Labstan Transcriptions

8/9/2019 Labstan Transcriptions

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/labstan-transcriptions 1/36

This is the Labor Code, taken from various laws but the ultimate origin is the American law. Labor Standards part is takenfrom the Labor Standard Act. Labor Relations part is taken from the labor relations law in the US.

Declaration of Policy: Art. 3 sas !The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensureequal opportunities regardless of sex, race and creed, and regulate the relations beteen or!ers andemployers" The State shall assure the rights of or!ers to self organi#ation, collecti$e bargaining, security of tenure and %ust and humane conditions at or!.!

The first sentence is composed of policies. The "nd sentence is composed of laws. #ut actuall the whole of thatis polic. $h% #ecause the enumeration in the second sentence, although law, is rights enumeration. This enumerationis &'T found in the bill of rights, this is found in Art. (), Sec. ) of our constitution. So, it has to be implemented. The,therefore fall in the same level as the enumeration in the first sentence* the principle of protection of labor, principle of fullemploment+ the principle of eual work opportunities regardless of se- of course we do not mean se- as the actionword/, gender, race or creed and regulate the relations between workers and emmploees.

So 0 brought up to ou the issue wh does labor have to have protection when Sec. (, Art. ) alread provideseual protection% 1oes labor then en2o a double protection% The notion of eual protection is eual protection before thelaw. $e discussed this ages ago, wh law and 2ustice is smboli3ed b a woman the goddess of 2ustice/ who isblindfolded The protection is against the ordinar biases of societ. The ordinar biases that comes with consideringfactors that come with other than the merits of the case which should not be included in the deliberation.

So gender, race or creed, if the are not included in the merits of the case should not be part of the consideration.!..ensure eual work opportunities! ou will later on find out the laws in the US, as the are concentrating now in

discrimination, the are now awa from labor standards since the same has been alread achieved.The emphasis is nowon discrimination, for instance eual rights amendment in all the 4( states decree that if ou have a work place, the samemust mirror the racial composition of our labor market. So in 50, especiall in 1etroit, the black population is higher thanthe national population. So it must be mirrored in the shock floor of lets sa, 65. There is a debate on what is the rule of the racial composition of the market. And there is this rule in economics that our labor market becomes more and morelocal if our labor is less and less skilled. #ut if our labor is skilled then it becomes not 2ust local, but regional and evennational. So if the shock floor has less blacks than the racial population in the neighborhood, then the compan will bepenali3ed, and the will be given time to bring it up to the same composition in 1etroit. Assuming that the compan will notbe able to bring it up, it will be severel fined and if assuming it cannot still compl with the reuirement, it will be closed.

#ut here, that is not the case et. #ut we do have a rule with respect to gender, race or creed. $e are stillcatching up on the gender side, not to discriminate on women. $e have now laws on women7s rights. #ut there is thisemerging gender* the so8called emphasis on ga rights. #ecause the law merel rules on the general insight of human

acumen+ on the universal understanding of what is human. #efore, to be ga was abnormal then in the 9:7s, to be gawas not normal or abnormal. To be ga was like catching acold, it was a disease over vwhich the sub2ect has no control.Then in the ;:7s the reali3ed that being ga is 2ust another wa of being human. So, if ou are ga, it should not be takenagainst ou. #ut what happens if official policies is still against being ga% 0n the US Armed <orces, for as long as ou donot speak out, its all right. #ut once ou sa ou are ga, then ou are out of the service.

Unless gender is the ver determinative factor of a 2ob, then ou cannot use gender as the consideration for hiring, promoting, advancing, firing. #ut suppose gender is the determinative factor of a 2ob, then ou cannot insist thatour application as a lingerie model must be accepted if ou are male. #ecause it is supposed to be female, it is thefemale anatom that brings out the ualities this product. So if ou file an application and it goes straight to the wastebasket, that is not discrimination. Unless gender is part and parcel of the issue of the particular position, it does not enter into the consideration. And if ou make that part of the decision, it means discrimination.

Lets talk about the problem of full emploment polic. There is now works and researches saing thatunemploment cannot be brought lower to 3ero. $h% #ecause in a modern econom, unemploment is structural innature, because econom will not progress unless there is unemploment. 0t does not mean that unemplomentcontributes in the progress, rather it is an inde- that an econom is improving because there is unemploment. <or e-ample, before to cook rice, people use colon to cook rice. After awhile, somebod invented the calderos. So whathappens to the workers who are still making colons% The run out of 2obs, but there is progress, because instead of colons, there is couldron. Then after cauldrons, there was the aluminum kettle, so the makers of cauldron are out of 2obssince everbod switches to this aluminum kettle. Then there is this wonder of wonders, pre-= So its alwas like that.Unemploment is built into the econom, because without it, it means that the econom does not progress. So if ou havefull emploment, it means that there is nothing new in that econom. So, the polic should not promote full emploment,rather it should have a statement of safet nets, to catch those who will be unemploed because unemploment is apermanent ingredient of a progressive econom.

&ow, lets go to the rights. There are more rights mentioned in Art. (), Sec. ) than what is mentioned here. Right

to self organi3ation, collective bargaining. 0n Sec. ), it sas right of collective bargaining and negotiating. Right of securitof tenure, 2ust and humane condition of work. 5an of the rights mentioned there Art. (), Sec. )/. &ow and again ou willread from the decisions of the SC when the SC almost calls these rights as constitutional rights of workers. &ow, 0 will sathat the best wa to understand the SC decisions calling these rights constitutional rights is that es, the areconstitutional rights in the broad sense, and not in the sense that ou stud them in political law because the onlconstitutional rights that ou stud are the #ill of Rights. The #ill of Rights are the true constitutional rights because thedo not need implementing legislation. The are constitutional because not even Congress has the power to abolish suchrights. These rights rights mentioned in Art. (), Sec. )/ are statutor. The need implementing legislation. Theenumeration in Art. (), Sec. ) is not a source of right. So ou cannot sa that the right to self organi3ation was suddenlabolished b Congress, that that is unconstitutional. The remed, if the law is done, is not to go to court and sa that such

1



was unconstitutional. >our remed is political. 0t is to elect people who will enact laws to enact these rights. #ecause theare not constitutional rights in the sense of the #ill of Rghts. &#* #ill of Rights is rights against the State/

Sec. ;, Art. ) sas that the right of the people, including those emploed in the public and private sectors, to formunions, associations, or societies, for purposes not contrar to law shall not be abridged. !..including thos in the publicsectors..! when the sa that, does that mean that the right to form a union is now a constitutional right% &o, because ouhave to interpret this particular provision with other provisions in the Constitution. 'ther provisions sas that governmentoffice is a public trust. 0n other words, the basis of our work in the government is not a contract between ou and thegovernment, as our emploer. &o. The basis is that ou have been entrusted with a dut of which ou are answereableto the people. So, the basis of our engagement in government is law, not a contract. ?ven if ou are appointed or elected&#* these are the onl two was ou can be in government service/. So if ou have been stirring coffee for the office of 5aor 1uterte since his first office term. Contractual emploee ka for ): ears but ou have not been given regular emploment, ou cannot sa that this office is ours b prescription.

#ecause if ou have been with somebod, ou are tolerated, in the words of the Labor Code...!suffered or permitted to work!, which brings out the idea that there is no e-plicit agreement on the part of the emploer to engage oufor some 2ob. >ou are 2ust tolerated, our work is 2ust accepted. Are ou entitled to pa, es. Are ou considered a regular%>es. Under the law, engagements where there is no terms issued is a regular emploee. #ut that is not so in the case of the goverment, no matter how long ou have been in the 5aor7s 'ffice, ou cannot claim regularit of emploment.

So, government ma form unions, but can the negotiate their wage% &o, because the basis of wage is notcontract. 0t is law. That is wh in Art. (), Sec. ) it sas collective bargaining and negotiations. The second termnegotiations/ is for government emploees, not collective bargaining.

Article &: '()ST*+'T() ) -A(* (- /A0(*: All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the pro$isions of this 'ode including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resol$ed in fa$or of labor.

0ts not onl contracts and labor laws that are interpreted in favor labor in case of doubt, it is also labor standards. As 07ve told ou before, this does not abbrogate the rules of statutor construction. This is 2ust an additional rule inconstruction and applies onl in labor standards. This does not appl to non8labor provisions. So, if ou have to rip up intoelements Art. @, the first element is labor legislation, second there is a doubt in that labor legislation or its implementation.

The doubt ma be te-tual doubt or factual doubt doubts on the facts upon which the law is to be applied./ Ane-ample of te-tual doubt* Appeals shall be within (: das from the decision of the Labor arbiter. Are those das calendar das or working das% There is a doubt because the terminolog is vague. ow do ou resolve the doubt% <irst, ou askhow man interpretations. 0f there is an interpretation in favor of labor, then the trier of facts will have to accept that

interpretation because of this provision. <actual doubt* Suppose an emploee files a claim for overtime and et he cannotproduce an authori3ation to do an overtime. And there is this compan regulation that states that all 'Ts must beapproved before the work is rendered. Then he sas that 0 did the work but it was not approved because the tractor brokedown and it was raining and we had to repair it even if it was wa passed the regular hours of working. ?ven if there is noapproval of the previous work ou have, ou have to pa the overtime pa because it has to be assumed that it the 'Twork/ redounded to the benefit of the emploer. 0f the 'T is not paid, the emploer is un2ustl enriching himself.

>ou know this provision is a narrowing of the discretion to 2udge a case b the SC because once ou can create adoubt, the doubt has to be resolved in favor of labor. #ut a word of caution, if in the e-am ever number ou answer that!in case of doubt, doubt is resolved in favor of labor..!, then ou invite the e-aminers to a primordial doubt. This is not acatch all phrase, for short.

A*T. 1: T2 DPA*T4)T (- /A0(* A)D 4P/(54)T A)D (T2* 6(*)4)T A6)'S'2A*6D 7T2 T2 AD4)ST*AT() A)D )-(*'4T (- T2S '(D (* A)5 (- TS PA*TS S2A//P*(4+/6AT T2 )'SSA*5 4P/4)T)6 *+/S A)D *6+/AT()S. S+'2 *+/S A)D*6+/AT()S S2A// 0'(4 --'T 81 DA5S AT* A))(+)'4T (- T2* AD(4PT() ))7SPAP*S (- 6)*A/ '*'+/AT().

This is an e-ample of crash and euestrian legislation %=/. #ecause when we sa the !department of labor andemploment.. shall promulgate the necessar implementing rules and regulations..! who will sign these rules% Can the

2anitor of the 1'L? promulgate such rules and regulations% $ho% The Bresident through hisher alter ego, which is theSecretar of 1'L?. # saing the department, it means all has the power to promulgate rules.

A*T. 9: A// *62TS A)D 0)-TS 6*A)TD T( 7(**S +)D* T2S '(D S2A//, ;'PT AS4A5 (T2*7S 0 P*(DD 2*), APP/5 A/ ( A// 7(*S, 72T2* A6*'+/T+*A/ (* )()<A6*'+/T+*A/

Applicabilit* The issue is does this labor code appl to both workers and non8workers% 'r do ou have to be aworker% And for that matter, must there e-ist an emploer8emploee relationship% &'.

Dul (@ Lecture

case* Bere3 vs. Bomar* As ou can see from the date of the case, it was before the (E)4 Constitution. The (E)4 Consti isthe first time that the protection of labor clause appears and the social 2ustice thrust becomes prominent in our 2urisdiction.#efore that, we were governed b the Civil Code. 0n other words, under the CC, there is no assumption that there areunderprivileged sector in the societ. Under the CC, each one is free to enter into contract. And if ou enter into a contractit is assumed that ou are in eual footing with the part which ou are contracting. &ow, this is not so under the (E)4

2



Constit, that is no longer the premise. Under this Consti, there are these people who have no choice but to rent out their labor because the do not have the mental capabilit and no propert. Brecisel because the have less in life, the mustbe given more in law. #ut that is not the premise under the CC. This is the background with which ou should read thiscase.

Perez vs Pomar

1. CONTRACTS; CONSENT.-Contracts resulting from an implie consent of t!e parties are vali an enforcea"le.#. $%.; $%.; &$R$N'.-(!ere one !as renere services to anot!er) an t!ese services are accepte "* t!e latter) in t!e a"sence of proof t!at t!e service +asrenere gratuitousl*) an o"ligation results to pa* t!e reasona"le +ort! of t!e services renere upon t!e implie contract of !iring.

,. $%.; $%.; $%.-Alt!oug! no fie amount ma* !ave "een etermine as t!e consieration for t!e contract of !iring) t!e contract is nevert!eless vali if t!e amount oft!e implie compensation can "e etermine "* custom or freuent use in t!e place +!ere t!e services +ere renere.

/acts0Perez) on various occasions rener %on Eugenio Pomar services as interpreter of Englis! an t!at !e o"taine passes an accompanie t!e efenant upon !is ourne*s to some of t!e to+ns in t!e Province of 2aguna. $t oes not appear from t!e evience) !o+ever) t!at t!e plaintiff +as constantl* at t!e isposal of t!eefenant uring t!e perio of si mont!s) or t!at !e renere services as suc! interpreter continuousl* an ail* uring t!at perio of time.

%on Eugenio Pomar) as general agent of t!e Compa3ia 'eneral e Ta"acos in t!e sai province) ver"all* reueste t!e plaintiff on t!e 4t! of %ecem"er) 1561) toact as interpreter "et+een !imself an t!e militar* aut!orities; t!at after t!e ate mentione t!e plaintiff continue to rener suc! services up to an incluing 7a*,1) 156#; t!at !e !a accompanie t!e efenant) Pomar) uring t!at time at conferences "et+een t!e latter an t!e colonel commaning t!e local garrison) an +it! various officers an octors resiing in t!e capital) an at conferences +it! Captain 2emen in t!e to+n of Pilar) an +it! t!e maor in comman at t!e to+n ofPagsanan) concerning t!e s!ipment of goos from 7anila) an +it! respect to goos s!ippe from t!e to+ns of Santa Cruz) Pilar) an Pagsanan to t!is cit*; t!att!e plaintiff uring t!is perio of time +as at t!e isposal of t!e efenant) Pomar) an !el !imself in reainess to rener services +!enever reuire; t!at on t!isaccount !is private "usiness) an especiall* a soap factor* esta"lis!e in t!e capital) +as entirel* a"anone; t!at to t!e en t!at suc! services mig!t "e punctuall*

renere.

$ssue0 $s compensation o+ing to t!e one +!o renere service a"sent an* +ritten or ver"al agreement as to compensation.

&el0 8esir9Alt!oug! it oes not appear t!at an* +ritten contract +as entere into "et+een t!e parties for t!e emplo*ment of t!e plaintiff as interpreter) or t!at an* ot!erinnominate contract +as entere into; "ut +!et!er t!e plaintiff:s services +ere solicite or +!et!er t!e* +ere offere to t!e efenant for !is assistance) inasmuc!as t!ese services +ere accepte an mae use of "* t!e latter) +e must consier t!at t!ere +as a tacit an mutual consent as to t!e renition of t!e services. T!isgives rise to t!e o"ligation upon t!e person "enefite "* t!e services to mae compensation t!erefore) since t!e "ilateral o"ligation to rener service as interpreter)on t!e one !an) an on t!e ot!er to pa* for t!e services renere) is t!ere"* incurre.Not+it!staning t!e enial of t!e efenant) it is unuestiona"le t!at it +as +it! !is consent t!at t!e plaintiff renere !im services as interpreter) t!us aiing !im ata time +!en) o+ing to t!e eistence of an insurrection in t!e province) t!e most istur"e conitions prevaile. $t follo+s) !ence) t!at t!ere +as consent on t!e partof "ot! in t!e renition of suc! services as interpreter. Suc! service not "eing contrar* to la+ or to goo custom) it +as a perfectl* licit o"ect of contract) an suc! acontract must necessaril* !ave eiste "et+een t!e parties.T!e consieration for t!e contract is also evient) it "eing clear t!at a mutual "enefit +as erive in conseuence of t!e service renere. $t is to "e suppose t!at

t!e efenant accepte t!ese services an t!at t!e plaintiff in turn renere t!em +it! t!e epectation t!at t!e "enefit +oul "e reciprocal. T!e compensation o+ingmust "e "ase on t!e customs of t!e place a"sent an* clear stipulation.

This is the same principle as uasi8contracts which is based on the principle that one cannot un2ustl enrichhimself even though unreuested for as long as it redounds to one7s benefit. <or e-ample ou have a heart attack and adoctor who was present at that time timel gave ou a shot and ou live to see another da, di na madala ug !salamatdoc!. >ou have to pa because the service is normall compensated. Suppose ou come to class and ou pass b thestore of Lucci and ou light our cigarette in her store without paing. >ou do that everda, then one da she decides tocharge ou for the freuent lighting of our cigarette, can she do that% &o, because the service is not normallcompensated.

This doctrine applies in this case. 0f the service is not normall compensated, then Bere3 vs. Bomar doctrine doesnot appl. 0n labor, ou will come across the phrase !suffered or permitted to work..! Art. ;@/. 0f for instance ou arebuilding a house, and ou have a neighbor who is a carpenter. e then gets his tools and works for the foreman. And ouwere happ ka matabangun ang imong silingan, so ou suffer and permit him to work. #ut on the (4th he lines up andasks for his salar, ou cannot sa !Basalua ko ka wa man ta nagsabot nga baran ka, abi nako sinilingan ning imongpagtabang..! 1oes this change the euation 2ust because ou are neighbors% 1o ou have a right to suppose that thiswas neighborl charit% &o, appling the Bere3 vs. Bomar doctrine. Bere3 and Bomar were friends= #ut the court hasruled that it was not neighborl kindness that he invited Bomar to interpret. That is not what the law intends. <or as long asthe service is compensable naturall, then this service of interpreting must be compensated.

ow much will the service be compensated when there is no agreement% As much as the reasonable value of hisservice merits. So, the measure of reasonable value uantum meruit/. e cannot charge the rate of an e-pert translator,he cannot also be paid the rate of a house helper. is rate is somewhat the regular rate, in between the two. This iswithout ?R8?? relationship ha= #ecause in the CC there are provisions for lease of services without emploer andemploment relationship. #asta remember, under CC to kasi before the (E)4 Constitution pa/

LF& vs. <ilm 5usicians

<acts* B56 Bhil. 5usicians 6uild/ applied for certification as teh sole and e-clusive bargainng agenc for all musiciansworking in LF& and Sampaguita Bictures. LF& et al, are engaged in the making of motion pictures and in the processingand distribution thereof.

LF& opposed the application stating that B56 are not their emploees, the are merel under the CC/ lessors of services. $h% #ecause of the four reuisites of ?R8?? relationship. 5?5'R0G?/

3



(. selection and hiring* $ho selects and hires is the emploer ". pament of wages* who pas the wages is the emploer ). power to dismiss* who has the power to dismiss is the emploer @. power to control* The one who controls not onl the ends to be achieved but also the means to be used emploed is theemploer.

These are the four elements. LF& is not a landmark case because it enunciates the four elements in an er8eerelationship. 0t is a landmark case because the SC sas even if the ma2orit of these four reuisites are not complied with,for as long as the power of control test is met, there is an er8ee relationship. As in this case*

(. selection and hiring: $ho selects and hires% 0t is the musical director.. is he an emploee of LF&% &o, he iscontracted b LF&. The producer who is emploee of LF&, looks for a musical director 51/ who is paid for a lump sumprice. And then 51 starts looking for his musicians

". payment of ages: 51 pas the musicians depending on his or her e-pertise. 0f ou are the e-pert violinist, ou willbe paid higher of course.

). poer to dismiss* 0f ou do not show up or go to practices, it is the 51 who will dismiss ou.

So wh does the SC sa that the 51 is &'T the emploer% This is because, the power of control is shown b the ff.instances*

0n the final pick of the music that will go in the film, the musicians will be called b call slips, and the call slips havethe name of the movie compan. The call slip assigns them to a place where the will be picked up b the bus of themovie compan. This is an inde- of control ha.

$here the practice is an inde- of control. The practice within the premises of the movie compan. $ho feedsthem when it comes to meal times% 0t is the movie compan, not the 51.

$hen the final take of the music is to be done, the 51 disappears and the movie director takes over and directsthe ver plaing itself of the music. The movie director is alread an emploee of the movie compan. And that is vertelling that it is the movie compan who dictates the ver means and methods and not 2ust the ends the movie.

This is contrasted with Fda. de Cru3 vs. 5anila otel SC held that Fda de Cru3 is wrong since 5anila otel is anemploer since it merel directed the ends to be achieved, which is to please the clients. ow ou the musicians/ it is up

to ou, 5anila otel doesn7t care about the means and the method. So that is the difference with LF&. #ecause in LF&during the final take, it is the movie director who directs the musicians '$ T' BLA>, i.e. pla the drums louder, or violinsofter, etc.

Take note that is one of the main doctrines of LF&. There are other doctrines that will come out of this case inlabor relations. Read this case inside out. #ecause on one hand the SC sas, ?SS?&T0AL R?HU0S0T?S.. but then itsas, if ou fulfill the power of control test, there is er8ee relationship. Also, in the four reuisites, how come the renditionof service is not mentioned%

0n 1 Ieh #eng vs. 0L5UB case, the SC sas that in the power of control test, it is not necessar to prove thatthere was actual e-ercise of power of control. 0t is not necessar to prove that the putative emploer e-ercises control.$hat is essential is the reservation of the power. All ou have to prove that is that he has the power of control, that hereserves that right, not necessaril that he e-ercise that right.

1 Ieh #eng also argues that the fact that the are paid on a piece rate basis shows that there was no er8eerelationship. $hen ou hire on a pakaw piece rate/ basis, all ou have to do is to finish the work. >ou are free todetermine the was and means for as long as ou finish the work. ow do ou know that ou7ve finished the work% Thefact that ou are paid, in fact ou are paid on the basis of the work that ou finish. #ut in this case, the SC said that thehave a right to be represented b 0nternational Labor because the are emploees of 1 Ieh #eng. The argument thatthe are paid on a piece rate basis proves that there is no er8ee relationship is incorrect. #ecause piece rate pamentneither affirms, nor denies er8ee relationship. 0t is neutral.$hat does it prove% 0t proves onl pament. 0t does not provethe legal characteri3ation of the relationship.

The fact that the did not show proof that the were actuall supervised is not what is essential. $hat is essentialis the proof given that 1I #eng had the right to control+ reserved the right to control. ow is this proven% This is proven bthe fact that there are specified dimensions the have to achieve. The could not 2ust bring an si3e basket. &o proof needbe given for the e-ercise the right to control because there was no need to e-ercise it in view of the specifications given.

So actual e-ercise of control is not as important as reservation of the right to control.

4



%* <e! =eng vs. $27>P

/0 =eng) proprietor of a "aset factor) ismisse Carlos Solano an Recaro Tula "ecause of t!eir union activities.

A case +as file in t!e Court of $nustrial Relations for in "e!alf of t!e $nternational 2a"or an 7arine >nion of t!e P!ilippines an t+o of its mem"ers) Solano anTula.

%* <e! =eng contene t!at !e i not no+ Tula an t!at Solano +as not !is emplo*ee "ecause t!e latter came to t!e esta"lis!ment onl* +!en t!ere +as +or +!ic! !e i on paia+ "asis) eac! piece of +or "eing one uner a separate contract.

T!e C$R !el t!at an emplo*ee-emplo*er relations!ip +as foun to !ave eiste "et+een %* <e! =eng an complainants Tula an Solano) alt!oug! Solano +as

amitte to !ave +ore on piece "asis.

Accoring to t!e &earing Eaminer) t!e evience for t!e complainant >nion tene to s!o+ t!at Solano an Tula "ecame emplo*ees of %* <e! =eng from 7a* #)15?, an @ul* 1) 15??) respectivel*) an t!at ecept in t!e event of illness) t!eir +or +it! t!e esta"lis!ment +as continuous alt!oug! t!eir services +erecompensate on piece "asis. Evience lie+ise s!o+e t!at at times t!e esta"lis!ment !a eig!t B4 +orers an never less t!an five B?; incluing t!ecomplainants) an t!at complainants use to receive P?.66 a a* sometimes less.

Accoring to %* <e! =eng) !o+ever) Solano +as not !is emplo*ee for t!e follo+ing reasons0DB1 Solano never sta*e long enoug!t at %*:s esta"lis!ment;B# Solano !a to leave as soon as !e +as t!roug! +it! t!e orer given !im "* %*;B, (!en t!ere +ere no orers neeing !is services t!ere +as not!ing for !im to o;B (!en orers came to t!e s!op t!at !is regular +orers coul not fill) it +as t!en t!at %* +ent to !is aress in Caloocan an fetc!e !im for t!ese orers; anB? Solaro:s +or +it! %*:s esta"lis!ment +as not continuous.D

Petitioner reall* anc!ors !is contention of t!e non-eistence of emplo*ee-emplo*er relations!ip on t!e control test t!at t!e private responents Di not meet t!econtrol test in t!e lig!t of t!e ... efinition of t!e terms emplo*er an emplo*ee) "ecause t!ere +as no evience to s!o+ t!at petitioner !a t!e rig!t to irect t!emanner an met!o of responent:s +or.D 7oreover) it is argue t!at petitioner:s evience s!o+e t!at DSolano +ore on a paia+ "asisD an t!at !e sta*e int!e esta"lis!ment onl* +!en t!ere +as +or.

$ssue0 (FN t!ere eiste E-E relations!ip "et+een "eng an t!e t+o responents. $s =eng in DcontrolDG

&el0 8es *es *o99(!ile t!is Court up!ols t!e control test uner +!ic! an emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip eists D+!ere t!e person for +!om t!e services are performe reserves arig!t to control not onl* t!e en to "e ac!ieve "ut also t!e means to "e use in reac!ing suc! en)D it fins no merit +it! petitioner:s arguments as state a"ove. $ts!oul "e "orne in min t!at t!e control test calls merel* for t!e eistence of t!e rig!t to control t!e manner of oing t!e +or) not t!e actual eercise of t!e rig!t.

T!e esta"lis!ment of %* <e! =eng is Dengage in t!e manufacture of "asets no+n as aing) Dit is natural to epect t!at t!ose +oring uner %* +oul !ave too"serve) among ot!ers) %*:s reuirements of size an ualit* of t!e aing. Some control +oul necessaril* "e eercise "* %* as t!e maing of t!e aing +oul "esu"ect to %*:s specifications. Parent!eticall*) since t!e +or on t!e "asets is one at %*:s esta"lis!ments) it can "e inferre t!at t!e proprietor %* coul easil*

eercise control on t!e men !e emplo*e.

$t is +ort!* to note t!at @ustice Perfecto) concurring +it! C!ief @ustice Ricaro Pares +!o penne t!e ecision in DSunripe Coconut Proucts Co. v. Court of$nustrial RelationsD opine t!at0Duicial notice of t!e fact t!at t!e so-calle :pa*a+: s*stem mentione in t!is case as generall* practice in our countr*) is) in fact) a la"or contract "et+eenemplo*ers an emplo*ees) "et+een capitalists an la"orers.D

Sterling vs. Sol

/acts0 2oreta C. Sol c!arge t!e !erein petitioners Sterling Proucts $nternational an its Raio %irector H. San Pero +it! !aving committe an unfair la"or practiceact. $n !er complaint s!e allege among ot!ers t!at s!e !as "een a regular Raio 7onitor of responents-petitioners; t!at on @anuar* 4) 156) s!e file a complaintagainst t!e sai firm for unerpa*ment) mone* euivalent of !er vacation leave from 15?# to 15?5) an C!ristmas "onus for 15?5) euivalent to one mont! salar*.T!e complaint resulte in !er ismissal) +it!out ust cause) on %ecem"er 1) 156.

Petitioners allege t!at Sol is an inepenent contractor +!ose services +ere restraine "* petitioners to su"mit reports of raio monitoring +or performe outsieof t!eir office. =ecause t!e petitioners no longer nee suc! services) t!e* gave Sol notice of termination an eecute it.

T!e Court of $nustrial Relations in a ecision ate Octo"er 4) 156 !el t!at t!e complainant is not an emplo*ee of t!e responent firm "ut onl* an inepenentcontractor an t!at responent firm +as ustifie in ismissing t!e complainant ue to economic reasons.

T!e lo+er court reverse t!e ruling t!at complainant +as an emplo*ee an not an inepenent contractor) an orere !er reinstatement +it! "ac +ages. T!elo+er Court furt!er rule t!at responent firm +as guilt* of unfair la"or practice. $n arriving at t!is ruling it consiere t!e follo+ing circumstances0 B1 Complainant +as given an ientification car stating t!at D=earer 2oreta C. Sol is a "onafie emplo*ee of t!is Compan*;D B# +!en s!e applie for purc!ase of a lot from t!eP&&C) s!e +as given a certificate to s!o+ t!at s!e +as inee an emplo*ee of t!e responent compan* for t!e last five *ears or si *ears; an B, as suc!emplo*ee) s!e eno*e t!e privilege of "orro+ing mone* from t!e Emplo*ees 2oan Association of t!e firm. T!e court furt!er foun t!at t!e compan*:s control overresponent:s +or is s!o+n "* t!e fact t!at s!e can not listen to "roacasts ot!er t!an t!ose t!at +ere containe in t!e sc!eule given to !er "* t!e compan*.Supervision an control of !er +or coul "e one "* c!ecing or verif*ing t!e contents of !er reports on sai "roacasts. T!e compan* not onl* !ire an fire7rs. Sol) +it!out t!ir part* intervention) "ut also reserve to itself) possesse an eercise its rig!t to control :t!e en to "e ac!ieve an t!e means: to "e use inreac!ing suc! en) namel*) t!e sc!eule an ot!er instructions "* +!ic! t!e monitor s!all "e guie) an t!e reports +it! specifications "* +!ic! t!e compan*

o"serves an verifies t!e performance of !er +or.D $n Ruling t!at Sol +as not an inepenent contractor) t!e SC &el0 Responent Sol +as irecte to listen to certain "roacasts) irecting !er) in t!e instructions given !er) +!en to listen an +!at to listen) petitioners !ereinnaming t!e stations to "e listene to) t!e !ours of "roa.) casts) an t!e a*s +!en listening +as to "e one. Responent Sol !a to follo+ t!ese irections. T!emere fact t!at +!ile performing t!e uties assigne to !er s!e +as not uner t!e supervision of t!e petitioners oes not rener !er a contractor) "ecause +!at s!e!as to o) t!e !ours t!at s!e !as to +or an t!e report t!at s!e !as to su"mit-all t!ese are accoring to instructions given "* t!e emplo*er. $t is not correct to sa*)t!erefore) t!at s!e +as an inepenent contractor) for an inepenent contractor is one +!o oes not receive instructions as to +!at to o) !o+ to o) +it!outspecific instructions. T!e ver* act of responent Sol in emaning vacation leave) C!ristmas "onus an aitional +ages S!o+s t!at s!e consiere !erself anemplo*ee. A contractor is not entitle to a vacation leave or to a "onus nor to a minimum +age. T!is act of !ers in emaning t!ese privileges are inconsistent +it!t!e claim t!at s!e +as an inepenent contractor.

5



The control test is met even if ou are phsicall separated from the emploer. There are three corroboratingevidences that led the SC to sa that there was power of control, i.e. Sol was given an 01 that sas she was an emploee+he was given a certification that she was an emploee when she applied to bu a lot+ she was allowed to appl for a loan.So these evidences strengthened the SC7s ruling based on the control test. #ecause she was handed a scheduledetermining the times she has to listen+ because she was not free to listen to an other broadcast e-cept thosespecificall given her+ because she has to make reports+ these are indices of control.

1octrine* So, phsical pro-imit to the emploer is not essential for control because that can be surmounted bpre8determined instructions.

RJL MARTINEZ FISHING CORPORATION and/or PENINSULA FISHING CORPORATION vs NLRC and Boticario t! a"!

/acts0Petitioners are principall* engage in eep-sea fis!ing "usiness. sice 15I4) private responents +ere emplo*e "* t!em as steveores at Navotas /is! Port for t!e unloaingof tuna fis! catc! from petitioners: vessels an t!en loaing t!em on refrigerate vans for s!ipment a"roa.

On 7arc! #I) 1541) private responents Antonio =oticario) an t!irt* B,6 ot!ers) upon t!e premise t!at t!e* are petitioners: regular emplo*ees) file a complaint againstpetitioners for non-pa*ment of overtime pa*) premium pa*) legal !olia* pa*) emergenc* allo+ance uner P.%. Nos. ?#?) 11#,) 11) 1,) 1I4) 1I1,) 1I?1) 1,t! mont! pa*BP.%. 4?1) service incentive leave pa* an nig!t s!ift ifferential.

T!e* +ere ismisse after+ars "* t!e Petitioners.

Claiming t!at t!e* +ere ismisse from emplo*ment on 7arc! #5) 1541 as a retaliator* measure for t!eir !aving file t!e sai complaint) private responents file on April #1)1541 anot!er complaint against petitioners for $llegal %ismissal an for Hiolation of Article 114 of t!e 2a"or Coe) as amene. T!e t+o cases +ere consoliate.

&ere) petitioners conten t!at private responents are contract la"orers +!ose +or terminate upon completion of eac! unloaing) an t!at in t!e a"sence of an* "oatarrivals) private responents i not +or for petitioners "ut +ere free to +or or see emplo*ment +it! ot!er fis!ing "oat operators.

t!e 2a"or Ar"iter up!el petitioners: position ruling t!at t!e latter are etra +orers) +!o +ere !ire to perform specific tass on contractual "asis; t!at t!eir +or is intermittentepening on t!e arrival of fis!ing vessels; t!at if t!ere are no fis! to unloa an loa) t!e* +or for some ot!er fis!ing "oat operators; t!at private responent Antonio=oticario !a eecute an emplo*ment contract uner +!ic! !e agree to act as a la"or contractor an t!at t!e ot!er private responents are !is men; t!at even assumingt!at private responents are emplo*ees of petitioners) t!eir emplo*er-emplo*ee relation is co-terminous +it! eac! unloaing an loaing o"; t!at in t!e same manner)petitioners are not uner an* o"ligation to !ire petitioners eclusivel*) !ence) +!en t!e* +ere not given an* o" on 7arc! #5) 1541) no ismissal +as effecte "ut t!at t!e* +ere merel* not re!ire.

