%ent of wages9

o c" the 'ower of dis%issal9 and

o d" the e%'loyer4s 'ower to control the e%'loyee with res'ect to the

%eans and %ethods $y which the wor& is to $e acco%'lished( /t is the

so-called 4control test4 that is the %ost i%'ortant ele%ent- Petitioner was an e%'loyee of the res'ondent union as re=ected in the

latter4s individual 'ayroll sheets and shown $y the 'etitioner4s %e%$ershi'

with the *ocial *ecurity *yste% ***" and the res'ondent union4s share of

re%ittances in the 'etitioner4s favor( ,ven %ore signicant) is the res'ondent

union4s act of ling a clearance a''lication with the M0L to ter%inate the

'etitioner4s services( 6autista was selected and hired $y the 5nion( 2e was

'aid wages $y the 5nion( 7L5 had the 'ower to dis%iss hi% as indeed it


14/26

dis%issed hi%( 7nd denitely) the 5nion tightly controlled the wor& of

6autista as one of its organi+ers(

Cor'oral) et al( vs NLRC

Facts:- Five %ale 'etitioners) na%ely) 0sias /( Cor'oral) *r() Pedro .olentino) Manuel

Ca'aras) ,l'idio Laca') and *i%'licio Pedelos wor&ed as $ar$ers) while the

two fe%ale 'etitioners) .eresita Flores and Patricia Nas wor&ed as %anicurists

in New Loo& 6ar$er *ho' located at 8 P( Paterno *treet) Quia'o) Manila

owned $y 'rivate res'ondent Lao ,nteng Co( /nc(( Petitioner Nas alleged that

she also wor&ed as watcher and %ar&eter of 'rivate res'ondent(- Pet – New Loo& 6ar$ersho' was originally a single 'ro'rietorshi') then the

children of the owner organi+ed a cor'oration w1c was registered with the

*,C( .hey were allowed to wor& for the co%'any( .hen .rinidad 0ng infor%ed

the% that the $uilding was sold and their services were no longer needed(

- PR – Pet were Joint venturers and were receiving DS co%%ission of thea%ount charge fro% costu%ers – no ,R-,,9 serious $usiness loss9 had no

control over 'etitioners who were free to co%e and go as they wished9 all ***

contri$ution was %ade $y Pet(- L7 and NLRC – no ,R-,, relationshi'9 Co%%on 'ractice in $ar$ersho'

industry that $ar$ers scissors and ra+ors and s'lit their earnings9 6ar$ers are

characteri+ed as inde'endent contractor(/ssue:

- !0N there is ,R-,, relationshi' $etween Pet and PR

2eld:- 3es( .he La$or 7r$iter4s ndings that the 'arties were engaged in a Joint

venture is unsu''orted $y any docu%entary evidence( /t should $e noted

that aside fro% the self-serving adavit of .rinidad Lao 0ng) there were no

other evidentiary docu%ents) nor written 'artnershi' agree%ents 'resented(

!e have ruled that even the sharing of 'roceeds for every Jo$ of 'etitioners

in the $ar$er sho' does not %ean they were not e%'loyees of the

res'ondent co%'any(- 7n inde'endent contractor is one who underta&es AJo$ contractingA) i(e() a

'erson who a" carries on an inde'endent $usiness and underta&es the

contract wor& on his own account under his own res'onsi$ility according to

his own %anner and %ethod) free fro% the control and direction of his

e%'loyer or 'rinci'al in all %atters connected with the 'erfor%ance of thewor& e#ce't as to the results thereof) and $" has su$stantial ca'ital or

invest%ent in the for% of tools) eIui'%ent) %achineries) wor& 're%ises) and

other %aterials which are necessary in the conduct of the $usiness(- Petitioners are not Ainde'endent contractorsA( .hey did not carry on an

