Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cases 1
Cases 1
D E CI S IO N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J : p
Since she was no longer paid her salary, petitioner did not
report for work and filed an action for constructive dismissal
before the labor arbiter. EHASaD
a. Backwages 10/2001 —
07/2002 275,000.00
(27,500 x 10 mos.)
P957,742.50
If reinstatement is no longer feasible, respondents are
ordered to pay complainant separation pay with
additional backwages that would accrue up to actual
payment of separation pay.
SO ORDERED. 14
SO ORDERED. 15
SO ORDERED. 16
The core issues to be resolved in this case are (1) whether there
was an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and
private respondent Kasei Corporation; and if in the affirmative,
(2) whether petitioner was illegally dismissed.
JOSE
Y. SONZA, petitioner, vs. ABS-CBN BROADCASTI
NG CORPORATION, respondent.
D E CI S IO N
CARPIO, J : p
The Case
The Issue
B. Payment of Wages
All the talent fees and benefits paid to SONZA were the result
of negotiations that led to the Agreement.
If SONZA were ABS-CBN's employee, there would be no need
for the parties to stipulate on benefits such as "SSS,
Medicare, . . . and 13th month pay" 20 which the law
automatically incorporates into every employer-employee
contract. 21 Whatever benefits SONZA enjoyed arose from
contract and not because of an employer-employee
relationship. 22
C. Power of Dismissal
D. Power of Control
In any event, not all rules imposed by the hiring party on the
hired party indicate that the latter is an employee of the
former. 43 In this case, SONZA failed to show that these rules
controlled his performance. We find that these general rules are
merely guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually
desired result, which are top-rating television and radio
programs that comply with standards of the industry. We have
ruled that:
The Labor Arbiter can decide a case based solely on the position
papers and the supporting documents without a formal
trial. 51 The holding of a formal hearing or trial is something
that the parties cannot demand as a matter of right. 52 If the
Labor Arbiter is confident that he can rely on the documents
before him, he cannot be faulted for not conducting a formal
trial, unless under the particular circumstances of the case, the
documents alone are insufficient. The proceedings before a
Labor Arbiter are non-litigious in nature. Subject to the
requirements of due process, the technicalities of law and the
rules obtaining in the courts of law do not strictly apply in
proceedings before a Labor Arbiter.
SO ORDERED.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J : p
Antecedent Facts
For its part, Fly Ace averred that it was engaged in the
business of importation and sales of groceries. Sometime in
December 2007, Javier was contracted by its employee, Mr.
Ong, as extra helper on a pakyaw basis at an agreed rate of
P300.00 per trip, which was later increased to P325.00 in
January 2008. Mr. Ong contractedJavier roughly 5 to 6 times
only in a month whenever the vehicle of its contracted hauler,
Milmar Hauling Services, was not available. On April 30,
2008, Fly Ace no longer needed the services of Javier. Denying
that he was their employee, Fly Ace insisted that there was no
illegal dismissal. 8 Fly Ace submitted a copy of its agreement
with Milmar Hauling Services and copies of acknowledgment
receipts evidencing payment to Javier for his contracted
services bearing the words, "daily manpower(pakyaw/piece
rate pay)" and the latter's signatures/initials.
On appeal with the NLRC, Javier was favored. It ruled that the
LA skirted the argument of Javier and immediately concluded
that he was not a regular employee simply because he failed to
present proof. It was of the view that a pakyaw-basis
arrangement did not preclude the existence of
employer-employee relationship. "Payment by result . . . is a
method of compensation and does not define the essence of the
relation. It is a mere method of computing compensation, not a
basis for determining the existence or absence of an
employer-employee relationship." 10 The NLRC further averred
that it did not follow that a worker was a job contractor and
not an employee, just because the work he was doing was not
directly related to the employer's trade or business or the work
may be considered as "extra" helper as in this case; and that the
relationship of an employer and an employee was determined
by law and the same would prevail whatever the parties may
call it. In this case, the NLRC held that substantial evidence was
sufficient basis for judgment on the existence of the
employer-employee relationship. Javier was a regular
employee of Fly Ace because there was reasonable connection
between the particular activity performed by the employee (as
a 'pahinante') in relation to the usual business or trade of the
employer (importation, sales and delivery of groceries). He may
not be considered as an independent contractor because he
could not exercise any judgment in the delivery of company
products. He was only engaged as a "helper."
