Part I Flashcards
Art. II, Sec. 9 of the 1987 Constitution
SECTION 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all.
Art. II, Sec. 10 of the 1987 Constitution
SECTION 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.
Art. II, Sec. 11 of the 1987 Constitution
SECTION 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.
Art. II, Sec. 13 of the 1987 Constitution
SECTION 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.
Art. II, Sec. 14 of the 1987 Constitution
SECTION 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.
Art. II, Sec. 18 of the 1987 Constitution
SECTION 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.
Art. II, Sec. 20 of the 1987 Constitution
SECTION 20. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments.
Art. III, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution
SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Art. III, Sec. 4 of the 1987 Constitution
SECTION 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Art. III, Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution
SECTION 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
Art. III, Sec. 8 of the 1987 Constitution
SECTION 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
Art. III, Sec. 10 of the 1987 Constitution
SECTION 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
Art. III, Sec. 16 of the 1987 Constitution
SECTION 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
Art. III, Sec. 18 (2) of the 1987 Constitution
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Art. XIII, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution
SECTION 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its increments.
Art. XIII, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution
SECTION 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.
Art. XIII, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution. MEMORIZE. Basically, a summary of labor rights
SECTION 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and to expansion and growth.
Art. XIII, Sec. 13 of the 1987 Constitution
SECTION 13. The State shall establish a special agency for disabled persons for rehabilitation, self-development and self-reliance, and their integration into the mainstream of society.
Art. XIII, Sec. 14 of the 1987 Constitution
SECTION 14. The State shall protect working women by providing safe and healthful working conditions, taking into account their maternal functions, and such facilities and opportunities that will enhance their welfare and enable them to realize their full potential in the service of the nation.
Art. IX, B-Sec. 2(1) of the 1987 Constitution
SECTION 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.
Art. XIX of the Civil Code
Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Art. 1700 of the Civil Code
Article 1700. The relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Therefore, such contracts are subject to the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.
Servidad v. NLRC
Doctrines:
a. Commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet.No one should obtain an advantage from his own wrong.
b. Schemes which preclude acquisition of tenurial security should be condemned as contrary to public policy
c. No member of the work force of this country should be allowed to be taken advantage of by the employer.
d. Settled is the rule that an employer can terminate the services of an employee only for valid and just causes which must be shown by clear and convincing evidence
- an employee cannot be terminated without valid and just cause
- servidad was employed as data controller for a period of 1 year
- contractual employee daw kasi work for the first 6 months can be dismissed based on employer’s discretion - SC: this is not allowed under the law. The employer shall follow just cause
- after daw ng first 6 months, if allowed sya, probationary employee padin sya sa second half
- SC: THAT IS NOT ALLOWED. probationary employee has requisites
1) skills that is required of him must be informed to him at the beginning of his employment
2) - pag allowed ka pa magwork after 6 months, regular employee ka na
- contract was a scheme to prevent Servidad from acquiring security of tenure - null and void - contrary to public policy
Social justice
Humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may - at least be approximated.
Protection-to-labor clauses
Art. II, Sec. 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.
Art. XIII, Sec. 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and to expansion and growth.
Labor as property right
One’s employment is a property right, and the wrongful interference therewith is an actionable wrong. The right is considered to be property within the protection of the constitutional guarantee of due process of law. In relation to labor, this include the right to work and the right to earn a living.
Requisites of lawful dismissal
- substantive
- intrinsic validity of the laws in interfering with a person’s right to life, liberty, and property
- causes - procedural
- the right to be heard
- manner
Limitations on the applicability of Art. III, Sec 1 of the 1987 Constitution or the constitutional due process and equal protection provision
It can only be invoked when the party depriving an individual of such rights is the government. If the case involves a private party (employer), the administrative proceeding through statutory process will govern.
“Trial-type” hearing
This is an application of constitutional due process. It is applicable when a labor case has already been filed with the labor courts and subsequently, when it reaches CA and/or SC. As distinguished from employer’s administrative (procedural), company-level due process, the government is now involved. Hence, constitutional (Substantive) due process will apply.
Lopez Doctrine
The right to counsel and the assistance of one in investigations involving termination cases is neither indispensable nor mandatory.
It is only under these circumstances that a right to counsel is mandatory:
1. When the employee himself requests for counsel; or 2. When he manifests that he wants a formal hearing on the charges against him
Right to picket v. Right to strike
Right to picket
- part of the right guaranteed under the law “to engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining for their mutual benefit and protection” but it is principally guaranteed under the freedom of speech
- focuses on publicizing the labor dispute and its incidents to the public while strike focuses on stoppage of work
Right to strike
- Sec. 3, Art. Xiii
Is the right to picket absolute?
No. The picket should be moving, peaceful and was not attended by actual violence.
