NDC vs CIR

No. L-15422. November 30, 1962.

P- National Development Co.

R- CIR, National Textile Workers Union

Art. 85 - Meal Periods

Facts:

GOCC NDC employed 4 shifts of work: a. 8am-4pm, b. 6am-2pm, c. 2pm-10pm, d. 10pm-6am.  It credited the workers the 1-hour mealtime with 8 hours of work for each shift and paid them for the same number of hours. But since 1953, it credited those workers in one shift, who were required to continue working until the next shift, only 6 hours of work for overtime work excluding the mealtime periods in computing compensation.

The Union maintained the opposite view. The CIR held that mealtime should be counted in the determination of overtime work.

Issue:

            WoN the mealtime breaks should be considered working time.

Ruling:

            Yes. Mealtime breaks should be counted as working time for purposes of overtime compensation because work therein was continuous, and employees and laborers were not permitted to rest completely.

            Sec. 1, Com. Act No. 444, as amended, provides:

            “The legal working day for any person employed by another shall be of not more than eight hours daily. When the work is not continuous, the time during which the laborer is not working and can leave his working place and can rest completely shall not be counted.”

            In this case, the CIR’s finding that work in the petitioner company was continuous and did not permit employees and laborers to rest completely has basis in evidence and is following our earlier rulings.

            Thus, the mealtime breaks are compensable.

NB – CIR has jurisdiction over claims for overtime compensation when the following requisites are complied with:

a)    there must exist between the parties an employer-employee relationship or the claimant must seek his reinstatement; and

the controversy must relate to a case certified by the President to the CIR as one involving national interest, or must arise either under the Eight-Hour Labor Law, or under the Minimum Wage Law.

Villamaria, Jr. vs. CA

G.R. No. 165881. April 19, 2006.

P- Oscar Villamaria, Jr

R- CA, Jerry Bustamante

Employer-Employee Relationship; Conditions of Employment

Facts:
            Oscar Villamaria, Jr. operated passenger jeepneys by employing drivers on a “boundary basis.” In 1997, Villamaria agreed to sell the jeepney to driver Bustamante under the “boundary-hulog scheme”.  Their contract stipulated the prohibitions, compliance and restrictions.

            Bustamante continued driving the jeepney under the supervision and control of Villamaria. But later he failed to comply with his obligations so that notice of compliance and warning were ensued. Until in 2000, Villamaria took back the jeepney driven by Bustamante and barred the latter from driving the vehicle. Hence, Bustamante filed a complaint for Illegal Dismissal. 

The LA ruled in his favor, but the NLRC reversed the Order for the reason that the juridical relationship between Bustamante and Villamaria was that of vendor and vendee. However, the CA affirmed the LA on the ground that the relationship between Villamaria and Bustamante was dual: that of vendor-vendee and employer-employee.

            Villamaria averred that their contract was a combination of vendor-vendee and employer-employee because they had clearly entered into a conditional deed of sale over the jeepney so that their employer-employee relationship had been transformed into that of vendor-vendee.

Issue:

            WoN the existence of a boundary-hulog agreement negates the employer-employee relationship between the vendor and vendee.

Ruling:

            No, The Kasunduan did not extinguish the employer-employee relationship of the parties extant before the execution of said deed.

            Under the boundary-hulog scheme incorporated in the Kasunduan, a dual juridical relationship was created between petitioner and respondent: 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.

            Thus, the petition is denied.

Citizens' League of Freeworkers vs. Abbas

No. L-21212. September 23, 1966

P- Citizens' League of Freeworkers

R- Hon. Macapanton Abbas (CFI Davao), Teofilo Geronimo and Emerita Mendez

Employer-Employee Relationship; Conditions of Employment

Facts:

The spouses Teofilo and Emerita leased the auto calesas to the Union members on a daily rental basis. The Union bargained with the spouses to recognize them as employees instead of lessees. Unable to get such bargain, the union declared a strike.