1. Backwages - P45,770.83
Separation pay, in lieu of
2. - 8,450.00
reinstatement
–––––––––
TOTAL - P59,854.16
=========
SO ORDERED. 11
I.
II.
The petitioner contends that other than its bare allegations and
self-serving affidavits of the other employees, Fly Ace has
nothing to substantiate its claim that Javierwas engaged on
a pakyaw basis. Assuming that Javier was indeed hired on
a pakyaw basis, it does not preclude his regular employment
with the company. Even the acknowledgment receipts bearing
his signature and the confirming receipt of his salaries will not
show the true nature of his employment as they do not reflect
the necessary details of the commissioned task. Besides, Javier's
tasks as pahinante are related, necessary and desirable to the
line of business by Fly Ace which is engaged in the importation
and sale of grocery items. "On days when there were no
scheduled deliveries, he worked in petitioners' warehouse,
arranging and cleaning the stored cans for delivery to
clients." 15 More importantly, Javier was subject to the control
and supervision of the company, as he was made to report to
the office from Monday to Saturday, from 7:00 o'clock in the
morning until 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon. The list of
deliverable goods, together with the corresponding clients and
their respective purchases and addresses, would necessarily
have been prepared by Fly Ace. Clearly, he was subjected to
compliance with company rules and regulations as regards
working hours, delivery schedule and output, and his other
duties in the warehouse. 16 aCSEcA
Fly Ace points out that Javier merely offers factual assertions
that he was an employee of Fly Ace, "which are unfortunately
not supported by proof, documentary or
otherwise." 23 Javier simply assumed that he was an employee
of Fly Ace, absent any competent or relevant evidence to
support it. "He performed his contracted work outside the
premises of the respondent; he was not even required to report
to work at regular hours; he was not made to register his time
in and time out every time he was contracted to work; he was
not subjected to any disciplinary sanction imposed to other
employees for company violations; he was not issued a company
I.D.; he was not accorded the same benefits given to other
employees; he was not registered with the Social Security
System (SSS) as petitioner's employee; and, he was free to
leave, accept and engage in other means of livelihood as there is
no exclusivity of his contracted services with the petitioner, his
services being co-terminus with the trip only. All these lead to
the conclusion that petitioner is not an employee of the
respondents." 24
Moreover, Fly Ace claims that it had "no right to control the
result, means, manner and methods by which Javier would
perform his work or by which the same is to be
accomplished." 25 In other words, Javier and the company
driver were given a free hand as to how they would perform
their contracted services and neither were they subjected to
definite hours or condition of work.
As the records bear out, the LA and the CA found Javier's claim
of employment with Fly Ace as wanting and deficient. The
Court is constrained to agree. Although Section 10, Rule VII of
the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC 28 allows a relaxation
of the rules of procedure and evidence in labor cases, this rule of
liberality does not mean a complete dispensation of proof.
Labor officials are enjoined to use reasonable means to ascertain
the facts speedily and objectively with little regard to
technicalities or formalities but nowhere in the rules are they
provided a license to completely discount evidence, or the lack
of it. The quantum of proof required, however, must still be
satisfied. Hence, "when confronted with conflicting versions on
factual matters, it is for them in the exercise of discretion to
determine which party deserves credence on the basis of
evidence received, subject only to the requirement that their
decision must be supported by substantial
evidence." 29 Accordingly, the petitioner needs to show by
substantial evidence that he was indeed an employee of the
company against which he claims illegal dismissal.
In this case, Javier was not able to persuade the Court that the
above elements exist in his case. He could not submit competent
proof that Fly Ace engaged his services as a regular employee;
that Fly Ace paid his wages as an employee, or
that Fly Ace could dictate what his conduct should be while at
work. In other words, Javier's allegations did not establish that
his relationship with Fly Ace had the attributes of an
employer-employee relationship on the basis of the
above-mentioned four-fold test. Worse, Javier was not able to
refute Fly Ace's assertion that it had an agreement with a
hauling company to undertake the delivery of its goods. It was
also baffling to realize that Javier did not dispute Fly Ace's
denial of his services' exclusivity to the company. In short, all
that Javier laid down were bare allegations without
corroborative proof. IECAaD
Fly Ace does not dispute having contracted Javier and paid
him on a "per trip" rate as a stevedore, albeit on
a pakyaw basis. The Court cannot fail to note
that Fly Acepresented documentary proof that Javier was
indeed paid on a pakyaw basis per the acknowledgment
receipts admitted as competent evidence by the LA.
