Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

1/95

1. PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,petitioner, vs. RICARDO DE VERA, respondent.

G.R. No. 157214. June 7, 25

D E C I S I O N

GARCIA, J.!

Before us is this appeal by way of a petition for review on certiorarifrom the 12 September 2002Decision[1]and the 13 February 2003 esolution[2]of the !ourt of "ppeals in !"#$%% S& 'o% ()1*+, upholdin-

the findin- of ille-al dismissal by the 'ational .abor elations !ommission a-ainst petitioner%

"s culled from the records, the pertinent facts are/

&etitioner &hilippine $lobal !ommunications, nc% &hil!om, is a corporation en-a-ed in the business of

communication services and allied activities, while respondent icardo De era is a physician by profession

whom petitioner enlisted to attend to the medical needs of its employees% "t the cru4 of the controversy is Dr

De era5s status vis a vispetitioner when the latter terminated his en-a-ement%

t appears that on 1) 6ay 17+1, De era, viaa letter dated 1) 6ay 17+1,[3]offered his services to the

petitioner, therein proposin- his plan of wor8s re9uired of a practitioner in industrial medicine, to include the

followin-/

1% "pplication of preventive medicine includin- periodic chec8#up of employees:

2% ;oldin- of clinic hours in the mornin- and afternoon for a total of five ) hours daily for consultation

services to employees:

3% 6ana-ement and treatment of employees that may necessitate hospitali' E >"'S;& !'>"!>C, informed De

era of its decision to discontinue the latter5s @retainer5s contract with the !ompany effective at the close of

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

2/95

business hours of December 31, 177(C because mana-ement has decided that it would be more practical to

provide medical services to its employees throu-h accredited hospitals near the company premises%

n 22 anuary 177*, De era filed a complaint for ille-al dismissal before the 'ational .abor elations

!ommission '.!, alle-in- that that he had been actually employed by &hilcom as its company physician

since 17+1 and was dismissed without due process% ;e averred that he was desi-nated as a @company

physician on retainer basisC for reasons alle-edly 8nown only to &hilcom% ;e li8ewise professed that since he

was not conversant with labor laws, he did not -ive much attention to the desi-nation as anyway he wor8ed on

a full#time basis and was paid a basic monthly salary plus frin-e benefits, li8e any other re-ular employees of

&hilcom%

n 21 December 177+, .abor "rbiter amon alentin !% eyes came out with a decision [*]dismissin- De

era5s complaint for lac8 of merit, on the rationale that as a @retained physicianC under a valid contract mutually

a-reed upon by the parties, De era was an @independent contractorC and that he @was not dismissed but

rather his contract with [&;.!6] ended when said contract was not renewed after December 31, 177(C%

n De era5s appeal to the '.!, the latter, in a decision [+]dated 23 ctober 2000, reversed the word

used is @modifiedC that of the .abor "rbiter, on a findin- that De era is &hilcom5s @re-ular employeeC and

accordin-ly directed the company to reinstate him to his former position without loss of seniority ri-hts andprivile-es and with full bac8wa-es from the date of his dismissal until actual reinstatement% Ge 9uote the

dispositive portion of the decision/

G;F, the assailed decision is modified in that respondent is ordered to reinstate complainant to his

former position without loss of seniority ri-hts and privile-es with full bac8wa-es from the date of his dismissa

until his actual reinstatement computed as follows/

Bac8wa-es/

a Basic Salary

From Dec% 31, 177( to "pr% 10, 2000 H 37%33 mos%

&==,=00%00 4 37%33 mos% &1,*)0,1+)%00

b 13th6onth &ay/

1I12 of &1,*)0,1+)%00 1=),+=+%*)

c >ravellin- allowance/

&1,000%00 4 37%33 mos% 37,330%00he decision stands in other aspects%

S DD%

Gith its motion for reconsideration havin- been denied by the '.! in its order of 2* February 2001,[7]&hilcom then went to the !ourt of "ppeals on a petition for certiorari, thereat doc8eted as CA"G.R. SP No

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

3/95

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

4/95

n a lon- line of decisions,[1)]the !ourt, in determinin- the e4istence of an employer#employee relationship

has invariably adhered to the four#fold test, to wit/ [1] the selection and en-a-ement of the employee: [2] the

payment of wa-es: [3] the power of dismissal: and [=] the power to control the employee5s conduct, or the so#

called @control testC, considered to be the most important element%

"pplyin- the four#fold test to this case, we initially find that it was respondent himself who sets the

parameters of what his duties would be in offerin- his services to petitioner% >his is borne by no less than his

1) 6ay 17+1 letter[1(] which, in full, reads/

@6ay 1), 17+1

6rs% "dela .% icente

ice &resident, ndustrial elations

&hil!om, &aseo de o4as

6a8ati, 6etro 6anila

6 a d a m /

shall have the time and effort for the position of !ompany physician with your corporation if you deemed it

necessary% have the necessary 9ualifications, trainin- and e4perience re9uired by such position and am

confident that can serve the best interests of your employees, medically%

6y plan of wor8s and tar-ets shall cover the duties and responsibilities re9uired of a practitioner in industrial

medicine which includes the followin-/

1% "pplication of preventive medicine includin- periodic chec8#up of employees:

2% ;oldin- of clinic hours in the mornin- and afternoon for a total of five ) hours daily for

consultation services to employees:

3% 6ana-ement and treatment of employees that may necessitate hospitali

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

5/95

shall be very -rateful for whatever 8ind attention you may e4tend on this matter and hopin- that it will merit

acceptance, remain

ery truly yours,

si-ned

!"D % D ", 6%D%C

Si-nificantly, the fore-oin- letter was substantially the basis of the labor arbiter5s findin- that there e4isted

no employer#employee relationship between petitioner and respondent, in addition to the followin- factua

settin-s/

>he fact that the complainant was not considered an employee was reco-nio carry out your memo effectively and to provide a systematic and wor8able time schedule which will serve

the best interests of both the present and absent employee, may propose an e4tended two#hour service1/00#3/00 &%6% durin- which period can devote ample time to both -roups dependin- upon the ur-ency of

the situation% shall read?ust my private schedule to be available for the herein proposed e4tended hours

should you consider this proposal%

"s re-ards compensation for the additional time and services that shall render to the employees, it is

dependent on your evaluation of the merit of my proposal and your confidence on my ability to carry out

efficiently said proposal%5

>he tenor of this letter indicates that the complainant was proposin- to e4tend his time with the respondent and

see8in- additional compensation for said e4tension% >his shows that the respondent &;.!6 did not have

control over the schedule of the complainant as it [is] the complainant who is proposin- his own schedule andas8in- to be paid for the same% >his is proof that the complainant understood that his relationship with the

respondent &;.!6 was a retained physician and not as an employee% f he were an employee he could no

ne-otiate as to his hours of wor8%

>he complainant is a Doctor of 6edicine, and presumably, a well#educated person% Let, the complainant, in his

position paper, is claimin- that he is not conversant with the law and did not -ive much attention to his ?ob title#

on a Mretainer basis5% But the same complainant admits in his affidavit that his service for the respondent was

covered by a retainership contract [which] was renewed every year from 17+2 to 177=% Jpon readin- the

contract dated September (, 17+2, si-ned by the complainant himself "nne4 M!5 of espondent5s &osition

&aper, it clearly states that is a retainership contract% >he retainer fee is indicated thereon and the duration of

the contract for one year is also clearly indicated in para-raph ) of the etainership !ontract% >he complainan

cannot claim that he was unaware that the Mcontract5 was -ood only for one year, as he si-ned the same

without any ob?ections% >he complainant also accepted its renewal every year thereafter until 177=% "s a

literate person and educated person, the complainant cannot claim that he does not 8now what contract he

si-ned and that it was renewed on a year to year basis% [1*]

>he labor arbiter added the indicia, not disputed by respondent, that from the time he started to wor8 with

petitioner, he never was included in its payroll: was never deducted any contribution for remittance to the

Social Security System SSS: and was in fact sub?ected by petitioner to the ten 10N percent withholdin- ta4

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

6/95

for his professional fee, in accordance with the 'ational nternal evenue !ode, matters which are simply

inconsistent with an employer#employee relationship% n the precise words of the labor arbiter/

@444 444 444 "fter more than ten years of services to &;.!6, the complainant would have noticed that no

SSS deductions were made on his remuneration or that the respondent was deductin- the 10N ta4 for his fees

and he surely would have complained about them if he had considered himself an employee of &;.!6% Bu

he never raised those issues% "n ordinary employee would consider the SSS payments important and thus

ma8e sure they would be paid% >he complainant never bothered to as8 the respondent to remit his SSS

contributions% >his clearly shows that the complainant never considered himself an employee of &;.!6

and thus, respondent need not remit anythin- to the SSS in favor of the complainant%C[1+]

!learly, the elements of an employer#employee relationship are wantin- in this case% Ge may add that the

records are replete with evidence showin- that respondent had to bill petitioner for his monthly professiona

fees%[17]t simply runs a-ainst the -rain of common e4perience to ima-ine that an ordinary employee has yet to

bill his employer to receive his salary%

Ge note, too, that the power to terminate the parties5 relationship was mutually vested on both% ithe

may terminate the arran-ement at will, with or without cause% [20]

Finally, remar8ably absent from the parties5 arran-ement is the element of control, whereby the

employer has reserved the ri-ht to control the employee not only as to the result of the wor8 done but also as

to the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished% [21]

