KCD recommends to read the full text of the case cited. July 2013. Nitto Enterprises v N!C 2"# $C!% &'1 (.!. No. 11"33) *1++', FACTS: Petitioner, a company engaged in the sale of glass and aluminium products hired Roberto Roberto Capili as an apprentice machinist, molder and core maker (as eidenced by an apprenticeship agreement! for a period of " months from #ay $%&'oember $%, ))*+ nfortunately he accidentally hit and in-ured an o.ce secretary and at the same day he operated one of the po/er press machine /ithout authority and in the proc proces ess s in-u in-urred his his left left thum thumb+ b+ Subs Subse0 e0ue uent ntly ly,, peti petiti tion oner er dism dismis isse sed d pri priat ate e respondent+ 1SS2S: a! 34' the the priate priate respond respondent ent /as an apprentic apprentice+ e+ b! 34' the the petitioner petitioner alidly alidly dismissed dismissed the priate priate respondent+ respondent+ 5267: a! nder nder Article Article " of the 6abor Code proid proides es the contents contents of apprentic apprenticesh eship ip agreement+ 1t is mandated that an apprentice apprentice agreements entered into by the empl employ oyer er and and an appr appren enti tice ce shal shalll be ente enterred only only in acco accord rdan ance ce /ith /ith appr appren enti tice cesh ship ip prog progra ram m duly duly appr appro oed ed by the the #ini #inist ster er of 6abo 6aborr and and 2mployment+ 1n the case at bench, the agreement /as e8ecuted on #ay $%, ))* but it /as 9led only on une ;, ))* /ith 7462+ b! Pu Purs rsua uant nt to Arti Articl cle e $% $%" " < 7e9n 7e9nes es Regul egular ar and and Casu Casual al 2mpl 2mploy oyme ment nt++ The The priat priate e respo responde ndent nt shoul should d right rightly ly be consid consider ered ed as regul regular ar employ employee ee of petiti petitione onerr+ There Therefor fore, e, he is entitl entitled ed to secur security ity of tenur tenure+ e+ 5e canno cannott be dismissed /ithout due process of la/+
-ernardo v N!C et al 310 $C!% 1'& (.!.N. 122+1) *1+++, FACTS: Petitioners are deaf&mutes /ho /ere hired as money sorters and counters of the respond respondent ent bank+ bank+ Through Through a uniform uniformly ly /orded /orded agreement agreement called called =2mployme =2mployment nt Contract for 5andicapped 3orkers>+ Petitioner contracts /ere rene/ed eery si8 mont months hs such such that that by the the time time this this case case aros arose e beca becaus use e the the respo espond nden entt bank bank disclaimed that they /ere regular employees+ 1SS2: 34' petitioners are regular employees+ 5267: The rene/als rene/als sho/ that that they are are 0uali9ed for their their positions positions and therefore therefore should should be treated like other 0uali9ed able&bodied employees+ As such, they hae ac0uired legal rights as a conse0uence of la/ and -ustice nor compassion+ compassion+ Article %* does not apply because petitioners are 0uali9ed for their position and being handicapped is not a hindrance to their /ork+
%/E NN( C/%N NC. 4 N!C and Candido 1+& $C!% 2'1 *1++1,
(.!.N. +"+'1 FACTS: Priate respondent Candido /as employed as house helper in the sta? house of petitioner+ 3hile she /as /orking, she accidentally slipped and hit her back as a result she /as not able to continue her -ob for the meantime+ 6ater, priate respondent return to /ork but petitioner did not allo/ her and dismissed her instead+ 1SS2: 34' a house helper in the sta? house of an industrial company a domestic helper or a regular employee of the said 9rm+ 5267: nder Rule @111, Section 1 (b!, ook B of the 6abor Code < The de9nition cannot be interpreted to include house helper or laundry/omen /orking in the Sta? house of a company, /ho attends to the needs of the companys guests and other persons aailing of said facilities+ 1n such instance, they are employees of the company or employer in the business concerned entitled to the priileges of a regular employee+
