Labor Law Prelim Exam Notes (JD 2A - 1st Semester) PDF

Personal Notes Monday, 5 August 2024 3:12 pm Full Summary of Preliminary Exams 1. Introduction and Preliminaries Purpose: The Labor Code aims to protect labor, promote employment, and regulate the relations between workers and employers. Coverage: It applies to all em...

Personal Notes Monday, 5 August 2024 3:12 pm Full Summary of Preliminary Exams 1. Introduction and Preliminaries Purpose: The Labor Code aims to protect labor, promote employment, and regulate the relations between workers and employers. Coverage: It applies to all employees and employers, except those in the government and managerial positions. Basic Rights: Workers’ rights include self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work. 2. Employer-Employee Relationship Definition: An employer-employee relationship exists when the employer has the right to control the work of the employee, not only as to the result but also as to the means and methods. Four-Fold Test: To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the following are considered: 1. Selection and engagement of the employee 2. Payment of wages 3. Power of dismissal 4. Power to control the employee’s conduct 3. Status of Employment Regular Employment: An employee who has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. Probationary Employment: Employment for a trial period not exceeding six months, during which the employer assesses the employee’s qualifications. Casual Employment: Employment that is not regular, seasonal, or project-based, and is for a specific period or task. Project Employment: Employment for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of engagement. Seasonal Employment: Employment that is dependent on the season or period of the year. Book 1 of the Labor Code (Pre-Employment) Recruitment and Placement: Regulations on the recruitment and placement of workers, both local and overseas. Prohibition of Labor-Only Contracting: Labor-only contracting is prohibited, where the contractor merely recruits and supplies workers to the principal. Employment of Non-Resident Aliens: Non-resident aliens may be employed only after securing an employment permit from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). New Section 1 Page 1  5. Book 2 of the Labor Code (Human Resources Development Program) National Manpower and Youth Council (NMYC): Establishes the NMYC to formulate integrated manpower and youth development policies. Apprenticeship and Learnership: Provides guidelines for apprenticeship and learnership programs to enhance the skills of workers. Training and Employment of Special Workers: Special provisions for the training and employment of handicapped workers, apprentices, and learners. I. Fundamental Principles and Concepts 1. Constitutional Provisions a. Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies) Sec. 9: The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order. Sec. 10: The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development. Sec. 11: The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. Sec. 13: The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building. Sec. 14: The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building and ensures the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. Sec. 18: The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. Sec. 20: The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments. b. Article III (Bill of Rights) Sec. 1: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. Sec. 4: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. Sec. 7: The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Sec. 8: The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. Sec. 10: No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. Sec. 16: All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi- judicial, or administrative bodies. Sec. 18 (2): No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. c. Article XIII (Social Justice and Human Rights) Sec. 1: The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity. Sec. 2: The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance. Sec. 3: The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. Sec. 13: The State shall establish a special agency for disabled persons for their rehabilitation, self- development, and self-reliance. Sec. 14: The State shall protect working women by providing safe and healthful working conditions, taking into account their maternal functions. 2. Introduction on the Labor Code of the Philippines a. Article 3: Declaration of Basic Policy - The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race, or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employers. b. Article 4: Construction in Favor of Labor - All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor. c. Article 166: (This article has been renumbered or repealed in the current Labor Code. Please refer to the latest version for accurate details.) New Section 1 Page 2  latest version for accurate details.) d. Article 218: Powers of the Commission - The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the power to hear and decide cases involving labor disputes. e. Article 219: Jurisdiction of the Commission - The NLRC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over certain labor disputes, including unfair labor practices and termination disputes. f. Article 267: (This article has been renumbered or repealed in the current Labor Code. Please refer to the latest version for accurate details.) g. Article 292: (This article has been renumbered or repealed in the current Labor Code. Please refer to the latest version for accurate details.) Suggested Readings: 1. Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc. vs. Ople, G.R. No. 73681, June 30, 1988 Doctrine: The direct certification of a union as the exclusive bargaining agent without following proper legal procedures is invalid. Facts: The Colgate Palmolive Sales Union filed a Notice of Strike against Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc., alleging unfair labor practices, including illegal dismissal of three employees and refusal to bargain collectively. The Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and certified the union as the exclusive bargaining agent. The MOLE also ordered the reinstatement of the three dismissed employees. Colgate Palmolive contested the certification and the reinstatement order, arguing that the certification was done without an election and that the dismissed employees were terminated for just cause. Issues: Whether the direct certification of the union was valid. Whether the reinstatement of the dismissed employees was appropriate. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the direct certification was invalid as it bypassed the proper legal procedures. The reinstatement of the employees was upheld as they were first offenders. Application: This case emphasizes the importance of following legal procedures in labor disputes and the protection of employees’ rights. It highlights the necessity for employers and unions to adhere to established legal frameworks to ensure fair and just outcomes in labor relations. 2. Gelmart Industries Phils. Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 55668, August 10, 1989 Doctrine: Dismissal must be based on just cause and due process must be observed. Facts: Felix Francis, an auto-mechanic employed by Gelmart Industries Philippines, Inc., was dismissed for taking used motor oil from the company premises without a gate pass. The company considered this an act of theft. Francis argued that the oil was waste material and that he had no intention of stealing. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Francis, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering his reinstatement with back wages. Gelmart Industries appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which upheld the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The company then brought the case to the Supreme Court. Issues: Whether the dismissal was justified. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. Ruling: The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The dismissal was deemed harsh, and reinstatement with six months back wages was ordered. Application: This case highlights the need for proportionality in disciplinary actions and the protection of employees’ rights. It underscores the principle that employers must exercise fairness and reasonableness in imposing disciplinary measures, ensuring that penalties are commensurate with the offense committed. New Section 1 Page 3  imposing disciplinary measures, ensuring that penalties are commensurate with the offense committed. 3. Lagatic vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 121004, January 28, 1998 Doctrine: Willful disobedience of lawful orders justifies dismissal. Facts: Romeo Lagatic was employed as a supervisor by a company. He was dismissed for repeatedly failing to submit required reports and for insubordination. Lagatic argued that his dismissal was illegal and that he was not given due process. The company maintained that Lagatic’s actions constituted willful disobedience of lawful orders, justifying his dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the company, and the NLRC affirmed the decision. Lagatic then appealed to the Supreme Court. Issues: Whether the dismissal was illegal. Whether due process was observed. Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding it justified and due process observed. Application: This case underscores the importance of compliance with company policies and the employer’s right to enforce discipline. It illustrates that employees must adhere to lawful and reasonable directives from their employers, and failure to do so can result in justified termination. 