N2RC reverse t!e ecision of t!e 2a"or Ar"iter an !elt t!at t!ere eiste a Jn E-E relations!ip.

$ssue0 (FN t!ere is in fact.

&el0 8esir. T!ere eists E-E relations!ip...As responent N2RC !a foun0

(e furt!er fin t!at t!e emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip "et+een t!e parties !erein is not co-terminus +it! eac! loaing an unloaing o". As earlier s!o+n) responents areengage in t!e "usiness of fis!ing. /or t!is purpose) t!e* !ave a fleet of fis!ing vessels. >ner t!is situation) responents: activit* of catc!ing fis! is a continuous process ancoul !arl* "e consiere as seasonal in nature. So t!at t!e activities performe "* !erein complainants) i.e. unloaing t!e catc! of tuna fis! from responents: vessels ant!en loaing t!e same to refrigerate vans) are necessar* or esira"le in t!e "usiness of responents. T!is circumstance maes t!e emplo*ment of complainants a regularone) in t!e sense t!at it oes not epen on an* specific proect or seasonal activit*.

$nee :t!at uring t!e temporar* la*off t!e la"orers are consiere free to see ot!er emplo*ment is natural) since t!e la"orers are not "eing pai) *et must fin means ofsupport: an suc! temporar* cessation of operations :s!oul not mean starvation for emplo*ees an t!eir families:.D

Suffer an Permitte to +or - $nee) consiering t!e lengt! of time t!at private responents !ave +ore for petitioner - since 15I4 - t!ere is ustification to conclue t!att!e* +ere engage to perform activities usuall* necessar* or esira"le in t!e usual "usiness or trae of petitioners an are) t!erefore) regular emplo*ees. As suc!) t!e* areentitle to t!e "enefits a+are t!em "* responent N2RC.

D(&ERE/ORE) in vie+ of t!e foregoing consierations) t!e %ecision appeale from is !ere"* set asie an anot!er one entere) irecting responents-appellees0 B1 toreinstate complainants-appellants to t!eir former +or) +it!out loss of seniorit* rig!ts an ot!er privileges appertaining t!ereto; B# to pa* complainants-appellants full"ac+ages compute from t!e ate t!e* +ere ismisse up to t!e ate t!e* are actuall* reinstate; B, to pa* complainants-appellants legal !olia* pa*) emergenc* livingallo+ance an 1,t! mont! pa* in accorance +it! la+; an B to pa* complainants-appellants +!o are entitle to incentive leave pa*) as !erein a"ove etermine) accoringto la+.

0ssue* $& control necessitates continuit

1octrine* &o. The SC gave weight to the argument of the stevedores because of the nature of their work wassuch that the could finish earl, ou cannot blame them for looking for e-tra work, but the were actuall workers of RDL.

And this is b wa of e-ception that the go to other boats to unload other boats.

Summary:

Locational separation does not prove the non e-istence of control Sterling vs. Sol/+ Actual e-ercise of control is notnecessar to prove that there is control 1 Ieh #eng/+ There is no need to establish the continuit of control for thecontrol test to be met RDL/.

owever, it is not also correct to sa that the control test is the onl test ou have to meet. <or e-ample, ou are here, and0 as a professor/ e-ercise the power of control over ou, but does that mean that 0 am our emploer% &o. So it is theultimate test, the test par excellence, but it is not the only=exclusi$e test. >P?@

DST)'T()S 0T7) *< */AT()S2PS A)D (T2* '()T*A'TS

?R8?? versus

6



(. 0&1?B?&1?&T C'&STRUCT0'& C'&TRACT'R.". R'F0&6 0&1?B?&1?&T B?11L?RS). 0&1?B?&1?&T SAL?S5?&@. A6?&C>4. A6R0CULTURAL T?&A&C>9. ?R8?? CR?AT?1 #> LA$

0. )DP)D)T '()ST*+'T() '()ST*+'T(*

The problem for instance is ou want to make an e-tension to our house. >ou do not hire an architect or engineer, ou look for an e-perienced foreman. $hat is our relationship with the foreman% 0s he our emploee% 0f hebrings along other carpenters, what is our relationship to the people that he hires%

Carro vs! Ri""aro#a $H$P case

/0 Caro +as sentence to pa* one Rilloraza for t!e inuries !e suffere +!ile constructiong t!e +ino+ of t!e "uiling manage "* t!e former Bas t!e "uiling"elonge to Caro:s +ife) Ramon Caro "eing onl* t!e aministrator Caro maintains t!at Rilloraza +as not !is emplo*ee +it!in t!e purvie+ of t!e (ormen:sCompensation Act as t!e latter +as !ire "* one %aniel e la Cruz) +!o allegel*) is an inepenent contractor. Caro insists t!at relations!ip "et+een !im anRillaroza +as casual. Caro maintains t!at t!ere +as a contract entere into "et+een !im an ela Cruiz +!erein t!e latter assume all responsi"ilit* for +!ateveraccient t!at ma* !appen to !is la"orers engage in t!e o"s.

$ssue0 (FN t!ere eists er-ee relations!ip as to rener Caro lia"le uner (CA

&el0 8es. T!ere eists an er-ee relations!ip "ecause Caro:s "usiness +as to rent out t!e "uiling an !e necessaril* !as to maintain t!em B"lgs. in !a"ita"le

conitions.

T!e contracts entere into "* ela Cruz an Caro pertains onl* to %ela Cruz as t!e +ino+ railing constructe "* Rillaroza +as not covere "* sai contract./urt!ermore) t!e evience inicate t!at ela Cruz +as not an iepenent contractor. T!e general nature of t!e +or to "e unertaen inicates t!at t!e floor oistsmentione in t!e contract +ere to "e c!ange uner t!e irection an control of 7r. Caro. %ela Cruiz oes not appear to !ave an* office or "usiness esta"lis!ment)or even a license to engage in "usiness as a "uiling contractor. &e +oul seem to "e merel* a free lancig carpenter +it! some eperience in carpentr* +or) +!ogoes aroun looing for minor repair construction o"s for !e !as no capital or mone* to pa* !is la"orers or to compl* +it! !is o"ligations to t!em.

Anent t!e issue of contractual relations!ip "et+een Caro an Rillaroza) it !as "een !el t!at emplo*ment is causal +!en it is irregular) unpreicta"le)sporaic an "rief in nature. >ner t!is test) most maintenance an repair activities) as +ell as even remoelling an inciental construction) !ave "een !el to "e +it!in t!e usual course of a "usiness.

$n t!e instant case) t!e "uiling in +!ic! Rilloraza +ore +as foun to "e intene or usef for rental purposes. Caro !a control of suc! "uiling asmanager an aministrator. O"viousl*) t!e repair of sai "uiling !is part of t!e usual "usiness of t!e aministration of te! aforesai properties so t!at t!e same ma*"e suita"le for t!e gainful purpose a"ove referre to. Conseuentl*) even even if Rilloraza) +!o i t!e repair +or t!ereof) +ere a casual la"orer) engage irectl*

"* %e la Cruz) acting as an inepenent contractor) +!ic! !e is not) t!e former +oul still "e an emplo*ee of petitioner !erein) +it!in t!e purvie+ of t!e (ormen:sCompensation Act) an) !ence) +oul "e entitle to eman compensation from !im.

U% C&ao 's A()i"ar and Ra*os

/acts0$n tr*ing to maintain t!e "eaut* of !is store) Petitioner !ire Ramos as inepenent contractor to fi t!e eaves of t!e store of t!e former +!o in turn sent Aguilar to o t!e o".$t appears t!at at a"out 16066 o:cloc in t!e evening of # Novem"er 15?,) responent Aguilar suffere p!*sical inur* as a result of t!e suen fall of t!e +!ole eave of aglass+are store no+n as 2a =oa e Plata an o+ne "* t!e petitioner >* C!ao) +!ile !e Bresponent Aguilar toget!er +it! t+o ot!er la"orers +as on top of sai eaveremoving t!e galvanize iron s!eets covering t!e frame of t!e eave.

Aguilar ase for (ormanKs Compensation an t!e Commission grante t!e same.

$ssue0 (FN E-E eiste.

&el0 Nope..T!e emplo*ment of responent Aguilar to !elp in t!e repair or replacement of t!e eave of a commercial store o+ne "* petitioner >* C!ao +as purel* casual) "ecause suc! +or +oul occur onl* +!en t!e sai structure s!oul "e amage or "roen. (!en it +oul "e "roen an repaire) no"o* coul foresee. $t ma* safel* "e state t!at t!e +or on t!e eave +oul not "e mae at fie intervals. T!e emplo*ment of a carpenter an a tinsmit! for its repair or replacement +as t!erefore onl* occasional) sporaic anfor a s!ort time.

$t is clear t!at t!e repair or ismantlement of t!e eave +as not for t!e purpose of t!e petitioner:s occupation or "usiness. T!e petitioner +as a glass+are ealer. &e "oug!t ansol glass+are. $t is ifficult) to see t!e connection of t!e repair or ismantlement +it! t!e "u*ing an selling of glass+are.

Even if t!e services of responent Aguilar +ere engage "* petitioner >* C!ao irectl* or t!roug! an agent or contractor) still responent Aguilar) t!e inure la"orer) is notentitle to compensation for t!e simple reason t!at !is emplo*ment +as purel* casual an +as not for t!e purposes of t!e petitioner:s "usiness or occupation.

Aguilar is not covere "* t!e (orman:s Compensation act +it! respect to >*. =ecause0Section ,5 B" of Act No. ,#S as amene) no+n ot!er+ise as t!e +ormen:s Compensation Act) provies t!at B" :2a"orer: is use as a s*non*m of :Emplo*ee: an meansever* person +!o !as entere t!e emplo*ment of) or +ors uner a service or apprentices!ip contract for an emplo*er. $t oes not inclue a person +!ose emplo*ment ispurel* casual an is :not for t!e) purposes of occupation or "usiness of t!e emplo*er.

%ecision of t!e (ormenKs Compensation Commission is reverse.

There is no er8ee relationship because of the nature of the business of U Chao. U Chao was not engaged inreal propert business, he was engaged in selling glass. is need for a carpenter is on a casual basis. Ramos and Aguilar are independent contractors. So that7s the difference between Caro case and U Chao.

7



Ca+ vs Ta*a%o

/acts0Samuel Tama*o agree in 7arc!) 15I5 to construct for t!e spouses Ronal Ca"e an Purita Ca"e t!eir resiential !ouse for P16)666 in accorance +it! t!e plans anspecifications prepare "* an arc!itect.Tama*o starte t!e +or. T!e Ca"es ispense +it! !is services +!en !e allegel* mae certain eviations from t!e plans. T!e !ouse +as finis!e "* ot!er persons.Tama*o on @une #4) 15I5 sue t!e Ca"es in t!e Regional Office of t!e %epartment of 2a"or in 2aoag Cit* for t!e recover* of PI)666 as pa*ment of la"or an materials. &efile t!e case as !ea carpenter of !is 14 co-+orers) +!ose +ages !e !a avance an for reim"ursement of materials +!ic! !e !a purc!ase.T!e Assistant Regional %irector for Ar"itration orere t!e Ca"es to pa* Tama*o P)66 as contractual +ages an P66 as reim"ursement of materials.

$ssue0(FN Ca"e is lia"le.

&el0 NoL(e !ol t!at Tama*o +as an inepenent contractor an not an emplo*ee of t!e Ca"es. T!e 2a"or Regional Office an t!e National 2a"or Relations Commission !a no urisiction over !is claim. T!eir @urisiction is confine to claims arising from emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip Tama*o:s claim is cogniza"le "* t!e municipal trial court.(&ERE/ORE) t!e ecision of responent Assistant Regional %irector Tumang is reverse an set asie.

The construction contractor asked for reimbursement of materials, therefore there is no er8ee relationship. That isnot within the 2urisdiction of labor courts. That7s wh the SC said it should have never been entertained b the 1'L?. Thatshows that he was an independent contractor because he assumed some of the materials.

0f dili gani trabaho, pure and simple nga trabaho lang, but apil ang materales, the materials take ou out of theer8ee relationship. #ecause if it were not so, ou would be giving the labor courts 2urisdiction to decide on propert issueswhich is beond their 2urisdiction. Remember that labor courts are tribunal with limited 2urisdiction.

Snow $hite case8 At issue here is pament under the $orkmenJs Compensation. Remember the old law, workmenJs compensationwas the responsibilit of the emploer 2ust like in &ew >ork, we followed &> until the Labor code was amended effective &ov.(, (EK@.&ow it is the ?mploeeJs Compensation, the State 0nsurance <und that answers for contingencies such as work8related in2uries ,sickness or death. ere what happened was death which began with work8related in2ur.

Sno, -&it Ic Cra* and Ic .ro Factor% vs Garcia

/acts0Emilio 'arcia "egan +oring +it! t!e responent as an ice rop venor in 15?,. &e +as pai on commission "asis of P6.6# per ice rop t!at !e sol) t!ere"* earningapproimatel* PI.66 a a*) seven a*s a +ee. As suc! venor) !is uties consiste mainl* of "reaing into small pieces t!e "loc of ice given to !im) an placing t!em in t!eice rop pus!cart to prevent t!e ice rops from melting. Claimant) +!en not selling ice rops) repaire "roen o+n pus!carts "elonging to t!e responents) "eing also acarpenter "* occupation.

$t appears t!at on @ul* #I) 156) +!ile preparing t!e pus!cart assigne to !im for peling) a "loc of t!e ice !e +as carr*ing fell on !is rig!t foot) smas!ing t!ree of !is Mtoes.After a +ee of meication) !e resume !is +or espite t!e fact t!at !e +as still limping; t!at +!ile pus!ing t!e ice rop pus!cart along Solis Street) Tono) 7anila) !iss+ollen rig!t foot +as !it "* a "ar"e +ire.

Claimant) !o+ever) continue +oring until August #I) 156 +!en !e stoppe as !e coul no longer +it!stan t!e pain an c!illing sensation t!at !e suffere. &e +as "roug!tto t!e Nort! 'eneral &ospital +!ere !is rig!t foot +as amputate "elo+ t!e nee) t!e a"scess !aving alrea* "ecome gangrenous. &e remaine in sai !ospital untilSeptem"er 1) 156. %r. H. Rolan) a private p!*sician) continue treatment on t!e claimant +!ile at !ome until t!e amputation +oun +as completel* !eale nine mont!st!ereafter. Claimant allege t!at !e spent t!e total amount of PI66.66 for sai treatment.

$ssue0(FN E-E relations!ip eiste "et+een 'arcia an Sno+ (!ite $ce cream /actor*.

&el0 8esir999T!e criterion is +!et!er t!e person or firm allege to "e t!e emplo*er can irect or reuire t!e part* assertel* eno*ing t!e emplo*ee status to o a certain in of +or an to

specif* t!e means an met!os "* +!ic! t!e same is to "e accomplis!e.

T!e logic of t!e situation inee ictates t!at +!ere t!e element of control is a"sent; +!ere a person +!o +ors for anot!er oes so more or less at !is o+n pleasure an isnot su"ect to efinite !ours or conitions of +or) an in turn is compensate accoring to t!e result of !is efforts an not t!e amount t!ereof) +e s!oul not fin t!at t!erelations!ip of emplo*er an emplo*ee eists.

Since isposition of t!e prouct is normall* an in!erent part of an* "usiness) t!ere is an increasing tenenc* to inulge a presumption t!at salesman) istri"utors) aneliver*men +!o fall s!ort of t!e status of "usinessmen !oling t!emselves out to t!e pu"lic as suc! are emplo*ees. T!e circumstance t!at t!e salesman is evoting !is entiretime to t!e istri"ution of t!e one emplo*er:s prouct is) in most lines) an inication t!at !e is an emplo*ee.

There is ?R8?? relationship because (. who owns the cart% S$, the ice% S$, who provided the ice pick% S$. <inall up toissue $o& the ice drop that has been sold, was it 6arciaJs or S$% S$. because he could still return it if it were unsold. 0f it were reallhis and there were still ice drops at the end of the da, he could no longer return it. The fact that he can return it means that the titledoes not pass to him, it remains with S$. now, corroborating evidence, when 6arcia could no longer push the cart anmore becausehis foot is in2ured, he was repairing the push carts, it means that he is an emploee of S$. This is the corroborating evidence whichconvinced the court that he was an emploee of S$.

So we go to 5afinco Trading, if we parallel this case with S$, instead of an ice cream cart, what do we have% A softdrinkstruck. 0nstead of ice drop, what do we have% Softdrink. At what price did he sell the softdrink% e sold it at the recommended price of the trading compan, 5afinco, the e-clusive distributors of Cosmos, the original name of Bop Cola. 0f he could not sell the softdrinkcould the return it% >es. There is almost a ver faithful parallelism with S$, the onl difference is there is a ritten contract. ThepeddlerJs contract which provides among other things that* (. that the peddler shall secure the peddling license, ". that the peddler putsup a bond for the pament to his helpers or driver, because it is suggested that he hire a helper or a driver, but he could drive it himself.

Aside from the (st bond, there was a "nd bond that he had to put up. To answer for the proceeds if he does not remit the proceeds of thesoftdrinks that he sold. So " kinds of bonds. The SC sas that this is not a uestion of ?R8?? relationship. The characteri3ation of therelationship should be determined b the four corners of that contract. $h% #ecause the SC sas that ?R8?? relationship now is a

8



uestion of what is written down regardless of the facts. $h all of a sudden ou disregard the @ reuisites for the establishment of ?R8?? relationship% The SC sas because to rule otherwise would in effect give the labor tribunal 2urisdiction over other contracts providedfor in that written peddlerJs contract. 0f it is governed b the relationship, then that means the labor arbiter will have 2urisdiction over anominate contract which is provided for in the peddlerJs contract, what is that contract, then ominate contract of suret which is under the 2urisdiction of the regular court. That is wh the court has no choice but to rule that it is not an ?R8?? relationship. Huestion of

2urisdiction. Labor tribunals are tribunals of limited 2urisdiction 8 ?R8?? relationship that is its 2urisdiction. The regular courts are courtsof general 2urisdiction it is 2ust a uestion of amount that differentiate the 2urisdiction of specific courts from that of the RTCs becausethe 2urisdiction is supposed to be general in nature.

Ma0inco vs O"

/acts0Rorigo Repomanta an Re* 7orale entere into peling contracts +it! 7A/$NCO) sole istri"utor of Cosmos soft rins.

One of t!e stipulations of t!e contracts +as t!at eit!er part* mig!t terminate it upon five a*s prior notice to t!e ot!er. $n accorance +it! t!is stipulation) 7A/$NCO terminatet!e aforesai contracts) in vie+ of: +!ic!) 7orale an Repomanta) t!ru t!eir union) file a complaint +it! t!e National 2a"or Relations Commission BN2RC.

7A/$NCO file a motion to ismiss on t!e groun t!at t!e N2RC !a no urisiction "ecause complainants +ere not its emplo*ees "ut +ere inepenent contractors. Referreto a fact finer) t!e latter recommene ismissal of t!e complaint on t!e groun t!at complainants +ere inee not emplo*ees. =* reason t!ereof) t!e N2RC ismisse t!ecomplaint. T!e Secretar* of 2a"or reverse t!e orer of N2RC) !oling t!at complainants +ere emplo*ees of 7A/$NCO an t!erefore N2RC !a urisiction.

$ssue0 (FN t!ere is E-E relations!ip.

&el0 No999An inepenent contractor is one +!o eercises inepenent emplo*ment an contracts to o a piece of +or accoring to !is o+n met!os an +it!out "eing su"ect tocontrol of !is emplo*er ecept as to t!e result of t!e +or. A person +!o !as no capital or mone* of !is o+n to pa* !is la"orers or to compl* +it! !is o"ligations to t!em) +!ofiles no "on to ans+er for t!e fulfillment of !is contract +it! !is emplo*er) falls s!ort of t!e reuisites or conitions necessar* to classif* !im an inepenent contractor.

T!ose tests to etermine t!e eistence of an emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip or +!et!er t!e person oing a particular +or for anot!er is an inepenentcontractor cannot "e satisfactoril* applie in t!e instant case. $t s!oul "e o"vious "* no+ t!at t!e instant case is a penum"ral) sui generis case l*ing on t!e s!ao+*"orerline t!at separates an emplo*ee from an inepenent contractor.

$n etermining +!et!er t!e relations!ip is t!at of emplo*er an emplo*ee or +!et!er one is an inepenent contractor) Deac! case must "e etermine on its o+nfacts an all t!e features of t!e relations!ip are to "e consiereD. (e are convince t!at on t!e "asis of t!e peling contract) no emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip +ascreate. &ence) t!e ol N2RC !a no urisiction over t!e termination of t!e peling contract.

T!e Supreme Court !el t!at t!e complainants +ere inepenent "usinessmen. T!e SC set asie t!e orer an resolution of t!e Secretar* of 2a"or an affirmet!e orer of t!e N2RC ismissing t!e case for lac of urisiction.

SSS case, again this is peddlers. 0n la swerte, ou have to pick up the goods that are to be sold b the peddler, the brands of cigarettesthat are the products of la swerte cigar. 'nce again, the court said there is a contract. The peddler here is not at libert to determine theprice at which he would sell the cigarette. e is not at libert to choose the brands to sell. e is not at libert to depart from his area, heis given an area, ou can onl sell here. All these things are inde-es of control but there is no suret, there is no bond. That is wh thecourt is ver brave in saing that there is no ?R8?? relationship. That is wh ou can see all the more that that made the difference is

5afinco is the bond, the " kinds of bonds.

SSS vs CA and 1)a"it% To+acco Cor!

/acts0TC) formerl* >.S. To"acco Corporation) is a firm engage in t!e manufacture an sale of cigarettes. On August 1#) 15I#) TC) as HEN%OR) entere into an agreement +it!CARREON) as HEN%EE.

T!e contract +it! CARREON +as terminate "* TC on %ecem"er 14) 15I#.

On April #5) 15I) CARREON file a petition +it! t!e Social Securit* Commission alleging t!at !e +as an emplo*ee of TC) an asing t!at TC "e orere to report !im forcoverage uner t!e Social Securit* 2a+. TC ans+ere claiming t!at CARREON !as not "een an emplo*ee "ut +as an :$nepenent "usinessman.: T!e Social Securit*S*stem intervene an) taing t!e sie of CARREON) also ase t!at TC "e orere to pa* Social Securit* contri"utions in respect of CARREON. On @anuar* #1) 15I) t!eSocial Securit* Commission resolve CARREON:s petition) fining !im to "e an emplo*ee of TC.

T!e CA reverse t!e ecision of SS Commission.

$ssue0 +!et!er or not Romeo Carreon is an emplo*ee or an inepenent contractor

&el0 8esir999T!e elements to "e generall* consiere in etermining t!e eistence of an emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip) as follo+s0a selection an engagement of t!e emplo*ee;" t!e pa*ment of +ages;c t!e po+er of ismissal; an t!e emplo*er:s po+er to control t!e emplo*ee +it! respect to t!e means an met!o "* +!ic! t!e +or is to "e accomplis!e.T!e last +!ic! is t!e so-calle Dcontrol testD is t!e most important element. (!ere t!e element of control is a"sent; +!ere a person +!o +ors for anot!er oes so more or lessat !is o+n pleasure an is not su"ect to efinite !ours or conitions of +or) an in turn is compensate accoring to t!e result of !is effort) t!e relations!ip of emplo*er-emplo*ee oes not eist.

T!us) after a stu* of t!e recors an appl*ing t!e Dcontrol tests)D t!ere appears to "e no uestion t!at t!e eistence of an emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip"et+een Romeo Carreon an TC !as "een esta"lis!e) "ase on t!e follo+ing DunisputeD facts as pointe out "* t!e Solicitor 'eneral) to +it0 Ba TC assigne a efinite

sales territor* for Romeo Carreon; B" TC provie Romeo Carreon +it! a eliver* truc for t!e eclusive use of t!e latter in !is sales activities; Bc TC ictate t!e price oft!e cigarettes sol "* Romeo Carreon; B TC prescri"e +!at "ran of cigarettes Romeo Carreon coul sell; Be TC etermine t!e persons to +!om Romeo Carreoncoul sell) Bf TC issue circulars an memorana relative to Romeo Carreon:s sales activities; Bg TC reuire Romeo Carreon to su"mit to it ail*) +eel* an mont!l*reports; B! TC groune Romeo Carreon for si mont!s in 15; Bi Romeo Carreon +as supervise "* sales coorinators of TC; B Romeo Carreon +as su"ect topa*ment of amages an loss even of accrue rig!ts for an* violation of instructions mae "* TC in relation to !is sales activities; an B Romeo Carreon +as pai anallo+ance "* TC. All t!ese inicate control an supervision over Carreon:s +or.

. )DP)D)T SA/S4A)

0ndependent salesman, remember that he does not carr with him what he sells, that is what the peddler does. The peddler he carrieswith him what he sells and he brings with him that which he sells. The are selling what the are carring.

9



>smael case the salesmen wants to form a union, >smael sas the are not our emploees. (. the do not follow the same procedureof hiring as our regular emploees, the do not submit themselves to a regular medical check up. ". the do not have a regular salar,the ma be given transportation allowance but the do not have regular salar. ). the have no regular office hours, the report at ;but after that the punch in and are given their general instructions, the disappear and after that the donJt have to come back. Accdg,to >smael how can the be our emploees% &o definite hours of work, no definite salar, when the were hired the were not evengiven a medical checkup 2ust like all our regular emploees.

JUAN 2SMAEL 3 COMPAN24 INC! vs! CIR4 2C Sa"s*n5s Union

/acts0On Novem"er #I) 15?I) t!e petitioning >nion) a legitimate la"or organization ul* registere +it! t!e %epartment of 2a"or) file a petition pra*ing for t!e aforesai certification)

upon t!e groun t!at it is a la"or organization compose of all t!e salesmen +oring for t!e 8smael Steel 7anufacturing Co.) +!ic! is operate "* t!e Compan*) as asu"siiar* t!ereof) "ot! of +!ic! are emplo*ers of t!e aforementione salesmen; t!at t!ere are in t!e Compan* t+o B# ot!er la"or unions) namel*) t!e 8smael Steel 2a"orOrganization BPA/2>) t!e mem"ers!ip of +!ic! is compose mainl* of manual factor* +orers Bnon- supervisors) an t!e 8smael Steel Emplo*ees >nion) t!e mem"ers!ipof +!ic! is compose of supervisors) non-supervisors +!o are tec!nical emplo*ees) office non-tec!nical emplo*ees an clerical factor* +orers) an t!at t!e mem"ers ofpetitioning >nion are not inclue in or represente "* an* of sai t+o B# unions in t!eir collective "argaining agreement +it! t!e Compan*) for t!e economic factors affectingt!e mem"ers of petitioning >nion are ifferent an t!e* constitute a separate an istinct union for an appropriate "argaining unit.

At t!e !earing of t!is case on /e"ruar* 11) 7arc! 1#) # an 7a* ?) 15?4) t!e follo+ing facts appear to !ave "een esta"lis!e in evience0 T!at t!e petitioning >nion is ul*registere "* t!e %epartment of 2a"or an is) t!erefore) a legitimate la"or organization +it!in t!e meaning of Section #Bf of t!e Act; t!at t!e Compan* is a corporationengage in t!e manufacture of steel euipment) mac!ines) etc.) o+ne an operate "* t!e @uan 8smael Compan*) $nc.; t!at at t!e time of t!e instant petition forcertification +as file) t!ere +ere t+ent* B#6 salesmen or commission agents +oring for t!e Compan*) "ut t!at as of 7arc! #) 15?4) onl* fourteen B1 of t!em +ere left;an t!at neit!er of t!e t+o unions eisting in t!e Compan*) namel* t!e 8smael Steel 2a"or Organization BPA/2> an t!e 8smael Steel Emplo*ees: >nion) represents t!emem"ers of t!e petitioning >nion in an* of t!eir respective collective "argaining agreement +it! t!e Compan*.

T!e Compan* maintains t!e negative upon t!e groun t!at t!e mem"ers of petitioning >nion are mere commission agents or sales representatives) +!ose form of selectionan engagement is ifferent from t!at of t!e emplo*ees of t!e Compan*) for unlie suc! emplo*ees) commission agents are not reuire to unergo p!*sical eamination) to

su"mit a police clearance) an to punc! t!e "un* cloc) an are not provie +it! ientification cars. $t is furt!er urge t!at commission agents are pai neit!er +ages norsalaries) "ut are grante commissions) t!e amount of +!ic! epens on t!eir sales) an t!at t!eir conuct as agents is not su"ect to t!e control or supervision of t!eCompan*) +!ic!) moreover) !as no po+er of ismissal over t!em.

$ssue0 +!et!er t!e mem"ers of petitioning >nion are emplo*ees of t!e Compan*) for purposes of certification of t!e former as t!e sole an eclusive "argaining representative of allt!e salesmen of t!e latter.

&el0 8esir.T!e aforementione ifference in t!e manner of Dselection an engagementD oes not prove) !o+ever) t!e allege a"sence of emplo*er- emplo*ee relations!ip. 7ost "usinessenterprises !ave emplo*ees of ifferent classes) necessaril* reuiring ifferent met!os of selection an contracts of services of various t*pes) +it!out etracting from t!eeistence of sai relations!ip.

There is an ?R8?? relationship. $h% #ecause the distinction that the were not given medical check up ma be otherwise e-plainedb the fact that the do not e-pose themselves with the factor conditions that ma be the cause of contagious disease or aggravation

of an e-isting disease. There is no need for them to undergo regular check up before the are regulari3ed. The fact that there is nobasic wage does not mean that there is no ?R8?? relationship, because the are paid on a commission basis. And in fact, the arecontrolled as to the particular means b the withdrawal of their transportation allowance. That is how that emploer controls thebehavior of the salesmen under it. And finall, the fact that the have to make a report is an inde- of control. $ho did ou visit% owman times% 0nitial pleading, follow up pleading, concluding pleading. $hat is the product that is introduced to the particular potentialcustomer% The are alread written down and that is how >smael controls its salesmen.

0nvestment Blanning* The want them to be enrolled in the SSS but the emploer investment planning refused on the grounds thatthere is no ?R8?? relationship. 'f course the SSS, the said that there must be ?R8?? relationship. So the SSS answered that there is?R8?? relationship. $hat is the e-planation wh the courts sa that there is none% (st, no regular hours. "nd, there is no e-clusivitagreement. &owhere does it state that investment planning reuire its salesperson to sell its plan and nothing else. So the salesmencould sell other plan, other securities belonging to other entit not investment planning. That would show that the are independent.The are paid on commission, there is no basic. $hat is more is that the can alread deduct their commission from the proceeds thatthe collect. So what the would have to remit to investment planning is alread the net of their commission. 0t shows that the areindependent. )rd, the have no uotas. The have no uotes to make. ow man customers have ou visited toda% There is no uota.

0tJs up to ou. Actuall ou are rewarded b the commensurate energ that ou put in our performance. #isitahon nimo ang daghangcustomer, mahalinan 2ud ka. That is a kind of independent salesmen, rather than an emploee salesmen.

Invst*nt P"annin( Cor o0 t& P&i"! vs SSS

/acts0T!ese representatives are in realit* commission agents) T!e uncontraicte testimon* of petitioner:s lone +itness) +!o +as its assistant sales irector) is t!at t!ese agents arerecruite an traine "* !im particularl* for t!e o" of selling D/ilipinas 7utual /unD s!ares) mae to unergo a test after suc! training an) if successful) are given license topractice "* t!e Securities an Ec!ange Commission. T!e* t!en eecute an agreement +it! petitioner +it! respect to t!e sale of /7/ s!ares to t!e general pu"lic. Among t!efeatures of sai agreement +!ic! responent Commission consiere pertinent to t!e issue are0Ba an agent is pai compensation for services in t!e form of commission;B" in t!e event of eat! or resignation lie or !is legal representative s!all "e pai t!e "alance of t!e commission corresponing to !im;Bc !e is su"ect to a set of rules an regulations governing t!e performance of !is uties uner t!e agreement;B !e is reuire to put up a performance "on0 anBe !is services ma* "e terminate for certain causes.

T!at t!e agents Dare not reuire to report Bfor +or at an* time; t!e* o not !ave to evote t!eir time eclusivel* to or +or solel* for petitioner; t!e time an t!e effort t!e*spen in t!eir +or epen entirel* upon t!eir o+n +ill an initiative; t!e* are not reuire to account for t!eir time nor su"mit a recor of t!eir activities; t!e* s!ouler t!eiro+n selling epenses as +ell as transportation; an t!e* are pai t!eir commission "ase on a certain percentage of t!eir sales.D T!e recor also reveals t!at t!e commissionearne "* an agent on !is sales is irectl* eucte "* !im from t!e amount !e receives from t!e investor an turns over to t!e compan* t!e amount investe after suc!euction is mae. T!e maorit* of t!e agents are regularl* emplo*e else+!ere - eit!er in t!e government or in private enterprises.

On August #I) 156 petitioner) t!roug! counsel) applie to responent Social Securit* Commission for eemption of its so-calle registere representatives from t!ecompulsor* coverage of t!e Social Securit* Act. T!e application +as enie in a letter signe "* t!e Secretar* to t!e Commission on @anuar* 1) 151.

Petitioner su"mits t!at its commission agents) engage uner t!e terms an conitions alrea* enumerate) are not emplo*ees "ut inepenent contractors

10



$ssue0 (FN petitioner:s registere representatives are emplo*ees +it!in t!e meaning of t!e Social Securit* Act efining t!e term Demplo*eeD - Dan* person +!o performsservices for an :emplo*er: in +!ic! eit!er or "ot! mental an p!*sical efforts are use an +!o receives compensation for suc! services) +!ere t!ere is an emplo*er-emplo*eerelations!ip.D

&el0 Nopers.$t must "e note t!at even if an agent of petitioner s!oul evote all of !is time an effort tr*ing to sell its investment plans !e +oul not necessaril* "e entitle tocompensation t!erefor. &is rig!t to compensation epens upon an is measure "* t!e tangi"le results !e prouces.

