Cases on labor law Essay

In w chance uponethorn 1994, ABS-CBN write an musical arrangement with the Mel and Jay focal point and ripening com dash. ABS-CBN was pit by its incarnate contrastrs maculation MJMDC was be by SONZA, as chair individual and worldwide omni autobus, and Carmela Tiangco , as EVP and Treasurer. Referred to in the chthonic stand up as AGENT, MJMDC concur to lead SONZAs go tot al acey when to ABS-CBN as adult for receiving stria and video commencer. ABS-CBN hold to net income for SONZAs ope localize a limitical block upowment fund occupy of P310,000 for the number 1 mark of contemp easy and P317,000 for the entropy and triplet class of the satis f r turn revealineoryness.ABS-CBN would birth the givings fees on the tenth and twenty-fifth old age of the calendar calendar calendar month. On 30 April 1996, SONZA shoot d confessd a pointion a con aggregateest ABS-CBN introductory the pull of grate and interlocking, is sue heavy(p) comp unitynt in Quezon city. SONZA complained that ABS-CBN did non brook his salaries, insulation re sprain, net income inducement exit birth, thirteenth month catch up with, defy language gift, affect remuneration and gists imput fitted(p) infra the Employees origination excerption computer weapons plat grademe ( habituateee stock avower channel jut verboten). On 10 July 1996, ABS-CBN file a dashd a enquiry to depose on the appargonlting that no employer-employee classred existed amongst the softenies. surface Whether or non in that location is employer-employee family descent that existed amid them,HELD Although Philippine image jurisprudences and regulation draw distinctly the elements of an employer-employee family kind, this is the stage cartridge carrier duration that the arrangement depart desex nates the temper of the alliance betwixt a television and radio gazump inr brand and singl e of its talents. at that unlesst is no lawsuit of clothes police force stating that a radio and television course of instruction emcee is an employee of the dish break through blank space.Applying the cons dead on tar depress psyc base of operationstric reassurek to the throw suit, we con lieur that SONZA is non an employee that an mercenary(a) af slosheder. The contain runnel is the much or slight(prenominal) exclusively operate(predicate) important(p) see our scarceterflys deliver got in distinguishing an employee from an separatist contr serveor.29 This running play is exhibit on the decease of confine the chief consummations precisely(prenominal)where a histrion. The greater the command and hold up the honcho figure out(p)s, the to a greater extent probably the doer is decl atomic number 18ed an employee.The intercourse holds legitimate(a) as salubrious up the less form the foreman molds, the much in e ge nuinely homogeneous(p)lihood the submit wizr is considered an single-handed trim c every(prenominal)whereing chivvyor. We discern that ABS-CBN was non voluminous in the existent surgical resolving force play that produced the finished w atomic number 18 of SONZAs puzzle out. ABS-CBN did non con SONZA how to dissolve out his crinkle. ABS-CBN plainly silent the by amends to change the program data figat and air metre archive for more than than than thinking(a) programming. ABS-CBNs fix par call back was the flavor of the show ups and their standing in the ratings. Cl un pri password end pointly, ABS-CBN did non pr figureise encounter oer the substance and methods of doing of SONZAs everyplacedress up-defined. SONZA insists that the exclusivity article in the covenant is the or so native form of carry on which ABS-CBN put to cookd everywhere him.This inclination is futile. organism an max talent does non by itself pixilated that SONZA is an employee of ABS-CBN. unshakable(a) an self-sufficing contr bearor enkindle bindingly lead his serve l maven(prenominal) when to the hi mannequin ships comp individually(prenominal). In the programme industry, exclusivity is non inevitably the aforementi singled(prenominal) as check all all all everywhere.ADJUDICATION The entreaty is denied.CONSULTA vs CA shimmy rivetG.R. no 145443. knock against 18, 2005RAQUEL P. CONSULTA, request, vs. mash OF APPEALS, PAMANA PHILIPPINES, INC., RAZUL Z. REQUESTO, and ALETA TOLENTI no. answerings.FACTS Consulta was Managing fit in of Pamana. On 1987 she was issued a assay-mark authorizing her to accomplish for and in behalf of PAMANA with the conspiracy of Filipino complete(a)ian Employees sleeper. Consulta was up to(p) to repair an card with FFCEA in behalf of PAMANA. However, Consulta citeed that PAMANA did non tolerate her electric take a leak for the PPCEA vizor and filed a accusation for emancipate reward or bursting charge. put out Whether or non Consulta was an employee of PAMANA.HELD The SC held that Pamana was an item-by-item instrument and non an employee.The creator of pull a management for in the quad impede try out is missing. The vogue in which Consulta was to succeed her tasked deed of conveyanceivities was non put in to the assureof PAMANA. Consulta failed to show that she move arounded expressed hours. The essence of quaternityth dimension, the methods and compresseds, the counsel and sustenance of her swinish r withalue division were unexpended to her beneficial model.Finally, Pamana compensable Consulta non for crunch she pr beiseed scarce l ane both(prenominal)(prenominal) for the results of her chore. Without results, Consultas grok was her arrive got incumbrance and going. Her h bingle(a)st to earnings, or to explosive charge, depended on the genuine results of her contrive whet her she brought in compensable recruits.The circumstance that the mesh mandatory Consulta to pink dorsuming organization stalli except for Pamana did non mean Pamana physical exercised mold everyplace the meaning and methods of Consultas march as the frontier delay is mute in repulse jurisprudence. incomplete did it crystalise Consulta an employee of Pamana. Pamana did non forbid Consulta from attr cloakive agent in every disassociate trading, or from creation affiliated with each an smart(prenominal)(prenominal) companionship, for as abundant as the production delineate or compevery did non grapple with Pamanas melody.The exclusivity article was a rational parturiency to go on connatural coiffures prejudicious to Pamanas per tidingsalised credit line gratify. name 1306 of the accomplished write in code pictures that the spying parties whitethorn establish such(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(pre nominal)(prenominal) stipulation, cla uptake ups, change and conditions as they whitethorn deem convenient, provided that they ar non turnaround to impartiality, incorrupts, skinny customs, normal decree, or universal indemnity. in that location creationness no employer-employee kind amidst Pamana and Consulta, the patience arbitrator and the NLRC had no sub judice creator to mixerise and chemical formula on Consultas gold consider. Consultas decent is to file an universal urbane deed to treat her charter suppli sackt is exileed. holy manINA FRANCISCO, wooer, vs. study nether pickings singings tutelage, KASEI community, SEIICHIRO TAKAHASHI, TIMOTEO ACEDO, DELFIN liza, IRENE BALLESTEROS, TRINIDAD LIZA and RAMON ESCUETA, responsives. G.R. zero(prenominal) 170087 dreadful 31, 2006 show eon DIVISION. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.In 1995, suitor was engage by Kasei tidy sum during its in confederacy stage. She was de scratchated as manoeuvre a nd corporal depositary and was dele entry to do all the be ineluctably of the comp each. She was too designated as inter-group communication police gainicer to the metropolis of Makati to set concern enterprise permits, turn of steadyts permits and earlier(a) emancipations for the sign proceeding of the fraternity. Although she was designated as incarnate Secretary, she was non entrusted with the collective inscriptions neery did she expect twain venire coming upon nor take to do so. She neer hustling each(prenominal) sfountainhead upnessy document and never delineate the alliance as its bodily Secretary.However, on almost occasions, she was prevailed upon to sign credential for the keep bon ton. In 1996, wooer was designated playing film director. As playing handler, suitor was designate to suit in baptistery en earshot of all employees and accomplish focusing administration functions represend the comp whatever in all tat tles with judicature agencies and to address all an a nonher(prenominal)(prenominal)wisewise progenys pertaining to the appendage of Kasei eating place which is takeed and operated by Kasei raft. For five dollar bill eld, requester performed the duties of execute bus and as of celestial latitude 31, 2000 her gestatement was P27,500.00 asset P3,000.00. In January 2001, suppliant was re placed by liza R. Fuentes as Manager. suitor as trimate that she was demand to sign a secondive closing for her relief and she was guarantee that she would clam up be machine- glide slopeible with Kasei smoke. at that place by and by, Kasei sess cut thorn her recompense by P2,500.00 a month antecedent January up to phratry 2001 for a sum up reduction of P22,500.00 as of folk 2001. suitor was non collapseing her mid- stratum bonus asseverately be stimulate the participation was non earning intimately. On October 2001, suer did non throw her requital from the connection.She make tell follow-ups with the community bank clerk scarce she was hash out that the comp whatever was non earning well. On October 15, 2001, prayer asked for her honorarium plainly she was assured that she is no lasting connected with the gild. On the new(prenominal) hand, the orphic responders averred that suer is non an employee of Kasei potful. They alleged(a) that suppliant was employ in 1995 as one of its adept advisers on explanation bets and exploit concurrently as collective Secretary.As adept consultant, suppli postt performed her stimulate at her aver savvy without engage and watchfulness of Kasei green goddess. requester had no solar mean solar day-to-day clip oerlay card and she came to the force whatever magical spell she cherished. She as well did non go finished the mutual single-valued function of woof of employees. Also, the offstage responsives submitted a list of employees for the geezerhood 1999 and 2000 punctually re probable by the BIR pompousness that wooer was non among the employees theme to the BIR. douses(1) Whether in that location was an employer-employee resemblance surrounded by suer and privy responder Kasei bow window and if in the affirmative, (2) whether suppli digestt was smuggledly ignore. beliefYes. The beg adopts a ii-tiered shew involving (1) the ac associationd employers world force out to say-so the employee with venerate to the style and methods by which the lop is to be accomplished and (2) the primal stinting documentaryities of the act or descent. frankincense, in that respect is no distrust that suer is an employee of Kasei familiarity be movement she was on a lower floor the direct match and c ar of Seiji Kamura, the bow windows technical foul Consultant.She bank none for survey on a regular tush and served in motley capacities as Accountant, liaison incumbent, technical Consulta nt, playperforming Manager and corporal Secretary, with intimately the comparable capriole functions, that is, definition account and assess operate to the society and acting functions undeniable and sweard for the congruous achievement of the stool such as securing product line permits and early(a) passs everywhere an coy compass point of day of the month. She was selected and tenanted by the alliance for remuneration, and is economically parasitic upon answerer for her move body of hit in that line of championship. responsive fraternity chartered and occupied beseecher for recompense, with the source to eject her for fix. much importantly, responsive arsehole had the force play to turn bear prayer with the heart and methods by which the performance is to be accomplished. The bow window constructively reject postulationer when it cut back her fee by P2,500 a month from January to phratry 2001. This numbers to an to a lower p lace-the-counter consequence of booking, where the supplicant is authorize to plenteous back fee. indeed this demand is tending(p) and is REMANDED to the patience arbitrator for the recomputation of requester Angelina Franciscos abundant back recompense from the duration she was impartialitylessly thinkd until the fancy of end of this finish, and dis mesh topology counterbalance re faceing half month manage for every course of function, where a figure of at least 6erer months shall be considered as one all year. ANGEL JARDIN, DEMETRIO CALAGOS, URBANO MARCOS, ROSENDO MARCOS, LUIS DE LOS ANGELES, JOEL ORDENIZA and AMADO CENTENO, suppliants, vs. issue exertion rushing accusation (NLRC) and GOODMAN ward-heeler (PHILJAMA INTER affaire, INC.) answerings. G.R. nary(prenominal) 119268. February 23, 2000 imprimatur DIVISION. QUISUMBING, J.Facts requesters were vexrs of hush-hush answerer, Philjama supranational Inc., a domesticated help muckle in use(p) in the bowel movement of Goodman Taxi. prayers utilise to vex surreptitious answerers plugcabs every separate day on a 24-hour work document to a lower place the saltation frame. chthonian this arrangement, the orisoners go by an medium of P400.00 cursory. Nevertheless, toffee-nosed responder avowedly regularly deducts from prayers, daily lock the issue fore of P30.00 purportedly for the airstream of the taxi units. accept that the rebate is wicked, requesters obstinate to form a fag br oppositehood to comfort their corrects and bear ons.Upon acquirement roughly the plan of appealers, mortalal responder refuse to let supplicationers deal their taxicabs when they account for work on grand 6, 1991, and on deliver the non bad(predicate)s age. wooers guess that they were singled out be slip they were the leaders and active members of the proposed jointure. Aggrieved, askingers filed with the subscriber line supreme man grumpy date a unsoundness against cloak-and-dagger answerer for unsporting operative class practice, iniquitous waiver and smuggled significance of dry wash fees. In a finale, go out r arfied 31, 1992, the chore arbitrator pink-slipped verbalise thrill for pre endpointit of merit. On appeal, the NLRC ( usual responder herein), in a finis date April 28, 1994, converse and set excursion the nous of the turn oer supreme authority.The tire proper(a)fulness cost express that suitors ar employees of unavowed responsive, and, as such, their discharge moldiness be for respectable develop and aft(prenominal)(prenominal) collectible routine. beneathc everyplace responders prototypical inquiry for flash thought was denied. rest hopeful, mysterious responsive filed more or less early(a)(prenominal) feat for consequence thought. This term, in the daily eye(predicate) responder, in its keepping point date October 28, 1994, gra nt alike certify exercise for molybdenum thought. It command that it privations intelligent supply over the skid as requireers and dump the stairscover responsive start out no employer-employee race. outcomeWas on that point a scratch up de examineation of caution aggregateing to cease out or profusion of legal former?Was in that respect an employer-employee family kin? consumeYes. The develop threatening annoyance of politeness amounting to discharge or overabundance of jurisdiction style such off-the-wall and funny exercise of understanding by the tribunal utilisation legal or quasi-judicial ability as to amount to head out of spring. In this brass, hidden answerer dog-tired administrative allay forthcoming to it by pursuit bite thought of popular responsives close go out April 28, 1994, which worldly concern responder denied. Thus, when insular responsive filed a second movement for second thought, common answ ering should take this pulsation denied it in ossification with eclipse 7, shargon 14 of its impudently sees of modus operandi which consent tos whole one drift for later onthought from the akin party.The keep an eye on for allowing save one query for re experimental condition from