Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Vda de Cruz v. Manila Hotel
Vda de Cruz v. Manila Hotel
Batas.org
On May 22, 1954 and for several years before, Tirso Cruz with his orchestra
furnished music to the Manila Hotel under the arrangement hereafter to be set
forth. On that date the corporation owning the Hotel gave written notice to its
employees that beginning July 1, 1954 the Hotel would be leased to the Bay
View Hotel, and that those employees to be laid off would be granted a
separation gratuity computed according to specified terms and conditions.
Cruz and his musicians claimed the gratuity; but the Manila Hotel management
denied their claim saying they were not its employees. Wherefore they instituted
this action in the Manila court of first instance in December 1954.
On motion by defendant, and after hearing the parties, the Hon. Francisco E.
Jose, Judge, issued an order dismissing the complaint on the ground that
plaintiffs had no cause of action against defendant since they were not
its employees. Hence this appeal directly to this Court, involving only questions
of law. In the meantime Tirso Cruz the bandleader died; he is now substituted
by hid legal heirs. However for convenience we shall refer to him as if he were
still a party to the proceedings.
The complaint alleged that plaintiffs "were members of the orchestra which
had been employed by the defendant to furnish music in the Manila Hotel";
that they were employees of the Hotel, and that contrary to the announcement
(Annex A) promising gratuities to its "employees" the Hotel Management had
refused to pay plaintiffs. The complaint attached a copy of the announcement
which partly reads as follows:
"* * *. It is for this reason that the necessary authority has already
been seen red for the payment of separation gratuity to the
employees to be laid off as a result of the lease and who are not yet
entitled to either the optional or compulsory retirement insurance
provided under Republic Act No. 660, as amended, * *
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss alleging that plaintiffs were not its
employees, under the terms of the contract whereby they had rendered services
to the Hotel, copy of which was attached as Exhibit 1. It also alleged plaintiffs
did not fall within the terms of Annex A because they were not, and never had
been members of the Government Service Insurance System. Plaintiffs replied
to the motion, did not deny the terms of Exhibit 1, nor the allegations of non-
membership in the Government Service Insurance System; but insisted they
were employees of the Hotel.
The controversy could therefore be decided and it was decided in the light of
the terms of Exhibit 1 and Annex A, plus the factual allegations expressly or
inipliedly admitted by the contending parties.
At the outset the following consideration presents itself : plaintiffs' right is not
predicated on some statutory provision, but upon the offer or promise
contained in Annex A. Such offer or promise having been written by the
defendant, it is logical to regard said defendant to be in the best position to
state who were the employees contemplated in the aforesaid Annex A. The
defendant asserts these musicians were not included; therefore such assertion
should be persuasive, if not conclusive. Let it be emphasized that Annex A is
not a contract, but a mere offer of gratuity, the beneficiaries of which normally
depended upon the free selection of the offeror.
Still going further, are these plaintiffs "employees" of the Hotel? None of
them, except Tirzo Cruz and Ric Cruz, is mentioned in the contract Exhibit 1.
None has submitted any contract or appointment except said Exhibit 1.
Obviously their connection with the Hotel was only thru Tirso Cruz who was
the leader of the orchestra; and they couldn't be in a better class than Tirso
Cruz who dealt with the Hotel. Was Tirso Cruz an employee? Or was he an
independent contractor, as held by the trial court?
Considering the above features of the relationship, in connection with the tests
indicated by numerous authorities, it is our opinion that Tirso Cruz was not an
employee of the Manila Hotel, but one engaged to furnish music to said hotel
for the price of P250.00 daily, in other words, an independent contractor1
within the meaning of the law of master and servant.
Not being employees of the Manila Hotel, the plaintiffs have no cause of
action against the latter under Annex A. The order of dismissal is therefore
affirmed, with costs against them. So ordered.
Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Conception, Endencia, and
Felix, JJ., concur.