Case Digests: WACK WACK GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB (petitioner) vs NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC; respondents) (G.R. No. 149793; April 15, 2005); CALLEJO, SR., J. Facts: A fire broke out in the clubhouse of the Wack Wack Golf & Country Club on November 29, 1996. In view of the reconstruction, Wack Wack’s management suspends the operation of its Food & Beverage Dept (F&B). The Wack Wack Golf Empolyees Union branded the suspension of work as a form of union-busting, prompting them to file a notice of strike with DOLE. Several meetings between the officers of Wack Wack and the Union were held until the parties entered into an amicable settlement. An agreement was forged between management and the union, whereby a special retirement package for interested Wack Wack employees, was offered. One of the stipulations in the agreement (Sec. 4) was that those employees who opted for this retirement package was to be given priority in employment by concessionaires or contractors, upon full resumption of operations by the Club. Union president Crisanto Baluyot Sr. and private respondents Carmencita Dominguez and Martina Cagasan were few of the employees who availed the retirement package. On October 15, 1997, Wack Wack entered into a Management Contract with private respondent Business Staffing and Management, Inc. (BSMI), which was to provide management services in different areas of operation within Wack Wack. Pursuant to the agreement between the Union and Wack Wack Management, the former employees of Wack Wack were given priority in employment with BSMI. Baluyot, Dominguez and Cagasan subsequently applied and was probationally hired by BSMI. However, when Wack Wack contracted several other management companies to handle other areas of operations, BSMI undertook a manpower evaluation to streamline its operations. Upon assessment, BSMI found that the positions taken by Dominguez and Cagasan (Administration Dept. and Personnel Officer) were redundant, while the position of Baluyot (Chief Porter) was one of the positions that were recommended to be abolished. Thus, the services of the three were terminated. In response, the three employees filed their respective complaints with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal and damages against Wack Wack and BSMI. NLRC found that the dismissal of Dominguez and Cagasan was for a valid and authorized cause, and dismissed their complaints; however, the NLRC found that Baluyot’s termination was illegal. Dominguez, Cagasan and BSMI appealed the NLRC’s decision. On September 27, 2000, NLRC, in its decision, orders the reinstatement of Dominguez and Cagasan to their positions in Wack Wack, with backwages, positing that BSMI is a contractor 2) Whether BSMI is an independent contractor or a labor-only contractor. Wack Wack. Wack Wack’s petition to the Supreme Court. the CA’s 4 th Division allowed such technical infirmity. An independent contractor is one who undertakes job contracting. v. The general manager is also one person who is in the best position to know the state of affairs of the corporation. and b. they denied Wack Wack’s petition. the General Manager has authority.) Yes. machineries. Held: 1. but when the CA’s 12 th Division found lack of proof of Wack Wack’s general manager’s authority to sign the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. Wack Wack and BSMI filed a motion for reconsideration (MR).) BSMI is an independent contractor. a person who: a. as petitioner in this case. Novelty Philippines. averring that when BSMI filed one day late. There is indubitable evidence showing that BSMI is an independent contractor. engaged in the management of projects and has sufficient capital and resources to undertake its principal business. work premises and other materials which are necessary in the conduct of the business. Carries on an independent business and undertakes the contract work on his own account under his own responsibility according to his own manner and method. equipment. . and subsequent MR’s were denied. In response to this.who merely supplies labor to Wack Wack. NLRC also upheld its decision with regards to BSMI illegally terminating Baluyot. free from the control and direction of his employer or principal in all matters connected with the performance of the work except as to the results thereof. Hence. CA dismisses the peitions. Issues: 1) Whether or not the General Manager of Wack Wack has sufficient authority to act on behalf of the company.e. the Court recognized the authority of the general manager to sue on behalf of the corporation and to sign the requisite verification and certification of non-forum shopping. assailed the decisions of the CA.. Both Wack Wack and BSMI filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals (CA). giving them some degree of priority merely because of their work experience with the petitioner. BSMI admitted that it employed the respondents. Inc. Has substantial capital or investment in the form of tools. 2. 