Right to information
Limited to national security
Manifestation of Art. III, Sec. 8 of the 1987 Constitution to the Labor Code
(1) protects the right of workers to self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations of their own choosing
(2) declares as a policy of the State the fostering of a free and voluntary organization of a strong and united labor movement
(3) declares that it shall be unlawful for any person to restrain, coerce, discriminate against or unduly interfere with employees and workers in their exercise of the right to self-organization, which includes the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in lawful concerted activities
Purpose of the non-impairment clause
To safeguard the integrity of contracts against unwarranted interference by the State.
Is the prohibition to impairment of contracts absolute?
No. Police power is superior to the non-impairment clause. The constitutional guaranty of non-impairment is limited by the exercise of the police power of the state in the interest of public health, safety, morals, and general welfare.
ex: Labor contracts
Factors to consider on one’s right to speedy disposition of cases
- length of delay
- reason for the delay
- assertion of the right or failure to assert it
- prejudice caused by the delay
Involuntary servitude
Every condition of enforced or compulsory service of one to another, no matter under what form such servitude may be disguised.
It is on the basis of this constitutional precept that employees are granted the right to terminate their employment relationship with their employers under Article 300 [285]5 of the Labor Code. This article recognizes the equality of the parties to an employment relationship. Thus, an employee may resign from employment at any time he wishes and with or without just cause, subject only to certain minimum conditions imposed by law.
Exception on one’s right against involuntary servitude
Compulsory fulfillment of military or civic duty. This is so because the constitutional prohibition should be subordinated to the right of the government to call upon its citizens to protect their State as provided under Section 4, Article II of the Constitution. The survival of the State is the paramount justification for such involuntary servitude.
Basic rights guaranteed to workers
a. right to security of tenure
b. right to humane conditions of work
c. right to a living wage
d. right to self-organization
e. right to conduct collective bargaining or negotiation with management
f. right to conduct concerted activities (right to strike)
g. right to just share in fruits of production
h. right to participate in policy and decision
Right to self-organization
Refers to the right of workers and employees to form, join or assist unions, organizations or associations for purposes of collective bargaining and/or for mutual aid and protection, including the right to engage in peaceful concerted activities and participate in policy-decision making processes affecting their rights and benefits.
Negotiation with management
Interaction between employer and employees concerning grievances, wages, work hours and other terms and conditions of employment.
Collective bargaining
A process where the parties agree to fix and administer terms and conditions of employment which must not be below the minimum standards fixed by law, and set a mechanism for resolving their grievances.
Ex: negotiating minimum wage, basic benefits, or certain working conditions
Security of tenure
In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause.
Living wage
A wage that is high enough to maintain a normal standard of living.
Humane working conditions
These conditions are not restricted to the physical
workplace - the factory, the office or the field - but include as well the manner by which employers treat their employees.
Concerted activities
Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection. The right of legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers to lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall continue to be recognized and respected.
Share in fruits of production
Art. XIII, Section 3, (last par.) commands the state to regulate the relations between workers and employers in terms of the right of the employer in the fruits of production and the right of the workers to reasonable return of investments, expansion and growth. However it does not mean that there must be a mandatory profit sharing, but only a voluntary sharing that is born on the acceptance of social function of the means of production.
Principle of co-determination
Refers to the right of workers to participate in the policy and decision making processes directly affecting their rights and benefits, without intruding
into matters pertaining to management prerogative. (PAL v. NLRC, G.R. No. 85985, 1993)
Test to determine whether a GOCC or a government-owned or controlled corporation is subject to Civil Service
It is determined by the manner of their creation. Gov’t corporations that are created by special (original) charter from Congress are subject to Civil Service rules, while those incorporated under the General Corporation Law are covered by the LC.
Abuse of right doctrine
Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. (Art. 19)
Why are relations between capital and labor not merely contractual?
They are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Therefore, such contracts are subject to the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects. (Art. 1700)
Principle of shared responsibility
A principle in which the State relies on the mutual respect of each party to one another, and assumes that the labor and the management will be both responsible for maintaining industrial peace.
It is the hands-off policy of the state relying on the parties’ relationship and ability to resolve or settle disputes through voluntary modes, without needing government intervention.
However, it is still subject to regulation to promote welfare and protect the rights of the laborers.
Cielo v. NLRC
Regular employment: an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessarily or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer. Even if ostensibly hired for a fixed period,
the petitioner should be considered a regular
employee of the private respondent
Probationary employment: (Art. 281 of the Labor
Code) shall not exceed six (6) months from the date
the employee started working, unless it is covered
by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer
period. The services of an employee who has been
engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular
employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered
a regular employee.
