LABOR CASES Atty. Borja TITLE II. Chapter 1 NITTO ENTERPRISES VS NLRC Apprenticeship G.R. No. 114337, Sept.

29, 1995 FACTS: 1. Nitto Enterprises engaged in the sale of glass and aluminium products, hired Robert Capili as an apprentice machinist under an apprenticeship agreement for 6 months with a daily wage rate which was 75% of the applicable min. wage. 2. On Aug 2, as he was handling a piece of which he was working on, it accidentally hit and injured the lef of an office sec who was treated at a nearby hospital. On the same day, after office hours, he entered a workshop within the office premises and not his work station. He operated one of the power press machines without authority and in the process, injured his left thumb. Nitto Ent spent over P1K to cover his medications. 3. The next day, he was asked to resign in s letter done in Pilipino which, in essence, mentioned that he had not received any order to operate the tool just as he had no experience- and that it was his own decision that led to the accident upon the secretary and to him. The hospital incurred expenses as well. He was salary good for 9 days until the suture is removed and he will also receive his 6-day salary from July 30 until August 4. 4. Capili signed and executed a Quitclaim and Release in favour of Nitto in consideration of the sum of P1,912.79. 3 days after, he formally filed before the NLRC for illegal dismissal and payment of other monetary benefits. LABOR ARBITER HELD: valid termination due to gross negligence resulting in the injury upon himself and to others and acted without authority. Capili went to NLRC. NLRC HELD: Reversal of the order and ordered the reinstatement because he was a regular employee. Nitto went to court seeking the annulment of the NLRC decision because they alleged that although there was no approval of the Apprenticeship Agreement with DOLE but it was enforced the day it was signed. ISSUE: WON CAPILI A REGULAR EMPLOYEE OR AN APPRENTICE. SUPREME COURT HELD: Nitto Ent. Did not comply with the requirements of the law (Art. 61) which mandated that apprenticeship agreements entered into by the employer and the apprentice shall be entered only in accordance with the apprenticeship program DULY APPROVED BY THE MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT. Therefore, prior approval is a sine qua non-an indispensable requisite0 before an apprenticeship program can be validly entered into. The act of filing with the DOLE is merely a preliminary step towards its final approval and it will not give rise to an employer-apprentice relations. The agreement then had no force and effect. Article 57-72

FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE

G.R. No.

FACTS:

VS IAC 75112, August 17, 1992

1. Funtecha was a working student, being a part time janitor and scholar of FCI. On that day of the accident, he requested the driver of the vehicle, Allan Masa who was also the son of the school president that he will drive as he was also on his way home. Masa turned over the vehicle to Funtecha and accordingly, a fast moving truck with glaring lights nearly hit them so they had to swerve and it went towards a pedestrian, Potenciano Kapunan. He suffered multiple injuries and was hospitalized for 20 days. 2. Kapunan then instituted a criminal case against Funtecha alone because according to him, he was the one driving the jeep. He also reserved his right to file an independent civil action. TRIAL COURT HELD: Funtecha was guilty. Appealed, but appellate court confirmed his conviction. 3. Kapunan then commenced a civil case for damages, this time, including FCI and its president. TRIAL COURT HELD: Liable for damages. Appealed to CA, affirmed Trial Courts decision. So FCI went to SC. ISSUE: WON THE SCHOOL IS LIABLE. SUPREME COURT: 1. The Court initially ruled that the school was not liable because F was not the authorized driver as he was merely a working scholar. They based under Sec, 14 Rule X, Book 3 of the Rules and Regulations implementing the Labor code. 2. The heirs of Kapunan sought reconsideration that the applicable law was Art. 2180 of the Civil Code which states that an injured party shall have the recourse against the servant as well as the petitioner school for whom, at the time the incident took place, the servant was performing an act in furtherance of the interest and for the benefit of the school. 3. The SUPREME RE-EXAMINED AND HELD: Applying the Civil Code and not the Labor Code, it is undisputed that Funtecha was a working student being a part time janitor and scholar of FCI. In relation to the school, he was an employee even if he was assigned to clean the school premises for only two hours in the morning of each school. In learning how to drive while taking the vehicle

Learnership vs Apprenticeship BOOK III

MANILA GOLF VS. IAC G.R. No. 64948 September 27, 1994

TITLE I. Working Conditions and Rest Period Elements or Tests of Employment Relationship

