LABOR LAW 1First Semester 2013-

2014

Ten Principles of Labor

1. Not all labor for another is compensable.2. Not all compensable labor are demandable under

the Labor Code.3. Labor is a property right.4. Involuntary servitude is prohibited.5. Living wage.6. Xxx7. Protection to labor.8. Waiver of labor rights.9. In case of doubt, labor laws and labor contracts are

interpreted in favor of labor.10.Non-diminution of benefits.

1. Not all labor for another is compensable.

Labor (definition) – Work; toil; service; mental or physical exertion. (Black’s Law Dictionary)

Case: Perez vs. Pomar, 2 Phil 682 (1903) -Perez interpreted for Pomar.-Perez claimed for compensation as

interpreter.-Pomar said Perez was his friend. The

services were given by Perez on his free will, without being requested to do so and without offer of compensation.

-SC held that despite the absence of an express agreement, Pomar should pay Perez. Pomar consented to and derived benefit from the services of Perez. Ordinarily, the services are compensable.

2. Not all compensable labor are demandable under the Labor Code.________________________________________________________________________________

a. Quasi-contract – a juridical relation resulting from a lawful, voluntary, and unilateral act, and which has for its purpose the payment of indemnity to the end that no one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another. e.g. negotiorum gestio (unauthorized management) or solutio indebti (unjust enrichment)

b. Independent contractingc. Tenancy: RA 6657

3. Labor is a property right.

When a person has no property, his job may possibly be his only possession or means of livelihood.

Therefore, a worker should be protected against arbitrary and unjust deprivation of his job.

4. Involuntary servitude is prohibited.

Is a non-compete agreement a form of involuntary servitude?

• Requisites of a valid non-compete agreement: (1) The employee has knowledge of trade secrets or information material to the business and which, if he discloses to competitors, will substantially threaten the employer’s viability, and (2) customer contacts, which are important for the same reason as above.

5. Living wage.

• Living wage is defined by the wage that can meet the basic needs to maintain a safe, decent standard of living within the community and have the ability to save for future needs and goals.

• The minimum income necessary for a worker to meet basic needs, not only for shelter, food and clothing, but also for recreation and health care.

6. State intervention in Labor.

The intervention of the State is based on police power.

The constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligation contracts is limited by the exercise of police power of the State.

7. Protection to labor.

• 1987 Constitution: “The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of the workers and promote their welfare.”

• Right to self-organization.• Right to collective bargaining and

negotiation.• Right to peaceful concerted activities and

the right to strike.• Right to security of tenure.• Right to humane conditions of work.• Right to living wage.

8. Waiver of labor rights.

• An employee can not agree to a wage below the minimum wage provided by law or to waive his right to overtime pay for overtime work rendered.

• However, an employee can validly enter into a quitclaim. The requisites are:

1) That there was no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties;

2) That the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable; and

3) That the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. 

9. In case of doubt, labor laws and labor contracts are interpreted in favor of labor.

-The Labor Code of the Philippines states: “All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.”

-Under the New Civil Code: “In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer.”

10. Non-diminution of benefits.• Any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by

employees cannot be reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer.

• The application of the principle presupposes that a company practice, policy and tradition favorable to the employees has been clearly established; and that the payments made by the company pursuant to it have ripened into benefits enjoyed by them.

To ripen into benefits, the following requisites must concur:

• It should have been practiced over a long period of time; and,

• It must be shown to have been consistent and deliberate.

Balancing of Rights, Shared Responsibility and Interdependence

• 1987 Constitution: “The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise and provides incentives to needed investments.”

• The State is mandated to promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers.

• Fair play still applies.

Article 6. Coverage.

• Labor Code is applicable to all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural.

• General rule: The provisions of the Labor Code is applicable when there is employer-employee (er-ee) relationship.

• Exceptions:1. Indirect employer’s liability (Art. 109);2. Illegal recruitment (Art. 38); and,3. Misuse of POEA license (Art. 35).

Employer-Employee RelationshipQuestion of Law/Question of fact

• General rule: the character of the relationship between the parties is not whatever they call it in their contract but what the law calls it after examination of the facts.

• But the conclusion that an employer-employee relationship exists depends on the facts of each case.

Employer-Employee RelationshipFour Elements / Four Fold Test

1. Selection and engagement;2. Payment of wages;3. Power to dismiss; and,4. Power of control.

Note: Even in the absence of items 1-3, there is still er-ee relationship if the power of control is present.

The control test is passed if it is shown that the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end.

Employer-Employee Relationship LVN vs. Phil. Musicians Guild 1 SCRA 132

• LVN said there was no er-ee relationship. They were in the business of creating movies not music. They did not exercise control over the musicians.

• Phil. Musicians Guild said that the movie director controls them during the recording of the movie.

• SC said there was er-ee relationship. -The movie director dictates what music would be played and in what manner.-There was hardly any movie without music.-The company issued call slips, arranged the schedules and furnished free transportation and food.

Employer-Employee Relationship LVN vs. Phil. Musicians Guild 1 SCRA 132

• LVN case compared with Josefa Vda. de Cruz vs. Manila Hotel Co. (April 30, 1957), where it was held that there was no er-ee relationship.

• Vda. De Cruz case: (similar facts)-The 15-man band of Tirso Cruz was engaged by Manila Hotel to play from 7:30PM to closing time, daily.-The pieces the orchestra played, its arrangement, intervals and other details were left to the leader’s (Tirso Cruz) discretion. Control was exercised by Tirso Cruz and not Manila Hotel.

Employer-Employee RelationshipLocational Separation from ControlSterling Products vs. Sol, 7 SCRA 446 Reasons in holding that there was er-ee relationship:

1. Sol was given an identification card of the company;

2. Sol was given a certificate of employment for the purpose of obtaining a housing loan;

3. Sol was able to borrow money from the Employees Loan Association;

4. The facts showed that Sterling Products exercised control, even without actual supervision: Sol was directed what to listen to and when. Sol was directed as to what radio station to listen to.

Employer-Employee RelationshipActual Exercise of ControlDy Keh Beng vs. Int’l. Labor 90 SCRA 162• Dy Keh Beng owned a basket (kaing) factory.

• Solano and Tudla worked on piece basis. They were dismissed because of their union activities.

• Dy Keh Beng said there is no control because Solano and Tudla are paid depending on the number of their output.

• SC said payment by piece is just a method of compensation. It does not define the essence of employer-employee relations.

• The control test calls merely for the right to control the manner of doing the work, not the actual exercise of the right.

Employer-Employee RelationshipContinuity of ControlRJL Martinez Fishing vs. NLRC , 127 SCRA 255• RJL had a fleet of fishing boats, which docked in Navotas.

• Stevedores were dismissed by RJL because they claimed for overtime pay, premium pay, and legal holiday pay among others.

• RJL said they were not employees because they could work on other fishing boats.

• SC said to pass the control test it is not required that the work is continuous. It is sufficient that the power of control is reserved.

• The employee could not be penalized for their natural tendency to seek other means of support.

Employer-Employee RelationshipControl Test

The ultimate but not exclusive test.

Control Test: whether the employer controls or has reserved the right to control the employee not only as to the result of the work to be done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is accomplished.

Er-Ee Relationship: Two Tiered TestControl Test and Economic Dependence TestFrancisco vs NLRC, GR No. 170087, August 31, 2006 Francisco was hired by Kasei Corp. as accountant and corporate secretary. Later on she became acting manager. After six years she was replaced as manager and was designated as technical consultant. Her salary was reduced. She complained of constructive dismissal.

SC applied the power of control and economic dependence test (two tiered approach). No written agreement or terms of reference from which the relationship can be based.

Francisco received check vouchers showing her salaries, SSS contributions, thirteenth month pay and other bonuses and allowances.

Independent ContractorAndoyo vs. Manila Railroad (March 28, 1932)

An independent contractor is one who exercises independent employment and contracts to do a piece of work according to his own methods and without being subject to control of his employer, except as to the result of the work.

A person who has no capital or money of his own to pay his laborers or to comply with his obligations to them, who files no bond to answer to the fulfillment of his contract with his employer, falls short of the requisites or conditions necessary to classify him as an independent contractor.