T!e significant factor in etermining t!e relations!ip of t!e parties is t!e presence or a"sence of a supervisor* po+er to control t!e met!o an etail of performance of t!eservice) an t!e egree to +!ic! t!e principal ma* intervene to eercise suc! control) t!e presence of suc! po+er of control "eing inicative of an emplo*ment relations!ip ant!e a"sence of suc! po+er "eing inicative of t!e relations!ip of inepenent contractor.

T!e logic of t!e situation inee ictates t!at +!ere t!e element of control is a"sent; +!ere a person +!o +ors for anot!er oes so more or less at !is o+n pleasure an isnot su"ect to efinite !ours or conitions of +or) an in turn is compensate accoring to t!e result of !is efforts an not t!e amount t!ereof) +e s!oul not fin t!at t!erelations!ip of emplo*er an emplo*ee eists.

Sara case the situation of a nurse emploed b 1r. Sara, he is so successful in his doctoring he put up a rice mill. e convinced her touit nursing, donJt go the US, bu pala for me and sell rice for me at commission. $ala ka pang8capital, panghulam, 0 will guaranteethe capital. There is misunderstanding born out of labor, Agarrado sues the former boss, the doctor couple for unpaid commission.1oes the labor arbiter have 2urisdiction% 'f course the labor arbiter said es. And the &LRC also affirmed. $hen it reached the SC, theSC said that it should have never have reached the court because this is not ?R8?? relationship. Agarrado, the moment that sheresigned from nursing, became an independent salesperson. $h is she independent% The fact that the doctor has guaranteed her loan, shows ou that the are not one and the same enterprise. That is wh ou need to guarantee because our standing is notenough. That is what the court ruled in Sara vs. Agarrado. Remember that the SC did not consider that Agarrado was formerlemploed. The court perceived that there was a complete break, wh% 0t is not included in the nature of work that she assumed, it isnow buing and selling pala and milled rice. 0t is different from nursing.

Sara vs A(arrado

/acts0Private responent Cerila Agarrao +as an attenant in t!e clinic of petitioner %r. Renato Sara. S!e uit !er o" in 15I,./our *ears later) petitioners %r. Sara an Romeo Ara3a) "eing o+ners of a rice mill an !aving "egun to engage in t!e "u* an sell of pals* an nee) entere into a ver"alagreement +it! private responent Agarrao +!ere"* it +as agree t!at t!e latter +oul "e pai P#.66 commission per sac of mille rice sol as +ell as a commission of16Q per ilo of pals* purc!ase. $t +as furt!er agree t!at private responent +oul spen !er o+n mone* for t!e unertaing) "ut to ena"le !er to carr* out t!e agreementmore effectivel*) s!e +as aut!orize to "orro+ mone* from ot!er persons) as in fact s!e i) su"ect to reim"ursement "* petitioners.

$n 154#) private responent file +it! t!e National 2a"or Relations Commission BN2RC Regional Ar"itration =ranc! No. $) Cota"ato Cit*) a complaint against petitioners forunpai commission of P)?54.66 on mille rice sol) P#)54#.46 on pals* sol) reim"ursement of P1I)?66.66 +!ic! s!e !a "orro+e from various persons an P1)I5.66 of!er o+n mone* +!ic! petitioners allegel* !a not reim"urse

On @anuar* 1I) 15I,) 2a"or Ar"iter 7agna C. Cruz renere a ecision in favor of private responent orering petitioners to pa* all t!e claims amounting to P#),5I.46. +!ic! +as affirme "* nlRC.

$ssue0(FN an emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip eists "et+een petitioners an private responent as to +arrant cognizance "* t!e 2a"or Ar"iter

&el0 NO. Private responent +as an inepenent contractor) +!o eercising inepenent emplo*ment) contracte to o a piece of +or accoring to !er o+n met!o an +it!out "eing su"ect to t!e control of !er emplo*er ecept as to t!e result of !er +or. S!e +as pai for t!e result of !er la"or) unlie an emplo*ee +!o is pai for t!e la"or !eperforms.To etermine t!e eistence of an emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip) t!is Court in a long line of ecisions? !as invaria"l* applie t!e follo+ing four-fol test0 M1 t!e selection anengagement of t!e emplo*ee; M# t!e pa*ment of +ages; M, t!e po+er of ismissal; an M t!e po+er to control t!e emplo*ee:s conuct.

-T!e arrangement t!us +as eplicitl* on a commission "asis epenent on t!e volume of sale or purc!ase. Private responent +as not guarantee an* minimumcompensation nor +as s!e allo+e an* ra+ing account or avance of an* in against unearne commissions.-T!e po+er to terminate t!e relations!ip +as mutuall* veste upon t!e parties. Eit!er ma* terminate t!e "usiness arrangement at +ill) +it! or +it!out cause.-(e o"serve t!at t!e means an met!os of purc!asing an selling rice or Pale* "* private responent +ere totall* inepenent of petitioners: control.T!e a"sence of control is mae more evient "* t!e fact t!at private responent +as not even o"lige to sell t!e pala* s!e purc!ase to petitioners. S!e +as at li"ert* to sellt!e pala* to an* traer offering !ig!er "u*ing rates. S!e +as t!us free to sell it to an*"o* +!om s!e please.

7oreover) private responent +ore for petitioners at !er o+n pleasure an +as not su"ect to efinite !ours or conitions of +or. S!e coul even elegate t!e tas of"u*ing an selling to ot!ers) if s!e so esire) or simultaneousl* engage in ot!er means of liveli!oo +!ile selling an purc!asing rice or pala*.

. A6)'5

6uarde- case 6uarde- sells firefighting euipment. Tries to get somebod who will represent with rubberworld their number ( productwhich is the fire truck. The wanted to sell the fire truck to rubberworld. 'ne person responds to their advertisement is immediatelalread hired. 6o to rubberworld, convince them that the need to get the fire truck. >ou will be given a commission, pila macommission. &ot stated. &ot considerable because a fire truck is uite a sum.This particular person commissioned to sell the fire truck disappeared. So the it is the manager who now follows up with rubberworldthe sale of the fire truck. Rubberworld is finall convinced to bu the fire truck, and 2ust as the were about to sign the contract of sale,the particular worker who has disappeared suddenl appeared. And now claims his unpaid commission. 6uarde- said that thecommission is conditioned upon our closing the deal. >ou did not close it, we had to close the deal. That is wh he claimed that heneed not close it because he is an emploee. ?ver effort that 0 put in whether the accept it or not should be rewarded and paidbecause he is an emploee. 0s that correct% That is wh the sc said that this case should have never been entertained b &LRCbecause this is not a case of ?R8?? relationship but agenc. $hat is the difference%

G)ard6 Entrriss vs! NLRC

/ACTS07arcelina A. Escanor +as engage) uner t!e name of 'uare Enterprises) in t!e manufacture an sale of fire-fig!ting euipment an t!e "uiling or

fa"rication of fire trucs; +!ile @um"ee Or"eta +as a DfreelanceD salesman. Or"eta learne t!at Escanor !a offere to fa"ricate a fire truc for Ru""er+orl BP!il.$nc. &e +rote to Escanor inuiring a"out t!e amount of commission for t!e sale of a fire truc. Escanor +rote "ac on t!e same a* to avice t!at it +as P1?)666.66 per unit. /our a*s later) Or"eta offere to follo+-up Escanor:s pening proposal to sell a fire truc to Ru""er+orl) an ase for P#?6.66 as representationepenses. Escanor agree an gave !im t!e mone*.

11



(!en no +or +as receive from Or"eta after , a*s) s!e !erself inuire in +riting from Ru""er+orl a"out !er offer of sale of a fire truc. $n t!e meantime) Or"etasol to ot!er iniviuals some of Escanor:s fire etinguis!ers) receiving traveling epenses as +ell as t!e corresponing commissions. &e t!en roppe out of sig!t.

A"out I mont!s after+ars) Escanor !erself finall* conclue a contract +it! Ru""er+orl for t!e purc!ase of a fire truc. T!e transaction +as consummate +it!t!e eliver* of t!e truc an full pa*ment "* Ru""er+orl. Or"eta suenl* reappeare an ase for !is commission for t!e sale of t!e fire truc to Ru""er+orl.Escanor refuse) sa*ing t!at !e !a !a not!ing to o +it! t!e offer) negotiation an consummation of t!e sale.

$nsisting t!at !e +as entitle to t!e commission) Or"eta file a complaint against Escanor +it! t!e 7inistr* of 2a"or. T!e 2a"or Ar"iter renere ugment in !isfavor. T!at ugment +as affirme "* t!e National 2a"or Relations Commission. $t is claime t!at an implie agenc* !a "een create "et+een Escanor an Or"etaon t!e "asis of t!e follo+ing circumstances0

1 t!e allege ver"al aut!orit* given to !im to offer a fire truc to Ru""er+orl; # t!e allege +ritten aut!orit* to sell t!e truc containe in a letter of Escanor , Escanor:s !aving given Or"eta P#?6.66 as representation epenses; an Or"eta:s su"mission of a price uotation to Ru""er+orl an !is !aving arrange a meeting "et+een Escanor an Ru""er+orl:s Purc!asing 7anager.

$SS>E0 (FN an er-ee relations!ip eistsG NO(FN Or"eta is Escanor:s agent as regars t!e sale of a fire truc to Ru""er+orlG NO

R>2$N'07ont!s prior to Or"eta:s approac!ing Escanor) t!e latter !a alrea* mae a +ritten offer of a fire truc to Ru""er+orl. All t!at s!e consente to +as for

Or"eta to Dfollo+ upD t!at pening offer. $t oes not even appear t!at it +as Or"eta +!o unertoo t!e promise follo+-up. &e reporte not!ing of !is efforts or t!eirfruits to Escanor. $t +as Escanor +!o eterminel* pus!e t!e Ru""er+orl eal. Or"eta +as simpl* no+!ere to "e foun. /urt!ermore) t!e Drepresentationallo+anceD of P#?6 +as meant to cover t!e epenses for t!e Dfollo+-upD offere "* Or"eta - an am"iguous fact +!ic! oes not of itself suggest t!e creation of anagenc* an is not at all inconsistent +it! t!e t!eor* of its a"sence in t!is case.

'ranting t!at a contract of agenc* !a inee "een constitute) not!ing in t!e recor tens to prove t!at !e succeee in carr*ing out its terms or even as muc! asattempte to o so. T!e terms of Escanor:s letter) assuming t!at it +as inee an Daut!orit* to sell)D as Or"eta insists are to t!e effect t!at entitlement to t!eP1?)666 commission is contingent on t!e purc!ase "* a customer of a fire truc) t!e implicit conition "eing t!at t!e agent +oul earn t!e commission if !e +asinstrumental in "ringing t!e sale a"out. Or"eta certainl* !a not!ing to o +it! t!e sale of t!e fire truc) an is not t!erefore entitle to an* commission at all.

Even if Or"eta is consiere to !ave "een Escanor:s agent for t!e time !e +as suppose to Dfollo+ upD t!e offer to sell) suc! agenc* +oul !ave "een eemerevoe upon t!e resumption of irect negotiations "et+een Escanor an Ru""er+orl) Or"eta !aving in t!e meantime a"anone all efforts to secure t!e eal inEscanor:s "e!alf.

'iven t!e sole issue raise "* t!e parties conceel* from t!e case:s inception) t!e competence to resolve t!e controvers* i not pertain to eit!er t!e 2a"or Ar"iteror t!e N2RC. T!e urisiction veste in t!em "* t!e 2a"or Coe etens onl* to cases arising from emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ips. (!at !as all along "een atissue !ere is t!e eistence of a contract of agenc* not emplo*ment or lease of services.

ow can ou distinguish it from ?R8?? relationship% The common denominator is services, in agenc services are rendered for

purposes of representation. 0n ?R8?? relationship, services are rendered for the enterprise of the emploer. 0n the first case, therendition of services in agenc is reparator to further contracts because ou do reall represent our emploer. #ut the servicesrendered in ?R8?? relationship are an end in themselves. >ou render the service to the enterprise to the owner who is our emploer.Services in agenc is rendered in representation, services in ?R8?? relationship is rendered accdg. to the purpose of the enterprise of the emploer. That is that main difference between agenc and ?R8?? relationship.

Carungcong case remember carungcong, he filed an agreement with sun life. >ou are in charge of a particular territor, ou will begiven a lump sum, ou hire, ou train people to sell insurance. And then ou have overriding commission. The insurance salesperson isthe person to have a first commission, the supervisor has an overriding commission of the commission. ere it is the agent. e spendsfor the training, he spends for his e-penses that have been paid. The insurance most of those agents are not insurance 88, because oumust still pass an e-am.

0n Carungcong, the SC sas this is an agent. There is no ?R8?? relationship so &LRC is mistaken in assuming 2urisdiction of the casebecause what happened to Carungcong% The salesmen operating under her, complained to the office in manila because the aresupposed to be given a Christmas part and the are asking for a lechon, e wala sila gihatan ug lechon nasuko sila. The agentJs

contract was cancelled that is wh he sued sun life for millions for unpaid insurance, unpaid commission. That is wh the SC there is no?R8?? relationship, if he were an emploee he would not make millions. This is an agenc.

'arungcong $s. )/*'

/ACTS0 Susan Carungcong "egan !er career in t!e insurance inustr* as an agent of Sun 2ife Assurance Compan* of Canaa. S!e signe an DAgent:s AgreementD +it! Sun 2ife in virtue of +!ic! s!e +as esignate t!e latter:s Dagent to solicit applications for its insurance an annuit* policies.D T!e contract set out in etail t!eterms an conitions particularl* t!ose concerning t!e commissions pa*a"le to !er uner +!ic! !er relations!ip +it! t!e compan* +oul "e governe.

T!is contract +as supersee some five *ears later +!en s!e signe # ne+ agreements. T!e first) enominate DCareer Agent:s Bor >nit 7anager:s Agreement)Dealt +it! agent:s commissions) o"ligations) limitations on aut!orit*) an termination of t!e agreement "* eat!) or "* +ritten notice D+it! or +it!out cause.D $teclare t!at t!e DAgent s!all "e an inepenent contractor an none of t!e terms of t!e Agreement s!all "e construe as creating an emplo*er-emplo*eerelations!ip.D

T!e secon +as title) D7ANA'ER:S Supplementar* Agreement.D Sai secon contract eplicitl* escri"e as a Dfurt!er agreement) containe provisions

regaring remuneration) limitation of aut!orit*) an termination of t!e agreement "* +ritten notice D+it!out cause.D

Su"seuentl*) Carungcong an Sun 2ife eecute anot!er Agreement "* +!ic! t!e former +as name Ne+ =usiness 7anager. 2ie t!e DCareer Agent:s Bor >nit7anager:s AgreementD first signe "* Carungcong) t!is latest Agreement stresse t!at t!e DNe+ =usiness 7anager s!all "e consiere an inepenent contractoran not an emplo*ee of Sun 2ife)D an t!at Duner no circumstance s!all t!e Ne+ =usiness 7anager anFor !is emplo*ees "e consiere emplo*ees of Sun 2ife.D

7s. Eleizer Si"a*an) 7anager of Sun 2ife:s $nternal Auit %epartment) commence an inuir* into t!e special fun availments of Carungcong an ot!er Ne+=usiness 7anagers. 7s. Si"a*an re+ up a report after !aving eamine an anal*ze t!e pertinent recors) an intervie+e t!e unit managers an agentsmentione in t!e receipts presente "* Carungcong to support !er claims for reim"ursement of epenses for 154I) 1544 an 1545. Carungcong +as confronte +it!an ase to eplain t!e iscrepancies set out in Si"a*an:s report. On @anuar* 11) 1556) s!e +as given a letter +!ic! avise of t!e termination of !er relations!ip +it! Sun 2ife.

12



Carungcong promptl* institute proceeings in t!e Ar"itration =ranc! of t!e N2RC. T!e 2a"or Ar"iter foun t!at t!ere eiste an emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip"et+een !er an Sun 2ife. On appeal) t!e N2RC reverse t!e Ar"iter:s ugment. $t affirme t!at no emplo*ment relations!ip eiste "et+een Carungcong an Sun2ife.

$SS>E0 (FN complainant Carungcong is a regular emplo*ee of Sun 2ifeG NO

R>2$N'0 T!e contracts s!e !a +illingl* an no+ingl* signe +it! Sun 2ife repeatel* an clearl* provie t!at sai agreements +ere termina"le "* eit!er part* "* +ritten notice +it! or +it!out cause. A su"seuent agreement "* +!ic! s!e +as name Ne+ =usiness 7anager similarl* provie for termination of relation "* noticein +riting +it! or +it!out cause. T!is last agreement emp!asize) lie t!e DCareer Agent:s Bor >nit 7anager:s AgreementD first signe "* !er) t!at in t!e performanceof !er uties efine !erein) Carungcong +oul "e consiere an inepenent contractor an not an emplo*ee of Sun 2ife)D an t!at uner no circumstance s!allt!e Ne+ =usiness 7anager anFor !is emplo*ees "e consiere emplo*ees of Sun 2ife.D

$t is true t!at Carungcong:s uties an functions erive from eisting agreementsFcontracts +ere mae su"ect to rules an regulations issue "* responentcompan*) an for t!at matter) !ave lie+ise "een mae su"ect of certain limitations impose "* sai responent compan*. Nonet!eless) t!ese are not sufficient toaccor t!e effect of esta"lis!ing emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip in t!is case. T!is is so "ecause t!e insurance "usiness is not ust an* ot!er orinar* "usiness. $t isone t!at is im"ue +it! pu"lic interest !ence) it must "e governe "u* t!e rules an regulations of t!e state.

T!e SC in t!e case of $nsular 2ife Assurance Co. 2t. v. N2RC an =asiao !el t!at02ogicall*) t!e line s!oul "e ra+n "et+een rules t!at merel* serve as guielines to+ars t!e ac!ievement of t!e mutuall* esire result +it!out ictating t!e meansor met!os to "e emplo*e in attaining it) an t!ose t!at control to fi t!e met!oolog* an "in or restrict t!e part* !ire to t!e use of suc! means. T!e first) +!ic!aim onl* to promote t!e result) create no emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip unlie t!e secon) +!ic! aress "ot! t!e result an t!e means use to ac!ieve it. T!eistinction acuires particular relevance in t!e case of an enterprise affecte +it! pu"lic interest an is on t!at account su"ect to regulation "* t!e State +it! respect)not onl* to t!e relations "et+een insurer an insure "ut also to t!e internal affairs of t!e $nsurance compan*. Rules an regulations governing t!e conuct of t!e"usiness are provie for in t!e $nsurance Coe an enforce "* t!e $nsurance Commissioner. $t is t!erefore usual an epecte for an insurance compan* topromulgate a set of rules to guie its commission agents in selling its policies t!at t!e* ma* not run afoul of t!e la+ an +!at it reuires or pro!i"its.

Complainant !aving amitte t!at s!e +as free to +or as s!e pleases) at t!e place an time s!e felt convenient for !er to o so +!ere in spite of t!e controlsimpose "* responents) s!e suffere no interference +!atsoever in relation to t!e manner an met!oolog* s!e use for !er to ac!ieve !er esire results.Complainant amitte t!at !er remunerations +ere "ase on !er levels of prouction. S!e amitte s!e coul solicit insurance an*+!ere or at an* time s!e eemeconvenient. S!e never accounte for !er +oring time or t!at ail* +oring !ours +ere never applica"le to !er situation. S!e gave uneuivocal testimon* t!at s!eperforme !er uties as a Ne+ =usiness 7anager at !er o+n time an convenience.

Complainant allege t!at responent compan* issue rules an regulations to +!ic! s!e s!oul conform. &o+ever) no s!o+ing !as "een mae t!at suc! rules anregulations effectivel* an actuall* controlle or restricte !er c!oice of met!os in performing !er uties as Ne+ =usiness 7anager.

0nsular life case when ou arrive at insular life, itJs almost the same case. its 2ust that when he is terminated he sues for unpaid wageand commission. SC sas that ou are paid because ou are not an agent, ou are an emploee. The onl difference in these to casesis that the SC admittedl has introduced a variable and that is the amount of the claim somehow is an inde- of ?R8?? relationship. 0f the amount is stupendous, it cannot be ?R8?? relationship. The SC has introduced a variable here, that when it comes to a certainamount, it is no longer ?R8?? relationship.

nsular life $s. )/*'

/ACTS0Petitioner entere into an agenc* contract +it! responent Pantaleon e los Re*es aut!orizing t!e latter to solicit +it!in t!e P!ilippines applications for life

insurance an annuities for +!ic! !e +oul "e pai compensation in t!e form of commissions. T!e contract containe t!e stipulation t!at no emplo*er-emplo*eerelations!ip s!all "e create "et+een t!e parties an t!at t!e agent s!all "e free to eercise !is o+n ugment as to time) place an means of soliciting insurance.%e los Re*es !o+ever +as pro!i"ite "* petitioner from +oring for an* ot!er life insurance compan*) an violation of t!is stipulation +as sufficient groun fortermination of t!e contract.

Petitioner an private responent entere into anot!er contract +!ere t!e latter +as appointe as Acting >nit 7anager uner its office - t!e Ce"u %SO H B1?I. $t +as similarl* provie in t!e management contract t!at t!e relation of t!e acting unit manager anFor t!e agents of !is unit to t!e compan* s!all "e t!at ofinepenent contractor. $f t!e appointment +as terminate for an* reason ot!er t!an for cause) t!e acting unit manager +oul "e reverte to agent status anassigne to an* unit.

Private responent +ore concurrentl* as agent an Acting >nit 7anager until !e +as notifie "* petitioner on 14 Novem"er 155, t!at !is services +ere terminateeffective 14 %ecem"er 155,. On I 7arc! 155 !e file a complaint "efore t!e 2a"or Ar"iter on t!e groun t!at !e +as illegall* ismisse an t!at !e +as not pai!is salaries an separation pa*.

Petitioner file a motion to ismiss t!e complaint of %e los Re*es for lac of urisiction) citing t!e a"sence of emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip. $t reasone out t!at"ase on t!e criteria for etermining t!e eistence of suc! relations!ip or t!e so-calle Dfour-fol test)D i.e.) Ba selection an engagement of emplo*ee) B" pa*mentof +ages) Bc po+er of ismissal) an) B po+er of control) %e los Re*es +as not an emplo*ee "ut an inepenent contractor.

T!e motion of petitioner +as grante "* t!e 2a"or Ar"iter an t!e case +as ismisse on t!e groun t!at t!e element of control +as not sufficientl* esta"lis!e sincet!e rules an guielines set "* petitioner in its agenc* agreement +it! responent %e los Re*es +ere formulate onl* to ac!ieve t!e esire result +it!out ictatingt!e means or met!os of attaining it.

Responent N2RC etermine t!at responent %e los Re*es +as uner t!e effective control of petitioner in t!e critical an most important aspects of !is +or as>nit 7anager. T!is conclusion +as erive from t!e provisions in t!e contract +!ic! appointe private responent as Acting >nit 7anager) to +it0 Ba %e los Re*es +as to serve eclusivel* t!e compan*) t!erefore) !e +as not an inepenent contractor; B" !e +as reuire to meet certain manpo+er an prouction uota; an)

Bc petitioner controlle t!e assignment to an removal of soliciting agents from !is unit.

$SS>E0 (FN an er-ee relat ions!ip eists "et+een $nsular 2ife an e los Re*esG 8ES

R>2$N'0$t is aiomatic t!at t!e eistence of an emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip cannot "e negate "* epressl* repuiating it in t!e management contract an

proviing t!erein t!at t!e Demplo*eeD is an inepenent contractor +!en t!e terms of t!e agreement clearl* s!o+ ot!er+ise. /or) t!e emplo*ment status of a personis efine an prescri"e "* la+ an not "* +!at t!e parties sa* it s!oul "e. $n etermining t!e status of t!e management contract) t!e Dfour-fol testD onemplo*ment earlier mentione !as to "e applie.

Petitioner contens t!at %e los Re*es +as never reuire to go t!roug! t!e pre-emplo*ment proceures an t!at t!e pro"ationar* emplo*ment status +as reserveonl* to emplo*ees of petitioner. $t insists t!at t!e first reuirement of selection an engagement of t!e emplo*ee +as not met.

13



T!e provisions of t!e contract s!o+ t!at private responent +as appointe as Acting >nit 7anager onl* upon recommenation of t!e %istrict 7anager. T!is inicatest!at private responent +as !ire "* petitioner "ecause of t!e favora"le enorsement of its ul* aut!orize officer. T!e ver* esignation of t!e appointment of privateresponent as DactingD unit manager o"viousl* implies a temporar* emplo*ment status +!ic! ma* "e mae permanent onl* upon compliance +it! compan*stanars suc! as t!ose enumerate in t!e management contract.

On t!e matter of pa*ment of +ages) petitioner points out t!at responent +as compensate strictl* on commission "asis) t!e amount of +!ic! +as totall* epenenton !is total output.

T!e pa*ment of compensation "* +a* of commission oes not militate against t!e conclusion t!at private responent +as an emplo*ee of petitioner. >ner Art. 5I oft!e 2a"or Coe) D+ageD s!all mean D!o+ever esignate) capa"le of "eing epresse in terms of mone*) +!et!er fie or ascertaine on a time) tas) price or

commission "asis . As to t!e matter involving t!e po+er of ismissal an control "* t!e emplo*er) t!e latter of +!ic! is t!e most important of t!e test) petitioner asserts t!at itstermination of %e los Re*es +as "ut an eercise of its in!erent rig!t as principal uner t!e contracts an t!at t!e rules an guielines it set fort! in t!e contractcannot "e eeme as an eercise of control over t!e private responent as t!ese +ere merel* irectives t!at fie t!e esire result +it!out ictating t!e means ormet!o to "e emplo*e in attaining it.

T!e follo+ing factual finings of t!e N2RC !o+ever contraict suc! claims. A perusal of t!e appointment of complainant as Acting >nit 7anager reveals t!at01. Complainant +as to Declusivel*D serve responent compan*.#. Complainant +as reuire to meet certain manpo+er an prouction uotas.,. Responent B!erein petitioner controlle t!e assignment an removal of soliciting agents to an from complainant:s unit T!e ruling in $nsular 2ife Assurance Co.) 2t. v. N2RC an =asiao is not applica"le in t!e present case. >nlie =asiao) !erein responent %e los Re*es +asappointe Acting >nit 7anager) not agenc* manager. T!ere is no evience t!at to implement !is o"ligations uner t!e management contract) %e los Re*es !aorganize an office. Petitioner in fact !as amitte t!at it provie %e los Re*es a place an a ta"le at its office +!ere !e reporte for an +ore +!enever !e +asnot out in t!e fiel. >ner t!e managers!ip contract) %e los Re*es +as o"lige to +or eclusivel* for petitioner in life insurance solicitation an +as imposepremium prouction uotas. %e los Re*es coul onl* "e promote to permanent unit manager if !e met certain reuirements an !is promotion +as recommene"* t!e petitioner:s %istrict 7anager an Regional 7anager an approve "* its %ivision 7anager. As Acting >nit 7anager) %e los Re*es performe functions "e*onmere solicitation of insurance "usiness for petitioner. As foun "* t!e N2RC) !e eercise aministrative functions +!ic! +ere necessar* an "eneficial to t!e"usiness of $NS>2AR 2$/E.

$n 'reat Pacific 2ife $nsurance Compan* v. N2RC +!ic! is closer in application t!an =asiao to t!is present controvers*) +e foun t!at Dt!e relations!ips of t!e Ruiz"rot!ers an 'repalife +ere t!ose of emplo*er-emplo*ee. /irst) t!eir +or at t!e time of t!eir ismissal as zone supervisor an istrict manager +as necessar* anesira"le to t!e usual "usiness of t!e insurance compan*. T!e* +ere entruste +it! supervisor*) sales an ot!er functions to guar 'repalife:s "usiness interestsan to "ring in more clients to t!e compan*) an even +it! aministrative functions to ensure t!at all collections) reports an ata are fait!full* "roug!t to t!ecompan*. A cursor* reaing of t!eir respective functions as enumerate in t!eir contracts reveals t!at t!e compan* practicall* ictates t!e manner "* +!ic! t!eir o"sare to "e carrie out.

. A6*'+/T+*A/ T)A)'5

Ianang imong sakop ug kanang imong empleado sa farm, unsa man ang kalain nila%remember 4K"K, tenanc is supposed to beabolished. ThereJs no more tenanc. Shared tenanc has been abolished. 0n the tenanc, ou have to be full tenant, di kanang sharetenanc, magbahin mo sa tahop. ThatJs supposed to be gone under the comprehensive agrarian reform law. $ala na unta but ou and 0know that hantod karon naa gihapon tenanc. The law ma sa that it ma no longer in e-istence but the realit is it still is.

/andmar! case of De los *eyesere is coconut land, the owner hires an encargado, go there, take care of m land, 2ust give me what rightfull belongs to me after deducting all of the e-penses. &ow the caretaker goes there and he too, likes to be the landlord, he also asks people na kamo sa puodiha, bantai nino na wala lain magpuo dinha, kamo harvest, bahin ta. 'ne of the most la3 kind of 2ob, maghulat ka lang ug ) kabulan na mahulog ang lubi. Bagsao mahulog, la ka na paaboton.So when the landlord goes there and discovers that the foreman is not there, who are these people living here% e fires the encargadoand now he has to settle the occupanc. And that is the polic, the occupant run for protection to the 1AR and claims unpaid shares. Sowhat is the claim now of the landlord, he claims ?R8?? relationship. e is the one claiming that there is ?R8?? relationship so he does

not have to pa his shares. &abali ni. e is now claiming that the are not m tenants, the are emploees. $h are the our emploees% #ecause 0 asked them to be m watchers. That is the task accdg to the landlord. 1id the SC bu that% 0f ou are anemploee, and ou are tasked to watch ou are given a period, unsa man ka K8), )8((, ((8K% Iana imong watch wala ma kinutuban.

Delos *eyes $s. spineli

/ACTS0Petitioner 'eronimo e los Re*es is t!e o+ner of a #66-!ectare coconut plantation locate in Calauan) 2aguna. $n 15?4 !is overseer BDati+alaD t!erein +as'onzalo =elarmino) +!o too into t!e lan t!e 1I responents uner an agreement t!at t!e latter +ere to receive 1FI portion of ever* coconut !arvest. Sometime inOcto"er) 15#) t!e petitioner ismisse =elarmino) upon t!e suspicion t!at t!e latter !a "een eceiving !im) in connivance +it! responents.

Ruperto Alcantara) et al.) an 'regorio Espineli Bresponents !ere file separate petitions Bsu"seuentl* amene against %e los Re*es in t!e Court of AgrarianRelations) seeing t!e eliver* to t!em of t!e ifference "et+een t!e 1FI s!are +!ic! t!e petitioner !a "een giving t!em an t!e ,6Q s!are to +!ic! t!e*) as s!aretenants) +ere allegel* entitle. >pon t!e fining t!at t!e responents +ere mere agricultural +orers of t!e petitioner) t!e CAR orere t!e latter to retain t!em assuc! an to pa* t!em t!e sum of P) ??5.6I. >pon responents: appeal) t!e Court of Appeals moifie t!e ecision of t!e CAR) "* eclaring t!e responentstenants of t!e petitioner an orering t!e latter to pa* t!em Dt!e ifference "et+een t!e one-sevent! B1FI s!are of t!e crops an t!e t!irt* B,6Q per cent provie

for in t!e Tenanc* 2a+.

$SS>E0 (!et!er t!e relations!ip is t!at of agricultural s!are tenanc* or t!at of farm emplo*er an agricultural la"orerG

R>2$N'0D Agricultural tenancy D is t!e p!*sical possession "* a person of lan evote to agriculture "elonging to) or legall* possesse "*) anot!er for t!e purpose

of prouction t!roug! t!e la"or of t!e former an of t!e mem"ers of !is immeiate farm !ouse!ol) in consieration of +!ic! t!e former agrees to s!are t!e !arvest +it! t!e latter) or to pa* a price certain or ascertaina"le) eit!er in prouce or in mone*) or in "ot!. D Share tenancy D eists +!enever t+o persons agree on a ointunertaing for agricultural prouction +!erein one part* furnis!es t!e lan an t!e ot!er !is la"or) +it! eit!er or "ot! contri"uting an* one or several of t!e items ofprouction) t!e tenant cultivating t!e lan personall* +it! t!e ai of la"or availa"le from mem"ers of !is immeiate farm !ouse!ol) an t!e prouce t!ereof to "eivie "et+een t!e lan!oler an t!e tenant in proportion to t!eir respective contri"utions. An a D share tenant D is a person +!o) !imself an +it! t!e ai availa"le

14



from +it!in !is immeiate farm !ouse!ol) cultivates t!e lan "elonging to or possesse "* anot!er) +it! t!e latter:s consent) for purposes of prouction) s!aring t!eprouce +it! t!e lan!oler.

T!e c!aracteristics of a s!are tenanc* contract are0 B1 t!e parties are a lan!oler) +!o is a natural or uriical person an is t!e o+ner) lessee) usufructuar* or legalpossessor of agricultural lan) an a tenant +!o) !imself an +it! t!e ai availa"le from +it!in !is immeiate farm !ouse!ol) cultivates t!e lan +!ic! is t!e su"ect-matter of t!e tenanc*; B# t!e su"ect-matter is agricultural lan; B, t!e purpose of t!e contract is agricultural prouction; an B t!e cause or consieration is t!att!e lan!oler an t!e s!are tenant +oul ivie t!e agricultural prouce "et+een t!emselves in proportion to t!eir respective contri"utions.

