Case Digest: Labayog v. M.Y. San Biscuits

BERNARDINO LABAYOG, CRESENCIO GRANZORE, JEANETTE GONZALES, NOEME DADIZ, GEMMA PANGANIBAN, DALISAY BUENVIAJE, VICTORIANA RUEDAS, MA. VICTORIA CABALONG, AMALIA SALVARRI, ROWENA FERNANDEZ, DELIA LOZARES, LUNINGNING ANGELES, ROSEMARIE SALES, VIVIAN VERZOSA, MARILYN JOSE, ROSANNA ROLDAN, HERMINIO CARANTO, ANITA SALVADOR, JORGE SALAMAT, ROBERTO ODIAMAR, EFREN LACAMPUINGAN, NOEL TAGALOG, MARCOS DE LA CRUZ, ELIAS BELO, DARIUS EROLES, HELEN BARAYUGA,1 CRISTOPHER HILARIO, JOEL ESGUERRA, BERNABE DUCUT, JOSEPH TANAUY, EDWIN CEA, NOEL VILLASCA, ERNESTO ALFONSO, FERNANDO CEBU and REYNALDO SESBRENO, petitioners,

vs.

M.Y. SAN BISCUITS, INC. and MEW WAH LIM, respondents

G.R. No. 148102, 11 July 2006.

Corona, J.:

On various dates in 1992, petitioners entered into contracts of employment with respondent company as mixers, packers and machine operators for a fixed term. On the expiration of their contracts, their services were terminated. Forthwith, they each executed a quitclaim.

Petitioners filed complaints for illegal dismissal, among others. The labor arbiter ruled their dismissal to be illegal on the ground that they had become regular employees who performed duties necessary and desirable in respondent company's business and ordered for their reinstatement.

The NLRC reversed the ruling, which the CA eventually affirmed.

ISSUE: W/N the fixed term contract of petitioners were valid.

RULING: YES.

Where the duties of the employee consist of activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer, the parties are not prohibited from agreeing on the duration of employment. Article 280 of the Labor Code does not proscribe or prohibit an employment contract with a fixed period provided it is not intended to circumvent the security of tenure.

Two criteria validate a contract of employment with a fixed period: (1) the fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear on the employee and without any circumstances vitiating consent or, (2) it satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former on the latter. Against these criteria, petitioners' contracts of employment with a fixed period were valid.

In this case, there was no allegation of vitiated consent. Respondents did not exercise moral dominance over petitioners. The contracts were mutually advantageous to the parties.

While their employment as mixers, packers and machine operators was necessary and desirable in the usual business of respondents, they were employed temporarily only, during periods when there was heightened demand for production. Consequently, there could have been no illegal dismissal when their services were terminated on expiration of their contracts. There was even no need for notice of termination because they knew exactly when their contracts would end. Contracts of employment for a fixed period terminate on their own at the end of such period.

Case Digest: Begino v. ABS-CBN

NELSON V. BEGINO, GENER DEL VALLE, MONINA A VILA-LLORIN AND MA. CRISTINA SUMAYAO, Petitioners, vs. ABS-CBN CORPORATION (FORMERLY, ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION) AND AMALIA VILLAFUERTE, Respondents.

G.R. No. 199166, 20 April 2015.

PEREZ, J.:

Respondent ABS-CBN, through Respondent Villafuerte, engaged the services of Petitioners as cameramen, editors or reporters for TV Broadcasting. Petitioners signed regularly renewed Talent Contracts (3 months - 1 year) and Project Assignment Forms which detailed the duration, budget and daily technical requirements of a particular project. Petitioners were tasked with coverage of news items for subsequent daily airings in Respondents’ TV Patrol Bicol Program.

The Talent Contract has an exclusivity clause and provides that nothing therein shall be deemed or construed to establish an employer-employee relationship between the parties.

Petitioners filed against Respondents a complaint for regularization before the NLRC's Arbitration branch.

In support of their complaint, Petitioners claimed that they worked under the direct control of Respondent Villafuerte - they were mandated to wear company IDs, they were provided the necessary equipment, they were informed about the news to be covered the following day, and they were bound by the company’s policy on attendance and punctuality.