Where from the circumstances it is apparent that periods have been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should be
struck down or disregarded as contrary to public policy, morals, etc.*
- there is no employee-employer relationship in the contract
- contract is null and void
Leyte Geothermal Power Progressive Employees Union-ALU-TUCP v. PNOC-EDC
Project Employees vs. Regular Employees
(Art. 280 of LC) The litmus test to determine whether an individual is a project employee lies in setting a fixed period of employment involving a specific undertaking which completion or termination has been determined at the time of the particular employee’s engagement.
(Art. 263 of LC) Requisites for holding a strike:
(c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Department at least 30 days before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified bargaining agent, the notice of
strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. However, in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting, where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately.
- The notice must be in accordance with such implementing rules and regulations as the Department of Labor and Employment may promulgate.
- During the cooling-off period, it shall be the duty of the Department to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement.
- Should the dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days from the mandatory filing of the notice, the labor union may strike or the employer may declare a lockout.
- A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret ballot
in meetings or referenda called for that purpose.
Art. 1702 of the Civil Code
Article 1702. In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer.
Art. 3 of the Labor Code
The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and regulate the
relations between workers and employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work.
Art. 4 of the Labor Code
All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.
Art. 5 of the Labor Code
The Department of Labor and other government agencies charged with the administration and enforcement of this Code or any of its parts shall promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations shall become effective fifteen (15) days after announcement of their adoption in newspapers of general circulation.
Art. 6 of the Labor Code
All rights and benefits granted to workers under this Code shall, except as may otherwise be provided herein, apply alike to all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural.
WPP Marketing Communications, Inc. et. al. v. Jocelyn M. Galera et al/Jocelyn M. Galera v. WPP. G.R. No. 169207/G.R. No. 169239, March 25, 2010)
Employee vs. Corporate Officer
Corporate officers are given such character either by the Corporation Code or by the corporation’s by-laws.
Section 25 of the Corporation Code: the corporate officers are the president, secretary, treasurer and such other officers as may be provided in the by-laws
The four-fold test in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship:
(a) the selection and engagement of the employee;
(b) the payment of wages;
(c) the power of dismissal; and
(d) the employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished.
Illegal Dismissal
The law requires that the employer must furnish the worker sought to be dismissed with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected:
(1) notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for
which his dismissal is sought; and
(2) the subsequent notice which informs the
employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him.
Any alien seeking admission to the Philippines for employment purposes and any domestic or foreign employer who desires to engage an alien for employment in the Philippines shall obtain an employment permit from the Department of Labor. (Art. 40, Labor Code of the Philippines)
PAL v. NLRC and PALEA (GR No. 85985, August 13, 1993)
Indeed, industrial peace cannot be achieved if the employees are denied their just participation in the discussion of matters affecting their rights.
A line must be drawn between management prerogatives regarding business operations per se and those which affect the rights of the employees. In treating the latter, management should see to it that its employees are at least properly informed of its decisions or modes of action.
So long as a company’s management prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, the Court will uphold them.
- the PAL revised their Code of Discipline. The Code was immediately implemented. Some employees were dismissed, others sanctioned for the infractions they have committed based on the new code of discipline. the employees filed a case against PAL
- disseminate first the new code of discipline
- PAL was declared of unfair labor practices and was ordered to pay damages
- PAL appealed
What’s the decision of the SC in relation to the formulation of code of discipline?
- the act is valid but PAL did not follow the proper procedure
- hindi kasi humingi ng opinion or discussion from employees or the union (PALEA)
- not just right to information or publication but right to participate
Social-economic goals
- more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth
- a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the people
- an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged
Management Rights
Employers have the right:
- to return of investments and to make profit
- to make reasonable rules and regulations for the government of their employees, and these rules become part of the employees’ contract of employment
- to select their employees and to decide when to engage them
- to employ any person free to accept employment from him except as restricted by valid statute of contract at a wage under conditions agreeable to them
- to transfer, reduce or lay off personnel in order to minimize expenses and to insure the stability of the business, and even to close the business
- transfer or dismissal shall not be abused and shall be done in good faith and is due to causes beyond control
Restrictions to management rights
Subject to limitations provided by:
a. law
b. contract (individual or collective)
c. general principles of fair play and justice
Who is in charge of implementing the Labor Code?
Department of Labor and Employment
Does the Labor Code apply even if there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties?
Yes.
Is employment a pre-condition to the applicability of the Labor Code?
No.
Person under Art. 97 of the Labor Code
An individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, legal representatives, or any organized group of persons.
Employer under Art. 219 of the Labor Code
Any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly.
DOES NOT include any labor organization or any of its officers or agents except when acting as employer
Employee under Art. 219 of the Labor Code
Any person in the employ of an employer. The term shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless the Code so explicitly states. It shall include any individual whose work has ceased as a result of or in connection with any current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice if he has not obtained any other substantially equivalent and regular employment.
