Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil 726Social Justice as the aim of Labor Laws

Social justice is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy," but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.

Feati University v. Bautista and Feati University Faculty Club, G.R. No. L-21287, December 27, 1966Employer-Employee Relationship

The elements of an employer-employee relationship are: (1) selection and engagement of the employee; (2) payment of wages; (3) power of dismissal; and (4) employer's own power to control employee's conduct. The existence of such a relationship is essentially a factual question.

Asian Center for Career and employment Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission and Mediales, G.R. No. 131656, October 12, 1998Migrant Workers Act

Under Section 10 of R.A. 8042, a worker dismissed from overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause is entitled to his salary for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.

Manila Water Co. v. Pena, G.R. No. 158225, July 8, 2004Labor-only contracting

In labor-only contracting, the statute creates an employer-employee relationship for a comprehensive purpose: to prevent a circumvention of labor laws. The contractor is considered merely an agent of the principal employer and the latter is responsible to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if such employees had been directly employed by the principal employer.

Mafinco Trading Corporation v. Ople, National Labor Relations Commission, et al. , G.R. No. L-37790, March 25, 1976Independent contractor

A contract whereby one engages to purchase and sell soft drinks on trucks supplied by the manufacturer but providing that the other party (peddler) shall have the right to employ his own workers, shall post a bond to protect the manufacturer against losses, shall be responsible for damages caused to third persons, shall obtain the necessary licenses and permits and bear the expenses incurred in the sale of the soft drinks is not a contract of employment.

Meycauayan College v. Drilon, G.R. No. 81122, May 7, 1990Statutory benefits are apart from contractual benefits

Non-compliance with the mandate of a standards law or decree may give rise to an ordinary action for recovery while violation of a collective bargaining agreement may even give rise to a criminal action for unfair labor practice. And while the relief sought for violation of a standards law or decree is primarily for restitution of an unpaid benefits, the relief sought for violating a CBA is ordinarily for compliance and desistance.

National Waterworks Sewerage Authority v. National Waterworks Sewerage Authority Consolidated Unions, 11 SCRA 766Offset overtime

The philosophy behind the exemption of managerial employees from the 8-Hour Labor Law is that such workers are not usually employed for every hour of work but their compensation is determined considering their special training, experience or knowledge which requires the exercise of discretion and independent judgment, or perform work related to management policies or general business operations along specialized or technical lines. For these workers it is not feasible to provide a fixed hourly rate of pay or maximum hours of labor.

Kwok v. Philippine Carpet Manufacturing Corporation, G.R. No. 102132, March 19, 1993Sick leave

The general rule is that, in the absence of authority from the board of directors, no person, not even its officers, can validly bind a corporation. A corporation is a juridical person, separate and distinct from its stockholders and members, 'having xxx powers, attributes and properties expressly authorized by law or incident to its existence. The power and the responsibility to decide whether the corporation should enter into a contract that will bind the corporation is lodged in the board, subject to the articles of incorporation, by-laws, or relevant provisions of law.

International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing, et al, G.R. No. 128845, June 1, 2000Equal pay for equal work

The local-hires perform the same services as foreign-hires and they ought to be paid the same salaries as the latter. For the same reason, the dislocation factor and the foreign-hires limited tenure also cannot serve as valid bases for the distinction in salary rates. The dislocation factor and limited tenure affecting foreign-hires are adequately compensated by certain benefits accorded them which are not enjoyed by local-hires, such as housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes and home leave travel allowances.

Marcos, et al. v. National Labor Relations Commission and Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. , G.R No. 111744, September 8, 1995Exceptions to the minimum wage

A bonus is not a gift or gratuity, but is paid for some services or consideration and is in addition to what would ordinarily be given. The term "bonus" as used in employment contracts, also conveys an idea of something which is gratuitous, or which may be claimed to be gratuitous, over and above the prescribed wage which the employer agrees to pay.

Makati Haberdahsery, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 88380-81, November 15, 1989Employer-Employee relationship

Piece-rate workers, being paid at a fixed amount for performing work irrespective of time consumed in the performance thereof, are entitled to minimum wage, cost of living allowance, and 13 th month pay, but not to service incentive leave pay.