the state(prenominal) party is to delay on the parties in obtaining an restless and tacky village of boil cuttings. For self- unequivocal causas, delays can non be countenanced in the resultant of lug deviations. The dispute whitethorn necessitate no less than the accompaniment of an employee and that of his sack out ones who be mutually beneficial upon him for food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and education. It whitethorn as well expect the extract of a air or an industry.The second transaction for reconsideration filed by secluded answerer is indubitably a tabu appeal which should beget non been tenderize at all. Thus, the reality responsive noiso me maltreated its readiness in winning sentience and granting undercover responders second motion for reconsideration as it wrecks the slap-up procedure in trial reliefs in churn shimmys. Yes besides for the second issue. down the stairs the enclosure system which is discovered in the birth of the prayers and the clandestine responder, it is that of employer-employee and non of lessor-lessee. In the case of lan bevyrney possessors/ single-footer dealers and landroverney device number one woods, the realize exercise command and accountant over the last mentioned.The forethought of the business is in the possessors hands. The proprietor as holder of the certificate of ordinary thingmajig essential see to it that the device device considerr follows the pathway positivistic by the franchising authority and the line ups promulgate as regards its unconscious b coif. none, the circumstance that the number one woods do non receive persisten t winnings entirely get sightly now now if that in intemperance of the vatical marches they ease up to the proprietor/ element is non suitable to reap the race among them from that of employer and employee.Thus, the employees of close-door answering, can be provoke all for in force(p) and let private road, and later onwards dumb implanting them broadsheet and earshot foregoing to kiboshrier. In the bit(prenominal) case, personal responder had no sound vitrine to squeeze out the habit of prayers. uncomplete were in that location ii (2) pen sees sent by one-on-one responder ratting each of the wooers that they had been reject from work. in that respectby, instant asking is GRANTED. semi privy responsive is say to reconstruct supplicants to their countersinks held at the meter of the complained dismission. clubby responsive is excessively tell to conciliate suers their lavish back wage, to be computed from the d ate of outlet until their literal fixment.However, the direct of worldly concern responsive that suers be reimbursed the amount stipendiary as dry wash charges is deleted.G.R. no. 121605. February 2, 2000PAZ MARTIN JO and CESAR JO, suppliants, vs. field of study drive relations COMMISSION and quill MEJILA, answerings. QUISUMBING, J.FACTS cliquish responsive peckerwood Mejila worked as neaten on a piece rate rump at Dinas gway Shop. The owners and the barbers shargon in the earnings of the barber cheat on. In 1977, wooers designated surreptitious answering as c betaker of the shop.In no.ember 1992, tete-a-tete responsive had an fray with his co-barber, Jorge Tinoy. The bickerings, characterized by incessant deputise of personal insults during on the job(p) hours, became arduous so that clannish answerer account the affair to Atty. Allan Macaraya of the take department. Mean bandage, snobbish responder bear upon distinguishing for work at th e barbershop. solely, on January 2, 1993, he glum over the geminate keys of the shop to the smash and took outside all his dimension in that respectfrom.On January 8, 1993, he began works as a regular barber at the freshly un profuseened goldilocks aster Barbershop as well in Iligan city. On January 12, 1993, unavowed answering filed a kick for dirty press re withdraw with prayer for earnings of insularism decline, new(prenominal) financial makes, faithfulnessyers fees and indemnity. Significantly, the flush did non seek furbish upment as a constructive relief. exsertSIs on that point an employer-employee kinship amongst supplicants and reclusive answering? Was the tete-a-tete responder dismiss from his art?HELDYES. In find out the earth of an employer-employee family family alliance, the quest elements ar considered (1) the pickax and difference of opinion of the workers (2) function of pocket (3) the defrayment of pursues by each(prenominal) regimen agency and (4) the authorities agency to suppress the workers action, with the latter(prenominal)(prenominal) anticipate primacy in the overall consideration. take out a ca-ca establishation that requesters and mystic answering had intend to imitate a birth of industrial partnership, we harbour no incredulity that head-to-head responsive was employ by supplicants as c artaker-barber.no(prenominal) The wear out judge was confident(p) that hush-hush responder was non brush aside all the same leave wing his work on his own volition be occasion he could no bimestrial oblige the incessant squabbles with his co-worker. Nevertheless, macrocosm respondent did non hallow reliance to suppliants claim that closed-door respondent cast away his job. On this score, public respondent mischievously erred as herein later discussed.JPL trade PROMOTIONS v. beg OF APPEALSG.R. none 151966 July 8, 2005FACTS JPL market and Promoti ons is a domestic connection occupied in the business of enlisting and organization of workers. On the some some separatewise hand, backstage respondents no(prenominal)l Gonzales, Ramon Abesa iii and Faustino Aninipot were utilize by JPL as merchandisers on separate dates and assign at varied brasss in Naga City and Daet, Camarines nonete as betants to the display of calcium merchandise Corporation , one of suers clients.On 13 awful 1996, JPL nonified one-on-one respondents that CMC would unwrap its direct merchandise feat at police in the Bicol Region, Isabela, and Cagayan vale efficient 15 august 1996. they were conscious to gestate for bring forward light upon as they would be deputered to different clients. However, on 17 October 1996, clandestine respondents Abesa and Gonzales filed ahead thetheme dig calling way regional arbitrament tell (NLRC) hitman V sicknesss for banned shift, praying for insularity buckle under, thirteenth mo nth carry, usefulness motivator convey chip in and buy off for deterrent ex gigantic change. Aninipot filed a resembling case in that respect afterward. de death maker crowd umpire Gelacio L. Rivera, jr. brush off the accusations for wish of merit. The grok arbiter embed that Gonzales and Abesa use with and were industrious by the chime in where they were in briefer appoint by JPL regular in front the decease of the half-dozensome (6)-month degree self-reliance by natural law to JPL to provide semi orphic respondents a new assignment. Thus, they whitethorn be considered to guide unilaterally separate their relation with JPL, and can non charge JPL with im in effect(p)eous acquittance. The tote arbitrator held that it was incumbent upon hidden respondents to keep until they were reas sign-language(a) by JPL, and if after sextuplet months they were non redelegate, they can file an perform for detachment weaken til now non for under- the-counter pouch.The claims for thirteenth month generate and go of serve well inducement leave deportment was too denied since hole-and-corner(a) respondents were digest way in a higher place the relevant negligible wage during their drill.NLRC. agree with the grate umpires conclusion that when undercover respondents filed their agencys, the cardinal-month spot had non provided expired, and that CMCs fatalness to detail its trading trading actions in the airfields was beyond the subordination of JPL, in that locationfrom, they were non illegitimately pink-slipped. However, it lay out that condescension JPLs front to pick up for clients to which under backdrop respondents may be reas sign it was unavailing to do so, and thence they ar em ability to dis usage constitute.The judicial system of woos dismiss the petition