Myla Ruth N.

Sara

Air Material Wing Services and Loan (AMWSLAI) v NLRC

FACTS:
Private respondent Salas was appointed notarial and legal counsel for petitioner. The petitioner issued an
order reminding Salas of the approaching termination of his legal services. This prompted Salas to lodge a
complaint against petitioner for separation pay, vacation and sick leave benefits and others. Petitioner moved to
dismiss alleging that there was no employer-employee relationship between them.

ISSUE: W/N ER-ER exists between petitioner and respondent

HELD: Yes.
The terms and conditions in the contract show that respondent was an employee of petitioner. His selection
as the company counsel was done by the board of directors and the respondent was paid with a monthly retainer’s
fee. The petitioner also reserved its power of dismissal by defining the duties of the respondent as its legal counsel
such as acting on all legal matters and seeking remedies to effect collection of overdue accounts.
As cited in the case of Hydro Resources v. Pagalilauan, “A lawyer, like any other professional (doctors,
nurses, dentists, public relations practitioners), may very well be an employee of a private corporation or even of
the government. It is not unusual for a big corporation to hire a staff of lawyers as its in-house counsel, pay them
regular salaries, rank them and treat them like its other officers and employees.”
With regards to Salas’ claim of notarial fees, it is based on his employment as a notarial officer of the
petitioner and thus labor arbiters have the original and exclusive jurisdiction. As provided under Art. 3 of 217 of the
Labor Code, claims which have reasonable connection with ER-EE relationship are under the jurisdiction of the labor
arbiter.
In respect to the separate payment of notarial fees to Salas, the contract does not contain any stipulation
about it. Absence of such stipulation does not entitle the respondent to collect separate payment of notarial fees.