St. Joseph’s College v. St. Joseph’s College Workers’ Association, G.R. No. 1555609, January 17, 2005Teacher’s share in tuition fee increase

The law plainly states that 70 percent of the tuition fee increase shall be allotted for the teaching and the nonteaching personnel; and that the payment of other costs of operation, together with the improvement of the school’s infrastructure, shall be taken only from the remaining 30 percent.

Zialcita v. Philippine Airlines, RO4-3-2298-76, February 20, 1977Employment of women

Although Article 132 enjoins the Secretary of Labor to establish standards that will ensure the safety and health of women employees and in appropriate cases shall by regulation require employers to determine appropriate minimum standards for termination in special occupations, such as those of flight attendants, it is logical to presume that, in the absence of said standards or regulations which are yet to be established, the policy of PAL against marriage is patently illegal.

Apex Mining Co. Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 94951, April 22, 1991Employment of househelpers

The foregoing definition clearly contemplates such house helper or domestic servant who is employed in the employer's home to minister exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of the employer's family. The definition cannot be interpreted to include house help or laundrywomen working in staff houses of a company.

The criteria is the personal comfort and enjoyment of the family of the employer in the home of said employer. While it may be true that the nature of the work of a house helper, domestic servant or laundrywoman in a home or in a company staff house may be similar in nature, the difference in their circumstances is that in the former instance they are actually serving the family while in the latter case, whether it is a corporation or a single proprietorship engaged in business or industry or any other agricultural or similar pursuit, service is being rendered in the staff houses or within the premises of the business of the employer. In such instance, they are employees of the company or employer in the business concerned entitled to the privileges of a regular employee.

Raro v. Employees Compensation commission, G.R. No. 58445, April 27, 1989Employees’ compensation and state insurance fund

The law, as it now stands, requires the claimant to prove that the illness was caused by employment.

Iloilo Dock and Engineering Corporation v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, et al ., G.R. No. L-26341, November 27, 1978Employees’ compensation and state insurance fund

The general rule in workmen's compensation law known as the "going & coming rule," simply stated, is that "in the absence of special circumstances, an employee injured in, going to, or coming from his place of work is excluded from the benefits of workmen's compensation acts." This rule, however, admits of four well-recognized exceptions, to wit: (1) where the employee is proceeding to or from his work on the premises of his employer; (2) where the employee is about to enter or about to leave the premises of his employer by way of the exclusive or customary means of ingress and egress; (3) where the employee is charged, while on his way to or from his place of employment or at his home, or during his employment, with some duty or special errand connected with his employment; and (4) where the employer, as an incident of the employment, provides the means of transportation to and from the place of employment.

Lazo v. Employees’ Compensation Commission, G.R. No. 78617, June 18, 1980Employees’ compensation and state insurance fund

Where an employee, after working hours, attempted to ride on the platform of a service truck of the company near his place of work, and, while thus attempting, slipped and fell to the ground and was run over by the truck, resulting in his death, the accident may be said to have arisen out of or in the course of employment, for which reason his death is compensable. The fact standing alone, that the truck was in motion when the employee boarded, is insufficient to justify the conclusion that he had been notoriously negligent, where it does not appear that the truck was running at a great speed.

Menez v. Employees’ Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L-48488, April 25, 1980Employees’ compensation and state insurance fund

Republic Act 4670, otherwise known as the Magna Charta for Public School Teachers, recognized the enervating effects of these factors (duties and activities of a school teacher certainly involve physical, mental and emotional stresses) on the health of school teachers when it directed in one of its provisions that “Teachers shall be protected against the consequences of employment injury in accordance with existing laws.” The effects of the physical and nervous strain on the teachers' health shall be recognized as compensable occupational diseases in accordance with laws.

Vicente v. Employees’ Compensation Commission, G.R. No. 85024, January 23, 1991Disability benefits

Optional retirement is allowed only upon proof that the employee-applicant is already physically incapacitated to render sound and efficient service.

Suanes v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, G.R. No. 42808, January 31, 1989Provisions common to income benefits

The burden of proving non-compensability of the cause of death is shifted to the employer.