Respondents countered that, pursuant to their Talent Contracts and Project Assignment Forms, Petitioners were hired as talents to act as reporters, editors and/or cameramen. Respondents further claimed they never imposed control as to how Petitioners discharged their duties. At most, they were briefed regarding the general requirements of the project to be executed.

While the case was pending, Petitioners contracts were terminated, prompting the latter to file a second complaint for illegal dismissal.

The Arbitration Branch ruled that Petitioners were regular employees, and ordered Respondents to reinstate the Petitioners.

The NLRC affirmed the ruling, but the CA overturned the decision.

ISSUE: W/N Petitioners are regular employees of Respondents.

RULING: Yes.

Of the criteria to determine whether there is an employer-employee relationship, the so-called "control test" is generally regarded as the most crucial and determinative indicator of the said relationship.

Under this test, an employer-employee relationship is said to exist where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end result but also the manner and means utilized to achieve the same.

Notwithstanding the nomenclature of their Talent Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms and the terms and condition embodied therein, petitioners are regular employees of ABS-CBN.

As cameramen, editors and reporters, it appears that Petitioners were subject to the control and supervision of Respondents which provided them with the equipment essential for the discharge of their functions. The exclusivity clause and prohibitions in their Talent Contract were likewise indicative of Respondents' control over them, however obliquely worded.

Also,the presumption is that when the work done is an integral part of the regular business of the employer and when the worker does not furnish an independent business or professional service, such work is a regular employment of such employee and not an independent contractor.

Case Digest: Dolefil v. NLRC

DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division) ALFREDO TARROZA, ROGELIO DE LA PEÑA and LORETO TEJERO, respondents.

G.R. No. L-55413, 25 July 1983.

AQUINO, J.:

Alfredo Tarroza, Rogelio de la Peña and Loreto Tejero ("Respondents") were light-wheel tractor operators in the pineapple field of Dole Philippines, Inc ("Dolefil"). 

On April 29, 1977, landguards of Dolefil spotted two drums containing crude oil in the farmlot of Inocencio Asibal which adjoins Dolefil's pineapple field. 

Asibal and companion Rogelio Odarve were investigated by the police and stated in their sworn statements that they bought the crude oil from Respondents and two other Dolefil employees.

Respondents and their two co-employees were charged with qualified theft in the municipal court. 

While those cases were pending, Dolefil filed with the Department of Labor an application for clearance to terminate the employment of Respondents for "stealing or dishonesty," which was granted.

Eight months later, the municipal court of acquitted Respondents of qualified theft while the two other Dolefil employees were convicted of qualified theft.

After that decision, Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and for reinstatement with backwages against Dolefil.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and declared as valid, lawful and for a just cause the termination from employment of Respondents. The NLRC set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter. 

ISSUE: W/N Dolefil is justified in dismissing Respondents.

RULING: Yes.

An employer may terminate an employment for "serious misconduct" or for "fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or representative".

Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal does not entail proof beyond reasonable doubt of the employee's misconduct. It is enough that there be some basis for such loss of confidence or that the employer has reasonable grounds to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of his participation therein rendered him absolutely unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position. 

The eventual conviction of an employee who is prosecuted for his misconduct is not indispensable to warrant his dismissal by his employer.

On the other hand, the acquittal of an employee in the criminal case filed against him by his employer does not also guarantee his reinstatement if the employer has lost confidence in him. 

A company has the right to dismiss its erring employees if only as a measure of self-protection against acts inimical to its interest.

2008 Labor Law Bar Exam Questions

- I -

1. Explain the automatic renewal clause of collective bargaining agreements. (3%)

2. Explain the extent of the workers' right to participate in policy and decision-making process as provided under Article XIII, Section 3 of the Philippine Constitution. Does it include membership in the Board of Directors of a corporation? (3%)

- II -

1. What issues or disputes may be the subject of voluntary arbiration under the Labor Code? (4%)

2. Can a dispute falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter be submitted to voluntary arbiration? Why or why not? (3%)

3. Can a dispute falling within the jurisdiction of a voluntary arbitrator be submitted to compulsory arbitration? Why or why not? (3%)

- III -

Savoy Department Store (SDS) adopted a policy of hiring salesladies on five-month cycles. At the end of a saleslady's five-month term, another person is hired as replacement. Salesladies attend to store customers, were SDS uniforms, report at specified hours, and are subject to SDS workplace rules and regulations. Those who refuse the 5-month employment contract are not hired.