ercidar 5ishin6 Corp. 4 N!C 2+) $C!% ""2 *1++#, (.!.N.112')" FACTS: Priate respondent employed as a =bodegero> or ships 0uartermaster complained of being constructiely dismissed by petitioner /hen the latter refused him assignments aboard+ Priate respondent appeal to the 6abor Arbiter and rendered a decision ordering petitioner corporation to reinstate complainant /ith bene9ts but petitioner claims that he cannot be held liable for serice incentie, leae pay to the respondent because they are 9eld personnel+ Thus priate respondent is not entitled to such pay under the 6abor Code+ 1SS2: 34' 9shermen are considered 9eld personnel+ 5267: 'o+ Although 9sherman performs non&agricultural /ork and they are a/ay from their business o.ces+ The fact remains that throughout the duration of their /ork they are under the e?ectie control and superision of the employer through the essels patron or master+ Therefore, they are not 9eld personnel under Article %$ of the 6abor Code+
a7or Con6ress v N!C 2+0 $C!% '0+ (.!.N. 123+3# FACTS: The )) persons named as petitioners in this proceeding /ere rank&and&9le employees of respondent 2mpire Food Products, /hich hired by them on arious dates+ Petitioners 9led a complaint for payment of money claims and for iolation of labor standard la/s against priate respondent+ They also 9led a petition for direct
certi9cation of petitioner 6abor Congress of the Philippines as their bargaining representatie+ 1SS2: 34' the petitioners are entitled to labor standard bene9ts considering they are paid by piece rate /orkers+ 5267: According to Section % (b!, Rule 1D, ook 111 of the 1mplementing Rules, employees paid by results or output is entitled to holiday pay (Art+)E!+ 1t is bene9cial to secure 7462s approal of a piece&rate policy+ Petitioners labor under the control of priate respondents as their employer, like/ise did petitioners toil throughout the year /ith the ful9lment of their 0uota as supposed basis for compensation+ Petitioners are also entitled to oertime pay because they are beyond the ambit of e8empted persons mentioned in Section $ (e!, Rule 1, ook 111 of the 1mplementing Rules+
%DE v N!C (.!.N. 100&"18 J9NE 1"8 1++3 FACTS: Petitioner is a CPA, hired as Cost Accounting #anager of respondent Raytheon Philippines 1nc+ As such his ma-or duties /ere planning, coordinating and carrying& out&year&end physical inentory and others+ 3hen the respondent company adopted and installed /orld/ide standard in cost accounting system the serice of the petitioner /as reduced and abolished on the ground of redundancies+ 5e re0uested for transfer to another department and /as denied+ 5e alleged that the functions of his position /ere absorbed by other department /hich is headed by a resident alien /ithout /orking permit from the 7462+ Petitioner 9led for illegal dismissal+ 1SS2: 34' the termination of petitioner on the ground of redundancy /as tainted /ith malice, bad faith and irregularity+ 5267: The termination of petitioners employment /as anchored and alid and authoried cause under Article $%B+ Closure of 2stablishment and reduction of personnel+ An employer has no legal obligation to keep more employees that are necessary for the operation of the business+ 6ike/ise destitute of merit is petitioners imputation of unla/ful discrimination /hen respondent company caused corollary functions appertaining to cost accounting to be absorbed by a resident alien /ithout /orking permit+ Article E* of the 6abor Code /hich re0uires employment permit refers to non&resident aliens+
-!:;E!;D %-! 9N: 4EEN: 5 :;E /;$. Et al v
34' an employer&employee relationship e8ists bet/een the parties+ 5267: 1n the instant case, the control test is eident+ 3here the respondent has the po/er to control the employees /ith respect to the means and methods by /hich the /ork is to be accomplished+ 1n determining the e8istence of an employer&employee relationship, the elements that are generally considered are the follo/ing: a! the selection and engagement of the employeeH b! the payment of /agesH c! the po/er of dismissalH d! the employers po/er to control the employee /ith respect to the means and methods by /hich a /ork is to be accomplished+
