LABOR LAW CASE DIGESTS

I. APPLICABLE LAWS

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS vs TORRES

SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL vs NLRC

LETRAN CALAMBA FACULTY & EMPLOYEES ASSOC. vs NLRC

ASUNCION vs NLRC
362 SCRA 56

II. BASIC PRINCIPLES

SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY vs. HON. FRANKLIN DRILON

Facts:
Singer Machine Collectors Union-Baguio filed a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all collectors of Singer
Sewing Machine. The company opposed the petition mainly because the union members are not employees but independent contractors as evidenced by the
collection agency agreement which they signed. Med-Arbiter ruled that there exists an employee-employer relationship and granted the certification election
which was affirmed by Sec. Drilon. The company files the present petition on the determination of the relationship. The union insist that the provisions of
the Collection Agreement belie the company’s position that the union members are independent contractors.

Issue:
Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship between the parties.

SC Ruling:
The present case calls for the application of the control test, which if not satisfied, would lead to the conclusion that no employee-employer relationship
exists. If the union members are not employees, no right to organize for the purpose of bargaining or as a bargaining agent cannot be recognized. The
following elements are generally considered in the determination of the relationship: the selection and engagement of the employee, payment of wages,
power of dismissal and the power to control the employee’s conduct which is the most important element.

The nature of the relationship between a company and its collecting agents depends on the circumstances of each particular relationship. Not all collecting
agents are employees and neither are all collecting agents independent contractors. The agreement confirms the status of the collecting agents as independent
contractor. The requirement that collection agents utilize only receipt forms and report forms issued by the company and that reports shall be submitted at
least once a week is not necessarily an indication of control over the means by which the job collection is to be performed. Even if report requirements are to
be called control measures, any control is only with respect to the end result of the collection since the requirements regulate the things to be done after the
performance of the collection job or the rendition of service.

The plain language of the agreement reveals that the designation as collection agent does not create an employment relationship and that the applicant is to be
considered at all times as an independent contractor. The court finds that since private respondents are not employees of the company, they are not
entitled to the constitutional right to form or join a labor organization for the purposes of collective bargaining. There is no constitutional and legal basis
for their union to be granted their petition for direct certification.

MANILA GOLF CLUB, INC. VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

Facts:
This is originally filed with the Social Security Commission (SSC) via petitionof 17 persons who styled themselves as “ Caddies of Manila Golf and
Country Club-PTCCEA” for the coverage and availment of benefits of the Social Security Act as amended, PTCCEA (Philippine Technical, Clerical,
Commercial Employees Association) a labor organization where which they claim for membership. The same time two other proceedings were filed and
pending. These are certification election case filed by PTCCEA on behalf of the same caddies of Manila Golf and Country club which was in favor of the
caddies and compulsory arbitration case involving PTCCEA and Manila Golf and Country Club which was dismissed and ruled that there was no employer-
employee relationship between the caddies and the club.

Issue:
Whether or not rendering caddying services for members of golf clubs and their guests in said clubs’ courses or premises are the employees of such clubs and
therefore within the compulsory coverage of the Social Security System (SSS).

SC Ruling:
The Court does not agree that the facts logically point to the employer-employee relationship. In the very nature of things, caddies must submit to some
supervision of their conduct while enjoying the privilege of pursuing their occupation within the premises and grounds of whatever club they do work in.
They work for the club to which they attach themselves on sufferance but, on the other hand, also without having to observe any working hours, free to leave
anytime they please, to stay away for as long they like. These considerations clash frontally with the concept of employment. It can happen that a caddy who
has rendered services to a player on one day may still find sufficient time to work elsewhere. Under such circumstances, the caddy may leave the premises
and to go to such other place of work that he wishes. These are things beyond the control of the petitioner. The caddy (LLamar) is not an employee of
petitioner Manila Golf and Country Club and the petitioner is under no obligation to report him for compulsory coverage of SSS.
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA (Philippines), INC. vs. NLRC
[264 SCRA 4]

Facts:
Limjoco was a Sales Divison of Encyclopaedia Britannica and was in charge of selling the products through some sales representatives. As compensation, he
would receive commissions from the products sold by his agents. He was also allowed to use the petitioner’s name, goodwill and logo. It was agreed that
office expenses would be deducted from Limjoco’s commissions. In 1974, Limjoco resigned to pursue his private business and filed a complaint against
petitioner for alleged non-payment of separation pay and other benefits and also illegal deduction from sales commissions. Petitioner alleged that Limjoco
was not an employee of the company but an independent dealer authorized to promote and sell its products and in return, received commissions therein.
Petitioner also claims that it had no control and supervision over the complainant as to the manners and means he conducted his business operations. Limjoco
maintained otherwise. He alleged he was hired by the petitioner and was assigned in the sales department. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Limjoco was an
employee of the company. NLRC also affirmed the decision and opined that there was no evidence supporting allegation that Limjoco was an independent
contractor or dealer.