inde'endent $usiness( Neither did they underta&e cutting hair and

%anicuring nails) on their own as their res'onsi$ility) and in their own %anner

and %ethod( .he services of the 'etitioners were engaged $y the res'ondent


15/26

co%'any to attend to the needs of its custo%ers in its $ar$er sho'( More

i%'ortantly) the 'etitioners) individually or collectively) did not have a

su$stantial ca'ital or invest%ent in the for% of tools) eIui'%ent) wor&

're%ises and other %aterials which are necessary in the conduct of the

$usiness of the res'ondent co%'any(

- ,R-,, relationshi' - Records of the case show that the late Vicente Laoengaged the services of the 'etitioners to wor& as $ar$ers and %anicurists in

the New Loo& 6ar$er *ho') then a single 'ro'rietorshi' owned $y hi%9 that in

anuary 8K) his children organi+ed a cor'oration which they registered with

the *ecurities and ,#change Co%%ission as Lao ,nteng Co%'any) /nc(9 that

u'on its incor'oration) it too& over the assets) eIui'%ent) and 'ro'erties of

the New Loo& 6ar$er *ho' and continued the $usiness9 that the res'ondent

co%'any retained the services of all the 'etitioners and continuously 'aid

their wages( Clearly) all three ele%ents e#ist in 'etitioners4 and 'rivate

res'ondent4s wor&ing arrange%ents(- Control - Private res'ondent clai%s it had no control over 'etitioners( .he

'ower to control refers to the e#istence of the 'ower and not necessarily to

the actual e#ercise thereof) nor is it essential for the e%'loyer to actually

su'ervise the 'erfor%ance of duties of the e%'loyee( /t is enough that the

e%'loyer has the right to wield that 'ower( 7s to the Acontrol testA) the

following facts indu$ita$ly reveal that res'ondent co%'any wielded control

over the wor& 'erfor%ance of 'etitioners) in that: 8" they wor&ed in the

$ar$er sho' owned and o'erated $y the res'ondents9 " they were reIuired

to re'ort daily and o$serve denite hours of wor&9 ;" they were not free to

acce't other e%'loy%ent elsewhere $ut devoted their full ti%e wor&ing in

the New Loo& 6ar$er *ho' for all the fteen 8" years they have wor&ed until

7'ril 8) 8KK9


16/26

the 0ce of the Co%%issioner advising the% that their contract would not $e renewedciting their unsatisfactory 'erfor%ance on and o the court(

Res'ondents aver) on the other hand) that co%'lainants entered into two contracts of retainer with the P67 in the year DD;( .hat co%'lainants were not illegally dis%issed$ecause they were not e%'loyees of the P67( .heir res'ective contracts of retainer were

si%'ly not renewed( P67 had the 'rerogative of whether or not to renew their contracts)which they &new were #ed(

e- !hether 'etitioner is an e%'loyee of res'ondents(

He/'- NO.

.o deter%ine the e#istence of an e%'loyer-e%'loyee relationshi') case law has consistentlya''lied the four-fold test) to wit: a" the selection and engage%ent of the e%'loyee9 $" the'ay%ent of wages9 c" the 'ower of dis%issal9 and d" the e%'loyer@s 'ower to control thee%'loyee on the %eans and %ethods $y which the wor& is acco%'lished( .he so-calledA+o&tro/ tetA is the %ost i%'ortant indicator of the 'resence or a$sence of an e%'loyer-e%'loyee relationshi'(

/n this case) P67 ad%its re'eatedly engaging 'etitioner@s services) as shown in the retainercontracts( P67 'ays 'etitioner a retainer fee) e#clusive of 'er die% or allowances) assti'ulated in the retainer contract( P67 can ter%inate the retainer contract for 'etitioner@sviolation of its ter%s and conditions(

2owever) res'ondents argue that the all-i%'ortant ele%ent of control is lac&ing in this case)%a&ing 'etitioner an inde'endent contractor and not an e%'loyee of res'ondents(

Petitioner contends otherwise( Petitioner asserts that he is an e%'loyee of res'ondentssince the latter e#ercise control over the 'erfor%ance of his wor&( Petitioner cites thefollowing:

8" res'ondents classify or rate a referee9

" res'ondents reIuire referees to attend all $as&et$all ga%es organi+ed or authori+ed $ythe P67) at least one hour $efore the start of the rst ga%e of each day9

;" res'ondents assign 'etitioner to ociate $allga%es) or to act as alternate referee orsu$stitute9


