Labor 2 Cases

Insular Life insurance co ltd v NLRC. 179 SCRA 459 Nov.
15, 1989
Insular Life insurance co Ltd v. NLRC 287 SCRA 476 March 12, 1998
Wilhelmina Orosco v. CA 562 SCRA 36 Aug 13, 2008
Jose Sonza et al v ABS CBN Broadcasting 431 SCRA 583 June 10, 2004
Dy khe beng v. International Labor 90 SCRA 161 May 25, 1979
EMPLOYER- Atok Big Wedge Co. Inc. v Gison 655 SCRA 193 Aug., 8, 2011
EMPLOYEE Mettioro v. Creative Creatures Inc. 592 SCRA 481 July 13, 2009
RELATIONSHIP Expedition Construction Corp. v. Africa 849 SCRA 327 Dec 14, 2017
AFP Mutual Benefits v. NLRC 267 SCRA 47 Jan. 28, 1997
Great Pacific Life Assurance Corp. v. NLRC 187 SCRA 694
Palumado v. NLRC G.R. 257680 ( just read the last paragraph)
Loreche- Amit v. CMDC GR 216635 June 3 2019
Fernandez v Caloocan House G.R. 225075 June 19, 2019
Remington v Castaneda
Repulblic v Asiapro
Manila Hotel v NLRC
Pacific Consultants Industrial Asia v Klaus Schonfeld
JURISDICTION OF
NLRC Banez v Valdevilla
COMMISSIONERS Food Traders House v NLRC
AND LABOR Tabang v NLRC
ARBITERS
Apex Mining v NLRC
Victoria Manufacturing Employees Union v. Victoria Manufacturing
Agustin International Center Inc. v El Frenito Bartolome and Rumby Yamat
Pasay City Alliance Church CAMACOP v. Fe Benito 226908
PNB v. Cabansag
Delta Ventures v Cabato
JURISDICTION OF
NLRC AFP Mutual Benefits v. CA
COMMISSIONERS Union Motors v. NLRC
AND LABOR Grotjahn V Isnani
ARBITERS
Santos v. Servier
Pioneer Concrete v. Todaro
Pioneer Texturize Corp. v. NLRC
Villa v. NLRC
Boardwalk v. Villalreal
Intertranz v. Bautista
Gaudia v. NLRC
APPEALS ON Phil Rural Reconstruction v. NLRC
JURISDICTION UERM v. NLRC
Morticio v CA
Lampeza v. De Vera
Nicol v. Foot joy
R&E Transport v. Latag
Bristol Myerrs v. Viloria
SMC foods Inc. v. SMC
UST Faculty Union v. UST
Eagle Ridge v. CA
TRADE UNIONISM
NUBE v. PNB
TRADE UNIONISM
Heritage Hotel v SOLE

De Ocampo Memorial School v. Bigkis
Kimberly v. Drilon
Lakas ng Industriya v. Burlingame
REPRESENTATION Oriental Tin Can v. Sec of Labor
STATUS Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Filsystems v. Sec of Labor
Takatak Corp v. Bureau of Labor Relations
AIM v. AIM Faculty
NLRC Rules of Procedure
https://nlrc.dole.gov.ph/uploads/content/2019.NLRC.Rules.Version.2.pdf
Sombilon
Alejo
Lozano
Jareno
Imperial
Dadulla
Fauni
Gadaingan
Delgado
Guerra
Untalan
Ching
Ambayec
Conejos
Blanco
Alega
Sombilon
Alejo
Lozano
Jareno
Imperial
Dadulla
Fauni
Gadaingan
Delgado
Guerra
Untalan
Ching
Ambayec
Conejos
Blanco
C.Rules.Version.2.pdf
MAIN
Insular Life V. NLRC and Basiao
Facts
Basiao entered into a contract with Insular life to become an insurance agent and get commissions as compensation in return.
and means of solocitin insurance. There were restrictions too such as giving, directly or indirectly, rebates in any form, or from
Agent's Manual and in circulars of the Office of the Insurance Commissioner.
Insular Life may terminate the contract at will, without any previous notice to the Basiao for or on account of explicitly specifie
termination of this agreement for any cause whatsoever, except when the termination is due to disability or death in line of se
termination of this agreement, the Agent shall be entitled to it if the balance of the first year premium is paid, less actual cost
Four years later, Insular Life and Basiao entered int o another contract which is an Agency Manager's Contract.
In 1979, Insular terminated the Agency Manager's Contract. Basiao sued Insular in a civil action. Later, Insular terminated his e
Basiao file a complaint to the Ministry of Labor to recover unpaid commissions.

The Labor Arbiter to whom the case was assigned found for Basiao. He ruled that the underwriting agreement had established
of Labor to adjudicate his claim. This decision was, on appeal by the Company, affirmed by the National Labor Relations Comm
Issue
W/N Basiao and Insular Life have employer-employee relation
W/N The ministry of labor has juristdiction of the case
Held
No. Basiao's status was that of an independent contractor. The cour cited Viana vs. Alejo Al-Lagadan which provided
In determining the existence of employer-employee relationship, the following elements are generally considered, namely: (1
power to control the employees' conduct — although the latter is the most important element
the terms of the contract they had entered into, which, either expressly or by necessary implication, made Basiao the master o
accomplishment quotas and compensated him on the basis of results obtained. He was not bound to observe any schedule of
chose to, and was free to adopt the selling methods he deemed most effective. - whch dos not pass the control test
The Court, therefore, rules that under the contract invoked by him, Basiao was not an employee of the petitioner, but a comm
ordinary civil action. The Labor Arbiter erred in taking cognizance of, and adjudicating, said claim, being without jurisdiction to
premature to consider Basiao's claim for commissions on its merits.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/nov1989/gr_84484_1989.html
MAIN
Insular Life V. NLRC, LA Aninon and Delos Reyes
Facts
In 1992, Insular Life entered into an agency contract with Pantaleon Delos Reyes where the latter will act as an insurance agen
created between the parties and that the agent shall be free to exercise his own judgment as to time, place and means of solic
company, and violation of this was sufficient ground for termination of the contract. Delos Reyes was required to submit to In
and collect initial premiums and balances of first year premiums, renewal premiums, deposits on applications and payments o
him. He was also urged to register with the Social Security System as a self-employed individual.