;ere, petitioner had no control over the means and methods by which respondent went about performin-

his wor8 at the company premises% ;e could even embar8 in the private practice of his profession, not to

mention the fact that respondent5s wor8 hours and the additional compensation therefor were ne-otiated upon

by the parties%[22]n fine, the parties themselves practically a-reed on every terms and conditions o

respondent5s en-a-ement, which thereby ne-ates the element of control in their relationship% For sure

respondent has never cited even a sin-le instance when petitioner interfered with his wor8%

Let, despite the fore-oin-, all of which are e4tant on record, both the '.! and the !ourt of "ppeals ruled

that respondent is petitioner5s re-ular employee at the time of his separation%

&artly says the appellate court in its assailed decision/

Be that as it may, it is admitted that private respondent5s written Mretainer contract5 was renewed annually from

17+1 to 177= and the alle-ed Mrenewal5 for 177) and 177(, when it was alle-edly terminated, was verbal%

"rticle 2+0 of the .abor code sic provides/

M>he provisions of written a-reement to the contrary no'()'*+'n-)n n- /e/-0e++ o '*e o//eeen'+ o '*e 3/')e+, an employment shall be deemed to be re-ular where the employee has beenen-a-ed to perform in the usual business or trade of the employer, e4cept where the employment has been

fi4ed for a specific pro?ect or underta8in- the completion or termination of which has been determined at the

time of the en-a-ement of the employee or where the wor8 or services to be performed is seasonal in nature

and the employment is for the duration of the season%5

An e30oen' +*00 6e -eee- 'o 6e +u0 ) )' )+ no' o8e/e- 6 '*e 3/ee-)n 3//3*!P/o8)-e-, T*', n e30oee (*o *+ /en-e/e- ' 0e+' one 91: e/ o +e/8)e, whether such is

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

7/95

continuous or bro8en, +*00 6e on+)-e/e- /eu0/ ()'* /e+3e' 'o '*e ')8)' )n (*)* *e )+e30oe-and his employment shall continue while such activity e4ists%5

&arenthetically, the position of company physician, in the case of petitioner, is usually necessary and desirable

because the need for medical attention of employees cannot be foreseen, hence, it is necessary to have a

physician at hand% n fact, the importance and desirability of a physician in a company premises is reco-nihe provision relied upon reads/

">% 1)*% Emergency medical and dental services% E t shall be the duty of every employer to furnish his

employees in any locality with free medical and dental attendance and facilities consistin- of/

a >he services of a full#time re-istered nurse when the number of employees e4ceeds fifty )0

but not more than two hundred 200 e4cept when the employer does not maintain hahe Secretary of .abor shal

provide by appropriate re-ulations the services that shall be re9uired where the number of

employees does not e4ceed fifty )0 and shall determine by appropriate order ha

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

8/95

n cases of ha">D%

'o pronouncement as to costs%

SO ORDERED.

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

9/95

2. G.R. No. 11151 M/* 5, 1;;#

PHILIPPINE &UJI he '.! decision reverses on appeal a decision of the .abor "rbiter findin- private respondent to

be an employee of another firm, the S8illpower, nc%, and not of petitioner Fu?i Oero4%

>he 9uestion raised in this case is whether private respondent is an employee of Fu?i Oero4 as the '.!found or of S8illpower, nc% as the .abor "rbiter found% For reasons to be hereafter e4plained, we hold that

private respondent is an employee of Fu?i Oero4 and accordin-ly dismiss the petition for review of Fu?i Oero4%

>he followin- are the facts%

n 6ay (, 17**, petitioner Fu?i Oero4 entered into an a-reement under which S8illpower, nc% supplied wor8ers

to operate copier machines of Fu?i Oero4 as part of the latterPs QOero4 !opier &ro?ectQ in its sales offices%

&rivate respondent &edro $arado was assi-ned as 8ey operator at Fu?i Oero4Ps branch% at Buendia, 6a8ati,

6etro 6anila, in February of 17+0%

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

10/95

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

11/95

17+= he wor8ed e4clusively for petitioner% ndeed, he was recruited by S8illpower, nc% solely for assi-nment to

Fu?i Oero4 to wor8 in the latterPs Oero4 !opier &ro?ect%@

&etitioners claim that S8illpower, nc% has other clients to whom it provided QtemporaryQ services% >hat

however, is irrelevant% Ghat is important is that once employed, $arado was never assi-ned to any other client

of S8illpower, nc% n fact, althou-h under the a-reement S8illpower, nc% was supposed to provide only

QtemporaryQ services, S8illpower, nc% actually supplied Fu?i Oero4 the labor which the latter needed for its

Oero4 !opier &ro?ect for seven * years, from 17** to 17+=%

n anuary 1, 17+3, private respondent si-ned a contract entitled Q"ppointment as !ontract Gor8er,Q in which

it was stated that private respondentPs status was that of a contract wor8er for a definite period from anuary 1,

17+3 to une 30, 17+3% "s such, private respondentPs employment was considered temporary, to terminate

automatically si4 ( months afterwards, without necessity of any notice and without entitlin- private

respondent to separation or termination pay% &rivate respondent was made to understand that he was an

employee of S8illpower, nc%, and not of the client to which he was assi-ned% >herefore, the termination of the

contract or any renewal or e4tension thereof did not entitle him to become an employee of the client and the

latter was not under any obli-ation to appoint him as such, Qnotwithstandin- the total duration of the contract or

any e4tension or renewal thereof%Q

>his is nothin- but a crude attempt to circumvent the law and undermine the security of tenure of private

respondent by employin- wor8ers under si4#month contracts which are later e4tended indefinitely throu-h

renewals% "s this !ourt held in the Philippine Bank o Comm!nications v% NLRC/ 4

t is not difficult to see that to uphold the contractual arran-ement between the ban8 and !S

would in effect be to permit employers to avoid the necessity of hirin- re-ular or permanent

employees and to enable them to 8eep their employees indefinitely on a temporary or casua

status, thus to deny them security of tenure in their ?obs% "rticle 10( of the .abor !ode is

precisely desi-ned to prevent such a result%

Second% &etitioner contends that the service provided by S8illpower, nc%, namely, operatin- petitionersP 4ero4machine, is not directly related nor necessary to the business of sellin- and leasin- copier machines of

petitioner% &etitioners claim that their Oero4 !opier &ro?ect is ?ust for public service and is purely incidental to its

business% Ghat petitioners earn from the pro?ect is not even sufficient to defray their e4penses, let alone brin-

profits to them% "s such, the pro?ect is no different from other services which can le-ally be contracted out,

such as security and ?anitorial services% &etitioners contend that the copier service can be considered as part

of their Qhouse8eepin-Q tas8s which can be let to independent contractors% 5

Ge disa-ree% "s correctly held by the '.!, at the very least, the Oero4 !opier &ro?ect of petitioners promotes

-oodwill for the company % t may not -enerate income for the company but there are activities which a

company may find necessary to en-a-e in because they ultimately redound to its benefit% peratin- the

companyPs copiers at its branches advertises the 9uality of their products and promotes the companyPs

reputation and public ima-e% t also advertises the utility and convenience of havin- a copier machine% t is

noteworthy that while not operated for profit the copyin- service is not intended either to be Qpromotional,Q as

indeed, petitioner char-ed a fee for the copies made%

t is wron- to say that if a tas8 is not directly related to the employerPs business, or it falls under what may be

considered Qhouse8eepin- activities,Q the one performin- the tas8 is a ?ob contractor% >he determination of the

e4istence of an employer#employee relationship is defined by law accordin- to the facts of each case

re-ardless of the nature of the activities involved%

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

12/95

>hird% &etitioners contend that it never e4ercised control over the conduct of private respondent% &etitioners

alle-e that the salaries paid to $arado, as well as his employment records, vouchers and loanchec8s from the

SSS were coursed throu-h S8illpower, nc% n addition private respondent applied for vacation leaves to

S8illpower, nc%

t is also contended that it was S8illpower, nc% which twice re9uired private respondent to e4plain why he

should not be dismissed for the spoila-e in Fu?i Oero4Ps Buendia branch and suspended him pendin- the result

of the investi-ation% "ccordin- to petitioners, althou-h they conducted an administrative investi-ation, the

purpose was only to determine the complicity of their own employees in the incident, if any, and any crimina

liability of private respondent%

>his claim is belied by two letters written by "tty% ictorino ;% .uis, .e-al and ndustrial elations fficer of the

company, to the union president, 'ic8 6acarai-% >he first letter, dated uly (, 17+3, stated/

>his has reference to your various letters dated today on administrative case concernin-

6essrs% !risostomo !ru

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

13/95

interpretation, application, or violation of any provisions of the !B" a-reement % % % "s li8ewise

pointed out in our letter of uly ( reco!rse to rievance may possibly be resorted to i in the

/nion0s opinion a penalty imposed !pon a respondent /nion member is discriminating to the

member or other"ise illegal, !nd!ly harsh, and the like% Jltimately, the remedy lies in appeal to

the '.!, as in similar cases in the past% mphasis ours

>hese letters reveal the role which Fu?i Oero4 played in the dismissal of the private respondent% >hey dispe

any doubt that Fu?i Oero4 e4ercised disciplinary authority over $arado and that S8illpower, nc% issued the

order of dismissal merely in obedience to the decision of petitioner%

Fourth% &etitioner avers that S8illpower, nc% is a hi-hly#capitalihere is Qlabor#onlyQ contractin- where the person supplyin- wor8ers to an employer does not

have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, e9uipment, machineries, wor8

premises, amon- others, and the wor8ers recruited and placed by such persons are performin-

activities which are directly related to the principal business of such employer% n such cases,

the person or intermediary shall be considered merely as an a-ent of the employer who shall be

