Labreb Er Ee Rel Table
Labreb Er Ee Rel Table
Labreb Er Ee Rel Table
Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Parties and
Case Number
1. Insurance Life
Assurance Co.,
Ltd. vs. NLRC
(G. R. No.
119930, March
12, 1998)
2. Restituto
Palumado vs.
NLRC, Marling
Rice Mill
(G.R. No.
96520, June
28, 1996)
3. Angelina
Francisco vs.
NLRC, Kasei
Corp.
(G.R. No.
170087,
August 31,
2006)
Business
Work of
Is there Employerof the
the
Employee
Company
Employee
Relationship?
Insurance
Insurance
Yes. The Supreme
I. Employer-Employee Relationship
Provider
Agent, and
Court stated that
at the same private respondent
time Acting was an employee of
Unit
the petitioner because
Manager
the latter has
exclusivity of service,
control of
assignments and
removal of agents
under private
respondents unit,
collection of
premiums, furnishing
of company facilities
and materials as well
as capital are
hallmarks of the
management system.
Trading and Truck Driver No. The Supreme
Rice Mill
Court held that the
documentary
evidences presented
by the respondent
strongly negated the
complainants charges
that he had been
under the employ Tan
who was nothing
more than an
employee of Marling
Rice Mill.
Complainants
documentary exhibits
failed to serve their
purpose as they are in
themselves mere
scraps of papers,
irrelevant and
Immaterial.
Corporation Accountant
Yes. By applying the
/
and
control test, the
Restaurant Corporate
petitioner is an
business
Secretary,
employee of Kasei
and later on Corp. because she
as Acting
was under the direct
Manager
control and
supervision of Seiji
Kamura, the
corporations
What happened to
the case?
The appeal of
petitioner Insular Life
Assurance Co. was
denied and the
decision of the NLRC
was affirmed. The case
was remanded to the
Labor Arbiter a quo to
hear and dispose of
the case.
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
4. Paz Martin Jo
and Cesar Jo
vs. NLRC and
Peter Mejila
(G.R. No.
121605,
February 2,
2000)
Barber
Shop
Barber on a
piece rate
basis. Later
on as
caretakerbarber.
Technical Consultant.
Under the broader
economic reality test,
the petitioner can
likewise be said to be
an employee of
respondent
corporation because
she had served the
company for six years
before her dismissal,
receiving check
vouchers indicating
her salaries/wages,
benefits, 13th month
pay, bonuses and
allowances, as well as
deductions and Social
Security contributions.
It is therefore
apparent that
petitioner is
economically
dependent on
respondent
corporation for her
continued
employment in the
latters line of
business.
Yes. The private
respondent was
employed by the
petitioners as
caretaker-barber.
Undoubtedly, the
services performed by
private respondent as
barber is related to,
and in the pursuit of
the principal business
activity of petitioners.
Certainly, petitioners
had the power to
dismiss private
respondent being the
ones who engaged
the services of the
latter. As a caretaker,
private respondent
was paid by
petitioners wages in
the form of
honorarium.
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
5. Jeromie
Encasinas and
Evan Rigor
Singco vs.
Shangri-la
Mactan Island
Resort and Dr.
Jessica J.R.
Pepito
(G.R. No.
178827, March
4, 2009)
Hotel and
Resort
Operation
Nurses
6. Insular Life
Assurance Co.,
Ltd. vs. NLRC
and Melecio
Basiao
(G.R. No.
84484,
November 15,
1989)
Insurance
Provider
Agency
Manager
7. AFP Mutual
Benefit
Association,
Inc. vs NLRC
and Eutiguio
Bustamante
Insurance
Provider
Insurance
Underwriter
Furthermore,
petitioners controlled
private respondents
work performance.
No. There is no
employer-employee
relationship between
Shangri-la and
petitioners. The
Supreme Court
affirmed the decision
of the appellate court
which concluded that
all aspects of the
employment of
petitioners being
under the supervision
and control of
respondent doctor
and since Shangri-la is
not principally
engaged in the
business of providing
medical or healthcare
services, petitioners
could not be regarded
as regular employees
of Shangri-la.
No. The Court ruled
that under the
contract invoked by
him, Basiao was not
an employee of the
petitioner, but a
commission agent, an
independent
contractor whose
claim for unpaid
commissions should
have been litigated in
an ordinary civil
action.