Independent ContractorOpening Lyrics from the Song: “Get Here”

You can reach me by railway You can reach me by trailway You can reach me on an airplane, You can reach me with your mind You can reach me by caravan, Cross the desert like an Arab man, I don't care how you get here, just - get here if you can. 

Independent Construction ContractorCaro vs. Rilloraza, 102 Phil. 61

Caro is engaged in the business of renting out of office spaces and buildings.

Rilloraza is a construction worker. He fell while working on the one of the buildings administered by Caro.

Rilloraza claimed for benefits under the Workmen Compensation Act. Caro said Rilloraza is not his employee.

SC said there is er-ee relationship. Carpentry works is necessary in the business of renting out buildings. The repair of buildings is necessary and not casual.

Independent Construction ContractorUy Chao vs. Aguilar and Ramos, 103 Phil. 219

Uy Chao was a glassware dealer. He engaged the services of Ramos to repair the eaves. Ramos brought with him Aguilar.

Aguilar was injured because the eaves fell on him. Aguilar claimed benefits from the Workmen Compensation Act.

Uy Chao said the repair of the eaves was not for the purpose of his business of selling glasswares.

The SC said there is no er-ee relationship. The relationship with Aguilar is purely casual and not for the purpose of Uy Chao’s business or occupation.

Independent Construction ContractorCabe vs. Tumang, 135 SCRA 389

Spouses Cabe engaged the services of Tamayo to build a house based on a building plan.

When Tamayo deviated from the plan, spouses Cabe dispensed of his services.

Tamayo claimed for reimbursement of labor costs and materials before the Department of Labor. Assistant Regional Director Tumang ordered the spouses Cabe to pay Tamayo.

SC said Tumang had no jurisdiction. Tamayo’s claim did not arise from er-ee relationship.

Roving Independent PeddlersSnowhite Ice Cream vs. Garcia, 42 SCRA 295 Snow White was engaged in the selling of ice cream through push carts.

Garcia was a peddler. He was paid 2 centavos for every ice cream he sold at 5 centavos each.

While preparing his pushcart, a block of ice dropped on Garcia’s foot. After 1 week he returned to work. But while he was pushing his cart along his usual route, the same foot was caught in a barbed wire and became infected. His leg was amputated. Later on Garcia died.

Snow White denied er-ee relationship under the Workmens Compensation law.

SC said there is er-ee relationship. Snow White supplied push carts, ice, ice cream, salt and cap. There was no transfer of ownership of the ice cream products.

Roving Independent PeddlersMafinco Trading vs. Ople, 70 SCRA 139

Mafinco was a distributor of Cosmos. Mafinco entered into a Peddling Contract with Repomanta and Moralde.

Peddling Contract: (a) Peddler would buy and sell the softdrinks; (b) Peddler would post a bond in favor of Mafinco for any damage to its trucks or unpaid salaries of the peddler’s workers and another bond for the social security benefits of the peddler’s workers; (c) Peddler would secure its own business permits and licenses; (d) Mafinco would provide the trucks, fuel and maintenance; and (e) Peddler would liquidate his accounts each day.

Mafinco terminated the Peddling Contract after six months.

Roving Independent PeddlersMafinco Trading vs. Ople, 70 SCRA 139

Repomante and Moralde said they were illegaly dismissed as employees because of their union activities.

SC said because of the contradictory factual submissions of the opposing parties, they would focus on the Peddling Contract.

SC: pro hac vice (for this case only) the issues would be resolved based on the Peddling Contract.

Held: having signed the Peddling Contract Repomante and Moralde were bound by its stipulations and the consequences thereof.

Roving Independent PeddlersSSS vs. CA, 156 SCRA 383

QTC entered into a contract with Carreon:1. Carreon would buy and sell one or more brands

of cigarettes from QTC on cash basis;2. QTC assigned a definite sales territory and

customers to Carreon;3. QTC provided a delivery truck to be used

exclusively for the sale of cigarettes;4. QTC dictated the price of cigarettes and the

brand to be sold;5. Carreon was required to submit daily, weekly

and monthly reports to QTC;6. Carreon was supervised by sales coordinators

of QTC; and,7. Carreon was paid allowance by QTC.