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

14/95

responsible to the wor8ers in the same manner and e4tent as if the latter were directly employed

by him%

&etitioner Fu?i Oero4 ar-ues that S8illpower, nc% had typewriters and service vehicles for the conduct of its

business independently of the petitioner% But typewriters and vehicles bear no direct relationship to the ?ob for

which S8illpower, nc% contracted its service of operatin- copier machines and offerin- copyin- services to the

public% >he fact is that S8illpower, nc% did not have copyin- machines of its own% Ghat it did was simply to

supply manpower to Fu?i Oero4% >he phrase Qsubstantial capital and investment in the form of tools, e9uipment,

machineries, wor8 premises, and other materials which are necessary in the conduct of his business,Q in the

mplementin- ules clearly contemplates tools, e9uipment, etc%, which are directly related to the service it is

bein- contracted to render% ne who does not have an independent business for underta8in- the ?ob

contracted for is ?ust an a-ent of the employer%

Fifth% >he "-reement between petitioner Fu?i Oero4 and S8illpower, nc% provides that S8illpower, nc% is an

independent contractor and that the wor8ers hired by it Qshall not, in any manner and under any circumstances,

be considered employees of [the] !ompany, and that the !ompany has no control or supervision whatsoever

over the conduct of the !ontractor or any of its wor8ers in respect to how they accomplish their wor8 or

perform the !ontractorPs obli-ations under this "$6'>%Q

n #abas v% Caliornia -an!act!ring Company, 1nc%, ;this !ourt held on facts similar to those in case at bar/

>here is no doubt that in the case at bar, .ivi performs Qmanpower services,Q meanin- to say, it

contracts out labor in favor of clients% Ge hold that it is one notwithstandin- its vehement claims

to the contrary, and notwithstandin- the provision of the contract that it is Qan independent

contractor%Q >he nature of onePs business is not determined by self#servin- appellations one

attaches thereto but by the tests provided by statute and prevailin- case law% >he bare fact that

.ivi maintains a separate line of business does not e4tin-uish the e9ual fact that it has provided

!alifornia with wor8ers to pursue the latterPs own business% n this connection, we do not a-ree

that the petitioners had been made to perform activities Qwhich are not directly related to the

-eneral business of manufacturin-,Q !aliforniaPs purported Qprincipal operation activity%Q >hepetitioners had been char-ed with Qmerchandisin- [sic] promotion or sale of the products of

[!alifornia] in the different sales outlets in 6etro 6anila includin- tas8 and occasional [sic] price

ta--in-,Q an activity that is doubtless, an inte-ral part of the manufacturin- business% t is not

then, as if .ivi had served as its !aliforniaPs promotions or sales arm or a-ents, or otherwise,

rendered a piece of wor8 it !alifornia could not have itself done: .ivi as a placement a-ency,

had simply supplied it with the manpower necessary to carry out its !aliforniaPs merchandisin-

activities, usin- its !aliforniaPs premises and e9uipment%

444 444 444

>he fact that the petitioners have alle-edly admitted bein- .iviPs Qdirect employeesQ in their

complaints is nothin- conclusive% For one thin-, the fact that the petitioners were are, will not

absolve !alifornia since liability has been imposed by le-al operation% For another, and as we

indicated, the relations of parties must be ?ud-ed from case to case and the decree of law, and

not by declaration of parties%

S8illpower, nc% is, therefore, a Qlabor#onlyQ contractor and $arado is not its employee% 'o -rave abuse of

discretion can thus be imputed to the '.! for declarin- petitioner Fu?i Oero4 -uilty of ille-al dismissal of

private respondent%

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

15/95

"!!D'$.L, the petition for certiorari is DS6SSD for lac8 of merit%

S DD%

@. G.R. No. L"4@$25 M ;, 1;$$

CONTINENTAL MARBLE CORP. n- &ELIPE DAVID, petitioner,vs%

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION 9NLRC: ARBITRATOR JOSE T. COLLADO n- RODITO

NASA=AO, respondents%

Benito P. 2abie or petitioners.

Narciso C. Parayno, Jr. or respondents.

PADILLA, J.:

n this petition for mandamus, prohibition and certiorari with preliminary in?unction, petitioners see8 to annu

and set aside the decision rendered by the respondent "rbitrator ose >% !ollado, dated 27 December 17*), in

'.! !ase 'o% .#(1)1, entitled/ Qodito 'asayao, complainant, vers!s!ontinental 6arble !orp% and Felipe

David, respondents,Q and the resolution issued by the respondent !ommission, dated * 6ay 17*(, whichdismissed herein petitionersP appeal from said decision%

n his complaint before the '.!, herein private respondent odito 'asayao claimed that sometime in 6ay

17*=, he was appointed plant mana-er of the petitioner corporation, with an alle-ed compensation of

&3,000%00, a month, or 2)N of the monthly net income of the company, whichever is -reater, and when the

company failed to pay his salary for the months of 6ay, une, and uly 17*=, odito 'asayao filed a complaint

with the 'ational .abor elations !ommission, Branch , for the recovery of said unpaid varies% >he case was

doc8eted therein as '.! !ase 'o% .#(1)1%

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

16/95

"nswerin-, the herein petitioners denied that odito 'asayao was employed in the company as plant mana-e

with a fi4ed monthly salary of &3,000%00% >hey claimed that the underta8in- a-reed upon by the parties was a

?oint venture, a sort of partnership, wherein odito 'asayao was to 8eep the machinery in -ood wor8in-

condition and, in return, he would -et the contracts from end#users for the installation of marble products, in

which the company would not interfere% n addition, private respondent 'asayao was to receive an amount

e9uivalent to 2)N of the net profits that the petitioner corporation would realihe case was submitted for voluntary arbitration and the parties selected the herein respondent ose >%

!ollado as voluntary arbitrator% n the course of the proceedin-s, however, the herein petitioners challen-ed the

arbitratorPs capacity to try and decide the case fairly and ?udiciously and as8ed him to desist from further

hearin- the case% But, the respondent arbitrator refused% n due time, or on 27 December 17*), he rendered

?ud-ment in favor of the complainant, orderin- the herein petitioners to pay odito 'asayao the amount o

&7,000%00, within 10 days from notice%1

Jpon receipt of the decision, the herein petitioners appealed to the 'ational .abor elations !ommission on

-rounds that the labor arbiter -ravely abused his discretion in persistin- to hear and decide the case

notwithstandin- petitionersP re9uest for him to desist therefrom/ and that the appealed decision is nosupported by evidence%2

n 1+ 6arch 17*(, odito 'asayao filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the -round that the decision of the

voluntary arbitrator is final, unappealable, and immediately e4ecutory: @and, on 23 6arch 17*(, he filed a

motion for the issuance of a writ of e4ecution% 4

"ctin- on the motions, the respondent !ommission, in a resolution dated * 6ay 17*(, dismissed the appeal on

the -round that the decision appealed from is final, unappealable and immediately e4ecutory, and ordered the

herein petitioners to comply with the decision of the voluntary arbitrator within 10 days from receipt of the

resolution% 5

>he petitioners are before the !ourt in the present recourse% "s prayed for, the !ourt issued a temporary

restrainin- order, restrainin- herein respondents from enforcin- andIor carryin- out the 9uestioned decision

and resolution%#

>he issue for resolution is whether or not the private respondent odito 'asayao was employed as plant

mana-er of petitioner !ontinental 6arble !orporation with a monthly salary of &3,000%00 or 2)N of its monthly

income, whichever is -reater, as claimed by said respondent, or entitled to receive only an amount e9uivalent

to 2)N of net profits, if any, that the company would realihe respondent arbitrator found that the a-reement between the parties was for the petitioner company to pay

the private respondent, odito 'asayao, a monthly salary of &3,000%00, and, conse9uently, ordered the

company to pay odito 'asayao the amount of &7,000%00 coverin- a period of three 3 months, that is, 6ay

une and uly 17*=%

>he respondent odito 'asayao now contends that the ?ud-ment or award of the voluntary arbitrator is final,

unappealable and immediately e4ecutory, and may not be reviewed by the !ourt% ;is contention is based upon

the provisions of "rt% 2(2 of the .abor !ode, as amended%

>he petitioners, upon the other hand, maintain that Qwhere there is patent and manifest abuse of discretion, the

rule on unappealability of awards of a voluntary arbitrator becomes fle4ible and it is the inherent power of the

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

17/95

!ourts to maintain the peoplePs faith in the administration of ?ustice%Q >he 9uestion of the finality and

unappealability of a decision andIor award of a voluntary arbitrator had been laid to rest in &ceanic Bic

$ivision 322+4 vs. Romero, 7and reiterated in -antrade 2--C $ivision Employees and +orkers /nion vs.

