Nitto Enterprises v. NLRC & Roberto Capili / GR No. 114337 / 9.29.95/ Apprenticesip an! LearnersipF: Capili (PR) isanemployeeof NittoEnterprises. Capili, anapprenticemachinist accidentally injured the leg of the oce secretary, on the sameday Capili also managed to injure himself on !hile !or"ing, he !ashospitali#ed and P incurred $%&hospital 'ill. (he day after, PR !as as"ed toresign, su'ject to payment of his salary and further medical re)uirement. PRsigneda)uitclaim. *ayslater PRsfamilysuedfor illegal dismissal andpayment of monetary'ene+ts. ,-fa.oredP. ,-saidPRacted!/ grossnegligence and that he does not ha.e the proper attitude in suchemployment. N,RC re.ersed. P argues that since PR is only an apprenticeand that he !as signed a apprenticeship agreement. 0ence this petition."# $%N te NLRC co&&itte! 'rave ab(se o) !iscretion.R# *etitioner+s ar'(&ent is erroneo(s. 1n the case at 'ench, the apprenticeship agreement 'et!een petitioner andpri.ate respondent !as e2ecuted on 3ay 45, $667 allegedly employing thelatter as an apprentice in the trade of 8core ma"er/molder.8 9n the samedate, an apprenticeship program !as prepared 'y petitioner and su'mittedto the *epartment of ,a'or and Employment. 0o!e.er, the apprenticeship-greement !as +led only on :une ;, $667. Not!ithstanding the a'sence ofappro.al 'y the *epartment of ,a'or and Employment, the apprenticeshipagreement !asenforcedthedayit !assigned. tate aims to 8esta'lish a nationalapprenticeship program through the participation of employers, !or"ers andgo.ernment and non&go.ernment agencies8 and 8to esta'lishapprenticeship standards for the protection of apprentices.8,o translates(c ob-ectives into e.istence/ prior approval o) te 0%LE to an1apprenticesip pro'ra& as to be sec(re! as a con!ition sine 2(anon be)ore an1 s(c apprenticesip a'ree&ent can be )(ll1en)orce!. ,eroleo) te0%LEinapprenticesippro'ra&san!a'ree&ents cannot be !ebase!.-lso, the t!in re)uirements of notice and hearing constitute the essentialelements of due process.-ndsincetheapprenticeshipis in.alid, PRis consideredas aRegularEmployee.L3N*ict(res v. *ilippine4(sicians G(il!&C"R/ GRL12552612595/ 1.25.71/ E&plo1er6E&plo1eeRelationsip6"&portance/Concepcion/ 8 *#F: ,?N and >ampaguita (P) see"s to de&certify C1R@s (PR) certi+cation thatPFA as the sole and e2clusi.e 'argaining agency of all musicians !or"ing!ith P. P also maintains that the certi+cation cannot 'e granted since thereis no Employee&Employer relationship, PR argues other!ise."# 91: $%N te &(sicians ;orr&e!.(he musical directors in the instant case ha.e no control o.er the musiciansin.ol.ed in the present case. >aid directors control neither the music to 'eplayed, nor themusicians playingit. (he+lmcompanies summonthemusicians to !or", throughthemusical directors. (he+lmcompanies,through the musicaldirectors, pro.ide the transportation to and from thestudio. (he +lm companies furnish meal at dinner time.(he motion picturedirector !ho is an employee of the company B not the musical director Bsuper.ises the recording of the musicians and tells them !hat to do in e.erydetail, andsolely directs theperformanceof themusicians 'eforethecamera.?el!# Ane&plo1er6e&plo1eerelationsipe.istsbet;eente&(siciansan!te@l&co&panies.,erelationsipe.ists;ere te person )or ;o& te services are per)or&e! reserves ari't to control not onl1 te en! to be acieve! b(t also te &eansto be (se! in reacin' s(c en!. 9Alaba&a ?i';a1 E.press Co. vs.Local/ 712/ 1A5 B. 2! 