Unfortunately for Javier, his mere denial of the signatures
affixed therein cannot automatically sway us to ignore the
documents because "forgery cannot be presumed and must be
proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the
burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery." 36
Considering the above findings, the Court does not see the
necessity to resolve the second issue presented.
One final note. The Court's decision does not contradict the
settled rule that "payment by the piece is just a method of
compensation and does not define the essence of the
relation." 37 Payment on a piece-rate basis does not negate
regular employment. "The term 'wage' is broadly defined in
Article 97 of the Labor Code as remuneration or earnings,
capable of being expressed in terms of money whether fixed or
ascertained on a time, task, piece or commission basis.
Payment by the piece is just a method of compensation and
does not define the essence of the relations. Nor does the fact
that the petitioner is not covered by the SSS affect the
employer-employee relationship. However, in determining
whether the relationship is that of employer and employee or
one of an independent contractor, each case must be
determined on its own facts and all the features of the
relationship are to be considered." 38 Unfortunately for Javier,
the attendant facts and circumstances of the instant case do
not provide the Court with sufficient reason to uphold his
claimed status as employee of Fly Ace.
SO ORDERED.
||| (Javier v. Fly Ace Corp., G.R. No. 192558, [February 15,
2012], 682 PHIL 359-376)
D E CI S IO N
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J : p
Petitioners take the position that "it is beyond dispute that the
controversy in the court a quo involves or arose out of a labor
dispute and is directly connected or interwoven with the cases
pending with the NCMB-DOLE, and is thus beyond the ambit
of the public respondent's jurisdiction. That the acts complained
of (i.e., the mass concerted action of picketing and the reliefs
prayed for by the private respondent) are within the
competence of labor tribunals, is beyond question" (pp. 6-7,
Petitioners' Memo).
The claim of SanMig that the action below is for damages under
Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code would not suffice to
keep the case within the jurisdictional boundaries of regular
Courts. That claim for damages is interwoven with a labor
dispute existing between the parties and would have to be
ventilated before the administrative machinery established for
the expeditious settlement of those disputes. To allow the action
filed below to prosper would bring about "split jurisdiction"
which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice
(Philippine Communications, Electronics and Electricity
Workers Federation vs. Hon. Nolasco, L-24984, 29 July 1968,
24 SCRA 321).
SO ORDERED.
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J : p
The Case
The Facts
P736,909.34
=========
SO ORDERED.
SO ORDERED.
The CA applied the four-fold test in order to
determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship between the parties but did not find such
relationship. It determined that SSCP was not a labor-only
contractor and was an independent contractor having
substantial capital to operate and conduct its own business.
The CA further bolstered its decision by citing the
Agreement whereby it was stipulated that there shall be no
employer-employee relationship between the security guards
and PLDT.
The Issues
An Employer-Employee
Relationship Existed Between the Parties
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
RESOLUTION
VELASCO, JR., J : p
The prior decision of this Court in the present case accepts such
answer, but places a limitation upon the power of the DOLE,
that is, the determination of the existenceof an
employer-employee relationship cannot be co-extensive with
the visitorial and enforcement power of the DOLE. But even in
conceding the power of the DOLE to determine the
existence of an employer-employee relationship, the Court held
that the determination of the existence of an
employer-employee relationship is still primarily within the
power of the NLRC, that any finding by the DOLE is merely
preliminary.
There is a view that despite Art. 128 (b) of the Labor Code,as
amended by RA 7730, there is still a threshold amount set by
Arts. 129 and 217 of the Labor Code when money claims
are involved, i.e., that if it is for PhP5,000 and below, the
jurisdiction is with the regional director of the DOLE, under
Art. 129, and if the amount involved exceeds PhP5,000, the
jurisdiction is with the labor arbiter, under Art. 217. The view
states that despite the wording of Art. 128 (b), this would only
apply in the course ofregular inspections undertaken by the
DOLE, as differentiated from cases under Arts. 129 and 217,
which originate from complaints. There are several cases,
however, where the Court has ruled that Art. 128 (b) has been
amended to expand the powers of the DOLE Secretary and his
duly authorized representatives by RA 7730. In these cases, the
Court resolved that the DOLE had the jurisdiction, despite the
amount of the money claims involved. Furthermore, in these
cases, the inspection held by the DOLE regional director was
prompted specifically by a complaint. Therefore, the
initiation of a case through a complaint does not divest the
DOLE Secretary or his duly authorized
representative of jurisdiction under Art. 128 (b). CAcEaS
SO ORDERED.
