Jerica lalaine A.

Soriano
BSBA-MGT 3RD YEAR

1. Lasallete of Santiago Inc., petitioner vs. NLRC and Clarita Javier, respondents.

a) Summary of the case

The legal principles governing the acquisition of security of tenure by teachers in private educational
institutions were definitively laid down by the Court en banc in University of Santo Tomas, et al. v.
National Labor Relations Commission, et al., a decision promulgated on February 15, 1990.[1] There
the Court said: According to Policy Instructions No. 11 issued by the Department of Labor and
Employment, 'the probationary employment of professors, instructors and teachers shall be subject to
standards established by the Department of Education and Culture.' Said standards are embodied in
paragraph 75 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, to wit:'75. Full time teachers who have
rendered three consecutive years of satisfactory service shall be considered permanent.' (Emphasis
supplied)
The legal requisites, therefore, for acquisition by a teacher of permanent employment, or security of
tenure, are as follows:
1) the teacher is a full time teacher;
2) the teacher must, have rendered three (3) consecutive years of service; and
3) such service must have been satisfactory.
Now, the Manual of Regulations also states that 'a full-time teacher' is one whose total working day is
devoted to the school, has no other regular remunerative employment and is paid on a regular monthly
basis regardless of the number of teaching hours' (par. 77); and that in college, 'the normal teaching load
of a full-time instructor shall be eighteen hours a week'.The standards by which the service of the
probationary teacher may be adjudged satisfactory so that he may acquire permanence in his
employment or security of tenure, are set by the school. The setting of those standards, and the
determination of whether or not they have been met, have been held by this Court to be the prerogative
of the school, consistent With academic freedom and constitutional autonomy by which educational
institutions have the right to chose who should teach.[2]The acquisition of security of tenure by the
teacher in the manner indicated signifies that he shall thenceforth have the right to remain in
employment as such teacher until he reaches the compulsory retirement age in accordance with the rules
of the school or the law. That tenure, once acquired, cannot be adversely affected or defeated by
requiring the teacher to execute contracts stipulating the termination of his employment upon the
expiration of a fixed period or term. Contracts of that sort are anathema and will be struck down as null
and void.

b) Issues and conflicts

 Whether or not private respondent had acquired permanency, or tenure in the position of high school
principal of the educational system of La Salette of Santiago Inc.?
Private respondent has been assigned to different administrative and teaching positions of the
petitioner’s school system, a private school system, where private respondent was initially employed
for three years as high school principal. In 1984 to 1986 private respondent was again assigned
as the high school principal of the petitioner. After her term as high school principal she
received a letter from the petitioner instructing her to report to La Sallete College and stating
the person as her replacement as high school principal. Private respondent wrote a letter to
the petitioner complaining of her sudden removal as high school principal but did not received
any reply so she filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal. The Labor
Arbiter decided in her favor and the CA affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

c) Ruling
The Court held, according to Policy Instructions No. 11 issued by the Department of Labor and
Employment, the probationary employment of professors, instructors and teachers shall be subject
to standards established by the Department of Education and Culture. Said standards are embodied in
paragraph 75 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. Unlike teachers (assistant
instructors, assistant, professors, associate professors, full professors) who aspire for and expect to
acquired permanency, or security of tenure, in their employment, as faculty members, teachers
who are appointed as department heads or administrative officials (e.g., college or department secretaries
principals, directors, assistant deans, deans) do not normally, and should not expect to, acquire a second
status of permanency, or an additional or second security of tenure as such officer. The acquisition
of such an additional tenure, to repeat, is not consistent with normal practice, constitutes the
exception rather than the rule, and may take place only where categorically and explicitly provided
by law or agreement of the parties. Therefore, private respondent did not acquire permanency or
tenure in the position of high school principal of the educational system of La Sallete of Santiago Inc.

2. Malayang Manggaagawa sa ESSO (PFPW) and Phil. Federation of Petroleum workers

vs. ESSO Standard of eastern inc. and carmelino G. alvendia judgen of the court of
first instance of manila.

a. Summary of the case

Two separate appeals from a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations on an indus-trial dispute and
strike declared on February 19, 1965, by members of the Malayang Manggagawa sa Esso (MME) and
certified on November 5, 1965 to said court by the President of the Phil-ippines.

