Marian C.

Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm
I. Employer-Employee Relationship

Parties and
Case Number

Business
of the
Company
Insurance
Provider

Work of
the
Employee
Insurance
Agent, and
at the same
time Acting
Unit
Manager

2. Restituto
Palumado vs.
NLRC, Marling
Rice Mill
(G.R. No.
96520, June
28, 1996)

Trading and
Rice Mill

Truck Driver

3. Angelina
Francisco vs.
NLRC, Kasei
Corp.
(G.R. No.
170087,
August 31,
2006)

Corporation
/
Restaurant
business

Accountant
and
Corporate
Secretary,
and later on
as Acting
Manager

1. Insurance Life
Assurance Co.,
Ltd. vs. NLRC
(G. R. No.
119930, March
12, 1998)

Is there EmployerEmployee
Relationship?
Yes. The Supreme Court
stated that private
respondent was an
employee of the
petitioner because the
latter has exclusivity of
service, control of
assignments and
removal of agents under
private respondents
unit, collection of
premiums, furnishing of
company facilities and
materials as well as
capital are hallmarks of
the management
system.
No. The Supreme Court
held that the
documentary evidences
presented by the
respondent strongly
negated the
complainants charges
that he had been under
the employ Tan who was
nothing more than an
employee of Marling
Rice Mill. Complainants
documentary exhibits
failed to serve their
purpose as they are in
themselves mere scraps
of papers, irrelevant and
Immaterial.
Yes. By applying the
control test, the
petitioner is an
employee of Kasei Corp.
because she was under
the direct control and
supervision of Seiji
Kamura, the
corporations Technical
Consultant. Under the
broader economic reality
test, the petitioner can
likewise be said to be an
employee of respondent
corporation because she

What happened to
the case?
The appeal of petitioner
Insular Life Assurance
Co. was denied and the
decision of the NLRC
was affirmed. The case
was remanded to the
Labor Arbiter a quo to
hear and dispose of the
case.

The petition was

dismissed and the
resolution of the public
respondent NLRC, that
there was no EmployerEmployee relationship
between the petitioner
and private respondent,
was affirmed.

The petition was

granted. The decision
and resolution of Court
of Appeals dismissing
the complaints for
constructive dismissal,
was annulled and set
aside. The decision of
the NLRC was
reinstated. The case
was remanded to the
Labor Arbiter for the
recomputation of
petitioners full
backwages from the

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

4. Paz Martin Jo
and Cesar Jo
vs. NLRC and
Peter Mejila
(G.R. No.
121605,
February 2,
2000)

Barber
Shop

Barber on a
piece rate
basis. Later
on as
caretakerbarber.

5. Jeromie
Encasinas and
Evan Rigor
Singco vs.
Shangri-la
Mactan Island
Resort and Dr.
Jessica J.R.
Pepito
(G.R. No.
178827, March

Hotel and
Resort
Operation

Nurses

had served the company

for six years before her
dismissal, receiving
check vouchers
indicating her
salaries/wages, benefits,
13th month pay, bonuses
and allowances, as well
as deductions and Social
Security contributions. It
is therefore apparent
that petitioner is
economically dependent
on respondent
corporation for her
continued employment
in the latters line of
business.
Yes. The private
respondent was
employed by the
petitioners as caretakerbarber. Undoubtedly, the
services performed by
private respondent as
barber is related to, and
in the pursuit of the
principal business
activity of petitioners.
Certainly, petitioners
had the power to
dismiss private
respondent being the
ones who engaged the
services of the latter. As
a caretaker, private
respondent was paid by
petitioners wages in the
form of honorarium.
Furthermore, petitioners
controlled private
respondents work
performance.
No. There is no
employer-employee
relationship between
Shangri-la and
petitioners. The
Supreme Court affirmed
the decision of the
appellate court which
concluded that all
aspects of the
employment of

time she was illegally

terminated until the
date of finality of this
decision, and
separation pay
representing one-half
month pay for every
year of service, where a
fraction of at least six
months shall be
considered as one
whole year.

The petition was

granted. The assailed
decision and resolution
of public respondent
NLRC are reversed and
set aside. The decision
of the Labor Arbiter,
that private respondent
was an employee of
petitioners and that
private respondent was
not dismissed but left
his job voluntarily, was
reinstated.