17/26

!e agree with res'ondents that once in the 'laying court) the referees e#ercise their owninde'endent Judg%ent) $ased on the rules of the ga%e) as to when and how a call ordecision is to $e %ade( .he very nature of 'etitioner@s Jo$ of ociating a 'rofessional$as&et$all ga%e undou$tedly calls for freedo% of control $y res'ondents(

Moreover) the following circu%stances indicate that 'etitioner is an inde'endent contractor:

8" the referees are reIuired to re'ort for wor& only when P67 ga%es are scheduled) whichis three ti%es a wee& s'read over an average of only 8D 'laying days a year) and theyociate ga%es at an average of two hours 'er ga%e9 and

" the only deductions fro% the fees received $y the referees are withholding ta#es(

/n other words) unli&e regular e%'loyees who ordinarily re'ort for wor& eight hours 'er dayfor ve days a wee&) 'etitioner is reIuired to re'ort for wor& only when P67 ga%es arescheduled or three ti%es a wee& at two hours 'er ga%e(

/n addition) there are no deductions for contri$utions to the *ocial *ecurity *yste%)Philhealth or Pag-/$ig) which are the usual deductions fro% e%'loyees@ salaries( .hese

undis'uted circu%stances $uttress the fact that 'etitioner is an inde'endent contractor) andnot an e%'loyee of res'ondents(

/n addition) the fact that P67 re'eatedly hired 'etitioner does not $y itself 'rove that'etitioner is an e%'loyee of the for%er( For a hired 'arty to $e considered an e%'loyee) thehiring 'arty %ust have control over the %eans and %ethods $y which the hired 'arty is to'erfor% his wor&) which is a$sent in this case( .he continuous rehiring $y P67 of 'etitionersi%'ly signies the renewal of the contract $etween P67 and 'etitioner) and highlights thesatisfactory services rendered $y 'etitioner warranting such contract renewal( Conversely) if P67 decides to discontinue 'etitioner@s services at the end of the ter% #ed in the contract)whether for unsatisfactory services) or violation of the ter%s and conditions of the contract)or for whatever other reason) the sa%e %erely results in the non-renewal of the contract) asin the 'resent case( .he non-renewal of the contract $etween the 'arties does not constituteillegal dis%issal of 'etitioner $y res'ondents(

11) G.R. No. 1821 O+tober 2, 2009

RA$L G. LO"SN %&' EE B. TOMA$N, Petitioners)vs(PHLPPNE LONG STAN"E TELEPHONE "OMPAN(, Res'ondent(

*%+t-

Res'ondent Phili''ine Long istance .ele'hone Co%'any PL." and the *ecurity and

*afety Cor'oration of the Phili''ines **CP" entered into a *ecurity *ervices7gree%ent; 7gree%ent" where$y **CP would 'rovide ar%ed security guards to PL. to $eassigned to its various oces(

Pursuant to such agree%ent) 'etitioners Raul Locsin and ,ddie .o%aIuin) a%ong othersecurity guards) were 'osted at a PL. oce(

0n 7ugust ;D) DD8) res'ondent issued a Letter ter%inating the 7gree%ent eective0cto$er 8) DD8(

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_185251_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_185251_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_185251_2009.html#fnt3


18/26

es'ite the ter%ination of the 7gree%ent) however) 'etitioners continued to secure the're%ises of their assigned oce( .hey were allegedly directed to re%ain at their 'ost $yre'resentatives of res'ondent( /n su''ort of their contention) 'etitioners 'rovided the co'iesof 'etitioner Locsin@s 'ay sli's for the 'eriod of anuary to *e'te%$er DD(

.hen) on *e'te%$er ;D) DD) 'etitioners@ services were ter%inated(

.hus) 'etitioners led a co%'laint $efore the La$or 7r$iter for illegal dis%issal and recoveryof %oney clai%s such as overti%e 'ay) holiday 'ay) 're%iu% 'ay for holiday and rest day)service incentive leave 'ay) ,%ergency Cost of Living 7llowance) and %oral and e#e%'laryda%ages against PL.(

e- !hether or not co%'lainants e#tended services to the res'ondent for one 8" yearfro% 0cto$er 8) DD8 u' to *e'te%$er ;D) DD) without a renewed contract) constitutes ane%'loyer-e%'loyee relationshi' $etween res'ondent and the co%'lainants(

He/'- (ES.