In 1993, parties entered into another Contract where Delos Reyes was appointed as Acting Unit Manager. In the same year, de
In 1994, Pantaleon Delos Reyes filed a case for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of salaries and back wages against Insular Life
between De los Reyes and INSULAR LIFE.
Delos Reyes appealed and the dismissal was reversed by the NLRC. NLRC determined that De los Reyes was under the effectiv
was not an independent contractor; (b) he was required to meet certain manpower and production quota; and, (c) petitioner
Insular Life filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied and remanded the case to the labor arbiter for hearing on the ca
with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue
W/N Delos Reyes and Insular have employer-employee relationship.
W/N the doctrine of stare decisis is applicable to the case in consideration to Basiao v. NLRC
Held
Yes, delos Reyes and Insular Life have emplyer Employee relationship
Delos Reyes was appointed as Acting Unit Manager only upon recommendation of the District Manager which is an indicator
designation of the appointment of private respondent as "acting" unit manager obviously implies a temporary employment st
under Sec. 6 of the management contract.
As to the payment of wages, Insular Life claims that Delos Reyes was compensated strictly on commission basis but the manag
while his entitlement to the free portion (P300) and the validated portion (P1,200) was monthly starting on the first month of
entitlement at least to the free portion of the UDF
As to the matter involving the power of dismissal and control by the employer, the contract provides that Delos Reyes shall be
manpower and production quotas; INSULAR controlled the assignment and removal of soliciting agents
In Basiao, the agent was appointed Agency Manager under an Agency Manager Contract. De los Reyes was appointed Acting U
exclusively for petitioner in life insurance solicitation and was imposed premium production quotas. Of course, the acting unit
life insurance only and for no other. He was proscribed from accepting a managerial or supervisory position in any other office
permanent unit manager if he met certain requirements and his promotion was recommended by the petitioner's District Man
performed functions beyond mere solicitation of insurance business for petitioner. As found by the NLRC, he exercised admini
WHEREFORE, the petition of Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd., is DENIED and the Decision of the National Labor Relations
REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter a quo who is directed to hear and dispose of this case with deliberate dispatch in light of the
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_119930_1998.html#fnt13
MAIN
Orozco v. CA, PDI and Magsanoc
FACTS
Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) engaged the services of Orzoco to write a weekly column for its Lifestyle section. She religiously
in Chief, wanted to stop publishing her column for no reason at all. When Orzoco talked to Magsanoc, the latter informed her
Magsanoc that informed her that the Lifestyle section already had many columnists.
In a meeting conducted by Magsanoc and the Lifestyle section editor on how to improve said section, They agreed to cut dow
continued to be superficially and poorly written, and failed to meet the high standards of the newspaper. Hence, they decided
other money claims before the NLRC. Labor Arbiter decided in favor of Orzoco. PDI appealed the Decision to the NLRC, the latt
aside the NLRC Decision and dismissed Orzoco's Complaint. It held that the NLRC misappreciated the facts and rendered a ruli
ISSUE
W/N Orzoco is an employee of PDI
HELD
No. Not all rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party indicate that the latter is an employee of the former. Rules wh
control. Orzoco believes that PDI acts are meant to control how she executes her work usch as the content of her work, the de
issues on time by PDI and Magsanoc who have a say on whether the topics belong to those considered as highly relevant and
The Office of the SOLGEN said that The Inquirer is the publisher of a newspaper of general circulation which is widely read thro
over Orzoco as to the means or method used by her in the preparation of her articles. The articles are done by Orzoco herself
The newspaper’s power to approve or reject publication of any specific article she wrote for her column cannot be the control
the right to accept or reject the product. The important factor to consider in the "control test" is still the element of control ov
Aside from the control test, this Court has also used the economic reality test. The economic realities prevailing within the acti
of the relationship between the parties. This is especially appropriate when, as in this case, there is no written agreement or c
rights advocate working in various women’s organizations. Likewise, she herself admits that she also contributes articles to oth
respondent’s line of business.