The petition was

denied. The decision of
the Court of Appeals
finding that there exists
no employer-employee
relationship was
affirmed.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

4, 2009)

6. Insular Life
Assurance Co.,
Ltd. vs. NLRC
and Melecio
Basiao
(G.R. No.
84484,
November 15,
1989)

Insurance
Provider

Agency
Manager

7. AFP Mutual
Benefit
Association,
Inc. vs NLRC
and Eutiguio
Bustamante

Insurance
Provider

Insurance
Underwriter

8. Great Pacific
Life Assurance
Corp.
(Grepalife) vs
NLRC, Ernesto

Insurance
Provider

District
Managers

petitioners being under

the supervision and
control of respondent
doctor and since
Shangri-la is not
principally engaged in
the business of
providing medical or
healthcare services,
petitioners could not be
regarded as regular
employees of Shangri-la.
No. The Court ruled that
under the contract
invoked by him, Basiao
was not an employee of
the petitioner, but a
commission agent, an
independent contractor
whose claim for unpaid
commissions should
have been litigated in an
ordinary civil action.
No, the facts that private
respondent was bound
by company policies,
memo/circulars, rules
and regulations issued
from time to time is not
indicative of control.
Although petitioner
could have,
theoretically,
disapproved any of
private respondent's
transactions, what could
be disapproved was only
the result of the work,
and not the means by
which it was
accomplished. The
"control" which the
above factors indicate
did not sum up to the
power to control private
respondent's conduct in
and mode of soliciting
insurance. On the
contrary, they clearly
indicate that the juridical
element of control had
been absent in this
situation.
Yes. Applying the fourfold test, the Court finds
that, as correctly held by
the NLRC, the
relationships of the Ruiz

The appealed resolution

of the NLRC, finding
that there was an
employer-employee
relationship between
Basiao and the
company, was set aside
and the complaint of
private respondent was
dismissed.
The petition is
meritorious. There is
no employment
relationship had ever
existed between the
parties

The decision of the

NLRC was modified
insofar as the award of
separation pay is
concerned. In lieu of

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

and Rodrigo
Ruiz
(G.R. No.
80750-51, July
23, 1990)

9. Jose Y. Sonza
vs. ABS-CBN
Broadcasting
Corporation
(G.R. No.
138051, June
10, 2004)

Television
and radio
broadcastin
g company

TV host and
radio
broadcaster
(Talent for
television
and radio)

brothers and Grepalife

were those of employeremployee. First, their
work at the time of their
dismissal as zone
supervisor and district
manager are necessary
and desirable to the
usual business of the
insurance company.
Their contracts reveal
that the comoany
practically dictates the
manner by which their
jobs are to be carried
out.
No. applying the control
test, the Court found
that Sonza was not an
employee but an
independent contractor.
A radio broadcast
specialist who works
under minimal
supervision is an
independent contractor.
Sonzas work as
television and radio
program host required
special skills and talent,
which Sonza admittedly
possesses. The records
do not show that ABSCBN skulls, expertise or
talent enjoy the freedom
to offer their services
exercised any
supervision and control
over how Sonza utilized
his skills and talent in
his show. Moreover,
individuals with special
as independent
contractors. The right to
life and livelihood
guarantees this freedom
to contract as
independent
contractors. The right of
labor to security of
tenure cannot operate to
deprive an individual,
possessed with special
skills, expertise and

separation pay.
Petitioner Grepalife was
ordered to indemnify
private respondents the
amount if P1000 each
for its failure to observe
the procedural
requirements of due
process.

The Court denied the

petition. The assailed
decision of the Court of
Appeals finding no
employer-employee
relationship existed
between Sonza and
ABS-CBN was affirmed.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

10.Coca-Cola
Bottlers
(Phils.)
Inc./Eric
Montinola,
Manager vs.
Dr. Dean N.
Climaco
(G.R. No.
146881,
February 5,
2007)

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

Soft drinks
Manufacturing

Company
doctor by
virtue of a
Retainer
Agreement

talent, of his right to

contract as an
independent contractor.
An individual like an
artist or talent has a
right to render his
services without any one
controlling the means
and methods by which
he performs his art or
craft.
No. The Labor Arbiter
and the NLRC correctly
found that petitioner
company lacked the
power of control over
the performance by
respondent of his duties.
In effect, the Labor
Arbiter held that
petitioner company,
through the
Comprehensive Medical
Plan, provided
guidelines merely to
ensure that the end
result was achieved, but
did not control the
means and methods by
which respondent
preformed his assigned
tasks. In addition, the
Court finds that the
schedule of work and
the requirements to be
on call for emergency
cases do not amount to
such control, but are
necessary incidents to
the Retainership
Agreement.