7n ,%'loyer-,%'loyee Relationshi' ,#isted 6etween the Parties(

/t is $eyond cavil that there was no e%'loyer-e%'loyee relationshi' $etween the 'artiesfro% the ti%e of 'etitioners@ rst assign%ent to res'ondent $y **CP in 8K until thealleged ter%ination of the 7gree%ent $etween res'ondent and **CP( /t $ears 'ointing outthat 'etitioners were a%ong those declared to $e e%'loyees of their res'ective securityagencies and not of PL.(

.he only issue in this case is whether 'etitioners $eca%e e%'loyees of res'ondent after the7gree%ent $etween **CP and res'ondent was ter%inated(

.his %ust $e answered in the ar%ative(

Nota$ly) res'ondent does not deny the fact that 'etitioners re%ained in the 're%ises of their oces even after the 7gree%ent was ter%inated( 7nd it is this fact that %ust $ee#'lained(

.he fact re%ains that 'etitioners re%ained at their 'ost after the ter%ination of the7gree%ent( Nota$ly) in its Co%%ent dated March 8D) DDK) res'ondent never denied that'etitioners re%ained at their 'ost until *e'te%$er ;D) DD( !hile res'ondent denies thealleged circu%stances stated $y 'etitioners) that they were told to re%ain at their 'ost $yres'ondent@s *ecurity e'art%ent and that they were infor%ed $y **CP 0'erations 0cer,duardo uliano that their salaries would $e coursed through **CP as 'er arrange%ent withPL.) it does not state why they were not %ade to vacate their 'osts( Res'ondent said thatit did not &now why 'etitioners re%ained at their 'osts(

/n the ordinary course of things) res'onsi$le $usiness owners or %anagers would not allowsecurity guards of an agency with who% the owners or %anagers have severed ties with tocontinue to stay within the $usiness@ 're%ises( .his is $ecause u'on the ter%ination of theowners@ or %anagers@ agree%ent with the security agency) the agency@s underta&ing of lia$ility for any da%age that the security guard would cause has already $een ter%inated(

.hus) in the event of an accident or otherwise da%age caused $y such security guards) itwould $e the $usiness owners and1or %anagers who would $e lia$le and not the agency( .he$usiness owners or %anagers would) therefore) $e o'ening the%selves u' to lia$ility for actsof security guards over who% the owners or %anagers allegedly have no control(

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_185251_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_185251_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_185251_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_185251_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_185251_2009.html#fnt8


19/26

/t would see% that **CP was 'aying 'etitioners@ salaries while securing res'ondent@s're%ises des'ite the ter%ination of their 7gree%ent( 0$viously) it would only $e res'ondentthat would $enet fro% such a situation( 7nd it is seriously dou$tful that a security agencythat was esta$lished for 'rot would allow its security guards to secure res'ondent@s're%ises when the 7gree%ent was already ter%inated(

Clearly) such a situation %a&es no sense) and the denials 'roered $y res'ondent do notshed any light to the situation( /t is $ut reasona$le to conclude that) with the $ehest and)'resu%a$ly) directive of res'ondent) 'etitioners continued with their services( ,vidently)such are indicia of control that res'ondent e#ercised over 'etitioners(

*uch 'ower of control has $een e#'lained as the Aright to control not only the end to $eachieved $ut also the %eans to $e used in reaching such end(A !ith the conclusion thatres'ondent directed 'etitioners to re%ain at their 'osts and continue with their duties) it isclear that res'ondent e#ercised the 'ower of control over the%9 thus) the e#istence of ane%'loyer-e%'loyee relationshi'(