Chapter I. Hours of Work (Articles 82-90) FACTS: 1. The Caddies of Manila Golf and Country Club filed with the Social Security Commission for coverage and availment of benefits under the Social Security Act as amended because they alleged that althouth they were employed by MGCB, they had not been registered with SSS. 2. Two other proceedings bearing the same question were also filed by PTCCEA, the labor union where the caddies claimed they belonged:

a. a certificate of election case before the Labor Relations Division, which appeared to have been resolved in favour of the caddies. b. a compulsory arbitration case before the Arbitration branch. was dismissed for lack of merit and affirmed by NLRC on the ground that there was no employer-employee relations. 3.In the SSC Case, only two caddies continued their cases because the 15 withdrew their claims realizing that indeed there was no employment relations. The Commission dismissed their petition, they appealed. The IAC declared LLamar an employee of the club and ordered that he be reported as such for social security coverage and paid any corresponding benefits. They based their decision on a SC ruling on the Investment Planning Corp vs SSS. ISSUE: WON THERE WAS AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE CADDIES AND THE CLUB. SC HELD: NOT AN EMPLOYEE THUS THE CLUB HAS NO OBLIGATION TO REPORT HIM FOR COMPULSORY COVERAGE WITH SSS. 1. The list detailing the various matters of conduct, dress, language which are all covered by the Clubs regulations does not restrict the actions of the caddies nor does it leave them little or no freedom of choice in the manner of carrying out their services. It is in the very nature of their job that they must submit to some supervision while enjoying the privilege of pursuing their occupation within the grounds of the club, or for any club. They work without having to observe any working hours, free to leave at anytime they please, stay away for as long as they like, in other words, there is tolerance. Of course, if they are found remiss in the observance of club rules or breach of any of such rules, they can be disciplined by barring them from the premises. The club, even in the absence of any breach and without violation of the right to work, may bar them from entering the premises. 2. As to the rate of fees payable to the caddies by the players, this does not suggest employee status. It was intended because the Club has no control over the incidents of the caddies work and thus leaves it to the players to give. 3. The group rotation system is not a measure of employer control but the assurance that work is fairly distributed and thus if a caddy is absent when his number is called, he loses that turn to serve and it will be assigned the last number of the day. This group rotation is not absolute because a player is at liberty to choose a caddy of his preference even if it is a caddys turn. 4. Finally, the Club has no means of compelling the presence of a caddy. He is not required to work in the Club as he is allowed to work with any other golf club he so desires. They are not required to render a definite number of hours on a single day. It can happen that a caddy may still find sufficient caddying services elsewhere. He may even leave the premises and go to other places of work or he may deliberately absent himself and engage in caddying somewhere where the rate of fees is higher. The fact is that these things are beyond the Clubs control. ANGELINA FRANCISCO VS NLRC G.R. No. 170087 FACTS: 1. Kasei Corp hired Francisco during its incorporation stage, designated as Accountant and Corporate Secretary. She also acted as Liaison officer to the City of Makati and as Actina Manager where she was assigned to handle recruitment of all employees and perform managerial administrative functions and represented their company in dealing with governing agencies like BIR, SSS, and Makati City. She received a monthly salary of P27,500 with housing allowance and 5% profit share.