4. China Banking Corporation vs. Borromeo, G.R. No. 156515, October 19, 2004 Doctrine: Unauthorized acts by employees can justify withholding of benefits. Facts: Mariano Borromeo, an employee of China Banking Corporation, was dismissed for extending unauthorized credit accommodations to clients. Borromeo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, seeking separation pay and other benefits. The bank argued that Borromeo’s actions constituted serious misconduct, justifying his dismissal and the withholding of benefits. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Borromeo, but the NLRC reversed the decision. Borromeo then appealed to the Supreme Court. Issues: Whether the withholding of benefits was justified. Whether the dismissal was valid. Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the withholding of benefits and the dismissal, citing the serious infraction committed by Borromeo. Application: This case illustrates the employer’s right to withhold benefits in cases of serious misconduct. It emphasizes that employees who engage in unauthorized or fraudulent activities can face severe consequences, including the loss of employment and benefits. 5. Cebu Royal Plant (San Miguel Corporation) vs. Deputy Minister of Labor, G.R. No. L-58639, August 12, 1987 Doctrine: Employees who continue working after the probationary period are considered regular employees. Facts: Ramon Pilones was employed by San Miguel Corporation at its Cebu Royal Plant. He was dismissed after being diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis. Pilones filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that his condition did not affect his ability to work and that he was not given proper notice or due process. The Deputy Minister of Labor ordered his reinstatement with back wages. San Miguel Corporation contested the order, arguing that Pilones was a probationary employee and that his dismissal was justified due to his health condition. Issues: Whether Pilones was a regular employee. Whether the dismissal was justified. New Section 1 Page 4  Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled Pilones was a regular employee and his dismissal was unjustified due to lack of proper medical certification. Application: This case reinforces the protection of employees’ rights and the need for proper medical certification in health-related dismissals. It highlights that employers must provide valid and sufficient reasons for terminating employees, especially when health conditions are involved. 6. Korean Air Co. Ltd and Suk Kyoo Kim vs. Adelina Yuson, G.R. No. 170369, June 16, 2010 Doctrine: Employers must provide substantial evidence to justify dismissal. Facts: Adelina Yuson was employed by Korean Air Co. Ltd. as a passenger service agent. She was dismissed for alleged misconduct, including unauthorized absences and failure to follow company procedures. Yuson filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that the charges against her were fabricated and that she was not given due process. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering her reinstatement with back wages. Korean Air appealed to the NLRC, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The company then brought the case to the Supreme Court. Issues: Whether the dismissal was justified. Whether due process was observed. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Yuson, finding the evidence insufficient to justify her dismissal. Application: This case highlights the necessity for employers to provide substantial evidence and observe due process in dismissals. It underscores the principle that employees cannot be dismissed based on unsubstantiated allegations and that due process must be strictly followed to ensure fairness. II. Employer-Employee Relationship 1. Existence of Employer-Employee Relationship a. Control Test The Control Test is a primary method used to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship. It focuses on the degree of control the employer has over the worker. The key elements include: Selection and Engagement: The employer selects and hires the employee. Payment of Wages: The employer pays the employee’s wages. Power of Dismissal: The employer has the authority to dismiss the employee. Control of Conduct: The most crucial element, where the employer has the right to control not only the results of the work but also the means and methods used to achieve those results. In essence, if the employer controls how, when, and where the work is done, an employer-employee relationship likely exists. b. Economic Reality Test The Economic Reality Test examines the economic dependence of the worker on the employer. It considers multiple factors to determine if the worker is economically dependent on the employer or is in business for themselves. Key factors include: Opportunity for Profit or Loss: Whether the worker can realize a profit or suffer a loss based on their managerial skills. Investment in Equipment or Materials: The extent of the worker’s investment in equipment or materials required for their task. Permanence of the Relationship: The duration and stability of the working relationship. Nature and Degree of Control: The degree of control the employer has over the worker. Integral Part of Business: Whether the work performed is an integral part of the employer’s business. New Section 1 Page 5  Integral Part of Business: Whether the work performed is an integral part of the employer’s business. Skill and Initiative: The level of skill and initiative required for the work. The Economic Reality Test provides a broader perspective by considering the totality of circumstances surrounding the working relationship, rather than focusing solely on control. These tests are essential in labor law to ensure that workers are correctly classified and receive appropriate protections and benefits. Misclassification can lead to significant legal and financial consequences for both employers and employees. c. Two-Tier Test The Two-Tier Test is another method used to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship. It combines elements of both the Control Test and the Economic Reality Test to provide a more comprehensive analysis. The test is divided into two tiers: First Tier: Control Test This tier examines the degree of control the employer has over the worker. It includes the following elements: Selection and Engagement: The employer’s role in hiring the worker. Payment of Wages: The employer’s responsibility for paying the worker. Power of Dismissal: The employer’s authority to terminate the worker. Control of Conduct: The employer’s right to control the manner and means by which the work is performed. Second Tier: Economic Reality Test This tier assesses the economic dependence of the worker on the employer. It considers factors such as: Opportunity for Profit or Loss: Whether the worker can gain or lose money based on their managerial skills. Investment in Equipment or Materials: The worker’s investment in tools or materials necessary for their work. Permanence of the Relationship: The stability and duration of the working relationship. Nature and Degree of Control: The extent of control the employer has over the worker. Integral Part of Business: Whether the worker’s tasks are essential to the employer’s business. Skill and Initiative: The level of skill and initiative required for the work. Application The Two-Tier Test provides a balanced approach by considering both the control exerted by the employer and the economic realities of the working relationship. This test is particularly useful in complex cases where the nature of the relationship is not immediately clear. It ensures that workers are correctly classified and receive appropriate legal protections and benefits. Suggested Readings: 1. Sara vs. Agarrado, 166 SCRA 625 Doctrine: The absence of an employer-employee relationship negates the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. Facts: Cerila Agarrado entered into a verbal agreement with Dr. Renato Sara and Romeo Arana to sell rice and purchase palay on a commission basis. Agarrado claimed that she was not paid her commissions and reimbursements for expenses incurred in the performance of her duties. She filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter, who ruled in her favor. Sara and Arana contested the decision, arguing that there was no employer- employee relationship as Agarrado was an independent contractor. They emphasized that Agarrado was free to determine her own methods and was paid based on commissions, not a fixed salary. Issues: Whether an employer-employee relationship existed. Whether the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that there was no employer-employee relationship between Agarrado and Sara and Arana. The Court found that Agarrado was an independent contractor, as she was not subject to the control and supervision of Sara and Arana in the performance of her work. The arrangement was based on commissions, and Agarrado had the freedom to determine her own methods and schedule. Consequently, the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the case. New Section 1 Page 6  the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the case. Application: This case highlights the importance of establishing an employer-employee relationship for labor disputes to fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. It underscores the necessity of the control test in determining the nature of the working relationship, emphasizing that the absence of control and supervision indicates an independent contractor status. 2. Sampaguita Pictures vs. Philippine Musicians Guild, G.R. No. L-12582, 110 Phil 725 Doctrine: The right of control is decisive in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Facts: The Philippine Musicians Guild sought recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent for musicians working with Sampaguita Pictures, LVN Pictures, and Premiere Productions. The companies argued that the musicians were independent contractors, as they were hired on a per-project basis and were free to work for other companies. The Guild contended that the musicians were employees, as the companies exercised control over their work, including the selection of music, rehearsal schedules, and performance standards. Issues: Whether the musicians were employees or independent contractors. Whether the Guild could be certified as the bargaining agent. Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Industrial Relations’ decision that the musicians were employees. The Court found that the companies exercised significant control over the musicians’ work, including the selection of music, rehearsal schedules, and performance standards. The musicians were not free to determine their own methods and were subject to the companies’ directives. As such, the Guild could be certified as the bargaining agent. Application: This case underscores the significance of the control test in determining employment relationships and the legitimacy of union representation. It highlights that the right of control over the manner and means of performing work is a key factor in establishing an employer-employee relationship. 3. Air Material Wing Savings and Loan Association, Inc. vs. NLRC, 233 SCRA 592 Doctrine: The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by the control test and economic dependence. Facts: Luis Salas was appointed as notarial and legal counsel for Air Material Wing Savings and Loan Association (AMWSLAI) under a contract that specified his duties and compensation. After his contract ended, Salas filed a complaint for various benefits, including separation pay and retirement benefits. AMWSLAI argued that Salas was an independent contractor and not an employee, as he was engaged on a contractual basis and was free to provide legal services to other clients. Issues: Whether Salas was an employee. Whether the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over his claims. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Salas was an employee of AMWSLAI. The Court found that AMWSLAI exercised control over Salas’ work, including the assignment of specific legal tasks and the requirement to report regularly. Additionally, Salas was economically dependent on AMWSLAI, as his compensation was primarily derived from his work for the association. The Court held that the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over Salas’ claims. Application: This case illustrates the application of both the control test and economic reality test in establishing an employer-employee relationship. It emphasizes that the presence of control and economic dependence are key factors in determining employment status. 4. Manila Golf & Country Club Inc. vs. IAC, 237 SCRA 207 Doctrine: The absence of control and payment of wages negates an employer-employee relationship. Facts: Caddies at Manila Golf & Country Club sought coverage under the Social Security System (SSS), claiming they were employees of the club. The club argued that the caddies were independent contractors who were paid directly by golfers and were free to offer their services to other clubs. The caddies contended that the club exercised control over their work, including the assignment of golfers and the enforcement of club rules. Issues: Whether the caddies were employees of the club. Whether they were entitled to SSS coverage. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the caddies were not employees of Manila Golf & Country Club. The New Section 1 Page 7  Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the caddies were not employees of Manila Golf & Country Club. The Court found that the club did not exercise control over the caddies’ work, as they were free to offer their services to other clubs and were paid directly by golfers. The club’s enforcement of rules was deemed insufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship. Consequently, the caddies were not entitled to SSS coverage. Application: This case highlights the importance of control and payment of wages in determining employment status. It underscores that the absence of these elements indicates an independent contractor relationship. 5. Iloilo Chinese Commercial School vs. Fabrigar, 3 SCRA 712 Doctrine: The power to control the employee’s conduct is the most important test of an employer-employee relationship. Facts: Santiago Fabrigar was employed as a janitor at Iloilo Chinese Commercial School. He was diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis and subsequently died. His heirs filed a claim for compensation, arguing that his employment aggravated his illness. The school contested the claim, denying an employer-employee relationship and arguing that Fabrigar was a casual worker hired on a temporary basis. Issues: Whether Fabrigar was an employee. Whether his heirs were entitled to compensation. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fabrigar’s heirs, finding that he was an employee of the school. The Court found that the school exercised control over Fabrigar’s work, including his duties and schedule. The Court also held that Fabrigar’s work environment contributed to the aggravation of his illness, entitling his heirs to compensation. Application: This case reinforces the control test as the primary determinant of an employer-employee relationship and the entitlement to compensation for work-related illnesses. It highlights that the power to control the employee’s conduct is crucial in establishing employment status. 6. Filamer Christian Institute vs. IAC, 212 SCRA 637 Doctrine: Employers are liable for the acts of their employees if the latter are acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. Facts: Potenciano Kapunan, Sr., an 82-year-old retired schoolteacher, was struck by a jeep owned by Filamer Christian Institute and driven by Daniel Funtecha, a working student and part-time janitor at the school. Funtecha, who had a student driver’s permit, was allowed to drive the jeep by Allan Masa, the authorized driver. The accident occurred while Funtecha was driving the jeep with only one functioning headlight. Kapunan suffered multiple injuries and was hospitalized for 20 days. He filed a criminal case against Funtecha and a civil case for damages against Filamer and Funtecha. The trial court found Filamer and Funtecha liable for damages. Issues: Whether Funtecha was an employee of Filamer. Whether Filamer was liable for the injuries caused by Funtecha. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Funtecha was an employee of Filamer, as he was a working student performing tasks assigned by the school. The Court held that Filamer was liable for the injuries caused by Funtecha, as he was acting within the scope of his assigned tasks when the accident occurred. Application: This case emphasizes the liability of employers for the acts of their employees when they are acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. It highlights the importance of proper supervision and control over employees, especially when they are performing tasks that could pose risks to others1. 7. Aurora Land Projects Corp. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 114733, Jan. 2, 1997 Doctrine: The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by the control test and the economic reality test. Facts: Honorio Dagui was hired by Doña Aurora Suntay Tanjangco in 1953 to maintain and repair her New Section 1 Page 8  Facts: Honorio Dagui was hired by Doña Aurora Suntay Tanjangco in 1953 to maintain and repair her apartments and residential buildings. After her death, her daughter, Teresita Tanjangco Quazon, took over the administration of the properties. In 1991, Quazon terminated Dagui’s employment, citing unsatisfactory work. Dagui, then 62 years old, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Dagui, awarding him separation pay and attorney’s fees. The NLRC affirmed the decision with modifications. Issues: Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Dagui and Aurora Land Projects Corp. Whether Dagui was illegally dismissed. Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC’s decision, finding that an employer-employee relationship existed based on the control test and economic reality test. The Court ruled that Dagui was illegally dismissed and entitled to separation pay and attorney’s fees. Application: This case illustrates the application of the control test and economic reality test in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. It underscores the protection of workers’ rights against unjust termination. 8. Great Pacific Life Assurance Corp vs. Judico, 180 SCRA 445 Doctrine: The control test is crucial in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Facts: Honorato Judico filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation (Grepalife), claiming he was a regular employee entitled to benefits under the Labor Code. Grepalife argued that Judico was an independent contractor paid on a commission basis. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, but the NLRC reversed the decision, recognizing Judico as a regular employee. Issues: Whether Judico was an employee of Grepalife. Whether the NLRC had jurisdiction over the case. Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC’s decision, finding that Judico was an employee of Grepalife. The Court applied the control test, noting that Grepalife exercised control over Judico’s work, including his work schedule and performance standards. Application: This case highlights the importance of the control test in establishing an employer-employee relationship. It demonstrates that the presence of control over the worker’s methods and performance is a key factor in determining employment status3. 