3) Whether or not there was a valid employer-employee relationship between Wack Wack and private respondents Dominguez and Cagasan after the latter opted for the package. In a separate case. Court of Appeals. i. Now. which was denied by the NLRC. In April 1994. In 1965. petitioners contend that due to Sahot’s . particularly in his left thigh. Consequence to this. February 27. Jaime Sahot (private respondent) started working for petitioner Vicente Sy Trucking Corp. Nowhere does it appear in the Agreement that the petitioner assured the respondents of continuous employment in Wack Wack. however the petitioners already threatened Sahot that he will be dismissed from his job if refuses to go back to work. Sahot filed a week long leave sometime in May 1994. he asked for an extension for the whole month of June. 6BS TRUCKING CORPORATION.) No. At the end of his week-long leave. they. Facts: In 1958. thenceforth. as a truck helper. petitioners admitted they had a trucking business in the 1950s but denied employing helpers and drivers. Sahot then filed with the NLRC NCR Arbitration Branch a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioners. there was no valid employer-employee relationship. he never reported back to work and filed an illegal dismissal complaint against them. 2003). 1994. J. which greatly affected his performance as a driver and made him incur absences from his job. petitioners contend that Sahot went on leave for a week and asked a further 30 day extension of his leave. Sahot was already 59 years old and is suffering from various ailments. VICENTE SY. Sahot continuously served the petitioner’s trucking business.R. and on May 27 had been medically examined and treated for various ailments. already ceased to be employees of the petitioner. averred the petitioners. 142293. At the end of his leave. QUISUMBING. No. in 1985 and thereafter known as SBT Trucking Corp in 1994. it was only in 1994 that he became an employee of the company.3. and SBT TRUCKING CORPORATION (petitioners) vs CA and JAIME SAHOT (respondents) (G. They contend that Sahot was not illegally dismissed as a driver because he was in fact petitioners’ industrial partner. and later renamed as 6Bs Trucking Corp. Paulino Trucking Service. Furthermore. effective June 30. In their answer. he became a truck driver with the company. When the respondents voluntarily signed their quitclaims and accepted the separation package offered by the petitioner. Then petitioners eventually dismissed Sahot. Furthermore. but discovered that his premium payments had not been remitted by his employer. Throughout these changes of company names and 36 years. which was renamed T. TRINIDAD PAULINO. he inquired with the SSS about his medical and retirement benefits. For an employee’s . but the Appellate Court affirms the NLRC decision.refusal to work after the expiration of his authorized leave of absence. with modifications. through Labor Arbiter Santos ruled that there was no illegal dismissal in Sahots case since he abandoned his job and that Sahot was an industrial partner before January 1994. not an industrial partner. as long as he was paid his salary. they determined private respondents wages and rest day. there was no valid dismissal. an employer-employee relationship existed. he should be deemed to have voluntarily resigned from his work. he merely followed instructions of petitioners and was content to do so. During the entire course of his employment. Issues: (1) Whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioners and respondent Sahot. On appeal. NLRC NCR Arbitation Branch. the NLRC modified the judgment of the Labor Arbiter. pursuant to Article 284 of the Labor Code. The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee. (b) the payment of wages. the burden is upon the employer to show by substantial evidence that the termination was for lawful cause and validly made. and how he would do it. It declared that private respondent was an employee. (3) Whether or not respondent Sahot is entitled to separation pay. Held: (1) YES. (c) the power of dismissal and (d) the employer’s power to control the employees conduct. (2) Whether or not there was valid dismissal. Article 277(b) of the Labor Code puts the burden of proving that the dismissal of an employee was for a valid or authorized cause on the employer. he did not have the freedom to determine where he would go. In termination cases. Records show that private respondent actually engaged in work as an employee. The CA found that petitioners owned and operated a trucking business since the 1950s and by their own allegations. Petitioners assailed the decision of the NLRC before the CA. (2) NO. what he would do. without distinction whether the employer admits or does not admit the dismissal. since the start and that Sahot did not abandon his job but his employment was terminated on account of his illness. Thus this petition before the SC. R. among other things. Rey Salac. BACKGROUND OF THESE CASES: The Congress. 152710. seeking to enjoin the DOLE Secretary. Furthermore. G. Tomas vs Hon. this decision is immediately executory. 1995. passed RA 8042 that. (Hon.R. G. Mario Montenegro. and (b) the employee must be afforded due process. Tomas vs Rey Salac.dismissal to be valid. All pertain to the constitutionality of certain provisions of RA 8042. Patricia Sto.R. Dodgie Belonio. An employee who is terminated because of disease is entitled to separation pay equivalent to at least one month salary or to one-half month salary for every year of service. No. the statute aims to establish a higher standard of protection and welfare promotion of overseas Filipinos. 