No, the facts that
private respondent
was bound by
company policies,
memo/circulars, rules
and regulations issued
from time to time is
not indicative of
control. Although
petitioner could have,
theoretically,
disapproved any of
private respondent's
transactions, what
The appealed
resolution of the NLRC,
finding that there was
an employer-employee
relationship between
Basiao and the
company, was set
aside and the
complaint of private
respondent was
dismissed.
The petition is
meritorious. There is
no employment
relationship had ever
existed between the
parties
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
8. Great Pacific
Life Assurance
Corp.
(Grepalife) vs
NLRC, Ernesto
and Rodrigo
Ruiz
(G.R. No.
80750-51, July
23, 1990)
Insurance
Provider
District
Managers
9. Jose Y. Sonza
vs. ABS-CBN
Broadcasting
Corporation
(G.R. No.
138051, June
10, 2004)
Television
and radio
broadcastin
g company
TV host and
radio
broadcaster
(Talent for
television
and radio)
could be disapproved
was only the result of
the work, and not the
means by which it
was accomplished.
The "control" which
the above factors
indicate did not sum
up to the power to
control private
respondent's conduct
in and mode of
soliciting
insurance. On the
contrary, they clearly
indicate that the
juridical element of
control had been
absent in this
situation.
Yes. Applying the fourfold test, the Court
finds that, as correctly
held by the NLRC, the
relationships of the
Ruiz brothers and
Grepalife were those
of employeremployee. First, their
work at the time of
their dismissal as
zone supervisor and
district manager are
necessary and
desirable to the usual
business of the
insurance company.
Their contracts reveal
that the comoany
practically dictates
the manner by which
their jobs are to be
carried out.
No. applying the
control test, the Court
found that Sonza was
not an employee but
an independent
contractor. A radio
broadcast specialist
who works under
minimal supervision is
an independent
contractor. Sonzas
work as television and
radio program host
required special skills
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
10.Coca-Cola
Bottlers
(Phils.)
Inc./Eric
Montinola,
Manager vs.
Dr. Dean N.
Climaco
(G.R. No.
146881,
February 5,
2007)
Soft drinks
Manufacturing
Company
doctor by
virtue of a
Retainer
Agreement
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
1. Samahan ng mga
Manggagawa sa
Bandolino-LMLC
vs. NLTC,
Bandolino Shoe
Corp and/or
German
Alcantara, Aida
Alcantara & Mimi
Alcantara
(G.R. No. 125195,
July 17, 1997)
Shoe
Company
Factory
workers
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
School
High
School
Teachers
and Nonteaching
Staff
3. Me-Shurn
Corporation &
Sammy Chou vs.
Me-Shurn Workers
Union-FSM &
Rosalinda Cruz
(G.R. No. 156292.
January 11, 2005)
Clothing
Wholesale
and
Manufactur
ing
Was not
mentione
d except
that they
are
Regular
rank and
file
employee
s.
4. T & H Shopfitters
Corporation/Gin
Queen
Corporation,
Stinnes Huang,
Ben Huang and
Rogelio Madriaga
vs. T & H
Shopfitters
Corporation/Gin
Queen Workers
Manufactur
er,
Distributor/
Wholesaler,
Exporter/Im
porter
Assigning
union
officers
and
active
union
members
as grass
cutters on
rotation
basis.
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Union
(G.R. No. 191714)
5. BaLmar Farms,
Inc. vs NLRC and
Associated Labor
Unions (ALU)
Banana
Plantation
Banana
Planters
and
Plantation
Workers
6. Arellano
University
Employees and
Workers Union,
Carlos C. A. Rivas,
Jr., Simeon B.
University
Was not
mentione
d except
that they
are rankand-file
discriminating in regard
to conditions of
employment in order to
discourage union
membership-assigning
union officers and
active union members
as grass cutters on
rotation basis)., taken
together, reasonably
support an inference
that, indeed, such were
all orchestrated to
restrict respondents
free exercise of their
right to selforganization. The Court
is of the considered
view those petitioners
undisputed actions
prior and immediately
before the scheduled
certification election,
while seemingly
innocuous, unduly
meddled in the affairs
of its employees in
selecting their
exclusive bargaining
representative.