The petition was

granted and the
decision and resolution
of the Court of Appeals
are reversed and set
aside. The decision and
resolution of the NLRC
finding no employeremployee relationship
was reinstated.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Parties and Case

Number

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

Business
of the
Company

1. Samahan ng mga
Manggagawa sa
Bandolino-LMLC
vs. NLTC,
Bandolino Shoe
Corp and/or
German
Alcantara, Aida
Alcantara & Mimi
Alcantara
(G.R. No. 125195,
July 17, 1997)

Shoe
Company

2. St. John Colleges,

Inc vs. St. John
Academy Faculty
& Employees
Union
(G.R. No. 167892,
October 27, 2006)

School

II. Unfair Labor Practice

Work of
Is there Employerthe
Employee
Employe
Relationship?
e
Factory
Yes. The Court ruled
workers
that an employer may
be guilty of ULP in
interfering with the
right to selforganization even
before the union has
been registered. The
facts of record found by
the arbiter which NLRC
disregarded. These are:
(1) that following the
order for rotation, some
of the petitioners were
made to surrender their
IDs and (2) that
although the rotation
scheme was ostensibly
implemented because
of the Shoemart strike,
even after the strike
had ended, petitioners
attempts to return to
work were thwarted.
High
Yes. The court ruled
School
that SJCI is liable for
Teachers
ULP and illegal
and Nondismissal. The reasons
teaching
for the closure of the
Staff
high school and its
reopening after one
year from the time it
was closed down, show
that the closure was
done in bad faith for
the purpose of
circumventing the

What happened to
the case?

The decision of the

NLRC is set aside and
the decision of the
labor arbiter is
reinstated, with
modification that only
Jaime Sibug should be
given holiday pay,
while all petitioners
should be given 13th
month pay and full
backwages.

The petition is denied.

The April 22, 2004
Decision is affirmed
with a modification that
in the computation of
backwages, the two
month unworked
summer vacation
should be excluded and
the April 15,
2005 Resolution of the
Court Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 74519 is

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

3. Me-Shurn
Corporation &
Sammy Chou vs.
Me-Shurn Workers
Union-FSM &
Rosalinda Cruz
(G.R. No. 156292.
January 11, 2005)

Clothing
Wholesale
and
Manufactur
ing

Was not
mentione
d except
that they
are
Regular
rank and
file
employee
s.

4. T & H Shopfitters
Corporation/Gin
Queen
Corporation,
Stinnes Huang,
Ben Huang and
Rogelio Madriaga
vs. T & H
Shopfitters
Corporation/Gin
Queen Workers
Union
(G.R. No. 191714)

Manufactur
er,
Distributor/
Wholesaler,
Exporter/Im
porter

Assigning
union
officers
and
active
union
members
as grass
cutters on
rotation
basis.

Unions right to
collective bargaining
and its members right
to security of tenure.
Yes. The court ruled
that to justify the
closure of a business
and the termination of
the services of the
concerned employees,
the law requires the
employer to prove that
it suffered substantial
actual losses. The
cessation of a
companys operations
shortly after the
organization of a labor
union, as well as the
resumption of business
barely a month after,
gives credence to the
employees claim that
the closure was meant
to discourage union
membership and to
interfere in union
activities. These acts
constitute unfair labor
practices.
Yes. The Court ruled
that Indubitably, the
various acts of
petitioners (specifically,
sponsoring a field trip
on the day preceding
the certification
election, warning the
employees of dire
consequences should
the union prevail, and
escorting them to the
polling center and
discriminating in regard
to conditions of
employment in order to
discourage union
membership-assigning
union officers and
active union members
as grass cutters on
rotation basis)., taken
together, reasonably
support an inference
that, indeed, such were
all orchestrated to
restrict respondents
free exercise of their
right to selforganization. The Court
is of the considered
view those petitioners

affirmed.

The petition is denied.

The assailed decision of
the appellate court is
affirmed. The petitioner
is hereby ordered to
pay the complainants
their full backwages
from the date of their
wages were withheld
from them to the date
of the finality of the
decision. Cost against
the petitioners.