/n the deter%ination of whether an e%'loyer-e%'loyee relationshi' e#ists $etween two'arties) this Court a''lies the four-fold test to deter%ine the e#istence of the ele%ents of

such relationshi'(

a" the selection and engage%ent of the e%'loyee9

$" the 'ay%ent of wages9

c" the 'ower of dis%issal9 and

d" the e%'loyer@s 'ower to control the e%'loyee@s conduct( /t is the so-called Acontrol testAwhich constitutes the %ost i%'ortant inde# of the e#istence of the e%'loyer-e%'loyeerelationshi' that is) whether the e%'loyer controls or has reserved the right to control thee%'loyee not only as to the result of the wor& to $e done $ut also as to the %eans and%ethods $y which the sa%e is to $e acco%'lished(

,vidently) res'ondent having the 'ower of control over 'etitioners %ust $e considered as'etitioners@ e%'loyer––fro% the ter%ination of the 7gree%ent onwards––as this was the onlyti%e that any evidence of control was e#hi$ited $y res'ondent over 'etitioners(

12) G.R. No. 139 No5ember 26, 2011

"ESAR ". LRO, 'o7& b7&e &'er te &%me %&' t:/e o; "EL!OR ASON"MA, Res'ondent(

*%+t-

0n uly K) DD) res'ondent !il%er ( Genovia led a co%'laint against 'etitioner CesarLirio and1or Cel&or 7d *onic%i# Recording *tudio for illegal dis%issal) non-'ay%ent of co%%ission and award of %oral and e#e%'lary da%ages(

Res'ondent Genovia alleged that on 7ugust 8) DD8) he was hired as studio %anager $y'etitioner Lirio) owner of Cel&or 7d *onic%i# Recording *tudio Cel&or"( 2e was e%'loyed to%anage and o'erate Cel&or and to 'ro%ote and sell the recording studio4s services to %usic


20/26

enthusiasts and other 'ros'ective clients( 2e received a %onthly salary of PE)DDD(DD( .heyalso agreed that he was entitled to an additional co%%ission of P8DD(DD 'er hour asrecording technician whenever a client uses the studio for recording) editing or any relatedwor&( 2e was %ade to re'ort for wor& fro% Monday to Friday fro% K:DD a(%( to '(%( 0n*aturdays) he was reIuired to wor& half-day only) $ut %ost of the ti%e) he still renderedeight hours of wor& or %ore( 7ll the e%'loyees of 'etitioner) including res'ondent) rendered

overti%e wor& al%ost everyday) $ut 'etitioner never &e't a daily ti%e record to avoid'aying the e%'loyees overti%e 'ay(

Res'ondent stated that a few days after he started wor&ing as a studio %anager) 'etitionera''roached hi% and told hi% a$out his 'roJect to 'roduce an al$u% for his daughter) CelineMei Lirio and 'ro%ised that he Lirio" would draft a contract to assure res'ondent of hisco%'ensation for such services( .he Jo$ was done then res'ondent re%inded 'etitionera$out the contract on his co%'ensation $ut 'etitioner told res'ondent that since he was'ractically a no$ody and had 'roven nothing yet in the %usic industry) res'ondent did notdeserve a high co%'ensation and infor%ed res'ondent that he was entitled only to DS of the net 'rot) and not of the gross sales of the al$u%) and that the salaries he received andwould continue to receive as studio %anager of Cel&or would $e deducted fro% the said DSnet 'rot share( Res'ondent o$Jected and insisted that he $e 'ro'erly co%'ensated( 0nMarch 8


21/26


22/26

JAVIER VS. FLY ACE CORP. Feb. 15, 2012

FACTS:

On May 23, 2008, Javier filed a complaint before te !"#C for $nderpayment of %alarie% and oter labor %tandardbenefit%& 'e alle(ed tat e )a% an employee of Fly Ace %ince September 200*, performin( vario$% ta%+% at tere%pondent% )areo$%e %$c a% cleanin( and arran(in( te canned item% before teir delivery to certain location%,e-cept in in%tance% )en e )o$ld be ordered to accompany te company% delivery veicle%, a% pahinante. tat ereported for )or+ from Monday to Sat$rday from *:00 ocloc+ in te mornin( to /:00 ocloc+ in te afternoon. tatd$rin( i% employment, e )a% not i%%$ed an identification card and pay%lip% by te company. tat on May , 2008,e reported for )or+ b$t e )a% no lon(er allo)ed to enter te company premi%e% by te %ec$rity ($ard $pon tein%tr$ction of #$ben On( (Mr. Ong), i% %$perior./ tat after %everal min$te% of be((in( to te ($ard to allo) im toenter, e %a) On( )om e approaced and a%+ed )y e )a% bein( barred from enterin( te premi%e%. tat On(replied by %ayin(, 1Tanungin mo anak mo;1 tat e ten )ent ome and di%c$%%ed te matter )it i% family. tat edi%covered tat On( ad been co$rtin( i% da$(ter Annalyn after te t)o met at a fie%ta celebration in Malabon City.

