The case of Acevedo vs. Advanstar Co. involved a complaint filed by Acevedo against his supervisor Jalapadan and Advanstar Co. for illegal dismissal. The court found that Jalapadan was a labor-only contractor and Advanstar Co. was the principal employer, making Acevedo an employee of Advanstar Co. not Jalapadan. In another case, Aboitiz Haulers Inc. vs. Monaorai Dimapatoi, the court found that Aboitiz Haulers and Grigio, a manpower agency, had engaged in illegal labor-only contracting as the checkers performed work directly related to Aboit
The case of Acevedo vs. Advanstar Co. involved a complaint filed by Acevedo against his supervisor Jalapadan and Advanstar Co. for illegal dismissal. The court found that Jalapadan was a labor-only contractor and Advanstar Co. was the principal employer, making Acevedo an employee of Advanstar Co. not Jalapadan. In another case, Aboitiz Haulers Inc. vs. Monaorai Dimapatoi, the court found that Aboitiz Haulers and Grigio, a manpower agency, had engaged in illegal labor-only contracting as the checkers performed work directly related to Aboit
The case of Acevedo vs. Advanstar Co. involved a complaint filed by Acevedo against his supervisor Jalapadan and Advanstar Co. for illegal dismissal. The court found that Jalapadan was a labor-only contractor and Advanstar Co. was the principal employer, making Acevedo an employee of Advanstar Co. not Jalapadan. In another case, Aboitiz Haulers Inc. vs. Monaorai Dimapatoi, the court found that Aboitiz Haulers and Grigio, a manpower agency, had engaged in illegal labor-only contracting as the checkers performed work directly related to Aboit
The case of Acevedo vs. Advanstar Co. involved a complaint filed by Acevedo against his supervisor Jalapadan and Advanstar Co. for illegal dismissal. The court found that Jalapadan was a labor-only contractor and Advanstar Co. was the principal employer, making Acevedo an employee of Advanstar Co. not Jalapadan. In another case, Aboitiz Haulers Inc. vs. Monaorai Dimapatoi, the court found that Aboitiz Haulers and Grigio, a manpower agency, had engaged in illegal labor-only contracting as the checkers performed work directly related to Aboit
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 7
Acevedo vs. Advanstar Co., [GR No.
157656, November 11, 2005]
Jalapadan, a salesman in Advanstar Company Inc. hired Acevedo as the driver of the truck assigned to him.
Sometime in July 1998, Acevedo failed to comply with Jalapadan's instructions. At However, Jalapadan later asked him to return to work 5 and the latter agreed. On October 7, 1998, Acevedo failed to report for work. The next day, Jalapadan inquired why he failed to check and wash the truck. Jalapadan berated Acevedo and ordered him to get his personal belongings and leave. He then signed a Letter 7 dated October 10, 1998, informing Jalapadan that he was resigning effective that date. On October 26, 1998, Acevedo filed a complaint against Jalapadan, ACI and its general manager, Felipe Loi, for illegal dismissal and for the recovery of backwages and other monetary benefits. The NLRC held that the complainant was an employee of respondent Jalapadan, not of respondent ACI, and that he voluntarily resigned. Issue Whether the petitioner is the employee of respondent ACI Held Respondent Jalapadan bound and obliged himself to work exclusively for respondent ACI during the terms of the agreement. Under the agreement, ACI had the right to control not only the end to be attained but also the manner and means to be used in accomplishing the end. The Court declares Jalapadan as a labor-only contractor and respondent ACI as the principal employer of Acevedo.
Aboitiz Haulers, Inc. vs. Monaorai Dimapatoi, et al.
[G. R. No. 148619 September 19, 2006] Facts: Respondents worked as checkers in the Mega Warehouse, which is owned by the petitioner. Petitioner claims the respondents are not its employees, but of Grigio, a manposer agen=cy that supplies the checkers under a Written Contract of Service. . On May 9, 1996, the respondents left the warehouse and did not report to work thereafter. As a result, there was no orferly turnover of papers and other company property in connection with the termination of the Written Contract for Services. Respondents claim that they were not paid their regular holiday pay, night shift differential, SIL, and OT. Issue WON the petitioner and Grigio engaged in a labor only contracting Yes. The respondents work as checkers is directly related to the principal business of the petitione.=r. Petitiner also exercises the right to control and determines not only the end to be achieved but also the mannneer and means to be used in reaching the end. Lastly, Grigio had no substantial capital or investment.
San Miguel Corporation vs. Semillano
G.R. No. 164257. July 5, 2010.
The complainants claimed that they were fillers of SMC Bottling Plant, engaged in activities necessary and desirable in the usual business of SMC. They assert, therefore, that they are regular employees of SMC. SMC utilized AMPCO, thus making it appear that the latter was the complainants employer, with intentions of evading the responsibility of paying the benefits due to the complainants. The complainants further claim that AMPCO and SMC failed to give them their 13th month pay, and that they were prevented from entering the premises of SMC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not AMPCO is a legitimate job contractor.
Held The petition is DENIED, and the February 19, 2004 decision of the CA AFFIRMED.
The Court is not convinced that AMPCO exercised exclusive direction in the discharge of respondents, based on Merlyn Polidarios instructions to the respondents to wait for further instructions from SMCs supervisor after being prevented from entering SMC premises. Therefore, it would be logical to conclude that SMC wielded the power of control.
