FRANCISCO v NLRC

In 1995, petitioner was hired by Kasei Corporation during its incorporation

stage. She was designated as Accountant and Corporate Secretary. She was also
designated as Liaison Officer to secure business permits and licenses. Although
designated as Corporate Secretary, she never attended any board meeting, nor
represented the company as such.

Subsequently, petitioner was designated as Acting Manager to handle recruitment

of all employees and perform management administration functions.

After 5 years, petitioner was replaced by Liza Fuentes as Manager and was assured
that she would still be connected with Kasei as Technical Consultant from Seiji Kamura.
Thereafter, Kasei reduced her salary by P2,500. She did not receive her salary for several
months. She made repeated follow-ups but was informed that she is no longer connected
with the company.

Since she was no longer paid, petitioner did not report for work and filed an action
for constructive dismissal before the labor arbiter.

Private respondents averred that petitioner is not their employee. That she was
hired as one of its technical consultants on accounting matters and act concurrently as
Corporate Secretary. That she works at her own discretion without control and
supervision of the corporation. That she had no daily time record and she comes to the
office any time she wanted.

The money she received as salary was her professional fee subject to the 10w
expanded withholding tax on professionals, and that she was not one of those reported
to the BIR or SSS as one of the companys employees.

The Labor Arbiter found that petitioner was illegally dismissed. NLRC affirmed
the decision. Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC decision.

ISSUE
(1) Whether there was an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and
private respondent Kasei Corporation; and if in the affirmative.
 In the Sevilla Case, the SC held that in this jurisdiction, there has been no uniform
test to determine the existence of an employer-employee relation. Generally, courts have
relied on the so-called right of control test where the person for whom the services are
performed reserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means
to be used in reaching such end. In addition to the standard of right-of-control, the
existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties, like the inclusion of the
employee in the payrolls, can help in determining the existence of an employer-employee
relationship.

In certain cases, the control test is not sufficient to give a complete picture of the
relationship between the parties, owing to the complexity of such a relationship where
several positions have been held by the worker.

The better approach would therefore be to adopt a two-tiered test:

(1) the employers power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods
by which the work is to be accomplished (CONTROL TEST); and
(2) the underlying economic realities of the activity or relationship (ECONOMIC
REALITY TEST).

By applying the Control Test, there is no doubt that petitioner is an employee of

Kasei Corporation because she was under the direct control and supervision of Seiji
Kamura, the corporations Technical Consultant. She reported for work regularly and
served in various capacities as Accountant, Liaison Officer, Technical Consultant, Acting
Manager and Corporate Secretary, with substantially the same job functions.

Under the broader Economic Reality Test, the petitioner can likewise be said to be
an employee of respondent corporation because she had served the company for six years
before her dismissal, receiving check vouchers indicating her salaries, benefits, 13th
month pay, bonuses and allowances. Petitioners membership in the SSS was signed by
the President of Kasei Corporation and the inclusion of her name in the on-line inquiry
system of the SSS shows the existence of an employer-employee relationship between
petitioner and respondent corporation. It is apparent that petitioner is economically
dependent on respondent for her continued employment in the latters line of business.

NLRC decision is reinstated.

RATIO
In affording full protection to labor, this Court must ensure equal work opportunities
regardless of sex, race or creed. Even as we, in every case, attempt to carefully balance the fragile
relationship between employees and employers, we are mindful of the fact that the policy of the
law is to apply the Labor Code to a greater number of employees. This would enable employees
to avail of the benefits accorded to them by law, in line with the constitutional mandate giving
maximum aid and protection to labor, promoting their welfare and reaffirming it as a primary
social economic force in furtherance of social justice and national development.
 ANFLO MANAGEMENT v BOLANIO

Respondent Rodolfo Bolanio was employed as company driver by petitioner

corporation in 1992 and was assigned to the residence of its senior vice-president Linda
Lagdameo at Dasmarias Village, Makati City. He was mainly tasked to transport Lindas
daughter, Regina, to and from her work. On November 3, 1994, respondent got involved
in a heated argument with Regina due to miscommunication about road directions. Later
on, He was confronted by Linda who accused him of verbally abusing her daughter.
Respondent tried to explain that he did not say anything against petitioners daughter
but Linda would not give him a chance and instead shouted the words youre fired at
him. He was thereafter fired which led him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Petitioners denied dismissing respondent from employment. They maintained

that respondent abandoned his work when he failed to report for work on November 4,
1994, the day after his altercation with Regina. The company manager also stated that he
was reassigned to the company pool of drivers but not terminated. The petitioners then
sent, on November 10, a notice of offense upon respondent but the latter simply ignored
the same.

The NLRC dismissed the complaint on the ground that respondent had
abandoned his work. On appeal, it directed respondent Bolanio to report for work and
ordered petitioners to accept him back as company diver. The NLRC held that
respondent did not abandon his work nor was he illegally dismissed by petitioners.

ISSUES
(1) Whether respondent was unlawfully dismissed by petitioners;
(2) Whether respondent abandoned his work.

RULING
The respondent was dismissed from work. Based on the facts, the words youre
fired were clear, unequivocal, and categorical. Moreover, respondent was ordered to
surrender his company identification cards and uniforms. These orders came from no
less than the senior vice president of the company. All these circumstances were sufficient
to create the impression in the mind of respondent and correctly so that his services
were being terminated. The acts of Linda showed her intention to dismiss respondent
from employment.
 Petitioners subsequent effort to visit respondent in his residence and to assure
him that he was not dismissed from work was futile and did little to rectify the situation.
Jurisprudence abounds on the rule that the twin requirements of notice and hearing must
be complied with before a valid dismissal can take place. Any procedural shortcut that
effectively allows an employer to assume the dual roles of accuser and judge at the same
time treads on dangerous ground. Needless to state, the failure to comply with the
requirements taints the dismissal with illegality.

Compliance with the mandatory req4irements was undeniably absent in the case
at bar. Petitioners dismissed respondent on November 4, 1994 without giving him any
written notice informing him of the cause for his termination. Likewise, no hearing was
conducted in order to give respondent the opportunity to be heard and defend himself.
He was simply told youre fired after a disagreement with Regina. Clearly,
respondents services were terminated without any regard for an employees right to
procedural and substantive due process.

Further, where there is no showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for the
termination of employment, the law considers the latter to be a case of illegal dismissal.
The burden is then on the employer to prove that the termination was for a valid or
justified cause. Petitioners failed to discharge its burden.