Bac!ngan%$>he !ourt therein ruled that it can review the decisions of voluntary arbitrators, thus#

Ge a-ree with the petitioner that the decisions of voluntary arbitrators must be -iven the hi-hest

respect and as a -eneral rule must be accorded a certain measure of finality% >his is especially

true where the arbitrator chosen by the parties en?oys the first rate credentials of &rofessor

Flerida uth &ineda omero, Director of the J%&% .aw !enter and an academician o

un9uestioned e4pertise in the field of .abor .aw% t is not correct, however, that this respect

precludes the e4ercise of ?udicial review over their decisions% "rticle 2(2 of the .abor !ode

ma8in- voluntary arbitration awards final, inappealable, and e4ecutory e4cept where the money

claims e4ceed & l 00,000%00 or =0N of paid#up capital of the employer or where there is abuse

of discretion or -ross incompetence refers to appeals to the 'ational .abor elations

!ommission and not to ?udicial review%

nspite of statutory provisions ma8in- PfinalP the decisions of certain administrative a-encies, we

have ta8en co-nihere is no provision for appeal in the

statute creatin- the Sandi-anbayan but this has not precluded us from e4aminin- decisions of

this special court brou-ht to us in proper petitions% %%%

>he !ourt further said/

" voluntary arbitrator by the nature of her fucntions acts in 9uasi#?udicial capacity% >here is no

reason why herdecisions involvin- interpretation of law should be beyond this !ourtPs review

"dministrative officials are presumed to act in accordance with law and yet we do hesitate to

pass upon their wor8 where a 9uestion of law is involved or where a showin- of abuse of

authority or discretion in their official acts is properly raised in petitions for certiorari%

>he fore-oin- pronouncements find support in Section 27 of epublic "ct 'o% +*(, otherwise 8nown as the

"rbitration .aw, which provides/

Sec% 27%%ppeals 5"n appeal may be ta8en from an order made in a proceedin- under this

"ct, or from a ?ud-ment entered upon an award throu-h certiorari proceedin-s, but such

appeals shall be limited to 9uestions of law% >he proceedin-s upon such an appeal, includin-

the ?ud-ment thereon shall be -overned by the ules of !ourt in so far as they are applicable%

>he private respondent, odito 'asayao, in his "nswer to the petition, ;also claims that the case is premature

for non#e4haustion of administrative remedies% ;e contends that the decision of the respondent !ommission

should have been first appealed by petitioners to the Secretary of .abor, and, if they are not satisfied with his

decision, to appeal to the &resident of the &hilippines, before resort is made to the !ourt%

>he contention is without merit% >he doctrine of e4haustion of administrative remedies cannot be invo8ed in

this case, as contended% n the recent case of John Clement Cons!ltants, 1nc. vers!s National Labor Relations

Commission, 1the !ourt said/

"s is well 8nown, no law provides for an appeal from decisions of the 'ational .abor elations

!ommission: hence, there can be no review and reversal on appeal by hi-her authority of its

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

18/95

factual or le-al conclusions% Ghen, however, it decides a case without or in e4cess of its

?urisdiction, or with -rave abuse of discretion, the party thereby adversely affected may obtain a

review and nullification of that decision by this !ourt throu-h the e4traordinary writ of certiorari

Since, in this case, it appears that the !ommission has indeed acted without ?urisdiction and

with -rave abuse of discretion in ta8in- co-nihe Social Security System, 21 S!" 72=: 6afinco >radin- !orp% v% ple, s!pra, and

osario Brothers, nc% v% ple, 131 S!" *2%78re99an:;'

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

19/95

"bsent the power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which his wor8 was to be

accomplished, there was no employer#employee relationship between the parties% ;ence, there is no basis for

an award of unpaid salaries or wa-es to odito 'asayao%

G;F, the decision rendered by the respondent ose >% !ollado in '.! !ase 'o% .#(1)1, entitled/

Qodito 'asayao, complainant, vers!s!ontinental 6arble !orp% and Felipe David, respondents,Q on 27

December 17*), and the resolution issued by the respondent 'ational .abor elations !ommission in said

case on * 6ay 17*(, are SD and S> "SD and another one entered DS6SS'$ private

respondentPs complaints% >he temporary restranin- order heretofore isued by the !ourt is made permanent%

Githout costs%

S DD%

4. G.R. No. L"4$#45 Jnu/ 7, 1;$7

BROTHERHOOD LABOR UNIT= MOVEMENT O& THE PHILIPPINES, ANTONIO CASBADILLO,PROSPERO TABLADA, ERNESTO BENGSON, PATRICIO SERRANO, ANTONIO B. BOBIAS, VIRGILIOECHAS, DOMINGO PARINAS, NORBERTO GALANG, JUANITO NAVARRO, NESTORIO MARCELLANA,TEO&ILO B. CACATIAN, RU&O L. EGUIA, CARLOS SUMO=AN, LAMBERTO RONUILLO, ANGELITOAMANCIO, DANILO B. MATIAR, ET AL., petitioners,vs%

HON. RONALDO B. ?AMORA, PRESIDENTIAL ASSISTANT &OR LEGAL A&&AIRS, O&&ICE O& THEPRESIDENT, HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, UNDERSECRETAR= O& LABOR, SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION,GENARO OLIVES, ENRIUE CAMAHORT, &EDERICO OATE, ERNESTO VILLANUEVA, ANTONIOBOCALING n- GODO&REDO CUETO, respondents%

%rmando >. %mpil or petitioners.

?ig!ion Reyna, -ontecillo and &ngsiako La" &ice or private respondents.

GUTIERRE?, JR., J.:

>he elemental 9uestion in labor law of whether or not an employer#employee relationship e4ists between

petitioners#members of the QBrotherhood .abor Jnit 6ovement of the &hilippinesQ B.J6 and respondent

San 6i-uel !orporation, is the main issue in this petition% >he disputed decision of public respondent onaldo

amora, &residential "ssistant for le-al "ffairs, contains a brief summary of the facts involved/

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

20/95

1% >he records disclose that on uly 11, 17(7, B.J6 filed a complaint with the now defunct

!ourt of ndustrial elations, char-in- San 6i-uel !orporation, and the followin- officers

nri9ue !amahort, Federico fiate Feliciano "rceo, 6elencio u-enia r%, rnesto illanueva,

"ntonio Bocalin- and $odofredo !ueto of unfair labor practice as set forth in Section = a, sub#

sections 1 and = of epublic "ct 'o% +*) and of .e-al dismissal% t was alle-ed that

respondents ordered the individual complainants to disaffiliate from the complainant union: and

that mana-ement dismissed the individual complainants when they insisted on their union

membership%

n their part, respondents moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the -rounds that the

complainants are not and have never been employees of respondent company but employees

of the independent contractor: that respondent company has never had control over the means

and methods followed by the independent contractor who en?oyed full authority to hire and

control said employees: and that the individual complainants are barred by estoppel from

assertin- that they are employees of respondent company%

Ghile pendin- with the !ourt of ndustrial elations ! pleadin-s and testimonial and

documentary evidences were duly presented, althou-h the actual hearin- was delayed by

several postponements% >he dispute was ta8en over by the 'ational .abor elations!ommission '.! with the decreed abolition of the ! and the hearin- of the case

intransferably commenced on September +, 17*)%

n February 7, 17*(, .abor "rbiter 'estor !% .im found for complainants which was concurred

in by the '.! in a decision dated une 2+, 17*(% >he amount of bac8wa-es awarded,

however, was reduced by '.! to the e9uivalent of one 1 year salary%

n appeal, the Secretary in a decision dated une 1, 17**, set aside the '.! rulin-, stressin-

the absence of an employer#mployee relationship as borne out by the records of the case% %%%

>he petitioners stron-ly ar-ue that there e4ists an employer#employee relationship between them and therespondent company and that they were dismissed for unionism, an act constitutin- unfair labor practice Qfor

which respondents must be made to answer%Q

Jnrebutted evidence and testimony on record establish that the petitioners are wor8ers who have been

employed at the San 6i-uel &arola $lass Factory since 17(1, avera-in- about seven * years of service at

the time of their termination% >hey wor8ed as Qcar-adoresQ or QpahinanteQ at the S6! &lant loadin-, unloadin-,

pilin- or palletin- empty bottles and woosen shells to and from company truc8s and warehouses% "t times, they

accompanied the company truc8s on their delivery routes%

>he petitioners first reported for wor8 to Superintendent#in#!har-e !amahort% >hey were issued -ate passes

si-ned by !amahort and were provided by the respondent company with the tools, e9uipment and

paraphernalia used in the loadin-, unloadin-, pilin- and haulin- operation%

ob orders emanated from !amahort% >he orders are then transmitted to an assistant#officer#in#char-e% n turn

the assistant informs the warehousemen and chec8ers re-ardin- the same% >he latter, thereafter, relays said

orders to the capata

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

21/95

necessarily mean a full ei-ht + hour day for the petitioners% ;owever, wor8,at times, e4ceeded the ei-ht +

hour day and necessitated wor8 on Sundays and holidays% For this, they were neither paid overtime nor

compensation for wor8 on Sundays and holidays%

&etitioners were paid every ten 10 days on a piece rate basis, that is, accordin- to the number of cartons and

wooden shells they were able to load, unload, or pile% >he -roup leader notes down the number or volume of

wor8 that each individual wor8er has accomplished% >his is then made the basis of a report or statement which

is compared with the notes of the chec8er and warehousemen as to whether or not they tally% Final approval of

report is by officer#in#char-e !amahort% >he pay chec8 is -iven to the -roup leaders for encashment

distribution, and payment to the petitioners in accordance with payrolls prepared by said leaders% From the

total earnin-s of the -roup, the -roup leader -ets a participation or share of ten 10N percent plus an

additional amount from the earnin-s of each individual%

>he petitioners wor8ed e4clusive at the S6! plant, never havin- been assi-ned to other companies or

departments of S6! plant, even when the volume of wor8 was at its minimum% Ghen any of the -lass furnaces

suffered a brea8down, ma8in- a shutdown necessary, the petitioners wor8 was temporarily suspended

