Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., GR No. 167614, 24 March 2009

Facts:Complainant Serrano was hired by Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc. under a POEA-approved contract as a Chief Officer for 12 months. On the date of his departure, he was constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract for the position of Second Officer upon the assurance that he would be made Chief Officer by the end of the following month. Because he was not made Chief Officer as promised, he refused to stay on as Second Officer and was repatriated to the Philippines with 9 months and 23 days remaining in his employment contract. He then filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and for payment of money claims with the Labor Arbiter (LA).The LA declared Serranos dismissal as illegal and awarded him the amount equivalent to 3 months worth of salary for the unexpired portion of his term, following Paragraph 5, Section 10 of RA 8042. On appeal, the NLRC only corrected the LAs computation of the lump-sum salary awarded to Serrano, but affirmed the LA judgment in all other respects. Serrano moved for partial reconsideration and assailed the constitutionality of Section 10 of RA 8042. The CA subsequently affirmed the NLRC but skirted the constitutional issue raised by Serrano.Issue:W/N the clause or for 3 months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, found in Section 10 (5) of RA 8042, violates Section 18 of Article II (The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. Ruling: YES, VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE III SECTION 1 OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION. The Court concludes that the subject clause contains a suspect classification in that, in the computation of the monetary benefits of fixed-term employees who are illegally discharged, it imposes a 3-month cap on the claim of OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their contracts, but none on the claims of other OFWs or local workers with fixed-term employment. The subject clause singles out one classification of OFWs and burdens it with a peculiar disadvantage.

Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting CorporationGR No. 138051, 10 June 2004

Facts:In May 1994, ABS-CBN signed an agreement with the Mel and Jay Management and Development Corporation (MJMDC). In the said Agreement, MJMDC agreed to provide Sonzas services exclusively to ABS-CBN as talent for radio and television. In 1996, Sonza wrote a letter to ABS-CBN, stating that their Agreement has been rescinded because of ABS-CBNs breach thereof. Sonza subsequently filed a complaint before the DOLE, complaining that ABS-CBN did not pay his salaries, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th-month pay, signing bonus, travel allowance, and amounts due under the Employees Stock Option Plan. The LA subsequently dismissed Sonzas complaint for lack of jurisdiction, based on the absence of employer-employee relationship between ABS-CBN and Sonza. The NLRC and CA, on appeal, also dismissed Sonzas complaint.Issue: W/N an employer-employee relationship existed between ABS-CBN and Sonza.Ruling: NO. The elements of an employer-employee relationship are:(1) The selection and engagement of the employee;(2) The payment of wages;(3) The power of dismissal; and(4) The employers power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished. The last element, the so-called control test, is the most important element that our courts apply in distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor. This test is based on the extent of control the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the supervision and control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an employee. The converse holds true as wellthe less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is considered an independent contractor.

Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO v. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines GR No. 162994, 17 September 2004

Facts:Pedro A. Tecson, a medical representative hired by Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, signed a contract of employment which stipulates, among others, that he agrees to study and abide by existing company rules and to disclose to management any existing or future relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies and should management find that such relationship poses a possible conflict of interest, to resign from the company.Tecson, however had a romantic relationship with Betsy, a Branch Coordinator of Astra Pharmaceuticals, which is a competitor of Glaxo. Tecson married Betsy in September 1998. In 1999, Tecsons superiors informed him that his marriage to Betsy gave rise to a conflict of interest. The NCMB subsequently declared Glaxos policy on relationships between its employees and person employed with competitor companies as valid, and affirmed Glaxos right to transfer Tecson to another sales territory. The CA affirmed the NCMB decision.Issues: W/N Glaxos policy against employees marrying employees of competitor companies violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution by creating invalid distinctions among employees on account only of marriage, thus restricting its employees right to marry.Ruling: NO. The challenged company policy does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. It is a settled principle that the commands of the equal protection clause are addressed only to the state or those acting under color of its authority. The equal protection clause erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful. The prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor companies upon Glaxos employees is reasonable under the circumstances because relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company.

Orozco vs CA, PDI and Magsanoc, GR No. 155207, August 13, 2008

Facts: Orozco was hired as a writer by the Philippine Daily Inquirer in 1990. She writes on a weekly basis and on a per article basis (P250-300/article). In 1991, Magsanoc as the editor-in-chief sought to improve the Lifestyle section of the paper. She said there were too many Lifestyle writers and that it was time to reduce the number of writers. Orozcos column was eventually dropped.

Orozco filed for a case for Illegal Dismissal against PDI and Magsanoc. Orozco won in the Labor Arbiter. The LA ruled that there exists an employer-employee relationship between PDI and Orozco hence Orozco is entitled to receive backwages, reinstatement, and 13thmonth pay. PDI appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. The NLRC denied the appeal because of the failure of PDI to post a surety bond as required by Article 223 of the Labor Code. The CA reversed the NLRC.

Issue: Whether or not PDIs appeal will prosper.

Ruling:Under Article 223 of the Labor Code Decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders.

The requirement that the employer post a cash or surety bond to perfect its/his appeal is apparently intended to assure the workers that if they prevail in the case, they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the employers appeal. It was intended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy their employees just and lawful claims.

The case is then remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the computation. This necessarily pended the resolution of the other issue of whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship between PDI and Orozco.

Emmanuel Babas et. al. v Lorenzo Shipping Corporation G.R. No. 186091, December 15 2010

Facts: Lorenzo Shipping Corporation (LSC) is a duly organized domestic corporation engaged in the shipping industry. LSC entered into a General Equipment Maintenance Repair and Management Services Agreement (Agreement) with Best Manpower Services, Inc. (BMSI). Under the Agreement, BMSI undertook to provide maintenance and repair services to LSCs container vans, heavy equipment, trailer chassis, and generator sets. BMSI further undertook to provide checkers to inspect all containers received for loading to and/or unloading from its vessels.Simultaneous with the execution of the Agreement, LSC leased its equipment, tools, and tractors to BMSI. The period of lease was coterminous with the Agreement. BMSI then hired petitioners on various dates to work at LSC as checkers, welders, utility men, clerks, forklift operators, motor pool and machine shop workers, technicians, trailer drivers, and mechanics. In September 2003, petitioners filed with the Labor Arbiter (LA) a complaint for regularization against LSC and BMSI. On October 1, 2003, LSC terminated the Agreement, effective October 31, 2003. Consequently, petitioners lost their employment.The Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioners complaint on the ground that petitioners were employees of BMSI. It was BMSI which hired petitioners, paid their wages, and exercised control over them. The NLRC reversed the Labor ArbiterIssue: Whether or not respondent was engaged in labor-only contracting.Ruling: Yes. In De Los Santos v. NLRC, the character of the business, i.e., whether as labor-only contractor or as job contractor, should be measured in terms of, and determined by, the criteria set by statute. The parties cannot dictate by the mere expedience of a unilateral declaration in a contract the character of their business.