Furthermore, respondent PDI did not supply petitioner with the tools and instrumentalities she needed to perform her work. P
perform her work.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_155207_2008.html
MAIN
Sonza v. ABS-CBN
FACTS
In May 1994, ABS-CBN signed an Agreement with the Mel and Jay Management and Development Corporation (“MJMDC”). R
talent for radio and television. specifically as Co-host for Mel & Jay radio and TV program
In April 1996, SONZA resigned s ABS CBN violated their agreement. He then filed a complaint against ABS-CBN before the Dep
incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, signing bonus, travel allowance and amounts due under the Employees Stock Option Pla
The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. SONZA appealed to the NLRC. the NLRC rendered a Decision
filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailing the decision and resolution of the NLRC. The CA di
The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s finding that no employer-employee relationship existed between SONZA and ABS-CB
complainant Sonza, the principal. By all indication and as the law puts it, the act of the agent is the act of the principal itself. T
to managing the careers of Mr. Sonza and his broadcast partner, Mrs. Carmela C. Tiangco.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the existence of an employer-employee relationship between SONZA and ABS-CBN is a factua
issues of want or excess of jurisdiction of the NLRC.Such action cannot cover an inquiry into the correctness of the evaluation
ISSUE
W/N Sonza is an employee of ABSCBN
HELD
A. Selection and Engagement of Employee

The specific selection and hiring of SONZA, because of his unique skills, talent and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary e
B. Payment of Wages
The payment of talent fees directly to SONZA and not to MJMDC does not negate the status of SONZA as an independent cont
SONZA, to whom MJMDC would have to turn over any talent fee accruing under the Agreement.
C. Power of Dismissal
SONZA assails the Labor Arbiter’s interpretation of his rescission of the Agreement as an admission that he is not an employee
merely resign, instead." SONZA did actually resign from ABS-CBN but he also, as president of MJMDC, rescinded the Agreemen
CBN is immaterial. Whether SONZA rescinded the Agreement or resigned from work does not determine his status as employe
D. Power of Control
ABS-CBN engaged SONZA’s services specifically to co-host the "Mel & Jay" programs. ABS-CBN did not assign any other work t
television, and sounded on radio were outside ABS-CBN’s control. SONZA did not have to render eight hours of work per day.
production staff meetings. ABS-CBN could not dictate the contents of SONZA’s script. However, the Agreement prohibited SON
ABS-CBN merely reserved the right to modify the program format and airtime schedule "for more effective programming." AB
exercise control over the means and methods of performance of SONZA’s work.
Additionally, A radio broadcast specialist who works under minimal supervision is an independent contractor. SONZA’s work a
records do not show that ABS-CBN exercised any supervision and control over how SONZA utilized his skills and talent in his sh
Lastly, Being an exclusive talent does not by itself mean that SONZA is an employee of ABS-CBN. Even an independent contrac
necessarily the same as control.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jun2004/gr_138051_2004.html
MAIN
Dy Keh Beng v. International Labor And Marine Union of the phils
FACTS
Dy Keh Beng owned a basket factory. He dismissed Solano and Tudla for their union activities so they charged the latter of un
Marine Union of the Philippines and two of its members, Solano and Tudla. Dy contented that Solano and Tudla have worked
labor practice and ordered to reinstate Carlos Solano and Ricardo Tudla to their former jobs with backwages from their respec
acquired by them and/or allowed by law.
ISSUES
W/N there's employee-employer relation between Dy Keh Beng and the Solano and Tudla
HELD
Yes, An employee-employer relationship was found to have existed between Dy Keh Beng and complainants Tudla and Solano
It should be borne in mind that the control test calls merely for the existence of the right to control the manner of doing the w
of Dy Keh Beng is "engaged in the manufacture of baskets known as kaing, it is natural to expect that those working under Dy
necessarily be exercised by Dy as the making of the kaing would be subject to Dy's specifications. Parenthetically, since the wo
control on the men he employed.
The court also cited Sunrise Coconut Products Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations which opined that judicial notice of the fact t
contract -between employers and employees, between capitalists and laborers.
Nevertheless, considering that about eighteen (18) years have already elapsed from the time the complainants were dismissed
respective dates of dismissal until finally reinstated, it is fitting to apply in this connection the formula for backwages worked o
backwages without qualification and deduction to three years, "subject to deduction where there are mitigating circumstance
circumstances. Considering there are no such circumstances in this case, there is no reason why the Court should not apply th
WHEREFORE; the award of backwages granted by the Court of Industrial Relations is herein modified to an award of backwage
concerned were receiving at the time of dismissal. The execution of this award is entrusted to the National Labor Relations Co
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1979/may1979/gr_l_32245_1979.html
MAIN
Atok v. Gison
FACTS
Gison was a part-time consultant on retainer basis by Atok through its then Asst. Vice-President and Acting Resident Manager
requested by the management to discuss matters needing his expertise as a consultant. As payment for his services, responde
requested Atok cause his registration with the SSS but Atok refused because he was only a consultant. Gison fiked a complaint
retainer contract will be terminated. Gison filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, underpayment of wages
The Labor arbiter, Finding no employer-employee relationship the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
Gison appealed to NLRC but the latter affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter. It was escalated to the CA. the CA rendered th
Jesus P. Gison to his former or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and to pay him full backwages, inclusive of a
up to the time of his actual and effective reinstatement.
The CA applied aritcle 280 of the Labor Code, or the provision which distinguishes between two kinds of employees, i.e., regul
petitioner after the lapse of one year from his employment. Considering also that respondent had been performing services fo
ISSUES
W/N the CA erred in applying Article 280 of the Labor Code in determining whether there was an employer-employee relation
HELD
Yes. To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship jurisprudence has invariably adhered to the four-fold te
and (4) the power to control the employee's conduct, or the so-called "control test." Of these four, the last one is the most im
Among other things, respondent was not required to report everyday during regular office hours of petitioner. Respondent's m
not prescribe the manner in which respondent would accomplish any of the tasks in which his expertise as a liaison officer was
method. Respondent was assigned tasks to perform, but petitioner did not control the manner and methods by which respond
conclusion that he is not an employee of the petitioner.