152642] and Hon. 167590. (a) the dismissal must be for a valid cause. their families. et al. Willie Espiritu. To avoid further delay in the payment due the separated worker. et al. Judge Jose Paneda [G. respondents). No. prohibition and mandamus with application of TRO and preliminary injunction. No. Nos. Patricia Sto. on June 7. and G.R. Lolit Salinel. No.R. Patricia Sto. however. the employer clearly did not comply with the medical certificate requirement before Sahot’s dismissal was effected. Article 284 of the Labor Code authorizes an employer to terminate an employee on the ground of disease. Rule I. whose claim was filed way back in 1994. In the case at bar. whichever is greater. Finding neither reversible error nor grave abuse of discretion on the part of appellate court.R. sets the Government’s policies regarding overseas employment. Tomas (petitioner). especially those in distress. filed before Quezon City RTC a petition for certiorari. 2002. the Court is constrained to sustain its decision. 152642. migrant workers. who are labor recruiters deploying workers abroad.R. in order to validly terminate employment on this ground. No. 152710]) FACTS: In January 8. . and Buddy Bonnevie (Salac. G. 182978-79. Section 8 of the Omnibus Implementing Rules of the Labor Code requires that there is a certification by a competent public health authority that the disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of six (6) months even with proper medical treatment. 184298-99. [G. respondent Jaime Sahot is entitled to separation pay. Nos. or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995. Book VI. CASES CONTENDING RA8042 This is a consolidation of the following cases: G. (3) YES. (PASEI. which provides that recruitment agencies in the Philippines shall be deregulated one year from the passage of the said law. being that such simple violations are already punishable by imprisonment with a minimum period of 6 years and 1 day and imposing a fine of at least Php 200. a new law. With the issue becoming moot and academic. Respondents invoked Sections 29 and 30 of the Republic Act 8042 or the Migrant Workers Act. ISSUE: Whether or not Sections 29 and 30 of RA 8045 are constitutional. (d) Section 10. in response. which provides that corporate officers and directors of a company found to be in violation of RA 8042 shall be themselves be jointly .000. in their petition for declaratory relief and prohibition filed before the Manila RTC.the POEA Administrator. mere failure to render report or obstructing inspection) are unreasonable. Inc. POEA and TESDA should have stopped issuing memorandums and circulars that regulates the recruitment of Filipino workers for overseas work. respondent). 167590]) FACTS: Philippine Association of Service Exporters. RA 9422 (An Act to Strengthen the Regulatory Functions of the POEA) was passed which repealed Sections 29 and 30 of RA 8042. (b) Section 7. from regulating the activities of private recruiters. HELD: The SC rules that the issue became moot and academic. Respondent contends that the definition provided for by the law is vague. Respondent argues that this provision is void. according to the SC. as early as 2000.R. then therefore the petition. and the TESDA Secretary-General. (c) Section 9. which allows the victims of illegal recruitment to have the option to either file the criminal case where he/she resides or at the place of the commission of the crime. Respondents aver that since RA 8042 was passed in June 1995. that 5 years thereafter. then questioned the validity of Sections 29 and 30 of RA 8045. which provides that criminal cases must be prosecuted in the place where the crime or any of its essential elements were committed.e. Petitioner. recruitment of migrant workers should be fully deregulated. should be dismissed. on the ground that it fails to distinguish between licensed and non-licensed recruiters. Respondent contends that the penalties for simple violations against RA 8042 (i. the DOLE. which defines the term “illegal recruitment” in RA 8042. on the ground for being contrary to Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Republic of the Philippines vs PASEI [G. During the pendency of this case in 2007. questioned the validity of the following provisions of RA 8042: (a) Section 6. which penalizes violations against RA 8042. then therefore.. persons who engage in “canvassing. is consistent with that law’s declared policy of providing a criminal justice system that protects and serves the best interests of victims of illegal recruitment. utilizing. In fixing such penalties. are only guilty of illegal recruitment if they commit any of the wrongful acts enumerated in Section 6. hiring. In order to make the officers and directors jointly and solidarily liable with their company. as an exception to the rule on venue of criminal actions. or procuring workers” without license are guilty of illegal recruitment. held that the assailed provisions of RA 8042 are void for being unconstitutional. although they