9. Insular Life Assurance Co. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 84484, November 15, 1989 Doctrine: The control test determines whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor. Facts: Melecio Basiao entered into a contract with Insular Life Assurance Co. to solicit insurance applications. The contract specified that Basiao was an independent contractor and would be compensated through commissions. After the termination of his contract, Basiao filed a complaint for unpaid commissions and attorney’s fees, claiming he was an employee. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, but the NLRC reversed the decision, finding that Basiao was an independent contractor. Issues: Whether Basiao was an employee of Insular Life. Whether the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over the case. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Basiao was an independent contractor, not an employee. The Court applied the control test, finding that Insular Life did not control the means and methods of Basiao’s work, only the results. Application: This case underscores the distinction between employees and independent contractors based on the control test. It highlights that the absence of control over the worker’s methods and means indicates New Section 1 Page 9  on the control test. It highlights that the absence of control over the worker’s methods and means indicates an independent contractor relationship. 10. AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 102199, Jan. 28, 1997 Doctrine: The absence of an employer-employee relationship negates the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. Facts: Eutiquio Bustamante was an insurance underwriter for AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. (AFPMBAI) under a Sales Agent’s Agreement, which specified that he was an independent contractor. Bustamante was dismissed for misrepresentation and selling insurance for another company. He filed a complaint for unpaid commissions and attorney’s fees. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, but AFPMBAI contested the decision, arguing that Bustamante was not an employee. Issues: Whether Bustamante was an employee of AFPMBAI. Whether the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over the case. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Bustamante was an independent contractor, not an employee. The Court found that AFPMBAI did not control the means and methods of Bustamante’s work, only the results. Therefore, the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the case. Application: This case highlights the importance of the control test in determining employment status and the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. It emphasizes that the absence of control over the worker’s methods and means indicates an independent contractor relationship 11. Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc. vs. Maalat, 187 SCRA 108 Doctrine: The control test is crucial in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Facts: Noli Maalat was engaged by Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc. as a “supervisor” to handle the solicitation of mortuary arrangements, sales, and collections. He was paid on a commission basis. Maalat was dismissed for various violations, including misappropriation of funds. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of commissions. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, but the NLRC reversed the decision, finding the dismissal justified. Issues: Whether Maalat was an employee of Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes. Whether his dismissal was justified. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Maalat was an employee, as the company exercised control over his work. However, his dismissal was justified due to his dishonest acts. Application: The Court emphasized that the control test is the primary determinant of an employer-employee relationship. Despite being paid on a commission basis, Maalat was subject to the company’s control and supervision, making him an employee. However, his dismissal was justified due to his dishonest acts, which breached the trust essential in an employer-employee relationship. 12. Makati Haberdashery vs. NLRC, 179 SCRA 448 Doctrine: The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by the control test and the economic reality test. Facts: Workers at Makati Haberdashery, Inc. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and various monetary claims. They were paid on a piece-rate basis and given daily allowances. The Labor Arbiter found an employer-employee relationship and ruled in favor of the workers. The NLRC affirmed the decision. Issues: Whether an employer-employee relationship existed. New Section 1 Page 10  Whether an employer-employee relationship existed. Whether the workers were entitled to their monetary claims. Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC’s decision, finding that the workers were employees based on the control test and economic reality test. The Court ruled that the workers were entitled to their claims. Application: The Court emphasized that the control test and economic reality test are crucial in determining employment status. The workers were subject to the company’s control and were economically dependent on their work, establishing an employer-employee relationship. This entitled them to the protections and benefits under labor laws. 13. Cebu Metal Corporation vs. Gregorio Robert Saliling et al., G.R. No. 154463, September 5, 2006 Doctrine: The nature of employment can be determined by the regularity and necessity of the work performed. Facts: Gregorio Robert Saliling and others were hired by Cebu Metal Corporation to unload scrap metal. They were paid on a per-ton basis. They filed a complaint for underpayment of wages and benefits, claiming they were regular employees. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, but the NLRC reversed the decision. The Court of Appeals annulled the NLRC’s decision. Issues: Whether the workers were regular employees. Whether they were entitled to their claims. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the workers were regular employees, as their work was necessary and desirable to the business of Cebu Metal Corporation. The Court reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Application: The Court emphasized that the regularity and necessity of the work performed are key factors in determining employment status. The workers’ tasks were integral to the company’s operations, making them regular employees entitled to the protections and benefits under labor laws. 14. Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-41182-3, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 171 Doctrine: An agency relationship coupled with interest cannot be unilaterally revoked without due process. Facts: Lina Sevilla managed a branch office for Tourist World Service, Inc. (TWS) and was paid commissions. TWS padlocked the office without her consent, leading Sevilla to file a complaint for damages. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Issues: Whether Sevilla was an employee or an agent. Whether TWS’s actions were justified. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Sevilla was an agent with interest, not an employee. The Court found that TWS’s actions constituted an abuse of right and awarded damages to Sevilla. Application: The Court emphasized that an agency relationship coupled with interest cannot be revoked without due process. TWS’s unilateral action of padlocking the office without Sevilla’s consent was deemed an abuse of right, entitling her to damages. 15. Francisco vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 170087, August 31, 2006 Doctrine: Constructive dismissal occurs when an employee’s working conditions are made so intolerable that they are forced to resign. Facts: Angelina Francisco was hired by Kasei Corporation and later designated as Acting Manager. Her salary was reduced, and she was eventually replaced. Francisco filed a complaint for constructive dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint. New Section 1 Page 11  The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint. Issues: Whether Francisco was an employee. Whether she was constructively dismissed. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Francisco was an employee and that her reduction in salary and replacement constituted constructive dismissal. The Court reinstated the NLRC’s decision with modifications. Application: The Court emphasized that constructive dismissal occurs when an employee’s working conditions are made so intolerable that they are forced to resign. Francisco’s reduction in salary and replacement were deemed acts of constructive dismissal, entitling her to the protections and benefits under labor laws. 16. Jao vs. BCC Products, G.R. No. 163700 Doctrine: The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by the control test. Facts: Charlie Jao claimed he was employed by BCC Products Sales Inc. as a comptroller, but was barred from entering the premises and subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. BCC Products argued that Jao was not their employee but was posted by Sobien Food Corporation to oversee its interests. Jao was responsible for overseeing financial transactions and ensuring compliance with company policies. He was provided with an office and reported directly to the management of BCC Products. Issues: Whether Jao was an employee of BCC Products. Whether his dismissal was justified. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Jao was not an employee of BCC Products, as he was under the control of Sobien Food Corporation. The control test was applied, and it was found that BCC did not exercise control over Jao’s work. The Court emphasized that the control test is the primary determinant of an employer-employee relationship. Since BCC Products did not have the power to control the means and methods of Jao’s work, he could not be considered their employee. Application: This case emphasizes the importance of the control test in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. It highlights that the entity exercising control over the worker’s activities is considered the employer. The decision underscores the need for clear delineation of control and supervision in employment arrangements to avoid disputes over employment status. 17. Tongko vs. Manulife, G.R. No. 167622 Doctrine: The control test is crucial in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, especially in cases involving independent contractors. Facts: Gregorio Tongko was engaged by Manulife as an insurance agent under a Career Agent’s Agreement, which explicitly stated that he was an independent contractor. Tongko was responsible for soliciting insurance applications and was compensated through commissions. He later claimed he was an employee and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that Manulife exercised control over his work, including setting sales targets and providing training. Issues: Whether Tongko was an employee of Manulife. Whether his dismissal was justified. Ruling: The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Tongko, finding an employer-employee relationship. However, upon reconsideration, it was determined that Tongko was an independent contractor, as Manulife did not exercise the necessary control over his work to establish an employer-employee relationship. The Court noted that while Manulife provided guidelines and training, these were aimed at ensuring compliance with industry standards and did not constitute control over the means and methods of Tongko’s work. Application: This case highlights the distinction between independent contractors and employees, New Section 1 Page 12  Application: This case highlights the distinction between independent contractors and employees, emphasizing the role of the control test in making this determination. It underscores that the provision of guidelines and training does not necessarily establish an employer-employee relationship if the worker retains control over how the work is performed. The decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual terms and the actual exercise of control in determining employment status. 18. Atok Big Wedge Company, Inc. vs. Gison, G.R. No. 169510 Doctrine: The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by the four-fold test. Facts: Jesus Gison was engaged as a part-time consultant on a retainer basis by Atok Big Wedge Company, Inc. He provided legal and technical advice on mining operations and was paid a monthly retainer fee. Gison later filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming he was an employee and entitled to benefits under the Labor Code. Atok Big Wedge argued that Gison was an independent contractor, as he was engaged for his expertise and was not subject to the company’s control. Issues: Whether Gison was an employee of Atok Big Wedge Company. Whether his dismissal was justified. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Gison was not an employee, as the four-fold test (selection and engagement, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and control over work) indicated that he was a consultant. The control test was particularly important in this determination. The Court found that Gison was engaged for his specialized knowledge and was not subject to the company’s control in the performance of his duties. Application: This case underscores the application of the four-fold test in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. It highlights that the nature of the work, the method of compensation, and the degree of control exercised by the employer are critical factors in this determination. The decision emphasizes the need for clear contractual terms and the actual exercise of control in distinguishing between employees and independent contractors. 19. Lirio vs. Genovia, G.R. No. 169757 Doctrine: The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by the control test and the economic reality test. Facts: Wilmer Genovia was hired by Cesar Lirio to manage a recording studio. He was responsible for overseeing daily operations, managing staff, and ensuring the quality of recordings. Genovia was paid a fixed monthly salary and was provided with benefits such as health insurance. After a dispute, Lirio terminated Genovia’s employment, leading Genovia to file a complaint for illegal dismissal. Lirio argued that Genovia was not an employee but a partner in the business. Issues: Whether Genovia was an employee of Lirio. Whether his dismissal was justified. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Genovia was an employee, as Lirio exercised control over his work and he was economically dependent on the job. The Court found that Genovia was illegally dismissed and entitled to backwages and separation pay. The control test and economic reality test were applied, and it was determined that Genovia’s work was integral to the business and he was subject to Lirio’s control and supervision. Application: This case illustrates the application of the control test and economic reality test in determining employment status and protecting workers’ rights. It highlights that the degree of control exercised by the employer and the economic dependence of the worker are key factors in establishing an employer-employee relationship. The decision underscores the importance of fair treatment and due process in employment termination. 20. Sorreda vs. Cambridge Electronics, G.R. No. 172927 Doctrine: The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by the control test and the New Section 1 Page 13  Doctrine: The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by the control test and the nature of the work performed. Facts: Ronilo Sorreda was hired by Cambridge Electronics as a technician for a fixed period. He was responsible for repairing and maintaining electronic equipment. After an accident, Sorreda claimed he was promised regular employment but was later asked to resign. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that he was a regular employee entitled to security of tenure and benefits under the Labor Code. Cambridge Electronics contended that Sorreda was a project-based employee and his employment ended with the completion of the project. Issues: Whether Sorreda was a regular employee of Cambridge Electronics. Whether his dismissal was justified. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Sorreda was not a regular employee, as his employment was for a fixed period and there was no evidence of a contract for regular employment. The control test and the nature of the work performed were key factors in this determination. The Court found that Sorreda’s work was project-based and his employment ended with the completion of the project, making his dismissal justified. Application: This case highlights the importance of the control test and the nature of the work performed in determining employment status and the validity of employment contracts. It underscores that project-based employment is valid if the work is specific to a project and the employment ends with the project’s completion. The decision emphasizes the need for clear contractual terms and adherence to the agreed employment period. 21. Bernarte vs. PBA (G.R. No. 192084) Doctrine: The control test is crucial in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Facts: Jose Mel Bernarte and Renato Guevarra were referees for the Philippine Basketball Association (PBA). They signed yearly contracts but later faced changes in their employment terms. Bernarte’s contract was not renewed in 2004 due to alleged unsatisfactory performance. Bernarte claimed illegal dismissal, arguing he was a regular employee. Issue: Whether Bernarte was an employee of the PBA or an independent contractor. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Bernarte was an independent contractor. The PBA did not control the means and methods of his work, which is a key factor in establishing an employer-employee relationship. Summary: The Court emphasized the importance of the control test in determining employment status. Since the PBA did not control how Bernarte performed his duties, he was deemed an independent contractor, not an employee. 22. Javier vs. Fly Ace (G.R. No. 192558) Doctrine: The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by the control test and the regularity of the work performed. Facts: Bitoy Javier claimed he was a regular employee of Fly Ace Corporation, performing various tasks at their warehouse. He was dismissed without notice, allegedly due to personal issues involving his daughter and a superior. Fly Ace argued that Javier was a contractual worker on a per-trip basis. Issue: Whether Javier was a regular employee of Fly Ace Corporation. Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision that Javier failed to substantiate his claim of an employer-employee relationship. The evidence presented was insufficient to prove regular employment. Summary: The Court found that Javier did not meet the criteria for regular employment, as he could not prove the control and regularity of his work with Fly Ace. 23. Royal Homes vs. Alcantara (G.R. No. 195190) Doctrine: Not all forms of control indicate an employer-employee relationship; the nature of the control is crucial. Facts: Fidel P. Alcantara was appointed as Marketing Director for Royale Homes Marketing Corporation on a New Section 1 Page 14 Facts: Fidel P. Alcantara was appointed as Marketing Director for Royale Homes Marketing Corporation on a yearly contract basis. He claimed he was a regular employee and was illegally dismissed. Royale Homes argued that Alcantara was an independent contractor. Issue: Whether Alcantara was a regular employee or an independent contractor. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Alcantara was an independent contractor. The control exercised by Royale Homes was limited to the results of his work, not the means and methods. Summary: The Court highlighted that guidelines towards achieving a desired result do not establish an employer-employee relationship if they do not dictate the means and methods of accomplishing the work. 24. Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (G.R. No. 138051) Doctrine: The control test is essential in distinguishing between an employee and an independent contractor. Facts: Jose Y. Sonza entered into an agreement with ABS-CBN through Mel and Jay Management and Development Corporation (MJMDC) to provide his services as a talent. Sonza claimed unpaid salaries and benefits, arguing he was an employee. ABS-CBN contended that Sonza was an independent contractor. Issue: Whether Sonza was an employee or an independent contractor of ABS-CBN. Ruling: The Supreme Court held that Sonza was an independent contractor. The nature of his work required unique skills and talent, and ABS-CBN did not control the means and methods of his work. Summary: The Court applied the control test and found that Sonza’s work as a talent indicated an independent contractual relationship rather than an employer-employee relationship. 25. Villamaria vs. CA (G.R. No. 165881) Doctrine: The boundary-hulog system does not negate an employer-employee relationship if control and supervision are retained by the owner. Facts: Oscar Villamaria, Jr. entered into a boundary-hulog agreement with Jerry V. Bustamante, selling a jeepney under terms that Bustamante would remit daily payments. Villamaria retained control over the vehicle’s operation. Bustamante claimed illegal dismissal after Villamaria repossessed the jeepney. Issue: Whether an employer-employee relationship existed alongside the vendor-vendee relationship under the boundary-hulog agreement. Ruling: The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that an employer-employee relationship existed. The control exerted by Villamaria over Bustamante’s conduct indicated such a relationship. Summary: The Court found that the boundary-hulog system did not extinguish the employer-employee relationship, as Villamaria retained control and supervision over Bustamante’s work. 26. Almirez vs. Infinite Loop Technology (G.R. No. 162401, January 31, 2006) Doctrine: The control test is crucial in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Facts: Corazon Almirez was hired by Infinite Loop Technology Corporation as a Refinery Senior Process Design Engineer. She was tasked with designing and developing refinery processes and systems. Almirez claimed that she was subjected to unfair treatment and was eventually suspended without due process. She filed a complaint for breach of contract, illegal suspension, and non-payment of wages and benefits. Infinite Loop contended that Almirez was an independent contractor and not an employee, thus not entitled to the benefits and protections under the Labor Code. Issue: Whether there was an employer-employee relationship between Almirez and Infinite Loop. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that there was no employer-employee relationship as Infinite Loop did not control the means and methods of Almirez’s work. Summary: The Court emphasized the importance of the control test in determining employment relationships. New Section 1 Page 15  relationships. Application: This case is often cited in disputes involving the determination of employment status, particularly in professional services. 27. Semblante & Pilar vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 196426, August 15, 2011) Doctrine: The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by the four-fold test. Facts: Semblante and Pilar were employed by Gallera de Mandaue as a masiador (bet taker) and sentenciador (fight announcer), respectively. They were paid on a per-fight basis and were not given regular salaries or benefits. One day, they were denied entry to the cockpit arena and were informed that their services were no longer needed. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that they were regular employees of Gallera de Mandaue. The company argued that they were independent contractors and not entitled to the benefits of regular employees. Issue: Whether Semblante and Pilar were employees of Gallera de Mandaue. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that there was an employer-employee relationship based on the four-fold test. Summary: The Court found that the petitioners were employees due to the control exercised by Gallera de Mandaue over their work. Application: This case is relevant in determining employment status in various industries, especially where informal work arrangements are common. 3. SUMIFRU Philippines Corp. vs. NAMASUFA-NAFLU-KMU (G.R. No. 202091, June 7, 2017) Doctrine: The control test is essential in establishing an employer-employee relationship. Facts: The National Federation of Labor Unions-Kilusang Mayo Uno (NAMASUFA-NAFLU-KMU) filed a petition for certification election among the workers of SUMIFRU Philippines Corporation. SUMIFRU opposed the petition, arguing that the workers were employees of an independent contractor and not of SUMIFRU. The workers, however, claimed that they were directly hired and controlled by SUMIFRU, making them its employees. The case was brought to the Supreme Court to determine the true nature of the employment relationship. Issue: Whether the workers were employees of SUMIFRU or the independent contractor. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the workers were employees of SUMIFRU, emphasizing the control test. Summary: The Court upheld the workers’ right to a certification election. Application: This case is significant in labor union formation and certification election disputes. 4. Parayday vs. Shogun Shipping Co., Inc. (G.R. No. 204555, July 6, 2020) Doctrine: The four-fold test is used to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Facts: Parayday and Reboso were employed by Shogun Shipping Co., Inc. as fitters/welders. They were hired on a project basis and were paid on a per-project basis. They claimed that they were regular employees and were illegally dismissed without due process. Shogun Shipping argued that they were project-based employees and were not entitled to the benefits of regular employees. The case was brought to the Supreme Court to determine the nature of their employment and whether they were illegally dismissed. Issue: Whether Parayday and Reboso were regular employees of Shogun Shipping. New Section 1 Page 16 Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Parayday and Reboso, finding them to be regular employees and illegally dismissed. Summary: The Court emphasized the importance of the four-fold test in determining employment status. Application: This case is relevant in disputes involving regularization and illegal dismissal. 5. Gesolgon vs. Cyberzone Philippines (G.R. No. 210741, October 14, 2020) Doctrine: The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by the control test and the four- fold test. Facts: Gesolgon and Santos were hired by Cyberzone Philippines as customer service representatives. They were initially hired on a probationary basis and were later regularized. They claimed that they were illegally dismissed without due process and without valid cause. Cyberzone Philippines argued that they were dismissed for just cause and that due process was observed. The case was brought to the Supreme Court to determine whether the dismissal was legal and whether due process was observed. Issue: Whether Gesolgon and Santos were employees of Cyberzone Philippines. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and Cyberzone Philippines. Summary: The Court found that the petitioners were not employees based on the control test. Application: This case is relevant in disputes involving remote or home-based work arrangements. 6. Chrisden Cabrera et al. vs. Lazada E-services Philippines Inc. (G.R. No. 246892, September 21, 2022) Doctrine: The control test and the four-fold test are crucial in determining employment relationships. Facts: Chrisden Cabrera and several others were hired by Lazada E-services Philippines Inc. as delivery riders. They were initially hired on a contractual basis and were later regularized. They claimed that they were illegally dismissed without due process and without valid cause. Lazada argued that they were dismissed for just cause and that due process was observed. The case was brought to the Supreme Court to determine whether the dismissal was legal and whether due process was observed. Issue: Whether Cabrera and others were employees of Lazada. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cabrera and others, finding them to be employees of Lazada. Summary: The Court emphasized the importance of the control test in determining employment status. Application: This case is relevant in disputes involving gig economy workers and online platforms. 