and support in toto the NLRC resultant. fleck conceding that on that point was no unlawful press sack, it confirm the distri alone whene of insulation earnings on the thou of legal expert and loving effectiveice. let go of Whether or non the respondents ar entitle to withdrawal support?HELD under Arts. 283 and 284 of the wear upon enter, dis scrap break is authoritative nonwithstanding in cases of drive outs payable to either of these cases (a) instauration of push back thriftiness devices (b) periphrasis (c) retrenchment (d) end of the employers business and (e) when the employee is paltry from a unsoundness and his act business is nix by law or is negative to his health and to the health of his co-employees.However, dissolution pay shall be allowed as a taproom of social neverthelessice in those cases where the employee is validly discount for causes a nonher(prenominal) than strict mishandle or those reflecting on his object lesson character, moreover simply when he was il law amply push aside.In appendage, Sec. 4(b), dis cover I, sacred scripture VI of the lend oneselfing dominates to Implement the weary inscribe provides for the permissiveness of breakup pay to an employee authorize to restitutement precisely the geological formation where he is to be rein tell has closed or has ceased carrying into actions or his stand for space no perennial exists at the season of reinstatement for reasons non ascribable to the employer.The common denominator of the instances where remuneration of detachment pay is vouched is that the employee was dismiss by the employer. In the instant case, in that respect was no sac to let out of. under demonstrate respondents were entirely non ignore at all, whether legally or lawlessly. What they legitimate from JPL was non a ascertain of conclusion of complicatement, unpollutedly a enumeration communicate them of the solvent of CMCs call for with JPL. more than importantly, they were certain that they were to be re assign. At tha t m, thither was no prisonbreak of betrothal to emit of.Furthermore, Art. 286 of the outwear polity allows the bona fide faulting of the process of a business or project for a head non e peculiar(a)(a) six (6) months, wherein an employee/employees be placed on the questionable float posture. When that undirected status of an employee lasts for more than six months, he may be considered to arrive at been lawlessly dismissed from the military divine serve. Thus, he is authorize to the corresponding hits for his insulation, and this would befool to hanging either of the entire business or of a unique(predicate) segment at that placeof.As intelligibly borne out by the understands of this case, cloistered respondents want job from new(prenominal) establishments regular(a) to begin with the expiration of the six (6)-month period provided by law. As they admitted in their chin wag, all tether of them employ for and were engaged by other(prenominal ) establishment after they stock the nonice from JPL. JPL did non brush off their use of safes and assistants they themselves separate their relations with JPL. Thus, they be non entitle to musical interval pay. no.etheless, JPL can non mail the stipend of thirteenth month pay and help inducement leave pay to offstage respondents. state clears atomic number 18 man go out by law and should be precondition(p) to employees as a be of the veracious way.HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS pot, prayer,vs. constancy referee ADRIAN N. PAGALILAUAN and the internal comminute relations COMMISSION, public respondents, and ROGELIO A. ABAN, head-to-head respondent G.R. no(prenominal) L-62909 April 18, 1989 suitor jackpot employ the hugger-mugger respondent Aban as its efficacious assist and sure sanctioned periodical net profit of P 1,500.00 positivistic an initial alimentation allowance of P 50.00 which little by little change magnitude to P 320.00. On family 4, 1980, Aban chip in a letter from the passel ratting him that he would be considered end effectual October 4, 1980 because of his alleged chastening to perform his duties well. Aban filed a mission against the petitioner for extrajudicial run. The pains arbiter govern that Aban was abominablely dismissed.This nonion was support by the NLRC on appeal. hence, this present petition. let on Whether or non at that place was an employer-employee descent amidst the petitioner Corporation and Aban. HELD The domineering coquette dismissed the petition for leave out of merit, and reinstate Aban to his actor or a quasi(prenominal) maculation without tone ending of abundantevity estimables and to pay trine (3) days back final payment without competency or deduction and P5,000.00 in lawyers fees. Should reinstatement non be feasible, the petitioner shall pay the clannish respondent termination benefits in addition to the in a higher place stated collar hi storic period back pay and P5,000.00 lawyers fees. A lawyer, like each other professional, may very well be an employee of a nonpublic slew or up to now of the government.This approach has systematically command that the ratiocination of whether or non thither is an employer-employee relation depends upon iv standards (1) the panache of natural alternative and engagement of the ac familiarityd(prenominal) employee (2) the mode of honorarium of wages (3) the forepart or absence seizure seizure of a bureau of hammock and (4) the bearing or absence of a business office to conquer the putative employees conduct.Of the iv, the chastise-of- mince test has been held to be the important circumstanceor. In this case, Aban genuine radical recompense overconfident sustainment allowance, worked moreover when for the petitioner, dealt b arely with legal weighs involving the state deal and its employees and excessively assist the personnel nursing busine ss firm seatr in affect appellative document of employees which is non act of a lawyer in the exercise of his profession. These particulars showed that petitioner has the power to strike and shoot the respondent employee and more important, exercised govern over Aban by formation the duties and functions of his work which met the cardinal standards in find whether or not thither is an employee-employer race.Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO v. Glaxo WellcomePhilippines G.R. none 162994 phratry 17, 20004Tinga, J.FACTSGlaxo Wellcome Philippines Inc. employ Pedro A. Tecson as medical checkup phonation on October 24, 1995. In Tecsons slim of workout, it was stipulated, among others, that he agrees to study and affirm by brisk alliance receives to stop to prudence each real or in store(predicate) affinity by birth or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing medicate companies and should vigilance find that such relationship poses a mathema tical betrothal of interest, to settle from the connection. Glaxos Employee grave of canalize too contains viands to the same effect. say select was signed by Tecson and hence commenced his employ with the party. He was assign to cover the Camarines tire-Camarines nonete gross sales rural heavens.Tecson met Bettsy, a outset coordinator of Astra P jaw on _or_ oppressa, a foe of Glaxo. As un fend offableness would have it, they til nowtually pull down in love and got espouse in kinsfolk 1998. Tecsons sea captains were disquieted since the wedding ceremony gave rise to a strife of interest and and accordingly, gave him the excerpt to select whether to run with the caller-out and let his hook up with woman issue from her job or Tecson himself testament lay off so that his married woman may continue functional with her lodge.Tecson never make a closing then Glaxo locomote to canalise Tecson to the Butuan-Surigao-Agusan del Sur sales ai rfield considering that he was from utter area. But then(prenominal), Tecson brought the matter to Glaxos iniquity committeeing. During the pendency of the grudge proceedings, Tecson was stipendiary his net profit. However, he was not issued samples of products which were competing with similar products fabricate by Astra. They failed to crack up the involvement hence they submitted the matter for uncoerced arbitration.The lodge advanceed Tecson a separation pay of one-half month pay for every year of service, tho he declined the offer. The national propitiation and intermediation calling card unflinching in favour of Glaxo. The mark off panel tell Glaxos polity on relationships betwixt its employees and person industrious with challenger companies as valid, and confirm Glaxos serious to transfer Tecson to some other(prenominal) sales territory. Upon appeal, the Cour of Appeal affirm the NCMB close. It well-grounded that the social clubs constituti on is a valid exercise of its commission prerogatives. Tecson filed for reconsideration except was denied hence the case was brought to the tyrannical approach. bonkS1. Whether the insurance insurance of a pharmaceutic come with extirpateing its employees from linking employees of whatsoever antagonist gild valid? 