The day after expiration of her 5-month engagement, Lina wore her SDS white and blue uniform and reported for work but was denied entry into the store premises. Agitated, she went on a hunger strike and stationed herself in front of one of the gates of SDS. Soon thereafter, other employees whose 5-month term had also elapsed, joined Lina's hunger strike.

1. Lina and 20 other saleladies filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, conteding that they are SDS regular employees as they performed activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of SDS and thus, their constitutional right to security of tenure was violated when they were dismissed without valid, just or authorized cause. SDS, in defense, argued that Lina, et al. Agreed - prior to engagement - to a fixed period employment and thus waived their right to a full-term tenure. Decide the dispute. (4%)

2. The owner of SDS considered the hunger strike staged by Lina, et al.., an eyesore and disruptive of SDS business. He wrote the Secretary of Labor a letter asking him to assume jurisdiction over the dispute and enjoin the hunger "strike". What answer will you give if you were the Secretary of Labor? (3%)

3. Assume that no fixed-term worker complained, yet in a routine inspection a labor inspector of the Regional Office of the Labor Code's security of tenure provisions and recommended to the Regional Director the issuance a compliance order. The Regional Director adopted the recommendation and issued a compliance order. Is the compliance order valid? Explain your answer. (3%)

- IV -

Super Comfort Hotel employed a regular pool of "extra waiters" who are called or asked to report for duty when the Hotel's volume of business is beyond the capacity of the regularly employed waiters to undertake. Pedro has been an "extra waiter" for more than 10 years. He is also called upon to work on weekends, on holidays and when there are big affairs at the hotel.

What is Pedro's status as an employee under the Labor Code? Why? Explain your answer fully. (6%)

- V -

The Pizza Corporation (PizCorp) and Ready Supply Cooperative (RSC) entered into a "service agreement" where RSC in consideration of service fees to be paid by PizCorp's will exclusively supply PizCorp with a group of RSC motorcycle-owning cooperative members who will henceforth perform PizCorp's pizza delivery service. RSC assumes under the agreement --- full obligation for the payment of the salaries and other statutory monetary benefits of its members deployed to PizCorp. The parties also stipulated that there shall be no employer-employee relationship between PizCorp and the RSC members. However, if PizCorp is materially prejudiced by any act of the delivery impose disciplinary sanctions on, including the power to dismiss, the erring RSC member/s.

1. Is the contractual stipulation that there is no employer-employee relationship binding on labor officials? Why? Explain fully. (3%)

2. Based on the test/s for employer-employee relationship, determine the issue of who is the employer of the RSC members. (4%)

3. Assume that RSC has a paid-up capitalization of P1,000.000.00 Is RSC engaged in "labor only" contracting, permissible job contracting or simply, recruitment? (3%)

- VI -

On the day that the Union could validly declare a strike, the Secretary of Labor issued an order assuming jurisdiction over the dispute and enjoining the strike, or if one has commenced, ordering the striking workers to immediately return to work. The return-to-work order required the employees to return to work within twenty-four hours and was served at 8 a.m. of the day the strike was to start. The order at the same time directed the Company to accept all employees under the same terms and conditions of employment prior to the work stoppage. The Union members did not return to work on the day the Secretary's assumption order was served nor on the next day; instead, they held a continuing protest rally against the company's alleged unfair labor practices. Because of the accompanying picket, some of the employees who wanted to return to work failed to do so. On the 3rd day, the workers reported for work, claiming that they do so in compliance with the Secretary's return-to-work order that binds them as well as the Company. The Company, however, refused to admit them back sionce they had violated the Secretary's return-to-work order and are now considered to have lost their employment status.

