Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CA
160 SCRA 171; April 15, 1998
FACTS
On the strength of a contract, Tourist World Service Inc. (TWS) leased the
premises belonging to Mrs. SegundinaNoguera for the former s use as a branch
office. Lina Sevilla bound herself solidarily liable with TWS for the prompt paymentof
the monthly rentals thereon. When the branch office was opened, it was run by
appellant Sevilla payable to TWS by anyairline for any fare brought in on the efforts
of Sevilla, 4% was to go to Sevilla and 3% was to be withheld by TWS.
TWS appears to have been informed that Sevilla was connected with a rival
firm, the Philippine Travel Bureau, and,since the branch office was anyhow losing,
the TWS considered closing down its office. Two resolutions of the TWS board
of directors were passed to abolish the office of the manager and vice president of
the branch office and authorizing thecorporate secretary to receive the properties in
the said branch office.
Subsequently, the corporate secretary went to the branch office, and finding
the premises locked and being unable tocontact Sevilla, padlocked the premises to
protect the interests of TWS.When neither Sevilla nor her employees could enter the
locked premises, she filed a complaint against TWS with aprayer for the issuance of
a mandatory preliminary injunction.
The trial court dismissed the case holding that TWS, being the true lessee,
was within its prerogative to terminate thelease and padlock the premises. It
likewise found that Sevilla was a mere employee of TWS and as such, was bound by
the actsof her employer.
The CA affirmed. Hence this petition.
ISSUES
1.Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship between TWS and
Sevilla?
HELD
1. NO. It was a principal-agent relationship. In this jurisdiction, there has been no
uniform test to determine the existence of an employer-employee relation. In
general, we have relied on the so-called right of control test, where the person
for whom the services are performed reserves a right to control not only the end to
be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end.
In addition, the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties,
like the inclusion of the employee in the payrolls, are also considered in determining
the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
Sevilla was not subject to control by TWS either as to the result of the enterprise or
as to the means used in connection therewith. Under the contract of lease, Sevilla
bound herself in solidum for the rental payments; an arrangement that would belie
the claims of master-servant relationship for a true employee cannot be made to
part with his own money in pursuance of his employers business, or otherwise
assume liability thereof.
Also, Sevilla was not in the companys payroll. She retained 4% in commissions from
airline bookings, the remaining 3% going toTWS. Unlike an employee who usually
earns a fixed salary, she earned compensation in fluctuating amounts depending on
her booking successes.
The fact that Sevilla has been designated branch manager does not make her, ergo,
TWS employee. Employment is determined by the right of control test and
certain economic parameters. Titles are weak indicators.
When Sevilla agreed to man TWS Ermita branch office, she did so pursuant to a
contract of agency. It is the essence of this contract that the agent renders services
in representation or on behalf of another. In the case at bar, Sevilla solicited airline
fares, but she did so for and on behalf of her principal, TWS.
FLORES V. NUESTRO
160 SCRA 568
YAP, J.
FACTS
The petitioner, Herminio Flores and his wife, worked for respondent,
Fortunato
Nuestro in his funeral parlor since June 1976 as helper-utility man and as
bookkeeper and cahier respectively.
On October 7, 1980, respondent registered the petitioner spouses with the
SSS, as
his employee. Thereafter, the spouses received an increase in their respective
salaries.
On October 30, 1982, Herminio and Nuestro had an altercation, during which
the
latter physically assaulted the former.