tat Annalyn tried to tal+ to On( and convince im to %pare er fater from tro$ble b$t e ref$%ed to accede. tattereafter, Javier )a% terminated from i% employment )ito$t notice. and tat e )a% neiter (iven te opport$nity toref$te te ca$%e% of i% di%mi%%al from )or+&

To %$pport i% alle(ation%, Javier pre%ented an affidavit of one en(ie 4alen5$ela )o alle(ed tat Javier )a% a%tevedore or pahinante of Fly Ace from September 200* to Jan$ary 2008& Te %aid affidavit )a% %$b%cribed beforete "abor Arbiter (LA)&*

For it% part, Fly Ace averred tat it )a% en(a(ed in te b$%ine%% of importation and %ale% of (rocerie%& Sometime in6ecember 200*, Javier )a% contracted by it% employee, Mr& On(, a% e-tra elper on a pakyaw ba%i% at an a(reedrate of 7 300&00 per trip, )ic )a% later increa%ed to 7 32/&00 in Jan$ary 2008& 6enyin( tat e )a% teir employee,Fly Ace in%i%ted tat tere )a% no ille(al di%mi%%al&8 Fly Ace %$bmitted a copy of it% a(reement )it Milmar 'a$lin(Service% and copie% of ac+no)led(ment receipt% evidencin( payment to Javier for i% contracted %ervice% bearin( te

)ord%, 1daily manpo)er (pakyaw/piece rate pay)1 and te latter% %i(nat$re%initial%& Te CA li+e)i%e added tatJavier% fail$re to pre%ent %alary vo$cer%, pay%lip%, or oter piece% of evidence to bol%ter i% contention, pointed tote ine%capable concl$%ion tat e )a% not an employee of Fly Ace& F$rter, it fo$nd tat Javier% )or+ )a% notnece%%ary and de%irable to te b$%ine%% or trade of te company, a% it )a% only )en tere )ere %ced$leddeliverie%, )ic a re($lar a$lin( %ervice co$ld not deliver, tat Fly Ace )o$ld contract te %ervice% of Javier a% ane-tra elper& te fact% alle(ed by Javier did not pa%% te 1control te%t&1 'e contracted )or+ o$t%ide te companypremi%e%. e )a% not re$ired to ob%erve definite o$r% of )or+. e )a% not re$ired to report daily. and e )a% freeto accept oter )or+ el%e)ere a% tere )a% no e-cl$%ivity of i% contracted %ervice to te company,

9SS;:


23/26

admitted&ttp:)))&la)pil&net>$d>$ri%>$ri200@may200@(r=*@/2200@&tml ? fnt3= 'ence, )ile no partic$lar

form of evidence i% re$ired, a findin( tat %$c relation%ip e-i%t% m$%t %till re%t on %ome %$b%tantial evidence&

Moreover, te %$b%tantiality of te evidence depend% on it% $antitative a% )ell a% it% qualitative a%pect%&130 Alto$(

%$b%tantial evidence i% not a f$nction of $antity b$t rater of $ality, te - - - circ$m%tance% of te in%tant ca%e

demand tat %ometin( more %o$ld ave been proffered& y )ay of evidence on ti% point, all tat Javier pre%ented

)ere i% %elf?%ervin( %tatement% p$rportedly %o)in( i% activitie% a% an employee of Fly Ace&

