Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 73 views

    Rosario Brothers VS Hon. Ople 07-31-1984

    Uploaded by

    Daniel Galzote
    Petitioners were tailors hired by Rosario Brothers Inc. (Manila Cod Department Store) on a piece-work basis. They filed a complaint for violation of holiday and 13th month pay laws. The court ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed because the company selected and hired the tailors, paid their weekly wages, had the power to dismiss them, and controlled their conduct by requiring them to work at least 8 hours per day in the shop. The tailors were also registered with SSS and taxes were deducted from their wages, indicating an employment relationship.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rosario Brothers VS Hon. Ople 07-31-1984

    Uploaded by

    Daniel Galzote
    73 views1 page
    Petitioners were tailors hired by Rosario Brothers Inc. (Manila Cod Department Store) on a piece-work basis. They filed a complaint for violation of holiday and 13th month pay laws. The court ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed because the company selected and hired the tailors, paid their weekly wages, had the power to dismiss them, and controlled their conduct by requiring them to work at least 8 hours per day in the shop. The tailors were also registered with SSS and taxes were deducted from their wages, indicating an employment relationship.

    Original Description:

    LABOR 2 CASES

    Original Title

    ROSARIO BROTHERS VS HON. OPLE 07-31-1984

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners were tailors hired by Rosario Brothers Inc. (Manila Cod Department Store) on a piece-work basis. They filed a complaint for violation of holiday and 13th month pay laws. The court ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed because the company selected and hired the tailors, paid their weekly wages, had the power to dismiss them, and controlled their conduct by requiring them to work at least 8 hours per day in the shop. The tailors were also registered with SSS and taxes were deducted from their wages, indicating an employment relationship.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    73 views1 page

    Rosario Brothers VS Hon. Ople 07-31-1984

    Uploaded by

    Daniel Galzote
    Petitioners were tailors hired by Rosario Brothers Inc. (Manila Cod Department Store) on a piece-work basis. They filed a complaint for violation of holiday and 13th month pay laws. The court ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed because the company selected and hired the tailors, paid their weekly wages, had the power to dismiss them, and controlled their conduct by requiring them to work at least 8 hours per day in the shop. The tailors were also registered with SSS and taxes were deducted from their wages, indicating an employment relationship.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    L-53590 July 31, 1984

    ROSARIO BROTHERS INC. (MANILA COD DEPARTMENT STORE), petitioner,


    vs.
    HON. BLAS F. OPLE, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, and LEONARDO
    LOVERIA, MARIETTA GALUT, LINDA TAPICERIA, JESUS S. OLIVER, CLARITA SANGLE,
    RICARDO ROXAS, ANTONIO MABUTOL, LUZ BAYNO, NESTOR SANCHEZ, TITO CASTALEDA,
    EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, MANUEL MEJES, FRANCISCA TAPICERIA, EDITHA BAYNO, ET
    AL., respondents.

    Facts:
    Private respondents are tailors hired by the petitioner in its tailoring department. They were paid
    weekly wages on piece-work basis, minus the withholding tax of BIR. They were registered with SSS as
    employees of petitioner. They were required to report to work and stay in the shop for no less than 8
    hours a day. A master cutter distributed job order equally. Private respondents file a complaint for
    violation of PD 851 (13th month pay) and PD 525 (Emergency Living Allowance) against petitioner.

    Issue:
    WON an employer-employee relationship exists.

    Ruling:
    Yes.

    The existence of ER-EE relationship is determined by: the selection and engagement of
    employee, payment of wages, power of dismissal, power to control employee’s conduct.

    In the case at bar, the selection and hiring of respondents was done by petitioner through the
    master cutter. Respondents received their weekly wages from petitioner on piece-work basis within the
    meaning of the term “wage” under the Labor Code, which defined as “the remuneration or earnings.
    However, designated, whether fixed on a time, task, piece or commission basis, payable by an employer
    to an employee under a written or unwritten contact for work done or to be done or for services rendered
    or to be rendered. Petitioner also had the power to dismiss respondents, thus, the latter’s conduct was
    controlled by petitioner. Respondents were allowed to register with SSS and withholding taxes were also
    deducted from their wages.

    You might also like