Gison was well aware of the agreement that he was hired merely as a liaison or consultant of the petitioner and he agreed to
that he became a regular employee of the petitioner based on his contention that the "temporary" aspect of his job and its "li
employee of the petitioner by continually performing services for the company.
Furthermore, despite the fact that petitioner made use of the services of respondent for eleven years, he still cannot be consid
findings that respondent became a regular employee of the petitioner, is not applicable in the case at bar. Indeed, the Court h
it merely distinguishes between two kinds of employees, i.e., regular employees and casual employees, for purposes of determ
where the existence of an employment relationship is in dispute. It is, therefore, erroneous on the part of the Court of Appeal
the petitioner
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_169510_2011.html
MAIN
Meteoro v Creative Creatures
FACTS
Creative Creatures primarily caters to the production design requirements of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation in Metro Man
tasked to design, create, assemble, set-up and dismantle props, and provide sound effects to respondent’s various TV program
In March 1999, petitioners filed their respective complaints for non-payment of night shift differential pay, overtime pay, holid
educational assistance, rice benefits, and illegal and/or unauthorized deductions from salaries against Creative Creatures befo
creative creatures contended argued thatDOLE had no jurisdiction over the complaint of the petitioners because of the absen
with skills and expertise inherently exclusive to them like actors, actresses, directors, producers, and script writers, such that t
In April 1999 etitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner, with prayer for payment of overtime pay, prem
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Later that yearDOLE Regional Director Lim ordered Creative Creatures to pay the
Creative Creatures appealed to the DOLE secretary who affirmed the findings of the DOLE regional director. Creative creature
Petitioners then filed a review on certiorari.
ISSUES
W/N the DOLE Secretary or his duly authorized representative, or the NLRC has jurisdiction over money claims
HELD
Yes. The DOLE Secretary and her authorized representatives, such as the DOLE-NCR Regional Director, have jurisdiction to enfo
Labor Code, and expanded by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7730, Art. 128. Visitorial and Enforcement Power –
(a) The Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives, including labor regulation officers, shall have access to emplo
therefrom, to question any employee and investigate any fact, condition or matter which may be necessary to determine viola
pursuant thereto.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary, and in cases where the relationship of e
have the power to issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor legisla
inspection. The Secretary or his duly authorized representatives shall issue writs of execution, to the appropriate authority for
enforcement officer and raises issues supported by documentary proofs which were not considered in the course of inspectio
This notwithstanding, the power of the Regional Director to hear and decide the monetary claims of employees is not absolute
when the Regional Director or his representatives may be divested of jurisdiction over a labor standards case.
Under prevailing jurisprudence, the so-called "exception clause" has the following elements, all of which must concur:
(a) that the employer contests the findings of the labor regulations officer and raises issues thereon;
(b) that in order to resolve such issues, there is a need to examine evidentiary matters; and
(c) that such matters are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.
In the present case, the CA aptly applied the "exception clause." At the earliest opportunity, respondent registered its objectio
petitioners were contractual workers and/or independent and talent workers without control or supervision and also supplied
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals Decision dated May 31, 2005
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_171275_2009.html
There is no hard and fast rule designed to establish the aforesaid elements. Any competent and relevant evidence to prove th
employment contracts, payrolls, organization charts, and personnel lists, serve as evidence of employee status. These pieces o
looked into by the labor inspector (in the course of inspection) when confronted with the question of the existence or absence
To resolve the issue raised by respondent, that is, the existence of an employer-employee relationship, there is need to exami
other pieces of evidence are considered in ascertaining the true nature of the parties’ relationship. This is especially true in de
test," that is, whether the employer controls or has reserved the right to control the employee, not only as to the result of the
the key requirement for the Regional Director and the DOLE Secretary to be divested of jurisdiction is that the evidentiary ma
inspection, even if presented belatedly by the employer, the Regional Director, and later the DOLE Secretary, may still examin
MAIN
Expedition v. Africa
FACTS
ISSUES
HELD
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/dec2017/gr_228671_2017.html
MAIN
AFP Mutual v NLRC
FACTS
Bustamante had been an insurance underwriter of AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. since 1975. His responsibilities include
which it may from time to time, revise, modify or cancel to serve its business interests. adn he shall confine his business activi
the area for which he/she is lictamanteensed and as authoriied, provided however, that AFPMBAI may from time to time, assi
commission due for all premiums actually due and received by AFPMBAI out of life insurance policies solicited and obtained. In
life insurance company in violation of said agreement.At thetime of his dismissal Bustamante was entitled to get a commission
bustamante signed a quitclaim in favor of AFP mutual.
Bustamante learned that his total expected commission is at 350Knhowever he was was paid only the amount of P35,000.00.
Bustamante filed a complaint with the Office of the Insurance Commissioner praying for the payment of the correct amount o
with DOLE and the Labor arboter denied the claim for separation pay. All other claims of the complainant are dismissed for wa
ISSUES
W/N the NLRC has jusrisdiction over the case
HELD
No
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/jan1997/gr_102199_1997.html
MAIN
Meteoro v Creative Creatures
FACTS
ISSUES
HELD
MAIN
An indispensable precondition of illegal dismissal is the prior existence of an employer-employee relationship; in this case, sinc
allegation of illegal dismissal does not have any leg to stand on. The claims for backwages, separation pay and other benefits m
MAIN
REMINGTON V CASTANEDA
FACTS
Castaneda stated working as as company cook with a salary of Php 4,000.00 for Remington. she worked for six (6) days a week
even later.