35A.:4$4 E: 8Employer8 includes any person acting in the interest of an employer,directly or indirectly. (he term shallnot include any la'or organi#ation orany of its ocers or agents e2cept !hen acting as employer.4$4 F: 8Employee8 includes any person in the employ of an employer. (heterm shall not 'e limited to the employees of a particular employer, unlessthe Code so e2plicitly states. 1t shall include any indi.idual !hose !or" hasceasedasaresultof orinconnection!ithanycurrentla'ordisputeor'ecauseof anyunfair la'or practiceif hehas not o'tainedanyothersu'stantially e)ui.alent and regular employment.Employer&employee relationship is an agreement 'et!een parties to renderser.ice in e2change for compensation. CCompania 3aritima .. ErnestaCa'agnot ?da. de 0io, D.R. No. ,&$;EF;&F6, Fe'ruary 45, $6FEG. 0o!e.er,these contracts are impressed !ith pu'lic interest that they must yield tothe common good. C-rticle $;77, Ci.il CodeG. 0ence, the presence ora'sence of employer&employee relationship is a )uestion of la!. C1nsular ,ife-ssuranceCo., ,td. .. N,RC, D.R. No. $$66E7, 3arch$4, $665H (a'as..California 3anufacturing, D.R. No. 57F57, :anuary 4F, $656H >>> .. C-, D.R.No. $77E55, *ecem'er $I, 4777G.E&plo1erJ -ny person, natural or juridical, domestic or foreign, !hocarries on in the Philippines any trade, 'usiness, industry, underta"ing oracti.ity of any "ind and uses the ser.ices of another person !ho is under hisorder as regards the employment C>ection 5(c), R.-. No. 5454G.E&plo1ee J-ny person in the employ of an employer. (he term shall not 'elimited to the employees of a particular employer, unless the ,a'or Code soe2plicitly states. 1t shall include any indi.idual !hose !or" has ceased as aresult of or in connection !ith any current la'or dispute or 'ecause of anyunfair la'or practice if he has not o'tained any other su'stantiallye)ui.alent and regular employment. C-rt 4$4 (f), ,a'or CodeG.- 'etter de+nition is pro.ided 'y -#ucena: a natural person !ho is hired,directly or indirectly, 'y a naturalor juridicalperson to perform acti.itiesrelatedtothe'usinessof theKhirerL!ho, directlyorthroughanagent,super.ises or controls the !or" performance and pays the salary or !age ofthe Khiree.L CCesario -#ucena, :r., E.eryone@s ,a'or Code, p. =F (47$4)G.RosarioCroters "nc. v. %ple&NLRC/ etc. / GRNo. L65359A/7.31.54/ E&plo1er6E&plo1eeRelationsipsD,estto0eter&ine/Relova/ 8 p#F: P argues that there e2ists no EER'et!een themand PR, it is Pssu'mission, 'ecauseof theseriesof memorandasissued'ythemfrom$6;E&;;, !hich re.eals that P had no controland/or super.ision o.er the!or" of the PRs. PR are !or"ers in the clothing 'usiness of P, !here they are!or"ing under a Piece&Aor" 'asisH >>> registered through PH mem'ers ofthe MN19N ac"no!ledged 'y P. PR then claimed that P .iolated P* 5=$ and=4=($EthmonthpayNEmergency,i.ing-llo!ance), ,-fa.oredPanddeclared that there is no EER. N,RCarmed, 3inister of ,a'or ruledother!ise. 0ence this."# $%N tere is EER.R# A>r&e!. -s held in 3a+nco (rading Corporation .s. 9ple, ;7 >CR- $E6,the e2istence of employer&employee relationship is determined 'y thefollo!ing elements, namely:91: te selection an! en'a'e&ent o) tee&plo1ee 9!one b1 *R:=92: te pa1&ent o) ;a'es 9$eeupreme Court +nds thatte stat(s tereb1 create! is one o)in!epen!ent contractorsip,pursuant to the +rst rule in theinterpretation of contracts that the literal meaning of the stipulations shallcontrol. (-rticle $E;7, Ne! Ci.il Code)(he >upreme Court rulings in 3a+nco (rading Corp. .s. 9ple, ;7 >CR- $E6,!here the Court reiterated the 8control test8 earlier laid do!n in 1n.estmentPlanning Corp. .s. >ocial >ecurity >ystem, 4$ >CR- 64I and >ocial >ecurity>ystem .s. 0on. Court of -ppeals and >hrino (Phils.) 