Types of employees under the Labor Code
a. managerial employee
- one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, assign, or discipline employees
b. supervisory employee
- those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommended such managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinely or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment
c. rank and file employee
- all employees not falling within any of the above definitions
The relationship of an employer and employee is contractual in nature. T or F.
False
A written contract is not necessary for the creation and validity of an employer-employee relationship. T or F.
True.
The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by contract. T or F.
False. It is determined by law.
Evidence of employment
No particular form. Any competent and relevant evidence may be admitted.
LVN Pictures Inc. v. Phil. Musicians Guild (110 Phil 725) and DyKehBeng v. International Labor, (90 SCRA 161)
An employer-employee relationship exists between the musicians and the film companies. The relationship exists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such an end.
What does the Control test refer to in determining Employer-Employee Relationship? While this Court upholds the control test under which an employer-employee relationship exists “where the person for whom the services are performed reserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end.” It finds no merit with petitioner’s arguments as stated above. It should be borne in mind that the control test calls merely for the existence of the right to control the manner of doing the work, not the actual exercise of the right.
Corporal v. NLRC (341 SCRA 658, 2000)
Requisites for an employer-employee relationship to exist:
(1) the selection and engagement of the workers
(2) power of dismissal
(3) the payment of wages by whatever means
(4) the power to control the worker’s conduct, with the latter assuming primacy in the overall consideration
What does the Control test refer to in determining Employer-Employee Relationship? The power to control refers to the existence of the power and not necessarily to the actual exercise thereof, nor is it essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee. It is enough that the employer has the right to wield that power.
People’s Broadcasting v Sec of Labor (March 6,2012)
May the DOLE make a determination of whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists? No limitation in the law was placed upon the power of the DOLE to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship. No procedure was laid down where the DOLE would only make a preliminary finding, that the power was primarily held by the NLRC. The law did not say that the DOLE would first seek the NLRC’s determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship, or that should the existence of the employer-employee relationship be disputed, the DOLE would refer the matter to the NLRC. The DOLE must have the power to determine whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists, and from there to decide whether or not to issue compliance orders in accordance with Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730.
Francisco v NLRC (GR No. 170087, August 31, 2006)
What is the two-tiered test in determining employer-employee relationship? In certain cases where the control test is not sufficient to give a complete picture of the relationship between the parties, The better approach would therefore be to adopt a two-tiered test involving:
(1) the putative employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished
(2) the underlying economic realities of the activity or relationship.
This is especially appropriate in this case where there is no written agreement or terms of reference to base the relationship on; and due to the complexity of the relationship based on the various positions and responsibilities given to the worker over the period of the latter’s employment.
What does the whole economic activity comprise of in determining employer-employee relationship? The determination of the relationship between employer and employee depends upon the circumstances of the whole economic activity, such as:
(1) the extent to which the services performed are an integral part of the employer’s business
(2) the extent of the worker’s investment in equipment and facilities
(3) the nature and degree of control exercised by the employer
(4) the worker’s opportunity for profit and loss
(5) the amount of initiative, skill, judgment or foresight required for the success of the claimed independent enterprise
(6) the permanency and duration of the relationship between the worker and the employer
(7) the degree of dependency of the worker upon the employer for his continued employment in that line of business
Javier v. Flyace Corp (February 15,2012)
Is there any evidence required to prove the existence of employer-employee relationship?
How to determine the existence of the employer-employee relationship?
Four-fold test
to ascertain the existence of an EER
- selection and engagement of the employee
- who has the power to select the employees?
- employment relation arises from contract of hire, express or implied
- selection and engagement of the workers rests with employers - payment of wages
- who pays the employee wages?
- the mode of paying the salary does not preclude existence of EER
- not a conclusive test since it can be avoided by the use of subcontracting agreements or other contracts
- payment of compensation by way of commission does not militate the conclusion that EER exist - power of dismissal
- who has the power to dismiss the employees?
- disciplinary power exercised by the owner over the worker and the corresponding sanction imposed in case of violation of any of its rules and regulations - power to control employees conduct
- who exercises control over the methods and results by which the work of the employee is accomplished?
- the most important factor is the control test. This test is premised on whether the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control both the end achieved and the manner and means used to achieve it
- the control test calls for the existence of the right to control the manner of doing the work, not the actual exercise of the right
Sonza v ABS-CBN (GR 138051, June 10, 2004)
What is the most important element of an employer-employee relationship? The so-called “control test” is the most important element.
Is an independent contractor deemed an employee?
Applying the control test to the present case, we find that SONZA is not an employee but an independent contractor. The control test is the most important test our courts apply in distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor. This test is based on the extent of control the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the supervision and control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an employee. The converse holds true as well—the less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is considered an independent contractor.
Orozco v The Fifth Division (August 13, 2008)
What is the most important element of an employer-employee relationship?