>hereafter, the petitioners would return to wor8 at the -lass plant%

Sometime in anuary, 17(7, the petitioner wor8ers T numberin- one hundred and forty 1=0 or-ani

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

22/95

of dismissal: and d the employerPs power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by

which the wor8 is to be accomplished% t% is the called Qcontrol testQ that is the most important element

nvestment &lannin- !orp% of the &hils% v% >he Social Security System, 21 S!" 72=: 6afinco >radin- !orp% v

ple, s!pra,and osario Brothers, nc% v% ple, 131 S!" *2%

"pplyin- the above criteria, the evidence stron-ly indicates the e4istence of an employer#employee

relationship between petitioner wor8ers and respondent San 6i-uel !orporation% >he respondent asserts that

the petitioners are employees of the $uaranteed .abor !ontractor, an independent labor contractin- firm%

>he facts and evidence on record ne-ate respondent S6!Ps claim%

>he e4istence of an independent contractor relationship is -enerally established by the followin- criteria

Qwhether or not the contractor is carryin- on an independent business: the nature and e4tent of the wor8: the

s8ill re9uired: the term and duration of the relationship: the ri-ht to assi-n the performance of a specified piece

of wor8: the control and supervision of the wor8 to another: the employerPs power with respect to the hirin-

firin- and payment of the contractorPs wor8ers: the control of the premises: the duty to supply the premises

tools, appliances, materials and labor: and the mode, manner and terms of paymentQ )( !S 6aster and

Servant, Sec% 32, =(: See also 2* "6% ur% ndependent !ontractor, Sec% ), =+) and "nne4 *) ". *2(0*2*

'one of the above criteria e4ists in the case at bar%

;i-hly unusual and suspect is the absence of a written contract to specify the performance of a specified piece

of wor8, the nature and e4tent of the wor8 and the term and duration of the relationship% >he records fail to

show that a lar-e commercial outfit, such as the San 6i-uel !orporation, entered into mere oral a-reements of

employment or labor contractin- where the same would involve considerable e4penses and dealin-s with a

lar-e number of wor8ers over a lon- period of time% Despite respondent companyPs alle-ations not an iota of

evidence was offered to prove the same or its particulars% Such failure ma8es respondent S6!Ps stand sub?ect

to serious doubts%

Jncontroverted is the fact that for an avera-e of seven * years, each of the petitioners had wor8edcontinuously and e4clusively for the respondent companyPs shippin- and warehousin- department

!onsiderin- the len-th of time that the petitioners have wor8ed with the respondent company, there is

?ustification to conclude that they were en-a-ed to perform activities necessary or desirable in the usua

business or trade of the respondent, and the petitioners are, therefore re-ular employees &hil% Fishin- Boat

fficers and n-ineers Jnion v% !ourt of ndustrial elations, 112 S!" 1)7 and . 6artine< Fishin-

!orporation v% 'ational .abor elations !ommission, 12* S!" =)=%

"s we have found in RJL -artinez 2ishing Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission 3s!pra4@

%%% [>]he employer#employee relationship between the parties herein is not coterminous with

each loadin- and unloadin- ?ob% "s earlier shown, respondents are en-a-ed in the business of

fishin-% For this purpose, they have a fleet of fishin- vessels% Jnder this situation, respondents

activity of catchin- fish is a continuous process and could hardly be considered as seasonal in

nature% So that the activities performed by herein complainants, i%e% unloadin- the catch of tuna

fish from respondentsP vessels and then loadin- the same to refri-erated vans, are necessary or

desirable in the business of respondents% >his circumstance ma8es the employment o

complainants a re-ular one, in the sense that it does not depend on any specific pro?ect or

seasonable activity% '.! Decision, p% 7=, ollo%l"phlAit

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

23/95

so as it with petitioners in the case at bar% n fact, despite past shutdowns of the -lass plant for repairs, the

petitioners, thereafter, promptly returned to their ?obs, never havin- been replaced, or assi-ned elsewhere unti

the present controversy arose% >he term of the petitionersP employment appears indefinite% >he continuity and

habituality of petitionersP wor8 bolsters their claim of employee status vis#a#vis respondent company,

ven under the assumption that a contract of employment had indeed been e4ecuted between respondent

S6! and the alle-ed labor contractor, respondentPs case will, nevertheless, fail%

Section +, ule , Boo8 of the mplementin- ules of the .abor !ode provides/

ob contractin-% T >here is ?ob contractin- permissible under the !ode if the followin-

conditions are met/

1 >he contractor carries on an independent business and underta8es the contract wor8 on his

own account under his own responsibility accordin- to his own manner and method, free from

the control and direction of his employer or principal in all matters connected with the

performance of the wor8 e4cept as to the results thereof: and

2 >he contractor has substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, e9uipmentmachineries, wor8 premises, and other materials which are necessary in the conduct of his

business%

Ge find that $uaranteed and eliable .abor contractors have neither substantial capital nor investment to

9ualify as an independent contractor under the law% >he premises, tools, e9uipment and paraphernalia used by

the petitioners in their ?obs are admittedly all supplied by respondent company% t is only the manpower or labor

force which the alle-ed contractors supply, su--estin- the e4istence of a Qlabor onlyQ contractin- scheme

prohibited by law "rticle 10(, 107 of the .abor !ode: Section 7b, ule , Boo8 , mplementin- ules and

e-ulations of the .abor !ode% n fact, even the alle-ed contractorPs office, which consists of a space at

respondent companyPs warehouse, table, chair, typewriter and cabinet, are provided for by respondent S6!% t

is therefore clear that the alle-ed contractors have no capital outlay involved in the conduct of its business, inthe maintenance thereof or in the payment of its wor8ersP salaries%

>he payment of the wor8ersP wa-es is a critical factor in determinin- the actuality of an employer#employee

relationship whether between respondent company and petitioners or between the alle-ed independen

contractor and petitioners% t is important to emphasihis is the rule in ?ocial ?ec!rity ?ystem v. Co!rt o %ppeals 37 S!" (27, (3)%

>he alle-ed independent contractors in the case at bar were paid a lump sum representin- only the salaries

the wor8ers were entitled to, arrived at by addin- the salaries of each wor8er which depend on the volume of

wor8 they% had accomplished individually% >hese are based on payrolls, reports or statements prepared by the

wor8ersP -roup leader, warehousemen and chec8ers, where they note down the number of cartons, wooden

shells and bottles each wor8er was able to load, unload, pile or pallet and see whether they tally% >he amount

paid by respondent company to the alle-ed independent contractor considers no business e4penses or capital

outlay of the latter% 'or is the profit or -ain of the alle-ed contractor in the conduct of its business provided for

as an amount over and above the wor8ersP wa-es% nstead, the alle-ed contractor receives a percenta-e from

the total earnin-s of all the wor8ers plus an additional amount correspondin- to a percenta-e of the earnin-s of

each individual wor8er, which, perhaps, accounts for the petitionersP char-e of unauthori

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

24/95

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

25/95

>here bein- a reco-nihe .abor !ode provides the proper

procedure for the reco-nition of unions as sole bar-ainin- representatives% >his must be followed%

G;F, ' G F >; F$'$, the petition is $"'>D% >he San 6i-uel !orporation is

hereby ordered to 'S>"> petitioners, with three 3 years bac8wa-es% ;owever, where reinstatement is

no lon-er possible, the respondent S6! is ordered to pay the petitioners separation pay e9uivalent to one 1

month pay for every year of service%

S DD%

5. G.R. No. 14@42$ June 25, 21

SANDOVAL SHIP=ARDS, INC. n- VICENTE SANDOVAL,petitioners,

vs%PRISCO PEPITO, &REDELINO SOCO, ALBERTO MONIVA, &LAVIANO CANETE, JOSE JUDILLA,ARNUL&O TRADIO, PRIMO AUMAN, ALEJANDRO TAPDASAN, GERR= CALVO, MARLON ABELLAR,MANOLO VILLEGAS, BONI&ACIO CANO, RODELIO MONDEJAR, RICARDO IBALE, PAULINO LABRA,ANTONIO ALINSUG, PIO CAPAROSO, MA

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

26/95

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under ule =) of the 177* ules of !ivil &rocedure% &etitioners

assail the Decision of the !ourt of "ppeals, Former Fifteenth Division, dated December 20, 1777 in !"#$%%

S& 'o% )1*27,1and its resolution, dated 6ay 1), 2000 denyin- petitioners5 motion for reconsideration%

>he facts of the case are as follows/

Sometime in 1772, the 'ational Federation of .abor 'F. filed with the Department of .abor and mployment

D. a petition for certification election, alle-in- that its members, which included private respondents

&risco &epito, et al%, were re-ular employees of petitioner Sandoval Shipyards, nc% SS% Findin- that the 'F.

members were ran8#and#file employees of SS, the 6ed#"rbiter issued an order directin- that a certification

election be held%

;owever, in a esolution dated 2) 'ovember 1772, then Jndersecretary Bienvenido .a-uesma reversed the