The Union officers and members filed a complaint for illegal dismissal arguing that there was no strike but a protest rally which is a valid exercise of the workers constitutional right to peaceable assembly and freemdom of expression. Hence, there was no basis for the termination of their employment.

You are the Labor Arbiter to whom the case was raffled. Decide, ruling on the following issues:

1. Was there a strike? (4%)

2. Were the employees simply exercising their constitutional right to petition for redness of their grievances? (3%)

3. What are the consequences, if any, of the acts of the employees? (3%)

- VII -

Tito Paciencioso is an employee of a foundry shop in Malabon, Metro Manila. He is barely able to make ends meet with his salary of P4,000.00 a month. One day, he asked his employer to stop deducting from his salary his SSS monthly contribution, reasoning out that he is waiving his social security coverage.

If you were Tito's employer, would you grant his request? Why? (6%)

- VIII -

Carol de la Cruz is the secretary of the proprietor of an auto dealership in quezon City. She resides in Caloocan City. Her office hours start at 8 a.m. and end at 5 p.m. On July 30, 2008, at 7 a.m. while waiting for public transport at Rizal Avenue Extension as has been her routine, she was sideswiped by a speeding taxicab resulting in her death. The father of Carol filed a claim for employee's compensation with the Social Security System. Will the claim prosper? Why? (6%)

- IX -

Assume that in Problem 5, Mario, an RSC member, disgusted with the non-payment of his night shift differential and overtime pay, filed a complaint with the DOLE Regional Office against RSC and PizCorp. After inspection, it was found that indeed Mario was not getting his correct differential and overtime pay and that he was declared an SSS member (so that no premiums for SSS membership were ever remitted). On this basis, the Regional Director issued a compliance order holding PizCorp and RSC solidarily liable for the payment of the correct differential and overtime pay and ordering PizCorp to report Mario for membership with SSS and remit overdue SSS premiums.

Who has the obligation to report the RSC members for membership with the SSS, with the concomitant obligation to remit SSS premiums? Why? (6%)

- X -

Pepe Santos was an international flight steward of Flysafe Airlines. Under FSA's Cabin Crew Administration Manual, Santos must maintain, given his height and body frame, a weight of 150 to 170 pounds.

After 5 years as a flight steward, Santos began struggling with his weight; he weighed 200 lbs., 30 pounds over the prescribed maximum weight. The Airline gave him a one-year period to attain the prescribed weight, and enrolled him in several wieght reduction programs. He consistently failed to meet his target. He was given a 6-month grace period, after which he still failed to meet the weight limit. FSC thus sent him a Notice of Administrative Charge for violation of company standards on weight requirements. He stated in his answer that, for medical reasons, he cannot have a rapid weight loss. A clarificatory hearing was held where Santos fully explained his predicament. The explanation did not satisfy FSA and so it decided to terminate Santos's service for violation of company standards.

Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that the company's weight requirement policy is unreasonable and that his case is not a disciplinary but a medical issue (as one gets older, the natural tendency is to grow heavier). FSA defended its policy as a valid exercise of management prerogative and from the point of view of passenger safety and extraordinarydiligence required by law of common carriers; it also posited that Santos failure to achieve his ideal weight constituted gross and habitual neglect of duty, as well as willful disobedience to lawful employer orders. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal illegal for there was neither gross and habitual neglect of duty nor willful disobedience.

Is the Labor Arbiter correct? Why or why not? Explain fully. (6%)

- XI -

Complainants had worked five (5) years as waitresses in a cocktail lounge owned by the respondent. They did not receive any salary directly from the respondent but shared in all service charges collected for food and drinks to the extent of 75%. With respondent's prior permission, they could sit with and entertain guest inside the establishment and appropriate for themselves the tips given by guests. After five (5) years, the complaints individual shares in the collected service charges dipped to below minimum wage level as a consequence of the lounge's marked business decline. Thereupon, complaints asked respondent to increase their share in the collected service charges to 85% or the minimun wage level, whichever is higher.