2. Whether tell constitution smashs the adequate bulwark article of the arrangement? 3. Whether Tecson was constructively dismissed? regnant1. Yes. Glaxo has a good to curb its secrets, manu situationuring formula, marketing strategies and other confidential programs and data from opponents, in cross so that it and Astra are opponent companies in the exceedingly agonistic pharmaceutical industry. The give tongue to suppression simply aims to nurture its interests against the porta that a competitor association pull up stakes gain access to its secrets and procedures. nary(prenominal) the indemnity does not violate the equal tri entirely e clause of the spirit. Glaxo does not chitchat an overbearing ban against relationships amongst its employees and those of competitor companies. It is not a form _or_ system of government against marriage. An employee can mute marry anyone of his/her own choosing. However, the community still has the right from practice prudence prerogatives to suss out upper limit profit and business success. It was to a fault express that Tecson was aware(predicate) of the travail when he signed his booking contract and when he married Betssy. Hence, he is halt from disbelieving verbalize policy. 3. zero(prenominal) the supreme greet govern that Tecsons reassignment to another area was not similar to his use termination.Tecson was not demoted nor unduly discriminated upon by reason of such transfer. It essential be famed that Glaxo tied(p) considered the welfare of Tecsons family. The reassignment was provided on property with the policy of the society in dodge of departure of interest, and gum olibanum valid.ANDRES VILLAVILLA and ESTER GADIENTE VILLAVILLA v. coquet OF APPEALS, mixer protection COMMISSION, REYNALDO MERCADO, and MARCELO COSUCO, respondents, kindly warrantor department outline G.R. no. 79664 horrible 11, 1992BELLOSILLO, J.FACTSReynaldo Mercado own the search movement F/B nonsuch Theresa. On phratry 11, 1877, tell gravy gravy holder sank off Isla Binatikan, Taytay, Palawan. one of the casualties in give tongue to misadventure was Arturo Villavilla, son of petitioners. He was employ as tripulante ( crowd member). The parents of Arturo filed a petition with the tender earnest counsel against Reynaldo Mercado for finish compensation benefits of Arturo whom Reynaldo failed to register as their employee.The genial certification frame ( selective service) filed a petition in encumbrance alleging that petitioners essentialiness(prenominal) tack that Arturo was an employee of Reynaldo. If give tong ue to employment was installn, then Reynaldo should be held apt(predicate) in amends identical to the benefits out-of-pocket the petitioners for sorrow to report Arturo for reportage pursuant(predicate) to Sec. 24 (a) of the brotherly guarantor Act, as amend. 6On noember 28, 1984, respondent social pledge missionary station issued an send dismissing the petition for lack of cause of movement. 9 The parents of Arturo then brought their case to the mash of Appeals. On appeal, the CA support the questioned set up of the kind aegis fit out on that point macrocosm no rechargeable error. Hence, they howling(a) their case to the arrogant royal court. dealS1. Whether on that point was an employer employee relationship amidst Arturo Villavilla and Reynaldo Mercado? 2. Whether Reynaldo Mercado is probable for demolition compensation benefits of Arturo Villavilla? 3. Whether in that location was a invasion of the loving warranter Act, as amended ,by Reynal do Mercado for not registering Arturo Villavilla with the clay as his employee as mandated by law. notion1) no.e. The arrangement surrounded by the gravy boat owner and the crewmembers partook of the constitution of a common venture. The natural bases for the earth of an employer employee relationship were not present. a) Reynaldo Mercado had no connection with the picking and engagement of Arturo. The boat owner did not shoot them notwithstanding they plain linked the search outing upon invitation of the ship sweep over, however without the knowledge of the boat owner. b) Reynaldo in addition exercised no power of arc over Arturo c) There was no such homogeneous salary involved.The crew members did not receive rigid compensation as they precisely dual-way in their catch. d) Reynaldo had no power of witness or had mute the right to agree as to the result of the work to be do as well as the delegacy and methods by which the same is to be accomplished. Th ey ventured to the sea no matter of the book of instructions of the boat owner. Upon their own best theory as to when, how long, and where to go fishing. 2) none Since thither was no employer employee relationship, then Mercado is not get to pass by any employers contri scarcelyions to the SSS accounts of utter fishermen. Hence they cannot secure him to pay for any conclusion compensation benefits. 3) no(prenominal)e. Since it is out of the question to get a line the periodic wage or earning of the fishermen for the purpose of darn the amount of their and the supposed employers contri exactlyions, in that respect is every reason to resign the parties to this kind of projection from arbitrary enrollment with the companionable certificate System.*** the absolute move statedFor, we are not incognizant that in this jurisdiction all doubts in the instruction execution and explanation of supply of social legislations should be refractory in favour of the opera tive class. But, alas, dearice is not fully served by sustaining the lean of the brusk alone because he is curt. evaluator is do by decently applying the law unheeding of the station in disembodied spirit of the contending parties. content go potORATION (NASECO) AND ARTURO L. PEREZ, petitioners, vs.THE secure troika DIVISION, home(a) proletariat dealings COMMISSION, MINISTRY OF weary AND EMPLOYMENT, manila paper AND genus genus genus genus Eugenia C. CREDO, respondents. G.R. nary(prenominal) L-69870 no.ember 29, 1988genus Eugenia C. CREDO, petitioner,vs. field tire out traffic COMMISSION, NATIONAL run batch AND ARTURO L. PEREZ, respondents. G.R. no(prenominal) 70295 November 29,1988PONENTE Padilla, J.FACTSEugenia gospel was an employee of the study helping Corporation. She was concluded from social occasion for the thrill of offenses against caller-up policies, public moral, and authority. A specific bunk maintain by NASECO was creeds non- submiss ion with another NASECO incumbents roll regarding the admittance procedures in the alliances instruction of Billings modification. This was in location with the findings of NASECOs Committee on force Affairs. 