The spouses prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the Union from interfering with its operation. CFI Davao granted the prayer. 

Meanwhile, the Union filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the former. It also filed before the CFI Davao a motion to declare the writ of preliminary injunction void. But Judge Abbas denied said motion on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship between the spouses and the Union drivers.

Issue:

WoN a driver under the boundary system is not an employee.

Ruling:

            No. A driver who operates under the boundary system is an "employee" of the owner of the vehicle within the meaning of the law.

            In National Labor Union v. Dinglasan, 52 O.G., No. 4, 1933, the Court rules that the employer-employee relationship existed between the owner of the jeepneys and the drivers even if the latter worked under the boundary system.

NB – There are two features sufficient to establish the relationship between the operators and the drivers from that of employer-employee, which is far from the relationship of lessor and lessee:

a.    compensation is the excess of the total amount of fares earned or collected by the drivers; and

the gasoline is for the account of the drivers.

Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation vs. Judico

G.R. No. 73887. December 21, 1989

P- Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation

R- Honorato Judico

Employer-Employee Relationship; Conditions of Employment

Facts:

Honorato Judico filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Grepalife and prayed for award of money claims. The LA dismissed the complaint on the ground that the employer-employee relations did not exist between the parties, but ordered Grepalife to pay complainant the sum of P1,000.00 by reason of Christian Charity. Both appealed to NLRC.

The NLRC reversed the LA ruling by declaring Judico a regular employee as defined under Art. 281 of the Labor Code.

Grepalife argued that Judico is not its employee because his compensation was in the form of commissions and bonuses based on actual production (insurance plans sold and premium collections).

Issue:

WoN employer-employee relationship existed between the parties.

Ruling:

            Yes, there exists an er-ee relation between Grepalife and Judico because the element of control by the former on the latter was present.

            The test to determine whether employer-employee relationship exists is when the “employee” was controlled by the “employer” not only as to the kind of work, the amount of results, the kind of performance, but also the power of dismissal.

            In this case, Judico received a definite minimum amount per week as his wage known as “sales reserve”. He was assigned a definite place in the office to work on when he is not in the field, was burdened with the job of collection, was required to make regular reports to the company, and for which an anemic performance would mean a dismissal. Undoubtedly, by nature of his position and work, Judico had been a regular employee of Grepalife, and is therefore entitled to the protection of the law and could not just be terminated without valid and justifiable cause.

            Thus, the appealed decision is affirmed in toto.

Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 98368. December 15, 1993.

P- Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage

R- NLRC, Manuel Esita

Employer-Employee Relationship; Conditions of Employment

Facts:
            In 1980, Manuel Esita was hired as a compressor operator-mechanic for the ice plants of Dr. Melchor Opulencia for a daily wage of P35.00. In 1989, he was dismissed from service because of demanding the correct amount of wages due him. So, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment, non-payment for overtime, legal holiday, premium for holiday and rest day, 13th month, separation/retirement pay and allowances against Dr. Opulencia.

            The LA declared the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties, and directed Opulencia to pay Esita his claims, except for overtime pay due to lack of basis. The NLRC affirmed the ruling but reduced the amount.

            Opulencia denied that Esita was an employee because he was merely a helper/peon of one of the contractors who did major repairs and renovation of the Tanauan ice plant. Thus, Esita’s work could not have ripened into a regular employment.

Issue:

            WoN there is no employer-employee relationship between them.

Ruling:

            No, the employer-employee relationship between the parties was clearly established.

            Moreover, no particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted.

            Furthermore, the circumstance that Esita’s presence would be required only when there was need for repair cannot affect the regular status of his employment. An employee who is required to remain on call in the employer’s premises or so close thereto that he cannot use the time effectively and gainfully for his own purpose shall be considered as working while on call.

            In sum, the determination of regular and casual employment is not affected by the fact that the employee’s regular presence in the place of work is not required, the more significant consideration being that the work of the employee is usually necessary or desirable in the business of the employer.

            Thus, the petition is denied.