Respondent terminated the services of the complainants who countered by filing a consolidated complaint for unlawful dismissal, with prayer for 85% of the collected services or the minimum wage for the appropriate periods, whichever is higher. Decide. (6%)

- XII -

Arnaldo, President of "Bisig" Union in Femwear Company, readied himself to leave exactly at 5:00 p.m. which was the end of his normal shift to be able to send off his wife who was scheduled to leave for overseas. However, the General Manager required him to render overtime work to meet the company's export quota. Arnaldo begged off, explaining to the General Manager that he had to see off his wife who was leaving to work abroad. The company dismissed Arnaldo for insubordination. He filed a case for illegal dismissal. Decide (6%)

- XIII -

The rank-and-file union staged a strike in the company premises which caused the disruption of business operations. The supervisors union of the same company filed a money claim for unpaid salaries for the duration of the strike, arguing that the supervisors' failure to report for work was not attributable to them. The company contended that it was equally faultless, for the strike was not the direct consequence of any lockout or unfair labor practice. May the company be held liable for the salaries of the supervisor? Decide (6%)

- XIV -

"Puwersa", a labor federation, after having won in a certification election held in the company premises, sent a letter to respondent company reminding it of its obligation to recognize the local union. Respondent company replied that through it is willing, the rank-and-file employees had already lost interest in joining the local union as they had dissolved it. "Puwersa" argued that since it won in a certification election, it can validly perform its function as a bargaining agent and represent the rank-and-file employees despite the union's dissolution.

Is the argument of "Puwersa" tenable? Decide with reasons. (6%)

Taken from lawphil.net

2008 Labor Examiner?

Heard through the grapevine: Atty. Poquiz may be the Labor Examiner for 2008.

Probationary Status and Minimum Wage

Q: An employer is of the position that since an employee was on probationary status, then the salary of the employee for the duration of six-month probationary period cannot be the same as the salary of a regular employee. Is this correct?

A: No. The probationary status of an employee and the wage or salary he is entitled to receive are two entirely distinct and disparate terms in labor law.

The first term is used in reference to security of tenure. A probationary employee is one who has a limited tenure, i.e. six (6) months; but such probationary employee is nevertheless entitled to security of tenure and can only be terminated for a just cause.

On the other hand, the “wage” or “salary” paid to any “employee” refers to the “remuneration or earnings” that are “capable of being expressed in terms of money, for work done or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered. Under Art. 97 (c) of the Labor Code, the term “employee” is simply defined as “any individual employed by an employer.”

While there are exceptions to the coverage of the law on minimum wage, these are limited to farm tenancy or leasehold, domestic service and persons working in their respective homes in needle work or in any cottage industry duly registered in accordance with law.

The employer probably had in mind “special workers” covered by “apprenticeship agreements” or “learnership agreements,” and “handicapped workers” who are entitled to wages, albeit lower than the minimum wage.

From Sentricom v. NLRC (CA-G.R. SP NO. 85505, January 25, 2005).

Happy Holidays?

R.A. 9492 makes the dates of some holidays movable, "Provided, That for movable holidays, the President shall issue a proclamation... the specific date that shall be declared as a nonworking day."

In relation to this, GMA issued Proclamation no. 1463.

Said Proclamation decrees (among others) that Labor Day will be celebrated tomorrow, May 1, which is a Thursday. In contrast, Independence Day, historically set on June 12, will be celebrated on June 9 (Monday). Also, December 26 and 29 are declared Special (non-working) days.

My first concern is that why is Labor Day going to be celebrated on May 1, its original date, while Independence Day won't be? I mean, isn't moving Labor Day on a Friday more logical? Labor Day is, after all, for the benefit of the laborers. So why not give them a long weekend?

My second concern is about the criteria of GMA in moving (or in not moving) the dates of the holidays. Why was the Labor Day celebration last year moved, while this year it won't be? Is it about holiday economics? Political survival? Is it just an oversight? What?

My third concern is about the December 26 and 29 as special days. What does Special (non-working) day mean anyway? Are the dates going to be special holidays? What will employees get if they suffer to work on the said dates? Is GMA allowed to declare that a particular date be a special holiday?