Herminio then filed a complaint for physical injuries against Nuestro. As a
result of the incident, the Flores family had to leave their quarters at the funeral
parlor and seek protection from the Pilar, Bataan Police. Thereafter, petitioners filed
illegal dismissal charges against respondent. On the part of the respondent, he
denied the existence of employer-employee relationship, and further alleged that
petitioners were the ones to voluntarily abandon their work
ISSUE
1. Was there an employee-employer relationship in this case?
2. Do the actions of the petitioners constitute abandonment?
HELD
1. YES. There was an employee-employer relationship. That the respondent
registered the petitioners with the Social Security System is proof that they
were indeed his employees. The coverage of the Social Security Law is
predicated on the existence of an employer-employee relationship
2. NO. On the issue of abandonment, however, we find the ruling of the NLRC
that petitioners had abandoned their employment to be contrary to the
evidence. To constitute abandonment, there must be a clear and deliberate
intent to discontinue one's employment without any intention of returning
back. The record shows that petitioners were only compelled to leave the
premises, which they regarded as their home, when the respondent inflicted
physical injuries upon petitioner Herminio Flores. Apparently, what they had
given up was only their place of residence but not their jobs. The immediate
filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondent with a prayer for
reinstatement shows that petitioners were not abandoning their work. As
aptly observed by the Solicitor General, to uphold the ruling of the
respondent Commission that the petitioners abandoned their job "is to put a
premium on the commission of a crime by an employer against an employee
to force the latter to leave his employment so as to preclude said employee
from seeking reinstatement with backwages."
UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES (UFE), petitioner, vs. BENIGNO VIVAR, JR., NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and NESTL PHILIPPINES, INC. (formerly FILIPRO,
INC.), respondents.
G.R. No. 79255
January 20, 1992
FACTS: This labor dispute stems from the exclusion of sales personnel from the
holiday pay award and the change of the divisor in the computation of benefits from
251 to 261 days.
On November 8, 1985, respondent Filipro, Inc. (now Nestle Philippines, Inc.) filed
with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a petition for declaratory relief
seeking a ruling on its rights and obligations respecting claims of its monthly paid
employees for holiday pay in the light of the Court's decision in Chartered Bank
Employees Association v. Ople (138 SCRA 273 [1985]).
Both Filipro and the Union of Filipino Employees (UFE) agreed to submit the case for
voluntary arbitration and appointed respondent Benigno Vivar, Jr. as voluntary
arbitrator.
On January 2, 1980, Arbitrator Vivar rendered a decision directing Filipro to pay its
monthly paid employees holiday pay pursuant to Article 94 of the Code, subject only
to the exclusions and limitations specified in Article 82 and such other legal
restrictions as are provided for in the Code.
Filipro filed a motion for clarification seeking (1) the limitation of the award to three
years, (2) the exclusion of salesmen, sales representatives, truck drivers,
merchandisers and medical representatives (hereinafter referred to as sales
personnel) from the award of the holiday pay, and (3) deduction from the holiday
pay award of overpayment for overtime, night differential, vacation and sick leave
benefits due to the use of 251 divisor.
Petitioner UFE answered that the award should be made effective from the date of
effectivity of the Labor Code, that their sales personnel are not field personnel and
are therefore entitled to holiday pay, and that the use of 251 as divisor is an
established employee benefit which cannot be diminished.
On January 14, 1986, the respondent arbitrator issued an order declaring that the
effectivity of the holiday pay award shall retroact to November 1, 1974, the date of
effectivity of the Labor Code. He adjudged, however, that the company's sales
personnel are field personnel and, as such, are not entitled to holiday pay. He
likewise ruled that with the grant of 10 days' holiday pay, the divisor should be
changed from 251 to 261 and ordered the reimbursement of overpayment for
overtime, night differential, vacation and sick leave pay due to the use of 251 days
as divisor.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Nestle's sales personnel are entitled to holiday pay; and
HELD:
NO. It is undisputed that these sales personnel start their field work at 8:00
a.m. after having reported to the office and come back to the office at 4:00 p.m. or
4:30 p.m. if they are Makati-based. The requirement for the salesmen and other
similarly situated employees to report for work at the office at 8:00 a.m. and return
at 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. is not within the realm of work in the field as defined in the
Code but an exercise of purely management prerogative of providing administrative
control over such personnel. This does not in any manner provide a reasonable level
of determination on the actual field work of the employees which can be reasonably
ascertained. The theoretical analysis that salesmen and other similarly-situated
workers regularly report for work at 8:00 a.m. and return to their home station at
4:00 or 4:30 p.m., creating the assumption that their field work is supervised, is
surface projection. Actual field work begins after 8:00 a.m., when the sales
personnel follow their field itinerary, and ends immediately before 4:00 or 4:30 p.m.