The November 12,

2009 decision of the
Court of Appeals and its
March 24, 2010
resolution, in CA-G.R.
SP No. 107188, are
affirmed, except with
respect to the award of
attorneys fees which is
hereby deleted.
Ordering to pay each of
the complainants moral
and exemplary
damages amounting to
P50,000 and P30,000
respectively.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

5. BaLmar Farms,
Inc. vs NLRC and
Associated Labor
Unions (ALU)

Banana
Plantation

Banana
Planters
and
Plantation
Workers

6. Arellano
University
Employees and
Workers Union,
Carlos C. A. Rivas,
Jr., Simeon B.
Inocencio, Romulo
D. Jacob, Nymia
M. Pineda,
Benedicto I. Nieto,
Jr., Luis Jacinto,
Milbert Mora,
Monico Calma,
Constancio
Bayhohan,
Bernard Sanble,
Nestor Brinosa,
Nanji
Macarampat,
Eduardo Florague
& DIony S.
Lumanta vs. CA,
NLRC & Arellano

University

Was not
mentione
d except
that they
are rankand-file
employee
s

undisputed actions
prior and immediately
before the scheduled
certification election,
while seemingly
innocuous, unduly
meddled in the affairs
of its employees in
selecting their
exclusive bargaining
representative.
Yes. The court ruled
that Balmars refusal to
bargain collectively
with ALU is a clear act
of unfair labor practice.
Article 248 (Labor
Code, as amended),
enumerates unfair
labor practices
committed by
employers such as for
them: (g) To violate the
duty to bargain
collectively as
prescribed by this
Code. BALMAR cannot
also invoke good faith
in refusing to negotiate
with ALU, considering
that the latter has been
certified as the
exclusive bargaining
representative of
BALMAR rank and file
employees.
No. The court ruled that
to constitute ULP,
however, violations of
the CBA must be gross.
Gross violation of the
CBA, under Article 261
of the Labor Code,
means flagrant and/or
malicious refusal to
comply with the
economic provisions
thereof. Evidently, the
University cannot be
faulted for ULP as it in
good faith merely
heeded the above-said
request of Union
members.

The petition is
dismissed for lack of
merit and the assailed
resolution is affirmed.

The NLRC Decision

of October 12,
1998 and Resolution
of January 20,
1999 are affirmed, with
modification that the
dismissal of petitionerunion members Monico
Calma, Constancio
Bayhonan, Bernardo
Sable, Nestor Brinosa,
Nanji Macarampat,
Eduardo Florague, and
Diony S. Lumanta is set
aside, and they are
thus ordered reinstated
without backwages. If
their reinstatement is
no longer possible,
however, they should
be given separation pay
at the rate of One (1)
Month pay for every
year of service.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
University, Inc.
(G.R. No. 139940,
September 19,
2006)
7. Nueva Ecija
Electric
Cooperative Inc.
(NEECO I)
Employees Assoc,
vs NLRC, Nueva
Ecija Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
(NEECO I) and
Patricio Dela Pea

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

Electric
Cooperativ
e

Was not
mentione
d except
that they
are
Permanen
t
Employee
s

Yes. The labor ruled

that there was unfair
labor practice. Unfair
labor practices violate
the constitutional rights
of workers and
employees to selforganization, are
inimical to the
legitimate interests of
both labor and
management, including
their right to bargain
collectively and
otherwise deal with
each other in an
atmosphere of freedom
and mutual respect;
and disrupt industrial
peace and hinder the
promotion of healthy
and stable labormanagement
relations. As the
conscience of the
government, it is the
Courts sworn duty to
ensure that none trifles
with labor rights. "As a
backdrop, complainants
alleged, and this is
supported by
documentary evidence,
that on 7 February
1987, the then NEECO I
Board of Directors
adopted their own
Policy No. 3-33 under
Resolution No. 47,
series of 1987 requiring
all employees to avail
of the retirement
benefits. All regular
employees, including
the complainants were
ordered to file their
application for
retirement/resignation
and/or separation from
the service under
NEECO I Form 87. All
NEECO I employees
have no choice but to
manifest their
willingness to retire.
However, the
complainants pointed
out that the approval of

The petition is partially

granted. The assailed
decision of the NLRC is
affirmed with
modification Private
respondent Nueva Ecija
1 Electric Cooperative
is hereby ordered
through its executive
officers:
1. to pay individual
petitioners their full
backwages from the
time they were illegally
dismissed until the date
of their reinstatement
on March 13, 1992,
minus the amount they
received as
"retirement" pay. In the
event that the
computed backwages
of a concerned
petitioner is less than
the amount of so-called
"retirement" pay
already received, the
difference should be
treated as advances
refundable from his
salary until fully repaid;
2. to pay moral and
exemplary damages in
the amount of ten
thousand (P10,000.00)
pesos and five
thousand (P5,000.00)
pesos, respectively, to
each of the petitioners
who were illegally
terminated and/or
compulsorily retired;
3. to pay ten (10%) of
the total amount due to
petitioners as attorneys
fees; and
4. to pay the cost of
suits.
Respondent NLRC is
ordered to recompute
the total monetary
benefits awarded and
due to the employees
concerned in
accordance with the
decision and to submit