7. Escauriaga vs. Fitness First Philippines Inc. (G.R. No. 266552, January 22, 2024) Doctrine: The control test and the four-fold test are essential in establishing an employer-employee relationship. Facts: Escauriaga was hired by Fitness First Philippines Inc. as a fitness trainer. She was initially hired on a probationary basis and was later regularized. She claimed that she was illegally dismissed without due process and without valid cause. Fitness First argued that she was dismissed for just cause and that due process was observed. The case was brought to the Supreme Court to determine whether the dismissal was legal and whether due process was observed. Issue: Whether Escauriaga was an employee of Fitness First. New Section 1 Page 17  Whether Escauriaga was an employee of Fitness First. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Escauriaga, finding her to be an employee of Fitness First. Summary: The Court emphasized the importance of the control test in determining employment status. Application: This case is relevant in disputes involving fitness trainers and similar professions. Status of Employment in the Philippines The Labor Code of the Philippines classifies employees into different categories based on the nature and duration of their employment. Here is a summary of the most important points for each type: a. Regular Employment Definition: Employees who have been engaged to perform activities that are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. Security of Tenure: Regular employees enjoy security of tenure and cannot be terminated without just or authorized cause. Benefits: Entitled to all benefits provided by law, such as 13th-month pay, service incentive leave, and other statutory benefits. b. Project Employment Definition: Employees hired for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of engagement. Duration: Employment is co-terminous with the project. Benefits: Entitled to benefits similar to regular employees during the duration of the project. c. Seasonal Employment Definition: Employees engaged to work during a particular season or period of the year. Duration: Employment is limited to the duration of the season. Benefits: Entitled to benefits during the period of employment, and may become regular seasonal employees if rehired for successive seasons. d. Casual Employment Definition: Employees engaged to perform work that is not usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. Duration: Employment is not regular and is typically for a short duration. Benefits: If a casual employee renders at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, they become regular employees with respect to the activity they are employed. e. Probationary Employment Definition: Employees on a trial period during which the employer assesses their qualifications and performance. Duration: The probationary period should not exceed six months from the date the employee started working. Benefits: Entitled to statutory benefits during the probationary period. If the employee is allowed to work after the probationary period, they become a regular employee. These classifications help determine the rights and benefits of employees, as well as the obligations of employers under the Labor Code of the Philippines. 1. Brent School Inc. vs. Zamora (G.R. No. L-48494, February 5, 1990) Doctrine: Fixed-term employment contracts are valid under certain conditions and do not necessarily violate the employee’s right to security of tenure. Facts: Doroteo R. Alegre was hired by Brent School, Inc. as an athletic director with a yearly compensation of PHP 20,000. The employment contract had a fixed term of five years, from July 18, 1971, to July 17, 1976. Supplementary agreements on March 15, 1973, August 28, 1973, and September 14, 1974, reiterated the same terms and conditions, including the expiry date. On April 20, 1976, Brent School filed a report with the Department of Labor indicating Alegre’s termination effective July 16, 1976, due to New Section 1 Page 18  a report with the Department of Labor indicating Alegre’s termination effective July 16, 1976, due to “completion of contract, expiration of the definite period of employment.” Alegre accepted a payment of PHP 3,177.71 on May 26, 1976, and signed a receipt indicating it was “in full payment of services for the period May 16, to July 17, 1976 as full payment of contract.” Alegre contested the termination during an investigation by a Labor Conciliator, arguing that despite the fixed term in his contract, his services were necessary and desirable for the school, making him a regular employee who could only be removed for just cause. The Regional Director treated Brent School’s report as an application for clearance to terminate employment and refused the clearance, ordering Alegre’s reinstatement with full back wages as a “permanent employee.” Brent School’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and the case was forwarded to the Secretary of Labor, who upheld the Regional Director’s decision. Brent School appealed to the Office of the President, which also dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Labor Secretary. Brent School then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether fixed-term employment contracts are valid under the Labor Code and whether Alegre was a regular employee despite the fixed-term provision in his contract. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that fixed-term employment contracts are valid, subject to certain conditions. The Court highlighted that the Labor Code amendments aimed to prevent abuses and circumventions of the right to security of tenure, not to eliminate all forms of fixed-term employment. Summary: The Court recognized the validity of fixed-term employment contracts, provided they are not used to circumvent the employee’s right to security of tenure. Application: This case is significant in determining the validity of fixed-term employment contracts and is often cited in disputes involving the interpretation of employment terms and conditions. 2. Delos Santos vs. Jebsen Maritime, Inc. (G.R. No. 154185, November 22, 2005) Doctrine: Seafarers are considered contractual employees, and their employment is governed by the contracts they sign before deployment. Facts: Delos Santos was employed as a seafarer by Jebsen Maritime, Inc. under a series of contracts. He claimed that he was illegally dismissed and sought payment for the unexpired portion of his contract. Jebsen Maritime argued that Delos Santos was a contractual employee and that his employment was governed by the terms of his contract. Issue: Whether Delos Santos was entitled to payment for the unexpired portion of his contract. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that seafarers are contractual employees and that their employment is governed by the contracts they sign before deployment. Delos Santos was not entitled to payment for the unexpired portion of his contract. Summary: The Court emphasized that seafarers are contractual employees and that their employment is governed by the terms of their contracts. Application: This case is relevant in disputes involving the employment status and entitlements of seafarers. 3. Integrated Contractor and Plumbing Works, Inc. vs. NLRC (August 9, 2005) Doctrine: The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by the four-fold test. Facts: Integrated Contractor and Plumbing Works, Inc. hired several workers for a specific project. The workers claimed that they were regular employees and sought regularization and payment of benefits. The company argued that the workers were project-based employees and were not entitled to regularization. Issue: Whether the workers were regular employees or project-based employees. New Section 1 Page 19  Whether the workers were regular employees or project-based employees. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the workers were project-based employees and were not entitled to regularization. The Court applied the four-fold test to determine the existence of an employer- employee relationship. Summary: The Court emphasized the importance of the four-fold test in determining employment status. Application: This case is relevant in disputes involving the employment status of project-based workers. 4. Universal Robina Corp. vs. Catapang (G.R. No. 164736, October 14, 2005) Doctrine: The control test is crucial in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Facts: Catapang was employed by Universal Robina Corp. as a machine operator. He claimed that he was illegally dismissed and sought reinstatement and payment of back wages. The company argued that Catapang was a casual employee and was not entitled to reinstatement. Issue: Whether Catapang was a regular employee or a casual employee. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Catapang was a regular employee and was entitled to reinstatement and payment of back wages. The Court applied the control test to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Summary: The Court emphasized the importance of the control test in determining employment status. Application: This case is relevant in disputes involving the employment status of casual workers. 5. Mercado vs. NLRC (September 5, 1991) Doctrine: The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by the four-fold test. Facts: Mercado was employed by a company as a security guard. He claimed that he was illegally dismissed and sought reinstatement and payment of back wages. The company argued that Mercado was an independent contractor and was not entitled to reinstatement. Issue: Whether Mercado was a regular employee or an independent contractor. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Mercado was a regular employee and was entitled to reinstatement and payment of back wages. The Court applied the four-fold test to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Summary: The Court emphasized the importance of the four-fold test in determining employment status. Application: This case is relevant in disputes involving the employment status of security guards and other similar workers. 