1nc., E; >CR- =;6 areauthoritati.eandcontrolling. 1nthe>hrinocase, theCourtheldthatthecommon la!rule of determining the e2istence of employer&employeerelationship, principally the 8control is test8 applies in this jurisdiction.$ere te ele&ent o) control is absent= ;ere a person ;o ;or!s)oranoter!oes so&ore or lessatiso;npleas(rean!isnots(b-ect to!e@niteo(rs or con!itions o) ;oron#alater !rote to -&C3C refused to 'argain !/ them, alleging that theyare not employees, rather they !ere independent contractors J they !erelater denied !or". >ued for illegal dismissal, >3C mo.ed for dismissal. ,-and N,RC ruled for >3C, hence this."# $%N tere e.ists an EER.R: Petition Dranted, reinstatement !/ 'ac" !ages. Payment 'y piece doesnot de+ne the essence of employment relation. "n tis case/ te alle'e!in!epen!ent contractors ;ere pai! a l(&p s(& representin' onl1te salaries te ;or>>. *uring the eSecti.ity of theagreement, petitioner re)uestedthe>>>for up!ardadjustment of theircontractratein.ie!ofAage9rderNo. NCR&7E. Forfailuretoheedthere)uest, petitioner pulled out his agencyOs ser.ices from the premises of >>>and +led a complaint see"ing the implementation of Aage 9rder No. NCR&7Eto the *9,E. Regional ,- ruled in fa.or of P, !hich !as later o.erturned 'ythe >ecretary of *9,E, hence this."# $%N 0%LE as -(ris!iction.F:(he reliefsought here has to do !iththe enforcementofthe contract'et!een petitioner and the >>> !hich !as deemed amended 'y .irtue ofAage 9rder No. NCR&7E. ,e controvers1 s(b-ect o) te case at bar ist(s a civil !isp(te/ te proper )or(& )or te resol(tion o) ;ic iste civil co(rts. At an1 rate/ te co&plaint &(st be !is&isse! )orlac< o) ca(se o) action.(he lia'ility of the >>> to reim'urse petitionerarises only if and !hen petitioner pays his employee&security guards 8theincreases8 mandated 'y Aage 9rder No. NCR&7E. (he records do not sho!that petitioner has paid the mandated increases to the security guards. (hesecurity guards in fact ha.e +led a complaint !ith the N,RCagainstpetitioner relati.e to, among other things, underpayment of !ages.O(sen Air & Bea Bervices *ils/ "nc. v. 3illa&or / GR No. 154A7A /5.17.A5 / EER 8(ris!iction / Garcia/ 8 p# F: PR is employed 'y P as a 'ranch managerH !/c !as later reclassi+ed as a*i.ision 3anager, !/c he held until he resigned in 4.$.74. PR then !or"edfor another company inthesamelineof 'usiness. P >ued, citingtheunderta"ing !hich PR agreed !ith P in lieu of his employment. 9n the otherhand P apparently sued through the N,RC P for illegal dismissal, PR also didnotans!ertheci.il suit, insteadhesu'mittedamotiontodismiss, andarguingthat saidcourt hadnojurisdiction. R(CdismissedPscomplaint.0ence this recourse.1: A9N R(C had the proper jurisdiction.R: Remanded for (rial. -ctually, the present case is not one of +rstimpression. 1n a "indred case, *ai&Chi Electronics 3anufacturing .s.?illarama, !ithasu'stantiallysimilar factual 'ac"drop, !eheldthat anactionfor 'reachof contractual o'ligationisintrinsicallyaci.il dispute.*etitioner !oes not as< )or an1 relie) (n!er te Labor Co!e o) te*ilippines. "t see