6ed#"rbiter5s rder and ruled that there was a valid subcontractin- a-reement between SS and its

subcontractors, and that no employer#employee relationship e4isted between SS and private respondents

since the latter were the employees of the subcontractors%2

n 1773, several cases for ille-al dismissal were filed by private respondents a-ainst SS and its &resident,

petitioner icente Sandoval% &rivate respondents alle-ed that they were employees of SS and that sometimein 17+), some sections of the company were temporarily closed while others remained open% .ater, some of

them were told to secure a 6ayor5s &ermit then were made parties to contracts with SS stipulatin- that they

were labor#only contractors% >hey averred further that after they or-anihe .abor "rbiter ruled that there was no employer#employee relationship

between SS and private respondents, reasonin- that said issue has been laid to rest in the 'ovember 2),

1772 resolution of Jndersecretary .a-uesma in the certification election case%3

&rivate respondents then appealed the decision of the .abor "rbiter to the 'ational .abor elations

!ommission '.!, which affirmed the .abor "rbiter5s decision%=

'ot satisfied with the decision of the '.!, private respondents appealed the same to the !ourt of "ppeals%

>he appellate court reversed the decision of the '.! and held that SS is the direct employer of private

respondents%)&etitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied for lac8 of merit% (

;ence, the present appeal% &etitioners contend that the !ourt of "ppeals erred in applyin- this !ourt5s

pronouncement in -anila ol D Co!ntry Cl!b vs. 1ntermediate %ppellate Co!rt*that a decision in a

certification election case re-ardin- the e4istence of an employer#employee relationship does not foreclose al

further dispute between the parties as to the e4istence or non#e4istence of such relationship% >hey contend

that such pronouncement is obiter dict!msince the issue involved therein was whether or not the persons

renderin- caddyin- services for the -olf club5s members and their -uests in the club5s courses or premises are

employees of 6anila $olf and !ountry !lub and therefore within the compulsory covera-e of the Social

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

27/95

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

28/95

investi-atin- a-ency plays the part of a disinterested investi-ator see8in- merely to ascertain

the desires of the employees as to the matter of their representation% >he court en?oys a wide

discretion in determinin- the procedure necessary to insure the fair and free choice o

bar-ainin- representatives by the employees%Q !itations omitted%12

!onsiderin- the fore-oin-, both the .abor "rbiter and the '.! therefore erred in relyin- on the

pronouncement of then Jndersecretary .a-uesma in the certification proceedin- that there was no employer#

employee relationship between SS and private respondents%

6oreover, the appellate court found that/ 1 the so#called subcontractors do not have a license to en-a-e in

subcontractin-: 2 the salaries of private respondents are actually paid by SS and are -iven to the

subcontractors who in turn -ive the salaries to the private respondents: 3 it was SS which hired the private

respondents and placed them under their respective subcontractors: and = private respondents use SS5s

tools and e9uipment in their wor8%13

Based on these findin-s, the !ourt of "ppeals was correct in declarin- that the alle-ed subcontractors are in

effect Qlabor#onlyQ contractors and are thus mere a-ents of petitioner SS% >he last para-raph of "rticle 10( of

the .abor !ode is clear on this point/

>here is Qlabor#onlyQ contractin- where the person supplyin- wor8ers to an employer does not have

substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, e9uipment, machineries, wor8 premises, amon-

others, and the wor8ers recurited and placed by such person are performin- activites which arwe

directly related to the principal business of such employer% n such cases, the person or intermediary

shall be considered merely as an a-ent of the employer who shall be responsible to the wor8ers in the

same manner and e4tent as if the latter were directly employed by him%

>he appellate court properly noted that the issue as to whether private respondents were ille-ally dismissed,

which was resolved in the affirmative by the .abor "rbiter, was not appealed by petitioners% Such rulin- has

therefore attained finality% >hus, SS, as the direct employer of private respondents, is liable to either reinstate

them and pay them bac8wa-es or to pay them separation pay% ;owever, because there is not enou-hevidence on this matter, there is a need to remand the case to the .abor "rbiter for further proceedin-s to

determine whether or not there are ?obs still available for private respondents in SS%

%HERE&ORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSEDand the decision of respondent !ourt of "ppeals isherebyA&&IRMED%

SO ORDERED%

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

29/95

#. G.R. No. L"2127$ Dee6e/ 27, 1;##

&EATI UNIVERSIT=,petitioner,vs%

HON. JOSE S. BAUTISTA, P/e+)-)n Ju-e o '*e Cou/' o In-u+'/)0 Re0')on+ n- &EATI UNIVERSIT=

&ACULT= CLUB"PA&LU,respondents%

########################################

G.R. No. L"214#2 Dee6e/ 27, 1;##

&EATI UNIVERSIT=,petitioner#appellant,vs%

&EATI UNIVERSIT= &ACULT= CLUB"PA&LU,respondent#appellee%

########################################

G.R. No. L"215 Dee6e/ 27, 1;##

&EATI UNIVERSIT=,petitioner#appellant,vs%

&EATI UNIVERSIT= &ACULT= CLUB"PA&LU,respondent#appellee%

Raael $inglasan or petitioner.

Cipriano Cid and %ssociates or respondents.

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

30/95

?ALDIVAR, J.:

>his !ourt, by resolution, ordered that these three cases be considered to-ether, and the parties were allowed

to file only one brief for the three cases%

n anuary 1=, 17(3, the &resident of the respondent Feati Jniversity Faculty !lub#&"F.J T hereinafter

referred to as Faculty !lub T wrote a letter to 6rs% ictoria .% "raneta, &resident of petitioner Feati Jniversity

T hereinafter referred to as Jniversity T informin- her of the or-anihe Faculty !lub is composed of members who are professors andIor instructors of the Jniversity

n anuary 22, 17(3, the &resident of the Faculty !lub sent another letter containin- twenty#si4 demands that

have connection with the employment of the members of the Faculty !lub by the Jniversity, and re9uestin- an

answer within ten days from receipt thereof% >he &resident of the Jniversity answered the two letters,

re9uestin- that she be -iven at least thirty days to study thorou-hly the different phases of the demands%

6eanwhile counsel for the Jniversity, to whom the demands were referred, wrote a letter to the &resident of

the Faculty !lub demandin- proof of its ma?ority status and desi-nation as a bar-ainin- representative% n

February 1, 17(3, the &resident of the Faculty !lub a-ain wrote the &resident of the Jniversity re?ectin- the

latterPs re9uest for e4tension of time, and on the same day he filed a notice of stri8e with the Bureau of .abor

alle-in- as reason therefor the refusal of the Jniversity to bar-ain collectively% >he parties were called to

conferences at the !onciliation Division of the Bureau of .abor but efforts to conciliate them failed% nFebruary 1+, 17(3, the members of the Faculty !lub declared a stri8e and established pic8et lines in the

premises of the Jniversity, resultin- in the disruption of classes in the Jniversity% Despite further efforts of the

officials from the Department of .abor to effect a settlement of the differences between the mana-ement of the

Jniversity and the stri8in- faculty members no satisfactory a-reement was arrived at% n 6arch 21, 17(3, the

&resident of the &hilippines certified to the !ourt of ndustrial elations the dispute between the mana-emen

of the Jniversity and the Faculty !lub pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 of epublic "ct 'o% +*)%

n connection with the dispute between the Jniversity and the Faculty !lub and certain incidents related to said

dispute, various cases were filed with the !ourt of ndustrial elations T hereinafter referred to as !% >he

three cases now before this !ourt stemmed from those cases that were filed with the !%

C%?E N&. .R. N&. LH*'*I)

n 6ay 10, 17(3, the Jniversity filed before this !ourt a Qpetition for certiorariand prohibition with writ of

preliminary in?unctionQ, doc8eted as $%% 'o% .#212*+, prayin-/ 1 for the issuance of the writ of preliminary

in?unction en?oinin- respondent ud-e ose S% Bautista of the ! to desist from proceedin- in ! !ases 'os

=1#&", 11+3#6!, and #30: 2 that the proceedin-s in !ases 'os% =1#&" and 11+3#6! be annulled: 3 that

the orders dated 6arch 30, 17(3 and "pril (, 17(3 in !ase 'o% =1#&", the order dated "pril (, 17(3 in !ase

'o% 11+3#6!, and the order dated "pril 27, 17(3 in !ase 'o% #30, all be annulled: and = that the respondent

ud-e be ordered to dismiss said cases 'os% =1#&", 11+3#6! and #30 of the !%

n 6ay 10, 17(3, this !ourt issued a writ of preliminary in?unction, upon the JniversityPs filin- a bond of

&1,000%00, orderin- respondent ud-e ose S% Bautista as &residin- ud-e of the !, until further order from

this !ourt, Qto desist and refrain from further proceedin- in the premises !ases 'os% =1#&", 11+3#6! and #

30 of the !ourt of ndustrial elations%Q1n December =, 17(3, this !ourt ordered the in?unction bond

increased to &100,000%00: but on anuary 23, 17(=, upon a motion for reconsideration by the Jniversity, this

!ourt reduced the bond to &)0,000%00%

" brief statement of the three cases T ! !ases =1#&", 11+3#6! and #30 T involved in the !ase $%% 'o

.#212*+, is here necessary%

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

31/95

C1R Case No. 'H1P%, relates to the case in connection with the stri8e sta-ed by the members of the Faculty

!lub% "s we have stated, the dispute between the Jniversity and the Faculty !lub was certified on 6arch 21,