. A Dfarm +orerD is Dan* agricultural +age) salar* or piece +orer "ut is not limite to a farm +orer of a particular farm emplo*er unless t!e Agricultural 2an ReformCoe eplicitl* states ot!er+ise) an an* iniviual +!ose +or !as cease as a conseuence of) or in connection +it!) a current agrarian ispute or an unfair la"orpractice an +!o !as not o"taine a su"stantiall* euivalent an regular emplo*ment.D T!e term inclues Dfarm la"orer anFor farm emplo*ees.D An Dagricultural

+orerD is not a +!it ifferent from a Dfarm +orer.D

$n etermining t!e eistence of an emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip) t!e elements t!at are generall* consiere are t!e follo+ing0 B1 t!e selection an engagement oft!e emplo*ee; B# t!e pa*ment of +ages; B, t!e po+er of ismissal; an B t!e emplo*er:s po+er to control t!e emplo*ee:s conuct. $t is t!is last element t!atconstitutes t!e most important ine of t!e eistence of relations!ip.

(e are !ere primaril* intereste in t!e "asic ifferences "et+een a farm emplo*er-farm +orer relations!ip an an agricultural s!are!ol tenanc* relations!ip. =ot!are leases) "ut t!ere t!e similarit* ens. $n t!e former) t!e lease is one of la"or) +it! t!e agricultural la"orer as t!e lessor of !is services) an t!e farm emplo*er ast!e lessee t!ereof. $n t!e latter) it is t!e lano+ner +!o is t!e lessor) an t!e s!are!ol tenant is t!e lessee of agricultural lan. As lessee !e !as possession of t!elease premises. =ut t!e relations!ip is more t!an a mere lease. $t is a special in of lease) t!e la+ referring to it as a Doint unertaing.D /or t!is reason) not onl*t!e tenanc* la+s are applica"le) "ut also) in a suppletor* +a*) t!e la+ on leases) t!e customs of t!e place an t!e civil coe provisions on partners!ip. T!e s!aretenant +ors for t!at oint venture. T!e agricultural la"orer +ors for t!e farm emplo*er) an for !is la"or !e receives a salar* or +age) regarless of +!et!er t!eemplo*er maes a profit. On t!e ot!er !an) t!e s!are tenant participates in t!e agricultural prouce. &is s!are is necessaril* epenent on t!e amount of t!e!arvest.

T!e recor is evoi of evientiar* support for t!e notion t!at t!e responents are farm la"orers. T!e* o not o"serve set !ours of +or. T!e petitioner !as not laio+n regulations uner +!ic! t!e* are suppose to o t!eir +or. T!e argument tenere is t!at t!e* are guars. &o+ever) it oes not appear t!at t!e* are unero"ligation to report for ut* to t!e petitioner or !is agent. T!e* o not +or in s!ifts. Nor !as t!e petitioner prescri"e t!e manner "* +!ic! t!e responents +ere anare to perform t!eir uties as guars. (e o not fin !ere t!at egree of control an supervision evincive of an emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip

$SS>E0 (FN t!ere +as an agricultural s!are tenanc* contractG 8ES

T!e crucial factors are t!at t!e tenant must !ave p!*sical possession of t!e lan for t!e purpose of prouction an !e must personall* cultivate t!e lan. $f t!e tenantoes not cultivate t!e lan personall* !e cannot "e consiere a tenant even if !e is so esignate in t!e +ritten agreement of t!e parties. DCultivationD is not limiteto t!e plo+ing an !arro+ing of t!e lan. $t inclues t!e various p!ases of farm la"or escri"e an provie "* la+) t!e maintenance) an repair an +eeing ofies) paies an irrigation canals in t!e !oling. 7oreover) it covers attening to t!e care of t!e gro+ing plants.

T!e Court of Appeals mae some essential finings of fact. T!e responents +ere calle Dasama.D T!e* !ave plo+ing implements. Almost all of t!e responents!ave "anana plantations on t!e lan. T!e* live in t!e lan!oling. T!e* are c!arge +it! t!e o"ligation to clean t!eir respective lan!olings. T!e appellate court +as

correct in concluing t!at DasamaD means Dtenant)D not +orer or la"orer) +!ic! is translate into our national language as Dmanggaga+a.D

T!e petitioner clearl* epecte t!e responents to perform t!e uties of a tenant) especiall*) to maintain t!e lan clean an clear Dat all times)D +!ic! not onl* +oulfacilitate !arvesting "ut) more importantl*) +oul necessaril* result in greater prouction.

0n this case, the SC goes into the long distinction of tenanc vis8M8vis an ?R8?? relationship.

$hat is tenanc%

(.Tenanc is the 2oint production agreement. The sub2ect matter is agricultural land. Landlord and tenants are partners upon the sub2ectmatter of agricultural land for production purposes. ?R8?? relationship, there is no 2oint production. There is onl one producer and thatis the emploer. The others are workers. That is the difference. Tenanc is 2oint, ?R8?? relationship it is not 2oint.

". Second, as to the possession of land, it is said that the relationship of tenanc with the landlord is tenurial, it is tied to the land. 'nceou become a tenant, ou have a right to the land. 1ili na imuha, ou have a right to possess the land. >ou have a right to put up a

small hut, and around that small lot is our own lot and whatever ou grow in that small lot ou do not have to share with our landlord.>ou possess the land, ou cannot be driven out.

>ou have taken up eminent domain, suppose the land is taken over b the govJt for public use. >ou know that the landlord is paid for theland. ow about the tenant% The tenant is also paid. e is paid for disturbance fee part of his compensation, because he has a realright. That means right tied to real propert. So he has a right to be in possession, he cannot be driven. ow about the emploee in thefarm, the farm worker, he has no right to sta in the farm. So as to possession, the farm worker has no right, the tenant has a right topossession.

). As to the labor, in tenanc, it is not 2ust the tenant that renders labor, it is his entire famil. So the entire famil helps. $hen ou are afarm worker in ?R8?? relationship, ou are not obligated to bring our wife and our children to our work. it is onl ou. That is thedifference. 0s the landlord obligated to pa the wife and the children% &o. that is part of the set up, part of the arrangement.

@. As to the compensation, what is the compensation of the tenant% 0t is the share of the harvest. 0t is contingent in the e-istence of theharvest. ow big should the share be% The share of the tenant is contingent on the si3e of the harvest. The tenant has a big share.

ow about the farm worker in the ?R8?? relationship, he is paid ever (4 th and ):th of the month, regardless of whether the have aharvest or not. 0t is not a conditional compensation, unlike that of the tenant wherein the tenantJs compensation is unconditional.

4. As to power of control, as farm worker, the farm owner has absolute control. e decides what to plant, when to plant, how much toplant. ow about in tenanc% $ho decides when to plant% 0t is the tenant% ow much to plant% 0t is the tenant. $hat is the control of the landowner% The control of the landowner is b wa of inspection or e-ception%/. e can veto something that the tenant does whichis clearl in contravention with the accepted farm practices of that localit. e controls it b wa of e-ception, when he intervenes whenthe tenant embarks on a practice that is not accepted in the localit.

Can an encargado fine the landlord b bringing in tenants% SC sas es.

15



. /AS '()T*A'TS

Citi3enJs League case 1avao case in (E9E. This involves the auto8calesa. &ow the drivers here decide to form a union and inform theciti3enJs league, that is their union. 0f a pedestrian understanding the relationship between them and the operator, it is Abas. Later on hedevelops his own boundar, everda ou will pa the operator not less than this amount. The operator calls 88 because he does notwant to know what he 888. #ahala ka kung matulog ka ba o magminata kag drive basta ka tapusan sa adlaw ihatag nimo ang boundar.0s that rental, is the relationship a lessor and lessee% 0s the operator the lessor and the drives the lessee% The SC sas that it is notlease. 0t is in part ?R8?? relationship. And if ou read the case the SC does not even bother to e-plain because it is obvious. That is tosa that if ou go to a compan that is a rent a car compan. >ou take the dail rate plus the mileage. Ber kilometer plus the additionalrate. And then ou return it to the rent a car compan full tank because ou got it full tank. #ahala ka how much gas ou consume. Thatis the condition of the rent a car. The dail rate plus the mileage. &ow what is the theorem% The difference is ou can go anwhere. #ut

the driver of the operator is not free to go out of the franchise route. e has to go back and forth that route. So therefore he is operatingon the franchise of the operator. e is an emploee of the operator. And his boundar is 2ust a sure wa of calculating that the grossproceeds and the e-penses of fuel and other items will lead him is euivalent to the minimum wage of his hours of work. that is wh it isobvious. This is reiterated in the case of Dardin.

CITIZENS LEAGUE v ABBAS

/ACTS0$t appears t!at on 7arc! 11) 15,) responents-spouses BTeofilo 'eronimo an Emerita 7enez) o+ners an operators of auto-calesas in %avao Cit*) filea complaint +it! t!e C/$ of %avao to restrain t!e >nion BCitizens: 2eague of /ree+orers an its mem"ers) +!o +ere rivers of t!e spouses in sai "usiness) frominterfering +it! its operation) from committing certain acts complaine of in connection t!ere+it!) an to recover amages.

T!e complaint allege t!at t!e efenants name t!erein use to lease t!e auto calesas of t!e spouses on a ail* rental "asis; t!at) una"le to get t!e spouses torecognize sai efenants as emplo*ees instea of lessees an to "argain +it! it on t!at "asis) t!e >nion eclare a strie an since t!en !a paral*ze plaintiffs:"usiness operations t!roug! t!reats) intimiation an violence. T!e complaint also pra*e for t!e issuance of a +rit of preliminar* inunction e-parte restraining

efenants t!erein from committing sai acts of violence an intimiation uring t!e penenc* of t!e case. T!e responent uge grante t!e +rit pra*e for.

7ean+!ile) on 7arc! 1#) 15,) petitioners file a complaint for unfair la"or practice against t!e responents-spouses +it! t!e Court of $nustrial Relations on t!egroun) among ot!ers) of t!e latter:s refusal to "argain +it! t!em.

On 7arc! 14) 15,) petitioners file a motion to eclare t!e +rit of preliminar* inunction voi on t!e groun t!at t!e same !a epire "* virtue of Section 5 B ofRepu"lic Act 4I?. $n !is orer of 7arc! #1) 15,) !o+ever) t!e responent uge enie sai motion on t!e groun t!at t!ere +as no emplo*er-emplo*eerelations!ip "et+een responents-spouses an t!e iniviual petitioners !erein an t!at) conseuentl*) t!e Rules of Court an not Repu"lic Act No. 4I? applie tot!e matter of inunction.

$SS>E0 (FN an er-ee relations!ip eistsG 8ES

R>2$N'0 $n t!e case of $sa"elo %oce vs. (ormen:s Compensation Commission et al.) upon a similar if not an altoget!er ientical set of facts) SC !el0

DT!is case falls suarel* +it!in our ruling in National 2a"or >nion vs. %inglasan) +!erein t!is Court !el t!at a river of a eep +!o operates t!e same uner t!e

"ounar* s*stem is consiere an emplo*ee +it!in t!e meaning of t!e la+ an as suc! t!e case comes uner t!e urisiction of t!e Court of $nustrial Relations. $nt!at case) =eneicto %inglasan +as t!e o+ner an operator of TP> eepne*s +!ic! +ere riven "* petitioner uner ver"al contracts t!at t!e* +ill pa* PI.?6 for 16!ours use uner t!e so-calle :"ounar* s*stem.: T!e rivers i not receive salaries or +ages from t!e o+ner. T!eir a*:s earnings +ere t!e ecess over t!e PI.?6t!e* pai for t!e use of t!e eepne*s. $n t!e event t!at t!e* i not earn more) t!e o+ner i not !ave to pa* t!em an*t!ing.

$n !oling t!at t!e er-ee relations!ip eiste "et+een t!e o+ner of t!e eepne*s an t!e rivers even if t!e latter +ore uner t!e "ounar* s*stem) t!is Court sai0

:T!e onl* features t!at +oul mae t!e relations!ip of lessor an lessee "et+een t!e responents o+ner of t!e eeps) an t!e rivers) mem"ers of t!e petitionerunion) are t!e fact t!at !e oes not pa* t!em an* fie +age "ut t!eir compensation is t!e ecess of t!e total amount of fares earne or collecte "* t!em over ana"ove t!e amount of PI.?6 +!ic! t!e* agree to pa* to t!e responent) an t!e fact t!at t!e gasoline "urne "* t!e eeps is for t!e account of t!e rivers. T!ese t+ofeatures are not) !o+ever) sufficient to +it!ra+ t!e relations!ip) "et+een t!em from t!at of emplo*er-emplo*ee) "ecause t!e estimate earnings for fares must "eover an a"ove t!e amount t!e* agree to pa* to t!e responent for a ten-!our s!ift or ten-!our a a* operation of t!e eeps. Not !aving an* interest in t!e "usiness"ecause t!e* i not invest an*t!ing in t!e acuisition of t!e eeps an i not participate in t!e management t!ereof) t!eir service as rivers of t!e eeps "eing t!eironl* contri"ution to t!e "usiness) t!e relations!ip of lessor an lessee cannot "e sustaine.:D

JAR.IN vs! NLRC

/ACTS0Petitioners +ere rivers of private responent) P!ilama $nternational $nc.) a omestic corporation engage in t!e operation of D'ooman Tai.D Petitionersuse to rive private responent:s taica"s ever* ot!er a* on a #-!our +or sc!eule uner t!e "ounar* s*stem. >ner t!is arrangement) t!e petitioners earnean average of P66.66 ail*. Nevert!eless) private responent amittel* regularl* eucts from petitioners: ail* earnings t!e amount of P,6.66 supposel* for t!e +as!ing of t!e tai units. =elieving t!at t!e euction is illegal) petitioners ecie to form a la"or union to protect t!eir rig!ts an interests.

>pon learning a"out t!e plan of petitioners) private responent refuse to let petitioners rive t!eir taica"s +!en t!e* reporte for +or on August ) 1551) an onsucceeing a*s. Petitioners suspecte t!at t!e* +ere single out "ecause t!e* +ere t!e leaers an active mem"ers of t!e propose union. Aggrieve) petitionersfile +it! t!e la"or ar"iter a complaint against private responent for unfair la"or practice) illegal ismissal an illegal euction of +as!ing fees.

T!e la"or ar"iter ismisse sai complaint for lac of merit. On appeal) t!e N2RC reverse an set asie t!e ugment of t!e la"or ar"iter. T!e la"or tri"unaleclare t!at petitioners are emplo*ees of private responent) an) as suc!) t!eir ismissal must "e for ust cause an after ue process.

Private responent:s first motion for reconsieration +as enie. Private responents file anot!er motion for reconsieration. T!is time) pu"lic responent grante

aforesai secon motion for reconsieration. $t rule t!at it lacs urisiction over t!e case as petitioners an private responent !ave no emplo*er-emplo*eerelations!ip. $t !el t!at t!e relations!ip of t!e parties is lease!ol +!ic! is covere "* t!e Civil Coe rat!er t!an t!e 2a"or Coe.

$SS>E0 (FN an er-ee relations!ip eistsG 8ES

R>2$N'0 $n a num"er of cases ecie "* t!e Court) it +as rule t!at t!e relations!ip "et+een eepne* o+nersFoperators on one !an an eepne* rivers on t!eot!er uner t!e "ounar* s*stem is t!at of emplo*er-emplo*ee an not of lessor-lessee.

As eplaine in t!e lease of c!attels) t!e lessor loses complete control over t!e c!attel lease alt!oug! t!e lessee cannot "e recless in t!e use t!ereof) ot!er+ise!e +oul "e responsi"le for t!e amages to t!e lessor.

16



$n t!e case of eepne* o+nersFoperators an eepne* rivers) t!e former eercise supervision an control over t!e latter. T!e management of t!e "usiness is in t!eo+ner:s !ans. T!e o+ner as !oler of t!e certificate of pu"lic convenience must see to it t!at t!e river follo+s t!e route prescri"e "* t!e franc!ising aut!orit* ant!e rules promulgate as regars its operation. No+) t!e fact t!at t!e rivers o not receive fie +ages "ut get onl* t!at in ecess of t!e so-calle D"ounar*D t!e*pa* to t!e o+nerFoperator is not sufficient to +it!ra+ t!e relations!ip "et+een t!em from t!at of emplo*er an emplo*ee. (e !ave applie "* analog* t!e a"ovestate octrine to t!e relations!ips "et+een "us o+nerFoperator an "us conuctor) auto-calesa o+nerFoperator an river) an recentl* "et+een taio+nersFoperators an tai rivers. &ence) petitioners are unou"tel* emplo*ees of private responent "ecause as tai rivers t!e* perform activities +!ic! areusuall* necessar* or esira"le in t!e usual "usiness or trae of t!eir emplo*er.

As consistentl* !el "* t!is Court) termination of emplo*ment must "e effecte in accorance +it! la+. &ence) petitioners) "eing emplo*ees of private responent)can "e ismisse onl* for ust an aut!orize cause) an after afforing t!em notice an !earing prior to termination. $n t!e instant case) private responent !a novali cause to terminate t!e emplo*ment of petitioners. Neit!er +as t!ere t+o B# +ritten notices sent "* private responent informing eac! of t!e petitioners t!at t!e*

!a "een ismisse from +or. T!is lac of vali cause an failure on t!e part of private responent to compl* +it! t!e t+in-notice reuirement unerscore t!eillegalit* surrouning petitioners: ismissal.

. )D+ST*A/ PA*T)*S2P

0ndustrial partnership can be found in the civil code art. (K9E, par.@, subsub paragraph #.

Ruga case the SC summari3es the status of two lines of cases. These are fishermen cases. 5ostl here the emploers are involvedin deep sea fishing. The have a deep sea fishing boat and sail. e chooses his route. The are given ice, given fish nets, and sail outat sea and when the come back the catch of fish or tuna is sold. The gross proceeds from where is is deducted the (:N, so ou havethe net proceeds, the net proceeds is right awa divided into two. O goes to the owner of the vessels, the other half is divided amongthe crew and the share of the patron is double. 0f ou are 9 all in all, the half of the crew is divided into K because the patron has doubleshare.

Are those crew men industrial partners of the deep fishing operator or are the emploees% The SC in Ruga sas that the are twolines of cases. 'ne line sas that the are emploees, the other line sas that the are not emploees, the are partners. The uestionis how do ou know that this kind of crew are partners and this kind of crew are emploers% The SC sas power of control test. 0f theoperator decides when he goes. 0f the operator maintains contact with the boat, radio or satellite, if the operator feeds the boat withsatellite data, then there is ?R8?? relationship. #ut if there is no control, as when it is the patron where, how far will it go, that isindustrial partnership. That is not ?R8?? relationship. Remember that this is not 2ust crew for purposes of fishing.

*uga $s. )/*'

/ACTS0Petitioners +ere t!e fis!ermen-cre+ mem"ers of IF= San*man $$) one of several fis!ing vessels o+ne an operate "* private responent %e 'uzman

/is!ing Enterprises +!ic! is primaril* engage in t!e fis!ing "usiness.

>pon arrival at t!e fis!ing port) petitioners +ere tol "* @orge e 'uzman) presient of private responent) to procee to t!e police station for investigation on t!e

report t!at t!e* sol some of t!eir fis!-catc! at misea to t!e preuice of private responent. %uring t!e investigation) no +itnesses +ere presente to prove t!ec!arge against petitioners) an no criminal c!arges +ere formall* file against t!em. Not+it!staning) private responent refuse to allo+ petitioners to return to t!efis!ing vessel to resume t!eir +or on t!e same a*.

Petitioners iniviuall* file t!eir complaints for illegal ismissal an non-pa*ment of 1,t! mont! pa*) emergenc* cost of living allo+ance an service incentive pa*) +it! t!e 7inistr* of 2a"or an Emplo*ment. T!e* uniforml* contene t!at t!e* +ere ar"itraril* ismisse +it!out "eing given ample time to loo for a ne+ o".

Private responent su"mitte its position paper en*ing t!e emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip "et+een private responent an petitioners on t!e t!eor* t!at privateresponent an petitioners +ere engage in a oint venture.

T!e 2a"or Ar"iter renere a oint ecision ismissing all t!e complaints of petitioners on a fining t!at a Doint fis!ing ventureD an not one of emplo*er-emplo*eerelations!ip eiste "et+een private responent an petitioners. On appeal) t!e National 2a"or Relations Commission promulgate its resolution affirming t!eecision of t!e la"or ar"iter t!at a Doint fis!ing ventureD relations!ip eiste "et+een private responent an petitioners.

Petitioners stress t!at t!ere is an emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip "et+een t!em an private responent0 t!at t!e* +ere irectl* !ire "* private responent t!roug!

its general manager) Arsenio e 'uzman) an its operations manager) Conrao e 'uzman; t!at t!e* !a "een emplo*e "* private responent from 4 to 1? *earsin various capacities; t!at private responent) t!roug! its operations manager) supervise an controlle t!e conuct of t!eir fis!ing operations as to t!e fiing of t!esc!eule of t!e fis!ing trips) t!e irection of t!e fis!ing vessel) t!e volume or num"er of tu"es of t!e fis!-catc!) t!e time to return to t!e fis!ing port) +!ic! +erecommunicate to t!e patronFpilot "* raio t!at t!e* +ere not allo+e to oin ot!er outfits even t!e ot!er vessels o+ne "* private responent +it!out t!e permissionof t!e operations manager; t!at t!e* +ere compensate on percentage commission "asis of t!e gross sales of t!e fis!-catc! +!ic! +ere elivere to t!em in cas! "*private responent:s cas!ier) 7rs. Pilar e 'uzman; an t!at t!e* !ave to follo+ compan* policies) rules an regulations impose on t!em "* private responent.

$SS>E0 (FN t!e fis!ermen-cre+ mem"ers of t!e tra+l fis!ing vessel IF= San*man $$ are emplo*ees of its o+ner-operator) %e 'uzman /is!ingEnterprisesG 8ES

R>2$N'0(e !ave consistentl* rule t!at in etermining t!e eistence of an emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip) t!e elements t!at are generall* consiere are t!e

follo+ing Ba t!e selection an engagement of t!e emplo*ee; B" t!e pa*ment of +ages; Bc t!e po+er of ismissal; an B t!e emplo*er:s po+er to control t!eemplo*ee +it! respect to t!e means an met!os "* +!ic! t!e +or is to "e accomplis!e. T!e emplo*ment relation arises from contract of !ire) epress or implie.$n t!e a"sence of !iring) no actual emplo*er-emplo*ee relation coul eist.

/rom t!e four B elements mentione) (e !ave generall* relie on t!e so-calle rig!t-of-control test +!ere t!e person for +!om t!e services are performe reservesa rig!t to control not onl* t!e en to "e ac!ieve "ut also t!e means to "e use in reac!ing suc! en. T!e test calls merel* for t!e eistence of t!e rig!t to control t!emanner of oing t!e +or) not t!e actual eercise of t!e rig!t..

T!e conuct of t!e fis!ing operations +as unisputa"l* s!o+n "* t!e testimon* of Alipio Ruga) t!e patronFpilot of IF= San*man $$) to "e uner t!e control ansupervision of private responent:s operations manager. 7atters ealing on t!e fiing of t!e sc!eule of t!e fis!ing trip an t!e time to return to t!e fis!ing port +eres!o+n to "e t!e prerogative of private responent. (!ile performing t!e fis!ing operations) petitioners receive instructions via a single-sie "an raio from privateresponent:s operations manager +!o calle t!e patronFpilot in t!e morning. T!e* are tol to report t!eir activities) t!eir position) an t!e num"er of tu"es of fis!-catc! in one a*. Clearl* t!us) t!e conuct of t!e fis!ing operations +as monitore "* private responent t!ru t!e patronFpilot of IF= San*man $$ +!o is responsi"lefor isseminating t!e instructions to t!e cre+ mem"ers.

17



Recors s!o+ t!at !erein petitioners +ere irectl* !ire "* private responent) t!roug! its general manager) Arsenio e 'uzman) an its operations manager)Conrao e 'uzman an !ave "een uner t!e emplo* of private responent for a perio of 4-1? *ears in various capacities. (!ile tenure or lengt! of emplo*ment isnot consiere as t!e test of emplo*ment) nevert!eless t!e !iring of petitioners to perform +or +!ic! is necessar* or esira"le in t!e usual "usiness or trae ofprivate responent for a perio of 4-1? *ears since 154 ualif* t!em as regular emplo*ees +it!in t!e meaning of Article #41 of t!e 2a"or Coe as t!e* +ere ineeengage to perform activities usuall* necessar* or esira"le in t!e usual fis!ing "usiness or occupation of private responent.

Asie from performing activities usuall* necessar* an esira"le in t!e "usiness of private responent) it must "e note t!at petitioners receive compensation on apercentage commission "ase on t!e gross sale of t!e fis!-catc!) i.e. 1,Q of t!e procees of t!e sale if t!e total procees eceee t!e cost of t!e crue oilconsume uring t!e fis!ing trip) ot!er+ise onl* 16Q of t!e procees of t!e sale. Suc! compensation falls +it!in t!e scope an meaning of t!e term D+ageD asefine uner Article 5IBf of t!e 2a"or Coe.

/urt!ermore) t!e fact t!at on mere suspicion "ase on t!e reports t!at petitioners allegel* sol t!eir fis!-catc! at misea +it!out t!e no+lege an consent ofprivate responent) petitioners +ere unustifia"l* not allo+e to "oar t!e fis!ing vessel on Septem"er 11) 154, to resume t!eir activities +it!out giving t!em t!eopportunit* to air t!eir sie on t!e accusation against t!em unmistaa"l* reveals t!e isciplinar* po+er eercise "* private responent over t!em an t!ecorresponing sanction impose in case of violation of an* of its rules an regulations.

Even on t!e assumption t!at petitioners inee sol t!e fis!-catc! at mi-sea) t!e act of private responent virtuall* resulting in t!eir ismissal evientl* contraictsprivate responent:s t!eor* of Doint fis!ing ventureD "et+een t!e parties !erein. A oint venture) incluing partners!ip) presupposes generall* a parit* of staning"et+een t!e oint co-venturers or partners) in +!ic! eac! part* !as an eual proprietar* interest in t!e capital or propert* contri"ute an +!ere eac! part* eerciseseual rig!ts in t!e conuct of t!e "usiness $t +oul "e inconsistent +it! t!e principle of parit* of staning "et+een t!e oint co-venturers as regars t!e conuct of"usiness) if private responent +oul outrig!tl* eclue petitioners from t!e conuct of t!e "usiness +it!out first resorting to ot!er measures consistent +it! t!enature of a oint venture unertaing. $nstea of ar"itrar* unilateral action) private responent s!oul !ave iscusse +it! an open min t!e avantages anisavantages of petitioners: action +it! its oint co-venturers if inee t!ere is a Doint fis!ing ventureD "et+een t!e parties. =ut t!is +as not one in t!e instant case.Petitioners +ere ar"itraril* ismisse not+it!staning t!at no criminal complaints +ere file against t!em.

=esa case U Asie from s!oes) t!e* !ave s!oes!ine "o*s. Some people go t!ere ust to !ave t!eir s!oes s!ine. T!ese "o*s are approve "* management.=ecause sometimes t!e* coul not pa* to t!e cas!ier) an sometimes t!e cas!ier ust calls t!e "o*s an gives t!em t!eir s!are) t!e* sa* t!at t!e* are emplo*ees. $st!at correctG Are t!e* emplo*ees or are t!e* partnersG T!e ine t!at t!e* use to prove t!at t!ere is ER-EE relations!ip is t!e selection an !iring. (e +ereselecte) +e +ere !ire. T!ere is po+er of control. Not an*"o* can s!ine it "ecause +e are alrea* pre-irecte as to !o+ +e s!oul s!ine. Po+er of ismissal)mu!a+a gain a in!a t!en *ou are no longer amitte. T!en t!ere is pa*ment of +age onl* it is specific.

No+ uestion) is t!ere ER-EE relations!ipG T!e SC sa*s t!ere is none. T!e testing for stanar cannot "e confuse +it! selection an !iring. Precisel* "ecause it isa partners!ip) *ou +oul lie to no+ if *our partner is +ort!* to "e truste. Secon) t!ere is no specific rule t!at *ou are pai in +age) t!e client !as t!e option +!et!er to pa* t!e cas!ier an t!e cas!ier +ill give to t!e s!oes!ine "o* !is s!are or t!e client +ill pa* t!e s!oes!ine "o* an t!e s!oes!ine "o* +ill give t!emanagement its s!are. $n t!e first) normall* t!e client pa*s t!e stanar pa*ment an cas!ier gives t!e s!are an normall* t!e client gives t!e s!oes!ine "o* a tip.$n t!e ot!er +a* of pa*ment) +!en *ou give to t!e s!oes!ine "o*) *ou normall* give more t!an t!e stanar amount an t!e s!oes!ine "o* gives !is partner !iss!are. So t!ere is no pa*ment of +ages. An finall* t!e uestion of ismissal is not po+er to ismiss "ut t!e maintenance of stanar.

'ILLA'ILLA v CA

/ACTS0Arturo Hillavilla) son of petitioners) +as emplo*e as DtripulanteD Bcre+ mem"er of t!e fis!ing "oat D/F= Saint T!eresaD +!en t!e "oat san off $sla =inatian)Ta*ta*) Pala+an. Arturo +as not among t!e no+n survivors of t!at sining an !a "een missing since t!en.

Petitioners Anres Hillavilla an Ester 'aiente Hillavilla) parents of Arturo) file a petition +it! t!e Social Securit* Commission against Re*nalo 7ercao an7arcelino Cosuco) o+ners of t!e ill-fate fis!ing "oat) for eat! compensation "enefits of Arturo +!om responents faile to register as t!eir emplo*ee.

Responent Cosuco file !is ans+er en*ing all allegations in t!e petition an claiming t!at !e alrea* sol t!e fis!ing "oat to responent 7ercao on %ecem"er 16)15I?) an from t!en on !e i not participate an*more in t!e operation an management of t!e "oat or in t!e !iring of its cre+mem"ers.

Responent Social Securit* Commission issue an Orer ismissing t!e petition for lac of cause of action. On appeal) responent Court of Appeals affirme t!euestione Orer of responent Commission t!ere "eing no reversi"le error.

$SS>E0 (FN t!ere +as an er-ee relations!ip "et+een petitioners: ecease son) Arturo Hillavilla) an !erein private responentsG NO

Petitioners argue t!at it +as private responent Re*nalo 7ercao +!o recruite Arturo Hillavilla sometime in 15I to "e a cre+ mem"er of t!e fis!ing "oat D/F=

Saint T!eresaD +it! a ail* +age of P#6.66. T!e "oat +as t!en o+ne "* private responent 7arcelino Cosuco an operate "* Re*nalo 7ercao. On %ecem"er16) 15I?) Cosuco sol t!e fis!ing "oat to 7ercao.

$nvoing Negre vs. (ormen:s Compensation Commision) petitioners assert t!at Dfis!ermen-cre+ mem"ers are iniviual emplo*ees an not inustrial partners as int!e case at "arD so t!at t!e Dmere presence of Arturo Hillavilla in t!e fis!ing "oat of 7ercao maes !im an emplo*ee of t!e emplo*er) 7ercao.D /urt!er citing R@27artinez /is!ing Corporation vs. N2RC) petitioners posit t!at Dt!e main factor t!at etermines +!et!er a person is an emplo*ee of t!e emplo*er is t!e in of +or"eing performe "* t!at person. $f t!e +or of t!e la"orer is part of t!e regular "usiness or occupation of t!e emplo*er) t!e sai la"orer is a regular emplo*ee of t!eemplo*er.D Petitioners t!us conten t!at since Arturo +as recruite "* 7ercao !imself sometime in 15I as one of !is fis!ermen-cre+ mem"ers an t!at t!e cre+mem"ers +ere uniforml* pai "* 7ercao) t!ere can "e no ot!er conclusion "ut t!at Arturo +as an emplo*ee of 7ercao at t!e time !is fis!ing "oat san.

R>2$N'0$t is clear t!at t!e arrangement "et+een t!e "oat o+ner an t!e cre+ mem"ers partoo of t!e nature of a oint venture0 t!e cre+ mem"ers i not receivefie compensation as t!e* onl* s!are in t!eir catc!; t!e* venture to t!e sea irrespective of t!e instructions of t!e "oat o+ners) i.e.) upon t!eir o+n "est ugmentas to +!en) !o+ long) an +!ere to go fis!ing; t!e "oat o+ners i not !ire t!em "ut simpl* oine t!e fis!ing epeition upon invitation of t!e s!ip master) even +it!out t!e no+lege of t!e "oat o+ner. $n s!ort) t!ere +as neit!er rig!t of control nor actual eercise of suc! rig!t on t!e part of t!e "oat o+ner over ! is cre+mem"ers.

Responent Court of Appeals is correct in up!oling t!e application "* responent Social Securit* Commission of t!e ruling in Paarillo v. Social Securit* S*stem +!ere (e !el0

D an emplo*ee is efine as a :person +!o performs services for an emplo*er in +!ic! eit!er or "ot! mental an p!*sical efforts are use an +!oreceives compensation for suc! services) +!ere t!ere is an emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip:.

$n t!e present case) neit!er t!e pilots nor t!e cre+-mem"ers receive compensation from "oat-o+ners. T!e* onl* s!are in t!eir o+n catc! prouce "* t!eir o+nefforts. T!ere is no s!o+ing t!at outsie of t!eir one t!ir s!are) t!e "oat-o+ners !ave an*t!ing to o +it! t!e istri"ution of t!e rest of t!e catc! among t!e pilotsan t!e cre+-mem"ers. T!e latter perform no service for t!e "oat-o+ners) "ut mainl* for t!eir o+n "enefit.

T!e "oat-o+ners are not responsi"le for t!e +age) salar*) or fee of t!e pilot an cre+-mem"ers. T!eir sole participation in t!e venture is t!e furnis!ing or eliver* oft!e euipment use for fis!ing) after +!ic!) t!e* merel* +ait for t!e "oat:s return an receive t!eir s!are in t!e catc!) if t!ere is an*. T!e unertaing is in t!e nature

18



of a oint venture) +it! t!e "oat-o+ner suppl*ing t!e "oat an its euipments) an t!e pilot an cre+-mem"ers contri"uting t!e necessar* la"or) an t!e partiesgetting specific s!ares for t!eir respective contri"utions.

