Mayon vs Adana Petitioner Mayon Hotel & Restaurant is a single proprietor business employed about sixteen (16) employees.

Due to the expiration and non-renewal of the lease contract for the rented space occupied by the said hotel and restaurant at, the hotel operations of the business were suspended. The operation of the restaurant was continued in its new location only 9 of the 16 employees continued. On various dates, the 16 employees filed complaints for underpayment of wages and other money claims against petitioners. Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision in favor of the employees but the NLRC reversed its decision. Issue: WON the employees are entitled to their money claims Held: Yes. Entitlement to labor standard benefits is a separate and distinct concept from payment of separation pay arising from illegal dismissal, and are governed by different provisions of the Labor Code. Respondents have set out with particularity in their complaint, position paper, affidavits and other documents the labor standard benefits they are entitled to, and which they alleged that petitioners have failed to pay them. It was therefore petitioners' burden to prove that they have paid these money claims. One who pleads payment has the burden of proving it, and even where the employees must allege nonpayment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove nonpayment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non payment. This petitioners failed to do. Honda vs. Samahan The case stems from the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) forged between petitioner Honda and respondent union which contained the following provisions: Section 3. 13th Month Pay - The COMPANY shall maintain the present practice in the implementation of the 13th month pay. Section 6. 14th Month Pay - same basis as computation of 13th Month Pay. Section 7. Financial assistance to covered employees in December of each year, of not less than 100% of basic pay. This CBA is effective until year 2000. In the latter part of 1998, the parties started re-negotiations for the fourth and fifth years of their CBA but the talks bogged down which caused a strike for 31 days. The management of Honda issued a memorandum announcing its new computation of the 13th and 14th month pay to be granted to all its employees whereby the thirty-one (31)-day long strike shall be considered unworked days for purposes of computing said benefits. As per the company's new formula, the amount equivalent to 1/12 of the employees' basic salary shall be deducted from these bonuses, with a commitment however that in the event that the strike is declared legal, Honda shall pay the amount deducted. Respondent union opposed the pro-rated computation of the bonuses Issue: whether the pro-rated computation of the 13th month pay and the other bonuses in question is valid and lawful. Held: NO. A collective bargaining agreement refers to the negotiated contract between a legitimate labor organization and the employer concerning wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment in a bargaining unit. 8 As in all contracts, the parties in a CBA may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient provided these are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. 9 Thus, where the CBA is clear and unambiguous, it becomes the law between the parties and compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy of the law. Vallum vs. NLRC

Facts: Hyatt Baguio and petitioner Vallum Security Services entered into a contract for security services under the terms of which Vallum agreed to protect the properties and premises of Hyatt Baguio by providing fifty (50) security guards, on a 24-hour basis, a day. On June 1988, Hyatt Baguio's General Manager, wrote to President of Vallum advising that effective 1 July 1988, the contract of security service would be terminated. Vallum informed Mr. Maulbecker, on 22 June 1988, that it was agreeable to the termination of the contract. On 30 June 1988, private respondents, who were security guards provided by Vallum to Hyatt Baguio, were informed by Vallum's Personnel Officer that the contract between the 2 had already expired. Private respondents were directed to report to Vallum's head office in Muntinlupa for re-assignment. They were also told that failure to report at Sucat would be taken to mean that they were no longer interested in being re-assigned to some other client of Vallum. None of the private respondents reported at Sucat for re-assignment. Instead, they filed several complaints against petitioners in the NLRC in Baguio City for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practices; for violation of labor standards relating to underpayment of wages, premium holiday and restday pay, uniform allowances and meal allowances. They prayed for reinstatement with full backwages. On 19 May 1989, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing the complaints. He found Vallum to be an independent contractor and, consequently, declined to hold Hyatt Baguio liable for dismissal of private respondents. He also held that the termination of services of private respondents by Vallum did not constitute an unfair labor practice, considering that such termination had been brought about by lack of work. Furthermore, the Labor Arbiter held that private respondents were not entitled to backwages or separation pay, in line with the "no work, no pay" principle. Lastly, he found no violation of the labor standard provisions on payment of wages and other employee benefits. Issue: whether or not private respondent security guards are indeed employees of petitioner Hyatt Baguio Held: YES. In determining whether a given set of circumstances constitute or exhibit an employer-employee relationship, the accepted rule is that the elements or circumstances relating to the following matters shall be examined and considered: 1. the selection and engagement of the employees; 2. the payment of wages; 3. the power of dismissal; and 4. the power to control the employees' conduct Orders received by private respondent security guards were set forth on paper bearing the letterheads of both Hyatt Baguio and Vallum. It appears to us, therefore, that Hyatt Baguio explicitly purported, at the very least, to share with Vallum the exercise of the power of control and supervision with Vallum over the security guards, if indeed Vallum was not functioning merely as an alter ego of Hyatt Baguio in respect of the operations of the security guards. The functions performed by Hyatt Baguio's Chief Security Officer were precisely the duties which the head or senior officer of a legitimate security agency would be exercising over its own employees. Vallum was not an independent contractor but was, rather, a "labor-only" contractor. Where labor-only contracting exists in a given case, the law itself implies or establishes an employer-employee relationship between the employer (the owner of the project or establishment) (here, Hyatt Baguio) and the employees of the labor-only contractor (here, Vallum) to prevent any violation or circumvention of provisions of the Labor Code.