Week 3 - Work Relationship Flashcards
Under Art. 97 of the Labor Code, what does a person mean?
Art. 97 (a). “Person” means an individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, legal representatives, or any organized group of persons.
LC. Art. 97 (b). “Employer” includes […] acting […] in relation to […] and shall include the government and all its branches, subdivisions and instrumentalities, all government-owned or controlled corporations and institutions, as well as non-profit private institutions, or organizations.
LC. Art. 97 (b). “Employer” includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee and shall include the government and all its branches, subdivisions and instrumentalities, all government-owned or controlled corporations and institutions, as well as non-profit private institutions, or organizations.
LC. Art. 97. (c). “Employee” includes […].
LC. Art. 97. (c). “Employee” includes any individual employed by an employer.
LC. Art. 173. (f) “Employer” means any person, natural or juridical, […].
LC. Art. 173. (f) “Employer” means any person, natural or juridical, employing the services of the employee.
LC. Art. 173. (g). “Employee” means […] under Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred eighty-six, as amended, including the […], and […], or any person compulsorily […] under Republic Act Number Eleven hundred sixty-one, as amended.
LC. Art. 173. (g). “Employee” means any person compulsorily covered by the GSIS under Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred eighty-six, as amended, including the members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and any person employed as casual, emergency, temporary, substitute or contractual, or any person compulsorily covered by the SSS under Republic Act Number Eleven hundred sixty-one, as amended.
LC. Art. 173. (h). “Person” means any […].
LC. Art. 173. (h). “Person” means any individual, partnership, firm, association, trust, corporation or legal representative thereof.
LC. Art. 219. (e). “Employer” includes […]. The term shall not include […].
LC. Art. 219. (e). “Employer” includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly. The term shall not include any labor organization or any of its officers or agents except when acting as employer.
LC. Art. 219. (f). “Employee” includes […]. 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 […] or because of any […] if he has not obtained any other substantially equivalent and regular employment.
LC. Art. 219. (f). “Employee” includes 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.
What is the quantum of evidence required to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship?
In Sonza v. ABS-CBN, “The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a question of fact. Appellate courts accord factual finding of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC not only respect but also finality when supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” [Sonza v. ABS-CBN GR No. 138051].
What are the elements of an employer-employee relationship?
The elements of an employer-employee relationship are: (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 on the means and methods which by which the work is accomplished. The last element, the so-called “control test”, is the most important element. [the Court citing petitioner’s pleadings in Sonza v. ABS-CBN GR No. 138051].
What is the “control test”?
“The control test is the most important test [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.” [Sonza vs. ABS-CBN GR No. 138051].
What is the quantum of evidence in labor cases?
Substantial evidence. In McLeod v. NLRC, the Court said “It is a basic rule in evidence that parties must prove their affirmative allegations. While technical rules are not strictly followed in the NLRC, this does not mean that the rules on proving allegations are entirely ignored. Bare allegations are not enough. They must be supported by substantial evidence at the very least.” [McLeod v. NLRC GR No. 146667].
Explain the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil.
“[The principle] that the corporate mask may be removed or the corporate veil pierced when the corporation is just an alter ego of a person or of another corporation. For reasons of public policy and in the interest of justice, the corporate veil will justifiably be impaled only when it becomes a shield for fraud, illegality or inequity committed against third persons.” [Sarona v. NLRC G.R. No. 185280].
When may the corporate veil be pierced?
“[A]ny application of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil should be done with caution. […] It must be certain that the corporate fiction was misused to such an extent that injustice, fraud, or crime was committed against another, in disregard of rights. The wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly established; it cannot be presumed. Otherwise, an injustice that was never unintended may result from an erroneous application.” [Sarona v. NLRC].
What are the three basic areas in which the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil can be applied?
The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil applies only in three (3) basic areas, namely: 1) defeat of public convenience as when the corporate fiction is used as a vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation; 2) fraud cases or when the corporate entity is used to justify a wrong, protect fraud, or defend a crime; 3) alter ego cases, where a corporation is merely a farce since it is a mere alter ego or business conduit of a person, or where the corporation is so organized and controlled and its affairs are so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit or adjunct of another corporation. [Sarona v. NLRC].
What is the general rule and exception in holding a corporate officer solidarily liable with the corporation for separation pay in illegal dismissal cases?
General rule: Corporate officers are not held solidarily liable with the corporation for separation pay because the corporation is invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from those of the persons composing it as well as from that of any other legal entity to which it may be related. Mere ownership by a single stockholder or by another corporation of all or nearly all of the capital stock of a corporation is not itself sufficient ground for disregarding the separate corporate personality.
Exception: To hold a director or officer personally liable for corporate obligations, two requisites must concur, to wit: (1) the complaint must allege that the director or officer assented to the patently unlawful acts of the corporation; (2) there must be proof that the director or officer acted in bad faith. [Lozada vs. Mendoza GR No. 196134].
When is there labor-only contracting?
There is labor-only contracting when the contractor or sub-contractor merely recruits, supplies or places workers to perform a job, work or service for a principal. [Escario v. NLRC GR No. 124055].