17(3 by the &resident of the &hilippines to the !% n the stren-th of the presidential certification, respondent

ud-e Bautista set the case for hearin- on 6arch 23, 17(3% Durin- the hearin-, the ud-e endeavored to

reconcile the part and it was a-reed upon that the stri8in- faculty members would return to wor8 and the

Jniversity would readmit them under a stat!s K!o arran-ement% n that very same day, however, the

Jniversity, thru counsel filed a motion to dismiss the case upon the -round that the ! has no ?urisdiction over

the case, because 1 the ndustrial &eace "ct is not applicable to the Jniversity, it bein- an educational

institution, nor to the members of the Faculty !lub, they bein- independent contractors: and 2 the presidential

certification is violative of Section 10 of the ndustrial &eace "ct, as the Jniversity is not an industria

establishment and there was no industrial dispute which could be certified to the !% n 6arch 30, 17(3 the

respondent ud-e issued an order denyin- the motion to dismiss and declarin- that the ndustrial &eace "ct is

applicable to both parties in the case and that the ! had ac9uired ?urisdiction over the case by virtue of the

presidential certification% n the same order, the respondent ud-e, believin- that the dispute could not be

decided promptly, ordered the stri8ers to return immediately to wor8 and the Jniversity to ta8e them bac8

under the last terms and conditions e4istin- before the dispute arose, as per a-reement had durin- the hearin-

on 6arch 23, 17(3: and li8ewise en?oined the Jniversity, pendin- ad?udication of the case, from dismissin- any

employee or laborer without previous authorihe Jniversity filed on "pril 1, 17(3 a motion

for reconsideration of the order of 6arch 30, 17(3 by the ! en banc, and at the same time as8in- that themotion for reconsideration be first heard by the ! en banc% Githout the motion for reconsideration havin-

been acted upon by the ! en banc, respondent ud-e set the case for hearin- on the merits for 6ay +,

17(3% >he Jniversity moved for the cancellation of said hearin- upon the -round that the court en bancshould

first hear the motion for reconsideration and resolve the issues raised therein before the case is heard on the

merits% >his motion for cancellation of the hearin- was denied% >he respondent ud-e, however, cancelled the

scheduled hearin- when counsel for the Jniversity manifested that he would ta8e up before the Supreme

!ourt, by a petition for certiorari, the matter re-ardin- the actuations of the respondent ud-e and the issues

raised in the motion for reconsideration, specially the issue relatin- to the ?urisdiction of the !% >he order of

6arch 30, 17(3 in !ase =1#&" is one of the orders sou-ht to be annulled in the case, $%% 'o% .#212*+%

Before the above#mentioned order of 6arch 30, 17(3 was issued by respondent ud-e, the Jniversity had

employed professors andIor instructors to ta8e the places of those professors andIor instructors who had

struc8% n "pril 1, 17(3, the Faculty !lub filed with the ! in !ase =1#&" a petition to declare in contempt of

court certain parties, alle-in- that the Jniversity refused to accept bac8 to wor8 the returnin- stri8ers, in

violation of the return#to#wor8 order of 6arch 30, 17(3% >he Jniversity filed, on "pril ),17(3, its opposition to

the petition for contempt, denyin- the alle-ations of the Faculty !lub and alle-in- by way of special defense

that there was still the motion for reconsideration of the order of 6arch 30, 17(3 which had not yet been acted

upon by the ! en banc% n "pril (, 17(3, the respondent ud-e issued an order statin- that Qsaid

replacements are hereby warned and cautioned, for the time bein-, not to disturb nor in any manner commit

any act tendin- to disrupt the effectivity of the order of 6arch 30,17(3, pendin- the final resolution of the

same%Q2

n "pril +, 17(3, there placin- professors andIor instructors concerned filed, thru counsel, a motion forreconsideration by the ! en bancof the order of respondent ud-e of "pril (, 17(3% >his order of "pril (,

17(3 is one of the orders that are sou-ht to be annulled in case $%% 'o% .#212*+%

C1R Case No. '')H-C relates to a petition for certification election filed by the Faculty !lub on 6arch +, 17(3

before the !, prayin- that it be certified as the sole and e4clusive bar-ainin- representative of all the

employees of the Jniversity% >he Jniversity filed an opposition to the petition for certification election and at the

same time a motion to dismiss said petition, raisin- the very same issues raised in !ase 'o% =1#&", claimin-

that the petition did not comply with the rules promul-ated by the !: that the Faculty !lub is not a le-itimate

labor union: that the members of the Faculty !lub cannot unioni

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

32/95

terms of the individual contracts of the professors, instructors, and teachers, who are members of the Faculty

!lub, would e4pire on 6arch 2) or 31, 17(3: and that the ! has no ?urisdiction to ta8e co-nihe principal alle-ation of the Jniversity in its petition for certiorariand prohibition with preliminary in?unction in

!ase $%% 'o% .#212*+, now before Js, is that respondent ud-e ose S% Bautista acted without, or in e4cess

of, ?urisdiction, or with -rave abuse of discretion, in ta8in- co-ni

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

33/95

C%?E .R. N&. LH*'*

>his case, $%% 'o% .#21=(2, involves also ! !ase 'o% 11+3#6!% "s already stated !ase 'o% 11+3#6!

relates to a petition for certification election filed by the Faculty !lub as a labor union, prayin- that it be certified

as the sole and e4clusive bar-ainin- representative of all employees of the Jniversity% >his petition was

opposed by the Jniversity, and at the same time it filed a motion to dismiss said petition% But before ud-e

Baltahe Jniversity filed a motion for

reconsideration of that order of "pril (, 17(3 by the ! en banc% >hat motion for reconsideration was pendin-

action by the ! en bancwhen the petition forcertiorariand prohibition with preliminary in?unction in !ase

$%% no% .#212*+ was filed on 6ay 10, 17(3% "s earlier stated this !ourt, in !ase $%% 'o% .#212*+, issued a

writ of preliminary in?unction on 6ay 10, 17(3, orderin- respondent ud-e Bautista, until further order from this

!ourt, to desist and refrain from further proceedin- in the premises !ases 'os% =1#&", 11+3#6! and #30 of

the !ourt of ndustrial elations%

n une ), 17(3, that is, after this !ourt has issued the writ of preliminary in?unction in !ase $%% 'o% .#

212*+, the ! en bancissued a resolution denyin- the motion for reconsideration of the order of "pril (, 17(3in !ase 'o% 11+3#6!%

n uly +, 17(3, the Jniversity filed before this !ourt a petition for certiorari, by way of an appeal from the

resolution of the ! en banc, dated une ), 17(3, denyin- the motion for reconsideration of the order of "pri

(, 17(3 in !ase 'o% 11+3#6!% >his petition was doc8eted as $%% 'o% .#21=(2% n its petition for certiorari, the

Jniversity alle-es 1 that the resolution of the !ourt of ndustrial elations of une ), 17(3 was null and void

because it was issued in violation of the writ of preliminary in?unction issued in !ase $%% 'o% .#212*+: 2 that

the issues of employer#employee relationship, the alle-ed status as a labor union, ma?ority representation and

desi-nation as bar-ainin- representative in an appropriate unit of the Faculty !lub should have been resolved

first in !ase 'o% 11+3#6! prior to the determination of the issues in !ase 'o% =1#&" and therefore the motion

to withdraw the petition for certification election should not have been -ranted upon the -round that the issues

in the first case have been absorbed in the second case: and 3 the lower court acted without or in e4cess of

?urisdiction in ta8in- co-nihe Jniversity prayed that the proceedin-s in !ase 'o

11+3#6! and the order of "pril (, 17(3 and the resolution of une ), 17(3 issued therein be annulled, and that

the ! be ordered to dismiss !ase 'o% 11+3#6! on the -round of lac8 of ?urisdiction%

>he Faculty !lub filed its answer, admittin- some, and denyin- other, alle-ations in the petition for certiorari

and specially alle-in- that the lower courtPs order -rantin- the withdrawal of the petition for certification election

was in accordance with law, and that the resolution of the court en bancon une ), 17(3 was not a violation o

the writ of preliminary in?unction issued in !ase $%% 'o% .#212*+ because said writ of in?unction was issueda-ainst ud-e ose S% Bautista and not a-ainst the !ourt of ndustrial elations, much less a-ainst ud-e

Baltahis case, $%% 'o% .#21)00, involves also ! !ase 'o% =1#&"% "s earlier stated, !ase 'o% =1#&" relates to

the stri8e sta-ed by the members of the Faculty !lub and the dispute was certified by the &resident of the

&hilippines to the !% >he Jniversity filed a motion to dismiss that case upon the -round that the ! has no

?urisdiction over the case, and on 6arch 30, 17(3 ud-e ose S% Bautista issued an order denyin- the motion

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

34/95

to dismiss and declarin- that the ndustrial &eace "ct is applicable to both parties in the case and that the !

had ac9uired ?urisdiction over the case by virtue of the presidential certification: and in that same order ud-e

Bautista ordered the stri8ers to return to wor8 and the Jniversity to ta8e them bac8 under the last terms and

conditions e4istin- before the dispute arose: and en?oined the Jniversity from dismissin- any employee or

laborer without previous authority from the court% n "pril 1, 17(3, the Jniversity filed a motion for

reconsideration of the order of 6arch 30, 17(3 by the ! en banc% >hat motion for reconsideration was

pendin- action by the ! en bancwhen the petition for certiorariand prohibition with preliminary in?unction in