Yes. The court ruled
that Balmars refusal to
bargain collectively
with ALU is a clear act
of unfair labor practice.
Article 248 (Labor
Code, as amended),
enumerates unfair
labor practices
committed by
employers such as for
them: (g) To violate the
duty to bargain
collectively as
prescribed by this
Code. BALMAR cannot
also invoke good faith
in refusing to negotiate
with ALU, considering
that the latter has been
certified as the
exclusive bargaining
representative of
BALMAR rank and file
employees.
No. The court ruled that
to constitute ULP,
however, violations of
the CBA must be gross.
Gross violation of the
CBA, under Article 261
of the Labor Code,
damages amounting to
P50,000 and P30,000
respectively.
The petition is
dismissed for lack of
merit and the assailed
resolution is affirmed.
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Inocencio, Romulo
D. Jacob, Nymia
M. Pineda,
Benedicto I. Nieto,
Jr., Luis Jacinto,
Milbert Mora,
Monico Calma,
Constancio
Bayhohan,
Bernard Sanble,
Nestor Brinosa,
Nanji
Macarampat,
Eduardo Florague
& DIony S.
Lumanta vs. CA,
NLRC & Arellano
University, Inc.
(G.R. No. 139940,
September 19,
2006)
7. Nueva Ecija
Electric
Cooperative Inc.
(NEECO I)
Employees Assoc,
vs NLRC, Nueva
Ecija Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
(NEECO I) and
Patricio Dela Pea
Electric
Cooperativ
e
employee
s
Was not
mentione
d except
that they
are
Permanen
t
Employee
s
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Insurance
Provider
Superviso
rs
pesos, respectively, to
each of the petitioners
who were illegally
terminated and/or
compulsorily retired;
3. to pay ten (10%) of
the total amount due to
petitioners as attorneys
fees; and
4. to pay the cost of
suits.
Respondent NLRC is
ordered to recompute
the total monetary
benefits awarded and
due to the employees
concerned in
accordance with the
decision and to submit
its compliance thereon
within thirty (30) days
from notice of this
decision, with copies
furnished to the parties.
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
9. Lakas ng
Manggagawang
Makabayan
(LAKAS) vs.
Rubber,
Chemical
and Steel
Companies
Was not
mentione
d
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Marcelo Group of
Companies and
The Court of
Industrial
Relations
(G.R. No. L-38258,
November 19,
1982)
Marcelo Group of
Companies vs
Lakas ng
Manggagawang
Makabayan
(LAKAS)
(G.R. No. L-38260,
November 19,
1992)
10.Colegio de San
Juan de Letran vs.
Association of
Employees and
Faculty of Letran
and Eleonor
Ambas
(G.R. No. 141471,
September 18,
2000)
University
Professors
and
School
Personnel
s
petition in L-38260 is
granted. The decision
of the Court of
Industrial Relations is
hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE and a new
judgment is rendered
holding that the
respondent Marcelo
Companies are not
guilty of unfair labor
practice.
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Business of
the
Company
Electronics
Manufacturin
g
Work of
the
Employee
Head of
the
Material
Managem
ent
Control
Departme
nt
Hotel
Management
Overseas
Contract
Worker as
Printer
What happened to
the case?
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
3. Food Traders
House, Inc. vs.
NLRC and
Barbara A.
Camacho-Espino
4. Purificacion Y.
Manliguez,
Antonina Y. Luis
and Benjamin C.
Ybanez vs Court
of Appeals, et al
(G.R. No. 92598,
May 20, 1994)
Food
business
Marketing
Manager
jurisdiction over
respondent's claim. The
lack of jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiter was
obvious from the
allegations of the
complaint. His failure to
dismiss the case
amounts to grave
abuse of discretion.
No. The court ruled that
the NLRC shall have
exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over all
cases decided by labor
arbiters. This simply
means that if a claim
does not fall within the
exclusive original
jurisdiction of the labor
arbiter, the NLRC
cannot have appellate
jurisdiction thereon,
much less receive
additional evidence. As
a result, the NLRC
gravely abused its
discretion when it
affirmed the
garnishment of Espinos
salary and allowed its
set-off against Espinos
personal loan on the
ground that it does not
fall within the Labor
Arbiters exclusive
original jurisdiction.
