Agro vs NLRC Facts: On Sep 16,1986 Several SGs of Agro were held in floating status pursuant to d provision in dr contrct

dt thy agree to tmprary suspension of employment cmpltly to include such chnges n employment status w/ agency n case of termntion bet d agency and its client. the contrcts of the agency wer d PR wer assignd hd been trmn8d d/t sequestration of d said offices by the PCGG. A Number of them then obtained employment from other security agencies. LA & NLRC ruled in favor of PR. Hence this appeal. Issue: (1) WON there exists an employee-employer relationship (EER) (2) WON e so called floating status for more than 6 mos of a SG amounts to ID? Held: (1) There is EER, they are regular employees. It has the 4 elements: a) selection & engagement of employees b.) payment of wages c.) power of dismissal d) power to control employees conduct (2) For the 27 SG who accepted emplymnt cntrct frm odr agencs w/o resigning, AGRO had JUST cause for termination and not entitled to sep. pay. For the 17 who had been in floating status for >6mos, they are illegally dismissed from service pursuant to art 286 when bonafide suspension of d oper8ion of a business undertaking >6 mos, employee shll be deemed trmnated, or tantamount to constructive dsmssal. Floating status: indefinite period of time when PR do not rcv slry or fnncial bnft prvdd by law Maraguinot&ENERO vs NLRC (VIVA FILMS) Facts: Maraguinot maintains dt he is an employee of Viva as prt of d flming crew and dsgn8d as asst. electrician. Enero ws hred as shooting crew. Their tsks involved un/loading & arranging of equipment in d shootng area & fxing lighting equip. In 1992, thy sought asstnce of dr supervisor, Cesario for increase in slary. Vic del Rosario wud increase dr slary if dey sgned a blank emplymnt contrct but dy rfused. So, Enero ws frced 2go on leave bt nt tken back and Maraguinot ws tken out of d pyroll. Viva contends dt dy wr only employees of associate producers contrcted by Viva for d films Sigaw ng Puso and Mahirap maging Pogi respectively, that when d movie projct ended, dr srvces wr no longer needed, hence dy wr not employees. Petitioners contend dt dy r part of a work pool & dat dr wrk is continuous & r reg employees. LA: dy wer employees of viva NLRC: otherwise, der employment is co-terminus wd each movie projct ISSUE: Won there is EER? Held: yes, the 4 elments r present. d most impt is the element of control, dy wer under d supervision of the suprvsing producer Mr Eric Cuatico & shooting unit supervisor Alejandria Cesario. Vivas control is evident int is mandate that d end result must be acceptable to d company. Hence, d PET r not undr the control of d directors but d compny per se. In dr cntrct, d words superior & top mgt refr to d offcrs of VIVA. D element of selection is also prsnt bsed on d appointment slip prsntd nwher in d apptmnt slip can it be infrred dt td prodcer or associate prdcer hird d member, ti was VIVA. Thought dy r part of d workpool as rcgnzed by ViVA, dy attained rgular status bec (1) continuous hiring of proj. employees evn aftr cssation of project (2) task prfrmed by d alleged prjct employee r vital and ncessry & indispsble to d usual bsnss of d emplyr. Enero, 2 yrs (18 prjct) Maraguinot 3 yrs (23 projcts). A work pool exsts tho d wrkrs in d pool dnt rcv slries & r free to seek odr emplymnt during temp brks prvded dt d wrkr shll be available whn calld to rport for a proj. Bautista vs Inciong

F: Bautista ws employed as Orgnzer by ALU in 1972. He paid SSS contributions wd resp as emplyr. On march 15, he ws lft in d offc bec hs odr co orgnzers wr atnding an event & he ws not assigned as organizr. On March 16 He went on sck leave fr 10 days and thus hs SSS sickness benft applction frm ws also signed by ALUs physician was submitted to d SSS. When he rportd bak to work, he ws infrmed dat he ws trmnated on March 15.Director: For petitionr and ws ordred 2 b reinst8d, Min of labor: otherwise, Bautista ws mrely accmd8d by ALU when he was dsmssed by his 4mer emplyr, the mmbrshp covrge is not conclusive proof. I: WON dr is EER bet pet & resp Associated Labor Unions (ALU) H: Yes, thee is EER, d mere fct dat ALY is a labor union doesnt mean dt it cant be cnsderd an emplyr of d persons who work 4 it. 4 elements of an EER are present. Control test is d most impt element. He was an employee as reflctd in d payroll sheets and shown by SSS membrshp. More sgnfcant is ALUs filing a clearance application w/ MOL 2 trmnate pets servces. Bautsta was selctd & hred by d Union. severance pay is mor propr. SAN MIGUEL CORP SALES UNION vs OPLE F: SMC rleased a marketing scheme COMPLEMENTARY DIST. SYSTEM whereby wholesalers buy beer prdcts directly frm d company. the Labor union of SMC filed a complaint contending dat it constitutes unfair labor prctce bec it reduces d take home pay of sales men hu wer assigned 2 spcfc territories dat d wholesaler may buy frm dem and not drctly frm d compny. So dey filed a notice of strke MOL : in fvor of Company I: WON d CDS is not a valid exrcse of mgt prerogatives H: Yes, it was a valid exercise. excpt as lmted by special laws, an emplyr is free to regul8 accdg to his own discretion and judgment all aspects of emplymnt incldng hiring, work assgnmnts, method, time place and manner of work tools to be used, prcesses 2 b fllwed, supervision, etc. Every busnss enetrprse who endeavors to inc. profits may adopt or devise means desgned twrds dat goal. So long as companys mgt prerogatives are exercsd in gud faith for d advancement or circumventing d rights of d emplyess dey ar valid agreements. SONZA vs ABS CBN Facts: 1994, Abs sgned an agreement w/Mel&Jay Mgt and Dev. Corp MJMDC represntd by Sonza as pres & Gen Mangr & Tiangco as EVP. MJM ws rfrrd to as agent, it agreed 2 provde Sonzas srvcs exclsvly 2 abs as tlent for radio & tv. Abs agreed 2 pay sonza a monthly fee of 310K and 317K 4 d 2nd and 3rd yr. 1996, sonza wrote a ltter to abs wer he resgned. He den filed in DOLE complaining dt abs dd nt pay hs slries, sep pay, servce inactive, 13th mo pay, trvl allwnce and dos und rte ESOP. Abs said dat der ws no EER bew prties bt Abs cntnued 2 remit Sonzas monthly tlent fees but opned anodr acct fr dat. LA: for ABS. NLRC affirmed. CA affirmd. Issue: Whether or not there was EER? Ruling: Elements of EER enumeration plus power to dismiss. The last element, the so-called "control test", is the most important element. (payment of wages) All d talent fees wer d result of negotiations dat led to d agreement. If sonza was an employee, der wud be bo need for d parties to stipul8 such benefits bec d law automatically incorpor8s these in every EE cntrc. (SELECTION) Sonzas services to co-host its television and radio programs are because of his peculiar talents, skills and celebrity status. Independent contractors often present