Roving Independent PeddlersSSS vs. CA, 156 SCRA 383

After 4 months the contract with Carreon was terminated by QTC.

SSS said there was er-ee relationship. Court of Appeals said there was no er-ee

relationship and that Carreon was an independent contractor, relying on the Mafinco case.

SC applied the Control Test. SC said based on the contract between QTC and Carreon there was control.

Independent SalesmenJ. Ysmael vs. CIR 108 Phil. 219

The commission agents of J. Ysmael and Co. formed a union. Ysmael said the commission agents were not its employees and thus, there was no er-ee relationship.

As compared to regular office employees, the commission agents were not required to undergo physical examination, to submit police clearance, and to punch the bundy clock. They were not issued identification cards.

SC: there is er-ee relationship. Ysmael had full authority to determine the manner and conditions in the performance of the duties of the agents.

Independent SalesmenJ. Ysmael vs. CIR 108 Phil. 219

1. The commission agent undergoes a two-month probation period;

2. The commission agent must be 100% loyal to the company. Free-lancing or any form of disloyalty may result to withdrawal of commission or termination;

3. The agent must check in at 8:00 AM and report all visits made the previous day;

4. They are given transportation allowances every day; and,

5. The company directs the details of the work of making sales, through the sales manager.

Independent SalesmenInvestment Planning vs. SSS, 21 SCRA 924

Investment Planning applied to SSS for exemption for its registered representatives. SSS denied the application.

SC said the work of the agents of Investment Planning more nearly approximate that of an independent contractor.

Although the agents of Investment Planning are subject to its rules and regulations as found in the contract, many features of the agreement show that the registered representatives are independent contractors.

Independent SalesmenDr. Renato Sara & Romeo Arana vs. Agarrado & NLRC, 166 SCRA 625

Agarrado was attendant in the clinic of Dr. Sara. She quit in 1973.

Dr. Sara and Arana entered into a verbal agreement with Agarrado: P2.00 commission for every sack of rice sold and P10% commission per kilo of palay purchased.

Agarrado would spend her own money in the venture, but she could borrow from other persons.

Agarrado claimed for unpaid commission and reimbursement before the NLRC.

SC: NLRC had no jurisdiction. No control on the part of Dr. Sara and Arana. Agarrado was free to sell to anybody the palay bought.

AgencyGuardex Enterprise vs. NLRC ,191 SCRA 487

Escandor was the owner of Guardex Enterprise. Guardex was in the business of making and selling fire

extinguishers and fire trucks. Escandor submitted proposal to Rubberworld for the sale

of fire truck. Orbeta suddenly offered to follow up the proposal given

by Escandor to Rubberworld. Orbeta was given a representation allowance of P250. Then Orbeta was nowhere to be found.

Escandor, on her own, was able to consummate the sale of fire trucks to Rubberworld. Then Orbeta appeared claiming his commission of P15,000.

The Labor Arbiter and NLRC granted the claim of Orbeta. SC: it is clear from the beginning that there was no er-ee

relationship. There was even no contract of agency.

AgencyCarungcong vs. NLRC, 283 SCRA 308

Carungcong was an agent of Sun Life Insurance. She started as agent then became a manager.

After 15 years Carungcong was terminated because of findings of fraudulent reimbursements.

Carungcong said she was an employee of Sun Life Insurance. She was subject to the rules and regulations of the company as found in her contract.

SC: Carungcong was an independent contractor. The rules and regulations was necessary for the regulation of insurance business. Carungcong received an annual income of P3M.

AgencyInsular Life vs. NLRC and Basiao , GR. No. 84484 (November 15,1989)

1968: Insular Life entered into a contract with Basiao, as commission agent.

1972: Insular Life and Basiao entered into an Agency Manager’s Contract. Basiao organized an office: M. Basiao and Associates.

1979: Insular Life terminated the Agency Manager’s contract with Basiao and later on the commission agent contract.