No. respondent court
erred in holding that
the trial court does not
have jurisdiction over
the case filed by
petitioners. It is at once
evident that the Civil
Case No. Ceb-6917 is
not a labor case. No
employer-employee
relationship exists
between petitioners
and the other parties,
and no issue is involved
which may be resolved
by reference to the
Labor Code, other labor
statutes, or any
collective bargaining
agreement. Neither can
we characterize
petitioner's action
before the trial court as
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
5. Pacific
Consultants
International
Asia, Inc. and
Jens Peter
Henrichsen vs.
Klaus K.
Schonfeld
(G.R. No.
166920.
February 19,
2007)
6. Deltaventures
Resources, Inc.
vs Hon. Fernando
P. Cabato,
Presiding Judge
RTC La Trinidad
Benguet Br. 62,
Hon. Gelacio L.
Providing
specialty and
technical
services both
in and out of
the
Philippines
Sector
Manager Water and
Sanitation
as per
Letter of
Employme
nt dated
January
1998
The petition
for certiorari and
prohibition is denied.
The assailed Orders of
respondent Judge
Fernando P. Cabato
dated November 7,
1994 and December
14, 1994, respectively
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Rivera, Jr,
Executive Labor
Arbiter, NLRCCAR, Baguio City,
Adam P. VenturaDeputy Sheriff,
NLRC-CAR
Baguio City,
Alejandro
Bernardino,
Augusto
Granados,
Pilando Tangay,
Nestor Rabang,
Ray Dayap, Myra
Bayaona, Violy
LIbao, Aida
Libao, Jesus
Gatcho and
Gregorio Dulay
(G.R. No.
118216, March 9,
2000)
7. Republic of the
Philippines,
represented by
the Social
Security
Commission and
Social Security
System vs.
Asiapro
Cooperative
(G.R. No.
172101,
November 23,
2007)
Cooperative
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
8. Philippines
National Bank vs.
Florence O.
Cabansag
(G.R. No.
157010, June 21,
2005)
Bank
Branch
Credit
Officer
petitioner SSS as
regards the compulsory
coverage of the
respondent cooperative
and its ownersmembers. No costs.
The petition is denied
and the assailed
decision and resolution
are affirmed. Cost
against the petitioner.
[Petitioners] likewise
acted in a wanton,
oppressive or
malevolent manner in
terminating
[respondents]
employment and are
therefore liable for
exemplary damages.
This should served [sic]
as protection to other
employees of
[petitioner] company,
and by way of example
or correction for the
public good so that
persons similarly
minded as [petitioners]
would be deterred from
committing the same
acts.
The Court also affirms
the award of attorneys
fees. It is settled that
when an action is
instituted for the
recovery of wages, or
when employees are
forced to litigate and
consequently incur
expenses to protect
their rights and
interests, the grant of
attorneys fees is
legally justifiable.37
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
9. Calamba Medical
Center, Inc. vs.
NLRC, Ronald
Lanzanas and
Merceditha
Lanzanas
(G.R. No.
176484,
November 25,
2008)
Hospital
Doctors
10.Ma. Isabel T.
Santos,
represented by
Antonio P. Santos
vs. Servier
Philippnes, Inc
and NLRC
(G.R. No.
166377,
November 28,
2008)
French
Pharmaceuti
cal Company
Human
Resource
Manager
IV. Strikes
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Parties and Case
Number
1. National Union of
Workers in the
Hotel Restaurant
and Allied
Industries
(NUWHRAIN-APLIUF) Dusit Hotel
Nikko chapter vs.
CA (Former
Eighth Division),
NLRC, Philippine
Hoteliers Inc,
owner and
operator of Dusit
Hotel Nikko
and/or Chiyuki
Fujimoto, and
Esperanza V.
Alvarez
(G.R. No.
163942,
Novembe
r 11, 2006)
Work of
the
Employee
Hotel
service
attendants
, staffs
Sugar
Plantation
Sugar
Planters
and Sugar
Workers
Is there a valid
strike?
What happened to
the case?
The petition is
dismissed for lack of
merit.
NUWHRAIN-Dusit
Hotel Nikko
Chapter vs.
Secretary of
Labor and
Employment and
Philippine
Hotelier, Inc.
(G.R. No.
166295,
November 11,
2008)
2. National
Federation of
Sugar Workers
(NF SW) vs.
Ethelwoldo R.