Does a newspaper’s power to approve or reject publication indicate control in control test? Power to approve or reject publication of any specific article she wrote for her column cannot be the control contemplated in the “control test,” as it is but logical that one who commissions another to do a piece of work should have the right to accept or reject the product. The important factor to consider in the “control test” is still the element of control over how the work itself is done, not just the end result thereof. In contrast, a regular reporter is not as independent in doing his or her work for the newspaper.
The four-fold test is the only test to determine the existence of EER. T or F.
False. There has been no uniform test to determine the existence of an EER.
The “four-fold” test may be regarded as the traditional or conventional test of the employment in question. But it is not the sole test. There is the need to consider the existing conditions between the parties, in addition to the right-of-control element.
Economic Dependence Test or the two-tier approach
- Control Test
- The putative employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished - Economic Reality Test
- The economic realities prevailing within the activity or between the parties are examined, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances surrounding the true nature of the relationship between parties.
This is resorted to when there is serious doubt or genuine confusion as to the EER.
When is the two-tiered test appropriate?
The two-tiered test provides a framework of analysis which would take into consideration the totality of circumstances surrounding the true nature of relationship between parties. It is appropriate in cases where there is:
1) No written agreement or terms of reference to base the relationship
2) There exists a complexity in the relationship based on the various positions and responsibilities given to the worker over the period of the latter’s employment
Other factors to consider in the existence of EER
a. the extent of which the services performed are an integral part of the employer’s business
b. the extent of the worker’s investment in the equipment and facilities
c. the nature and degree of control exercised by the employer
d. the worker’s opportunity for profit and loss
e. the amount of initiative, skill, judgement or foresight required for the success of the claimed independent enterprise
f. the permanency and duration of the relationship between the worker and the employer
g. the degree of dependency of the worker upon the employer for his continued employment in the line of business
onus probandi
burden of proof
Burden of proving EER
Burden rests on the employee - substantial evidence
Burden of proving illegal dismissal
Burden rests on the employer
Examples of Cases where EER Exists
- Jeepney drivers in boundary basis
- Drivers or helpers of salesmen are employees of the company
- Employees of an unregistered association
- Street-hired kargador
- Workers in movie projects
- Talents
- Salaried insurance agent, as distinguished from registered agents on commission basis
- Tailors, seamstresses, servers, basters, plansadora paid on piece-rate basis
- In-house counsel
- Security guards, with respect to the security agency
Examples of Cases where no EER Exists
- Farm workers are not employees of the sugar central
- Caddies are not employees of the golf club
- Collecting agents on commission basis
- Shoeshine boys
- Independent contractors selling soft-drinks
- Commission salesman
- Referees are independent contractors
- A residency or resident physician position in a medical specialty is never a permanent one
Kinds of employment
- Probationary
- Regular
- Project Employment
- Seasonal
- Casual
- Fixed-term
The employee must be informed of the reasonable standards to qualify for regular employment. T or F.
True.
Exception: when the job is self-descriptive (maids, cooks, drivers, or messengers)
If the termination is brought by the failure of an employee to meet the standards of the employer in the case of probationary employment, it shall be sufficient that a written notice is served to the employee within a reasonable time from the effective date of termination. T or F.
True.
Exceptions to the general rule that probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the employee started working
- When it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period (Art. 296)
- When the parties to the employment contract agree otherwise, such as when established by company policy or required by the nature of the work performed by the employee
- When it involves the 3 year probationary period of teachers
- When it involves an act of liberality on the part of his employer affording him a second chance to make good after having initially failed to prove his worth as an employee
A probationary employee enjoys security of tenure. T or F.
True.
Termination of a probationary employee
The services of an employee who has been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated for any of the following:
(a) a just or (b) an authorized cause
(c) when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards prescribed by the employer
Mariwasa Manufacturing Incorporated v. Leogardo
Length of probationary period may be shortened or extended. An act of liberality on the part of his employer affording him a second chance to make good after having initially failed to prove his worth as an employee. Such an act cannot now unjustly be turned against said employer’s account to compel it to keep on its payroll one who could not perform according to its work standards.
Abbott Laboratories v. Alcaraz
Employer shall make known to the employee the standards under which he will qualify as a regular employee.
The employer is made to comply with two (2) requirements when dealing with a probationary employee:
(1) the employer must communicate the regularization standards to the probationary employee
(2) second, the employer must make such communication at the time of the probationary employee’s engagement.
If the employer fails to comply with either, the employee is deemed as a regular and not a probationary employee.
Regular and casual employment
Regular
- where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
Casual
- if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.
- Casual employees are those who perform work that is incidental to the business of the employer
Regular/permanent employment
When an employee performs activities that are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer
Some employers can require their new employees to undergo probationary employment before they can be qualified for regular employment. T or F.
True.