have government license. HELD: The Supreme Court held that the contended provisions of RA 8042 they are valid provisions. being that the legislature has the prerogative to determine what individual acts are equally reprehensible. and 10 of RA 8042 are null and void for being unconstitutional. it is not the duty of the courts to inquire into the wisdom behind the law. (c) Section 9: The Supreme Court points out that the Rules on Criminal Procedure. ISSUE: Whether or not Sections 6. consistent with the State policy of according full protection to labor. Manila RTC. and thus are beyond its immediate protection. By its terms. on the ground that said provision is violative of the right to due process of the law. The assailed provision. there is nothing arbitrary when Congress provided an alternative venue for violations of a special penal law like RA 8042. enlisting.and solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages. (a) Section 6: The SC held that RA 8042 clearly distinguished between licensed and non-licensed recruiters. regardless of committing or not the illegal acts enumerated in section 6. . in its decision. thus is unconstitutional. the statute considered the unsettling fact that OFWs must work outside the country. there must be a finding that they were remiss in directing the affairs of that company. 9. etc. (b) Section 7: The SC held that penalties provided in Sec. provides an exception to the general rule on venue when it comes to criminal cases. Respondent avers that this automatic liability imposed upon corporate officers and directors is void. Therefore. Therefore. of OFWs. transporting. the statute must make an effort to somehow protect these OFW’s from conscienceless and greedy individuals within its jurisdiction who are willing to ship them out without clear assurance that their contracted principals would treat such OFWs fairly and humanely. enlisting. subject to existing laws. and deserving of the same penalties. 7. Conversely. 7 are valid. such as tolerating or even sponsoring the commission of illegal activities. itself. (d) Section 10: The SC held that the liability of corporate officers and directors is not automatic. particularly Section 15(a) of Rule 110. Moreover. contracting. Hence this petition. recruiters who engage in the canvassing. R. YOLANDA CAL. filed a motion for leave to intervene.. Her parents. the officers of Becmen. the NLRC found Becmen and White Falcon jointly and severally liable for Jasmin’s death and ordered them to pay the Cuaresmas for damages. the directors and officers of Becmen are themselves jointly and solidarily liable with Becmen. In response to the decision by the Appellate Court. The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the claim on the ground that besides the fact that the spouses had already received insurance benefits from the OWWA. the SC reconsidered its earlier ruling that Gumabay et al are solidarily and jointly liable with Becmen. ISSUE: Whether or not the assailed Section 10 of RA 8042 is unconstitutional. ARMANDO CILOT. with Becmen having a right of reimbursement from White Falcon. 182978-79] and Sps. Becmen shall be held liable for damages. The liability of the company’s officers or directors is not automatic. 2006 decision. led by Euforcina Gumabay. In response. The Supreme Court held that since Becmen was negligent in investigating Jasmin Cuaresma’s true cause of death. EFREN CLERIGO. a nurse working in Saudi Arabia. MARIANO CORULLO. However.(Becmen Services Exporter and Promotion vs Sps. INC. on the ground that there is no evidence on record to show that Gumabay.R. et al were personally involved in their company’s particular actions or omissions in Jasmin’s case. Cuaresma [G. . based on an autopsy conducted in the Philippines. However. the LA also gave credence to Saudi Arabian authorities’ findings that Jasmin committed suicide. the CA held Becmen and White Falcon jointly and severally liable with their Saudi Arabian employer for actual damages. et al. vs. received from the OWWA (Overseas Workers Welfare Administration) insurance benefits. The Supreme Court also ruled that pursuant to Section 10 of RA 8042. the spouses filed for death and insurance benefits with damages from the recruitment and placement agency which handled Jasmin (Becmen Service Exporter and Promotion and White Falcon Services). FELICISSIMO VARGAS. Spouses Simplicio and Mila Cuaresma. averring that the 2 nd paragraph of Section 10. The NLRC based its decision on the findings of the autopsy conducted by the Cabanatuan City Health Office. was found dead. PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL. 184298-99]) FACTS: Jasmin Cuaresma. when they found out that Jasmin was raped and killed. However. TEODULO CUEBILLAS. Becmen and White Falcon appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). HELD: The SC held that Section 10 is valid. Cuaresma vs White Falcon Services [G. RA 8042 is unconstitutional. In its June 28. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. Becmen and White Falcon appealed the CA Decision to the Supreme Court. in itself a violation of RA 8042. 