ROSA C. RODOLFO v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Employment Administration, testified that the records of the POEA do not
498 SCRA 377 (2006), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.)
Facts: Petitioner Rosa C. Rodolfo approached private complainants Necitas
Ferre and Narciso Corpus individually and invited them to apply for
overseas employment in Dubai. Rodolfo, being their neighbor, Ferre and
Corpus agreed and went to the formers office. The office bore the business
name Bayside Manpower Export Specialist. In that office, Ferre gave
P1,000.00 as processing fee and another P4,000.00. Likewise, Corpus gave
Rodolfo P7,000.00. Rodolfo then told Ferre and Corpus that they were
scheduled to leave for Dubai. However, private complainants and all the
other applicants were not able to depart on the scheduled date as their
employer allegedly did not arrive. Thus, their departure was rescheduled,
but the result was the same. Suspecting that they were being hoodwinked,
Ferre and Corpus demanded of Rodolfo to return their money. Except for
the refund of P1,000.00 to Ferre, Rodolfo was not able to return Ferres and
Corpus money. Ferre, Corpus and three others then filed a case for illegal
recruitment in large scale with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against
Rodolfo.
Issue: Is Rodolfo guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale?
Laws Applicable: Promises or offers for a fee employment is sufficient
to warrant conviction for illegal recruitment.
Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as
[a]ny act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services,
promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for
profit or not.
Case History: The RTC rendered judgement against Rodolfo but in
imposing the penalty, the RTC took note of the fact that while the
information reflected the commission of illegal recruitment in large scale,
only the complaint of two (Ferre and Corpus) of the five complainants was
proven. Rodolfo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed
the petition but modified the penalty imposed by the trial court. The CA
also dismissed Rodolfos Motion for Reconsideration.
Ruling: The elements of the offense of illegal recruitment, which must
concur, are: (1) that the offender has no valid license or authority required
by law to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (2)
that the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of
recruitment and placement under Article 13(b), or any prohibited practices
enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code. If another element is
present that the accused commits the act against three or more persons,
individually or as a group, it becomes an illegal recruitment in a large
scale.
That the first element is present in the case at bar, there is no doubt. Jose
Valeriano, Senior Overseas Employment Officer of the Philippine Overseas
show that Rodolfo is authorized to recruit workers for overseas
employment. A Certification to that effect was in fact issued by
Hermogenes C. Mateo, Chief of the Licensing Division of POEA.
The second element is doubtless also present. The act of referral, which is
included in recruitment, is the act of passing along or forwarding of an
applicant for employment after an initial interview of a selected applicant
for employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau.
Rodolfos admission that she brought private complainants to the agency
whose owner she knows and her acceptance of fees including those for
processing betrays her guilt.
Opinion: Rodolfo issued provisional receipts indicating that the amounts
she received from the private complainants were turned over to
Luzviminda Marcos and Florante Hinahon does not free her from liability.
For the act of recruitment may be for profit or not. It is sufficient that
the accused promises or offers for a fee employment to warrant
conviction for illegal recruitment. Parenthetically, why Rodolfo accepted
the payment of fees from the private complainants when, in light of her
claim that she merely brought them to the agency, she could have advised
them to directly pay the same to the agency, she proferred no explanation.
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. PROSPERO A. ABALLA et al.
461 SCRA 392 (2005), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.)
FACTS: Petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) and Sunflower Multi-
Purpose Cooperative (Sunflower) entered into a one-year Contract of
Service and such contract is renewed on a monthly basis until terminated.
Pursuant to this, respondent Prospero Aballa et al. rendered services to
SMC.
After one year of rendering service, Aballa et al., filed a complaint before
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) praying that they be declared
as regular employees of SMC. On the other hand, SMC filed before the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a Notice of Closure due to
serious business losses. Hence, the labor arbiter dismissed the complaint
and ruled in favor of SMC. Aballa et al. then appealed before the NLRC.
ISSUE: Are Aballa et al. employees of SMC?
LAWS APPLICABLE: The language of a contract disavowing the existence
of an employer-employee relationship is not determinative of the parties
relationship. It is the totality of the facts and surrounding circumstances of
the case.
CASE HISTORY: The NLRC dismissed the appeal finding that
Sunflower is an independent contractor. On appeal, the Court of Appeals
reversed NLRCs decision on the ground that the agreement between SMC
and Sunflower showed a clear intent to abstain from establishing an
employer-employee relationship.

RULING: The test to determine the existence of independent
contractorship is whether one claiming to be an independent contractor
has contracted to do the work according to his own methods and without
being subject to the control of the employer, except only as to the results
of the work.
In legitimate labor contracting, the law creates an employer-employee
relationship for a limited purpose, i.e., to ensure that the employees are
paid their wages. The principal employer becomes jointly and severally
liable with the job contractor, only for the payment of the employees
wages whenever the contractor fails to pay the same. Other than that, the
principal employer is not responsible for any claim made by the
employees.
In labor-only contracting, the statute creates an employer-employee
relationship for a comprehensive purpose: to prevent a circumvention of
labor laws. The contractor is considered merely an agent of the principal
employer and the latter is responsible to the employees of the labor-only
contractor as if such employees had been directly employed by the
principal employer.
The Contract of Services between SMC and Sunflower shows that the
parties clearly disavowed the existence of an employer-employee
relationship between SMC and private respondents. The language of a
contract is not, however, determinative of the parties relationship; rather
it is the totality of the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case. A
party cannot dictate, by the mere expedient of a unilateral declaration in a
contract, the character of its business, i.e., whether as labor-only
contractor or job contractor, it being crucial that its character be measured
in terms of and determined by the criteria set by statute. What appears is
that Sunflower does not have substantial capitalization or investment in
the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises and other
materials to qualify it as an independent contractor. On the other hand, it is
gathered that the lot, building, machineries and all other working tools
utilized by Aballa et al. in carrying out their tasks were owned and provided
by SMC.
OPINION: All the foregoing considerations affirm by more than substantial
evidence the existence of an employer-employee relationship between
SMC and Aballa et al. Since Aballa et al. who were engaged in shrimp
processing performed tasks usually necessary or desirable in the
aquaculture business of SMC, they should be deemed regular employees of
the latter and as such are entitled to all the benefits and rights
appurtenant to regular employment. They should thus be awarded
differential pay corresponding to the difference between the wages and
benefits given them and those accorded SMCs other regular employees.
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., VS. DR. CLIMACO,
G.R. NO. 146881, FEBRUARY 15, 2007
FACTS: Dr. Dean N. Climaco is a medical doctor who was hired by Coca-
Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. by virtue of a Retainer Agreement. The Retainer
Agreement, which began on January 1, 1988, was renewed annually. The
last one expired on December 31, 1993. Despite the non-renewal of the
Retainer Agreement, respondent continued to perform his functions as
company doctor to Coca-Cola until he received a letter dated March 9,
1995 from the company concluding their retainership agreement effective
30 days from receipt thereof. Dr. Climaco inquired from the management of
the company whether it was agreeable to recognizing him as a regular
employee. The management refused to do so. On February 24, 1994,
respondent filed a Complaint before the NLRC, Bacolod City, seeking
recognition as a regular employee of the company and prayed for the
payment of all benefits of a regular employee.
ISSUE: Is there an employer-employee relationship?
LAWS APPLICABLE: The Court, in determining the existence of an
employer-employee relationship, has invariably 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. Thecompany lacked the power of control over the
performance by respondent of his duties. TheComprehensive Medical
Plan, which contains the respondents objectives, duties and obligations,
does not tell respondent "how to conduct his physical examination, how to
immunize, or how to diagnose and treat his patients, employees of
[petitioner] company, in each case."
CASE HISTORY: While the complaint was pending before the Labor
Arbiter, respondent received a letter dated March 9, 1995 from Petitioner
Company concluding their retainership agreement effective thirty (30)
days from receipt thereof.
RULING:
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 performed his assigned tasks. Likewise, the
allegation of complainant that since he is on call at anytime of the day and
night makes him a regular employee is off-tangent. Complainant does not
dispute the fact that outside of the two (2) hours that he is required to be
at respondent companys premises, he is not at all further required to just
sit around in the premises and wait for an emergency to occur so as to
enable him from using such hours for his own benefit and advantage. In
fact, complainant maintains his own private clinic attending to his private
practice in the city, where he services his patients, bills them accordingly --
and if it is an employee of respondent company who is attended to by him
for special treatment that needs hospitalization or operation, this is subject
to a special billing. More often than not, an employee is required to stay in
the employers workplace or proximately close thereto that he cannot
utilize his time effectively and gainfully for his own purpose. Such is not the
prevailing situation here. The Retainership Agreement granted to both
parties the power to terminate their relationship upon giving a 30-day
notice.
OPINION: Hence, Petitioner Company did not wield the sole power of
dismissal or termination. Considering that there is no employer-employee
relationship between the parties, the termination of the Retainership
Agreement, which is in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement,
does not constitute illegal dismissal of respondent. Consequently, there is
no basis for the moral and exemplary damages granted by the Court of
Appeals to respondent due to his alleged illegal dismissal.
INTEGRATED CONTRACTOR AND PLUMBING WORKS, INC. VS.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND GLEN SOLON, G.R.
NO. 152427. AUGUST 9, 2005
FACTS: Petitioner is a plumbing contractor. Its business depends on the
number and frequency of the projects it is able to contract with its clients.
On February 23, 1998, while private respondent was about to log out from
work, he was informed by the warehouseman that the main office had
instructed them to tell him it was his last day of work as he had been
terminated. When private respondent went to the petitioner's office on
February 24, 1998 to verify his status, he found out that indeed, he had
been terminated. He filed a complaint alleging that he was illegally
dismissed without just cause and without due process. the Labor Arbiter
ruled that private respondent was a regular employee and could only be
removed for cause. Petitioner was ordered to reinstate private respondent
to his former position with full backwages from the time his salary was
withheld until his actual reinstatement, and pay him service incentive
leave pay, and 13th month pay for three years. Petitioner further filed a
motion for reconsideration which was denied. It filed an appeal before the
CA but it was subsequently dismissed for lack of merit.
ISSUE: Is the respondent a project employee of the petitioner or a regular
employee?
LAWS APPLICABLE: The test to determine whether employment is
regular or not is the reasonable connection between the particular activity
performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the
employer. Also, if the employee has been performing the job for at least
one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent,
the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as
sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of that activity
to the business. Thus, we held that where the employment of project
employees is extended long after the supposed project has been finished,
the employees are removed from the scope of project employees and are
considered regular employees.
RULING: No. He was considered as a regular employee.
A review of private respondent's work assignments patently showed he
belonged to a work pool tapped from where workers are and assigned
whenever their services were needed. In a work pool, the workers do not
receive salaries and are free to seek other employment during temporary
breaks in the business. They are like regular seasonal workers insofar as
the effect of temporary cessation of work is concerned. This arrangement
is beneficial to both the employer and employee for it prevents the unjust
situation of "coddling labor at the expense of capital" and at the same time
enables the workers to attain the status of regular employees. 15
Nonetheless, the pattern of re-hiring and the recurring need for his services
are sufficient evidence of the necessity and indispensability of such
services to petitioner's business or trade.
OPINION: While length of time may not be the controlling test for project
employment, it is vital in determining if the employee was hired for a
specific undertaking or tasked to perform functions vital, necessary and
indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer. Here, private
respondent had been a project employee several times over. His
employment ceased to be coterminous with specific projects when he was
repeatedly re-hired due to the demands of petitioner's business. 20 Where
from the circumstances it is apparent that periods have been imposed to
preclude the acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should
be struck down as contrary to public policy, morals, good customs or public
order.
POSEIDON FISHING/TERRY DE JESUS V. NLRC,
G.R. NO. 168052, FEBRUARY 20. 2006
FACTS: Petitioner Poseidon Fishing is a fishing company engaged in the
deep-sea fishing industry with Terry de Jesus as the manager.
Jimmy S. Estoquia was employed as Chief Mate in January 1988 and after
five years. The contract with Eustoqia per the "Kasunduan", there was a
provision stating that he was being employed only on a por viaje basis
and that his employment would be terminated at the end of the trip for
which he was being hired.
He was promoted to Boat Captain but was later demoted to Radio
Operator. As a Radio Operator, he monitored the daily activities in their
office and recorded in the duty logbook the names of the callers and time
of their calls.
On 3 July 2000, Estoquia failed to record a 7:25 a.m. call in one of the
logbooks. When he reviewed the two logbooks, he noticed that he was not
able to record the said call in one of the logbooks so he immediately
recorded the 7:25 a.m. call after the 7:30 a.m. entry.
In the morning of 4 July 2000, petitioner detected the error in the entry in
the logbook. Estoquia was asked to prepare an incident report to explain
the reason for the said oversight. On the same day, Poseidons secretary
summoned Estoquia to get his separation pay
Estoquia filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter.
Poseidon and Terry de Jesus asserted that Estoquia was a contractual or a
casual employee employed only on a"por viaje" or per trip basis and that
his employment would be terminated at the end of the trip for which he
was being hired.
ISSUE: Is Eustoqia a regular employee of Poseidon?
LAWS APPLICABLE: The test to determine whether employment is
regular or not is the reasonable connection between the particular activity
performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the
employer. And, if the employee has been performing the job for at least
one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent,
the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as
sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of that activity
to the business.
Article 280 draws a line between regular and casual employment. The
provision enumerates two (2) kinds of employees, the regular employees
and the casual employees. The regular employees consist of the following:
1) those engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and
2) those who have rendered at least one year of service whether such
service is continuous or broken.
CASE HISTORY: The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of private respondent.
The NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter with the modification.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, imputing
grave abuse of discretion, but the Court of Appeals found none.
RULING: Yes, Eustoquia was a regular employee.
In a span of 12 years, Eustoquia worked for petitioner first as a Chief Mate,
then Boat Captain, and later as Radio Operator. His job was directly related
to the deep-sea fishing business of petitioner Poseidon. His work was,
therefore, necessary and important to the business of his employer. Such
being the scenario involved, Eustoquia is considered a regular employee.
There is nothing in the contract that says complainant is a casual, seasonal
or a project worker. The date July 1 to 31, 1998 under the heading
"Pagdating" had been placed there merely to indicate the possible date of
arrival of the vessel and is not an indication of the status of employment of
the crew of the vessel.
In the case at bar, the act of hiring and re-hiring in various capacities is a
mere gambit employed by petitioner to thwart the tenurial protection of
private respondent. Such pattern of re-hiring and the recurring need for his
services are testament to the necessity and indispensability of such
services to petitioners business or trade.
OPINION: In this case, Eustoquia was never informed that he will be
assigned to a "specific project or undertaking at the time of their
engagement.Once a project or work pool employee has been: (1)
continuously, as opposed to intermittently, re-hired by the same employer
for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and (2) these tasks are vital,
necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the
employer, then the employee must be deemed a regular employee.
Eustoquias functions were usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of petitioner fishing company and he was hired
continuously for 12 years for the same nature of tasks. Hence, he was of
regular employee.