Certainl*) petitioners: reliance on Negre v. (ormen:s Compensation Commission an R@2 /is!ing Corp v. N2RC is misplace. T!e case of @ose Negre vs.(ormen:s Compensation +ill s!o+ t!at it mae referral to t!e case of A"ong vs. (ormen:s Compensation Commission) +!erein t!is Court state0

:As pointe "* t!e Commission:s fining) t!e funamental "ases s!o+ing t!at petitioner %r. Agustino R. A"ong is t!e emplo*er) are present) namel*) t!eselection an engagement of t!e emplo*ee; t!e pa*ment of +ages; t!e po+er of ismissal an t!e emplo*er:s po+er to control t!e emplo*ees conuct. T!esepo+ers +ere loge in petitioner A"ong) t!ru !is agent) Simplicio Pangani"an) +!om !e alleges to "e !is partner.

T!e aforementione funamental "ases for t!e eistence of emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip are not present in t!e case at "ar. As mentione earlier) privateresponent Re*nalo 7ercao !a no connection +it! t!e selection an engagement of Arturo Hillavilla; eercise no po+er of ismissal over Arturo Hillavilla;

neit!er !a !e an* po+er of control or !a reserve t!e rig!t to control Arturo Hillavilla as to t!e result of t!e +or to "e one as +ell as t!e means an met!os "* +!ic! t!e same is to "e accomplis!e) an t!ere +as no suc! uniform salar* involve

$t is clear t!at t!ere +as no emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip "et+een petitioner:s son Arturo an private responent 7ercao) muc! less private responent Cosuco.As suc!) Arturo coul not "e mae su"ect of compulsor* coverage uner t!e Social Securit* Act; !ence) private responents cannot "e sai to !ave violate saila+ +!ic! t!e* i not register !im +it! t!e Social Securit* S*stem. Responents as +ell as intervenor are not ans+era"le to petitioners for an* eat! "enefits unert!e la+.

BESA v TRAJANO

/ACTS0Private responent <aisa!an ng 7anggaga+ang Pilipino B<A7P$2 a legitimate la"or union ul* registere +it! t!e 7inistr* of 2a"or an Emplo*ment

B7O2E) file a Petition for Certification Election) in t!e National 2a"or Relations %ivision of t!e National Capital Region. Petitioner oppose it alleging t!at t!ere is noemplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip "et+een =esa:s an t!e petitioners-signatories to t!e petition.

T!e 7e-Ar"iter issue an orer eclaring t!at t!ere +as an emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip "et+een t!e parties an irecte t!at an election "e conucte.Petitioner appeale t!e orer to t!e %irector of =2R. Appeal +as ismisse "* t!e %irector of =2R) up!oling t!e fining of t!e 7e-Ar"iter t!at supervisors +ereappointe to oversee t!e "oot"lacs: performance.

$SS>E0 (FN an er-ee relations!ip eists "et+een petitioner an t!e 1I s!oes!iners-mem"ers of t!e responent unionG NO

R>2$N'0T!e recors of t!e case reveal t!at an emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip oes not eist "et+een t!e 1I s!oes!iners an petitioner.

T!e s!oe s!iner is istinct from a piece +orer "ecause +!ile t!e latter is pai for +or accomplis!e) !e oes not) !o+ever) contri"ute an*t!ing to t!e capital of t!eemplo*er ot!er t!an !is service. $t is t!e emplo*er of t!e piece +orer +!o pa*s !is +ages) +!ile t!e s!oe s!iner in t!is instance is pai irectl* "* !is customer. T!epiece +orer is pai for +or accomplis!e +it!out regar or concern to t!e profit as erive "* !is emplo*er) "ut in t!e case of t!e s!oe s!iners) t!e proceeserive from t!e trae are al+a*s ivie s!are an s!are alie +it! responent =esa. T!e s!oe s!iner can tae !is s!are of t!e procees ever*a* if !e +ante toor +eel* as is t!e practice of =esa:s. T!e emplo*er of t!e piece +orer supervises an controls !is +or) "ut in t!e case of t!e s!oe s!iner) responent =esa oes

not eercise an* egree of control or supervision over t!eir person an t!eir +or. All t!ese are not o"taining in t!e case of a piece +orer as !e is in fact anemplo*ee in contemplation of la+) istinct from t!e s!oe s!iner in t!is instance +!o) in relation to responent 7amerto =. =esa is a partner in t!e trae.

Entitlement of t!e minimum reuirements of t!e la+ particularl* on +ages an allo+ances presupposes t!e eistence of emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip +!ic! isetermine "* t!e concurrence of t!e follo+ing conitions0 1. rig!t to !ire #. pa*ment of +ages

,. rig!t to fire; an . control an supervision

T!e most important conition to "e consiere is t!e eercise of control an supervision over t!e emplo*ees. T!ese s!oe s!iners are not emplo*ees of t!e compan*)"ut are partners instea. T!is is ue to t!e fact t!at t!e o+nerFmanager oes not eercise control an supervision over t!e s!oe s!iners. T!at t!e s!iners !ave t!eiro+n customers from +!om t!e* c!arge t!e fee an ivie t!e procees euall* +it! t!e o+ner) +!ic! mae t!e o+ner categorize t!em as on purel* commission"asis.

Case of 5anila 6olf the cadd of manila golf also thought that the were emploees. #ut the SC said that ou are not emploees. >ouare partners.

These caddies sa that manila golf e-ercises control over them. The are tested whether the know how to cadd. And then accdg tothe cadd, we are regulated as to the attire. $e have to come in collared shirt. $e come in shoes and we cannot come in shoes withoutsocks. And our behavior is controlled. So accdg to the caddies that is evidence that we controlled not onl to the goal that we have toachieve but also as to the means. 0s that correct% The SC sas that these are not inde-es of control. $h% #ecause if it were inde-esof control then the members of the manila golf are also emploees of the manila golf because the are also sub2ect to the sameregulations. The also cannot come in collarless shirts.

So accdg to the SC, if all these rules indicate ?R8?? relationship then the members are also emploees because the are sub2ect tothe same rules. #ut the truth of the matter is ou even though ou are assigned that da to be present in order that ou be read tocadd, if somebod comes around who is our favorite customer and asks ou to come with him in another golf course and ouaccompan him, the management cannot do anthing, the will have to pick another caddies who are on standb to pick up our place.#ecause in golf ou have a favorite cadd.

Those are the cases with respect to industrial partnership.

There is this uestion, is ?R8?? relationship a uestion of fact or is it a uestion of law% $h is that a uestion% #ecause the SC inSSS vs. CA, sas that ?R8?? relationship is a uestion of fact. #ut then in (E;E, in 888, SC sas that ?R8?? relationship is a uestion of law. So what is it% 0s it a uestion of fact or uestion of law%

.*< *elationship imposed by la

0ndirect ?mploer

19



There used to be three ee8er rel imposed b law. Art.(:K is contracting and subcontracting and there are " sub kinds therenamel* those contracted bona fide, in which case the contractor has >8@ sufficient capital for in$estment by ay of machinery, equipment and the >B@ control for acti$ities hich are not directly related to the business of theindirect employer. Should the contractor fail to pa the wages and benefits then the indirect emploer becomes viablefor the e-tent of nonpament or underpament of the emploees. That is the e-tent of liabilit. That is limited ee8er relationship.

owever, if the contractor does not have sufficient capital and or investment b wa of euipment, office, machinerand he is made to perform activities which are directly related to the principal business of the indirect emploer then thelaw dictates that the contractor is disregarded and there is onl one emploer vi3 the indirect emploer and he is theemploer not onl to the e-tent of the underpament but for all labor and social legislation purposes. So even for SSS andBag8ibig, the indirect emploer becomes liable.

&ow the landmark case of course is Philippine 0an! of 'ommunications $ )/*'. That messenger is not amessenger= e is working with the premises of the bank where no outsider can go in. what was in the mind to think thathe is not an emploee when he is under the direction of the officers of the bank. &aa ba gud tugotan mag laro"- diha sasulod sa bank., priv to confidential papers, even to the vault of the bank. So he is engaged to perform activities in thebank which are usual and necessar to the business of the bank. e is not made to do contractual work which hasnothing to do with the business of the bank so therefore he is controlled of the bank thus he is an emploee of the banknot of the agenc. That is the doctrine in Bhil bank of communications v &LRC.

owever, in imberly 'lar! >independent labor union $ Drilon@, the SC said that the court takes 2udicial notice thatthere is common mark list in the private and public sector of sub contracting

(. Securit services". 5aintenance). Danitorial

&#* Dudicial notice means that ou do not have to present proof, the court accepts it as it is as a fact. ?-ample* There are"@ hours in a da/

SC said this practice of contracting of securit, maintenance, and 2anitorial services are taken 2udicial notice of bthe SC. wh does the SC sa that% #ecause if ou go to the website of the SC, one of the pages there hassubcontracting. The SC asks for bid to hire contractors to do the 2anitorial and securit services of the different court s allover the countr so even the SC is engaged in sub contracting. ThatJs wh the SC sas this court takes 2udicial notice.

So there is limited ee-er rel in case of failure ,non-payment of the contractor and wages of the employee and

there is unlimited ee-er relationship between the indirect employer and the contractor if the contractor does not havesufficient capital etc and is engaged to perform activities which are directl related to the business of the emploer.

&ow, subseuentl in (EE) )eri )/*'. The SC reinstated the ruling in Iimberl Clark but there are other categories. This court takes 2udicial notice a widespread practice in both private and public sector in subcontracting andnot onl 2anitorial, securit, maintenance but also technical service. $hat is the service in &eri that was an issue% Therewas a telephone operator which the SC held ma be contracted out b the banana operation farm in Banabo. The caseof &eri v &LRC.

7IMBERL2 CLAR7 v .RILON

/ACTS0<im"erl*-Clar P!ilippines) $nc. B<$7=ER28 eecute a t!ree-*ear collective "argaining agreement BC=A +it! >nite <im"erl*-Clar Emplo*ees >nion-P!ilippine Transport an 'eneral (orers: Organization B><CE>PT'(O +!ic! epire on @une ,6) 154.

Some mem"ers of t!e "argaining unit forme anot!er union calle D<im"erl* $nepenent 2a"or >nion for Soliarit*) Activism an Nationalism-Organize 2a"orAssociation in 2ine $nustries an Agriculture B<$2>SAN-O2A2$A.D

On April #1) 154) <$2>SAN-O2A2$A file a petition for certification election +F t!e 7inistr* of 2a"or an Emplo*ment B7O2E. <$7=ER28 an ><CE>-PT'(O inot o"ect to t!e !oling of a certification election "ut o"ecte to t!e inclusion of t!e so-calle contractual +orers +!ose emplo*ment +it! <$7=ER28 +as courset!roug! an inepenent contractor) Ran 7anpo+er Compan* BRAN<) as among t!e ualifie voters.

7e-Ar"iter =onifacio $. 7arasigan issue an orer eclaring t!e regular ran-an-file la"orersFemplo*ees) casuals +!o !ave +ore at least si B mont!s anContractual emplo*ees +!o are allegel* in t!e emplo* of an inepenent contractor as eligi"le to vote in t!e certification election.

%uring t!e pre-election conference) casual +orers +ere c!allenge "* <$7=ER28 an ><CE>-PT'(O on t!e groun t!at t!e* are not emplo*ees of<$7=ER28 "ut of RAN<. $t +as agree "* all t!e parties t!at t!e voters s!all "e allo+e to cast t!eir votes "ut t!at t!eir "allots s!all "e segregate an su"ect toc!allenge proceeings.

<$2>SAN-O2A2$A file +it! t!e me-ar"iter a DProtest an 7otion to Open an Count C!allenge HotesD on t!e groun t!at t!e +orers are emplo*ees of

<$7=ER28 +it!in t!e meaning of Article #1#Be of t!e 2a"or Coe. <$7=ER28 file an opposition to t!e protest an motion) asserting t!at t!ere is no emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip "et+een t!e casual +orers an t!e compan*.

T!en 7inister Sanc!ez renere a ecision0 1. T!e service contract for anitorial an *ar maintenance services "et+een <$7=ER28 an RAN< +as eclare legal; #. T!e ot!er casual emplo*ees not performing anitorial an *ar maintenance services +ere eeme la"or-onl* contractual an since la"or-onl* contracting ispro!i"ite) suc! emplo*ees +ere !el to !ave attaine t!e status of regular emplo*ees) t!e regularization "eing effective as of t!e ate of t!e ecision BNovem"er1,) 154) an) t!erefore) t!e* +ere not entitle to vote in t!e certification election; ,. ><CE>-PT'(O) !aving garnere more votes t!an <$2>SAN-O2A2$A) +as certifie as t!e eclusive "argaining representative of <l7=ER28:s emplo*ees;

/ormer 2a"or 7inister /ranlin %rilon enie "ot! motions for reconsieration file "* <$7=ER28 an <$2>SAN-O2A2$A. T!e ne+ C=A eecute "et+een<$7=ER28 an ><CE>-PT'(O +as signe.

20



$SS>E0 (FN sai +orers) not performing anitorial or *ar maintenance service) "ecame regular emplo*ees of <$7=ER28G 8ES

R>2$N'0T!e 2a"or Coe efines +!o are regular emplo*ees) as follo+s0

DART. #46. Regular an Casual Emplo*ment. T!e provisions of +ritten agreements to t!e contrar* not+it!staning an regarless of t!e oral agreements of t!eparties) an emplo*ment s!all "e eeme to "e regular +!ere t!e emplo*ee !as "een engage to perform activities +!ic! are usuall* necessar* or esira"le in t!eusual "usiness or trae of t!e emplo*er) ecept +!ere t!e emplo*ment !as "een fie for a specific proect or unertaing t!e completion or termination of +!ic! !as"een etermine at t!e time of t!e engagement of t!e emplo*ee or +!ere t!e +or or services to "e performe is seasonal in nature an t!e emplo*ment is for t!euration of t!e season.

DAn emplo*ment s!all "e eeme to "e casual if it is not covere "* t!e preceing paragrap!0 Provie) T!at an* emplo*ee +!o !as renere at least one *ear of

service) +!et!er suc! service is continuous or "roen) s!all "e consiere a regular emplo*ee +it! respect to t!e activit* in +!ic! !e is emplo*e an !isemplo*ment s!all continue +!ile suc! activit* eists.D

T!e la+ t!us provies for t+o ins of regular emplo*ees) namel*0 B1 t!ose +!o are engage to perform activities +!ic! are usuall* necessar* or esira"le in t!eusual "usiness or trae of t!e emplo*er; an B# t!ose +!o !ave renere at least one *ear of service) +!et!er continuous or "roen) +it! respect to t!e activit* in +!ic! t!e* are emplo*e. T!e iniviual petitioners !erein +!o !ave "een auge to "e regular emplo*ees fall uner t!e secon categor*. T!ese are t!emec!anics) electricians) mac!inists) mac!ine s!op !elpers) +are!ouse !elpers) painters) carpenters) pipe fitters an masons.

$t is not ispute t!at t!ese +orers !ave "een in t!e emplo* of <$7=ER28 for more t!an one *ear at t!e time of t!e filing of t!e petition for certification election "*<$2>SAN-O2A2$A. O+ing to t!eir lengt! of service +it! t!e compan*) t!ese +orers "ecame regular emplo*ees) "* operation of la+) one *ear after t!e* +ereemplo*e "* <$7=ER28 t!roug! RAN<.

As a conseuence of t!eir status as regular emplo*ees) t!ose +orers not perforce anitorial an *ar maintenance service +ere performance entitle to t!e pa*mentof salar* ifferential) cost of living allo+ance) 1,t! mont! pa*) an suc! ot!er "enefits etene to regular emplo*ees uner t!e C=A) from t!e a* immeiatel*follo+ing t!eir first *ear of service in t!e compan*. T!ese regular emplo*ees are lie+ise entitle to vote in t!e certification election !el in @ul* 1) 154.

Nri vs NLRC

/acts0Petitioners Hirginia '. Neri an @ose Ca"elin applie for positions +it!) an +ere !ire "*) responent =CC) a corporation engage in proviing tec!nicalmaintenance) engineering) !ouseeeping) securit* an ot!er specific services to its clientele. T!e* +ere assigne to +or in t!e Caga*an %e Oro Cit* =ranc! ofresponent /E=TC on 1 7a* 15I5 an 1 August 1546) respectivel*) Neri as raioFtele operator an Ca"elin as anitor) "efore "eing promote to messenger on 1April 1545.

On #4 @une 1545) petitioners institute complaints against /E=TC an =CC "efore Regional Ar"itration =ranc! No. 16 of t!e %epartment of 2a"or an Emplo*mentto compel t!e "an to accept t!em as regular emplo*ees an for it to pa* t!e ifferential "et+een t!e +ages "eing pai t!em "* =CC an t!ose receive "* /E=TCemplo*ees +it! similar lengt! of service.

Responent =CC +as consiere "* t!e 2A as an inepenent contractor "ecause it prove it !a su"stantial capital. T!us) petitioners +ere !el to "e regularemplo*ees of =CC) not /E=TC.

$ssue0 (FN t!e petitioners are emplo*ees of /E=TC.

&el0 $t is +ell-settle t!at t!ere is Dla"or-onl*D contracting +!ere0 Ba t!e person suppl*ing +orers to an emplo*er oes not !ave su"stantial capital or investment int!e form of tools) euipment) mac!ineries) +or premises) among ot!ers; an) B" t!e +orers recruite an place "* suc! person are performing activities +!ic!are irectl* relate to t!e principal "usiness of t!e emplo*er.

=CC cannot "e consiere a Dla"or-onl*D contractor "ecause it !as su"stantial capital. (!ile t!ere ma* "e no evience t!at it !as investment in t!e form of tools)euipment) mac!ineries) +or premises) among ot!ers) it is enoug! t!at it !as su"stantial capital) as +as esta"lis!e "efore t!e 2a"or Ar"iter as +ell as t!e N2RC.

T!e Court !as alrea* taen uicial notice of t!e general practice aopte in several government an private institutions an inustries of !iring inepenentcontractors to perform special services. T!ese services range from anitorial) securit* an even tec!nical or ot!er specific services suc! as t!ose performe "*petitioners Neri an Ca"elin. (!ile t!ese services ma* "e consiere irectl* relate to t!e principal "usiness of t!e emplo*er) nevert!eless) t!e* are not necessar*in t!e conuct of t!e principal "usiness of t!e emplo*er.

=esies) petitioners o not en* t!at t!e* +ere selecte an !ire "* =CC "efore "eing assigne to +or in t!e Caga*an e Oro =ranc! of /E=TC. =CC lie+iseacno+leges t!at petitioners are its emplo*ees. T!e recor is replete +it! evience isclosing t!at =CC maintaine supervision an control over petitioners t!roug!its &ouseeeping an Special Services %ivision0 petitioners reporte for +or +earing t!e prescri"e uniform of =CC; leaves of a"sence +ere file irectl* +it! =CC;an) salaries +ere ra+n onl* from =CC.

T!e etermination of emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip involves factual finings.

'INO2A vs! NLRC

/ACTS0Petitioner Aleaner Hino*a claims t!at !e applie an +as accepte "* R/C as sales representative an on t!e same ate) a compan* ientification car

+as issue to !im "* R/C. Petitioner alleges t!at !e reporte ail* to t!e office of R/C in Pasig Cit*. %uring !is emplo*) !e +as assigne to various supermaretsan grocer* stores +!ere !e "ooe sales orers an collecte pa*ments for R/C. /or t!is tas) !e +as reuire "* R/C to put up a mont!l* "on of P#66.66 assecurit* eposit to guarantee t!e performance of !is o"ligation as sales representative. Petitioner contens t!at !e +as uner t!e irect control an supervision of7r. %ante So an 7r. Sai 2im) plant manager an senior salesman of R/C) respectivel*.

&e +as transferre "* R/C to Peninsula 7anpo+er Compan*) $nc. BDP7C$D) an agenc* +!ic! provies R/C +it! aitional contractual +orers pursuant to t!eContract of Service for t!e suppl* of manpo+er services. After !is transfer to P7C$) petitioner +as allegel* reassigne to R/C as sales representative.Su"seuentl*) !e +as informe "* 7s. Susan C!ua) personnel manager of R/C t!at !is services +ere terminate an !e +as ase to surrener !is $% car.Petitioner +as tol t!at !is ismissal +as ue to t!e epiration of t!e Contract of Service "et+een R/C an P7C$.

Conseuentl*) petitioner file a case against R/C "efore t!e 2a"or Ar"iter for illegal ismissal an non-pa*ment of 1,t! mont! pa*.

Private responent Regent /oo Corporation) on t!e ot!er !an) maintains t!at no er-ee relations!ip eiste "et+een petitioner an itself. $t insists t!at petitioner isactuall* an emplo*ee of P7C$) allegel* an inepenent contractor) +!ic! !a a Contract of Service +it! R/C.

21



T!e 2a"or Ar"iter renere a ecision in favor of petitioner. T!e 2a"or Ar"iter conclue t!at R/C +as t!e true emplo*er of petitioner for t!e follo+ing reasons0 B1Petitioner +as originall* +it! R/C an +as merel* transferre to P7C$ to "e eplo*e as an agenc* +orer an t!en su"seuentl* reassigne to R/C as salesrepresentative; B# R/C !a irect control an supervision over petitioner; B, R/C actuall* pai for t!e +ages of petitioner alt!oug! course t!roug! P7C$; an) BPetitioner +as terminate per instruction of R/C.

R/C appeale t!e averse ecision of t!e 2a"or Ar"iter to t!e N2RC. T!e N2RC reverse t!e finings of t!e 2a"or Ar"iter. T!e N2RC opine t!at P7C$ is aninepenent contractor "ecause it !as su"stantial capital an) as suc!) is t!e true emplo*er of petitioner. T!e N2RC) t!us) !el P7C$ lia"le for t!e ismissal ofpetitioner.

R/C alleges t!at P7C$ is an inepenent contractor on t!e sole groun t!at t!e latter is a !ig!l* capitalize venture. R/C presents a cop* of t!e Articles of$ncorporation an t!e Treasurer:s Affiavit su"mitte "* P7C$ to t!e SEC s!o+ing t!at it !as an aut!orize capital stoc of P1) 666)666.66) of +!ic! P,66) 666.66 is

su"scri"e an PI?) 666.66 is pai-in. Accoring to R/C) P7C$ is a ul* organize corporation engage in t!e "usiness of creating an !iring a pool of temporar*personnel an assigning t!em to its clients for suc! uration as sai clients ma* reuire. R/C furt!er contens t!at P7C$ !as a separate office) permit an licensean its o+n organization.

$SS>E0 (FN P7C$ is a la"or-onl* contractorG 8ES(FN an er-ee relations!ip eists "et+een Hino*a an R/CG 8ES

R>2$N'02a"or-onl* contracting) a pro!i"ite act) is an arrangement +!ere t!e contractor or su"contractor merel* recruits) supplies or places +orers to perform a

o") +or or service for a principal. $n la"or-onl* contracting) t!e follo+ing elements are present0

Ba T!e contractor or su"contractor oes not !ave su"stantial capital or investment to actuall* perform t!e o") +or or service uner its o+n account anresponsi"ilit*;B" T!e emplo*ees recruite) supplie or place "* suc! contractor or su"contractors are performing activities +!ic! are irectl* relate to t!e main "usiness of t!eprincipal.

On t!e ot!er !an) permissi"le o" contracting or su"contracting refers to an arrangement +!ere"* a principal agrees to put out or farm out +it! a contractor orsu"contractor t!e performance or completion of a specific o") +or or service +it!in a efinite or preetermine perio) regarless of +!et!er suc! o") +or orservice is to "e performe or complete +it!in or outsie t!e premises of t!e principal. A person is consiere engage in legitimate o" contracting or su"contractingif t!e follo+ing conitions concur0

Ba T!e contractor or su"contractor carries on a istinct an inepenent "usiness an unertaes to perform t!e o") +or or service on its o+n account an unerits o+n responsi"ilit* accoring to its o+n manner an met!o) an free from t!e control an irection of t!e principal in all matters connecte +it! t!e performanceof t!e +or ecept as to t!e results t!ereof;B" T!e contractor or su"contractor !as su"stantial capital or investment; anBc T!e agreement "et+een t!e principal an contractor or su"contractor assures t!e contractual emplo*ees entitlement to all la"or an occupational safet* an!ealt! stanars) free eercise of t!e rig!t to self-organization) securit* of tenure) an social an +elfare "enefits.

T!e Court agree +it! t!e conclusion of t!e 2a"or Ar"iter t!at P7C$ is engage in la"or-onl* contracting.

/irst) P7C$ oes not !ave su"stantial capitalization or investment in t!e form of tools) euipment) mac!ineries) an +or premises) among ot!ers) to ualif* as aninepenent contractor. (!ile it !as an aut!orize capital stoc of P1) 666)666.66) onl* PI?) 666.66 is actuall* pai-in) +!ic! cannot "e consiere as su"stantialcapitalization +it! t!e current economic atmosp!ere in t!e countr*.

Secon) P7C$ i not carr* on an inepenent "usiness nor i it unertae t!e performance of its contract accoring to its o+n manner an met!o) free from t!econtrol an supervision of its principal) R/C. T!e evience s!o+s t!at t!e +orers assigne "* P7C$ to R/C +ere uner t!e control an supervision of t!e latter.T!e Contract of Service itself provies t!at R/C can reuire t!e +orers assigne "* P7C$ to rener services even "e*on t!e regular eig!t !our +oring a* +!eneeme necessar*.

T!ir) P7C$ +as not engage to perform a specific an special o" or service) +!ic! is one of t!e strong inicators t!at an entit* is an inepenent contractor. Asstate in t!e Contract of Service) t!e sole unertaing of P7C$ +as to provie R/C +it! a temporar* +orforce a"le to carr* out +!atever service ma* "e reuire "*it. Apart from t!at) no ot!er particular o") +or or service +as reuire from P7C$.

2astl*) in la"or-onl* contracting) t!e emplo*ees recruite) supplie or place "* t!e contractor perform activities +!ic! are irectl* relate to t!e main "usiness of its

principal. $n t!is case) t!e +or of petitioner as sales representative is irectl* relate to t!e "usiness of R/C.

Even granting t!at P7C$ is an inepenent contractor) a perusal of t!e Contract of Service entere into "et+een R/C an P7C$ reveals t!at petitioner is actuall* notinclue in t!e enumeration of t!e +orers to "e assigne to R/C. T!e follo+ing are t!e +orers enumerate in t!e contract01. 7erc!aniser#. Promo 'irl,. /actor* (orer. %river

T!e a"ove enumeration oes not inclue t!e position of petitioner as sales representative. T!is onl* s!o+s t!at petitioner +as never intene to "e a part of t!ose to"e contracte out.

$n etermining t!e eistence of emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip t!e follo+ing elements of t!e Dfour-fol testD are generall* consiere) namel*0 B1 t!e selection anengagement of t!e emplo*ee or t!e po+er to !ire; B# t!e pa*ment of +ages; B, t!e po+er to ismiss; an B t!e po+er to control t!e emplo*ee. Of t!ese four) t!eDcontrol testD is t!e most important.

T!e $% car is enoug! proof t!at petitioner +as previousl* !ire "* R/C prior to !is transfer as agenc* +orer to P7C$. (it! respect to t!e pa*ment of +ages) event!oug! t!e +ages +ere course t!roug! P7C$) t!e funs actuall* came from t!e pocets of R/C. T!us) R/C is still t!e one +!o pai t!e +ages of petitioner al"eitinirectl*.

As to t!e t!ir element) t!e Contract of Service gave R/C t!e rig!t to terminate t!e +orers assigne to it "* P7C$ +it!out t!e latter:s approval. R/C reuesteP7C$ to terminate petitioner from !is emplo*ment +it! t!e compan*. $n response to t!e reuest of R/C) P7C$ terminate petitioner from service. As to t!e fourt!element) R/C alrea* amitte t!at it eercise control an supervision over petitioner.

22



&ow, 0 would like to bring out to ou a "::4 case of indirect emploer. That is )ational -ood Authority $4agpala Security >5arch ;, "::4/ @4) SCRA K:. This is a bona fide contracting out of securit services. ThereJs a wageorder which specificall sas that an increase is born out b the order account b the direct emploer and not the agenc.So the agenc asks for reimbursement from the indirect emploer in line with what the wage order sas. As to theincreases of the minimum wage to give the securit guards. &o uestions about that% The securit agenc is further asking for the differential in terms of overtime. #ecause if our rate goes up, our overtime also goes up= () th month paalso goes up if the wage goes up and the premium pa for work done on das which work should not be done= $hat isthe ruling of the SC% The S' says the indirect employer is only liable for the increase not for the roll up costs? theconseuent increase in overtime/ now take note that the indirect emploer here is the &<A and &<A is governmentowned and controlled corporation with orig charter. So this is the onl instance where a government entit acting anemploer sub2ect to the labor code, if it becomes an emploer b the force of law. $hat is that law% (:K of the labor code.>ou are an indirect emploer. The direct emploer is the agenc and if the contractor fails to pa wages ou are to pa thewages= 0t is the law itself that makes ou an emploer that is wh it is called ee8er relationship imposed b law= So pleaseread this case because this case makes a government entit become a private emploer liable under the LC andsecondl it limits the liabilit and it has the passion as to def common sense. And the SC sas if ou donJt agree withthe 2udgment our remed is to elect people who will change the law because the SC merel interprets the law strictl,liberall= 'k we will take that up further when we go to ee8er from (:4 to (:K.

NFA v MASA.A SECURIT2 AGENC2

/ACTS0 Responent 7ASA%A Securit* Agenc*) $nc.) entere into a one *ear contract to provie securit* services to t!e various offices) +are!ouses an installations ofN/A +it!in t!e scope of t!e N/A Region $. >pon t!e epiration of sai contract) t!e parties etene t!e effectivit* on a mont!l* "asis uner same terms anconition.

7ean+!ile) t!e Regional Tripartite (ages an Prouctivit* =oar issue several +age orers manating increases in t!e ail* +age rate. Responent reuesteN/A for a corresponing up+ar austment in t!e mont!l* contract rate consisting of t!e increases in t!e ail* minimum +age of t!e securit* guars as +ell as t!ecorresponing raise in t!eir overtime pa*) !olia* pa*) 1,t! mont! pa*) !olia*) rest a* pa*) Social Securit* S*stem BSSS an Pag-i"ig premiums. N/A) !o+ever)grante t!e reuest onl* +it! respect to t!e increase in t!e ail* +age an enie t!e same +it! respect to t!e ot!er "enefits an remunerations.

Responent file +it! t!e RTC of uezon Cit*) a case for recover* of sum of mone* against N/A. T!e complaint soug!t reim"ursement of t!e amounts allegel*pai "* responent to t!e securit* guars.

T!e trial court renere a ecision in favor of responent !oling t!at N/A is lia"le to pa* t!e securit* guarsK +age relate "enefits pursuant to RA I#I) "ecauset!e "asis of t!e computation of sai "enefits) lie overtime pa*) !olia* pa*) SSS an Pag-i"ig premium) is t!e increase minimum +age.

N/A appeale to t!e Court of Appeals "ut t!e same +as ismisse. T!e appellate court sustaine t!e ruling of t!e trial court t!at N/A is uner o"ligation to pa* t!eaministrative costs an margin an t!e +age relate "enefits of t!e responentKs securit* guars. T!e Court of Appeals lie+ise enie N/AKs motion for

reconsieration.

$SS>E0 (FN t!e lia"ilit* of principals in service contracts uner Section of RA I#I B(age Rationalization Act an t!e +age orers issue "* t!eRegional Tripartite (ages an Prouctivit* =oar is limite onl* to t!e increment in t!e minimum +ageG 8ES

R>2$N'0 Pa*ment of t!e increases in t!e +age rate of +orers is orinaril* s!oulere "* t!e emplo*er. Sec. of RA I#I) !o+ever) epressl* loge sai o"ligationto t!e principals or inirect emplo*ers in construction proects an esta"lis!ments proviing securit*) anitorial an similar services. Section of RA I#I) provies0

SEC. . $n t!e case of contracts for construction proects an for securit*) anitorial an similar services) t!e prescri"e increases in t!e +age rates of t!e +orerss!all "e "orne "* t!e principals or clients of t!e constructionFservice contractors an t!e contract s!all "e eeme amene accoringl*. $n t!e event) !o+ever) t!att!e principal or client fails to pa* t!e prescri"e +age rates) t!e constructionFservice contractor s!all "e ointl* an severall* lia"le +it! !is principal or client.

N/A claims t!at its aitional lia"ilit* uner t!e aforecite provision is limite onl* to t!e pa*ment of t!e increment in t!e statutor* minimum +age rate) i.e.) t!e ratefor a regular eig!t B4 !our +or a*.

T!e term +age as use in Sec. of RA I#I pertains to no ot!er t!an t!e statutor* minimum +age +!ic! is efine uner t!e Rules $mplementing RA I#I ast!e lo+est +age rate fie "* la+ t!at an emplo*er can pa* !is +orer. T!e "asis t!ereof uner Section I of t!e same Rules is t!e normal +oring !ours) +!ic! s!allnot ecee eig!t !ours a a*. &ence) t!e prescri"e increases or t!e aitional lia"ilit* to "e "orne "* t!e principal uner Sec. of RA I#I is t!e increment oramount ae to t!e remuneration of an emplo*ee for an 4-!our +or.

Since t!e increase in +age referre to in Sec. pertains to t!e statutor* minimum +age as efine !erein) principals in service contracts cannot "e mae to pa* t!ecorresponing +age increase in t!e overtime pa*) nig!t s!ift ifferential) !olia* an rest a* pa*) premium pa* an ot!er "enefits grante to +orers.

7oreover) t!e la+ secures t!e +elfare of t!e +orers "* imposing a soliar* lia"ilit* on principals an t!e service contractors. >ner t!e secon sentence of Sec. of RA I#I) in t!e event t!at t!e principal or client fails to pa* t!e prescri"e +age rates) t!e service contractor s!all "e !el soliaril* lia"le +it! t!e former. Articles16) 16I an 165 of t!e 2a"or Coe lie+ise provie t!e same rule.

=ase on t!e foregoing interpretation of Sec. of RA I#I) t!e parties ma* enter into stipulations increasing t!e lia"ilit* of t!e principal. So long as t!e minimumo"ligation of t!e principal) i.e.) pa*ment of t!e increase statutor* minimum +age is complie +it!) t!e (age Rationalization Act is not violate.

T!e parties acno+lege t!e application to t!eir contract of t!e +age orers issue "* t!e RT(P= pursuant to RA I#I. T!ere "eing no assumption "* N/A of agreater lia"ilit* t!an t!at manate "* Sec. of t!e Act) its o"ligation is limite to t!e pa*ment of t!e increase statutor* minimum +age rates +!ic! !a alrea*"een satisfie "* N/A.

C(ther cases:

RABAGO v NLRC

/ACTS0

23



$n 1541) Ace =uiling Care an t!e P!ilippine Tu"erculosis Societ* entere into a contract uner +!ic! t!e former +oul provie t!e latter +it! anitorialan allie services. T!e contract +as rene+e *earl* until 154?) +!en t!e services +ere place uner pu"lic "iing an a ne+ contract +as a+are to anot!ercompan*) +!ic! t!en too over from A=C.

T!e 1 anitors A=C !a earlier etaile to PTS file a complaint +it! t!e N2RC against "ot! A=C an PTS for unpai +age ifferentials uner (age Orer Nos. ?an ) !olia* premium pa*) amages an attorne*:s fees) reim"ursement of cas! "on) incentive leave pa* an "onus an separation pa*.

A=C file a cross-claim against PTS) contening t!at t!e latter +as lia"le for t!e statutor* increases) +!ile PTS move to ismiss on t!e groun t!at it "elonge tot!e pu"lic sector an +as not covere "* t!e 2a"or Coe.

T!e 2a"or Ar"iter !el t!at t!e complainants +ere not entitle to legal !olia* pa* an to reim"ursement of cas! "on or separation pa* ecept for five of t!em +!o

+ere allo+e separation pa*. T!e 2a"or Ar"iter also !el A=C an PTS$ ointl* an severall* lia"le for pa*ment of t!e +age ifferentials uner (age Orers Nos. ?an .

=ot! A=C an PTS$ appeale to t!e N2RC) +!ic! affirme t!e ecision +it! respect to t!e a+ar of separation pa* an service incentive leave +it! pa* "ut !el t!atit +as A=C alone t!at s!oul pa* t!e +age ifferentials uner (age Orers Nos. ? an .

$SS>E0 (FN "ot! A=C an PTS are sol iaril* l ia"le for t!e pa*ment of +age ifferentialsG 8ES

R>2$N'0T!e Court !el in Eagle Securit* Agenc*) $nc. vs. N2RC0

Petitioners: soliar* lia"ilit* for t!e amounts ue t!e securit* guars fins support in Articles 16) 16I an 165 of t!e 2a"or Coe +!ic! state t!at0

Art. 16. Contractor or su"contractor. (!enever an emplo*er enters into a contract +it! anot!er person for t!e performance of t!e former:s +or) t!e emplo*ees oft!e contractor an of t!e latters: su"contractor) if an*) s!all "e pai in accorance +it! t!e provisions of t!is Coe.

$n t!e event t!at t!e contractor or su"contractor fails to pa* t!e +ages of !is emplo*ees in accorance +it! t!is Coe) t!e emplo*er s!all "e ointl* an severall*lia"le +it! !is contractor or su"contractor to suc! emplo*ees to t!e etent t!at !e is lia"le to emplo*ees irectl* emplo*e "* !im.

Art. 16I. $nirect emplo*er. T!e provisions of t!e immeiatel* preceing Article s!all lie+ise appl* to an* person) partners!ip) association or corporation +!ic!) not"eing an emplo*er) contracts +it! an inepenent contractor for t!e performance of an* +or) tas) o" or proect.

Art. 165. Soliar* lia"ilit*. T!e provisions of eisting la+s to t!e contrar* not+it!staning) ever* emplo*er or inirect emplo*er s!all "e !el responsi"le +it! !iscontractor or su"contractor for an* violation of t!is Coe. /or purposes of etermining t!e etent of t!e civil lia"ilit* uner t!is C!apter) t!e* s!all "e consiere asirect emplo*ers.

T!e contractor is mae lia"le "* virtue of !is status as irect emplo*er. T!e principal) on t!e ot!er !an) is mae t!e inirect emplo*er of t!e contractor:s emplo*eesfor purposes of pa*ing t!e emplo*ees t!eir +ages s!oul t!e contractor "e una"le to pa* t!em. T!is oint an several lia"ilit* facilitates) if not guarantees) pa*ment oft!e +orers: performance of an* +or) tas) o" or proect) t!us giving t!e +orers ample protection as manate "* t!e 154I Constitution.

T!e conclusion is t!at Ace =uiling Care an t!e P!ilippine Tu"erculosis Societ* are soliaril* lia"le to t!e complainants for t!eir ifferential pa* uner (age OrersNos. ? an ) PTS "eing consiere in t!e circumstances of t!is case to "e t!e inirect emplo*er of +orers in t!e private sector. A=C is lia"le for t!e pa*ment of t!eseparation pa* an incentive leave pa* of t!e complainants mentione in t!e c!allenge ecisions.

Fi"iinas vs NLRC

/acts0On April 1551 /$2S8N) a omestic corporation engage in t!e manufacture of pol*ester fi"er) contracte +it! %E 2$7A for t!e performance of specific anitorial services att!e former:s plant. Pursuant to t!e agreement /elipe 2oterte) among ot!ers) +as eplo*e at /$2S8N to tae care of t!e plants an maintain general cleanliness aroun t!epremises.

On # /e"ruar* 155# 2oterte sue /$2S8N an %E 2$7A as alternative efenants for illegal ismissal) unerpa*ment of +ages) non-pa*ment of legal !olia* pa*) serviceincentive leave pa* an 1,t! mont! pa* alleging t!at !e +as first assigne to perform anitorial +or at /$2S8N in 1541; t!at +!en a movement to eman increase +agesan 1,t! mont! pa* arose among t!e +orers on %ecem"er 1551 !e +as accuse "* a certain %oie 2a /lores of !aving poste in t!e "ulletin "oar at /$2S8N an articleattri"uting to management a secret unerstaning to "loc t!e eman; an) for en*ing responsi"ilit*) !is gate pass +as unceremoniousl* cancelle on /e"ruar* 155# an!e +as su"seuentl* ismisse.

T!e N2RC e"une t!e claim of /$2S8N an affirme t!e 2a"or Ar"iter in fining %E 2$7A as a la"or-onl* contractor.

$ssue0 (FN %E 2$7A is a la"or-onl* contractor t!us creating a E-E relations!ip "et+en /$2S8N an 2OTERO.

&el0 NO9.(e agree t!at t!ere is sufficient evience to s!o+ t!at private responent %E 2$7A is an inepenent o" contractor) not a mere la"or-onl* contractor. >ner t!e 2a"or Coe)t+o B# elements must eist for a fining of la"or-onl* contracting0 Ba t!e person suppl*ing +orers to an emplo*er oes not !ave su"stantial capital or investment in t!e formof tools) euipment) mac!ineries) +or premises) among ot!ers) an B" t!e +orers recruite an place "* suc! persons are performing activities irectl* relate to t!eprincipal "usiness of suc! emplo*er.

T!ese t+o B# elements o not eist in t!e instant case. As pointe out "* petitioner) private responent %E 2$7A is a going concern ul* registere +it! t!e Securities anEc!ange Commission +it! su"stantial capitalization of P1)66)666.66) P66)666.66 of +!ic! is actuall* su"scri"e. &ence) it cannot "e consiere as engage in la"or-onl*contracting "eing a !ig!l* capitalize venture. 7oreover) +!ile t!e anitorial services performe "* /elipe 2oterte pursuant to t!e agreement "et+een /$2S8N an %E 2$7A

ma* "e consiere irectl* relate to t!e principal "usiness of /$2S8N +!ic! is t!e manufacture of pol*ester fi"er) nevert!eless) t!e* are not necessar* in its operation.

Conseuentl*) %E 2$7A "eing an inepenent o" contractor) no irect emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip eists "et+een petitioner /$2S8N an private responent /elipe2oterte.

(it! respect to its lia"ilit*) !o+ever) petitioner cannot totall* eculpate itself from t!e fact t!at responent %E 2$7A is an inepenent o" contractor. (e agree +it! t!e Solicitor'eneral t!at not+it!staning t!e lac of a irect emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip "et+een /$2S8N an /elipe 2oterte) t!eformer is still ointl* an severall* lia"le +it!responent %E 2$7A for 2oterte:s monetar* claims uner Art. 165 of t!e 2a"or Coe 15 +!ic! eplicitl* provies --

T!e provisions of eisting la+s to t!e contrar* not+it!staning) ever* emplo*er or inirect emplo*er s!all "e !el responsi"le +it! !is contractor or su"contractor for an*violation of an* provision of t!is Coe. /or purposes of etermining t!e etent of t!eir civil lia"ilit* uner t!is C!apter) t!e* s!all "e consiere as irect emplo*ers.

24



COCA COLA BOTTLERS 'S! NLRC

/0 COCA CO2A entere into a contract of anitorial services +it! =acolo @anitorial Services B=@S. Ever* *ear t!ereafter a service contract +as entere into"et+een t!e parties uner similar terms an conitions until a"out 7a* 155.

On # Octo"er 1545 COCA CO2A !ire private responent Ramon Canonicato as a casual emplo*ee an assigne !im to t!e "ottling cre+ as asu"stitute for a"sent emplo*ees. $n April 1556 COCA CO2A terminate Canonicato:s casual emplo*ment. 2ater t!at *ear COCA CO2A availe of Canonicato:sservices) t!is time as a painter in contractual proects +!ic! laste from fifteen B1? to t!irt* B,6 a*s.On 1 April 1551 Canonicato +as !ire as a anitor "* =@S +!ic!assigne !im to COCA CO2A consiering !is familiarit* +it! its premises. On ? an I 7arc! 155# Canonicato starte painting t!e facilities of COCA CO2A ancontinue oing so several mont!s t!ereafter or so for a fe+ a*s ever* time until to #? @une 155,.

'oae "* information t!at COCA CO2A emplo*e previous =@S emplo*ees +!o file a complaint against t!e compan* for regularization pursuant to acompromise agreement)Canonicato su"mitte a similar complaint against COCA CO2A to t!e 2a"or Ar"iter on 4 @une 155,.

2a"or Ar"iter rule t!at t!ere +ere no er-ee relations!ip "et+een Coca Cola an Canonicato as =@S +as t!e latter:s real emplo*er. N2RC reverse 2A:sruling an !el t!at t!e anitorial services of Canonicato +ere foun to "e necessar* or esira"le in t!e usual "usiness or trae of COCA CO2A. T!e N2RCaccepte Canonicato:s proposition t!at !is +or +it! t!e =@S +as t!e same as +!at !e i +!ile still a casual emplo*ee of COCA CO2A. $n so !oling t!e N2RCapplie Art. #46 of t!e 2a"or Coe an eclare t!at Canonicato +as a regular emplo*ee of COCA CO2A an entitle to reinstatement an pa*ment of P14)16?.16in "ac +ages.

$ssue0 (FN t!ere +as er-ee relations!ip

&el0 No. T!e N2RC +as +rong to appl* Art. #46 in t!is case.

(e perceive at t!e outset t!e isposition of t!e N2RC t!at anitorial services are necessar* an esira"le to t!e trae or "usiness of petitioner COCA CO2A. =ut t!isis inconsistent +it! our pronouncement in <im"erl* $nepenent 2a"or >nion v. %rilon +!ere t!e Court too uicial notice of t!e practice aopte in severalgovernment an private institutions an inustries of !iring anitorial services on an Dinepenent contractor "asis.D $n t!is respect) alt!oug! anitorial services ma*"e consiere irectl* relate to t!e principal "usiness of an emplo*er) as +it! ever* "usiness) +e eeme t!em unnecessar* in t!e conuct of t!e emplo*er:sprincipal "usiness.

T!is uicial notice) of course) rests on t!e assumption t!at t!e inepenent contractor is a legitimate o" contractor so t!at t!ere can "e no ou"t as to t!e eistenceof an emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip "et+een contractor an t!e +orer. $n t!is situation) t!e onl* pertinent uestion t!at ma* arise +ill no longer eal +it! +!et!ert!ere eists an emplo*ment "on "ut +!et!er t!e emplo*ee ma* "e consiere regular or casual as to eserve t!e application of Art. #46 of t!e 2a"or Coe.

$t is an altoget!er ifferent matter +!en t!e ver* eistence of an emplo*ment relations!ip is in uestion. T!is +as t!e issue generate "* Canonicato:s application forregularization of !is emplo*ment +it! COCA CO2A an t!e su"seuent enial "* t!e latter of an emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip +it! t!e applicant. $t +as errort!erefore for t!e N2RC to appl* Art. #46 of t!e 2a"or Coe in etermining t!e eistence of an emplo*ment relations!ip of t!e parties !erein. Article #46 is not t!e*arstic for etermining t!e eistence of an emplo*ment relations!ip "ecause it merel* istinguis!es "et+een t+o ins of emplo*ees) i.e.) regular emplo*ees ancasual emplo*ees) for purposes of etermining t!e rig!t of an emplo*ee to certain "enefits) to oin or form a union) or to securit* of tenure. Article #46 oes not appl*

+!ere t!e eistence of an emplo*ment relations!ip is in ispute.

$n etermining t!e eistence of an emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip it is necessar* to etermine +!et!er t!e follo+ing factors are present0 Ba t!e selection anengagement of t!e emplo*ee; B" t!e pa*ment of +ages; Bc t!e po+er to ismiss; an) B t!e po+er to control t!e emplo*ee:s conuct. Nota"l*) t!ese are all founin t!e relations!ip "et+een =@S an Canonicato an not "et+een Canonicato an petitioner COCA CO2A. =@S !as t!e po+er to control t!e conuct of t!e anitors.T!e supervisors of petitioner) "eing intereste in t!e result of t!e +or of t!e anitors) also gives suggestions as to t!e performance of t!e anitors) "ut t!is oes notmean t!at =@S !as no control over t!em. T!e interest of petitioner is onl* +it! respect to t!e result of t!eir +or. On t!e ot!er !an) =@S oversees t!e totalit* oft!eir performance.

=@S !as t!e po+er to control t!e conuct of t!e anitors. T!e supervisors of petitioner) "eing intereste in t!e result of t!e +or of t!e anitors) also gives suggestionsas to t!e performance of t!e anitors) "ut t!is oes not mean t!at =@S !as no control over t!em. T!e interest of petitioner is onl* +it! repect to t!e result of t!eir +or. On t!e ot!er !an) =@S oversees t!e totalit* of t!eir performance.

'a"")* Sc)rit% vs! NLRC Bcompare +it! Coca Cola case

/0 On 1 Septem"er 154) petitioner =aguio 2eisure Corporation B&*att Terraces =aguio BD&*att =aguioD an petitioner Halium Securit* Services BHallumD entereinto a contract for securit* services uner t!e terms of +!ic! Hallum a gree to protect t!e properties an premises of &*att =aguio "* proviing fift* B?6 securit*guars) on a #-!our "asis) a a*.

On $ @une 544) &einric! 2. 7aul"ecer) &*att =aguio:s 'eneral 7anager) +rote to %omingo A. $nocentes) Presient of Halium avising t!at effective 1 @ul* 1544) t!econtract of securit* services +oul "e terminate.Halium informe 7r. 7aul"ecer) on ## @une 1544) t!at it +as agreea"le to t!e termination or t!e contract.

On ,6 @une 1544) private responents) +!o +ere securit* guars provie "* Halium to &*att =ag :o) +ere informe "* Halium:s Personnel Officer t!at t!e contract"et+een t!e t+o B# "a alrea* epire. Private responents +ere irecte to report to Halium:s !ea office at Sucat Roa) in 7untinlupa) 7etropolitan 7anila) notlater t!an 1? @ul* 1544 for re-assignment. T!e* +ere also tol t!at failure to report at Sucat +oul "e taen to mean t!at t!e* +ere no longer intereste in "eing re-assigne to some ot!er client of Halium.

None of t!e private responents reporte at Sucat for reassignment) $nstea) "et+een @ul* an Septem"er) 1544) private responents file several complaintsagainst petitioners in t!e National 2a"or Relations Commission:s Office BDN2RCD in =aguio Cit* for illegal ismissal an unfair la"or practices; for violation of la"orstanars relating to unerpa*ment of +ager) premium !olia* an resta* pa*) uniform allo+ances an meal allo+ances. T!e* pra*e for reinstatement +it! full

"ac+ages.

2a"or Ar"ter ismimisse t!e petition ruling t!at Halllum +as an inepenent contractor. N2RC reverse t!e 2A:s ecision.

$ssue0 (FN t!e securit* guars are emplo*ees of &*att =aguio F (FN t!ere +as la"or-onl* contracting

&el0 8es. Remem"er four elements0

(it! respect of t!e selection an engagement of t!e emplo*ees) t!e recors !ere s!o+ t!at private responents fille up &*att emplo*ment application forms ansu"mitte t!e eecute forms irectl* to t!e Securit* %epartment of &*att =aguio. Petitionerrs argument t!at it +oul !ave "een an inconvenience to let t!eapplicants su"mit t!eir forms to Sucat) 7aati is untena"le ue to t!e fact t!at t!e process of selection an engagement of private responents !a "een carrie outin &*att =aguio an su"ect to t!e scrutin* of officers an emplo*ees of &*att =aguio

25



(it! respect to t!e moe or manner of pa*ment of +ages) t!e pa* slips "ore t!e &*att =aguio:s logo. T!ese pa*slips s!o+ t!at it +as &*att =aguio +!ic! pai t!eir +ages irectl* an t!at &*att =aguio eucte t!erefrom t!e necessar* amounts for SSS premiums) internal revenue +it!!oling taes) an meicare contri"utions.

Anent t!e po+er of ismissal0 note t!at t!e contract provie t!at upon loss of confience on t!e part of &*att =aguio vis-a-vis an* securit* guar furnis!e "*Hallum) suc! securit* guar Dma* "e c!ange immeiatel* upon t!e reuest to MHellum "* M&*att =aguio.D Not+it!staning t!e terms of t!e formal contract "et+eenpetitioners) t!e N2RC foun t!at) in operative fact) it +as &*att =aguio:s C!ief Securit* Officer +!o eercise t!e po+er of enforcing isciplinar* measures over t!esecurit* guars.$n t!e matter of termination of services of particular securit* guars) &*att =aguio !a merel* use Hallum as a c!annel to implement its ecisions)muc! as it !a one in t!e process of selection an recruitment of t!e guars.

Test of control is satisfie "* t!e ff0

a t!e assignments of particular securit* guars +as su"ect to t!e approval of &*att =aguio:s C!ief Securit* Officer;DB" promotions of t!e securit* guars from casual regular emplo*ees +ere approve or ratifie "* t!e C!ief Securit* Office of &*att =aguio;Bc &*att =aguio:s C!ief Securit* Officer ecie +!o among t!e various securit* guars s!oul "e on ut* or on call) as +el as +!o) in cases of isciplinar*matters) s!oul "e suspene or ismisse.B t!e petitioners t!emselves amitte t!at &*att =aguio) t!roug! its C!ief Securit* Officer) a+are citations to iniviual securit* guars for meritorious services.

7ost importantl*) orers receive "* private responent securit* guars +ere set fort! on paper "earing t!e letter!eas of "ot! &*att =aguio an Hallum. negatingpetitioners contention t!at +!at eiste "et+een Hallum an &*att: =aguio +as simpl* close coorination an ove-tailing of operations) rat!er t!an control ansupervision "* one over t!e operations of t!e ot!er) an t!at &*att =aguio:s C!ief Securit* Officer !a acte as t!e conuit "et+een &*att =aguio an Hallum inrespect of t!e implementation of t!e contract of securit* services.

&ence) t!ere +as la"or onl* contracting.

2a"or-onl* contracting.-Ba An* person +!o unertaes to suppl* +orers to an emplo*er s!all "e eeme to "e engage in la"or-onl* contracting +!ere suc!person0B1 %oes not !ave su"stantial capital or investment in t!e form of tools) euipment) mac!ineries) +or premises an ot!er materials; anB# T!e +orers recruite an place "* suc! person are performing activities +!ic! are irectl* relate to t!e principal "usiness or operations of t!e emplo*er in +!ic! +orers are !a"ituall* emplo*e.

B" 2a"or-onl* contracting as efine !erein is !ere"* pro!i"ite an t!e person acting D contractor s!all "e consiere merel* as an agent or intermeiar* of t!eemplo*er +!o s!all "e responsi"le to t!e +orers in t!e same manner an etent as if t!e latter +ere irectl* emplo*e "* !im.

T!ere is o" contracting permissi"le uner t!e Coe if t!e follo+ing conitions are met0B1 T!e contractor carries on an inepenent "usiness an unertaes t!e contract +or on !is o+n account uner !is o+n responsi"ilit* accoring to !is o+nmanner an met!o) free from t!e control an irection of !is emplo*er or principal in all matters connecte +it! t!e performnance of t!e +or ecept as to t!eresults t!ereof; an B# T!e contractor !as su"stantial capital or investment in t!e form of tools) euipment) mac!ineries) +or premises) an ot!er materials +!ic!am necessar* in t!e conuct of !is "usiness.D

$n t!e case at "ar) +e note t!at Hellum i not !ave a "ranc! office in =aguio Cit* an t!at &*att =aguio provie Hallum +it! offices at &*att:s o+n premises an

allo+e Hallum to use its Securit* %epartment in t!e processing of applications. T!at +as t!e reason too +!* Hallum !a stipulate t!at &*att =aguio +as toistri"ute t!e salaries of t!e securit* guars irectl* to t!em an t!at &*att !a use its o+n corporate forms an pa* in t!e !ere"* guars +ere clearl* performingacuations irecte relate to t!e "usiness operations of &*att =aguio) t!e unertaing to safeguar t!e person an "elongings of !otel guest one of t!e o"ligationsof a !otel vis-a-vis guests an t!e general pu"lic.

(!ere la"or-onl* contracting eists in a given case) t!e la+ itself impose or esta"lis!e an emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip "et+een t!e emplo*er Bt!e o+ner of t!eproector esta"lis!ment B!ere) &*att =aguio an t!e emplo*ees of t!e la"or-onl* contractor B!ere) Hallum to prevent an* violation or circumvention of provisions oft!e 2a"or Coe.

RELIGIOUS OF THE 'IRGIN MAR24 titionr vs! NLRC4 Co"(io d San Pasc)a" Ba%"on

/acts0On @ul* 14) 154,) C%SP=) represente "* t!e =is!op of 7alolos) entere into an Agreement +it! petitioner Religious of t!e Hirgin 7ar*) a religious congregation) +!ere"* t!elatter +as esignate to Drun) aminister an operate t!e MC%SP= 'irls: %epartment.D T!e Agreement +as for a term of 16 *ears) commencing in t!e sc!ool *ear 154,-154.

Pursuant to t!e terms of t!e a"ove agreement) petitioner !ire teac!ers an aministrative personnel for t!e 'irls: %epartment uner pro forma appointment papers.T!is appointment s!all "e eeme in full force an su"sisting unless epressl* terminate "* eit!er part* for a vali cause or causes an after ue process) an approve "*t!e Regional %irector.

On April 16) 154I) t!e =is!op of 7alolos pre-terminate t!e Agreement. As a result) petitioner move out of t!e sc!ool premises) an C%SP=) t!roug! t!e =is!op of 7alolosan !is representatives) too over t!e aministration of t!e 'irls: %epartment.

Apparentl*) t!e teac!ing an non-teac!ing personnel !ire "* petitioner for sc!ool *ear 154-154I continue to rener services even after t!e Agreement +as terminate) "utt!e* +ere not pai t!eir salaries for t!e mont! of 7a* 154I. &ence) t!e* file a complaint for unpai salaries +it! t!e N2RC-Regional Ar"itration =ranc! $$$) naming C%SP=an petitioner as responents.

N2RC aopte t!e finings of t!e la"or ar"iter an affirme !is ecision !oling C%SP= an petitioner ointl* an severall* lia"le to complainants for t!e pa*ment of t!eirsalaries for 7a* 154I. 2A !el t!at responent RH7) ma*) in t!e +ier spectrum of la"or relations) "e consiere an inepenent contractor. $t eercise greater egree ofautonom* an inepenence in running t!e affairs of responent C%SP=) +it! +!ose real o+nerFoperator it !a an Agreement. T!e !iring an pa*ing of salaries of t!ecomplainants primaril* rest on it an eventuall*) t!e su"stantial attri"utes of a irect emplo*er +ere eercise "* it.

$ssue0(FN RH7 is t!e emplo*er of t!e teac!ers.

&el0 No... it is !e C%S=P as represente "* its irectorT!e Agreement s!o+s t!at petitioner entere into t!e same not as an inepenent contractor "ut) as it claims) a manager or aministrator of t!e sc!ool. $t is true t!at uner t!eAgreement) petitioner !a t!e Dsole responsi"ilit* an epense Mover t!e aministration) management an operation of t!e 'irls: %epartment)D as +ell as t!e aut!orit* toemplo* teac!ers neee "* t!e sc!ool) impose an collect tuition fees) an pa* t!e epenses of operations. &o+ever) control an supervision over t!e sc!ool:s operationsremaine in t!e !ans of t!e %iocese of 7alolos) o+ner of C%SP=) represente "* t!e Paris! Priest of O"ano) =ulacan) +!o acte as sc!ool irector.

C%SP=) as represente "* t!e irector) eercise a"solute control an supervision over t!e sc!ool:s aministration. >ner it) t!e aut!orit* to !ire) iscipline an terminate t!eemplo*ment of personnel is veste in t!e irector) as acaemic an aministrative !ea of t!e sc!ool.

26



$n t!is case) C%SP= reserve t!e rig!t to control an supervise t!e operations of t!e 'irls: %epartment. As note "* t!e la"or ar"iter !imself an affirme "* t!e N2RC)alt!oug! C%SP= Dactuall* eercise minimal supervision over petitioner) Mit coul eercise su"stantial supervision an control as it i +!en Mit preterminate t!e Agreement.DT!ere +as) t!erefore) no "asis in fining t!at petitioner !a a Dgreater egree of autonom* an inepenence in running t!e affairsD of t!e sc!ool. T!e presence of t!e sc!oolirector) +!ose vast po+ers !ave alrea* "een note) negates an* suggestion or sem"lance of autonom*.

Time an again +e !ave !el t!at Dt!e :control test: onl* reuires t!e eistence of t!e rig!t to control t!e manner of oing t!e +or not necessaril* t!e actual eercise of t!epo+er "* !im) +!ic! !e can elegate.D

Laanda% vs CA

Commano Securit* Service Agenc*) $nc.) an efenant 2apana* Agricultural %evelopment Corporation entere into a 'uar Service Contract. Plaintiff provie securit*

guars in efenantKs "anana plantation. T!e contract calle for t!e pa*ment to a guar of PI?.#4 on a ail* 4-!our "asis an an aitional P??.I# for a four !our overtime +!ile t!e s!ift-in-c!arge +as to "e pai P411.6 on a ail* 4-!our "asis an P464.6 for t!e -!our overtime.

(age Orers increasing t!e minimum +age in 154, +ere complie +it! "* t!e efenant. On @une 1) 154) (age Orer No. ? +as promulgate irecting an increase ofP,.66 per a* on t!e minimum +age of +orers in t!e private sector an a P?.66 increase on t!e ECO2A. T!is +as follo+e on Novem"er 1) 154 "* (age Orer No. +!ic! furt!er increase sai minimum +age "* P,.66 on t!e ECO2A.

=ot! (age Orers contain t!e follo+ing provision0D$n t!e case of contract for construction proects an for securit*) anitorial an similar services) t!e increase in t!e minimum +age an allo+ances rates of t!e +orers s!all "e"orne "* t!e principal or client of t!e constructionFservice contractor an t!e contracts s!all "e eeme amene accoringl*) su"ect to t!e provisions of Sec. , B" of t!isorer

Plaintiff emane t!at its 'uar Service Contract +it! efenant "e upgrae in compliance +it! (age Orer Nos. ? an . %efenant refuse. T!eir Contract epire on@une ) 154 +it!out t!e rate austment calle for (age Orer Nos. ? an "eing implemente.

$ssue0

(FN petitioner is lia"le to t!e private responent for t!e +age austments provie uner (age Orer Nos. ? an an for attorne*Ks fees.

&el0 8esir..."utPrivate responent amits t!at t!ere is no emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip "et+een it an t!e petitioner. T!e private responent is an inepenentFo" contractor

T!e contractor is mae lia"le "* virtue of !is status as irect emplo*er. T!e principal) on t!e ot!er !an) is mae t!e inirect emplo*er of t!e contractorKs emplo*ees to securepa*ment of t!eir +ages s!oul t!e contractor "e una"le to pa* t!em.

Even in t!e a"sence of an emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip) t!e la+ itself esta"lis!es one "et+een t!e principal an t!e emplo*ees of t!e agenc* for a limite purpose i.e. inorer to ensure t!at t!e emplo*ees are pai t!e +ages ue t!em.

....t!e lia"ilit* of t!e petitioner to reim"urse t!e responent onl* arises if an +!en responent actuall* pa*s its emplo*ees t!e increases grante "* (age Orer Nos. ? an .Pa*ment) +!ic! means not onl* t!e eliver* of mone* "ut also t!e performance) in an* ot!er manner) of t!e o"ligation) is t!e operative fact +!ic! +ill entitle eit!er of t!esoliar* e"tors to see reim"ursement for t!e s!are +!ic! correspons to eac! of t!e e"tors.

&ow the "nd kind of ee8er relationship imposed b law is what is provided in Art 83 of the /abor 'ode. 0t is thefirst time that ou will find out that these kinds of women are close to the hearts of the law. The are protected b the law.();. classification if certain women workers. $ho are these certain women workers% 0f ou work in a night club, cocktaillounge, massage clinic, bar or similar establishments under the effective control or supervision of the emploer for asubstantial period of time as determined b the Secretar of labor, shall be considered as an emploee of suchestablishment for purposes of labor and social legislation. 0t is a comprehensive ee8er relationship. Take note* theprovision does not reuire the pament of salar b the owner for these women. &ow if ou are working as an entertainer in a night club, because this is what these women are, suffered to work with or without compensation. &ormall the arepaid on a commission basis. Commission for what% Commission for the drinks that the convince their client. &owsometimes the client can invite them to go some where else not 2ut in the night club. So when that happens the arereleased from the night clubs if the client pas what is called the bar fine. 0n other words the share of the night club as tothe earnings of that woman if she lasted the whole time the bar opens. 0n other words there is an average earning of eachof these workers. Then if the owner will accept that so the client brings her out. That is not reall an emploee if the client

can 2ust leave. That is a mark that ou are not an emploee. <ollowing the 4anila Polo 'lub case $ )/*'. 5anila golf club with these caddies the are asked b the favorite member to cadd for them to other golf course, so the can go. Sothe SC said that that is a mark that the are not emploees. ere even if that happens, because the law itself creates ee8er relationship, then notwithstanding that, the can leave the client to go somewhere else does that not in an wadiminish their status as emploees because it is alread the law (); that creates ee8er relationship. &ow take note it sasfor purposes of labor and social legislation so the night club owner is the emploer for the purposes of wages, holidapa, etc. and also pag8ibig emploees compensation and others. This is a comprehensive ee8er relationship. &ow, that isthe "nd.

There use to be a ) rd. *amos $ 'A about nurses in the operating room. #ut it has been overturned so there is nolonger an automatic ee8er relationship between nurses and surgeon in the operating room so that is no longer operative.

Alright, ma a labor union be an emploer% 0n the case of 0autista $ nciong 8E the SC said that the union

here is an emploer because the emploee is one who is engaged to perform activities which are usual to the trade or worker in the union namel organi3ing. So this is one of the instances where a union becomes an emploer and the unionhere is convicted of illegal dismissal.

Ba)tista vs! Incion(

/0 =autista +as emplo*e "* Associate 2a"or >nions BA2> as Organizer in 15I# +it! a starting salar* of P#?6Fmo. As suc! !e pai !is mont!l* SSScontri"utions) +it! t!e responent as !is emplo*er. On 7arc! 1?) 15I5) &e +as left in t!e office of A2> +!ile !is ot!er coorganizers +ere in Cainta) Rizal attening acertification election at C!r*sler P!ilippines) as !e +as not t!e organizer assigne in sai compan*. On 7arc! 1) 15I5) !e +ent on sic leave for ten B16 a*s. &isSSS sicness "enefit application form signe "* A2>:s p!*sician +as given to A2> for su"mission to t!e SSS. On 7arc! 1) 15I5) complainant reporte "ac for +or upon epiration of !is leave "ut +as informe "* A2>:s Area Hice-Presient for 2uzon of !is termination effective 7arc! 1?) 15I5. &ence) t!is complaint file on

27



7arc! #4) 15I5. On April 14) 15I5) !o+ever) A2> file a clearance application to terminate complainant:s services effective 7arc! 1) 15I5 on t!e groun ofa"anonment of +or.

T!e National Capital Region %irector orere t!e reinstatemet of =austista +it! full "ac+ages an to pa* !im emergenc* allo+ance) 1,t! mont! pa* an to refun!is mutual ai fun eposit. T!e 7inistr* of la"or reverese t!e orer an rule t!at =autista +as merel* accomoate "* A2> after !e +as ismisse "* !is formeremplo*er sometime in 15I# an t!at !is mem"ers!ip coverage +it! t!e SSS +!ic! s!o+s t!at responent A2> is t!e one pa*ing t!e emplo*er:s s!are in t!epremiums is not conclusive proof t!at responent is t!e petitioner:s emplo*er "ecause suc! pa*ments +ere performe "* t!e responent as a favor for all t!ose +!o +ere performing full time union activities +it! it to entit le t!em to SSS "enefits. T!e %eput* 7inister furt!er rule t!at t!e non-eistence of an emplo*er-emplo*eerelations!ip "et+een t!e parties is "olstere "* t!e fact t!at responent A2> is not an entit* for profit "ut a ul* registere la"or union +!ose sole purpose is t!erepresentation of its "ona fie organization units +!ere it is certifie as suc!. T!e issue of +!et!er or not a >nion ma* "e an emplo*er +as ans+ere in t!eaffirmative "* t!e SC +!en it) in favor of =autista

&el0 T!at !tere is not!ing in t!e recors +!ic! support t!e 7inister:s conclusion t!at =autista is not an emplo*ee of A2>. T!e mere fact t!at !e responent is a la"orunion oes not mean t!at it cannot "e consiere an emplo*er of t!e persons +!o +or for it. 7uc! less s!oul it "e eempte from t!e ver* la"or la+s +!ic! itespouses as a la"or organization.