Issue:
Whether or not there was an employee-employer relationship between the parties.

SC Ruling:
There was no employee-employer relationship. In determining the relationship, the following elements must be present: selection and engagement of the
employee, payment of wages, power of dismissal and power to control the employee’s conduct. The power of control is commonly regarded as the most
crucial and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employee-employer relationship. Under the control test, an employee-employer
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 manner and
means to be employed in reaching that end. The issuance of guidelines by the petitioner was merely guidelines on company policies which sales managers
follow and impose on their respective agents. Limjoco was not an employee of the company since he had the free rein in the means and methods for
conducting the marketing operations. He was merely an agent or an independent dealer of the petitioner. He was free to conduct his work and he was free to
engage in other means of livelihood. In ascertaining the employee-employer relationship, the factual circumstances must be considered. The element of
control is absent where a person who works for another does so more or less at his own pleasure and is not subject to definite hours or conditions of work, and
in turn is compensated in according to the result of his efforts and not the amount thereof. Hence, there was no employee-employer relationship.

SUSAN CARUNGCONG vs. NLRC

Facts:
Susan Carungcong began her career in the insurance industry in 1974 as an agent of Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. She signed an Agent
Agreement with Sun Life. In virtue of which she was designated the latter’s agent to solicit applications for its insurance and annuity policies. This
contract was superseded some five years later when she signed two (2) new agreements. The first, denominated Career Agent’s or Unit Manager’s
Agreement, dealt with such matters as the agent’s commissions, his obligations, limitations on his authority, and termination of the agreement by death, or
by written notice with or without cause. The second was titled, Manager’s Supplementary Agreement.It explicitly described as a “further agreement”.
Carungcong and Sun Life executed another Agreement named New Business Manager with the function generally to manage a New Business Office
established. This latest Agreement stressed that the New Business Manager in performance of his duties defined herein, shall be considered an independent
contractor and not an employee of Sun Life, and that under no circumstance shall the New Business Manager and/or his employees be considered employees
of Sun Life. Ms. Eleizer Sibayan, Manager of Sun Life’s Internal Audit Department, commenced an inquiry into the special fund availments of Carungcong
and other New Business Managers. Respondent Lance Kemp, had been receiving reports of anomalies in relation thereto from unit managers and agents.
Thereafter, on January 1990, Carungcong was confronted with and asked to explain the discrepancies set out in Sibayan’s report. She was given a letter
signed by Metron V. Deveza, CLU, Director, Marketing, which advised of the termination of her relationship with Sun Life. Carungcong promptly
instituted proceedings for vindication in the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commissions on January 16, 1990.There she succeeded in
obtaining a favorable judgment. Labor Arbiter found that there existed an employer-employee relationship between her and Sun Life. On appeal, the National
Labor Relations Commission reversed the Arbiter’s judgment.It affirmed that no employment relationship existed between Carungcong and Sun Life.

Issue:
Whether or not there petitioner was an employee subject to control and supervision by Sun Life.

SC Ruling:
Noteworthy is that this last agreement which emphasized, like the “Career Agent’s or Unit Manager’s Agreement” first signed by her, that in performance of
her duties defined herein. Carungcong would be considered an independent contractor and not an employee of Sun Life, and that under no circumstance shall
the New Business Manager and/or his employees be considered employees of Sun Life. Carungcong is an independent contractor. It was indicated in the
very face of the contract. The rules and regulations of the company is not sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship. It does not necessarily
create any employer-employee relationship where the employers’ controls have to interfere in the methods and means by which employee would like
employ to arrive at the desired results. Carungcong admitted that she was free to work as she pleases, at the place and time she felt convenient for her to do
so. She was not paid to a fixed salary and was mainly paid by commissions depending on the volume of her performance. She was not an employee of Sun
Life Co.