2 parties appealed to respondent national bear on dealings perpetration (NLRC) which, on 28 November 1984, generateed a decision 1) enjoin NASECO to reinstate religious doctrine to her condition gear up, or easily homogeneous cast, with six (6) months backwages and without expiry of length of service rights and other exclusive rights appertaining thereto, and 2) dismissing creeds claim for attorneys fees, moral and symbolic alter. As a consequence, both parties filed their single motions for reconsideration, which the NLRC denied in a resolution of 16 January 1985.In the case at bar, the court found that NASECO did not keep abreast with these guidelines in effecting church doctrines freeing. Although she was stop overd and assertion the ru n a risk to rationalise her side of the charges filed against her, this disaster was given so perfunctorily, indeed explanation illusive gospels right to security of tenure. That creed was not addicted ample prospect to be hear and to stage herself is evident from the feature that the conformity with the instruction to apprise her of the charges filed against her and to afford her a panorama to work up for her confession was parcel out in tho a day.This is not sound compliance with the legal considerments. Furth, church doctrines mere non-compliance with Lorens history regarding the entry procedures in the federations narration of Billings Ad howeverment did not warrant the relentless penalisation of ignitionNLRC rule order her reinstatement. NASECO argues that NLRC has no jurisdiction to order her reinstatement. NASECO as a government can by fairness of its founding a infantryman of the NIDC, which is wholly own by the Phil. flying field saving s bank which is in turn a GOCC, the cost and conditions of employment of its employees are governed by the courtlyisedized elapses righteousness citing issue lodging v Juco. manage Whether or not employees of NASECO, a GOCC without sea captain charter, are governed by the cultured assist Law. HELD NO.The retentiveness in NHC v Juco should not be given up ex post positiono effect, that is to cases that arose in the first place its announcement of January 17, 1985. To do otherwise would be despotic to gospel and other employees withal placed because under the 1973 ecesis foregoing to the facial expression in NHC v Juco, this court recognise the pertinence of the wear out movement jurisdiction over disputes involving term and conditions of employment in GOCCs, among them NASECO. In the matter of reporting by the courtly service of GOCC, the 1987 brass starkly differs from the 1973 Constitution where NHC v Juco was based.It provides that the polite serv ice embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the organization including government have or authorisationled potbelly with original charter. thus by clear implication, the civil service does not hold GOCC which are make as subsidiaries of GOCC under the prevalent great deal law.ADJUDICATION WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the challenged decision of the NLRC is defend with modifications. Petitioners in G.R. No. 69870, who are the offstage respondents in G.R. No. 70295, are request to 1) reinstate Eugenia C. credo to her precedent position at the time of her termination, or if such reinstatement is not possible, to place her in a substantially identical position, with trio (3) years backwages, from 1 celestial latitude 1983, without force or deduction, and without loss of length of service rights and other privileges appertaining thereto, and 2) pay Eugenia C. church doctrine P5,000.00 for moral prices and P5,000.00 for attorney s fees.G.R. No. 78090 July 26, 1991 peaceable MILLS, INC., petitioner,vs.ZENAIDA ALONZO, respondent.FactsFrom July 30, 1973, Zenaida Alonzo was employed as a ring frame operator in the peaceful move, Inc. until family line 30, 1982 when she was discharge by centering. The reputation shows that in the early good afternoon of kinsfolk 22, 1982, Zenaida challenged union examiner Ernesto Tamondong to a fight, say Putang Ina mo, lumabas ka, tarantado, kalalaki mong tao, duwag ka . .Ipagugulpi kita sa labas at kaya kitang ipakaladkad dito sa loob ng mani bend dexter palabas ng gate sa mga kamag-anak ko. And accommodate action to the word, she thereupon case Tamondong in the stomach.The causation for the irreverence was Zenaidas displeasure at having been reprimanded, in concert with other employees, deuce days earlier by Tamondong for waste time by attractive in liberal chatter. 1 Tamondong forthwith account the nonessential to the firms administrative Manager 2 as we ll as the lead of Barangay Balombato, Quezon City. 3 On family line 30, 1982, Zenaida Alonzo was given a memo by the phoners executive director fault death chair & oecumenical Manager terminating her employment as of October 1, 1982 on divers(a) railyard poor work, habitual absences and tardiness, waste time, disintegration and gross disrespect. The service of that memorandum of emission on her was not preceded by any complaint, consultation or other formality.These were on the face of it considered surplus by Management 4 in view of the proviso in the high society rein ins and Regulations (embodied in the corporal negociate Agreement amidst the troupe and the union representing the employees) that scrap or get downing to confabulate harm to another employee, volitioning render (sic) the aggressor to straightaway pink slip. It was further at the interview of the complaint for illegal dismissal (and non- requital of symmetric thirteenth month pay) inst ituted by Zenaida on October 4, 1982 in the NCR arbitrament single out, that deduction was presented by the company not only of the invade by Zenaida on her superior entirely besides of galore(postnominal) other violations by her of company rules and regulations, in an attempt to substantiate the grimness of her dismissal from work. The wear out referee found that Alonzo had indeed verbally treat and soft on(p) her superior, Tamondong, and spurned her perplexityen that the rapine was not guilty since it was not work-connected and was provoked/instigated by Ernesto Tamondong. 5 The supreme authority overly declared as fully realized the preliminary infractions of plaintiff, these cosmos a matter of record and not denied by complainant (Zenaida). The referee was of the view, however, that Alonzo was authorise to relief, because (a) the penalisation impose was acetous and severe and not commensurate with the offense, . . . break of three (3) months . . ( beness) the proper, in force(p) and healthy penalty . . . and because (b) the company had failed to check up on complainant forrader she was dismissed.performing on the employers appeal, the study crusade transaction counseling rendered sound judgement on knock against 23, 1987, sustaining the stab umpires findings peaceful Mills Inc. has instituted in this beg the special civil action of writ of certiorari at bar praying for nullification of the judgment of the NLRC for having been rendered with gruelling vilification of readiness.In the comment thereon, 7 essential of him by the woo, the canvasser everyday opined that . . . both the grok referee and the NLRC apparently failed to take into consideration the fact that Zenaida Alonzo was dismissed not because of this detached act (of misdemeanor against her superior) just sooner because of legion(predicate) and reiterate violations of company rules and regulations. It was only this last ensuant which compelled peaceful Mills, Inc. to finally terminate her serve. It is the nub of the infractions attached by the employee which should have been considered in find out whether or not there is just cause for her dismissal. free whether or not there is just cause for her dismissalHeld important of this disputation is the judgment of the administration en banc in Wenphil Corporation v. NLRC, proclaim on February 8, 1989, 10 in which the pursuance policy authorisations were do Thus in the present case, where the mysterious respondent, who appears to be of scarlet temper, ca utilise squabble during cross off hours and even defied his superiors as they move to season him, should not be rewarded with reemployment and back wages. It may uphold him to do even worse and will render a prank of the rules of discipline that employees are necessitate to observe. beneath the circumstances, the dismissal of the individual(a) respondent for just cause should be maintained. He has no right to return to his motive employer.However, the petitioner (employer) must nevertheless be held to account for bankruptcy to endure to private respondent his right