themselves to possess unique skills, expertise or talent to distinguish them from ordinary employees. The specific selection and hiring of SONZA, because of his unique skills, talent and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees, is a circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an independent contractual relationship. (DISMISSAL) Sonza failed 2 show dat abs could termin8 his servces on ground odr dan breach of contract. (CONTROL) Applying the control test to the present case, we find that SONZA is not an employee but an independent contractor. To perform his work, SONZA only needed his skills and talent. How SONZA delivered his lines, appeared on television, and sounded on radio were outside ABS-CBNs control. To do so would abridge freedom of the press. ABS-CBN did not exercise control over the means and methods of performance of Sonzas work. A radio broadcast specialist who works under minimal supervision is an independent contractor. ABS vs Nazareno et al Facts: Petitioner ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN) is engaged in the broadcasting business It has a franchise as a broadcasting company, w/ authority to operate by the NTC. Pet employed respondents as production assistants (PAs) on different dates. They were assigned at various radio programs in d Cebu Broadcasting Station. On December 19, 1996, pet and d ABS-CBN Rank-and-File Employees executed a Agreement (CBA) to be effective during 1996-99. Pet refused to recognize PAs as part of the bargaining unit, respondents were not included to the CBA. So in 200, resp filed a complaint for recognition of Regular Employment Status, Underpayment of Overtime Pay, Holiday Pay, Premium Pay, Service Incentive Pay, Sick Leave Pay, and 13th Month Pay with Damages against the petitioner before the NLRC. LA: in favor of RESP. NLRC affirmed. CA affirmed I: WON Resp were regular employees H: Yes. 1) In selection&engagement, no peculiar or uniqe skill, tlent or celeb status was rwd frm dem bec dey wer mrely hired thru pets personnel department just like ordnry employee. (2) payment of wages d talent fees correspond wages gvn as a result of an EER. resp ddnt hv d power 2 brgain for huge tlent fees negating ind. contractual rel. (3) Power to dismiss pet could always discharge repsp should dey fnd d work unsatisfctry (4)degree of control & supervision exercised by pet over resp. Presumption dat wen d work done is an integral part of d regular business of de employer and when d worker relative to de emplyr does not furnish an independent business or professional service such work is a regular employment. PRIMARY STANDARD: to detrmne regulr empkyment is d REASONABLE CONNECTION bet d particular actvty perfumed by de employee in relation to d usal trade or business of de employer. THE TEST is weder d frmer is usually ncessry or dsrbale in d usual business or trade of d emplyr. MURILLO vs CA (ABC) FACTS: Dumpit was hired by ABC as a newscaster in 1995. Her contract with the TV station was repeatedly renewed until 1999. She then wrote Jose Javier (VP for News and Public Affairs of ABC) advising him of her intention to renew the contract. Javier did not respond. Dumpit then demanded reinstatement as well as her backwages, service incentive leave pays and other monetary benefits. ABC said they could only pay her backwages but her other claims had no basis as she was not entitled thereto because she is considered as a talent and not a regular employee. Dumpit sued ABC. LA: ruled against Dumpit. NLRC reversed the LA. CAreversed the NLRC and ruled that as per the contract between ABC and Dumpit, Dumpit is a fixed term employee.

ISSUE: WON there is EER (YES), WON Murillo is a regular Employee? YES HELD: She was a regular employee under contemplation of law. The practice of having fixed-term contracts in the industry does not automatically make all talent contracts valid and compliant with labor law. The assertion that a talent contract exists does not necessarily prevent a regular employment status. (elements of EER) The duties of Dumpit as enumerated in her employment contract indicate that ABC had control over the work of Dumpit. Aside from control, ABC also dictated the work assignments and payment of petitioners wages. ABC also had power to dismiss her. All these being present, clearly, there existed an employment relationship between Dumpit and ABC. In addition, her work was continuous for a period of four years. This repeated engagement under contract of hire is indicative of the necessity and desirability of the Dumpits work in ABCs business. 2 kinds of employees (1) those hu r engged 2 prform activities w/c r usually ncssry or desirable in d usual business or trade of d employer (2) those who hav rendr @least 1 yr of service whther continuous or broken. PRIMARY STANDARD refer to previous case.