J%!DN v N!C (.!.N. 11+2 5E-!9%! 238 2000 FACTS: Petitioners /ere driers of priate respondent ta8i units under the boundary system /here petitioners earn and deduct an amount for the /ashing of the ta8i units+ Petitioner decided to form a labor union as a result respondent refused to let them drie the ta8icabs+ Petitioners 9led /ith the labor arbiter then to '6RC a complaint on the grounds of illegal dismissal, illegal deductions and unfair labor practices+ 1SS2: 34' an employer&employee relationship e8ists thus resulting to illegal dismissal+ 5267: The relationship bet/een o/ners and driers under the boundary system is that of employer&employee and not of lessor&lessee+ The fact that the driers do not receie 98ed /ages is not su.cient to /ithdra/ the relationship from that of employer& employee+ The termination of employment must be e?ectuated in accordance /ith la/+ Regards to the amount deducted for /ashing, such /as not illegal as such is indeed a practice in ta8i industry and is dictated by fair play+
<%9D v N!C (.!.N.)&)238 %!C; 2'8 1++0 FACTS: Petitioners are pakyao /orkers of the priate respondents farm+ They are seasonal /orkers tasked to cultiate the farm+ Petitioners neer stopped /orking for the respondent from the time they /ere hired until they /ere dismissed+ 1SS2: 34' an employer&employee relationship e8ists+ 5267: The nature of their employment, pakyao basis, does not make petitioners an independent contractor+ Pakyao /orkers are considered employees as long as the employer e8ercise control oer the means and methods by /hich such /orkers are to perform their /ork inside priate respondents farm+ The circumstance that petitioners /ere not in the payroll does not destroy the employer&employee relationship+
/%(9 v N!C (.!.N. 1")#1&8 % +8 2003
FACTS: Petitioner entered into an agreement /ith respondent for the 9fth time+ arely t/o months after the rene/al of contract the respondent terminated petitioners serices as an account e8ecutie+ Petitioner 9led a case before the labor arbiter on the grounds of unla/ful dismissal+ 1SS2: 34' petitioner has been -ustly dismissed from serice+ 5267: nder the Constitution a la/ful dismissal must meet both substantie and procedural re0uirements+ Pursuant to 6abor Code, Security of Tenure, the dismissal must be for -ust or authoried cause+ 1n the case for instance, the notice of termination recites no alid or -ust cause for the dismissal of petitioner nor does not appear that he has been gien an opportunity to be heard in his defense+
N%:N% $9(%! !E5NE!E$ C!/. *N%$9!E5C, v N!C (.!.N. 101)&18 %!C; 2"8 1++3 FACTS: Petitioner 'ASR2FC4, a corporation /hich is fully o/ned and controlled by the goernment, operates B sugar re9neries+ Priate respondent union represents the former superisors of the petitioner+ 'ASR2FC4 implemented a 2 Program a?ecting all employees from rank&and&9le to department heads+ The 2 Program /as designed to rationalie the duties and functions of all positions+ T/o years, after the implementation, the members of herein respondent union 9led a complaint on the grounds of non&payment of oertimeH rest day and holiday pay allegedly in iolation of Art+** of the 6abor Code+ 1SS2: 34' superisory employees as de9ned in Article $$ should be considered as o.cers or members of the managerial sta? under Article %$+ 5ence, they are not entitled to oertime pay, holiday pay and others+ 5267: 5erein, union members should be considered o.cers and members of the managerial sta? and therefore e8empt from the coerage of Article %$+
N:E!/; %-!%:!E$ E/EE$ 9NN=55> et al v N:E!/; %-!%:!E$ NC. %nd ;N.?9$9-N(8 $EC!E:%! 5 %-! %ND E/EN: (.!.No. 1"2#2"8 Decem7er 1+8 2001 FACTS: Petitioner is the sole and e8clusie bargaining agent of the rank&and&9le employees of the respondent, a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and packaging pharmaceutical products+ The respondent company could not make a decision regarding the CA /hich /as set to e8pire+ As a result oertime boycott and /ork slo/do/n amounting to illegal strike+ 1SS2:
A! 34' the Secretary of 6abor and 2mployment has authority and -urisdiction to rule on the illegal strike /hich had long been 9led and pending before the labor arbiter+ ! 34' the respondents committed illegal strike+ 5267: A! The issuance of the assailed order is /ithin the proince of the secretary as authoried by Article $"B(g! of the 6abor Code and Article $;(a! and (I! of the same code, taken con-ointly and rationally construed to sub sere the ob-ectie of the -urisdiction ested in the Secretary+ ! The employees un-usti9ed alteration of the $E&hour /ork schedule through their concerted actiities of oertime boycott and /ork slo/do/n can be classi9ed as strike on an instalment basis+ 1t constituted a iolation of their CA+