when they report back to their office. The period between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 or
4:30 p.m. comprises their hours of work in the field, the extent or scope and result
of which are subject to their individual capacity and industry and which "cannot be
determined with reasonable certainty." This is the reason why effective supervision
over field work of salesmen and medical representatives, truck drivers and
merchandisers is practically a physical impossibility. Consequently, they are
excluded from the ten holidays with pay award
Moreover, the requirement that "actual hours of work in the field cannot be
determined with reasonable certainty" must be read in conjunction with Rule IV,
Book III of the Implementing Rules which provides that Field personnel and other
employees whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer are
entitled to holidays with pay.
Rada vs NLRC
January 9, 1992
FACTS: In 1977, Rada was contracted by Philnor Consultants and Planners, Inc as a
driver. He was assigned to a specific project in Manila.The contract he signed was
for 2.3 years. His task was to drive employees to the project from 7am to 4pm. He
was allowed to bring home the company vehicle in order to provide a timely
transportation service to the other project workers. The project he was assigned to
was not completed as scheduled hence, since he has a satisfactory record, he was
re-contracted for an additional 10 months. After 10 months the project was not yet
completed. Several contracts thereafter were made until the project was finished
in1985. At the completion of the project, Rada was terminated as his employment
was co-terminous with the project. He later sued Philnorfor nonpayment of
separation pay and overtime pay. He said he is entitled to be paid OT pay because
he uses extra time to get to the project site from his home and from the project site
to his home every day - in total, he spends an average of 3 hours OT every day.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Rada is entitled to separation pay and OT pay.
HELD:
Separation Pay - NO
The SC ruled that Rada was a project employee whose work was coterminous with
the project for which he was hired. Project employees, as distinguished from regular
or non-project employees, are mentioned in Section 281 of the Labor Code as those
'where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the
completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee. Project employees are not entitled to termination pay
if they are terminated as a result of the completion of the project or any phase
thereof in which they are employed, regardless of the number of projects in which
they have been employed by a particular construction company. Moreover, the
company is not required to obtain clearance from the Secretary of Labor in
connection with such termination.'
OT Pay - YES
Rada is entitled to OT pay. The fact that he picks up employees of Philnor at certain
specified points along EDSA in going to th project site and drops them off at the
same points on his way back from the field office going home to Marikina, Metro
Manila is not merely incidental to Rada's job as a driver. On the contrary, said
transportation arrangement had been adopted, not so much for the convenience of
the employees, but primarily for the benefit of Philnor. As embodied in Philnors
memorandum, they allowed their drivers to bring home their transport vehicles in
order for them to provide a timely transport service and to avoid delay not really
so that the drivers could enjoy the benefits of the company vehicles nor for them to
save on fair
must first be established. Realistically speaking, a seaman, by the very nature of his
job, stays on board a ship or vessel beyond the regular eight-hour work schedule.
For the employer to give him overtime pay for the extra hours when he might be
sleeping or attending to his personal chores or even just lulling away his time would
be extremely unfair and unreasonable.
sleeping or attending to his personal chores or even just lulling away his time would
be extremely unfair and unreasonable.
Contrary to this contention, respondent avers that the instant complaint is not new,
the very same claim having been brought against herein respondent by the same
group of rank and file employees in the case of Associated Labor Union and
Standard Fruit Corporation, NLRC Case No. 26-LS-XI-76 which was filed way back
April 27, 1976 when ALU was the bargaining agent of respondent's rank and file
workers. The said case involved a claim for "waiting time", as the complainants
purportedly were required to assemble at a designated area at least 30 minutes
prior to the start of their scheduled working hours "to ascertain the work force
available for the day by means of a roll call, for the purpose of assignment or
reassignment of employees to such areas in the plantation where they are most
needed."