KCD recommends to read the full text of the case cited. July 2013.

Nitto Enterprises v NLRC

248 SCRA 651
G.R. No. 114337 (1995)
FACTS:
Petitioner, a company engaged in the sale of glass and aluminium products hired
Roberto Capili as an apprentice machinist, molder and core maker (as evidenced by
an apprenticeship agreement) for a period of 6 months from May 28-November 28,
1990. Unfortunately he accidentally hit and injured an office secretary and at the
same day he operated one of the power press machine without authority and in the
process injured his left thumb. Subsequently, petitioner dismissed private
respondent.
ISSUES:
a) WON the private respondent was an apprentice.
b) WON the petitioner validly dismissed the private respondent.
HELD:
a) Under Article 61 of the Labor Code provides the contents of apprenticeship
agreement. It is mandated that an apprentice agreements entered into by the
employer and an apprentice shall be entered only in accordance with
apprenticeship program duly approved by the Minister of Labor and
Employment. In the case at bench, the agreement was executed on May 28,
1990 but it was filed only on June 7, 1990 with DOLE.
b) Pursuant to Article 286 Defines Regular and Casual Employment. The
private respondent should rightly be considered as regular employee of
petitioner. Therefore, he is entitled to security of tenure. He cannot be
dismissed without due process of law.
Bernardo v NLRC et al
310 SCRA 156
G.R.NO. 122917 (1999)
FACTS:
Petitioners are deaf-mutes who were hired as money sorters and counters of the
respondent bank. Through a uniformly worded agreement called Employment
Contract for Handicapped Workers. Petitioner contracts were renewed every six
months such that by the time this case arose because the respondent bank
disclaimed that they were regular employees.
ISSUE:
WON petitioners are regular employees.
HELD:
The renewals show that they are qualified for their positions and therefore should be
treated like other qualified able-bodied employees. As such, they have acquired
legal rights as a consequence of law and justice nor compassion. Article 80 does not
apply because petitioners are qualified for their position and being handicapped is
not a hindrance to their work.
APEX MINING COMPANY INC. V NLRC and Candido
196 SCRA 251 (1991)

G.R.NO. 94951
FACTS:
Private respondent Candido was employed as house helper in the staff house of
petitioner. While she was working, she accidentally slipped and hit her back as a
result she was not able to continue her job for the meantime. Later, private
respondent return to work but petitioner did not allow her and dismissed her
instead.
ISSUE:
WON a house helper in the staff house of an industrial company a domestic helper
or a regular employee of the said firm.
HELD:
Under Rule XIII, Section I (b), Book 3 of the Labor Code The definition cannot be
interpreted to include house helper or laundrywomen working in the
Staff house of a company, who attends to the needs of the companys guests and
other persons availing of said facilities. In such instance, they are employees of the
company or employer in the business concerned entitled to the privileges of a
regular employee.
Mercidar Fishing Corp. V NLRC
297 SCRA 442 (1998)
G.R.NO.112574
FACTS:
Private respondent employed as a bodegero or ships quartermaster complained
of being constructively dismissed by petitioner when the latter refused him
assignments aboard. Private respondent appeal to the Labor Arbiter and rendered a
decision ordering petitioner corporation to reinstate complainant with benefits but
petitioner claims that he cannot be held liable for service incentive, leave pay to the
respondent because they are field personnel. Thus private respondent is not
entitled to such pay under the Labor Code.
ISSUE:
WON fishermen are considered field personnel.
HELD:
No. Although fisherman performs non-agricultural work and they are away from
their business offices. The fact remains that throughout the duration of their work
they are under the effective control and supervision of the employer through the
vessels patron or master. Therefore, they are not field personnel under Article 82 of
the Labor Code.
Labor Congress v NLRC
290 SCRA 509
G.R.NO. 123938
FACTS:
The 99 persons named as petitioners in this proceeding were rank-and-file
employees of respondent Empire Food Products, which hired by them on various
dates. Petitioners filed a complaint for payment of money claims and for violation of
labor standard laws against private respondent. They also filed a petition for direct

certification of petitioner Labor Congress of the Philippines as their bargaining

representative.
ISSUE:
WON the petitioners are entitled to labor standard benefits considering they are
paid by piece rate workers.
HELD:
According to Section 8 (b), Rule IV, Book III of the Implementing Rules, employees
paid by results or output is entitled to holiday pay (Art.94). It is beneficial to secure
DOLEs approval of a piece-rate policy. Petitioners labor under the control of private
respondents as their employer, likewise did petitioners toil throughout the year with
the fulfilment of their quota as supposed basis for compensation. Petitioners are
also entitled to overtime pay because they are beyond the ambit of exempted
persons mentioned in Section 2 (e), Rule I, Book III of the Implementing Rules.
ALMODIEL v NLRC
G.R.NO. 100641, JUNE 14, 1993
FACTS:
Petitioner is a CPA, hired as Cost Accounting Manager of respondent Raytheon
Philippines Inc. As such his major duties were planning, coordinating and carryingout-year-end physical inventory and others.
When the respondent company adopted and installed worldwide standard in cost
accounting system the service of the petitioner was reduced and abolished on the
ground of redundancies. He requested for transfer to another department and was
denied. He alleged that the functions of his position were absorbed by other
department which is headed by a resident alien without working permit from the
DOLE. Petitioner filed for illegal dismissal.
ISSUE:
WON the termination of petitioner on the ground of redundancy was tainted with
malice, bad faith and irregularity.
HELD:
The termination of petitioners employment was anchored and valid and authorized
cause under Article 283. Closure of Establishment and reduction of personnel.
An employer has no legal obligation to keep more employees that are necessary for
the operation of the business. Likewise destitute of merit is petitioners imputation
of unlawful discrimination when respondent company caused corollary functions
appertaining to cost accounting to be absorbed by a resident alien without working
permit. Article 40 of the Labor Code which requires employment permit refers to
non-resident aliens.
BROTHERHOOD LABOR UNITY MOVEMENT OF THE PHILS. Et al v Zamora et
al
G.R.NO.L-48645, JANUARY 7, 1987
FACTS:
Petitioners are workers who have been employed at the San Miguel Parola Glass
factory since 1961, averaging about 7 years of service at the time of their
termination. They were dismissed for unionism when San Miguel refused to bargain
with the union alleging that the workers are not their employees.
ISSUE:

WON an employer-employee relationship exists between the parties.

HELD:
In the instant case, the control test is evident. Where the respondent has the power
to control the employees with respect to the means and methods by which the work
is to be accomplished. In determining the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, the elements that are generally considered are the following: a) the
selection and engagement of the employee; b) the payment of wages; c) the power
of dismissal; d) the employers power to control the employee with respect to the
means and methods by which a work is to be accomplished.

JARDIN v NLRC
G.R.NO. 119268, FEBRUARY 23, 2000
FACTS:
Petitioners were drivers of private respondent taxi units under the boundary system
where petitioners earn and deduct an amount for the washing of the taxi units.
Petitioner decided to form a labor union as a result respondent refused to let them
drive the taxicabs. Petitioners filed with the labor arbiter then to NLRC a complaint
on the grounds of illegal dismissal, illegal deductions and unfair labor practices.
ISSUE:
WON an employer-employee relationship exists thus resulting to illegal dismissal.
HELD:
The relationship between owners and drivers under the boundary system is that of
employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee. The fact that the drivers do not receive
fixed wages is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship from that of employeremployee. The termination of employment must be effectuated in accordance with
law. Regards to the amount deducted for washing, such was not illegal as such is
indeed a practice in taxi industry and is dictated by fair play.
ZAMUDIO v NLRC
G.R.NO.76723, MARCH 25, 1990
FACTS:
Petitioners are pakyao workers of the private respondents farm. They are seasonal
workers tasked to cultivate the farm. Petitioners never stopped working for the
respondent from the time they were hired until they were dismissed.
ISSUE:
WON an employer-employee relationship exists.
HELD:
The nature of their employment, pakyao basis, does not make petitioners an
independent contractor. Pakyao workers are considered employees as long as the
employer exercise control over the means and methods by which such workers are
to perform their work inside private respondents farm. The circumstance that
petitioners were not in the payroll does not destroy the employer-employee
relationship.
PAGUIO v NLRC
G.R.NO. 147816, MAY 9, 2003

FACTS:
Petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent for the fifth time. Barely two
months after the renewal of contract the respondent terminated petitioners
services as an account executive. Petitioner filed a case before the labor arbiter on
the grounds of unlawful dismissal.
ISSUE:
WON petitioner has been justly dismissed from service.
HELD:
Under the Constitution a lawful dismissal must meet both substantive and
procedural requirements. Pursuant to Labor Code, Security of Tenure, the dismissal
must be for just or authorized cause. In the case for instance, the notice of
termination recites no valid or just cause for the dismissal of petitioner nor does not
appear that he has been given an opportunity to be heard in his defense.
NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERIES CORP. (NASUREFCO) v NLRC
G.R.NO. 101761, MARCH 24, 1993
FACTS:
Petitioner NASUREFCO, a corporation which is fully owned and controlled by the
government, operates 3 sugar refineries. Private respondent union represents the
former supervisors of the petitioner. NASUREFCO implemented a JE Program
affecting all employees from rank-and-file to department heads. The JE Program was
designed to rationalize the duties and functions of all positions. Two years, after the
implementation, the members of herein respondent union filed a complaint on the
grounds of non-payment of overtime; rest day and holiday pay allegedly in violation
of Art.100 of the Labor Code.
ISSUE:
WON supervisory employees as defined in Article 212 should be considered as
officers or members of the managerial staff under Article 82. Hence, they are not
entitled to overtime pay, holiday pay and others.
HELD:
Herein, union members should be considered officers and members of the
managerial staff and therefore exempt from the coverage of Article 82.
INTERPHIL LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW et al v INTERPHIL
LABORATORIES INC. And HON.QUISUMBING, SECRETARY OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT
G.R.No. 142824, December 19, 2001
FACTS:
Petitioner is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees
of the respondent, a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and
packaging pharmaceutical products.
The respondent company could not make a decision regarding the CBA which was
set to expire. As a result overtime boycott and work slowdown amounting to illegal
strike.
ISSUE:

A) WON the Secretary of Labor and Employment has authority and jurisdiction to
rule on the illegal strike which had long been filed and pending before the
labor arbiter.
B) WON the respondents committed illegal strike.
HELD:
A) The issuance of the assailed order is within the province of the secretary as
authorized by Article 263(g) of the Labor Code and Article 217(a) and (5) of
the same code, taken conjointly and rationally construed to sub serve the
objective of the jurisdiction vested in the Secretary.
B) The employees unjustified alteration of the 24-hour work schedule through
their concerted activities of overtime boycott and work slowdown can be
classified as strike on an instalment basis. It constituted a violation of their
CBA.