2 kinds of regular employees
Art. 295
- Those engaged to perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and
- Casual employees who have rendered at least 1 year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed. [Romares v. NLRC, G.R. No. 122327 (1998)]
Primary standard to determine regular employment
Reasonable connection rule
- the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the business or trade of the employer
- whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. If the employee has been performing the job for at least 1 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 in dispensability of that activity to the business of the employer. Hence, the employment is also considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists.
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Marlyn Nazareno et. al.
Test to determine whether an employee is in regular employment.
The primary standard is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer.
Project employee
One who is hired for carrying out a separate job, distinct from the other undertakings of the company, the scope and duration of which has been determined and made known to the employees at the time of employment.
Rationale for project employment
If a project has already been completed, it would be unjust to require the employer to maintain them in the payroll while they are doing absolutely nothing except waiting until another project is begun, if at all. In effect, these stand-by workers would been joying the status of privileged retainers, collecting payment for work not done, to be disbursed by the employer from profits not earned.
2 kinds of project employees
For a particular job or undertaking that is WITHIN the regular or usual business of the employer company, but which is distinct and separate, and identifiable as such, from the other undertakings of the company (i.e. construction)
For a particular job or undertaking that is NOT within the regular business of the corporation. Such a job or undertaking must also be identifiably separate and distinct from the ordinary or regular business operations of the employer [Villa v. NLRC, G.R. No. 117043 (1988)]
Indicators of project employment
- The duration of the specific/identified undertaking for which the worker is engaged is reasonably determinable
- Such duration, as well as the specific work/service to be performed, is defined in an employment
- Agreement and is made clear to the employee at the time of the hiring
- The work/service to be performed by the employee is in connection with the particular project/undertaking for which he is engaged
- The employee, while not employed and a waiting engagement, is free to offer his services to any other employer
- The termination of his employment in the particular project/undertaking is reported to the DOLE Regional Office having jurisdiction over the work place following the date of his separation from work, using the prescribed form on employees’ terminations/dismissals/suspensions
- An undertaking in the employment contract by the employer to pay completion bonus to the project employee as practiced by most construction companies.
Test of project employment
whether or not the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee
2 requisites of project-based employee
a. the employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking
b. the duration and scope of which were specified at the time they were engaged for such project
Maraguinot v. NLRC
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, pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code and jurisprudence.
To rule otherwise would allow circumvention of labor laws in industries not falling within the ambit of Policy Instruction No. 20/Department Order No. 19, hence allowing the prevention of acquisition of tenurial security by project or work pool employees who have already gained the status of regular employees by the employer’s conduct.
Leyte Geothermal Power Progressive Employees Union-ALU-TUCP v. PNOC-EDC
Test to determine whether an employee is a project employee
- whether or not the “project employees” were assigned to carry out a “specific project or undertaking,” the duration (and scope) of which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project
A project could refer to a particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual business of the employer company, but which is distinct and separate, and identifiable as such, from the other undertakings of the company. Secondly, a particular job or undertaking that is not within the regular business of the corporation.
Plainly, the litmus test to determine whether an individual is a project employee lies in setting a fixed period of employment involving a specific undertaking which completion or termination has been determined at the time of the particular employee’s engagement.
- uulit ultin
- union wants to be recognized as the exclusive union of the company
- di pwede kasi di naman sila regular employees
- they are merely project employees
- project employees are valid
1. at the beginning of employment, they were already informed that their employment is limited to a particular undertaking that will end at a definite period
Tomas Lao Consturction v. NLRC
- The execution of the project employment contracts was “farcical.” Obviously, the contracts were a scheme of petitioners to prevent respondents from being considered as regular employees.
- Policy Instruction No. 20 is explicit that employers of project employees are exempted from the clearance requirement but not from the submission of termination report.
Herma Shipyard v. Oliveros
- Respondents knowingly and voluntarily entered into and signed the project-based employment contracts.
- Performance by project-based employees of tasks necessary and desirable to the usual business operation of the employer will not automatically result in their regularization.
- Repeated rehiring of project employees to different projects does not ipso facto make them regular employees.
Since the employment can be made through an employment contract, would the stipulation of the parties in the contract prevail in determining the existence of EER or the employment status of the employee?
The SC held in one of its cases that stipulations in the contract alone is not controlling in determining the employer-employee relationship. The employment status is defined and prescribed by law and not by the parties.
For example, a person is working as a freelancer (working as an artist who makes paintings, portraits, hand-made crafts and other related items) and enters into contract with another person or company occasionally.
Does EER exist in this kind of work?
No EER exists in this kind of work. Freelancers are considered as self-employed and I think the work that they do would fall under the classification of an “independent contractor” rather than an employee.