Separate Opinions
Background
The case arose when the DOLE Regional Office No. VII
conducted an inspection of Bombo Radyo's premises in response
to Juezan's money claims against thebroadcasting company,
resulting in an order for Bombo Radyo to rectify/restitute
the labor standards violations discovered during the inspection.
Bombo Radyo failed to make any rectification or restitution,
prompting the DOLE to conduct a summary investigation.
Bombo Radyo reiterated its position, made during the
inspection, that Juezan was not its employee. Both parties
submitted evidence to support their respective positions.
The Dissent
In short, the Court now recognizes that the DOLE has the full
power to determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship in cases brought to it under Article 128 (b) of the
Labor Code.This power is parallel and not subordinate to
that of the NLRC.
But our Resolution does not fully go the DOLE's way. The Court,
at the same time, confirms its previous finding that no
employer-employee relationship exists between Juezan and
Bombo Radyo based on the evidence presented, 7 and that a
Deed of Assignment of Bank Deposits can be a substitute for a
cash or surety bond in perfecting an appeal to
the Labor Secretary.
ERNESTO
G. YMBONG, petitioner, vs. ABS-CBN BROADCAS
TING CORPORATION, VENERANDA SY AND
DANTE LUZON, respondents.
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J : p
SUBJECT : AS STATED
(Sgd.)
Leandro "Boy"
Patalinghug 6
TO : NESTOR YMBONG
SUBJECT : AS STATED
SO ORDERED. 13
SO ORDERED. 18 EHaASD
The NLRC dismissed ABS-CBN's Supplemental Appeal for being
filed out of time. The NLRC ruled that to entertain the same
would be to allow the parties to submit their appeal on
piecemeal basis, which is contrary to the agency's duty to
facilitate speedy disposition of cases. The NLRC also held
that ABS-CBN wielded the power of control over Ymbong and
Patalinghug, thereby proving the existence of an
employer-employee relationship between them.
I.
II.
III.
EVEN ASSUMING THE ALLEGED EMPLOYMENT
RELATION TO EXIST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT,
RESPONDENT NLRC IN ANY CASE COMMITTED A
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN NOT SIMILARLY
UPHOLDING AND APPLYING COMPANY POLICY NO.
HR-ER-016 IN THE CASE OF
RESPONDENT YMBONG AND DEEMING HIM AS
RESIGNED AND DISQUALIFIED FROM FURTHER
ENGAGEMENT AS A RADIO TALENT
IN ABS-CBN CEBU AS A CONSEQUENCE OF HIS
CANDIDACY IN THE 1998 ELECTIONS, AS
RESPONDENT NLRC HAD DONE IN THE CASE OF
PATALINGHUG. EAHcCT
IV.
V.
This is not the first time that this Court has dealt with a policy
similar to Policy No. HR-ER-016. In the case of Manila
Broadcasting Company v. NLRC, 32 this Court ruled:
Rationale:
SO ORDERED.
R E S O L U TI O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J : p
Atty. Agcaoili
Atty. Agana
Precisely, I am asking you if the hospital did a move, if
the hospital did a move.
Court
SO ORDERED.
VILLARAMA, JR., J : p
2. Backwages P30,400.00
––––––––––
==========
The other claims and the case against respondent
Estanislao Agbay are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 13
SO ORDERED. 18
SO ORDERED. 20
6.1
6.2
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
CORRECTLY APPRECIATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
APPLICABLE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE THE
EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY BOTH PARTIES.
6.3
6.4
Nor does the fact that respondent's name does not appear in
the payrolls and pay envelope records submitted by petitioners
negate the existence of employer-employee relationship. For a
payroll to be utilized to disprove the employment of a person, it
must contain a true and complete list of the employee. 37 In
this case, the exhibits offered by petitioners before the NLRC
consisting of copies of payrolls and pay earnings records are
only for the years 1999 and 2000; they do not cover the
entire 18-year period during which respondent supposedly
worked for SEIRI.
SO ORDERED.
DECISION
REYES, J : p
Bernard
10/1997 07/03/07 Boundary System
A. Tenazas
Jaime M.
04/10/04 06/04/07 Boundary System
Francisco
Boundary
Isidro G. Endraca 04/2000 03/06/06
System 7
SO ORDERED. 20
SO ORDERED. 22
SO ORDERED.