2. 6 years after, she was replaced and designated as Technical consultant and her pay was reduced by P2.5K. In October, 2001, since she did not receive her salary from the company, she asked from Acedo (the designated Treasurer) who informed her that she was no longer connected with the company. This being the case, she didnt report for work and filed an action for constructive dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. LABOR ARBITER HELD: she was an employee and entitled to reinstatement. NLRC: affirmed the decision but didnt order the reinstatement. CA HELD: Reversed. She was not an employee. SSUE: WON FRANCISCO IS AN EMPLOYEE OF KASEI. SC HELD: YES 1. Although the CONTROL TEST is sufficient to give a complete picture of the relationship between parties such that the employer reserves a right to control the end to be achieved and the means to be used there are complexities like the economic realities of the employment relations and the better approach when complexities arise is the two-tiered test. This test involves two aspects : 1. The presumptive or reputed power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods and 2. The underlying economic realities of the activity of the relationship. This test is appropriate in this case because there is no written agreement to be referred. 2. For this no 2 test, the determination of the relationship depends upon 1. the extent of the service performed is it an integral part of the employers business? 2. the extent of the workers investment in equipment and facilities 3. The nature and degree of control exercised by the employer 4. the workers opportunity for profit and loss 5. the amount of initiative, skill, judgment and foresight required 6. the permanency and duration of the relationship 7. the degree of dependency of the worker on the work. 3. Under this test, it can be surmised that: a. She had served the company for 6 years, receiving vouchers indicating her salaries, bonuses, deductions and SSS contributions. b. She was selected and engaged by the company for compensation, with the power to dismiss her for a cause c. she is economically dependent on the work d. Her functions involved accounting and tax services on a regular basis e. Kesei had the power to control her with the means and methods by which the work was to be accomplished. 3. She was constructively dismissed when her salary was reduced and this amounts to an illegal termination and as such, she is entitled to full backwages. (A diminuition of pay is prejudicial to the employee and amounts to constructive dismissal, an involuntary resignation, a demotion of rank) Since she was also an accountant and this is one of trust and confidence under the principled of strained relations (when there is the presence of antagonism), she is entitled to separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. (Note: The economic reality test is not new, it has been used more than 50 years ago)

OPULENCIA ICE PLANT (OIP) VS NLRC

GR No. 98368

FACTS: 1. Manuel Esita was a compressor operator of Tiongson Ice Plant in San Pablo for 20 years. Over time, he was hired as compressor operator-mechanic in Batangas and Laguna. He also helped in the construction-remodelling of the owners house. He would work from 7 am up to 5 pm receiving a daily wage of P35.00 2. In 1986, he demanded the correct amount of wages due him and for this, he was dismissed from service. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch in San Pablo. 3. OIP denied that he is an employee because: a. that claim that he was in their Tanauan Ice plant was not possible because it was not in operation b. he was only a helper of one of the contractors, from the major repairs in their ice plants to the residence of Dr. Opulencia. c. that Dr. Opulencia allowed him to stay in the premises of the ice plant for free, inc. free electricity and water, and he was allowed to cultivate crops within their premises to augment his income, are acts of benevolence on their part. LABOR ARBITER HELD: there was an employee-employer relations. NLRC Affirmed. Hence, OIC seek the reversal due to the fact that his name does not appear in the payroll of the company. ISSUE: WON ESITA IS AN EMPLOYEE SINCE HIS NAME WAS ABSENT IN THE PAYROLL. SC HELD: YES. A. There is no particular form of evidence required to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Any competent and relevant evidence may be admitted. Because if documents are the sole basis, then employers would maneuver not to come out with any documents so that he will not be held liable. And they would not be brought before the bar of justice. b. testimonial evidences, in the absence of time sheets or payroll, is sufficient. the testimonies of the witnesses admitted that not all the names of the employees were reflected in the payroll. As the payroll does not contain the complete list of the employees, so that the payroll is not the accurate basis in determining who are and who are not employees. Also they submitted payroll slips that do not cover the entire 9-year period which Esita was employed. And they failed or refused to submit payrolls under claim. In this regard, there is a disputable presumption that evidence wilfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. c. As to the owners act of benevolence, the Court said that it does not operate as a license to go around labor laws. If he was genuinely into that even if not required y law, then there is no reason why he will not give what they are entitled to receive. Besides, it was found that Esita was enjoying the same privileges granted to other employees.

Zamudio vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 76723, March 25, 1990) Paguio vs. NLRC (GR No.

147816, May 9, 2003) When Employment Relationship Present Great Pacific Life Assurance Corp. vs. Judico (G.R. No.73887, December 21, 1989)

FACTS: 1. Judico entered into an agreement of agency with Grepalife to become a debit agent (attached to the industrial life agency in Cebu). A debit agent is one who sells and services industrial life plans and policy holders. These industrial plans are those who premiums are payable either daily, weekly or monthly which are collectible by debit agents in their homes or any place designated by the policy holder. 2. In Sept 1981, he was promoted to Zone supervisor but 2 months after, he was reverted to his former position. 7 months after, his agency contract was terminated. When he complained of illegal dismissal, Grepalife asserted that he was not an employee at all. LABOR ARBITER HELD: The employee-employer relation did not exist. Judico went to NLRC HELD: Reversed. Judico was an employee. ISSUE; WON HONORATO IS CONSIDERED AS AN EMPLOYEE SUPREME COURT HELD: YES, AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF NLRC. 1. Of the 4 elements needed to establish an employer-employee relations, two exist. One is the power to dismiss. The second is the element of control by Grepalife on Honorato was present based on the kind of work, the amount of results, the kind of performance. By the nature of his position and work, he had been a regular employee and was therefore entitled to the protection of the law and could not just be terminated without valid and justifiable reason. 2. there are 2 classes of agents in an insurance company: a. Salaried who keep definite hours and work under the control and supervision of the company b. registered representatives who work on commission. not required to report for work, their time and effort depends upon their own will and initiative and are not required to account for it and are paid their commission based on a certain percentage of the sale. Judico was an agent of the petitioner and belongs to the first class of agent. In terms of the salary, the question as to whether he was under the control of Grepalife was seen: he received a definite minimum amount per week as his wage known as sales reserve, he was assigned a definite place in the work when he is not in the field, and he was also burdened with the job of collecting payments. He was required to make regular reports to the company regarding these duties (a poor performance would result to dismissal).

Feati Univ. vs. Hon. Jose Bautista, et.al. (GR No. L-21278, December 27, 1966) Citizens League of Free Workers, et.al. vs. Abbas (G.R. No. L-21212, September 23, 1966) CITIZENSLEAGUE OF FREE WORKERS VS. ABBAS FACTS: 1. Teofilo Geronimo and Emerita Mendez are owners and operators of auto-calesas in Davao. The Union, called Citizens League of Free Workers were drivers of the spouses. They lease the auto-calesas on a daily rental basis and wanted to be recognized as employees instead of lessees. When the spouses refused, they declared a strike and had paralyzed the operations through intimidation, threats and violence. The spouses filed a case at the CFI. Under Judge Abbas, and pending the case, they also filed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction which was granted. 2. The Union strikers went to SC to restrain Judge Abbas from proceeding with the case as it involves a labor dispute and is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CIR (now NLRC). Denied by Judge on ground that there was no employer-employee relations between them (due to the boundary system). 3. Union went to Supreme Court. ISSUE: WON THERE WAS AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS. SC HELD. YES, 1. Even if they work under the boundary system, but as in the case of Isabelo Doce vs. Workmens Compensation is identical: that a driver of a jeep who operates the same under the boundary system is considered an employee within the meaning of the law and it is also within the jurisdiction of CIR. The control test reveals that the company wields control over the drivers. This doctrine extends to relationships between bus owners/operators and bus conductors, between calesa owners and drivers, between taxi owners and drives and also barber shop and barbers. All of thyem, unarguably, performed work necessary and desirable in the business of the owners. 2. They cannot have a lessee-lessor relations because they did not invest anything in the acquisition of the jeep and did not participate in the management as their services as drivers is their only contribution to the business.

Villamaria vs. CA and Bustamante (G.R. No. 165881, April 19, 2006)

VILLAMARIA VS CA FACTS: 1. Oscar Villamaria is the owner of Villamaria Motors, a sole proprietorship engaged in assembling passenger jeepneys with a public utility franchise to operate along the Baclaran-Sucat route. One his drivers was Jerry Bustamante and they executed a contract entitled Kasunduan ng Bilihan sa Pamamagitan ng Boundary-Hulog. Under this contract, the B was required to remit P550.00 daily to V and this amount represents partial payment of the purchase price of the jeep and the boundary as well, for a period of 4 years. Whatever was the excess would be his daily wage. There were conditions set: a. prohibition from driving without prior authority b. required to display an id c. pay for the cost of replacing any parts that would be lost or damaged d. no wearing of short pants, slippers or undershirts while driving e. pay for the annual registration fees and more There was also the terms on failure to pay. 2. sometime later, B and some drivers who were in that system failed to pay their respective boundary-hulog and this prompted V to serve a Paalala-reminder- for one week or else their jeepneys would be returned to him without complaints. After that, V took back the jeepneys and barred B from driving the vehicle. 3. B filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. LABOR ARBITER HELD: NO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP NLRC: AFFIRMED DECISION OF LABOR ARBITER CA : SET ASIDE AND DECLARED THAT THERE WAS AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP ISSUE: WON THERE IS AN EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP SEC HELD: 1. Under the boundary-hulog scheme incorporated in the Kasunduan, a dual juridical relationship was created: that of employee-employer and vendor-vendee. V retained ownership of the jeep although its material possession was vested in B as the driver. And besides, V had the exercise of control of Bs conduct in operating the jeepney. The existence of an employment relation is not dependent on how the worker is paid but on the presence or absence of control over the means and methods of the work, that the amount earned in excess of the boundaryhulog is equivalent to wages. Although the power of dismissal was not mentioned, it did not mean that he did not or could not exercise such power. 2. The Kasunduan expressly stated that the 550.00 will be as partial payment of the purchase price and as a boundary which shows that the daily remittance had a dual purpose as well. The well settled rule is that an obligation is not novated by an instrument that expressly recognizes the old one like changes only in terms of payment and add other obligations. The two obligations of B to remit V under the new contract merely supplements that previous one and can stand together.