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

8. The Insular Life

Assurance Co.,
Ltd., Employees
Association-NATU,
FGU Insurance
Group Workers
and Employees
Association-NATU,
and Insular Life
Building
Employees
Association-NATU
vs. The Insular
Life Assurance,
Co., Ltd., FGU
Insurance Group,
Jose M. Olbes and
Court of Industrial
Relations
(G.R. No. L-25291,
January 30, 1971)

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

Insurance
Provider

Superviso
rs

the employees
application for
retirement was not
done in succession
according to the list,
but according to the
choice of the
respondents, and for
which, complainants
were singled out from
the list because they
were union officers,
past officers and active
members of the
complainant
Association."
Yes. The act of an
employer in notifying
absent employees
individually during a
strike following
unproductive efforts at
collective bargaining
that the plant would be
operated the next day
and that their jobs were
open for them should
they want to come in
has been held to be an
unfair labor practice, as
an active interference
with the right of
collective bargaining
through dealing with
the employees
individually instead of
through their collective
bargaining
representatives.
Although the union is
on strike, the employer
is still under obligation
to bargain with the
union as the
employees bargaining
representative.
Individual solicitation of
the employees or
visiting their homes,
with the employer or
his representative
urging the employees
to cease union activity
or cease striking,
constitutes unfair labor
practice. All the abovedetailed activities are
unfair labor practices
because they tend to
undermine the
concerted activity of
the employees, an

its compliance thereon

within thirty (30) days
from notice of this
decision, with copies
furnished to the parties.

The decision of the

Court of Industrial
Relations dated August
17, 1965 is reversed
and set aside, and
another is entered,
ordering the
respondents to
reinstate the dismissed
members of the
petitioning Unions to
their former or
comparatively similar
positions, with
backwages from June 2,
1958 up to the dates of
their actual
reinstatements. Costs
against the
respondents.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

9. Lakas ng
Manggagawang
Makabayan
(LAKAS) vs.
Marcelo Group of
Companies and
The Court of
Industrial
Relations
(G.R. No. L-38258,
November 19,
1982)
Marcelo Group of
Companies vs
Lakas ng
Manggagawang
Makabayan
(LAKAS)
(G.R. No. L-38260,
November 19,
1992)

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

Rubber,
Chemical
and Steel
Companies

Was not
mentione
d

activity to which they

are entitled free from
the employers
molestation.
Indeed, when the
respondents offered
reinstatement and
attempted to bribe
the strikers with
comfortable cots,
free coffee and
occasional movies,
overtime pay for
work performed in
excess of eight hours,
and arrangements for
their families, so they
would abandon the
strike and return to
work, they were guilty
of strike-breaking
and/or union-busting
and, consequently, of
unfair labor practice. It
is equivalent to an
attempt to break a
strike for an employer
to offer reinstatement
to striking employees
individually, when they
are represented by a
union, since the
employees thus offered
reinstatement are
unable to determine
what the consequences
of returning to work
would be.
No. The court ruled in
favor of Marcelo
Companies. LAKAS was
not the bargaining
representative, yet the
management did not
ignore the demand for
collective bargaining
neither it was refused.
Marcelo Companies
may rightfully demand
for reasonable proof of
majority representation
on the part of the
supposed or putative
bargaining agent as it
is a natural
consequence of the
employers duty to
bargain with the
bargaining agent who
represents the majority
of the workers. It is,
however, necessary

Upon the foregoing

considerations, the
petition in L-38258 is
dismissed and the
petition in L-38260 is
granted. The decision
of the Court of
Industrial Relations is
hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE and a new
judgment is rendered
holding that the
respondent Marcelo
Companies are not
guilty of unfair labor
practice.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

10.Colegio de San
Juan de Letran vs.
Association of
Employees and
Faculty of Letran
and Eleonor
Ambas
(G.R. No. 141471,
September 18,
2000)

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

University

Professors
and
School
Personnel
s

that such demand is

made in good faith and
not as a pretext of
delay or evasion.
Yes. The court stated
The petition is denied
that there is no doubt
for lack of merit.
that petitioner is guilty
of unfair labor practice
by its stern refusal to
bargain in good faith
with respondent union.
In this regard, there is
no cogent reason to
disturb the findings of
the Court of Appeals
affirming the findings of
the Secretary of Labor
and Employment. The
right to selforganization of
employees must not be
interfered with by the
employer on the
pretext of exercising
management
prerogative of
disciplining its
employees. In this case,
the totality of conduct
of the employer shows
an evident attempt to
restrain the employees
from fully exercising
their rights under the
law. This cannot be
done under the Labor
Code.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm