Anda di halaman 1dari 9

MATLING INDUSTRIAL VS COROS (G.R. NO.

157802 OCTOBER 13, 2010)

Facts: After respondent Ricardo Coros’ dismissal by Matling as its Vice President for Finance and Administration,
he filed on August 10, 2000 a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal against Matling and some
of its corporate officers in the NLRC, Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch XII, Iligan City. The petitioners moved to
dismiss the complaint, raising the ground, among others, that the complaint pertained to the jurisdiction of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) due to the controversy that the respondent was a member of
Matlings Board of Directors aside from being its Vice-President for Finance and Administration prior to his
termination. The respondent opposed the petitioners motion to dismiss, insisting that his status as a member
of Matlings Board of Directors was doubtful, considering that he had not been formally elected as such; that he
did not own a single share of stock in Matling, considering that he had been made to sign in blank an undated
indorsement of the certificate of stock he had been given in 1992; that Matling had taken back and retained the
certificate of stock in its custody; and that even assuming that he had been a Director of Matling, he had been
removed as the Vice President for Finance and Administration, not as a Director, a fact that the notice of his
termination dated April 10, 2000 showed. On October 16, 2000, the LA granted the petitioners motion to
dismiss, ruling that the respondent was a corporate officer because he was occupying the position of Vice
President for Finance and Administration and at the same time was a Member of the Board of Directors of
Matling; and that, consequently, his removal was a corporate act of Matling and the controversy resulting from
such removal was under the jurisdiction of the SEC. On March 13, 2001, the NLRC set aside the dismissal,
concluding that the respondent’s complaint for illegal dismissal was properly cognizable by the LA, not by the SEC,
because he was not a corporate officer by virtue of his position in Matling, albeit high ranking and managerial, not being
among the positions listed in Matling’s Constitution and By-Laws. On motion for reconsideration, petitioners submitted a
certified machine copies of Matling’s Amended Articles of Incorporation and By Laws to prove that the President of
Matling was thereby granted "full power to create new offices and appoint the officers thereto” and the minutes of special
meeting held on June 7, 1999 by Matling’s Board of Directors to prove that the respondent was, indeed, a Member of the
Board of Directors.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent is a corporate officer within the jurisdiction of the regular
courts.

Held: No. As a rule, the illegal dismissal of an officer or other employee of a private employer is properly
cognizable by the LA. This is pursuant to Article 217 (a) 2 of the Labor Code, as amended, which provides as
follows:
Article 217. Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the Commission. – (a) Except as otherwise provided under this
Code, the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30)
calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the
absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or
non-agricultural:
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Termination disputes;
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of
pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment;
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee
relations;
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions involving the legality of
strikes and lockouts; and
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other
claims arising from employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service,
involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P 5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a
claim for reinstatement.
(b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters. (c)
Cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining agreements and those arising
from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies shall be disposed of by the Labor Arbiter
by referring the same to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as may be provided in said
agreements.
Where the complaint for illegal dismissal concerns a corporate officer, however, the controversy falls
under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), because the controversy
arises out of intra-corporate or partnership relations between and among stockholders, members, or
associates, or between any or all of them and the corporation, partnership, or association of which
they are stockholders, members, or associates, respectively; and between such corporation,
partnership, or association and the State insofar as the controversy concerns their individual
franchise or right to exist as such entity; or because the controversy involves the election or
appointment of a director, trustee, officer, or manager of such corporation, partnership, or
association. Such controversy, among others, is known as an intra-corporate dispute.

Television and Production Exponents, Inc. vs Roberto Servaña

FACTS: TAPE is a domestic corporation engaged in the production of television programs,


such as the long-running variety program, “Eat Bulaga!”. Its president is Antonio P.
Tuviera (Tuviera). Respondent Roberto C. Servaña had served as a security guard,
Agro-Commercial Security Agency (ACSA), for TAPE from March 1987 until he was
terminated on 3 March 2000. In 1995, RPN 9 severed its relations with ACSA. TAPE retained the
services of Servaña as a security guard and absorbed him.
In 2000, TAPE contracted the services of Sun Shield Security Agency. It then notified Servaña that he is being
terminated because he is now a redundant employee.
Servaña then filed a case for illegal Dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Servaña’s dismissal is valid on the
ground of redundancy but though he was not illegally dismissed he is still entitled to be paid a separation pay
which is amounting to one month pay for every year of service which totals to P78,000.00.
TAPE appealed and argued that Servaña is not entitled to receive separation pay for he is considered as a
talent and not as a regular employee; that as such, there is no employee-employer relationship between TAPE
and Servaña. The National Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of TAPE. It ruled that Servaña is a
program employee. Servaña appealed before the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and affirmed the LA. The CA further ruled that TAPE and its
president Tuviera should pay for nominal damages amounting to P10,000.00.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is an employee-employer relationship existing between TAPE and Servaña.
HELD: Yes. Servaña is a regular employee.
In determining Servaña’s nature of employment, the Supreme Court employed the Four Fold Test:
1. Whether or not employer conducted the selection and engagement of the employee.
Servaña was selected and engaged by TAPE when he was absorbed as a “talent” in 1995. He is not really a
talent, as termed by TAPE, because he performs an activity which is necessary and desirable to TAPE’s
business and that is being a security guard. Further, the primary evidence of him being engaged as an
employee is his employee identification card. An identification card is usually provided not just as a security
measure but to mainly identify the holder thereof as a bona fide employee of the firm who issues it.
2. Whether or not there is payment of wages to the employee by the employer.
Servaña is definitely receiving a fixed amount as monthly compensation. He’s receiving P6,000.00 a month.
3. Whether or not employer has the power to dismiss employee.
The Memorandum of Discontinuance issued to Servaña to notify him that he is a redundant employee
evidenced TAPE’s power to dismiss Servaña.
4. Whether or not the employer has the power of control over the employee.
The bundy cards which showed that Servaña was required to report to work at fixed hours of the day
manifested the fact that TAPE does have control over him. Otherwise, Servaña could have reported at any
time during the day as he may wish.
Therefore, Servaña is entitled to receive a separation pay.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled that Tuviera, as president of TAPE, should not be held liable for
nominal damages as there was no showing he acted in bad faith in terminating Servaña.
Regular Employee Defined:
One having been engaged to perform an activity that is necessary and desirable to a company’s business.
ABS-CBN vs NAZARENO Case Digest
ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION vs. MARLYN NAZARENO et al.
G.R. No. 164156
September 26, 2006

Facts: Petitioner ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN) is engaged in the broadcasting business and
owns a network of television and radio stations, whose operations revolve around the broadcast, transmission,
and relay of telecommunication signals. It sells and deals in or otherwise utilizes the airtime it generates from
its radio and television operations. It has a franchise as a broadcasting company, and was likewise issued a
license and authority to operate by the National Telecommunications Commission.

The respondents Nazareno, Gerzon, Deiparine, and Lerasan as production assistants (PAs) on different dates were
employed by the Petitioner, assigned at the news and public affairs, for various radio programs in the Cebu
Broadcasting Station, with a monthly compensation of P4,000. They were issued ABS-CBN employees’ identification
cards and were required to work for a minimum of eight hours a day, including Sundays and holidays. They were
under the control and supervision of Assistant Station Manager Dante J. Luzon, and News Manager Leo Lastimosa.

On December 19, 1996, petitioner and the ABS-CBN Rank-and-File Employees executed a Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) to be effective during the period from December 11, 1996 to December 11, 1999. However, since
petitioner refused to recognize PAs as part of the bargaining unit, respondents were not included to the CBA.
On October 12, 2000, respondents filed a Complaint for Recognition of Regular Employment Status, Underpayment of
Overtime Pay, Holiday Pay, Premium Pay, Service Incentive Pay, Sick Leave Pay, and 13th Month Pay with Damages
against the petitioner before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter directed the parties to submit their respective position paper
however they failed to file their position papers within the reglementary period, Labor Arbiter Jose G. Gutierrez
dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of interest to pursue the case. Respondents received a copy of the
Order on May 16, 2001. Instead of re-filing their complaint with the NLRC within 10 days from May 16, 2001, they
filed, on June 11, 2001, an Earnest Motion to Refile Complaint with Motion to Admit Position Paper and Motion to
Submit Case for Resolution. The Labor Arbiter granted this motion in an Order dated June 18, 2001, and forthwith
admitted the position paper of the complainants.

On July 30, 2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of the respondents, and declared that they were
regular employees of petitioner; as such, they were awarded monetary benefits. On appeal to the NLRC, it ruled that
respondents were entitled to the benefits under the CBA because they were regular employees who contributed to
the profits of petitioner through their labor. Petitioner thus filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court before the CA, raising both procedural and substantive issues. CA Affirmed the ruling of the NLRC.

Issue: Whether or not the respondents were considered regular employees of ABS-CBN.

Ruling: The respondents are regular employees of ABS-CBN. It was held that where a person has rendered at
least one year of service, regardless of the nature of the activity performed, or where the work is continuous or
intermittent, the employment is considered regular as long as the activity exists, the reason being that a
customary appointment is not indispensable before one may be formally declared as having attained regular
status.

In Universal Robina Corporation v. Catapang, the Court states that the primary standard, therefore, of
determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the
employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer. The test is whether the former is usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The connection can be determined by
considering the nature of work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its
entirety. Also, if the employee has been performing the job for at least a year, even if the performance is not
continuous and merely intermittent, the law deems repeated and continuing need for its performance as
sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the
employment is considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists.

Additionally, respondents cannot be considered as project or program employees because no evidence was
presented to show that the duration and scope of the project were determined or specified at the time of their
engagement. In the case at bar, however, the employer-employee relationship between petitioner and
respondents has been proven. In the selection and engagement of respondents, no peculiar or unique skill,
talent or celebrity status was required from them because they were merely hired through petitioner’s
personnel department just like any ordinary employee. Respondents did not have the power to bargain for
huge talent fees, a circumstance negating independent contractual relationship. Respondents are highly
dependent on the petitioner for continued work. The degree of control and supervision exercised by petitioner
over respondents through its supervisors negates the allegation that respondents are independent contractors.
The presumption is that when the work done is an integral part of the regular business of the employer and
when the worker, relative to the employer, does not furnish an independent business or professional service,
such work is a regular employment of such employee and not an independent contractor. As regular
employees, respondents are entitled to the benefits granted to all other regular employees of petitioner under
the CBA . Besides, only talent-artists were excluded from the CBA and not production assistants who are
regular employees of the respondents. Moreover, under Article 1702 of the New Civil Code: “In case of doubt,
all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living of the
laborer.”

G.R. No. 183810: January 21, 2010

FARLEY FULACHE, MANOLO JABONERO, DAVID CASTILLO, JEFFREY LAGUNZAD, MAGDALENA


MALIG-ON BIGNO, FRANCISCO CABAS, JR., HARVEY PONCE and ALAN C. ALMENDRAS, Petitioners, v.
ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, Respondent.

FACTS:

Petitioners alleged that on December 17, 1999, ABS-CBN and the ABS-CBN Rank-and-File Employees Union
executed a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) effective December 11, 1999 to December 10, 2002. When
they obtained copies of the agreement, they learned that they had been excluded from its coverage as
ABS-CBN considered them temporary and not regular employees, in violation of the Labor Code.
Petitioners claimed they had already rendered more than a year of service in the company and, therefore,
should have been recognized as regular employees entitled to security of tenure and to the privileges and
benefits enjoyed by regular employees.
Petitioners asked that they be paid overtime, night shift differential, holiday, rest day and service incentive
leave pay and they also prayed for an award of moral damages and attorneys fees.

Labor Arbiter Rendoque rendered his decision holding that the petitioners were regular employees of
ABS-CBN, not independent contractors, and are entitled to the benefits and privileges of regular employees.

While the appeal before the NLRC was pending, ABS-CBN dismissed Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo, Lagunzad
and Atinen (all drivers) for their refusal to sign up contracts of employment with service contractor Able
Services. The four drivers and Atinen responded by filing a complaint for illegal dismissal (illegal dismissal
case). In defense, ABS-CBN alleged that even before the labor arbiter rendered his decision of January 17,
2002 in the regularization case, it had already undertaken a comprehensive review of its existing organizational
structure to address its operational requirements.

In April 21, 2003 decision in the illegal dismissal case,Labor Arbiter Rendoque upheld the validity of
ABS-CBN's contracting out of certain work or services in its operations. The labor arbiter found that petitioners
Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo, Lagunzad and Atinen had been dismissed due to redundancy, an authorized
cause under the law.
The NLRC reversed the labor arbiters ruling in the illegal dismissal case; it found that petitioners Fulache,
Jabonero, Castillo, Lagunzad and Atinen had been illegally dismissed and awarded them backwages and
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, contending that Fulache,
Jabonero, Castillo and Lagunzad are entitled to reinstatement and full backwages, salary increases and other
CBA benefits as well as 13th month pay, cash conversion of sick and vacation leaves, medical and dental
allowances, educational benefits and service awards.

ABS-CBN likewise moved for the reconsideration of the decision, reiterating that Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo
and Lagunzad were independent contractors. The NLRC stood by the ruling that the petitioners were regular
employees entitled to the benefits and privileges of regular employees. On the illegal dismissal case, the
petitioners, while recognized as regular employees, were declared dismissed due to redundancy.

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, contending that the NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion in denying them benefits under the CBA. The CA ruled that the petitioners failed to prove their claim
to CBA benefits since they never raised the issue in the compulsory arbitration proceedings, and did not
appeal the labor arbiters decision which was silent on their entitlement to CBA benefits. On the illegal dismissal
issue, the CA upheld the NLRC decision holding that Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and Lagunzad were not
illegally dismissed as their separation from the service was due to redundancy.

The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion in a resolution promulgated on July 8,
2008. Hence, the present petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners are entitled to CBA benefits
Whether or petitioners were illegally dismissed
HELD:

LABOR LAW

As regular employees, the petitioners fall within the coverage of the bargaining unit and are therefore entitled
to CBA benefits as a matter of law and contract

The LA decision which was affirmed by the NLRC and the CA, finding petitioners to be regular employees and
not independent contractors. This declaration unequivocally settled the petitioners employment status: they are
ABS-CBNs regular employees entitled to the benefits and privileges of regular employees. These benefits and
privileges arise from entitlements under the law (specifically, the Labor Code and its related laws), and from
their employment contract as regular ABS-CBN employees, part of which is the CBA if they fall within the
coverage of this agreement.

Under these terms, the petitioners are members of the appropriate bargaining unit because they are regular
rank-and-file employees and do not belong to any of the excluded categories. Specifically, nothing in the
records shows that they are supervisory or confidential employees; neither are they casual nor probationary
employees. Most importantly, the labor arbiters decision of January 17, 2002 affirmed all the way up to the CA
level ruled against ABS-CBNs submission that they are independent contractors. Thus, as regular rank-and-file
employees, they fall within CBA coverage under the CBAs express terms and are entitled to its benefits.
LABOR LAW

The termination of employment of the four drivers occurred under highly questionable circumstances and with
plain and unadulterated bad faith.

The records show that the regularization case was in fact the root of the resulting bad faith as this case gave
rise and led to the dismissal case.First, the regularization case was filed leading to the labor arbiters decision
declaring the petitioners, including Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and Lagunzad, to be regular employees.
ABS-CBN appealed the decision and maintained its position that the petitioners were independent contractors.

In the course of this appeal, ABS-CBN took matters into its own hands and terminated the petitioners services,
clearly disregarding its own appeal then pending with the NLRC. Notably, this appeal posited that the
petitioners were not employees. To justify the termination of service, the company cited redundancy as its
authorized cause but offered no justificatory supporting evidence. It merely claimed that it was contracting out
the petitioners activities in the exercise of its management prerogative.

By doing all these, ABS-CBN forgot labor law and its realities.

It forgot that by claiming redundancy as authorized cause for dismissal, it impliedly admitted that the petitioners
were regular employees whose services, by law, can only be terminated for the just and authorized causes
defined under the Labor Code.

Likewise ABS-CBN forgot that it had an existing CBA with a union, which agreement must be respected in any
move affecting the security of tenure of affected employees; otherwise, it ran the risk of committing unfair labor
practice both a criminal and an administrative offense. It similarly forgot that an exercise of management
prerogative can be valid only if it is undertaken in good faith and with no intent to defeat or circumvent the
rights of its employees under the laws or under valid agreements.

Lastly, it forgot that there was a standing labor arbiters decision that, while not yet final because of its own
pending appeal, cannot simply be disregarded. By implementing the dismissal action at the time the labor
arbiters ruling was under review, the company unilaterally negated the effects of the labor arbiters ruling while
at the same time appealing the same ruling to the NLRC. This unilateral move is a direct affront to the NLRCs
authority and an abuse of the appeal process.

All these go to show that ABS-CBN acted with patent bad faith.

GRANTED

Villamaria v CA (Labor Standards)


Villamaria v CA & Bustamante GR No. 165881 April 19, 2006

FACTS:
- Oscar Villamaria, Jr. was 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. By 1995,
Villamaria stopped assembling jeepneys and retained only nine, four of which operated by employing drivers
on a “boundary basis.” One of those drivers was respondent Bustamante.
- Bustamante remitted 450 a day to Villamaria as boundary and kept the residue of his daily earnings as
compensation for driving the vehicle. In August 1997, Villamaria verbally agreed to sell the jeepney to
Bustamante under a “boundary-hulog scheme”, where Bustamante would remit to Villamaria P550 a day for a
period of 4 years; Bustamane would then become the owner of the vehicle and continue to drive the same
under Villamaria’s franchise, but with Php 10,000 downpayment.
- August 7, 1997, Villamaria executed a contract entitled “Kasunduan ng Bilihan ng Sasakyan sa
Pamamagitan ng Boundary Hulog”. The parties agreed that if Bustamante failed to pay the boundary- hulog for
3 days, Villamaria Motors would hold on to the vehicle until Bustamante paid his arrears, including a penalty of
50 a day; in case Bustamante failed to remit the daily boundary-hulog for a period of one week, the Kasunduan
would cease to have the legal effect and Bustamante would have to return the vehicle to Villamaria motors.
- In 1999, Bustamante and other drivers who also had the same arrangement failed to pay their respective
boundary-hulog. The prompted Villamaria to serve a “Paalala”. On July 24, 2000. Villamaria took back the
jeepney driven by Bustamante and barred the latter from driving the vehicle.
- Bustamante filed a complaint for Illegal Dismissal.

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:


*Labor Arbiter: petition dismissed.
*NLRC: dismissed appeal.
*CA: reversed NLRC, awarded Bustamante separation pay and backwages.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES:
(1) WON the existence of a boundary-hulog agreement negates the employer-employee relationship between
the vendor and vendee
(2) WON the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over a complaint for illegal dismissal in such a case.
HELD:
(1) NO. Under the boundary-hulog scheme, a dual juridical relationship is created; that of employer- employee
and vendor-vendee. The Kasanduan did not extinguish the employer employee relationship of the parties
existing before the execution of said deed.
a. Under this system the owner/operator exercises control and supervision over the driver. It is unlike in lease
of chattels where the lessor loses complete control over the chattel leased but the lessee is still ultimately
responsible for the consequences of its use. The management of the business is still in the hands of the
owner/operator, who, being the holder of the certificate of public convenience, must see to it that the driver
follows the route prescribed by the franchising and regulatory authority, and the rules promulgated with regard
to the business operations.
b. The driver performs activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
owner/operator. Under the Kasunduan, respondent was required to remit Php 550 daily to petitioner, an
amount which represented the boundary of petitioner as well as respondent’s partial payment (hulog) of the
purchase price of the jeepney. Thus, the daily remittances also had a dual purpose: that of petitioner’s
boundary
and respondent’s partial payment (hulog) for the vehicle.
c. The obligation is not novated by an instrument that expressly recognizes the old one,
changes only the terms of payment and adds other obligations not incompatible with the old
provisions or where the contract merely supplements the previous one.
d. 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 method of the work. The amount earned in excess of the “boundary
hulog” is equivalent to wages and the fact that the power of dismissal was not mentioned in the Kasunduan did
not mean that private respondent never exercised such power, or could not exercise such power.

(2) YES. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC has jurisdiction under Article 217 of the Labor Code is limited to
disputes arising from an employer-employee relationship which can only be resolved by reference to the Labor
Code, other labor statues of their collective bargaining agreement.

OTHER NOTES:
(1) The rule is that the nature of an action and subject matter thereof, as well as, which court or agency of the
government has jurisdiction and the character of the reliefs prayed for, whether or not the complainant/plaintiff
is entitled to any or all of such reliefs.
(2) Not every dispute between an employer and employee involves matters that only the Labor Arbiter and the
NLRC can resolve in the exercise of their adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. Actions between employers
and employees where the employer-employee relationship is merely incidental is within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the regular courts.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/139480835/5-Villamaria-v-CA

Anda mungkin juga menyukai