Javier failed to pa%% te %$b%tantiality re$irement to %$pport i% claim& 'ence, te Co$rt %ee% no rea%on to depart

from te findin(% of te CA& ect %imply beca$%e te )itne%% ad no per%onal +no)led(e of Javier% employment %tat$% in

te company&

Te Co$rt i% of te con%iderable vie) tat on Javier lie% te b$rden to pa%% te )ell?%ettled te%t% to determine te

e-i%tence of an employer?employee relation%ip, viz : =D te %election and en(a(ement of te employee. 2D te

payment of )a(e%. 3D te po)er of di%mi%%al. and BD te po)er to control te employee% cond$ct& Of te%e

element%, te mo%t important criterion i% )eter te employer control% or a% re%erved te ri(t to control te

employee not only a% to te re%$lt of te )or+ b$t al%o a% to te mean% and metod% by )ic te re%$lt i% to be

accompli%ed&3/

Javier% alle(ation% did not e%tabli% tat i% relation%ip )it Fly Ace ad te attrib$te% of an employer?employee

relation%ip on te ba%i% of te above?mentioned fo$r?fold te%t&


24/26

%erved te tr$c+in( b$%ine%% of petitioner%& 9n April =@@B, Saot )a% already /@ year% old& 'e ad been inc$rrin(

ab%ence% a% e )a% %$fferin( from vario$% ailment%& 'e in$ired abo$t i% medical and retirement benefit% )it te

Social Sec$rity Sy%tem SSSD on April 2/, =@@B, b$t di%covered tat i% premi$m payment% ad not been remitted by

i% employer& Saot ad filed a )ee+?lon( leave %ometime in May =@@B& On May 2*t, e )a% medically e-amined

and treated for ;O#, pre%leyopia, yperten%ive retinopaty G 99 Anne-e% 1G?/1 and 1G?31, pp& B8, =0B,

re%pectivelyD, '7M, T9, O%teoartriti% Anne- 1G?B1, p& =0/D,* and eart enlar(ement& At te end of i% )ee+?lon(

ab%ence, Saot applied for e-ten%ion of i% leave for te )ole mont of J$ne, =@@B& Saot fo$nd im%elf in a

dilemma& 'e )a% facin( di%mi%%al if e ref$%ed to )or+, $t e co$ld not retire on pen%ion beca$%e petitioner% never

paid i% correct SSS premi$m%& Te fact remained e co$ld no lon(er )or+ a% i% left ti( $rt abominably&

7etitioner% ended i% dilemma& Tey carried o$t teir treat and di%mi%%ed im from )or+, effective J$ne 30, =@@B& 'e

ended $p %ic+, >oble%% and pennile%%&

On September =3, =@@B, Saot filed )it te !"#C !C# Arbitration ranc, a complaint for ille(al di%mi%%al,

doc+eted a% !"#C !C# Ca%e !o& 00?0@?0*=*?@B& 'e prayed for te recovery of %eparation pay and attorney% fee%

a(ain%t 4icente Sy and Trinidad 7a$lino?Sy, elen 7a$lino, 4icente Sy Tr$c+in(, T& 7a$lino Tr$c+in( Service, %

Tr$c+in( and ST Tr$c+in(, erein petitioner%& For teir part, petitioner% contend tat private re%pondent )a% not

ille(ally di%mi%%ed a% a driver beca$%e e )a% in fact petitioner% ind$%trial partner& Tey add tat it )a% not $ntil te

year =@@B, )en ST Tr$c+in( Corporation )a% e%tabli%ed, and only ten did re%pondent Saot become an

employee of te company&

9SS;:


25/26

ENCYCLOPEDIA . NLRC '#$ L&(-"" 1// 'e

FACTS:

7rivate re%pondent en>amin "im>oco )a% a Sale% 6ivi%ion Mana(er of petitioner ;ncyclopaedia ritannica and )a%

in car(e of %ellin( petitionerH% prod$ct% tro$( %ome %ale% repre%entative%& A% compen%ation, private re%pondent

received commi%%ion% from te prod$ct% %old by i% a(ent%& 'e )a% al%o allo)ed to $%e petitionerH% name, (ood)ill

and lo(o& 7etitioner )o$ld al%o be informed abo$t appointment%, promotion%, and tran%fer% of employee% in private

re%pondentH% di%trict& 9t )a%, o)ever, a(reed $pon tat office e-pen%e% )o$ld be ded$cted from private re%pondentH%

commi%%ion%& On J$ne =B, =@*B, private re%pondent "im>oco re%i(ned from office to p$r%$e i% private b$%ine%%& Ten

on October 30, =@*/, e filed a complaint a(ain%t petitioner ;ncyclopaedia ritannica )it te 6epartment of "abor

and ;mployment, claimin( for non?payment of %eparation pay and oter benefit%, and al%o ille(al ded$ction from i%