!ase $%% 'o% .#212*+ was filed on 6ay 10, 17(3% "s we have already stated, this !ourt in said case $%%

'o% .#212*+, issued a writ of preliminary in?unction on 6ay 10, 17(3 orderin- respondent ud-e ose S%

Bautista, until further order from this !ourt, to desist and refrain from further proceedin- in the premises

!ases 'os% =1#&", 11+3#6! and #30 of the !ourt of ndustrial elations%

n uly 2, 17(3, the Jniversity received a copy of the resolution of the ! en banc, dated 6ay *, 17(3 but

actually received and stamped at the ffice of the !ler8 of the ! on une 2+, 17(3, denyin- the motion for

reconsideration of the order dated 6arch 30, 17(3 in !ase 'o% =1#&"%

n uly 23, 17(3, the Jniversity filed before this !ourt a petition for certiorari, by way of an appeal from the

resolution of the !ourt of ndustrial elations en banc dated 6ay *, 17(3 but actually received by said

petitioner on uly 2, 17(3 denyin- the motion for reconsideration of the order of 6arch 30, 17(3 in !ase 'o%=1#&"% >his petition was doc8eted as $%% 'o% .#21)00% n its petition for certiorarithe Jniversity alle-es 1

that the resolution of the ! en banc, dated 6ay *, 17(3 but filed with the !ler8 of the ! on une 2+, 17(3

in !ase 'o% =1#&", is null and void because it was issued in violation of the writ of preliminary in?unction

issued by this !ourt in $%% 'o% .#212*+: 2 that the !, throu-h its &residin- ud-e, had no ?urisdiction to

ta8e co-ni

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

35/95

because it is an educational institution and not an industrial establishment and hence not an QemployerQ in

contemplation of said "ct: and neither is epublic "ct 'o% +*) applicable to the members of the Faculty !lub

because the latter are independent contractors and, therefore, not employees within the purview of the said

"ct%

n support of the contention that bein- an educational institution it is beyond the scope of epublic "ct 'o% +*),

the Jniversity cites cases decided by this !ourt/ Boy ?co!ts o the Philippines vs. J!liana %raos, .#10071, an

27, 17)+: /niversity o ?an %g!stin vs. C1R, et al., .#12222, 6ay 2+, 17)+: Ceb! Chinese Oigh ?chool vs.

Philippine LandH%irH?ea Labor /nion, PL%?L/, .#1201), "pril 22, 17)7: La Consolacion College, et al. vs.

C1R, et al., .#132+2, "pril 22, 17(0: /niversity o the Philippines, et al. vs. C1R, et al., .#1)=1(, "pril +

17(0: 2ar Eastern /niversity vs. C1R, .#1*(20, "u-ust 31, 17(2% Ge have reviewed these cases, and also

related cases subse9uent thereto, and Ge find that they do not sustain the contention of the Jniversity% t is

true that this !ourt has ruled that certain educational institutions, li8e the Jniversity of Santo >omas, Jniversity

of San "-ustin, .a !onsolacion !olle-e, and other ?uridical entities, li8e the Boy Scouts of the &hilippines and

6anila Sanitarium, are beyond the purview of epublic "ct 'o% +*) in the sense that the !ourt of ndustrial

elations has no ?urisdiction to ta8e co-ni

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

36/95

Qc >hat, as a necessary conse9uence, alle-ed controversy between therein complainants and

respondent is not an QindustrialQ dispute, and the !ourt of ndustrial elations has no

?urisdiction, notonly on the parties but also over the sub?ect matter of the complaint%Q

>he issue now before us is/ Since the Jniversity of San "-ustin is not an institution established for

profit or -ain, nor an industrial enterprise, but one established e4clusively for educational purposes, can

it be said that its relation with its professors is one of employer and employee that comes under the

?urisdiction of the !ourt of ndustrial elationsU n other words, do the provisions of the 6a-na !arta on

unfair labor practice apply to the relation between petitioner and members of respondent associationU

>he issue is not new% >hus, in the case of Boy ?co!ts o the Philippines v. J!liana >. %raos, $%% 'o% .#

10071, promul-ated on anuary 27, 17)+, this !ourt, spea8in- thru 6r% ustice 6ontemayor, answered

the 9uery in the ne-ative in the followin- wise/

Q>he main issue involved in the present case is whether or not a charitable institution or one

or-anihere bein- a close analo-y between the relation and facts involved in the two cases, we cannot but

conclude that the !ourt of ndustrial elations has no ?urisdiction to entertain the complaint for unfair

labor practice lod-ed by respondent association a-ainst petitioner and, therefore, we hereby set aside

the order and resolution sub?ect to the present petition, with costs a-ainst respondent association%

>he same doctrine was confirmed in the case of /niversity o ?anto #omas v. Oon. Baltazar >illan!eva, et

al.,$%% 'o% .#13*=+, ctober 30, 17)7, where this !ourt ruled that/

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

37/95

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

38/95

applicable to any or-anihis

!ourt, however, has ruled that those educational institutions that are not operated for profit are not within the

purview of epublic "ct 'o% +*)%)

"s stated above, epublic "ct 'o% +*) does not -ive a comprehensive but only a complementary definition of

the term QemployerQ% >he term encompasses those that are in ordinary parlance Qemployers%Q Ghat is

commonly meant by QemployerQU >he term QemployerQ has been -iven several acceptations% >he le4ica

definition is Qone who employs: one who uses: one who en-a-es or 8eeps in service:Q and Qto employQ is Qto

provide wor8 and pay for: to en-a-e onePs service: to hire%Q GebsterPs 'ew >wentieth !entury Dictionary, 2nd

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

39/95

ed%, 17(0, p% )7)% >he Gor8menPs !ompensation "ct defines employer as includin- Qevery person o

association of persons, incorporated or not, public or private, and the le-al representative of the deceased

employerQ and Qincludes the owner or lessee of a factory or establishment or place of wor8 or any other person

who is virtually the owner or mana-er of the business carried on in the establishment or place of wor8 but who,

for reason that there is an independent contractor in the same, or for any other reason, is not the direct

employer of laborers employed there%Q [Sec% 37a of "ct 'o% 3=2+%] >he 6inimum Ga-e .aw states that

Qemployer includes any person actin- directly or indirectly in the interest of the employer in relation to an

employee and shall include the $overnment and the -overnment corporationsQ% [ep% "ct 'o% (02, Sec% 2b]

>he Social Security "ct defines employer as Qany person, natural or ?uridical, domestic or forei-n, who carries

in the &hilippines any trade, business, industry, underta8in-, or activity of any 8ind and uses the services of

another person who is under his orders as re-ards the employment, e4cept the $overnment and any of its

political subdivisions, branches or instrumentalities, includin- corporations owned or controlled by the

$overnment%Q ep% "ct 'o% 11(1, Sec% +[c]%

>his !ourt, in the cases of the >he "n-at iver rri-ation System, et al% vs% "n-at iver Gor8ersP Jnion

&.J6, et al%, $%% 'os% .#1073= and .#107==, December 2+, 17)*, which cases involve unfair labor

practices and hence within the purview of epublic "ct 'o% +*), defined the term employer as follows/

"n employer is one who employs the services of others: one for whom employees wor8 and who paystheir wa-es or salaries Blac8 .aw Dictionary, =th ed%, p% (1+%

"n employer includes any person actin- in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly Sec% 2#c,

ep% "ct +*)%

Jnder none of the above definitions may the Jniversity be e4cluded, especially so if it is considered that every

professor, instructor or teacher in the teachin- staff of the Jniversity, as per alle-ation of the Jniversity itself,

has a contract with the latter for teachin- services, albeit for one semester only% >he Jniversity en-a-ed the

services of the professors, provided them wor8, and paid them compensation or salary for their services% ven

if the Jniversity may be considered as a lessee of services under a contract between it and the members of its

Faculty, still it is included in the term QemployerQ% Qunnin- throu-h the word WemployP is the thou-ht that therehas been an a-reement on the part of one person to perform a certain service in return for compensation to be

paid by an employer% Ghen you as8 how a man is employed, or what is his employment, the thou-ht that he is

under a-reement to perform some service or services for another is predominant and paramount%Q Ballentine

.aw Dictionary, &hilippine ed%, p% =30, citin- &in8erton 'ational Detective "-ency v% Gal8er, 1)* $a% )=+, 3) "%

.% % ))*, )(0, 122 S%% ep% 202%

>o bolster its claim of e4ception from the application of epublic "ct 'o% +*), the Jniversity contends that it is

not state that the employers included in the definition of 2 c of the "ct% >his contention can not be sustained

n the first place, Sec% 2 c of epublic "ct 'o% +*) does not state that the employers included in the definition

of the term QemployerQ are only and e4clusively Qindustrial establishmentsQ: on the contrary, as stated above,the term QemployerQ encompasses all employers e4cept those specifically e4cluded by the "ct% n the second

place, even the "ct itself does not refer e4clusively to industrial establishments and does not confine its

application thereto% >his is patent inasmuch as several provisions of the "ct are applicable to non#industria

wor8ers, such as Sec% 3, which deals with QemployeesP ri-ht to self#or-ani

8/10/2019 Labor Law Cases. Set 4.

40/95

respectively for the establishment of conciliation service, compilation of collective bar-ainin- contracts

advisory labor#mana-ement relations: Section 22 which empowers the Secretary of .abor to ma8e a study of

labor relations: and Section 2= which enumerates the ri-hts of labor or-