On November 13, 1965, the striking union, MME, affiliate of the Philippine Federation of Petroleum
Workers and the employer-company, Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. (ESSO), concluded without the trial
court's intervention, a return to work agreement pending the resolution of their labor dispute by the
industrial court, and jointly sought the court's approval thereof, which was granted in a partial decision
dated Novem-ber 27, 1965, enjoining the parties to comply with the terms thereof.This gave a peculiar
aspect to the case at bar, as noted by the trial court itself in its decision in that "the parties to the labor
dispute have agreed on a set of proposals to be litigated as issues in this case, and the same parties have
by express stipulation reserved determination of other issues in cases now pending determination in other
branches of this Court."Thus, of eleven demands filed by the striking union after the filing of the joint
motion for approval of the return to work agreement dated November 12, 1965 - although the trial court
had earlier issued in open court an order on November 5, 1965, for the union to formalize in a petition all
its demands in con-nection with the case - the trial court in its decision at bar dismissed outright four
demands since they "are not any of those specifically provided as litigable issues in these proceedings and
are issues in the other cases pending before the different salas of the court of industrial relations. The
parties them-selves by the terms of their Return to Work Agreement of Nov-ember 12, 1965 have reserved
these cases for judicial deter-mination in the different salas where they are now pending consideration."

b. Issues and conflicts

In the light of this fait accompli which impeded the total settlement of the urgent dispute to the prejudice
of the workers, the Court will proceed to the review of the trial court's deci-sion on the limited issues and
demands taken cognizance of and subject of the present appeals. These six demands of the striking union
were the following:
1. That the position of Assistant truck drivers or truck helpers and fillers should not be abolished;
2. In the event that the Can Plant is closed, all employees therein will be trans-ferred to other plant duties
and their position titled will not be changed nor will their wages presently earned be reduced;
3. No change in terms and condi-tions of employment of employees assigned now to the Manila
International Airport or JOCASP which includes, among others, meal allowances and overtime shall be
made;
4. That Rodolfo Espiritu and Rey-naldo Recio, Vice-President and Secretary, respectively, of petitioner
union be reinstated immediately;
5. The retirement age of employees shall be 60, as has been the previous practice of the Company, and
all those who have been retired by the Company at earlier than the age of 60 shall be reinstated; and
6. The memorandum of agreement dated January 6, 1965 be declared invalid and that any loss of benefits
by reason of the enforce-ment of such agreement be restored to the em-ployees concerned.

c. Ruling
The predecessor of the respondent company was Standard Vacuum Co. In 1960, the latter was split into
the present company and Mobil Philippines. The respondent absorbed all the working force in Luzon.
The Pandacan terminal to which most of the employees involved in this case were assigned is the main
distribution center for bulk and package products both during the time of Standard Vacuum Company
and subsequently when the splitting of this company took place afterwards. Because of this
development plus improved and more efficient operating conditions, respondent company real-ized that
it has extra or excess personnel, which later on were termed redundant employees.
On April 8, 1963, respondent company and the Citizens Labor Union (the majority bar-gaining
representative) executed a Collective Bar-gaining Agreement for a period of three years (up to July 8,
1966). At the time of the signing of this Agreement, almost all if not all of the present members of the
petitioner MME were then members of the contracting union including its incumbent president.
'It is expressly understood that the exer-cise by the Company of any of the foregoing functions shall not
alter any of the specific pro-visions of this Agreement, nor shall they be used to discriminate against any
employee because of membership in the Union. It is further under-stood that, in determining
reassignments, em-ployees will be assigned normally to related and comparable work whenever this is
feasible and consistent with efficient operations. Such reassignments will be prompted normally by
emergencies, operational needs of the business and/or lack of work.

3. Aboitiz shipping employees association , lazaro abaigar, Victoriano Aniban, Felipe

Baterzal etc. vs. NLRC and aboitiz shipping Court.

a) Summary of case
This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the Resolutions of the public respondent National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) dated April 30, 1987 and May 29, 1987 affirming the Decision of
August 23, 1985 rendered by Labor Arbiter Julio P. Andres, Jr. holding that: respondent Aboitiz
Shipping Corporation could not be guilty of said charge (unfair labor practice through dismissal) for
lack of employer-employee relationship between them and the individual complainants at the time said
act was allegedly committed in April 1985 and consequently dismissing the case for lack of merit.
Hence, this petition anchored on two grounds:
1. GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION COMMITTED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION WHICH AMOUNTS TO LACK OF JURISDICTION.
2. THE RESOLUTIONS SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED ARE NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND
APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT."

b) Issue and Conflicts

The real issue however which surfaces from the allegations and arguments of the parties is whether or
not an employer-employee relationship existed between respondent Aboitiz Shipping Corporation
(ABOITIZ, for short) and the petitioners-workers at the time of the latter's alleged dismissal on April 26,
1985.
The issue of the existence of employer-employee relationship between the parties in the case at bar is a
question of fact which has already been resolved by the labor arbiter and upheld by the National Labor
Relations Commission. Review of labor cases are confined to questions of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion. We find that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by public respondent NLRC in
affirming the non-existence of employer-employee relationship between petitioners and private
respondent.