NLRC: There was er-ee relationship. SC: Basiao was the master of his own time and

selling methods. He was left to determine the time, place and means of soliciting insurance. He had no quotas and his compensation was based on the results obtained.

AgencyInsular Life vs. NLRC and Basiao , GR. No. 84484 (November 15,1989)

SC: Not every form of control passes the control test.

Control in the form of mere guidelines for the achievement of mutually desired result does not establish er-ee relationship. This promotes the result.

Control not only as to the result, but also as to the means and methods in achieving the result establishes er-ee relationship.

Insurance is an enterprise imbued with public interest, where the Insurance Code applies. When some of the provisions of the Insurance Code are found in the employment contract, this fact does not on its own establish er-ee relationship.

AgencyInsular Life vs. NLRC and Delos Reyes, 287 SCRA 476 , GR No. 119930 (March 12,1998)

1992: Insular Life and Delos Reyes entered into and agency contract. Delos Reyes was prohibited from working for other life insurance.

1993: Contract between Insular Life and Delos Reyes as Acting Unit Manager. Delos reyes was provided an office by Insular Life. Delos Reyes conducted recruitment, training, organization and development within his territory. He performed administrative functions. Delos Reyes was prohibited from working for other life insurance or any other firm and the government.

SC: exclusivity of service, control of assignments and furnishing of company facilities and materials show control.

Agricultural TenancyDe los Reyes vs. Espineli (G.R. L-28280-81) November 28, 1969

Delos Reyes owned a 200-hectare coconut plantation in Calauan, Laguna.

In 1958, the overseer took into the land 17 persons under the agreement that they were to receive 1/7 portion of every coconut harvest.

In 1963, Delos Reyes dismissed the overseer and the seventeen respondents.

Delos said the respondents were his employees. The respondents said they are share tenants and not employees.

SC said the respondents are share tenants.

Agricultural TenancyDe los Reyes vs. Espineli (G.R. L-28280-81) November 28, 1969

Share Tenancy vs. Employer-employee Relationship

Share Tenancy Er-ee Relationship

Joint undertaking/venture Farm owner’s undertaking

Right of possession by tenant No right of possession

Compensation of tenant is contingent

Compensation is fixed

The whole household participates in the production

Farm worker’s labor alone

Tenant has the right of control Farm owner has the right of control

Lease Contract? Citizen’s League vs. Abbas (G.R. no. L-21212, September 23, 1966)

The drivers of the jeepneys staged a strike because the jeepney owners did not recognize them as employees when they requested to bargain collectively.

Judge Abbas issued an injunction to stop the jeepney drivers from conducting a strike.

Q: Are the jeepney drivers employees of the jeepney owners/operators.

SC: Yes. The only thing that makes the arrangement seemed like lease is that the jeepney owner did not pay them wages. Instead the drivers pay “boundary” at the end of the day.

Lease Contract? Jardin vs. NLRC and Goodman Taxi (G.R. no. 119268, February 23, 2000)

Jardin and others are taxi drivers of Goodman Taxi. They formed a union to protect their rights. They were dismissed.

Goodman Taxi said they are lessees not employees. After a 24-hour work schedule, they pay their “boundary” and P30 for washing.

Goodman said there is no exercise of the right of control.

SC: the taxi drivers are employees of Goodman Taxi. The control test is passed when the taxi drivers could only take and bring passengers within the designated area as contained in the Certificate of Public Convenience.

Lease Contract? (Boundary Hulog)Villamaria vs. CA and Bustamante (G.R. No. 165881, April 19, 2006) The owner of a jeepney and his driver entered into a contract: Kasunduan ng Bilihan ng Sasakyan sa Pamamagitan ng Boundary Hulog.

The driver will remit daily the P550, which constituted the boundary and partial payment for the purchase of the jeepney.

The owner retained ownership of the jeepney although the material possession is granted to the driver.

Because of failure to pay the P550 boundary, the jeepney was taken and the driver was barred from driving. Was there illegal dismissal.

SC: Yes. Despite the arrangement, there was still control on the part of the jeepney owner.

Industrial Partnership Ruga vs. NLRC and De Guzman Fishing, (G.R. No. L-72654-61, January 22, 1990)

De Guzman was involved in trawl fishing. De Guzman fixed the schedule of the fishing trips, the direction of the fishing vessel, the volume of the fish catch that was sufficient for them to return to the fishing port, which were communicated to de Guzman through radio.

Ruga was the patron or pilot. If the proceeds of the sale of the fish catch is greater than the amount of the crude oil consumed, the crew would receive 13%, otherwise they would receive 10%.

Ruga and others were dismissed because they were suspected of selling fish catch at midsea.

SC: De Guzman exercised control. Not a joint venture.

Industrial Partnership Villavilla vs. CA (G.R. No. 79664, August 11, 1992)

Villavilla was one of the missing crew member of a fishing boat when it sank somewhere in Palawan. The parents of Villavilla filed a claim before the SSS for death compensation but he was not a registered employee of the owner of the fishing vessel.

The parents claimed for damages against the owner of the vessel but it was denied.

Villavilla was hired not by the owner but by a maestro. The crew received share in the fish catch. The ship captain decided when to leave, where to fish, and the duration of the voyage.

SC: there was no er-ee relationship. This was a joint venture.

Industrial Partnership Besa vs. Trajano (G.R. No. 72409, December 29, 1986)

Besa was the owner of Besa’s Custombuilt Shoes. Among its employees who filed a petition for certification election, were the 17 shoe-shiners.

Besa opposed the petition contending that the 17 shoe-shiners were not his employees but partners in trade.

The shoe-shiners have their own customers, which directly paid them. Then they give the ½ share of Besa. Besa did not supervise the shoe-shiners. He did not exercise control.

SC: the shoe-shiners were industrial partners of Besa.

Er-ee Relationship Created by LawVinoya vs. NLRC, August 25, 2000 Vinoya was initially hired Regent Food Corporation (RFC) as sales representative.

Subsequently, RFC entered into a contract of service with Peninsula Manpower Company, Inc. (PMCI), which covered Vinoya as Sales representative.

Vinoya was terminated. He filed a case for illegal dismissal against RFC claiming that PMCI is a labor only contractor.

SC:PMCI is a labor only contractor.PMCI does not have substantial capital. It did not carry an independent business. PMCI was not engaged to perform a specific service or special job. It acted as recruitment agency for RFC.

Er-ee Relationship Created by LawFilipinas Synthetic Fiber vs. NLRC, GR no. 113347, June 14, 1996 FILSYN and De Lima Trading entered into a contract of service where De Lima would supply Janitorial services.

Loterte was deployed to FILSYN as janitor. After 10 years, he was dismissed. He filed an illegal dismissal case among others against FILSYN and De Lima.

SC: De Lima Trading was an independent contractor. FILSYN and De Lima Trading are jointly and severally (solidary) liable to Loterte.

Er-ee Relationship Created by LawCoca Cola Bottlers vs. NLRC, GR No. 120466, May 17, 1999

Canonicato was hired by Coca Cola as casual employee and was terminated subsequently.

Canonicato was hired by Bacolod Janitorial Services (BJS) to perform janitorial works on Coca Cola. Inspired by other employees who were absorbed by Coca Cola after they filed cases, Canonicato later on filed an illegal dismissal case against Coca Cola.

SC: BJS is a legitimate job contractor.BJS had substantial capital and investment in the form of tools, equipments, and work premises. Janitorial services provided by BJS was unnecessary to the principal business of Coca Cola.

Er-ee Relationship Created by LawRamos vs. CA, G.R. no. 124354, December 29,1999

Ramos was scheduled for surgery involving removal of her gall bladder.

Dr. Gutierrez tried to insert the endotracheal tube to give anesthesia but she was unsuccesful.

Because of prolonged lack of supply of oxygen on Ramos she became comatose. The surgery did not push through.

Are the doctors and hospital liable? SC: the surgeon and anesthesiologist were held

liable. The hospital was likewise held liable by operation of law.

Er-ee Relationship Created by LawVallum Security vs. NLRC, G.R.no.97320-27, July 30, 1993

Vallum Security and Hyatt Terraces Baguio entered into a contract for security services.