82643-67. despite that they were employed on contractual basis. ISSUE: Whether or not private respondents may be considered regular and permanent employees. due to their length of service in the company. August 30. A subsequent MR filed on March 1988 was denied for lack of merit. as distinguished from a regular or permanent employee. J. for a period ranging from fifteen (15) days to three (3) months. HELD: The SC classified the two kinds of regular employees. ranging from carpenter to Clerk II who had worked with the company under contractual employment. occupying various positions. NCR. is a U. he becomes entitled to be considered a regular employee as soon as he has completed one year of service . Thus. declaring the respondents regular employees and orders to petitioner to reinstate and pay the respondents. In July 1983. after being excluded in the bargaining unit of the regular rank and file employees. On March 1987. private respondents decided to form their own. These contracts were regularly renewed. FACTS: Petitioner Philippine Geothermal. Nos. the Labor Arbiter renders a decision.(G. A month later. as (a) those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. complainant union and herein respondent employees filed a case for illegal lock-out and unfair labor practice. 1990). petitioner allegedly started harassing them and replaced them with so called "contract workers". Hence this petition.S. they filed a petition for certification election with the Ministry of Labor and Employment. on the other hand. In response to this. corporation authorized to engage in business in the Philippines and is engaged in the exploration and development of geothermal energy resources as an alternative source of energy. separate labor union. Private respondents. when petitioner decided not to renew their individual contracts. Assuming therefore that a worker could properly be regarded as a casual employee. On appeal. whether continuous or broken with respect to the activity in which they are employed. it is more in keeping with the spirit of the law to rule that the status of regular employment attaches to the casual employee on the day immediately after the end of his first year of service with the company. Inc.R. NLRC on November 1987 affirms the Labor Arbiter’s decision. so much so that the private respondents had rendered service from three (3) to five (5) years until 1983 and 1984. and (b) those who have rendered at least 1 year of service. PARAS. are employees of Philippine Geothermal Inc. While the actual regularization of these employees entails the mechanical act of issuing regular appointment papers and compliance with other operating procedures that an employer may adopt. with the employer. petitioners cannot impugn this by invoking the provision of the Labor Code in their favor. HELD: The Supreme Court rejects the petitioner’s contentions. the grounds for their dismissal were just.R. GUERRERO. et al vs. and Ma. Thusly said. probationary period cannot exceed 6 months. In response to their termination. as sales representatives charged with soliciting advertisements to include in the telephone directories. Additionally. employers may not terminate the service of a regular employee except for a just cause. Given that both petitioner and private respondent came into agreement (by signing and agreeing) that the 18 month probationary period is the law between them. that the termination was valid because they have not reached their required sales quotas set by the GTPD. HON. contending that respondent Deputy Minister Leogardo committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering the decision in favor of the private respondent and that as provided for by the Labor Code. on the ground of failing to meet their sales quotas that were set by respondent company. or when authorized under the Labor Code. However. petitioners filed before the NCR Ministry of Labor of and Employment a complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for backwages. specifically Article 282. No. and (c). . All petitioners were terminated after the provisionary period (May 1981). While the Labor Code. Ma. ILUMINADA VER BUISER. therefore the probationary period of GTPD was illegal. it still allows the both employer and employee to stipulate the terms of the employment. VICENTE LEOGARDO. provided that they can come into agreement. petition is dismissed for lack of merit. (b) the stipulated probationary period was valid. JR and GENERAL TELEPHONE DIRECTORY CO. L-63316 July 31. because it was proven in the records that they did in fact failed to meet their sales quotas set by private respondent GTPD in the employment contract. Cecilia Rilloacuña. 1984). FACTS: Petitioners Iluminada Buiser. (G. the petition was denied in a decision by the Regional Director and the same was affirmed by herein respondent Deputy Minister of Labor Vicente Leogardo. J. ISSUE: Whether or not the stipulated eighteen month probationary period is violative of the Labor Code. provides that probationary periods cannot exceed 6 months. Petitioners filed before the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari. Mercedes Intengan all entered into an eighteen-month probationary employment contract with private respondent General Telephone Directory Company (GTPD). Hence. ruling that (a) they have not attained regular status.