b) Ruling
They therefore pray that the resolutions of public respondent be set aside; that this Court declare the
illegality of dismissal of individual petitioners; and that their reinstatement with full backwages to
private respondent as regular employees thereof be granted.In the resolution of April 18, 1988, this
Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to file their simultaneous memoranda
within thirty (30) days from notice.Records reveal that petitioners are not regular employees of the
private respondent at the time of their alleged illegal dismissal. For one, petitioners, on June 20, 1984,
filed individual application for employment with Narben's Service Contractor. They were eventually
issued payslips, deducted SSS premiums, Pag-ibig fund and witholding tax from their salaries by this
Contractor.As held in Mafinco Trading Corporation vs. Ople, 70 SCRA 139 (1976), the existence of
employer-employee relationship is determined by four (4) elements, namely: (1) the selection and
engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to
control employees' conduct. From a reading of the provisions of the aforesaid service contract, the
concurrence of these four elements on NARBEN's will easily be noted. For NARBEN's had the right to
hire the necessary number of carpenters to accomplish the carpentry requirements of respondent
corporation and to fire them. It had charge of the payment of wages of its laborers and the power of
administrative supervision and general control as to the time, manner and method of performance of
work.

4. Dr. Renato Sara and Romeo Arana vs. NLRC GR.No. 73199, October 26 1998

a) Summary of the case

LABOR LAW; EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP; FOUR-FOLD TEST TO DETERMINE
EXISTENCE THEREOF; PRESENCE OF OTHER REQUISITES NEGATED IN CASE AT BAR. —
To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, this Court in a long line of decisions
has invariably applied the following four-fold test: [1] the selection and engagement of the employee;
[2] the payment of wages; [3] the power of dismissal; and [4] the power to control and employee’s
conduct. In the case at bar, we find that although there was a selection and engagement of private
respondent in 1977, the verbal agreement between the parties negated the existence of the other
requisites.
RIGHT TO COMPENSATION DEPENDS ON THE VOLUME OF SALE OR PURCHASE; POWER
TO TERMINATE MUTUALLY UPON THE PARTIES. As to the payment of wages, the verbal
agreement entered into by the parties stipulated that parties respondent would be paid a commission of
P2.00 per sack of milled rice sold as well as a 10% commission on palay purchase. The arrangement
thus was explicitly on a commission basis dependent on the volume of sale or purchase. Private
respondent was not guaranteed any minimum compensation nor was she allowed any drawing account
or advance of any kind against unearned commissions. Her right to compensation depended upon and
was measured by the tangible results she produced — the quantity of rice sold and the quantity of palay
purchased. The power to terminate the relationship was mutually vested upon the parties. Either may
terminate the business arrangement at will, with or without cause.
ABSENCE OF POWER TO CONTROL EVIDENT. Noticeably absent from the agreement between the
parties is the element of control. Among the four (4) requisites, control is deemed the most important
that the other requisites may even be disregarded. Under the control test, an employer-employee
relationship exists if the "employer" has reserved the right to control the "employee" not only as to the
result of the work done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished.
Otherwise, no such relationship exists. The absence of control is made more evident by the fact that
private respondent was not even obliged to sell the palay she purchased to petitioners. She was at liberty
to sell the palay to any trader offering higher buying rates. She was thus free to sell it to anybody whom
she pleased. Private respondent worked for petitioners at her own pleasure and was not subject to
definite hours or conditions to work.

b) Issue and Conflict

The primordial issue in this case is whether an employer-employee relationship exists between
petitioners and private respondent as to warrant cognizance by the Labor Arbiter of LRD-ROXII-006-
82.
To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, this Court in a long line of decisions
5 has invariably applied the following four-fold test:
1. The selection and engagement of the employee;
2. The payment of wages;
3. The power of dismissal;
4. The power to control and employee’s

c) Ruling
We find that although there was a selection and engagement of private respondent in 1977, the verbal
agreement between the parties negated the existence of the other requisites.
As to the payment of wages, the verbal agreement entered into by the parties stipulated that parties
respondent would be paid a commission of P2.00 per sack of milled rice sold as well as a 10%
commission on palay purchase. The arrangement thus was explicitly on a commission basis dependent
on the volume of sale or purchase. Private respondent was not guaranteed any minimum compensation
nor was she allowed any drawing account or advance of any kind against unearned commissions. Her
right to compensation depended upon and was measured by the tangible results she produced — the
quantity of rice sold and the quantity of palay purchased.
The power to terminate the relationship was mutually vested upon the parties. Either may terminate the
business arrangement at will, with or without cause.Finally, noticeably absent from the agreement
between the parties is the element of control. Among the four (4) requisites, control is deemed the most
important that the other requisites may even be disregarded. 6 Under the control test, an employer-
employee relationship exists if the "employer" has reserved the right to control the "employee" not only
as to the result of the work done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be
accomplished. 7 Otherwise, no such relationship exists. chanrobles.com: claw.red
We observe that the means and methods of purchasing and selling rice or palay by private respondent
were totally independent of petitioners’ control. As established by the NLRC: chanrob1es virtual 1aw
library.

5. Mario Tiu and Jonathan Hayuhay vs. NLRC and Republic broadcasting system
Inc.