In Sonza v. ABS-CBN, the court held that independent contractors often present themselves to possess unique skills, expertise or talent to distinguish them from ordinary employees. In the case, the specific selection and hiring of Sonza, because of his unique skills, talent and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees, is a circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an independent contractual relationship.
There are companies who outsource their janitorial services.
For example, if a janitor has been assigned with the company for 7 years already, is there a possibility that employer-employee relationship will exist between the janitor and the company, even though the employment contract of the janitor is with the service provider?
The janitors are outsourced personnel of the company. There exist an employer-employee relationship but only between the janitor and the contractor.
While the janitors formally report to the company and adhere to its rules and standards of work, if we apply the four-fold test, the control actually lies within the contractor. It is the contractor who has the power to select worker for engagement of works, they have the power of dismissal, they facilitate payment of wages, and have the power over the worker’s conduct.
Applying the test to determine the existence of an employee-employer relationship, a jeepney drivers operating in boundary system which was mentioned on the examples of cases where EE-ER relationship exist provided, can we not considered them a mere lessee of the jeepney?
Under the Labor Code, the law determines the nature of employment, regardless of any agreement expressing otherwise. While the jeepney drivers may enter into a lease contract with the owner of the jeepney, what would actually determine if there exist an EER is defined under the law.
In the case of Villamaria v. CA, the Supreme Court held that under the boundary-hulog scheme incorporated in the Kasunduan of the driver and the jeepney’s owner, a dual juridical relationship was created between them: that of employer-employee and vendor-vendee. The fact that the driver does not receive fixed wages but only the excess of the “boundary” given to the owner/operator is not sufficient to change the relationship between them. Indubitably, the driver performs activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the owner/operator.
The Labor Code defines “Rank and File Employees” by comparison with Managerial and Supervisory for the sake of the Book. Now, my question is that can we define or how should we define such a term without referring to the two other types of employees mentioned under Art. 219 of the Labor Code?
Aside from the express provision of law defining “rank and file employees” as those not performing managerial and supervisory functions, the Supreme Court in one of its cases defined them as those who are performing work that is routinary or clerical in nature.
Do on-call workers also have employer-employee relationship with the company/agency they work at?
On-call workers may have employer-employee relationship with their company. We have to first look at the nature of the work being done by the on-call workers. After determining the nature of their work, we can now apply the four-fold test or the two-tiered test to ascertain whether there is really an employer-employee relationship.
Is Contract Tracer considered Project Employee within the meaning of the law? If yes, can they be considered as regular employee IF the pandemic goes on for several more years?
Yes, they can be considered as project-based employees, provided that it is clearly agreed upon and the following requisites are present; First, the employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking. Second, the duration and scope of which were specified at the time they were engaged for such project. Contact tracing is the specific project, while the duration starts from the time of their employment until the end of this pandemic, it seemed not definite, nevertheless it is certain. Also, the court ruled in the case of Herma Shipyard v. Olivares that “performance by project-based employees of tasks necessary and desirable to the usual business operation of the employer will not automatically result in their regularization.”
For your second question, also yes, they can be considered as regular employees, if contract turned to be farcical, where the real intention of the employer is to prevent the employees from being regularized.
Probationary employment shall not exceed 6 months from the date the employee started working, otherwise they will be considered as regular employees.
Will it be reasonable for an employer to terminate a probationary employee exactly on her 6th month effective immediately?
Yes, In the case of Enchanted Kingdom Inc vs. Verzo, the probationary employee was terminated on the 180th day or 6th month. The Employer won this case as the law allowed termination of a probationary at the very last day of his probation period.
Given the rule that EER cannot be stipulated by parties; when the same agreed on different dates between the written contract and the actual first day of a probationary employee, what would be the reckoning period?
Let us put in a case: The contract of employment of Mr. Quezon provides that his first day of work was on April 24, 2017. However, prior to the signing of such a contract, Mr. Quezon was already rendering services to Company Bittermelon as if employed since January 1, 2017. Provided, the 4-fold test rule was established, notwithstanding the contract and rationale why the contract comes late. Assuming Mr. Quezon met the qualification set by his employer for regularization. Is it July 1, 2017, or October 24, 2017, the date of regularization of Mr. Quezon?
The date of Mr. Quezon’s regularization will be on July 1, 2017. Primarily the employees status are determined by the law and other case law. Article 282 of the Labor Code provides that “Probationary employment shall not exceed six months…”, so concluding that he should be regularized on October 24, 2017 is in violation of it. Six months must be counted from the time he started working or got employed, and not from the time he signed the contract, ruling otherwise will prejudice the employee.
Seasonal employment
An arrangement between an employer and a seasonal employee.
Seasonal employee
One who has been engaged to render work during a season.