Grandspan Development Corp., vs. Bernardo
[GR No. 141464, September 21, 2005] Facts In 1990, Respondents were employeed as truck scale monitors by petitioner. In 1992, October 28, 1992, petitioner sent them a notice terminating their services effective October 29, 1992 for using profane or offensive language, in violation of Article VI (2) (a) of the company's Rules and Regulations Petitioner denied the allegations of respondents in their complaint, claiming that they are employees of J. Narag. Sometime in October, 1992, the manager received a report from supervisor that respondents vandalized the company's log book and chairs. The Labor Arbiter said they were project employees whose services were terminated upon completion of the project for which they were hired. Issue: Whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondent and whether the respondents are employees J. Narag Construction is indeed a labor-only contractor. These are the reasons: (1) it is not registered as a building contractor with the SEC; (2) it has no contract with petitioner; and (3) there is no proof of its financial capability and has no list of equipment, tools, machineries and implements used in the business. Clearly, J. Narag Construction could not be respondents' employer.
Atok Big Wedge Company vs. Gison, G.R. No. 169510, August 8, 2011 Facts: Respondent Gison was a part time consultant of the petitioner for 11 years. Upon respondents request to be registered in SSS by the petitioner, the latter refused. Respondent complained of the refusal in SSS and he was also terminated because his services were no longer necessary. As a result, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, underpayment of wages, non-payment of 13th Month pay, vacation pay and sick leave. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner ruling that there is no ER-EE relationship. CA reversed the decision of LA and NLRC and said that Art. 280 should apply which distinguishes between the two kinds of employees, i.e., regular and casual employees. The respondent is deemed a regular employee of the petitioner after the lapse of one year from his employment. Issue: Whether or not CA erred in applying Article 280 Held Employer-employee relationship is absent. Respondent was not required to report everyday during regular office hours of petitioner. Respondent's monthly retainer fees were paid to him either at his residence or a local restaurant. Petitioner did not prescribe the manner in which respondent would accomplish any of the tasks in which his expertise as a liaison officer was needed. Element of control is absent.
Insular Life v. NLRC (Nov. 15, 1989) G.R. No. 84484
FACTS: Under a contract, Basiao was authorized to solicit for insurance in accordance with the rules of the Insular Life company. He would also receive compensation, in the form of commissions. After 4 years, the parties entered into another contract an Agency Managers Contact pursuant to it, Basiao organized an agency while concurrently fulfilling his commitment under the first contract. The company terminated the Agency Managers Contract. Basiao sued the company in a civil action. Thus, the company terminated Basiaos engagement under the first contract and stopped payment of his commissions. ISSUE: W/N Basiao had become the companys employee by virtue of the contract, thereby placing his claim for unpaid commissions Held:
No. Rules and regulations governing the conduct of the business are provided for in the Insurance Code. They serve as guidelines without dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining it. None of these really invades the agents contractual prerogative to adopt his own selling methods or to sell insurance at his own time and convenience, hence cannot justifiable be said to establish an employeremployee relationship between Basiao and the company.
COCA COLA BOTTLERS
versus CLIMACO, G.R. No. 146881, 2007 Feb 5. Facts: Dr. Climaco is a medical doctor who was hired by the petitioner by virtue of retainer agreement which states that there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties. in March 1995 respondent received a letter concluding their retainer agreement. Respondent is seeking recognition as a regular employee of the petitioner company and prayed for the payment of all benefits of a regular employee. Issue: Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship between the parties. Ruling : The Court adhered to the 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 the employees conduct, or the so-called control test, considered to be the most important element. No employer-employee relationship exists between the parties. 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 performed his assigned tasks. In addition, the Court finds that the schedule of work and the requirement to be on call for emergency cases do not amount to such control, but are necessary incidents to the Retainership Agreement. Considering that there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties, the termination of the Retainership Agreement does not constitute illegal dismissal of respondent.
CAGAMPAN vs. NLRC G.R. Nos. 85122-24 March 22, 1991
Facts petitioners, all seamen complain of non-payment of overtime pay, vacation pay and terminal pay against private respondent. They also claim that although they agreed to render services on board the vessel Rio Colorado, they actually boarded MV "SOIC I" and more so, petitioners de Castro and de Jesus claim that although they were employed as ordinary seamen, they actually performed the work and duties of Able Seamen. The POEA decision granted overtime pay to petitioners equivalent to 30% of their basic pay.
ISSUE: WON NLRC gravely abused its discretion REVERSING the decision of POEA in granting overtime pay to petitioners equivalent to 30% of their basic pay
HELD: No. The NLRC ruling on the disallowance of overtime pay is ably supported by the fact that petitioners never produced any proof of actual performance of overtime work.
LAKAS SA INDUSTRIYA NG KAPATIRANG HALIGI NG
ALYANSAPINAGBUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWANG PROMO NG BURLINGAME VS. BURLINGAME CORPORATION The petitioner filed a petition berfor the DOLE that it be voluntarily recognized by the respondent to be the collective bargaining agent, or, in the alternative, that a certification/consent election be held among said regular rank-and-file promo employees. The respondent filed a m
otion to dismiss the petition. It argued that there exists no
employer-employee relationship between it and the petitioners members and that thery are actually employees of F. Garil Manpower a duly licensed local employment agency. Issue: Whether F. Garil is an independent contractor or a labor-only contractor. Held: The court ruled ordering the holding of a certification election among the rank-and-file promo employees of Burlingame. The following elements are present: The contractor or sub-contractor does not have substantial capital or investment which relates to the job, work or service to be performed and the employees recruited, The contractor or sub-contractor does not have substantial capital or investment which relates to the job, work or service to be performed and the employees recruited, ii) The contractor does not exercise the right to control over the performance of the work of the contractual employee.