When Remington transferred to a new site in Caloocan, Castaneda was prevented from reporting for work ansd was later info
In 1998, Castaneda instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of overtime services, no
the NLRC.
Remington averred that the illegal dismissal complaint lacked factual and legal bases. It posited that Erlinda was a domestic he
was Erlinda who refused to report for work when Remington moved to a new location
The LA dismissed the complaint. and ruled that she was a DH under the personal service of Antonio Tan. Upon appeal, the Nati
Remington
Petitioner moved to reconsider this decision but the NLRC denied the motion which prompted a petition for certiorai with the
increasing the award of retirement pay due the complainant
ISSUES
w/n NLRC lost its jurisdiction on the case when a petition for certiorari was filed with the CA
HELD
No. under Section 7 of Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, the petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal case un
respondent from further proceeding with the case. Thus, the mere pendency of a special civil action for certiorari, in connectio
injunction. Clearly, there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in issuing its second decision which modifie
its first decision
MAIN
REPUBLIC REPRESENTIVE BY THE SSC AND SSS V ASIAPRO COOPERATIVE
FACTS
Asiapro, as a cooperative, is composed of owners-members. Under itsby-laws, owners-members are of two categories, (1)regu
right to vote and be voted upon and shall beentitledonly to such rights and privileges providedin its by-laws. Its primaryobjecti
the discharge of theaforesaid primary objectives, respondent cooperative entered into severalService Contracts with Stanfi
receivecompensation or wages from therespondent cooperative. Instead, theyreceive a share in the service surplus which Asia
Stanfilco. In order to enjoy the benefits undertheSocial Security Law of 1997, theowners-members of Asiapro assignedto Stanfi
such. On September26, 2002, petitioner SSS sent a letter to respondent cooperativeinformingthe latter that based o
toStanfilco and so,it is an employer of its owners-members working withStanfilco. Thus, Asiapro should register itself with peti
Despite letters received, respondent cooperativecontinuously ignored the demand of petitioner SSS. Accordingly, SSS filed ape
an employer and to report Asiapro‘sowners-members as covered employees under the compulsory coverageofSSS and to rem
employer-employeerelationship exists between it and its owners-members, thus, petitionerSSC has no jurisdiction over the re
ISSUES
1. Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship betweenAsiapro Cooperative and its owners-members.
2. Whether or not petitioner has jurisdiction over the petition-complaintfiled before it by SSS against the respondent cooperati
HELD
1.In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, thefollowing elements are considered: (1) the selection
power tocontrol theworker‘s conduct, with the latterassuming primacy in the overall consideration. The most important elem
employee relationship cannot be negated byexpressly repudiating it in a contract, when the terms and surroundingcircumstan
say it should be.A cooperative acquires juridical personality upon its registration with theCooperative Development Authority.
charge in the conduct and management of its affairs. With that, acooperative can be likened to a corporation with a personalit
employee of the latter and the employer-employee relationship can exist between them.
2. Petitioner SSC‘s jurisdiction is clearly stated in Section 5 of R.A. No. 8282 as well as inSection 1, Rule III of the 1997 SSS Revis
Act with respect to coverage, benefits,contributions and penalties thereon or any other matter related thereto,shall be cogniz
Procedurestates:―Section 1. Jurisdiction –Any dispute arising under the Social Security Act with respect to coverage,entitlem
shall be cognizableby the Commission after the SSS through its President, Manager or Officer-in-charge of the Department/Bra
from the aforesaid provisions that any issue regarding thecompulsory coverage of the SSS is well within the exclusive domain
existence of an employer-employeerelationship. Consequently, the respondent cooperative being theemployer of its ow
the necessarypremium contributions in accordance with the Social Security Law of1997.Accordingly, based on the allegations
FACTS
ISSUES
HELD
FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS
ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES
HELD HELD HELD HELD HELD HELD HELD HELD HELD HELD
FACTS FACTS
ISSUES ISSUES
HELD HELD
MAIN
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_120077_2000.html
Manila Hotel V NLRC
FACTS
Santos was emplyed as a printer in Oman. In 1988, the Palace Hotel Manager sent a letter to Santos, offering him a jb in China
In 1989 Mr. Shmidt's Executive Secretary, a certain Joanna suggested in a handwritten note that respondent Santos be given o
signed by Mr. Shmidt that his employment at the Palace Hotel print shop would be terminated due to business reverses broug
Through his lawyer Santos demanded full compensation pursuant to the employment agreement.On February 20, 1990, respo
The Palace Hotel and Mr. Shmidt were not served with summons and neither participated in the proceedings before the Labor
had jurisdiction over the case. NLRC decased the deceision null and void due to jurisdiction. On appeal, NLRC ruled in favor of
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that Labor Arbiter de Vera's recommendation had no basis in law and in
ISSUES
W/N NLRC has jurisdiction over the case
HELD
No.the main aspects of the case transpired in two foreign jurisdictions and the case involves purely foreign elements. The only
foreign corporations. Not all cases involving our citizens can be tried here.
Santos was hired directly by the Palace Hotel, a foreign employer, through correspondence sent to the Sultanate of Oman, wh
agency of the government.
Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do
in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine court has or is likely to have
Additionally, NLRC is not convient forum for the case as defendants, the Palace Hotel and MHICL are not nationals of the Philip
residents of the Philippines.