BRemem"er t!e four tests $n t!e case at "ar) t!e Regional %irector correctl* foun t!at t!e petitioner +as an emplo*ee of t!e responent union as reflecte in t!elatter:s iniviual pa*roll s!eets an s!o+n "* t!e petitioner:s mem"ers!ip +it! t!e Social Securit* S*stem BSSS an t!e responent union:s s!are of remittances int!e petitioner:s favor. Even more significant) is t!e responent union:s act of filing a clearance application +it! t!e 7O2 to terminate t!e petitioner:s services. =autista +as selecte an !ire "* t!e >nion. &e +as pai +ages "* t!e >nion. A2> !a t!e po+er to ismiss !im as inee it ismisse !im. An efinitel*) t!e >nion tig!tl*controlle t!e +or of =autista as one of its organizers. T!ere is a"solutel* no factual or legal "asis for %eput* 7inister $nciong:s ecision.

)o there is ee<er relationship hich is beyond the %urisdiction of the court by $irtue of the intFl la . $hendoes that happen% That happens when the emploer is imbued with international personalit b treaties or binternational law. So the cases in uestion are: +SA $ *odrigo as the same as decided by the S' %ointly ith

+SA $ 6uinto >8EEG@, H+S4A6 $ )/*' , international catholic migration, seaedec $ nlrc/. So let me again recallthe principle in the constitutional law that ou learned last ear. An embass which is a representative of a foreignsovereign in our land en2os the same immunit from suit as the sovereign itself. &ow when does the sovereign becomesliable for that suit% 0f he impliedl or e-pressl or impliedl allows himself to be sued. ?-pressl is b legislation, there is atolerance for it and that is e-plicit. 0mpliedl as when he enters into a contract so he puts himself in the same level as anordinar citi3en and therefore he is now open to suit. owever, e-ception to that e-ception is suppose the contract isentered into in pursuit of the sovereign function then that is still not shedding of immunit.

So that is the issue here in USA v Rodrigo. Rodrigo here is a cook in camp 2ohn ha. e sued the basecommander for illegal dismissal and for damages. &ow, the defense is immune from suit% $h is it immune from suit%1id ou not shed immunit b entering into a contract b hiring this person=% The said no because we are hiring him inpursuit of our sovereign function. $hat is the sovereign function here% That is maintaining the morale of the morale of the

Armed <orces of the United States because camp 2ohn ha is golf course one house is for militar personnel coming

from subic and clark. So we did not shed our immunit according to the commander. Then the SC said the court takes 2udicial notice and that camp 2ohn ha is not sovereign because it allows civilians not 2ust militar personnel to make useof the facilities. 'r can go there pla golf or go to the club house order steak pa in dollar or in peso in its euivalence andou will be served. So the SC said ou have shed off our immunit because ou are engaged not 2ust on a strictsovereign activities with regard to the armed forces but ou engaged in a proprietar activit. So the SC said now wehave 2urisdiction of his case but then later the supreme court decided against Rodrigo because this is the instant wherehe puts urine in to the soup served to the armies. So the SC sas that is a grave misconduct which merits dismissal after due process.

US vs! Rodri(o

/0 'enove file a complaint for amages againts petitioners 2amac!ia) =elsa) Cartalla an Orascion for !is ismissal as coo in t!e >.S. Air /orce RecreationCenter at t!e @o!n &a* Air Station in =aguio Cit*. $t !a "een ascertaine after investigation) from t!e testimon* of =elsa) Cartalla an Orascion) t!at 'enove !a

poure urine into t!e soup stoc use in cooing t!e vegeta"les serve to t!e clu" customers. 2amac!ia) as clu" manager) suspene !im) an t!ereafter referret!e case to a "oar of ar"itrators conforma"l* to t!e collective "argaining agreement "et+een t!e Center an its emplo*ees. T!e "oar unanimousl* foun !im guilt*an recommene !is ismissal. T!is +as effecte on 7arc! ?) 154) "* Col. %avi C. <im"all) Commaner of t!e ,r Com"at Support 'roup) PACA/ Clar Air/orce =ase. 'enove:s reaction +as to file !is complaint in t!e Regional Trial Court of =aguio Cit* against t!e iniviual petitioners.

$ssue0 (FN immunit* from suit can "e invoe "* t!e >SG

&el0 (!ile t!e octrine appears to pro!i"it onl* suits against t!e state +it!out its consent) it is also applica"le to complaints file against officials of t!e state for actsallegel* performe "* t!em in t!e isc!arge of t!eir uties. T!e rule is t!at if t!e ugment against suc! officials +ill reuire t!e state itself to perform an affirmativeact to satisf* t!e same) suc! as t!e appropriation of t!e amount neee to pa* t!e amages a+are against t!em) t!e suit must "e regare as against t!e stateitself alt!oug! it !as not "een formall* impleae.$n suc! a situation) t!e state ma* move to ismiss t!e complaint on t!e groun t!at it !as "een file +it!out itsconsent.

T!ere is no uestion t!at t!e >nite States of America) lie an* ot!er state) +ill "e eeme to !ave impliel* +aive its non-sua"ilit* if it !as entere into a contractin its proprietar* or private capacit*. $t is onl* +!en t!e contract involves its sovereign or governmental capacit* t!at no suc! +aiver ma* "e implie

As manager of t!is comple) petitioner 2amac!ia is responsi"le for eleven iversifie activities generating an annual income of V# million. >ner !is eecutivemanagement are t!ree service restaurants) a cafeteria) a "aer*) a Clear) H$ store) a coffee an pantr* s!op) a main cas!ier cage) an aministrative office) an aecentralize +are!ouse +!ic! maintains a stoc level of V#66)666.66 per mont! in resale items. &e supervises 1I emplo*ees) one of +!om +as 'enove) +it! +!om t!e >nite States government !as conclue a collective "argaining agreement.

T!e restaurant services offere at t!e @o!n &a* Air Station partae of t!e nature of a "usiness enterprise unertaen "* t!e >nite States government in itsproprietar* capacit*. Suc! services are not etene to t!e American servicemen for free as a peruisite of mem"ers!ip in t!e Arme /orces of t!e >nite States.Neit!er oes it appear t!at t!e* are eclusivel* offere to t!ese servicemen; on t!e contrar*) it is +ell no+n t!at t!e* are availa"le to t!e general pu"lic as +ell)incluing t!e tourists in =aguio Cit*) man* of +!om mae it a point to visit @o!n &a* for t!is reason. All persons availing t!emselves of t!is facilit* pa* for t!e privilegelie all ot!er customers as in orinar* restaurants. Alt!oug! t!e prices are conceel* reasona"le an relativel* lo+) suc! services are unou"tel* operate forprofit) as a commercial an not a governmental activit*.

28



T!e conseuence of t!is fining is t!at t!e petitioners cannot invoe t!e octrine of state immunit* to ustif* t!e ismissal of t!e amage suit against t!em "*'enove. Suc! efense +ill not prosper even if it "e esta"lis!e t!at t!e* +ere acting as agents of t!e >nite States +!en t!e* investigate an later ismisse'enove. /or t!at matter) not even t!e >nite States government itself can claim suc! immunit*. T!e reason is t!at "* entering into t!e emplo*ment contract +it!'enove in t!e isc!arge of its proprietar* functions) it impliel* iveste itself of its sovereign immunit* from suit.US vs! G)into

/0 Ro"erto Halencia) Emerenciana Tanglao an Pa"lo el Pilar sue several officers of t!e >S Air /orce statione in Clar Air-=ase in connection +it! t!e "iingconucte "* t!em for "ar"ering services in t!e sai "ase. On /e". #) 4) t!e (estern Pacific Contracting Office solicite "is for suc! contracts t!roug! itscontracting officer) @ames S!a+. T!e private responents +ere one of t!ose +!o !a su"mitte t!eri "is. BHalencia !a "een a concessionare insie Clar for ,*rs) el Pilar for 1# an Tanglao for ?6

T!e "iing +as +on "* Ramon %izon over t!e o"ection of t!e private responents) +!o claime t!at !e !a mae a "i for four facilities) incluing t!e CivilEngineering Area) +!ic! +as not inclue in t!e invitation to "i.

T!e private responents complaine to t!e P!ilippine Area Ec!ange BP&A. T!e latter) t!roug! its representatives) petitioners 8vonne Reeves an /reeric 7.Smouse) eplaine t!at t!e Civil Engineering concession !a not "een a+are to %izon as a result of t!e /e"ruar* #) 154 solicitation. %izon +as alrea*operating t!is concession) t!en no+n as t!e NCO clu" concession) an t!e epiration of t!e contract !a "een etene from @une ,6)154 to August ,1) 154.T!e* furt!er eplaine t!at t!e solicitation of t!e CE "ar"ers!op +oul "e availa"le onl* "* t!e en of @une an t!e private responents +oul "e notifie.

On @une ,6)154) t!e private responents file a complaint in t!e court "elo+ to compel P&A an t!e iniviual petitioners to cancel t!e a+ar to efenant %izon)to conuct a re"iing for t!e "ar"ers!op concessions an to allo+ t!e private responents "* a +rit of preliminar* inunction to continue operating t!e concessionspening litigation.

>S file a motion to ismiss +!ic! +as enie "* @. 'uinto ruling t!at "* virtue of t!e contract of concession alrea* eisting "et+een t!e petitioner an t!e privateresponent) t!ere eists a commercial transaction. /urt!ermore) t!e RP->S =ases Agreement oes not cover suc! in of services falling uner concessionares!ip)suc! as a "ar"er s!op concession. T!e SC affirme t!e ruling of pu"lic responent @uge 'uinto +!en it

&el0 t!at t!e "ar"ers!ops su"ect of t!e concessions grante "* t!e >nite States government are commercial enterprises operate "* private persons. T!e* arenot agencies of t!e >nite States Arme /orces nor are t!eir facilities emana"le as a matter of rig!t "* t!e American servicemen. T!ese esta"lis!ments proviefor t!e grooming nees of t!eir customers an offer not onl* t!e "asic !aircut an s!ave Bas reuire in most militar* organizations "ut suc! ot!er amenities ass!ampoo) massage) manicure an ot!er similar inulgences. An all for a fee. $nterestingl*) one of t!e concessionaires) private responent Halencia) +as even senta"roa to improve !is tonsorial "usiness) presuma"l* for t!e "enefit of !is customers. No less significantl*) if not more so) all t!e "ar"ers!op concessionaires are)uner t!e terms of t!eir contracts) reuire to remit to t!e >nite States government fie commissions in consieration of t!e eclusive concessions grante to t!emin t!eir respective areas.

T!is "eing t!e case) t!e petitioners cannot plea an* immunit* from t!e complaint file "* t!e private responents in t!e court "elo+. T!e contracts in uestion "eingeciel* commercial) t!e conclusion reac!e in t!e >nite States of America v. Ruiz case cannot "e applie !ere

@>S7A' HS. N2RC

/0 @>S7A' +as create pursuant to t!e 7ilitar* Assistance Agreement "et+een t!e P!il an >S. $t consists of Air) Naval an Arm* group +!ose primar* tas is toavise an assist t!e P!il on air force) arm* an naval matters. Originall*) t!e P!il. covere t!e epenses until 1551 +!en >S manifeste its prepareness to proviefuns to cover t!e salaries of securit* assistance support personnel an securit* guars) t!e rent of "lgs an !ousing an t!e cost of utilities.

/lorencio Sactramento +as one of t!e sevent*-four BI securit* assistance support personnel BSASP +oring at @>S7A' P!ilippines.) &e !a "een +it! @>S7A'from %ecem"er 14) 155) until !is ismissal an April #I) 155#. &e !el t!e position of $llustrator # an +as t!e incum"ent Presient of @>S7A' P&$2$PP$NES-/$2$P$NO C$H$2$AN E7P2O8EES ASSOC$AT$ON B@P/C/A) a la"or organization ul* registere +it! t!e %epartment C 2a"or an Emplo*ment. &is services +ereterminate allegel* ue to t!e a"olition of !is position. &e +as also avise t!at !e +as uner aministrative leave until April #I) 155#) alt!oug! t!e same +as notc!arge against !is leave.

&e file a complaint for illegal ismissal +it! %O2E an ase for reinstatement. >S7A' t!en file a 7otion to %ismiss invoing its immunit* from suit as an agenc*of t!e >nite States. $t furt!er allege lac of emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip an t!at it !as no uriical personalit* to sue an "e sue.

2a"or Ar"iter ismisse t!e petition for +ant of urisiction. N2RC reverse t!e 2A:s ecision on t!e grouns0 1 t!e principle of estoppel-t!at @>S7A' faile torefute t!e eistence of emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip uner t!e Dcontrol testD; an B# @>S7A' !as +aive its rig!t to immunit* from suit +!en it !ire t!e servicesof private responent on %ecem"er 14) 155.

$ssue0 (FN @usmag eno*s immunit* from suit

&el0 8es. /rom t!e foregoing) it is apparent t!at +!en @>S7A' too t!e services of private responent) it +as performing a governmental function on "e!alf of t!e>nite States pursuant to t!e 7ilitar* Assistance Agreement ate 7arc! #1) 15I. &ence) +e agree +it! petitioner t!at t!e suit is) in effect) one against t!e >niteStates 'overnment) al"eit it +as not impleae in t!e complaint. Consiering t!at t!e >nite States !as not +aive or consente to t!e suit) t!e complaint against@>S7A' cannot prosper.

Anent t!e issue of a"sence of emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip) @usmag is not estoppe form en*ing t!e eistence of suc! as it consistentl* contene t!at t!eresponent +as an emplo*ee of t!e A/P pursuant to t!e contract "et+een t!e P!il an t!e >S.

N=0 Remem"er general rule t!at a State cannot "e suit in t!e courts of anot!er state +it!out its consent or +aiver Bepress. &o+ever) eception to t!e rule is implie

consent as +!en t!e state or an* of its government enteres into a contract) t!roug! its officers or agents) in furt!erance of a legitimate aima n purpose an pursuantto constitutuional legislative aut!orit*) +!ere"* mutual or reciprocal "enefits accrue an rig!ts an o"ligations arise t!erefrom) an if t!e la+ granting t!e aut!orit* toenter into suc! contract oes not provie for or name t!e officer against +!om action ma* "e "roug!t in t!e event of a "reac! t!ereof) t!e state itself ma* "e sue)even +it!out its consent) "ecause "* entering into a contract) t!e sovereign state !as escene to t!e level of t!e citizen an its consent to "e sue is implie fromt!e ver* act of entering into suc! contract.

T!e application of t!e octrine !as "een restricte to sovereign or governmental activities. $t cannot "e mae to eten to commercial) private an proprietar* acts.Also) t!e application of t!e octrine epens on t!e legal nature of t!e act. $f a contract +as entere into in t!e isc!arge of its governmental fns) t!e sovereignstate cannot "e eeme to !ave +aive its immunit* from suit.

29



Alright, suppose an employer that is imbued with personality under the international law allows to be sued in onecase, does he shed immunity for the rest of the cases coming % >ou allow ourself to be sued and then later on ou sathe guarantee which invokes immunit. That is the case of international catholic migration $ pura ferrer calle%a >8EEG@.

SC sas no. what is the reason% 0n international catholic migration $ )/*' , we are talking here of aprobationar teacher who used to teach ?nglish. That was when the time when Fietnamese tries to escape from Fietnamso the landed in Balawan, in Gambales. The U& bodies comes and brings them to their host countries like 6erman, US,Canada, Australia so the hire teachers to teach them ?nglish for the cultural ad2ustments that the have to make in their host countr. That particular teacher was not given the whole 9 months probation. After ) months she was asked toleave and so she said that is un2ust. 0 should have given 9 months as a right of a probationar emploee. 1oes she havethe right% That was decided in international catholic migration $ )/*'. 0n that case the catholic did not raise itspersonalit under the international law and its immunit from suit. So here comes another case= nternational catholicmigration $ calle%a . &ow the lawer of international catholic migration raises its immunit and the answer of thecomplaint to the complainant is that P ou shed it off in the last case= Too late now to invoke immunit. Q is that correct% Asovereign is never bound b the mistakes of its officers. Unsay kabuoang sa mga opisyal dha sa gobyerno it does notbind the government . Mao nay dakong dimalas. Mahapay ang gobyerno ana. So if the particular official forgot to invokeimmunit, that does not bind the intJl organi3ation.

INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION 'S! CALLEJA

/0 T!is is a consoliate case as it involves t!e same issues re0 t!e valiit* of t!e claim of immunit* "* t!e $nt:l Cat!olic 7igration Commission an t!e $nt:l RiceResearc! $nstitute) $nc from t!e application of P!il. 2a"or 2a+s.

Pursuant to t!e agreement "et+een t!e P!il. an t!e >N) $C7C +as esta"lis!e for t!e processing of $no-C!inese refugees from t!e Hietnam +ar. On @ul* 1)154) Trae >nions of t!e P!il an Allie services BT>PAS file +it! t!e 7inistr* of 2a"ore an Emplo*ment for certification election among t!e ran an filemem"ers of $C7C. $C7C oppose t!e petition on t!e groun t!at it eno*s iplomatic immunit*. %uring t!e penenc* of t!e case) t!e P!il. 'ov:t grante $C7C t!estatus of a specialize agenc* +it! corresponing iplomatic privileges an immunities.

$n a similar case) t!e $RR$ invoes its immunit* from suit. !e P!ilippine 'overnment an t!e /or an Rocefeller /ounations signe a 7emoranum of>nerstaning esta"lis!ing t!e $nternational Rice Researc! $nstitute B$RR$ at 2os =a3os) 2aguna. $t +as intene to "e an autonomous) p!ilant!ropic) ta-free) non-profit) non-stoc organization esigne to carr* out t!e principal o"ective of conucting D"asic researc! on t!e rice plant) on all p!ases of rice prouction)management) istri"ution an utilization +it! a vie+ to attaining nutritive an economic avantage or "enefit for t!e people of Asia an ot!er maor rice-gro+ing areast!roug! improvement in ualit* an uantit* of rice.D

$nitiall*) $RR$ +as organize an registere +it! t!e Securities an Ec!ange Commission as a private corporation su"ect to all la+s an regulations. &o+ever) "*virtue of Pres. %ecree No. 1#6) promulgate on 15 April 15I5) $RR$ +as grante t!e status) prerogatives) privileges an immunities of an international organization.

<apisanan file a petition for irect certification of election. $RR$ invoe P% 1#6.

$ssue0 (FN t!e grant of immunit* from suit inclues eemption form t!e coverage of our 2a"or la+s.&el0 8es.

T!e grant of immunit* from local urisiction to $C7C an $RR$ is clearl* necessitate "* t!eir international c!aracter an respective purposes. T!e o"ective is toavoi t!e anger of partialit* an interference "* t!e !ost countr* in t!eir internal +orings. T!e eercise of urisiction "* t!e %epartment of 2a"or in t!ese instances +oul efeat t!e ver* purpose of immunit*) +!ic! is to s!iel t!e affairs of international organizations) in accorance +it! international practice) from politicalpressure or control "* t!e !ost countr* to t!e preuice of mem"er States of t!e organization) an to ensure t!e un!ampere performance of t!eir functions.

T!e eistence of t!is >nion factuall* an tellingl* "elies t!e argument t!at Pres. %ecree No. 1#6) +!ic! grants to $RR$ t!e status) privileges an immunities of aninternational organization) eprives its emplo*ees of t!e rig!t to self- organization.

T!e immunit* grante "eing Dfrom ever* form of legal process ecept in so far as in an* particular case t!e* !ave epressl* +aive t!eir immunit*)D it is inaccurate tostate t!at a certification election is "e*on t!e scope of t!at immunit* for t!e reason t!at it is not a suit against $C7C. A certification election cannot "e vie+e as an

inepenent or isolate process. $t coul trigger off a series of events in t!e collective "argaining process toget!er +it! relate incients anFor concerte activities) +!ic! coul inevita"l* involve $C7C in t!e Dlegal process)D +!ic! inclues Dan* penal) civil an aministrative proceeings.D T!e eventualit* of Court litigation isneit!er remote an from +!ic! international organizations are precisel* s!iele to safeguar t!em from t!e isruption of t!eir functions. Clauses on urisictionalimmunit* are sai to "e stanar provisions in t!e constitutions of international organizations. ::T!e immunit* covers t!e organization concerne) its propert* an itsassets. $t is euall* applica"le to proceeings in personam an proceeings in rem.::

WAnent t!e issue of +!et!er a state +!o i not invoe its immunit* "efore "e eeme to !ave +aive its immunit* to future suits0 T>PAS calls attention to t!e caseentitle D$nternational Cat!olic 7igration Commission v. N2RC) et als.) an claims t!at) !aving taen cognizance of t!at ispute Bon t!e issue of pa*ment of salar* fort!e unepire portion of a si-mont! pro"ationar* emplo*ment) t!e Court is no+ estoppe from passing upon t!e uestion of %O2E urisiction over $C7C. T!e SC!el t!at suc! contention is +rong. Not onl* i t!e facts of sai controvers* occur "et+een 154,-154?) or "efore t!e grant to $C7C on 1? @ul* 1544 of t!e status ofa specialize agenc* +it! corresponing immunities) "ut also "ecause $C7C in t!at case i not invoe its immunit* an) t!erefore) ma* "e eeme to !ave +aiveit) assuming t!at uring t!at perio B154,-154? it +as tacitl* recognize as eno*ing suc! immunit*.

Alright= So remember ha, here there is ee8el relationship but if immunit can be invoked, there is no legal remed.

'nce 0 was approached b the emploee of the 0ndonesian consulate here that their pa was reduced so the wereforced to go to the labor arbiter. And the were mentioning " or ) lawers. Lawer ray nadato ana cge mog session wa jud moy maabtan ana. That wil come to naught= #ecause our emploer en2os immunit from suit= So what is now theremed=% >our remed is diplomatic= >ou go to the dept of foreign affairs. >ou convince the 1<A secretar so that he willcommunicate diplomaticall with the consul. There are several kinds of letter depending on the urgenc of the letter. Andhe should bring out the case in the diplomatic remed. So that is the solution. &o 2udicial remed onl diplomatic.

That is true with SA-D' 0lo80lo. That is a U& bod. That is true with ** >international *ice *esearchnstitute@ in Los #aos Laguna. That is true with +)S'(, etc. all those bodies that are considered persons ininternational law and the are protected with immunit from suit.

30



SEA/%EC-A% vs. N2RC

/0 SEA/%EC-A% is a epartment of an international organization) t!e Sout!east Asian /is!eries %evelopment Center) organize t!roug! an agreement entereinto in =ango) T!ailan on %ecem"er #4) 15I "* t!e governments of 7ala*sia) Singapore) T!ailan) Hietnam)) $nonesia an t!e P!ilippines +it! @apan as t!esponsoring countr*.

On April #6) 15I?) private responent @uvenal 2azaga +as emplo*e as a Researc! Associate on a pro"ationar* "asis "* t!e SEA/%EC-A% an +as appointeSenior Eternal Affairs Officer on @anuar* ?) 154, +it! a mont!l* "asic salar* of P4)666.66 an a mont!l* allo+ance of P)666.66. T!ereafter) !e +as appointe tot!e position of Professional $$$ an esignate as &ea of Eternal Affairs Office +it! t!e same pa* an "enefits.

On 7a* 4)154) petitioner 2acanilao in !is capacit* as C!ief of SEA/%EC-A% sent a notice of termination to private responent informing !im t!at ue to t!e

financial constraints "eing eperience "* t!e epartment) !is services s!all "e terminate at t!e close of office !ours on 7a* 1?)154 ari t!at !e is entitle toseparation "enefits euivalent to one B1 mont! of !is "asic salar* for ever* *ear of service plus ot!er "enefits.

>pon nonpa*ment of !is separation pa*) 2azaga file a complaint for nonpa*ment of separation "enefits plus moral amages an att*:s fees. Petitioners aver t!atN2RC !as no urisiction as SEA/%EC is an international organization n t!at private responent must first secure clearances from t!e proper epartments forpropert* or mone* accounta"ilit* "efore an* claim for separation pa* +ill "e pai) an +!ic! clearances !a not *et "een o"taine "* t!e private responent.

N2RC assume urisiction an ase petitioner to pa* private responent. &o+ever) upon petition for certiorari +it! t!e SC) t!e SC in reversing t!e N2RC ecision

&el0 t!at SEA/%EC-A% is immune from suit as it is an international agenc*. =eing an international organization) SEA/%EC incluing its %epartments BA%eno*s functional inepenence from control of t!e state in +!ose territor* its office is locate.

Responent 2azaga:s invocation of estoppel +it! respect to t!e issue of urisiction is unavailing "ecause estoppel oes not appl* to confer urisiction to a tri"unalt!at !as none over a cause of action. @urisiction is conferre "* la+. (!ere t!ere is none) no agreement of t!e parties can provie one. Settle is t!e rule t!at t!eecision of a tri"unal not veste +it! appropriate urisiction is null an voi.

Then '((P*ATS in the landmark case of 'ooperati$e *ural 0an! of Da$ao 'ity $ )/*' the SC sasthat if ou are a member the cooperatives and at the same time ou are an emploee in the coop ou are not a trueemploee. >ou are serving the coop because the coop is a special agenc that en2os e-emption from ta-es and evenfrom minimum wage. So if ou are a member of the coop and at the same time an emploee of the coop, can ou form aunion% The answer is no. wh% #ecause the assembl of members is the highest bod of the coop. so it will put ou in aconflict of interest so ou will demand an increase in salar but then on the other hand who will be sitting their in

2udgment% 0t is ou also= So ikaw pa mangayo ikaw pa mu hatag. That is conflict of interest. That is the ruling in

Cooperative Rural #ank of 1avao Cit vs. &LRC

Batan(as89 "ctric coo La+or Union vs 2o)n(

/acts0On @une 1) 1541) t!e =atangas-$ Electric Cooperative >nion file +it! t!e Regional Office No. $H-A) 7inistr* of 2a"or an Emplo*ment a petition for certification election.T!e >N$ON allege) inter alia) t!at it is a legitimate la"or organization; t!at t!e =atangas-$ Electric Cooperative $nc. B=ATE2EC !as 1?6 emplo*ees) more or less; t!at t!e>N$ON esires to represent t!e regular ran an file emplo*ees of =ATE2EC for purposes of collective "argaining; t!at t!ere is no ot!er union eisting in =ATE2EC ecept t!e>N$ON; t!at t!ere is no certifie collective "argaining agreement in t!e sai cooperative; an t!at t!ere !as "een no certification election conucte in =ATE2EC uring t!elast t+elve B1# mont!s preceing t!e filing of t!e petition.

=ATE2EC file a 7/R of t!e 7e-Ar"itter:s ecision giving ue course to t!e petition for certification election contening t!at) t!ere +as a legal impeiment to t!e !oling of acertification election consiering t!at t!e formation of a union in a cooperative is illegal an invali) t!e officers an mem"ers of t!e union "eing t!e o+ners t!ereof.

8oung) Officer in C!arge) =ureau of 2a"or Relations) granting t!e appeal an revoing t!e 7e-Ar"iter:s orer manating t!e !oling of a certification election.

$ssue0(FN emplo*ees of an electric cooperative +!o are at t!e same time mem"ers of t!e cooperative) ma* "e allo+e to form or oin a la"or union in t!e electric cooperative forpurposes of collective "argaining.

&el0 No. T!ere is no E-E relations!ip to "egin +it!. T!e applicants "eing co-o+ners are "arre from forming a union for purposes of collective "argaining. Bingon pa si sir) ia+ na morelamo- ia+ pa g*u mo t*u"ag sa relamo ug mangitag pama-agi. e!e!e!e "uot "uot o.

owever, in 8EE8 case of 'entral )egros lectric 'oop. $ Secretary the coop members in uestion resignedthe coop. After the resigned the 2oined the union. Can the now 2oin the union% The SC sas es because theimpediment has been removed. Alright, so we are now through with ee8er relationship. Blease read those cases becausethe will be asked in the e-am. #ecause the e-am will be such a kind to determine if ou reall have read the case. Theseare landmark cases.

CENECO vs sc o0 .oLE4 CURE

On August 1?) 154I) CENECO entere into a collective "argaining agreement +it! C>RE) a la"or union representing its ran-an-file emplo*ees) proviing for a term of t!ree*ears retroactive to April 1) 154I an etening up to 7arc! ,1) 1556. On %ecem"er #4) 1545) C>RE +rote CENECO proposing t!at negotiations "e conucte for a ne+collective "argaining agreement.

On @anuar* 14) 1556) CENECO enie C>RE:s reuest on t!e groun t!at) uner applica"le ecisions of t!e Supreme Court) emplo*ees +!o at t!e same time are mem"ersof an electric cooperative are not entitle to form or oin a union.

C>RE mem"ers) in a general assem"l* !el on %ecem"er 5) 1545) approve Resolution No. ,? +!ere"* it +as agree t!at Dall union mem"ers s!all +it!ra+) retract) orrecall t!e union mem"ers: mem"ers!ip from Central Negros Electric Cooperative) $nc. in orer to avail of t!e full "enefits uner t!e eisting Collective =argaining Agreemententere into "* an "et+een CENECO an C>RE) an t!e suppose "enefits t!at our union ma* avail of uner t!e rene+e C=A.

&o+ever) t!e +it!ra+al from mem"ers!ip +as enie "* CENECO on /e"ruar* #I) 1556.

31



7e-Ar"iter /elizaro T. Serapio issue an orer) granting t!e petition for certification election file "* C>RE.

CENECO appeale to t!e %epartment of 2a"or an Emplo*ment +!ic! issue t!e uestione orer moif*ing t!e aforestate orer of t!e me-ar"iter "* irectl* certif*ingC>RE as t!e eclusive "argaining representative of t!e ran-an-file emplo*ees of C>RE.

$ssue0(FN t!e emplo*ees of CENECO +!o +it!re+ t!eir mem"ers!ip from t!e cooperative are entitle to form or oin C>RE for purposes of t!e negotiations for a collective"argaining agreement propose "* t!e latter.

&el0 8esir99

7em"ers!ip in t!e cooperative is on a voluntar* "asis. &ence) +it!ra+al t!erefrom cannot "e restricte unnecessaril*. T!e rig!t to oin an organization necessaril* incluest!e euivalent rig!t not to oin t!e same.T!e rig!t of t!e emplo*ees to self-organization is a compelling reason +!* t!eir +it!ra+al from t!e cooperative must "e allo+e. As pointe out "* C>RE) t!e resignation oft!e mem"er-emplo*ees is an epression of t!eir preference for union mem"ers!ip over t!at of mem"ers!ip in t!e cooperative.

T!e avo+e polic* of t!e State to affor full protection to la"or an to promote t!e primac* of free collective "argaining manates t!at t!e emplo*ees: rig!t to form an oinunions for purposes of collective "argaining "e accore t!e !ig!est consieration.

(e rule) !o+ever) t!at t!e irect certification orere "* responent Secretar* is not proper. =* virtue of Eecutive Orer No. 111) +!ic! "ecame effective on 7arc! ) 154I)t!e irect certification originall* allo+e uner Article #?I of t!e 2a"or Coe !as apparentl* "een iscontinue as a met!o of selecting t!e eclusive "argaining agent of t!e +orers. T!is amenment affirms t!e superiorit* of t!e certification election over t!e irect certification +!ic! is no longer availa"le no+ uner t!e c!ange in sai provision.

Air Srvics COOP vs CA4 Batican

/acts0it appears t!at responent +as allegel* reporte to !ave "een illegall* raining aviation fuel from t!e aircraft assigne to !im "* t!e cooperative:s client Stanfilco B%ole

P!ilippines) $nc. for +!ic! reason Capt. Sarael issue a memoranum ate @anuar* #6) 155, calling !is attention an irecting !im to cease an esist from sai practice.Apparentl*) t!e +arning fell on eaf ears) t!us) prompting t!e cooperative:s =oar of %irectors itself to issue a memoranum on /e"ruar* ##) 155, t!is time giving a final +arning t!at responent:s services +oul "e terminate s!oul !e "e foun guilt* of illegall* raining aviation fuel again. S!ortl* t!ereafter) Capt. Sarael reuire responent ina memoranum ate 7arc! 1) 155, to eplain +it!in fort*-eig!t !ours +!* no isciplinar* action s!oul "e taen against !im on account of t!e reporte acts of repeatepilferage espite prior +arning. On 7arc! 4) 155,) after consiering responent:s eplanation an conucting a t!oroug! investigation on t!e matter) t!e cooperative:s =oarof %irectors resolve to cancel an revoe responent:s mem"ers!ip in t!e cooperative. After responent:s epulsion) t!e cooperative:s client Stanfilco lie+ise file a formalcriminal complaint for ualifie t!eft against !im on 7arc! #) 155, for +!ic! a +arrant of arrest !a "een su"seuentl* issue.

Aggrieve "* !is epulsion) responent file "efore t!e National 2a"or Relations Commission BN2RC a complaint on 7a* 14) 155,) "ot! against t!e cooperative an Capt.Sarael for illegal ismissal) reim"ursement of t!e value of si B s!ares of stoc) vacationFsic leave conversion) unpai commission for t!e mont! of /e"ruar* an non-pa*ment of t!e 1,t! mont! pa*.

T!e 2a"or Ar"iter rule in favor of responent t!ere"* a+aring t!e monetar* claims.

Petitioners file a Petition for Certiorari) Pro!i"ition an Annulment of @ugment "efore t!e Regional Trial Court an later to t!e CA +!erein "ot! ismisse t!e petitions forlac of urisiction stating t!at t!e former s!oul !ave appeale to t!e N2RC first.