%ale% commi%%ion%&

7etitioner ;ncyclopaedia ritannica alle(ed tat complainant en>amin "im>oco "im>oco, for brevityD )a% not it%

employee b$t an independent dealer a$tori5ed to promote and %ell it% prod$ct% and in ret$rn, received commi%%ion%terefrom& 'e al%o ad i% o)n %eparate office, financed te b$%ine%% e-pen%e%, and maintained i% o)n )or+force&

Te %alarie% of i% %ecretary, $tility man, and %ale% repre%entative% )ere car(eable to i% commi%%ion%& T$%,

petitioner ar($ed tat it ad no control and %$pervi%ion over te complainant a% to te manner and mean% e

cond$cted i% b$%ine%% operation%& Te latter did not even report to te office of te petitioner and did not ob%erve

fi-ed office o$r%& Con%e$ently, tere )a% no employer?employee relation%ip&

"im>oco maintained oter)i%e& 'e alle(ed tat e )a% ired by te petitioner in J$ly =@*0, )a% a%%i(ned in te %ale%

department, and )a% earnin( a certain amo$nt a% an avera(e montly %alary& )a% $nder te %$pervi%ion of te

petitionerH% official% )o i%%$ed to im and i% oter per%onnel, memoranda, ($ideline% on company policie%,

in%tr$ction% and oter order%& 'e )a%, o)ever, di%mi%%ed by te petitioner )en te "a$rel?"an(ley A(reement

e-pired& A% a re%$lt tereof, "im>oco a%%ert% tat in accordance )it te e%tabli%ed company practice and te

provi%ion% of te collective bar(ainin( a(reement, e )a% entitled to termination pay, $npaid benefit% Cri%tma%

bon$%, midyear bon$%, clotin( allo)ance, vacation leave, and %ic+ leaveD, and te amo$nt% ille(ally ded$cted from

i% commi%%ion% )ic )ere ten $%ed for te payment% of office %$pplie%, office %pace, and overead e-pen%e%&

9SS;:


26/26

a(reement%& Te %ale% operation% )ere primarily cond$cted by independent a$tori5ed a(ent% )o did not receive

re($lar compen%ation% b$t only commi%%ion% ba%ed on te %ale% of te prod$ct%& Te%e independent a(ent% ired

teir o)n %ale% repre%entative%, financed teir o)n office e-pen%e%, and maintained teir o)n %taff& T$%, tere )a% a

need for te petitioner to i%%$e memoranda to private re%pondent %o tat te latter )o$ld be appri%ed of te company

policie% and proced$re%& !evertele%%, private re%pondent "im>oco and te oter a(ent% )ere free to cond$ct and

promote teir %ale% operation%& Te periodic report% to te petitioner by te a(ent% )ere b$t nece%%ary to $pdate te

company of te latterH% performance and b$%ine%% income& Alto$( te petitioner can fi- te price% of te prod$ct% for

rea%on of $niformity and private re%pondent co$ld not alter tem, te latter, nevertele%%, ad free rein in te mean%

and metod% for cond$ctin( te mar+etin( operation%& 'e %elected i% o)n per%onnel and only rea%on )y e ad to

notify te petitioner abo$t %$c appointment% )a% for p$rpo%e of ded$ctin( te employee%H %alarie% from i%

commi%%ion%. (etitioner in their agreement ha! to "e in#orme! a"out the appointment$% promotion$% an! tran$#er$ o#

employee$ that re$pon!ent Lim&oco ha! to take)

Labrel Part 1 Digest

Documents

Transcript of Labrel Part 1 Digest