Neither can an intelligent decision be made as to the law governing the employment contract as such was perfected in foreign
either can the NLRC determine the facts surrounding the alleged illegal dismissal as all acts complained of took place in Beijing
adversely affected operations of the Palace Hotel as to justify respondent Santos' retrenchment. Even assuming that a proper
Palace Hotel is a corporation incorporated under the laws of China and was not even served with summons. Jurisdiction over i
foreign employers. Neither are we saying that we do not have power over an employment contract executed in a foreign coun
MAIN
https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2007/feb2007/gr_166920_2007.php
PACIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL ASIA, INC. and JENS PETER H
FACTS
Pacicon Philippines, Inc. is a corporation which purpose to engage in the business of providing specialty and technical services
of PPI, Jens Peter Henrichsen, who was also the director of PCIJ, was based in Tokyo, Japan. In 1997, PCIJ decided to engage in
Schonfield, a canadian citizend and a resident of New Westminster, British Columbia. Schonfield accepted the job as PPI Secto
In 1999, Henrichsen informed Schonfield through letter that his employment had been terminated for the reason that PCIJ and
to stay put in his job until such time that he would be able to report on certain projects and discuss all the opportunities he ha
Schonfield filed with PPI several money claims, including unpaid salary, leave pay, air fare from Manila to Canada, and cost of
Schonfield then field a case in NLRC for Illegal Dismissal against PPI and Henrichsen with the Labor Arbiter.
the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision granting petitioners' Motion to Dismiss.

On appeal, the NLRC agreed with the disquisitions of the Labor Arbiter and affirmed the latter's decision in toto.
CA rendered its decision nd reversed the decision of NLRC
ISSUES
W/N The NLRC has jusrisdiction to this case
HELD
Yes.
The settled rule on stipulations regarding venue, as held by this Court in the vintage case of Philippine Banking Corporation v.
supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court in the absence of qualifying or restrictive words. Th
They are not exclusive but, rather permissive. If the intention of the parties were to restrict venue, there must be accompanyi
only at the place named by them.
n the instant case, no restrictive words like "only," "solely," "exclusively in this court," "in no other court save —," "particularly
court of arbitration in London is an exclusive venue to bring forth any complaint arising out of the employment contract.
The bare fact that respondent is a Canadian citizen and was a repatriate does not warrant the application of the principle for
First. The Labor Code of the Philippines does not include forum non conveniens as a ground for the dismissal of the complaint
Second. The propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual determination; hence, it is properly consid
Third. In Bank of America, NT&SA, Bank of America International, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, this Court held that:
[a] Philippine Court may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so; provided, that the following requisites are me
in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and, (3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to hav
MAIN
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2000maydecisions.php?id=567
BEBIANO M. BAÑEZ v. DOWNEY C. VALDEVILLA, ET AL.
FACTS
Banez was the sales operations manager of Oro Marketing in its branch in Iligan City.
In 1993, Oro Marketing "indefinitely suspended" Banez and teh latter filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC. LA f
and of backwages and attorney’s fees. It was appealed to nLRC but was dismisse for having been filed out of time. A petition fo
procedural requirements for the filing of the petition were met, it would still be dismissed for failure to show grave abuse of d
In 1995, Oro Maketing filed a complaint for damages before the RTC. Banez filed a motion to dismiss. Hon Valdevilla believes s
courts.
Banez filed motion for reconsideration but was denied due to lack of erit. Hence this case
Banez reiterates the grounds raised in the Motion to Dismiss namely, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action
jurisdiction.
ISSUES
W/N the Regular Court has jurisdiction over the case
HELD
No.
Article 217(a), paragraph 4 of the Labor Code, which was already in effect at the time of the filing of this case, reads:
ARTICLE 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. — (a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the Labo
submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations;
Banez claim against Oro Marketingvfor actual damages arose from a prior employer-employee relationship. In the first place, O
concurrently its employee. Thus, the damages alleged in the complaint below are: first, those amounting to lost profits and ea
preoccupied by his unauthorized installment sale scheme; and second, those equivalent to the value of private respondent’s p
Second, and more importantly, to allow respondent court to proceed with the instant action for damages would be to open an
of private respondent’s property. This issue has been duly raised and ruled upon in the illegal dismissal case, where private res
support thereof. The Labor Arbiter, however, found to the contrary — that no business losses may be attributed to petitioner
(where petitioner was employed) reached its highest record level to the extent that petitioner was awarded the 1989 Field Sal
fact with the knowledge of the management of the Iligan branch of private Respondent. 12 In other words, the issue of actual
MAIN
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1998decemberdecisions.php?id=1125
FOOD TRADERS HOUSE, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and BARBARA A. CAMACHO-ESPINO,
FACTS
Espino was hired by Food Tradersas its Marketing Manger but was dismissed due to her conflict with the President Alinas. Foo
Espino filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal and Illegal Deduction filed by Espino against Food Traders and Alinas. The LA foun
applying the same to her personal loan the Labor Arbiter ordered Espino’s immediate reinstatement, payment of full back wag
The LA ordered that 36k be deducted form Espino’s previously computed back wages. as she was earning with Higure Internati
personal loan, now amounting only to P7,500.00, should also be deducted from the computation of back wages.