Sy, et.al. vs. Hon. CA and J. Sahot (G.R. No. 142293, February 27, 2003)

SY VS. CA FACTS: 1. Jaime Sahot, then 23 years old, started working as a truck helper for Vicente SY in their family owned trucking business until he reached 59. In that span of time he worked for them, 39 years, the business underwent three name-changes but he continued to serve them. 2. At 59, he incurred absences as he ws suffering from various ailments, particularly the pain in his left thigh which greatly affected his task as a driver. When he inquired with SSS regarding his medical and retirement benefits, he learned that the trucking company never paid his SSS premium. Sy contended that it was because he was never an employee but an industrial partner and that he would not have been separated had he returned to work after his sick leave. LABOR ARBITER HELD: NO ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. SAHOT WAS AN INDUSTRIAL PARTNER BUT ORDERED SY TO GIVE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF P15k FOR SAVING SERVED THE COMPANY AS A REGULAR EMPLOYEE ONLY IN 1994. NLRC MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT: SAHOT WAS AN EMPLOYEE SINCE THE START, THAT HE DID NOT ABANDON HIS JOB BUT HE WAS TERMINATED ON ACCOUNT OF HIS ILLNESS PURSUANT TO Art 284 OF THE LABOR CODE AND ENTITLED TO RECEIVE A SEPARATION PAY IN THE AMOUNT OF p60,320.00. CA MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT: SEPARATION PAY IS p74,888.00 COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF P2,080.00 FOR 36 YEARS OF SERVICE. ISSUE: WON SAHOT AN INDUSTRIAL PARTNER OR AN EMPLOYEE? SC HELD: SAHOT WAS AN EMPLOYEE. 1. It is impossible to believe that he would be an industrial partner at a young age of 23, working as a truck driver. There is no way that he could be a partner. 2. In order to determine the existence of am emp-employer relations, the 4 elements are the determinant tests. The most important element is the employers control of the employments conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done, but also to the means and methods to be accomplished. Records show that during the entire course of his employment, he did not have the freedom to determine where he would go, what he would do, and how he would do it. He merely followed instructions of petitioners and content to do so, as long as he was paid his wages. He worked as a truck helper and driver not for his own pleasure but under Sys control. 3. From the records, it clearly appears that procedural due process (non-compliance of the required medical certificate before terminating an employee) and substantive aspect ( no written 2 notices) were also violated. Sahot is entitled to separation pay, the same computation as CAs.

Makati Haberdashery, Inc. vs.

NLRC (G.R. Nos. 83380-81, November 15, 1989) Caurdanetaan Piece Workers Union vs. Laguesma,et.al. (G.R. No. 113542, February 24, 1998) A. Maraguinot & P. Enero vs. NLRC, et.al. (G.R. No.120969, January 22, 1998) Labor Union/Association As Employer Orlando Farm Growers vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 129076, November 25, 1998) ORLANDO FARM GROWERS FACTS: 1. The Landowners are engaged in the production of export quality bananas and formed an unregistered association called Orlando Farm Growers. It was envisioned to deal more effectively with the buying company Stanfilco(that buys their banana, also to facilitate technical services, canal maintenance, irrigation and pesto control within the farm. But although unregistered, it was authorized to transact business and carry out certain activities in the interest of the individual landowners members). 2. The association workers worked as packers, harvesters, etc although they were hired by the individual landowners members who were also the ones paying for their SSS contributions. As such, they issued id and memoranda and circulars on absences without formal request, loitering in the work area and disciplinary measures which the workers had to comply. 3. Later, about 20 members were dismissed so they filed suits for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter HELD: THERE WAS AN ILLEGAL DISMISSAL NLRC HELD: AFFIRMED ISSUE: WON THE WORERS ARE EMPLOYEES OF ORLANDO FARM GROWERS? CAN AN UNREGISTERED ASSOCIATION BE AN EMPLOYER? SC HELD: 1. Using the 4-fold test, it was determined that the Association has control towards the workers through the issuance of the id, the memoranda and circulars and to settle/pay the claim of the workers. In fact when 3 members filed money claims, it was the one that entered into a compromise settlement of their claims. Also, it was intended to provide the landowners a unified voice in dealing with the buying company, it exceeded and performed the role of an employer. 2. The labor code defines an employer as one who acts in the interest of an employer directly or indirectly. The law does not require an employer to be registered in order to be considered as one. 3. For dismissing workers without a valid cause and non-observance of due process, they are ordered to give full backwages to the 20 dismissed workers from the date of their dismissal up to the reinstatement.

