Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 54 views

    Semblante Et Al., vs. Court of Appeals, Et Al.

    Uploaded by

    Marinelle Aycee Moleta Perral
    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no employer-employee relationship between Semblante and Pilar and the owners of the cockpit, Sps. Loot. While Semblante and Pilar worked regularly at the cockpit as a masiador and sentenciador, the Court found that Sps. Loot did not participate in selecting or managing them, they were paid from betting proceeds rather than by Sps. Loot, and they performed their functions independently without direction or control from Sps. Loot. As independent contractors, Semblante and Pilar relied on their own expertise rather than tools provided by Sps. Loot. Therefore, Sps. Loot could not have illegally dismissed Sembl

    Copyright:

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

    Semblante Et Al., vs. Court of Appeals, Et Al.

    Uploaded by

    Marinelle Aycee Moleta Perral
    54 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no employer-employee relationship between Semblante and Pilar and the owners of the cockpit, Sps. Loot. While Semblante and Pilar worked regularly at the cockpit as a masiador and sentenciador, the Court found that Sps. Loot did not participate in selecting or managing them, they were paid from betting proceeds rather than by Sps. Loot, and they performed their functions independently without direction or control from Sps. Loot. As independent contractors, Semblante and Pilar relied on their own expertise rather than tools provided by Sps. Loot. Therefore, Sps. Loot could not have illegally dismissed Sembl

    Original Title

    Semblante et al., vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no employer-employee relationship between Semblante and Pilar and the owners of the cockpit, Sps. Loot. While Semblante and Pilar worked regularly at the cockpit as a masiador and sentenciador, the Court found that Sps. Loot did not participate in selecting or managing them, they were paid from betting proceeds rather than by Sps. Loot, and they performed their functions independently without direction or control from Sps. Loot. As independent contractors, Semblante and Pilar relied on their own expertise rather than tools provided by Sps. Loot. Therefore, Sps. Loot could not have illegally dismissed Sembl

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    54 views2 pages

    Semblante Et Al., vs. Court of Appeals, Et Al.

    Uploaded by

    Marinelle Aycee Moleta Perral
    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no employer-employee relationship between Semblante and Pilar and the owners of the cockpit, Sps. Loot. While Semblante and Pilar worked regularly at the cockpit as a masiador and sentenciador, the Court found that Sps. Loot did not participate in selecting or managing them, they were paid from betting proceeds rather than by Sps. Loot, and they performed their functions independently without direction or control from Sps. Loot. As independent contractors, Semblante and Pilar relied on their own expertise rather than tools provided by Sps. Loot. Therefore, Sps. Loot could not have illegally dismissed Sembl

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Semblante et al., vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

    G.R. No. 196426 August 15, 2011


    Facts:
    Marticio Semblante and Dubrik Pilar were hired by Sps. Loot, owners of Gallera de Cebu as
    masiador and sentenciador of the cockpit. They work every Tuesday, Wednesday, Saturday,
    and Sunday every week, excluding monthly derbies and cockfights held on special holidays, for
    which they are paid P8,000 and P14,000 per month. However, in 2003, they were suddenly
    informed of their termination, prompting them to file a complaint for illegal dismissal against Sps.
    Loot.
    Sps. Loot deny that Semblante and Pilar were their employees and alleged that they were
    associates of respondents' independent contractor, Tomas Vega. They claimed that petitioners
    have no regular working time or day and are free to decide for themselves whether to report for
    work or not on any cock fighting day. They also assert, that Semblante and Pilar were only
    issued identification cards to indicate that they were free from the normal entrance fee and to
    differentiate them from the general public.
    The labor arbiter found the petitioners to be regular employees as they performed work that was
    necessary and indisputable to the usual trade or business of respondents for a number of years
    and ruled that they were indeed illegally dismissed. NLRC, however, held that there was no
    employer-employee relationship between petitioner and Sps. Loot, the couple having to part in
    the selection and engagement of petitioners.
    Semblante and Pilar went to CA on a petition for certiorari. CA ruled that there was no
    employer-employee relationship, noting that referees and bet-takers in a cockfight need to have
    the kind of expertise that is characteristic of the game to interpret messages conveyed by mere
    gestures. Hence, petitioners are akin to independent contractors. Further, respondents did not
    supply petitioners with the tools and instrumentalities they needed to work.
    Issue:
    WON there is employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and Sps. Loot.
    Ruling:
    No, petitioners are NOT employees of respondents, since their relationship fails to pass muster
    the four-fold test of employment We have repeatedly mentioned in countless decisions: (1) the
    selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of
    dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee's conduct, which is the most important
    element.
    As found by both the NLRC and the CA, respondents had no part in petitioners' selection and
    management; petitioners' compensation was paid out of the arriba (which is a percentage
    deducted from the total bets), not by petitioners; and petitioners performed their functions as
    masiador and sentenciador free from the direction and control of respondents. In the conduct of
    their work, petitioners relied mainly on their "expertise that is characteristic of the cockfight
    gambling," and were never given by respondents any tool needed for the performance of their
    work.
    Respondents, not being petitioner's employers, could never have dismissed, legally or illegally,
    petitioners, since respondents were without power or prerogative to do so in the first place.
    Petition is denied and CA's decision is affirmed.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy