BROTHERHOOD LABOR UNITY MOVEMENT vs HON.

ZAMORA (1991) FACTS: Petitioners-members of Brotherhood Labor Unit Movement of the Philippines (BLUM), worked as cargadores or pahinante since 1961 at the SMC Plant. Sometime in January 1969, the petitioner workers numbering 140 organized themselves and engaged in union activities. Believing that they are entitled to overtime and holiday pay, the petitioners aired their gripes and grievances but it was not heeded by the respondents. One of the union member was dismissed from work. Hence, the petitioners filed a complaint of unfair labor practice against respondent SMC on the ground of illegal dismissal. On the other hand, SMC argued that the complainant are not or have never been their employees but they are the employees of the Guaranteed Labor Contractor, an independent labor contracting firm Labor Arbiter Nestor Lim rendered a decision in favor of the complainants which was affirmed by the NLRC On appeal, the Secretary set aside the NLRC ruling stressing the absence of an employer-employee relationship Issue: Whether an employer-employee relationship exists between petitioners and respondent San Miguel Corporation HELD: YES In determining the existence of an employeremployee relationship, the elements that are generally considered are the following: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. It is the called "control test" that is the most important element In the CAB, petitioners worked continuously and exclusively for an average of 7 years for the company. Considering the length of time that the petitioners have worked, there is justification to conclude that they were engaged to perform activities necessary or desirable in the usual business of trade of the respondent. Hence, petitioners are considered regular employees.

Even assuming that there is a contract of employment executed between SMC and the said labor contractor, the court ruled that Guaranteed and Reliable Labor contractors have neither substantial capital nor investment to qualify as an independent contractor under the law. The premises, tools and equipments used by the petitioners in their jobs are all supplied by the respondent SMC. It is only the manpower or labor force which the alleged contractors supply, suggesting the existence of a "labor only" contracting scheme prohibited by law It is important to emphasize that that in a truly independent contractor-contractee relationship, the fees are paid directly to the manpower agency in lump sum without indicating or implying that the basis of such lump sum is the salary per worker multiplied by the number of workers assigned to the company. In the CAB, the alleged independent contractors were paid a lump sum representing only the salaries the workers were entitled to, arrived at by adding the salaries of each worker which depend on the volume of work they had accomplished individually. Therefore, there is no independent contractor-contractee relationship. WHEREFORE, PETITION IS GRANTED. DAYAG vs HON. CENIZARES, JR. (1998) FACTS: Petitioners were hired to work as tower crane operators by one Alfredo Young, a building contractor doing business in the name of Youngs construction. In 1991, they were transferred to Cebu City to work for Youngs Shoemart Cebu Project. Petitioner William Dayag asked permission to go to Manila to attend family matters and was allowed to do so but was not paid for January 23-30 due to his accountability for the loss of certain construction tools. The other petitioners left due to harassment by Young. Thereafter, petitioners banded together and filed a complaint against Young before the NCR Arbitration Branch NLRC which was assigned to Labor Arbiter Cenizares. Young filed a Motion to transfer the case to the Regional Arbitration Branch, Region VII of the NLRC. He contended that the case should be filed in Cebu City because

there is where the workplace of the petitioners. Petitioners opposed the same, arguing that all of them are from Metro Manila and that they could not afford trips to Cebu. Besides, they claimed that respondents main office is in Corinthian Garden in QC. Labor Arbiter Cenizares GRANTED Youngs motion to transfer the case in Cebu. Petitioners appealed to NLRC but it was dismissed. Hence, they filed a MFR and this time the Commission SET ASIDE its previous decision and remanded the case to the original arbitration branch of the NCR for further proceedings. Young filed his own MFR and the NLRC reinstated its first decision directing the transfer of the case to Cebu City.

WHEREFORE, PETITION IS GRANTED. DY vs NLRC (1986) FACTS: Private Respondent Carlito H. Vailoces was the manager of the Rural Bank of Ayungon (Negros Oriental). He was also a director and stockholder of the bank. In 1983, a special stockholders meeting was called for the purpose of electing the members of the banks Board of Directors. Petitioner Lorenzo Dy was elected president. Vailoces was not re-elected as bank manager. Vailoces filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages with the Ministry of Labor and Employment against Lorenzo Dy asserting that Dy, after obtaining control of the majority stock of the bank, called an illegal stockholders meeting and elected a Board of Directors controlled by him; and that he was illegally dismissed as manager, without giving him the opportunity to be heard first. Dy denied the charge of illegal dismissal and pointed out that Vailoces position was an elective one, and he was not re-elected as bank manager because of the Boards loss of confidence in him brought about by his absenteeism and negligence in the performance of his duties The Executive Labor Arbiter ruled that Vailoces was illegally dismissed because he was not afforded due process of law. NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter because of the appeal of the petitioners was filed late. Issue: Whether the election of the Directors were validly held HELD: YES Under PD No. 902-A, Controversies in the election or appointments of directors, trustees, officers or managers of such corporations, partnerships or associations, are explicitly declared to be within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the CAB, it shows that the controversy between the parties is intra-corporate in nature because it revolves around the election of directors, officers or managers of the Rural Bank of Ayungon, the relation between and among its stockholders, and between them and the corporation. It is well settled that the

Issue: Whether the Labor Arbiter acted with grave abuse of discretion when it entertained Youngs motion to transfer HELD: NO The SC ruled that litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on the merits and not technicalities. Petitioners were able to file an opposition on the motion to transfer case which was considered by Labor Arbiter Cenizares. Hence, there is no showing that they have been unduly prejudiced by the motions failure to give notice and hearing. However, Young cannot derive comfort from this petition. The SC held that the question of venue relates more to the convenience of the parties rather than upon the substance and merits of the case. This is to assure convenience for the plaintiff and his witness and to promote the ends of justice under the principle that the State shall afford protection to labor. The reason for this is that the worker, being the economicallydisadvantaged party, the nearest governmental machinery to settle the dispute must be placed at his immediate disposal, and the other party is not to be given the choice of another competent agency sitting in another place as this will unduly burden the former In the instant case, the ruling specifying the NCR Arbitration Branch as the venue of the present action cannot be considered oppressive to Young because his residence in Corinthian Gardens also serves as his correspondent office. Hearing the case in Manila would clearly expedite the proceedings and bring speedy resolution to the instant case.

decision of a tribunal not vested appropriate jurisdiction is null and void.

with

Therefore, the judgment of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are void for lack of jurisdiction. WHEREFORE, PETITION IS GRANTED

ESPINO vs NLRC and PAL (1995) FACTS: Petitioner Leslie W. Espino was the Exec. Vice President-Chief Operating Officer of respondent Phil Airlines (PAL) when his service was terminated in 1990 as a result of the findings of the panels created by then President Corazon C. Aquino to investigate the administrative charges filed against him. It appears that petitioner and other several senior officers of PAL were charged for their involvement in 4 cases, labeled as Goldair, Robelle, Kabash/Primavera, and Middle East. The PAL Board of Directors issued separate resolutions wherein Espino was considered resign from the service effective immediately for loss of confidence Espino filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PAL with the NLRC, Arbitration Branch, NCR. PAL argued that board resolutions cannot be reviewed by the NLRC and that the recourse of the petitioner Espino should have been addressed by way of appeal, to the OP. Labor Arbiter Cresencio J. Ramos rendered a decision in favor of petitioner Espino PAL asserted that the Labor Arbiters decision is null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter as it is the SEC, and not the NLRC which has jurisdiction over involving dismissal or removal of corporate officers. NLRC promulgated a resolution and this time ruled in favor of PAL on the ground of lack of jurisdiction Petitioner Espino contended that it is the NLRC that has jurisdiction over the case as it involves the termination of a regular employee and involves