$ssue0 (FN it is proceurall* soun to impugn an see t!e annulment of t!e 2a"or Ar"iter:s ecision over t!e ispute !erein mentione "efore t!e Regional Trial Court.

&el0 $nee) +e fin it o t!at petitioners s!oul entertain t!e notion t!at t!e 2a"or Ar"iter:s ecision ma* "e assaile in t!e trial court +!en t!e la+ clearl* provies for t!eproper manner "* +!ic! a part* ma* !ave suc! ecision revie+e. &ence) in Article ##, of Presiential %ecree No. #) as amene) ot!er+ise no+n as DT!e 2a"or Coe oft!e P!ilippines)D +e fin t!at0

DART. ##,. Appeal. %ecisions) a+ars) or orers of t!e 2a"or Ar"iter are final an eecutor* unless appeale to t!e Commission "* an* or "ot! parties +it!in ten B16 calenara*s from receipt of suc! ecisions) a+ars) or orers. . .D

Also) in Article #1I B") t!e same Coe states0B" T!e Commission s!all !ave eclusive appellate urisiction over all cases ecie "* 2a"or Ar"iters.D

DART. ##,. Appeal. . . . Suc! appeal ma* "e entertaine onl* on an* of t!e follo+ing grouns0Ba $f t!ere is prima facie evience of a"use of iscretion on t!e part of t!e 2a"or Ar"iter;D

A"use of iscretion is amittel* +it!in t!e am"it of certiorari an its grant of revie+ t!ereof to t!e N2RC inicates t!e la+maers: intention to "roaen t!e meaning of appealas t!at term is use in t!e Coe. /or t!is reason) petitioners cannot argue no+ t!at t!e N2RC is evoi of an* corrective po+er to rectif* a suppose erroneous assumption of urisiction "* t!e 2a"or Ar"iter an ustif* recourse to t!e trial courts.

Alright, after saing that ee8er relationship is ver important, 0 have a uestion to ask* must there be ee8er relationship in order to be covered b the labor code% 5ust there be ee8er relationship% As a general rule, es but thereare e-ceptions. $h do 0 sa that there are e-ceptions% Take a look at Art. 9, applicability * all rights and benefitsgranted to or!ers under this code shall, except as otherise may be pro$ided herein, apply ali!e to all or!ers,hether agricultural or non<agricultural. So workers, there must be ee8er relationship for ou to be covered and for thelabor code to be applicable to ou. owever, ou take a look at book ( replacement and recruitment of workers. Art 83definitions: 8. 7or!er for this boo! alone, boo! 8, or!er means any member of the labor force, hether employed or unemployed. Apil d ay ang walay ee-el relationship in this book one. And then we go to book 00. umanresources development . Art. && man poer shall mean that portion of the nations population hich had actual or potential capability to contribute directly to the production of goods and ser$ices. So is ee8er reuired in order to

be covered with the Labor C'1? book "% Again no= 0f ou 2ust have the potential to contribute directl to the productionof goods and services then ou are alread covered b book two. 0f ou are a fetus inside the womb of the mother ouhave potential to contribute to the production of services. >ou are incapable of rendering ee8er relationship et but ou arealread covered b this book. So, there are at least " big sections in the labor code that does not reuire ee8er relationship to be covered b the labor code.

&ow, lets go to book (. recruitment and placement of workers. Art. 8B up to Art B& and up to Art 3E that hasno been superseded by *A G&B . $hat is RA G&BI 0t is an act to institute the policies of overseas emploment andestablish a higher standard or protection and promotion to the welfare of the migrant workers and please see the lawnalang/The short title is migrant workers and overseas <ilipinos Act of . di ko ma hear ang ear/

32



&ow, central to this particular law is section BE. wh is sec "E central% Take a look at sec "E. Comprehensivederegulation plan on the recruitment activities. 0t sas, pursuant to a progressive polic of deregulation whereb themigration of workers becomes strictl amended between the workers and his foreign emploer, the 1'L? within one ear from the affectivit of this act is hereb mandated to postulate a five8ear deregulation plan on recruitment activitiestaking into account the labor market trends, economic condition of the countr and the emerging circumstance which maaffect the welfare of the migrant workers . sec 3G please see the law./. Technicall speaking, the law mandated that thereshould no longer deregulation with respect to placement or recruitment of workers oversees. $h is that% #ecause of the $T' $orld Trade 'rgani3ation/ if goods are supposed to be traded so also with the services and so also withrespect to capital. That is wh an form of limited conversion of currencies like conversion the currenc of China. Again,$T'. That is wh the are pressuring China to make their currenc full convertible and et China would not do that. Soin the (EEK financial crisis in Asia China was never referred because its currenc is isolated. The capital is supposed toflow freel then labor is also supposed to flow freel. 0t should go well if it wants to seek better remuneration. #ecause thesstem of licensing is deterrent to free labor. That is wh magkatawa ka aning balaora. Tan awa ra gud ni nia and titletaas kaau. Pag abot d ay diri tang tangon d ay ni pag abot ug years. !la na d ay protection. And et the law sas higher standards.. nag buwa lang ning baba ani wa d ay, tang tanong d ay after years" The uestion is wh wala pamantangtanga# There are man reasons Bolitical, economic. That is wh, for e-ample, anti mone laundering law took along time to take effect. The pass a law but it was not approved b the council of mone laundering authorities in theworld. #ecause we believe that we can protect workers b licensing which is cra3= >ou do not= >ou are 2ust makingworkers irresponsible= The should take their own responsibilit. $ung gusto ka mulangyaw kay taas ug sweldo sa gawasikaw maoy mu lantaw sa imong kaugalingon" %kaw mangita dilikay cge ta ug blame sa gobyerno"

So ou will read here in ;:@", automatic repatriation in times of war in the workplace. The governmentguarantees our repatriation. 0f ou are under age and ou are found there undocumented, automatic repatriation ang

go&'t maoy mu gasto for ou. That is provided b ;:@". it is no longer debatable if the whether the govJt will spend for oubecause it is provided in ;:@". it is onl a uestion of means. $hether ou can charter the boat. So, ou have to read thislaw on our own.

0n the labor code, illegal recruitment is committed onl b unlicensed recruitment agenc. 0f ou are take chargingrecruitment agenc, ou are reuired to have a license. 0f ou are not take charging, ou have to get a permit. 0f ou donot have a license, ou are committing illegal recruitment. 0llegal recruitment is of two kinds. 'ne that constituteseconomic sabotage when it is large scale. $hen is it large scale% 0f ou recruit more than three. 'r ou recruit inconspirac of three or more. So what is the difference% 0f ou are large scale, life imprisonment. 0f ou are not large scale,the penalt is 9 ears, ( da to (" ears. 'r "::,::: fine to 4::, :::. That is the penalt sec. K of ;:@". Sec 9 is illegalrecruitment. &ow if ou have a license ou can take charge an illegal recruitment . we have a ver long list here of illegalrecruitment. $hat constitutes illegal recruitment% 1river ka lang sa mga gi illegal recruit, illegal recruitment ka na= >our acts can fall in an of those enumerated in Sec 9 of ;:@". <ailure to reimburse, to withhold documents, failure to deplo

without valid reason. So ou have agencies that will recruit. As a 6R direct hiring is prohibited. <oreign principals willdirect contact ou, that is illegal. >ou have to go through an agenc, wh% So that the agenc will be held responsible. 0tis the bridge of the law here because our labor laws are municipal law valid within the territorial 2urisdiction of theBhilippines, it cannot be enforced outside. &ow, if ou are a land based worker, ou have a recruitment agenc. 0f ou aresea based, then ou have a manning agenc. All our contract must be registered with the B'?A. &o contract can begiven effect unless it is registered with the B'?A. Advertisements that ou read in the newspaper with respect to foreigndeploment the have to be registered with the B'?A. That is to protect ou from being defrauded. &ow, there is a list of fees that is to be approved. 0f the manning agenc or the recruitment agenc collects higher than the approves fees , thatis also a violation and that is a form of illegal recruitment. Tan aw ra ninyo sa sec ( .

&ow, before an '<$ leaves, he must open a local account through which he pas his remittance. >ou can..Jtleave without opening an account and it must go through the official remittance channel of the Bhilippines. )ili mahimonga padala padala lang. kanand padala padala pwede na in e-cess of what ou get. >ou have to remit and there aredifferent percentages. <or e-ample the highest is 4:N. 0f ou are a seaman, our emploer commits to remit to theagenc at least 4:N of our earnings. >ou can remit higher but the minimum is 4:N and that is done through deduction.Two contracts, both registered with the B'?A, what contract then is correct% >ou as a seaman will receive 4:: dollars amonth. #ut then right before ou leave, ou are made to sign another contract* oral or written agreement prior to thisagreement notwithstanding, 0 am going to take home the pa of ):: dollars. Two contacts because there are certain portsthat are controlled b 0nternational Union of Sea <arers. The will check the contracts and if it is lower than the 0T< rates,the can bocott the ship. 'dessa, Amsterdam, uston Te-as, those are 0T< ports. And it is where the catch people.The will even make the ship line pa. The will not load or unload. So two kinds of contract, which is valid% That is thetrilog of cases in Fir2en Shipping. 0n Fir2en shipping the first division of the SC sas that what is valid is the "nd contract.)rd division of the Sc still Fir2en Shipping sas the (st contract is what is valid. So the ) rd case the have to raise it to theSC en banc. There is this argument on the ruling that will uphold the first contract to the negation of the "nd contract isthe tpe of ruling that kills the goose that las the golden egg. So the uphold the first contract. 0s that followed% &o that isnot followed.

&ow again there is a trilog of cases 0 want ou to read. *abago $ astern 4arine /td 4arch 8&, BGG1= &13 s398. before that is 4illares and /agda $ )/*'=BGGB, Petroleum Shipping /td $ )/*'= Hune 89, BGG9 . ": anyos na, 0ear contract, ( ear, one ear , naa nay sakit taas cholesterol, so din a pasakyon. babay na. walay benefits. So original is,the SC sas no= Art (), section ) of the Consti sas the state shall uphold protection to labor local and overseas sotherefore we have to enforce our securit and tenure laws. these people are regular emploees and the are entitled to dili na daon masabtan/ So this is what the decision sas, subseuentl, the <ilipino Association of 5ariners?mploment files a motion for reconsideration and filed for the second motion. And the office of the Sol 6en has nowtaken the opposite view in the application in sustaining the decision and calls for the e-amination. $hat is the ruling now%The latest ruling sas the are not regular but contract emploees. Their ee8el relationship lasts for the duration of thecontract because it is the contract that determines and not the law. So tun-ina kay mao na ang suginlanon sa tong

33



kinabuhi* speciall, ou are to read penalties for illegal recruitment, mandator periods, prescriptive period. 'rdinar0llegal recruitment prescribes in 4 ears, illegal recruitment that are concerning economic sabotage when ) or more illegalrecruiters or ) or more in conspirac and collaborating with one another to recruit.

Rava(o vs ESSO Eastrn Marin4 "td!4 Trans8G"o+a" Mariti* A(nc%4 Inc!

/acts0T!e Esso Eastern 7arine 2t. BEE7) no+ t!e Petroleum S!ipping 2t.) is a foreign compan* "ase in Singapore an engage in maritime commerce. $t is represente in t!eP!ilippines "* its manning agent an co-responent Trans-'lo"al 7aritime Agenc*) $nc. BTrans-'lo"al) a corporation organize uner t!e P!ilippine la+s.

Ro"erto Ravago +as !ire "* Trans-'lo"al to +or as a seaman on "oar various Esso vessels. On /e"ruar* 1,) 15I6) Ravago commence !is ut* as SFN +iper on "oar

t!e Esso =ataan uner a contract t!at laste until /e"ruar* 16) 15I1. T!ereafter) !e +as assigne to +or in ifferent Esso vessels +!ere !e +as esignate iverse tass)suc! as oiler) t!en assistant engineer. &e +as emplo*e uner a total of , separate an unconnecte contracts) eac! for a fie perio) "* t!ree ifferent companies)namel*) Esso Taners) $nc. BET$) EE7 an Esso $nternational S!ipping B=a!amas Co.) 2t. BE$S) Singapore =ranc!. Ravago +ore +it! Esso vessels until August ##)155#) a perio spanning more t!an ## *ears.

On t!e nig!t of Octo"er 1#) 155#) a stra* "ullet !it Ravago on t!e left leg +!ile !e +as +aiting for a "us rie in Cu"ao) uezon Cit*. &e fracture !is left proimal ti"ia an +as !ospitalize at t!e P!ilippine Ort!opeic &ospital. RavagoKs +ife) 2olita) informe Trans-'lo"al an E$S of t!e incient on Octo"er 1,) 155# for purposes of availingmeical "enefits.

RavagoKs left leg !a "ecome apparentl* s!orter) maing !im +al +it! a limp. /or t!is reason) t!e compan* p!*sician) %r. Hirginia '. 7anzo) foun !im to !ave lost !iseterit*) maing !im unfit to +or once again as a seaman.

Conseuentl*) instea of re!iring Ravago) E$S pai !im !is Career Emplo*ment $ncentive Plan as of 7arc! 1) 155, an !is final ta refun for 155#. After eucting !is SocialSecurit* S*stem an meical contri"utions from Novem"er 155# to /e"ruar* 155,) E$S remitte t!e net amount of P1#)#,#.?) follo+ing RavagoKs eecution of a %ee ofuitclaim anFor Release.

Ravago file a complaint for illegal ismissal +it! pra*er for reinstatement) "ac+ages) amages an attorne*Ks fees against Trans-'lo"al an E$S +it! t!e P!ilippineOverseas Emplo*ment Aministration Auication Office.

Responents enie t!at Ravago +as ismisse +it!out notice an ust cause. Rat!er) !is services +ere no longer engage in vie+ of t!e isa"ilit* !e suffere +!ic!renere !im unfit to +or as a seafarer. T!is fact +as furt!er valiate "* t!e compan* octor an RavagoKs attening p!*sician. T!e* averre t!at Ravago +as acontractual emplo*ee an +as !ire uner , separate contracts "* ifferent companies.

Ravago) lie+ise) asserte t!at !e +as not a mere contractual emplo*ee "ecause t!e responents regularl* an continuousl* re!ire !im for #, *ears an) for !is continuousservice) +as a+are a CE$P pa*ment upon !is termination from emplo*ment.

2a"or Ar"iter Ramon Halentin C. Re*es renere a ecision in favor of Ravago) t!e complainant. &e rule t!at Ravago +as a regular emplo*ee "ecause !e +as engage toperform activities +!ic! +ere usuall* necessar* or esira"le in t!e usual trae or "usiness of t!e emplo*er. T!e 2a"or Ar"iter note t!at RavagoKs services +ere repeatel*contracte; !e +as even given several promotions an +as pai a mont!l* service eperience "onus. T!is +as in eeping +it! t!e increasing num"er of long term careersesta"lis!e +it! t!e responents. /inall*) t!e 2a"or Ar"iter resolve t!at an emplo*er cannot terminate a +orerKs emplo*ment on t!e groun of isease unless t!ere is acertification "* a competent pu"lic !ealt! aut!orit* t!at t!e sai isease is of suc! nature or at suc! a stage t!at it cannot "e cure +it!in a perio of si mont!s even +it!

proper meical treatment.

N2RC affirme t!e ecission of 2a"or ar"iter.

CA reverse t!e N2RC ecision. Accoring to t!e CA) t!e fact t!at Ravago +as not re!ire upon t!e completion of !is contract i not result in !is illegal ismissal; !ence) !e +as not entitle to reinstatement or pa*ment of separation pa*.

$ssue0(FN a seafarer is a regular emplo*ee.

&el0T!e SC eclare t!at a seafarer) not "eing a regular emplo*ee) is not entitle to separation or termination pa*./urt!ermore) petitionerKs contract i not provie for separation "enefits. In this connection, it is important to note that neither does the POEA standard employment contract for Filipino seamen provide for such benefits. As a Filipino seaman, petitioner is governed by the ules and egulations !overning Overseas Employment and the said ules do not provide for separation or termination pay . ...

/rom t!e foregoing cases) it is clear t!at seafarers are consiere contractual emplo*ees. T!e* cannot "e consiere as regular emplo*ees uner Article #46 of t!e 2a"orCoe. "heir employment is governed by the contracts they sign every time they are rehired and their employment is terminated #hen the contract e$pires. "heir employment is contractually fi$ed for a certain period of time. "hey fall under the exception of Article %&' +!ose emplo*ment !as "een fie for a specific proect or unertaing t!ecompletion or termination of +!ic! !as "een etermine at t!e time of engagement of t!e emplo*ee or +!ere t!e +or or services to "e performe is seasonal in nature ant!e emplo*ment is for t!e uration of t!e season.

T!e Stanar Emplo*ment Contract governing t!e Emplo*ment of All /ilipino Seamen on =oar Ocean-'oing Hessels of t!e POEA) particularl* in Part $) Sec. C) specificall*provies t!at t!e contract of seamen s!all "e for a fie perio. An in no case s!oul t!e contract of seamen "e longer t!an 1# mont!s. $t reas0Section C. %uration of ContractT!e perio of emplo*ment s!all "e for a fie perio but in no case to e$ceed (% months an s!all "e state in t!e Cre+ Contract. An* etension of t!e Contract perio s!all"e su"ect to t!e mutual consent of t!e parties.

"he continuous re)hiring #as dictated by practical considerations that e$perienced cre# members are more preferred. Petitioners +ere onl* given priorit* or preference"ecause of t!eir eperience an ualifications "ut t!is oes not etract t!e fact t!at !erein petitioners are contractual emplo*ees. T!e* can not "e consiere regularemplo*ees.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING) t!e petition is !ere"* %EN$E%. T!e assaile %ecision ate August #4) #66# of t!e Court of Appeals is !ere"* A//$R7E%.

Mi""ars vs ESSO

/acts0 Petitioner %ouglas 7illares +as emplo*e "* private responent ESSO $nternational S!ipping Compan* 2T%. BEsso $nternational) for "revit* t!roug! its local manningagenc*) private responent Trans-'lo"al 7aritime Agenc*) $nc. BTrans-'lo"al) for "revit* on Novem"er 1) 154 as a mac!inist. $n 15I?) !e +as promote as C!ief Engineer +!ic! position !e occupie until !e opte to retire in 1545. &e +as t!en receiving a mont!l* salar* of >S V1)5,5.66.

On @une 1,) 1545) petitioner 7illares applie for a leave of a"sence for t!e perio @ul* 5 to August I) 1545. 7ic!ael @. Estaniel) Presient of private responent Trans-'lo"al)approve t!e reuest for leave of a"sence. On @une #1) 1545) petitioner 7illares +rote '.S. &anl*) Operations 7anager of Eon $nternational Co.) Bno+ Esso $nternationalt!roug! 7ic!ael @. Estaniel) informing !im of !is intention to avail of t!e optional retirement plan uner t!e Consecutive Enlistment $ncentive Plan BCE$P consiering t!at !e!a alrea* renere more t!an t+ent* B#6 *ears of continuous service.

34



On @ul* 1,) 1545 responent Esso $nternational) t!roug! (.@. Hrints) Emplo*ee Relations 7anager) enie 7illaresK reuest for optional retirement on t!e follo+ing grouns) to +it0 B1 !e +as emplo*e on a contractual "asis; B# !is contract of enlistment BCOE i not provie for retirement "efore t!e age of sit* B6 *ears; an B, !e i not compl* +it! t!e reuirement for claiming "enefits uner t!e CE$P) i.e.) to su"mit a +ritten avice to t!e compan* of !is intention to terminate !is emplo*ment +it!in t!irt* B,6 a*sfrom !is last isem"aration ate.

Regen"oog) Personnel Aministrator) avise petitioner 7illares t!at in vie+ of !is a"sence +it!out leave) +!ic! is euivalent to a"anonment of !is position) !e !a "eenroppe from t!e roster of cre+ mem"ers effective Septem"er 1) 1545.

T!e same circumstances also !appene to 2aga.

On Octo"er ?) 1545) petitioners 7illares an 2aga file a complaint-affiavit) ocete as POEA B7 45-16-5I1) for illegal ismissal an non-pa*ment of emplo*ee "enefitsagainst private responents Esso $nternational an Trans-'lo"al) "efore t!e POEA.

POEA ismisse t!e complaint +!ic! +as affirme "* t!e N2RC for lac of merit.

T!e* aver t!at Complainants-appellants) as seamen an overseas contract +orers are not covere "* t!e term regular emplo*ment as efine uner Article #46 of t!e2a"or Coe. T!e POEA) +!ic! is tase +it! protecting t!e rig!ts of t!e /ilipino +orers for overseas emplo*ment to fair an euita"le recruitment an emplo*ment practicesan to ensure t!eir +elfare) prescri"es a stanar emplo*ment contract for seamen on "oar ocean-going vessels for a fie perio "ut in no case to ecee t+elve B1#mont!s.

T!e SC !el in favor of petitioners.

Su"seuentl*) t!e /ilipino Association for 7ariners Emplo*ment) $nc. B/A7E file a 7otion for 2eave to $ntervene an to Amit a 7otion for Reconsieration in $ntervention.Private responents) mean+!ile) also file a 7otion for 2eave to /ile a Secon 7otion for Reconsieration of our ecision.

$n "ot! motions) t!e private responents an /A7E respectivel* pra* in t!e main t!at t!e Court reconsier its ruling t!at /ilipino seafarers are consiere regular emplo*ees

+it!in t!e contet of Article #46 of t!e 2a"or Coe. T!e* claim t!at t!e ecision ma* esta"lis! a preceent t!at +ill aversel* affect t!e maritime inustr*.

$ssue0 (FN petitioners are regular emplo*ees pursuant to art #46B1 of t!e 2C.

&el0 T!e* can not "e consiere as regular emplo*ees uner Article #46 of t!e 2a"or Coe. T!eir emplo*ment is governe "* t!e contracts t!e* sign ever*time t!e* arere!ire an t!eir emplo*ment is terminate +!en t!e contract epires. T!eir emplo*ment is contractuall* fie for a certain perio of time. T!e* fall uner t!e eception ofArticle #46 +!ose emplo*ment !as "een fie for a specific proect or unertaing t!e completion or termination of +!ic! !as "een etermine at t!e time of engagement oft!e emplo*ee or +!ere t!e +or or services to "e performe is seasonal in nature an t!e emplo*ment is for t!e uration of t!e season.

>nenia"l*) t!is circumstance of continuous re-!iring +as ictate "* practical consierations t!at eperience cre+ mem"ers are more preferre. Petitioners +ere onl* givenpriorit* or preference "ecause of t!eir eperience an ualifications "ut t!is oes not etract t!e fact t!at !erein petitioners are contractual emplo*ees. T!e* can not "econsiere regular emplo*ees.

Ptro")* S&iin( vs NLRC

/acts0

On 7arc! 15I4) Esso $nternational S!ipping B=a!amas Co.) 2t.) BEsso t!roug! Trans-'lo"al 7aritime Agenc*) $nc. BTrans-'lo"al !ire /lorello (. Tanc!icoBTanc!ico as /irst Assistant Engineer. $n 1541) Tanc!ico "ecame C!ief Engineer. On 1, Octo"er 155#) Tanc!ico returne to t!e P!ilippines for a t+o-mont! vacation aftercompleting !is eig!t-mont! eplo*ment.

On 4 %ecem"er 155#) Tanc!ico uner+ent t!e reuire stanar meical eamination prior to "oaring t!e vessel. T!e meical eamination reveale t!at Tanc!ico +assuffering from $sc!emic &eart %isease) &*pertensive Cario-7uscular %isease an %ia"etes 7ellitus. Tanc!ico too meications for t+o mont!s an a su"seuent stresstest s!o+e a negative result. &o+ever) Esso no longer eplo*e Tanc!ico. $nstea) Esso offere to pa* !im "enefits uner t!e Career Emplo*ment $ncentive Plan. Tanc!icoaccepte t!e offer.

On # April 155,) Tanc!ico file a complaint against Esso) Trans-'lo"al an 7ala*an $nsurance Co.) $nc. efore t!e POEA for illegal ismissal +it! claims for "ac+ages)separation pa*) isa"ilit* an meical "enefits an 1, t! mont! pa*. $n vie+ of t!e enactment of RA 46# transferring N2RC t!e urisiction over mone* claims of overseas +orers.

N2RC) on 7/R) grante isa"ilit* "enefit of 14 a*s for ever* *ear of creite service of fourteen B1 *ears less t!e amount !e alrea* receive uner t!e Compan*Ks%isa"ilit* Plan. To pa* complainant !is mont!l* pa* compute at Msic t!e actual mont! Msic +ore) +!ic! is 4 mont!s as 1,t! mont! pa*. An t!e cost of suit.

CA0T!e Court of Appeals Affirmr an rule t!at Tanc!ico +as a regular emplo*ee of Petroleum S!ipping. T!e Court of Appeals !el t!at petitioners are not eempt from t!ecoverage of Presiential %ecree No. 4?1) as amene BP% 4?1 +!ic! manates t!e pa*ment of 1, t! mont! pa* to all emplo*ees. T!e Court of Appeals furt!er rule t!atTanc!ico is entitle to isa"ilit* "enefits "ase on !is 1 *ears of tenure +it! petitioners. T!e Court of Appeals state t!at t!e emplo*er-emplo*ee relations!ip su"siste evenuring t!e perio of Tanc!icoKs vacation. T!e Court of Appeals note t!at petitioners +ere a+are of Tanc!icoKs meical !istor* *et t!e* still eplo*e !im for 1 *ears. /inall*)t!e Court of Appeals sustaine t!e a+ar of attorne*Ks fees.

$ssue0 1. (!et!er Tanc!ico is a regular emplo*ee of petitioners; an #. (!et!er Tanc!ico is entitle to 1,t! mont! pa*

&el0 As +as !el in t!e case of 7illares) seafarers are not regular emplo*ees. As t!e* are onl* consiere as contractual emplo*ees +!ose emplo*ment are terminateever*time t!eir contracts epire.

T!eir emplo*ment is contractuall* fie for a certain perio of time. T!e* fall uner t!e eception of Article #46 +!ose emplo*ment !as "een fie for a specific proect orunertaing t!e completion or termination of +!ic! !as "een etermine at t!e time of engagement of t!e emplo*ee or +!ere t!e +or or services to "e performe is seasonalin nature an t!e emplo*ment is for t!e uration of t!e season.

A"out t!e 1,t! mont! pa*0T!e SC !el t!at Tanc!icoKs emplo*ment is governe "* !is Contract of Enlistment BContract. T!e Contract !as "een approve "* t!e POEA in accorance +it! Title $)=oo One of t!e 2a"or Coe an t!e POEA Rules 'overning Emplo*ment. T!e coverage of t!e Contract inclues Compensation) Overtime) Suna*s an &olia*s)Hacations) 2iving Allo+ance) Sicness) $nur* an %eat!) Transportation an Travel Epense) Su"sistence an 2iving uarters. $t oes not provie for t!e pa*ment of 1, t!

mont! pa*. T!e Contract of Emplo*ment) +!ic! is t!e stanar emplo*ment contract of t!e POEA) lie+ise oes not provie for t!e pa*ment of 1, t! mont! pa*.

35



The prescriptive periods is ": ears. $hat are prohibited, who are prohibited in illegal recruitment% 0f ou are atravel agenc, ou are prohibited to engage in illegal recruitment. 'nl <ilipino citi3ens. Remember in the constitution 9:Nowned b a <ilipino citi3en. The rule is different here. 0t must be K:N. Then there is free legal assistance for migrantworkers , etc.ou read ;:@" as ou have finished reading Art 83 up to Art BE of the labor code. $hat happens when thelaw will be passed, who implement the regulation% Remember there are now people who are now in 2ail and when thislaw is passed what will happen% 0t will decriminali3e illegal recruitment which means that the law repealing illegalrecruitment will appreciate in their favor. $hat is the case that ou will file% abeas corpus using the law that repealed.;:@" and ou will ask the court to produce the living bod of the client because what used to be criminal in no linger criminal now. The onl problem is if together with illegal recruitment is estafa= #ecause it is possible. ou can be chargedwith estafa with illegal recruitment. That is not double 2eopard and that is allowed in court. >ou can get e-onerated withillegal recruitment but with estafa ou will still serve the penalt. That is criminal. There is this case of illegal recruitmentwhich has been asked in the bar several times so 0 think ou should read it. That is the case of ppl $ panis (E;9.

Po" vs J)d( Panis4 Sraio A+)( $rcr)it*nt:

/acts0/our informations +ere file on @anuar* 5) 1541) in t!e Court of /irst $nstance of Xam"ales an Olongapo Cit* alleging t!at Serapio A"ug D+it!out first securing a license fromt!e 7inistr* of 2a"or as a !oler of aut!orit* to operate a fee-c!arging emplo*ment agenc*) i t!en an t!ere +ilfull*) unla+full* an criminall* operate a private fee-c!argingemplo*ment agenc* "* c!arging fees an epenses an promising emplo*ment in Saui Ara"iaD to four separate iniviuals name t!erein) in violation of Article 1 in relationto Article ,5 of t!e 2a"or Coe.

A"ug file a motion to uas! on t!e groun t!at t!e informations i not c!arge an offense "ecause !e +as accuse of illegall* recruiting onl* one person in eac! of t!e fourinformations. >ner t!e proviso in Article 1,B") !e claime) t!ere +oul "e illegal recruitment onl* D+!enever t+o or more persons are in an* manner promise or offere an*emplo*ment for a fee.D

%enie at first) t!e motion +as reconsiere an finall* grante in t!e Orers of t!e trial court ate @une # an Septem"er 1I) 1541.

$ssue0T!e "asic issue in t!is case is t!e correct interpretation of Article 1,B" of P. %. #) ot!er+ise no+n as t!e 2a"or Coe) reaing as follo+s0

DB" :Recruitment an placement: refers to an* act of canvassing) :enlisting) contracting) transporting) !iring) or procuring +orers) an inclues referrals) contract services)promising or avertising for emplo*ment) locall* or a"roa) +!et!er for profit or not0 Provie) T!at an* person or entit* +!ic!) in an* manner) offers or promises for a feeemplo*ment to t+o or more persons s!all "e eeme engage in recruitment an placement.D

&el0T!e posture of t!e petitioner is t!at t!e private responent is "eing prosecute uner Article ,5 in relation to Article 1 of t!e 2a"or Coe; !ence) Article 1,B" is notapplica"le. &o+ever) as t!e first t+o cite articles penalize acts of recruitment an placement +it!out proper aut!orit*) +!ic! is t!e c!arge em"oie in t!e informations)application of t!e efinition of recruitment an placement in Article 1,B" is unavoia"le.

T!e num"er of persons ealt +it! is not an essential ingreient of t!e act of recruitment an placement of +orers. An* of t!e acts mentione in t!e "asic rule in Article 1,B" +ill constitute recruitment an placement even if onl* one prospective +orer is involve. T!e proviso merel* la*s o+n a rule of evience t!at +!ere a fee is collecte inconsieration of a promise or offer of emplo*ment to t+o or more prospective +orers) t!e iniviual or entit* ealing +it! t!em s!all "e eeme to "e engage in t!e act ofrecruitment an placement. T!e +ors Ds!all "e eemeD create t!at presumption.

At an* rate) t!e interpretation !ere aopte s!oul give more force to t!e campaign against illegal recruitment an placement) +!ic! !as victimize man* /ilipino +orersseeing a "etter life in a foreign lan) an investing !ar-earne savings or even "orro+e funs in pursuit of t!eir ream) onl* to "e a+aene to t!e realit* of a c*nicaleception at t!e !ans of t!eir o+n countr*men.

&ow, one of the obligations of the recruiters to put up securit bond. The securit bond is supposed to answer for the liabilities of the contract that ma arise out of the contract that he has succeeded in concluding with those whom hedeploed and the agenc representing the foreign principal. $hat is the liabilit of the bond% <or e-ample the agenc hasseveral unpaid accounts in the travel agenc for tickets used for these clients deploed. Can the be e-ecuted upon pa

for these tickets% The SC said no= This bond is supposed to answer for ee8el relationship liabilities not for an other liabilities on the suret. #ecause if ou are an '<$ and our contract for one ear or another is violated. >ou file anillegal dismissal of violation of contract and what can u recover% This is what sec 8G of G&B sas* in case of termination of o$erseas employment ithout %ust $alid or cause as defined by la or contract the or!er shall beentitled to the full reimbursement of his placement Jfee ith the interest of 8BK per annum. Plus his salary for the unexpired portion of the employment contract or for 3 months of e$ery year of the unexpired term, hiche$er is less >please read the la for clarifications@ That is the penalt for illegal termination of contract in '<$. >ou can askrepatriation, reimbursement of placement fee with interest or )8month salar of the ear une-pired or what is remainingto our contract. $hich is different from an ordinar contract wherein it does not grant these kinds of remedies. So, whohas 2urisdiction over this kinds of violations of '<$ contracts% 0t is the labor arbiter now and no longer the B'?A. 0t is thelabor arbiter who has the 2urisdiction over the residence of the '<$ or the labor arbiter of the &CR. That is the rule now.So with that we are through with placement, pre emploment, man power. And we 2ust have to look into at residents or resident aliens. The emploment of resident aliens. Title two. ?mploment permits of non8resident aliens. There are ) arts

there. Art (@, @( prohibitions against transfer of emploment, art @" submission. This involves non resident aliens. 0f ouare a non resident alien, ou can work if the 1'L? issues ou a permit to work. The immigration will issue ou a workingvisa but that does not entitle ou to work because that is the case decided upon in 6eneral 4illing $ )/*'. this involvesthe B#A coach Tim Cone. Tim Cone had a working visa and he is made to work with Alaska right awa. So the said thathe is illegall working because he has no working permit. The SC said that Under the present law, it is he 1'L? thatgrants ou a right to work and issues a permit before ou can work non8resident aliens/ however if our visa is a residentvisa, ou are permanent resident here so the are no longer entitled to the labor code. The can sta and work here. >ou

Date post:	01-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jade123129
View:	264 times
Download:	0 times

Labstan Transcriptions

Documents