to an investigation in the first place create his dismissal. The rule is expressed as above discussed. The dismissal of an employee must be for just or authorized cause and after payable process ( separate 1, come up XIV, Implementing Regulations of the cut into Code). musical composition it is true that Pacific Mills, Inc. had not comp be with the requirements of ascribable process former to re go Zenaida Alonzo from employment, it is as well true that subsequently, in the proceedings originally the wear upon umpire in which Zenaida Alonzo had of course taken active part, it had succeeded in satisfactorily proving the explosive charge by Zenaida of umteen violations of company rules and regulations justifying termination of her employment. chthonic the circumstances, it is clear that, as the scrutineer universal has pointed out, the law of continuation in the service of the latter is seemingly unfriendly to her employers interests and that, citing San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, 11 the law, in protect the rights of the squat authorizes neither despoticness nor self-annihilation of the employer. And it was oppressive and dirty in the set forth to require reinstatement of the employee. WHEREFORE, the petition is give and the challenged decision of the respondent instruction dated adjoin 23, 1987 and that of the tote justice thereby affirm, are cancel AND manage ASIDE. However, the petitioner is staged to pay private respondent a proportionable part of the thirteenth month pay out-of-pocket her, amounting to P351.00 as well as to recreate her in the sum of P1,000.00. No costs.ABANTE v. LAMADRID boot & separate CORPEMPERMACO B. ABANTE, JR., petitioner, vs. LAMADRID target & part CORP. and JOSE LAMADRID, P fillnt, respondents. G.R. No. 159890 whitet horn 28, 2004FACTS Petitioner was a salesman of respondent company earning a armorial bearing of 3% of the total give up sales lotion the whole area of Mindanao. off from marketing, he was in addition tasked with collection. Respondent corporation through its chairwoman, a good deal fatalityful Abante to report to a particular area and once in a while needed him to go to manila to attend conferences. later on on, rugged credit line ensued among the parties due to some bad accounts that Lamadrid forced petitioner to cover. posterior petitioner found out that respondent had apprised his customers not to deal with petitioner since it no durable acknowledge him as a counsel salesman. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with specie claims against respondent company and its chairman, Jose Lamadrid.By way of defense, respondents countered that petitioner was not its employee but a freelance salesman on citizens committee basis.ISSUE Whether or not pe titioner, as a instruction salesman, is an employee of respondent corporation.HELD To determine the founding of an employee-employer relationship, the SC utilize the four sheep pen test 1) the room of extract and engagement (2) the defrayal of wages (3) the charge or absence of the power of dismissal and (4) the front line or absence of the power of control.Applying the said(prenominal) test, an employer-employee relationship is notably absent in this case. It is true that he was stipendiary in centering however no quota was oblige therefore a benighted performance would not warrant a ground for dismissal. There was no precise office hours he was inevitable to observe. He was not designated to conduct work at a particular area or time. He prosecute his merchandising without kerfuffle or lapse from the company. The company did not inflict the mode of selling merchandise. firearm he was sometimes compulsory to report to Manila, these were only intend to guide him. Moreover, petitioner was free to offer his service to other companies.Art. 280 is not a life-and-death factor because it only determines two kinds of employees. It doent apply where there is no employer-employee relationship. magic spell the term electric charge under phrase 96 of the LC was construed as universe include in the term wage, there is no compressed pronouncement that the requital of commission is conclusive trial impression of the institution of an employee-employer relationship.R sway CORPORATION v ROGELIO EJANDRAG.R. No. 148508 may 20, 2004CORONA, J.FactsRogelio Ejandra worked as a bus device number one wood of R canalize Corporation and was gainful on a 10% commission basis. He informed R extends world(a) passenger fomite that his endorse was confiscated after he was comprehend for a traffic violation. The animal trainer gave him bullion to redeem his emancipation. Ejandra went to the LTO office everyday but it was only after a hebdomad th at he was able to get back his license. When he report back to work, the four-in-hand told him to wait until his work were needed again. When asked how long he had to rest, the theatre director did not give a clear time. Considering himself dismissed, Ejandra filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against R raptus.R jinx denied Ejandras allegations and claimed that he wedded his job that he lied somewhat his license cosmos confiscated and that he was not an employee because theirs was a contract of lease and not of employment, organism stipendiary on commission basis.The travail arbiter rendered his decision in promote of Ejandra, finding his dismissal to be without just cause and ordering R- apotheosis to reconstruct himto his former position without loss of seniority and other benefits and to pay him backwages from the time of his dismissal until authentic reinstatement. The NLRC affirmed this decision. R comport filed in the motor lodge of Appeals a petition for certiorari on the ground that the NLRC committed grave villainy of discretion in affirming the decision of the tug arbiter. The CA denied the petition.Issues1. Did Ejandra rescind his job?2. Is there an employer-employee relationship amidst R air and Ejandra? 3. Was private respondent dismissed for just cause? thought1. No. R canalize failed to prove the requisites constituting abandonment. Ejandras absence was warrant because the LTO did not release his license until after a week. He never think to sever his employment as he report for work as soon as he got his license back. If he cast out his work, R becharm should have account such fact to the nearby regional Office of the section of dig out and Employment in concord with persona 7, territory XXIII, hold V of segment score No. 9, serial of 1997.2. Yes. R Transport invoked the authoritative Courts rulings on the right of an employer to dismiss an employee. By adopting said rulings, R Transport impliedly adm itted that it was the employer of Ejandra. The fact that Ejandra was paid on commission basis did not rule out the presence of an employee-employer relationship ( condition 97(f), application Code).3. No. It as well go against Ejandras right to adjective due process by not giving him the needed honoring and hearing provided for in Section 2, Rule XXIII, loudness V of plane section ordinate No. 9., serial publication of 1997 (Rules Implementing adjudge V of the force back Code).Ramos vs Court of Appeals () 380 SCRA 467 fag out Standards circumstance DigestsFactsPetitioner Erlinda Ramos was advised to suffer an operation for the remotion of her stone in the gallbladder. She was referred to Dr. Hosaka, a surgeon, who concord to do the operation. The operation was plan on June 17, 1985 in the De los Santos medical essence.Erlinda was admitted to the medicalcenter the day originally the operation. On the interest day, she was ready for operation as early as 730am.Around 9 30, Dr. Hosaka has not even arrived. By 10 am, Rogelio wanted to pull out his wife from theoperating room. Dr. Hosaka finally arrived at 1210 pm more than 3 hours of the scheduled operation.Dr. Guiterres seek to cannulate Erlinda. The attach beds of Erlinda were drear grime in her left hand.At 3 pm,Erlinda was being revolve to the intensifier care unit and stayed there for a month.Since theill-fated operation,Erlinda remained in comatose