Seasonal employment v. Project employment
S - involves work or services that are seasonal in nature or lasting for the duration of the season
P - employment itself is not automatically considered seasonal so as to prevent the employee from attaining regular status
Requisites to seasonal employment
The employer must show that
- the employee must be performing work seasonal in nature
- He had been employed for the duration of the season
When the seasonal workers are continuously and repeatedly hired to perform the same tasks or activities for several seasons or even after the cessation of the season, this length of time may likewise serve as badge of regular employment. T or F.
True.
Test of seasonal employment
Existence of the season.
Season
- period inside a calendar year
- cannot extend beyond a year
- period when the employer is justified in hiring additional help via seasonal employees due to increase of work, demand, or analogous thereto
- ex: harvest season in farms or fish pens, restaurants requiring additional help during graduation season or holidays
- ‘business season’
The start and end date of the season should be clearly stated in the seasonal employment contract. T or F.
True.
Burden of proof on seasonal employment
Burden lies on the employer. Season may be proven through various documentation such as previous year’s sales, orders, requests, workload, transactions, and similar thereto.
Regular Seasonal Employee
They are called to work from time to time, mostly during certain season. The nature of their relationship with the employer is such that during off-season, they are temporarily laid off but they are re-employed during the season or when their services may be needed. They are not, strictly speaking, separated from the service but are merely considered as on leave of absence without pay until they are re-employed. Their employment relationship is never severed but only suspended. As such they can be considered as being in the regular employment of the employer.
Requisites for regular seasonal employment
- The seasonal employee should perform work or services that are seasonal in nature
- They must have been employed for more than one season
If the seasonal worker is engaged only for the duration of one season, then, he does not attain regularity of employment as seasonal worker. T or F.
True.
Industrial-Commercial-Agricultural Workers Org. v CIR
Seasonal workers are not new workers. Petitioners contend that they are regular and old employees and, as such, they should have been re-hired at the start, in the month of October of each milling season, which usually lasts 5 months. Respondents, on the other hand, contend that these laborers are new, their employment terminating at the end of each milling season and, therefore, could not be re-admitted without the company violating the closed-shop agreement with the CAPAWA. Held: Petitioners, even if seasonal workers, were not “new workers” within the scope of the closed shop contract between the sugar central and the CAPAWA Union; hence, their discharge was illegal.
Employment of seasonal workers in sugar Centrals is not terminated at the end of each milling season. The cessation of the Central’s milling activities at the end of the milling season is not permanent or definitive; it is a foreseeable suspension of work, and both activities will be resumed, as they are in fact resumed, when sugar cane ripe for milling is again available. There is merely a temporary cessation of the manufacturing process due to passing shortage of raw material that by itself alone is not sufficient, in the absence of other justified reasons, to sever the employment or labor relationship between the parties.
Gapayao v. Fulo, et al.
For regular employees to be considered as such, the primary standard used is the reasonable connection between the particular activity they perform and the usual trade or business of the employer.
Farm workers generally fall under the definition of seasonal employees. We have consistently held that seasonal employees may be considered as regular employees. Regular seasonal employees are those called to work from time to time. The nature of their relationship with the employer is such that during the off season, they are temporarily laid off; but reemployed during the summer season or when their services may be needed. They are in regular employment because of the nature of their job, and not because of the length of time they have worked. The connection can be determined by considering the nature of the 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 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. Hence, the employment is also considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists.
Casual employment
An employment arrangement between an employer and a casual employee.
Casual employee
Neither a regular employee, project employee, nor a seasonal employee. Also known as contractual employees.
Requisites to casual employment
- The employee must perform work which are incidental to the usual trade or business of the employer (in direct contrast to the work of a regular employee)
- The employer must make such communication at the time of the probationary employee’s engagement
The principal test is that the employee should perform work that is only incidental to the usual trade or business of the employer employment and the employment should not exceed twelve months.
Casual
occasional, coming without regularity
Casual employee becomes regular after one year of service by operation of law. T or F.
True.
Regular appointment papers are necessary for casual employees to become regular. T or F.
False.
One year period in casual employment is reckoned from the hiring date. T or F.
True.
Repeated rehiring of casual employee does not necessarily make him a regular employee.
False.
The wages and benefits of a casual employee whose status is converted into regular employment should not be diminished. T or F.
True.
Fixed-term employment
An employment arrangement between an employer and a fixed-term employee.
Fixed-term employment is valid even if duties are usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s usual business or trade. T or F.
True.
Notice of termination is not necessary in fixed-term employment. T or F.
True.
Employee is deemed regular if the contract failed to state the specific fixed period of employment. T or F.
True.
Fixed-term employees rendering work beyond one year would result to regular employment. T or F.
False.
Hiring of fixed-term employees on a uniformly fixed 5-month basis and replacing them upon expiration of their contracts with other workers with the same employment status circumvents their right to security of tenure. T or F.
True.
Employment on a “day-to-day basis for a temporary period” will result to regular employment. T or F.
True.