After 2 years Vallum Security and Hyatt Terraces Baguio terminated their contract, which left several security guards without employment.

The security guards were told to report to Vallum Security in Manila, otherwise their employment would be terminated. They filed an illegal dismissal case against Vallum Security and Hyatt Terraces Baguio.

SC: The four elements in determining presence of er-ee relationship were existing. Vallum Security was a labor only contractor. Hyatt Terraces was the direct employer.

Er-ee Relationship Created by LawRVM vs. NLRC, G.R. No.103606, October 13, 1999 Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos (RCBM) entered

into a management contract with Religious of the Virgin Mary (RVM), where RVM would run and administer the Colegio de San Pascual Baylon for girls.

The Parish Priest of Obando should be the Director of the school. He exercised general control and supervision over all academic and administrative matters.

On April 10, 1987 (after 5 years form effectivity) RCBM terminated the contract with RVM. The employees claimed for the salaries for May 1987. Who should pay it?

SC: RCBM through the parish priest was the direct employer.

Union as EmployerBautista vs. Inciong, G.R. No. L-52824, March 16, 1988

Bautista was an “Organizer” of Associated Labor Unions (ALU).

ALU was a federation. Bautista was dismissed by ALU. It filed a

clearance from the then Ministry of Labor to terminate Bautista. ALU claimed that there was no er-ee relationship.

Can a union be an employer and have er-ee relationship with its employees?

SC: Yes. All the elements in determining er-ee relationship are present.

Employment with Foreign State U.S.A vs. Rodrigo, G.R. no 79470, February 26, 1990

Genove was a cook in the U.S. Air Force Recreation Center at the John Hay Air Station in Baguio City.

Genove poured urine on the soup stock used in cooking the vegetables served to the club members. For this he was dismissed.

Genove filed a case for damages before the regular courts.

Could the U.S. Air Force be sued in this case? Yes. By entering into a contract of employment with Genove it has impliedly given its consent to be sued.

Is it liable? No.

Employment with Foreign State JUSMAG vs. NLRC, G.R. no 109813, December 15, 1994

Joint United States Military Assistance Group to the Republic of the Philippines (JUSMAG-Philippines), hired Sacramento as member of the Security Assistance Support Personnel.

Sacramento was dismissed by JUSMAG. He filed an illegal dismissal case against JUSMAG before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case. NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

Can JUSMAG be sued without its consent? No. Though it entered into an employment contract with Sacramento, there is no implied consent because the function of JUSMAG is sovereign in nature.

Entities Imbued with Personality Under International LawInt’l. Catholic vs. Calleja, GR No. 85750, September 28, 1990 Joint United States Military Assistance Group to the Republic of the Philippines (JUSMAG-Philippines), hired Sacramento as member of the Security Assistance Support Personnel.

Sacramento was dismissed by JUSMAG. He filed an illegal dismissal case against JUSMAG before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case. NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

Can JUSMAG be sued without its consent? No. Though it entered into an employment contract with Sacramento, there is no implied consent because the function of JUSMAG is sovereign in nature.

Entities Imbued with Personality Under International LawICMCvs. Calleja, GR No. 85750, September 28, 1990 International Catholic Immigration Commission (ICMC) and International Rice Research Institute were given by the Philippine government the status of specialized agency with diplomatic privileges and immunities. They are immune from criminal, civil and administrative cases under Philippine laws.

Petitions for Certification Elections were filed in both agencies. Could it prosper?

SC: No. The immunity granted to ICMC and IRRI covered Petition for Certification Election.

Entities Imbued with Personality Under International LawSEAFDEC-AQD vs. NLRC, GR No. 86773, February 14, 1992 Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center – Aquaculture Department (SEAFDEC-AQD) is an international organization created by the governments of Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan and the Philippines.

Lazaga was an employee of SEAFDEC-AQD. He was terminated due to financial constraints. His separation pay was not released because he was not able to obtain a clearance for his accountabilities. He filed a case for non-payment of separation pay and moral damages before the NLRC.

Is SEAFDEC-AQD immune from suit? Yes.