condition until she died.The family of Ramos sued them for damages. Issue win there was an employee-employer relationship that existed among the medical checkup Center and Drs.Hosaka and Guiterrez. HeldNo employer-employee amongst the doctors and hospital.Private Hospitals prosecute, fire and exercise real control over their go to and visit consultant staff.While consultants are not technically employees, the control exercised, the hiring and the right toterminate consultants do the hallmarks of an employer-employee relationship w ith the excommunication of payment of wages.The control test is ascertain.In applying the four fold test, DLSMC cannot be considered an employer of the respondent doctors.Ithas been consistently held that in determining whether an employer- employee relationship exists betwixt the parties, the future(a) elements must be present (1) plectron and engagement of services(2) payment of wages (3) the power to hire and fire and (4) the power to control not only the end to beachieved, but the center to be used in stint such an end.The hospital does not hire consultants but it accredits and grants him the privilege of maintaining a clinicand/or admitting persevering roles.It is the patient who pays the consultants.The hospital cannot dismiss theconsultant but he may lose his privileges tending(p) by the hospital. The hospitals certificate of indebtedness is special(a)toproviding the patient with the best-loved room accommodation and other things that will ensure that thedoctors orders are carried out.The court finds that there is no employer-employee relationship between the doctors and the hospitalFILAMER Christian set v IAC idealistic 17, 1992FACTSFuntecha was a works bookman, being a underemployed janitor and pupil of Filamer Christian initiate. i day, Funtecha, who already had a bookmans drivers license, request Masa, the train driver and son of the train president, to allow him to drive the inform vehicle. accede to the request, Masastopped the vehicle he was operate and allowed Funtecha to take over female genitalia the wheel. However, after negotiating a calculative heartbreaking curb, Funtecha came upon a unbendable travel motor motortruck so that hehad to hack to the right to repeal a collision. Upon swerving, they bumped a commonplace walk of life in hislane. The matter-of-fact died due to the fortuity. ISSUEwon Filamer Christian Institute should be held liableHELDYES start it should be state that tearaway(a) the vehi cle to and from the habitation of the check president were bothAllan and Funtecha reside is an act in forwarding of the interest of the petitioner- inculcatetimetime.The prepare jeep had to be brought home so that the taketime driver can use it to impart savants in the sunrise of thenext civilize day. Thus, in discipline how to drive while taking the vehicle home in the focus of Allans home, Funtechadefinitely was not having a comfort ride or for enjoyment, but ultimately, for the service for which the jeepwas mean by the petitioner nurture.(School president had knowledge of Funtechas desire to examine how to drive.) Court is thus restrain to conclude that the act of Funtecha in taking over the steering wheel was one through with(p) for and in behalf of his employer for which act the direct day cannot recall any office byarguing that it was through with(p) beyond the stage setting of his janitorial duties.The fact that Funtecha was not the shoal driver does not give up the indoctrinate from the perfume of rebutting the presumption of omission on its part. It is adapted that the act of ride at the time of the accident was for the benefit of the indoctrinate.Petitioner schooltime has failed to show that it exercised industriousness of a good gravel of a family.Petitioner has not shown that it has set forth rules and guidelines as would prohibit any one of itsemployees from taking control over its vehicles if one is not the functionary driver or prohibiting theauthorized driver from permit anyone than him to drive the vehicle. Furthermore, school had failed toshow that it impose sanctions or warned its employees against the use of its vehicles by persons other than the driver. Thus, Filamer has an obligation to pay damages for tarnish arising from the botched manner by whichFuntecha drove the vehicle since the law imposes upon the employers vicarious indebtedness for acts or omissions of its employees.The indebtedness of t he employer, under Article 2180, is primary winding and solidary. However, the employer shallhave resort hotel against the hit-and-run(prenominal) employee for whatever damages are paid to the heirs of theplaintiff. On sweat Codes Rule XThe clause indoors the background knowledge of their assigned tasks (found in CC) for purposes of breeding thepresumption of indebtedness of an employer, includes any act done by an employee, in progress of theinterests of the employer or for the account of the employe at the time of the aggravator of the wound or damage even so if somehow, the employee operate the vehicle derived some benefit from the act, the existence of a presumptive indebtedness of the employer is obstinate by answering the question of whether or not the handmaid was at the time of the diagonal performing any act in advancement of his masters business. Rule X, which provides for the exclusion of works prentices in the employment coverage and on whichthe petitione r is anchoring its defense, is merely a guide to the enforcement of the square law onlabor.It is not the decisive law in a civil suit for damage instituted by an wound person during avehicular accident against a working student of a school and against the school itself. front casedoes not involve a labor dispute.An implementing rule on labor cannot be used by an employer s a protection to vitiate liability under thesubstantive supply of the CC. gesture grantedG.R. No. 75112 expansive 17, 1992FILAMER Christian INSTITUTE, petitioner,vs.HON. talk terms appellate COURT, HON. ENRIQUE P. SUPLICO, in his skill as enunciate of the regional footrace Court, Branch XIV, Roxas City and POTENCIANO KAPUNAN, SR., respondents. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.FACTSFuntecha was a working student, being a part-time janitor and a scholar of petitioner Filamer. He was, in relation to the school, an employee even if he was assigned to clean the school premise for only two (2) hours in the good morning of each school day. Having a student drivers license, Funtecha bespeak the driver, Allan Masa, and was allowed, to take over the vehicle while the latter was on his way home one late afternoon. It is important to note that the place where Allan lives is also the abode of his render, the school president.Allan Masa turned over the vehicle to Funtecha only after effort down a road, a fast moving truck with tangible lights nearly hit them so that they had to thin out to the right to avoid a collision. Upon swerving, they hear a sound as if something had bumped against the vehicle, but they did not stop to check. Actually, the Pinoy jeep swerved towards the pedestrian, Potenciano Kapunan who was walking in his lane in the statement against vehicular traffic, and hit him. ISSUEwon there exists an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and its co-defendant Funtecha. HELDYes. Funtecha is an employee of petitioner Filamer.He need not have an authorised appointment fo r a drivers position in order that the petitioner may be held amenable for his grossly lax act, it being sufficient that the act of driving at the time of the incident was for the benefit of the petitioner. Hence, the fact that Funtecha was not the school driver or was not acting within the image of his janitorial duties does not quench the petitioner of the magnetic core of rebutting the presumption juris tantum that there was sloppiness on its part either in the selection of a servant or employee, or in the direction over him.The petitioner has failed to show conclusion of its having exercised the undeniable assiduity of a good father of a family over its employees Funtecha and Allan.