ISSUES
W/N NLRC has jurisdiction to deduct earnings earned elsewhere by Espino during the pendency of the case in the computation
HELD
No
There is want of evidence that the P15,000 or P7,500.00 supposed indebtedness of Espino to Alinas arose out of employer-em
Espino and out of the personal funds of Alinas. Clearly, this personal loan is not within the ambit of the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdic
Under par. (b) of Art. 217 of the Labor Code, the NLRC shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by labo
the NLRC cannot have appellate jurisdiction thereon, 8 much less receive additional evidence. As a result, the NLRC gravely ab
personal loan on the ground that it does not fall within the Labor Arbiter’s exclusive original jurisdiction.
MAIN
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1997januarydecisions.php?id=38
PURIFICACION G. TABANG, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PAMANA GOLDEN CARE MEDICAL
FACTS
Tabang was a founding member, a member of the Board of Trustees, and the corporate secretary of Pamana Golden Care Me
appointed Medical Director and Hospital Administrator of Pamana Golden Care Medical Center in Calamba, Laguna.
her appointment did not mention of the renumeration for the position but she received a monthly retainer fee of five thousan
In 1993, she was relived of her position. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages, allowances and
Pamana moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. It argued that
the Board of Trustees, hence, her dismissal is an intra-corporate controversy which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Tabang opposed and contended that her position as Medical Director and Hospital Administrator was separate and distinct fro
The LA issued an order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction He ruled that the case falls within the jurisdiction of the
On appeal, the LA ordered the elevation of the entire records of the case to NLRC for appellate review.
On appeal, respondent NLRC affirmed the dismissal of the case on the additional ground that "the position of a Medical Direct
petitioner’s removal from the said position was an intra-corporate controversy within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of
ISSUES
W/N the SEC has jurisdiction over the case
HELD
Yes
The charges against herein private respondent partake of the nature of an intra-corporate controversy. Similarly, the determi
medical director and/or hospital administrator, which are corporate offices, is an intra-corporate controversy subject to the ju
a medical director and a hospital administrator are considered as corporate officers under the by-laws of respondent corporati
Director, Comptroller/Administrator, Chiefs of Services and such other officers as it may deem necessary and prescribe their p
The president, vice-president, secretary and treasurer are commonly regarded as the principal or executive officers of a corpo
offices are sometimes created by the charter or by-laws of a corporation, or the board of directors may be empowered under
A corporate officer’s dismissal is always a corporate act, or an intra-corporate controversy, and the nature is not altered by the
controversy is one which arises between a stockholder and the corporation. There is no distinction, qualification, nor any exem
corporations.
MAIN
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/apr1991/gr_94951_1991.html
APEX V NLRC
FACTS
Candida was employed by Apex Mining Company to perform laundry services at its staff house. She was initially paid on a per
back on a stone She reported the accident to her immediate supervisor Mila de la Rosa and to the personnel officer, Florendo
medication. De la Rosa offered her the amount of P 2,000.00 which was eventually increased to P5,000.00 to persuade her to
and dismissed her on February 4, 1988.
Candida filed a complaint against APex and the LA rendered a decision in her favor
Apex appealed to NLRC but it was dismissed for lack of merit. A motion for reconsideration thereof was denied.
ISSUES
W/N Candida should be treated as a mere househelper or domestic servant and not as a regular employee
HELD
No.
Under Rule XIII, Section l(b), Book 3 of the Labor Code, as amended, the terms "househelper" or "domestic servant" are define
The term "househelper" as used herein is synonymous to the term "domestic servant" and shall refer to any person, whether
desirable for the maintenance and enjoyment thereof, and ministers exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of the
The foregoing definition clearly contemplates such househelper or domestic servant who is employed in the employer's home
family drivers, domestic servants, laundry women, yayas, gardeners, houseboys and other similar househelps.
The definition cannot be interpreted to include househelp or laundrywomen working in staffhouses of a company, like petition
it cannot be considered to extend to then driver, houseboy, or gardener exclusively working in the company, the staffhouses a
above-defined by law.
The criteria is the personal comfort and enjoyment of the family of the employer in the home of said employer. While it may b
staffhouse may be similar in nature, the difference in their circumstances is that in the former instance they are actually servin
industry or any other agricultural or similar pursuit, service is being rendered in the staffhouses or within the premises of the b
concerned entitled to the privileges of a regular employee.
MAIN
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2019/jul2019/gr_234446_2019.html
Victoria Manufacturing Corporation Employees Union v Victoria Manufacturing Corporation
FACTS
VMC is a domestic corporation engaged in the textile business.

VMCEU is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the permanent and regular rank-and-file employees within the pertinent
The wage structure of VMC as stated in the collective bargaining agreement. is different from Wage Order No. NCR-18. In VMC
COLA, which totals to 466.. VMC inquired to BIR regarding the tax implications of this structure. BIR told VMC that theri memb
tax due on the wages of VMCEU's members. VMC and VMCEU held a grievance meeting but they failed to resolve the issue. V
Arbitrator decided in favor of VMCEU ruling that VMC erroneously withheld income tax from the wages of the union's membe
VMC filed a petition for certiorari to CA. The CA reversed theVA's ruling and held that the jurisdiction of VAs is limited to labor
VMCEU's members, a matter properly within the competence of the BIR.