Right of Employer Over Conditions of Employment San Miguel Brewery Sales vs. Ople (G.R. No. 53615, February 8, 1989)

SAN MIGUEL BREWERY SALES VS OPLE FACTS: 1. In 1979, San Miguel introduced a marketing scheme known as the CDS or Complimentary Distribution Scheme whereby its beer products can be bought directly to wholesalers through its Sales Offices. The companys labor union filed a complaint for unfair labor practice because it was contrary to their existing marketing scheme whereby the Salesman assigned to a specific territory would sell their stocks of beer to the stores and not from the company. They said that the CDS would reduce their take home pay and it appears that the company is unfairly competing with them LABOR MINISTER HELD: No Violation by San Miguel in the Collective Bargaining Agreement ISSUE: WON THE CDS WAS A METHOD IN INDIRECTLY BUSTING THE UNION AND THUS A VIOLATION OF THE CBA. SC HELD: 1. NO. Although the law is solicitous as to the welfare of the employees, it must also protect the right on an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives for as long they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employers interest and not for the purpose of defeating the rights of the employees under a valid agreement (like the CBA). 2. Also, it offered to compensate the members of its sales force who will be adversely affected by the implementation of the CDS by paying them a so-called Back Adjustment commission to make up for the commission they might lose as a result of this. This action if a proof of the companys good faith and lack of intention to bust their union.

Excluded Employees (7) National Sugar Refineries Corp. vs. NLRC, et.al. (G.R. No. 101761, March 24, 1993) NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERY CORP (NASUREFCO) VS NLRC FACTS; 1. NASUREFCO is a corp which is fully owned and controlled by the Govt. In 1988, they implemented a JOB EVALUATION or a JE Program affecting all employees from rank-and-file to department heads. It was intended to rationalize the duties and functions of all positions, reestablish levels of responsibility and recognize both wage and operational structures. It resulted in all employees, inc the members of the union salary adjustments and increase benefit commensurate to their actual duties and functions. 10 years before , NASUREFCO used to pay overtime, rest day and holiday pay. The complainants herein, Union members, were then treated in the same manner as rank and file. 2. On May 11, 1990 or 2 years after the JE was implemented, NASUREFCO recognized the organization of the NBSR Supervisory Union as the bargaining rep of all supervisors in the Batangas branch. About 1 and a half months later, they filed a complaint for non-payment of overtime, res day and holiday pay in violation of Art. 100 of the Labor Code. LABOR ARBITER HELD: for Nasurefco to pay the workers. It also decided that along san of time which the benefits were being paid to the supervisors, it has ripened into a contractual obligation and so they question

the validity of the new compensation package NLRC HELD: affirmed the decision ISSUE: WON SUPERVISORS ARE ENTITLED TO OVERTIME, REST DAY AND HOLIDAY PAY. SC HELD: NO. 1. Art. 212 of the LC states that definition of managerial and supervisory employees. The former is one who is vested with powers to lay down and execute management policies and to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall employees. The latter are those who, in the interest of the employer, will recommend such managerial actions if f the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment. 2. Upon review of the records, the Job Value contribution statement of the union members show that these supervisors were under the direct supervision of their department heads and they assisted in the planning, organizing, staffing, directing, controlling, communicating and making decisions in attaining the goals and objectives of the company. They were also responsible for the effective and efficient operations of their departments. Thus the court ruled that under the facts obtained, they are officers or members of the managerial staff and are therefore exempt from the coverage of art. 82 and are not entitled to overtime, rest day and holiday pay.

Pearanda vs. Baganga Plywood Corp, et.al. (G.R. No. 159577, May 3, 2006) San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. Democratic Labor Org., et.al. (G.R. No.L-18353, July 31, 1963) Auto Bus Transport System, Inc. vs. Bautista (G.R. No. 156367, May 16, 2005) AUTO BUS TRANSIT VS BAUTISTA FACTS: 1. Antonio bautista has been an employed by Auto Bus Transit since 1995 as driver conductor. He was paid on commission basis, % of the total gross income per travel, twice a month. In 2000. While he was driving a bus along nueva viscaya, a bus of the same company suddenly stopped at a sharp curve without giving any warning so the bus Antonip was driving accidentally bumped the rear portion of that bus. 2. When questioned he said that the accident happened because he was compelled by the management to

3.

go back to isabela although he had not slept for almost 24 hours. A month after the incident, he was given a letter of termination. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims.

LABOR ARBITER RULED: Illegal dismissal complaint is dismissed but ordered Auto Bus to pay him the following: his 13th month pay- about P78K and his service incentive leave pay about 13.7K. Not satisfied, he appealed the decision to NLRC. NLRC HELD: same decision but modified, deleted the 13th month pay. Displeased, he sought the review of said decision with CA CA HELD: affirmed decision of NLRC. ISSUE: WON BUS DRIVERS AND CONDUCTORS ARE ENTITLED TO INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY SC HELD: YES. 1. Auto Bus maintained that a driver-conductor plying Manila-Tuguegarao-Baguio route is not entitled to the grant of service incentive leave just because he was paid on purely commission basis is misplaced. What must be ascertained in order to resolve the issue of propriety of the grant of service incentive leave to Bautista is won he is a field personnel or not. 2. The definition of a field personnel is not merely concerned with the location where the employee regularly performs his duties but also with the fact that his performance is unsupervised by the employer. Their actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty but there must be an inquiry as to whether or not the employees time and performance are constantly supervised by the employee. 3. As observed: a. along the routes that are plied by the bus companies, there are inspectors assigned in strategic places who board the bus and inspect the pax, punch the tickets and the conductors report. b. There is also the mandatory once a week car barn or shop day where the bus is regularly checked as to is mechanical, electrical and hydraulic aspects and if there are any problems. c. Since the bus leaves promptly, they must be at a place specified on a specific time and the same with their arrival. A dispatcher is around to supervise this. 4. Given the above observations, the driver is therefore under the constant supervision while in the performance of their work. They cannot be considered as field personnel. 8-Hour Labor Law (Article 83) Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-FFW vs. Interphil Laboratories, Inc., et.al. (G.R. No. 142824, December

19, 2001) Hours Worked (Article 84) >> Preliminary Activities >> Waiting Time >> Working While Eating >> Working While Sleeping >> On Call >> Travel Time >> Lectures, Meetings & Training Programs >> Grievance Meeting Semestral Break Univ. of Pangasinan Faculty Union vs. Univ. of Pangasinan (G.R. No. L-63122, Feb. 20, 1984) Meal Periods (Article 85) National Devt. Company vs. CIR, et.al. (G.R. No.L-15422, Nov. 30, 1962) Night Shift Differential (Article 86) Mercury Drug Co., Inc. vs. Nardo Dayao, et.al. (G.R. No. L30452, September 30, 1982) > Overtime Work >> How Computed >> How Work Day Counted >> Overtime Pay Not Waivable Generally Pampanga Sugar Devt. Co., Inc. vs. CIR, et.al. (G.R. No. L39387, June 29, 1982) Chapter II. Weekly Rest Periods (Articles 91-93) Chapter III. Holidays, Service Incentive Leaves and Service Charges

(Articles 94-96) HOLIDAYS (Article 94) > Regular Holidays > Formula to Compute Wages on Holidays Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees Union vs. Inciong, et.al. (G.R. No. L52415, Oct. 23, 1984) The Chartered Bank Employees Association vs. Ople, et.al. (GR No.L-44717, August 28, 1985) Odango, et.al. vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 147420, June 10, 2004) Union of Filipro Employees vs. Benigno Vivar, Jr.,et.al. (G.R. No. 79255, January 20, 1992)