Ovejera, Central
Azucarera de la
Carlota (CAC),
Col. Rogelio
Deinla, as
Provincial
Commander,
3311st P.C.
Command,
Negros
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Occidental
(G.R. No. l59743, May 31,
1982)
3. Telefunken
Semiconductors
Employees Union
FFW vs.
Secretary of
Labor and
Employment and
Temic Telefunken
Micro-Electronics
(Phils.), Inc. vs
Temic Telefunken
Micro-electronics
(Phils.), Inc. vs.
Hon. Leonardo A.
Quisumbing in
his capacity as
Secretary of
Labor and
Employment,
and Telefunken
Semiconductors
Employees
Union-FFW
(G.R. No. 122743
& 127215,
December 12,
1997)
Semiconduct
ors
Factory
workers
4. Batangas Laguna
Tayabas Bus
Company (BLTB
Co.) vs. NLRC,
Tinig at Lakas ng
Manggagawa sa
BLTBCO-NAFLU
and its reinstated
one hundred
ninety (190)
members
(G.R. No.
101858, August
Bus
Company
Was not
mentioned
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
21, 1992)
5. Zamboanga
Wood Products,
Inc. vs NLRC,
National
Federation of
Labor, Dionisio
Estioca and the
Strikers
(G.R. No. L82088, October
13, 1989)
Wood
Products
First hired
in May
1977 as a
clerk in its
personnel
departmen
t. In 1980,
he rose to
become a
personnel
aide. On
July 1,
1981, he
became
the
Personnel
Supervisor
,a
supervisor
y and/or
manageria
l position,
next in
rank to the
Personnel
Manager.
6. Union of Filipro
Emploees (UFE)
vs. Nestle
Philippines, Inc.,
NLRC, Hon.
Eduardo G.
Magno, Hon.
Zosimo T. Vasallo
and Hon.
Evangeline S.
Lubaton
(G.R. No. 8871013, December
19, 1990)
Dairy
Products
Wood
processing
plants
workers,
administra
tive and
technical
services
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
7. Henry Bacus,
Maximo Dangga,
Salvador Flores,
Victor Fuentes,
Santiago
Lacquiao, Luz
Fuentes,
Eleodoro Gajo,
Juanito Genilla,
Godofredo GacAng, and Calixto
Coyno vs. Hon.
Blas F. Ople,
Minister of Labor
of Employment
and Findlay Millar
Timber Company
(G.R. No. L58856, October
23, 1984)
Logging and
Manufacture
of plywood,
veneer and
other lumber
products.
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Restaurant
Cook
9. Far Eastern
University-Dr.
Nicanor Reyes
Medical
Foundation (FEU-
Medical
Institution
(Hospital)
Hospital
staffs
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
10.Hotel Enterprises
of the
Philippines, Inc.
(HEPI), owner of
Hyatt Regency
vs. Samahan ng
mga
Manggagawa sa
Hyatt-National
Union of Workers
in the Hotel and
Restaurants and
Allied Industries
(SAMASAHNUWRAIN)
(G.R. No.
165756, June 5,
2009)
Hotel
Management
the circumstances,
therefore no cogent
reason to dismiss the
union officers. The
presumption of receipt
of the copies of the
Assumption of
Jurisdiction Order could
not be lightly inferred
from the circumstances
considering the adverse
effect in case the
parties failed to heed to
the injunction directed
by such Order. Merely
posting copies of the
Assumption of
Jurisdiction Order does
not satisfy the rigid
requirement for proper
service outlined by the
above stated
rules. Needless to say,
the manner of service
made by the process
server was invalid and
irregular. Respondent
union could not
therefore be adjudged
to have defied the said
Order since it was not
properly apprised
thereof.
Housekeep Yes. The court ruled
ing
that the strike staged
attendant- by officers and member
line, tailor, of respondent is,
room
perforce illegal though
attendant, the respondent fully
messenger satisfied the procedural
/mail clerk, requirements
and
prescribed by law,
telephone
however, a valid and
technician legal strike must be
based on strikeable
grounds, because if it is
based on a nonstrikeable ground, it is
generally deemed an
illegal strike.
Respondent Union
went on strike in the
honest belief that
petitioner was
committing ULP after
the latter decided to
downsize its
workforce contrary
to the
staffing/manning
standards adopted
by both parties
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review