ISSUES
W/N the CA correctly set aside the VA's decision on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
HELD
Yes. In Honda Cars Philippines, Inc. v. Honda Cars Technical Specialist and Supervisors Union, the Court ruled that VAs have no
disputes, the Court declared that the company and the union should have submitted the question to the Commissioner of Inte
involving the propriety or legality of withholding should be submitted to the CIR, the administrative body vested with the pow
only possess jurisdiction over matters that are conferred upon them by their enabling statutes.
jurisdiction is conferred by law. As a result, absent a statutory grant, the actions, representations, declarations, or omissions o
As the Court explained in La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals
Whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action shall be dismissed. This defense ma
MAIN
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2019januarydecisions.php?id=49
AUGUSTIN INTERNATIONAL CENTER, INC v ELFRENITO B. BARTOLOME AND RUMBY L. YAMAT
FACTS
In 2010, Bartolome and Yamat applied as carpenter and tile setter, respectively, with AICI, an employment agency providing m
contract but
NLRC filed for ollegal dismissal and brech of contract.
AICI and Al Mamoun claimed that respondents abandoned their duties by mid-2012.
The LA held that Bartolome and Yamat were illegally dismissed adn ordered AICI and al Mamoun to pay 69k eack.
AICI and Al Mamoun filed an appeal. the NLRC affirmed the LA's ruling so they filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.
AICI and Al Mamoun argued that Bartolome and Yamat did not first contest their termination before the "[Labor] Attache or a
employment contracts, before filing the complaint before the LA. the CA denied the said motion It explained that, as a rule, te
voluntary arbitration pursuant to then Article 262 (now Article 275) of the Labor Code, provided that such agreement is stated
jurisdiction over termination disputes. In the same manner, the phrase "all claims and complaints" in respondents' employme
ISSUES
W/N the LA has jurisdiction over the case
HELD
YES. Section 10 of Republic Act No. (RA) 8042, as amended by RA 10022,explicitly provides that LAs have original and exclusiv
Filipino workers for overseas deployment.
Section 10. Money Claims. – Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Re
calendar days after filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law
other forms of damages.
the Court also pointed out that the CA erroneously assumed that the designated person in the dispute settlement provision is
the Voluntary Arbitrator under the Labor Code is one agreed upon by the parties to resolve certain disputes and is tasked to re
In this case, the dispute settlement provision reads:
14. Settlement of disputes: All claims and complaints relative to the employment contract of the employee shall be settled in a
employer, the matter shall be settled amicably with [the] participation of the Labour Attaché or any authorised representative
the mechanism contemplated herein is an amicable settlement whereby the parties can negotiate with each other; it is not a v
of the contractual provision shows that the designated person is tasked merely to participate in the amicable settlement and n
attachés are members, to engage in the "conciliation of disputes arising from employer-employee relationship."Hence, the "[L
not called upon to act as a Voluntary Arbitrator as contemplated under the Labor Code.
Considering that the parties did not submit the present illegal termination case to the voluntary arbitration mechanism, the di
the case.
MAIN
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2019novemberdecisions.php?id=915
PASAY CITY ALLIANCE CHURCH/CAMACOP/REV. WILLIAM CARGO V FE BENITO
FACTS
PCAC is one of the local churches of hristian and Missionary Alliance Churches of the Philippines (CAMACOP), a religious societ
Benito on the other hand, is a licensed Christian Minister of CAMACOP and served as PCAC's Head of Fellowship and Disciplesh
and Membership, which was under the supervision of Church MInistry team and Rev. cargo., he served without a written cont
In CAMACOP's Amended Local Church Administrative and Ministry Guidelines, pastors or ministers without written contracts a
In compliance, Benito tendered her courtesy resignation as Head of Pastoral Care and Membership adn was to the same positi
suitable position due to some alleged misses in her work. She was then informed regarding the non-extension of her engagem
Benito filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. PCAC questioned the Labor Arbiter's jurisdiction and asse
Labor Arbiter ruled that an employment relationship existed between the parties Concluding that Benito was illegally dismisse
favor)
NLRC overturned the Labor Abiter's Decision ruling that the non-renewal of Benito's appointment to her previous position sho
When Benito challenged the NLRC's resolutions before the CA, the latter annulled the resolutions. and ruled in favor of Benito
affair (in favor of Benito)
ISSUES
W/N LA has jurisdiction over the case
HELD
NO. The court hold that the Church and the State to be separate and distinct from each other. It is also settled that religious as
spiritual needs of their members in most instances, but also take on administrative functions in their organizations.
In Pastor Austria v. NLRC, the court decided:
An ecclesiastical affair is one that concerns doctrine, creed, or form [of] worship of the church, or the adoption and enforceme
power of excluding from such associations those deemed unworthy of membership. Based on this definition, an ecclesiastical
doctrines, worship and governance of the congregation. To be concrete, examples of this so-called ecclesiastical affairs to whi
of sacraments and other activities x x x attached [with] religious significance.
If a church or religious association has the sole prerogative to exclude members perceived to be unworthy in light of its doctri
in activities attached with religious significance.
termination of a religious minister's engagement at a local church due to administrative lapses, when it relates to the perceive
by such choice. If a religious association enacts guidelines that reserve the right to transfer or reassign its licensed ministers ac
State cannot validly interfere.
As a licensed minister of CAMACOP, Benito was aware of is policy requiring annual courtesy resignations that give its local chu
supervision. We cannot interfere with the implementation of the policy, much less subject a religious congregation to a minist

Labor 2 Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor 2 Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Insular Life insurance co ltd v NLRC. 179 SCRA 459 Nov.

Heritage Hotel v SOLE

Basiao file a complaint to the Ministry of Labor to recover unpaid commissions.

A. Selection and Engagement of Employee

the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision granting petitioners' Motion to Dismiss.

VMC is a domestic corporation engaged in the textile business.

You might also like