6. Abasolo vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 118475, November 29, 2000) Doctrine: The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by the control test and the four-fold test. Facts: Abasolo was employed by a company as a driver. He claimed that he was illegally dismissed and sought reinstatement and payment of back wages. The company argued that Abasolo was an independent contractor and was not entitled to reinstatement. Issue: Whether Abasolo was a regular employee or an independent contractor. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Abasolo was a regular employee and was entitled to New Section 1 Page 20  Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Abasolo was a regular employee and was entitled to reinstatement and payment of back wages. The Court applied the control test and the four-fold test to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Summary: The Court emphasized the importance of the control test and the four-fold test in determining employment status. Application: This case is relevant in disputes involving the employment status of drivers and other similar workers. 8. Hacienda Fatima vs. National Federation of Sugarcane Workers (G.R. No. 149440, January 28, 2003) Doctrine: Seasonal workers who have been employed for several years and perform work that is necessary and desirable to the employer’s business are considered regular employees. Facts: The National Federation of Sugarcane Workers (NFSW) represented several workers employed by Hacienda Fatima. These workers performed various tasks related to sugarcane farming, which were seasonal in nature. Despite the seasonal nature of their work, the workers had been employed for several years. When the workers organized themselves into a union and were certified as the collective bargaining representative, Hacienda Fatima refused to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with them. The workers were subsequently not given work for more than a month, leading them to stage a strike. The strike was settled with a Memorandum of Agreement, but the workers were later dismissed. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the workers, declaring them regular employees and ordering their reinstatement with back wages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld this decision. Issue: Whether the workers were regular employees despite the seasonal nature of their work. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the workers were regular employees. The Court held that the workers had been employed for several years and performed work that was necessary and desirable to the employer’s business, making them regular employees. Summary: The Court emphasized that seasonal workers who have been employed for several years and perform work that is necessary and desirable to the employer’s business are considered regular employees. Application: This case is relevant in determining the employment status of seasonal workers and their entitlement to regular employment benefits. 9. Lacuesta vs. Ateneo de Manila University (G.R. No. 152777, December 9, 2005) Doctrine: The Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, not the Labor Code, determines the employment status of faculty members in private educational institutions. Facts: Lolita R. Lacuesta was hired by Ateneo de Manila University as a part-time lecturer and later as a full-time instructor on probation. Her contract was renewed several times, but she was eventually informed that her contract would not be renewed due to her failure to integrate well with the English Department. Lacuesta filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that she had attained regular status. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, but the NLRC reversed the decision. The CA upheld the NLRC’s decision. Issue: Whether Lacuesta had attained regular status as a faculty member. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, not the Labor Code, determines the employment status of faculty members in private educational institutions. The Court held that Lacuesta had not attained regular status as she did not meet the requirements set by the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. Summary: The Court emphasized that the employment status of faculty members in private educational New Section 1 Page 21  Summary: The Court emphasized that the employment status of faculty members in private educational institutions is determined by the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. Application: This case is relevant in disputes involving the employment status of faculty members in private educational institutions. 10. Kasapian ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Coca-Cola (KASAMMA-CCO)-CFW Local 245 vs. CA (April 19, 2006) Doctrine: The right to self-organization and collective bargaining is protected under the Constitution and labor laws. Facts: The case involves a dispute between the Kasapian ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Coca-Cola (KASAMMA-CCO) union and Coca-Cola management regarding the union’s right to represent the workers and negotiate a collective bargaining agreement. Issue: Whether the union had the right to represent the workers and negotiate a collective bargaining agreement. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the union, affirming its right to represent the workers and negotiate a collective bargaining agreement. Summary: The Court emphasized the protection of the right to self-organization and collective bargaining under the Constitution and labor laws. Application: This case is relevant in disputes involving the right to self-organization and collective bargaining. 11. Minsola vs. New City Builders Inc. (G.R. No. 207613, January 31, 2018) Doctrine: The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by the four-fold test. Facts: Reyman G. Minsola was hired by New City Builders, Inc. as a laborer for a specific project. He was later re-hired as a mason for another phase of the project. Minsola claimed that he was a regular employee and sought regularization and payment of benefits. The company argued that Minsola was a project-based employee and was not entitled to regularization. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Minsola’s complaint for illegal dismissal, and the NLRC and CA upheld the decision. Issue: Whether Minsola was a regular employee or a project-based employee. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Minsola was a project-based employee and was not entitled to regularization. The Court applied the four-fold test to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Summary: The Court emphasized the importance of the four-fold test in determining employment status. Application: This case is relevant in disputes involving the employment status of project-based workers. 12. Arcilla vs. San Sebastian College-Recoletos (G.R. No. 235863, October 10, 2022) Doctrine: The probationary nature of employment prevails over a fixed-term contract if the fixed term is merely for a convenient arrangement. Facts: Vanessa Laura Arcilla was appointed as a full-time probationary faculty member by San Sebastian College-Recoletos. Her contract was renewed for another semester but was not renewed thereafter. Arcilla filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that her probationary status overlapped with a fixed-term contract. The Labor Arbiter dismissed her complaint, but the NLRC reversed the decision. The CA nullified the NLRC’s decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision. New Section 1 Page 22  Issue: Whether Arcilla’s employment was terminated illegally. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the probationary nature of Arcilla’s employment prevailed over the fixed-term contract. The Court held that the employer could not simply invoke the expiration of the fixed term to terminate her employment. Summary: The Court emphasized that the probationary nature of employment prevails over a fixed-term contract if the fixed term is merely for a convenient arrangement. Application: This case is relevant in disputes involving the termination of probationary employees with fixed-term contracts. III. Recruitment and Placement 1. Recruitment of Local and Migrant Workers Local Workers: Recruitment involves sourcing, screening, and hiring individuals within the country. It includes job postings, interviews, and selection processes to fill vacancies. Migrant Workers: Recruitment of migrant workers involves additional steps such as compliance with international labor standards, securing work permits, and ensuring the protection of workers’ rights abroad. 2. Illegal Recruitment (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 10022) a. License vs. Authority: ○ License: Issued to recruitment agencies to legally operate and recruit workers. ○ Authority: Granted to specific entities or individuals to recruit workers for particular projects or employers. b. Essential Elements of Illegal Recruitment: ○ Recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority. ○ Engaging in recruitment activities that involve fraud, deception, or coercion. c. Simple Illegal Recruitment: Involves unauthorized recruitment activities without aggravating circumstances. d. Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Involves recruiting a significant number of workers (usually three or more) without proper authorization. e. Illegal Recruitment as Economic Sabotage: Considered when illegal recruitment activities cause substantial harm to the economy or the labor market. f. Illegal Recruitment vs. Estafa: ○ Illegal Recruitment: Focuses on unauthorized recruitment activities. ○ Estafa: Involves deceit or fraud to obtain money or property. g. Liabilities: ○ 1. Local Recruitment Agency: Liable for unauthorized recruitment activities and violations of labor laws. ○ 2. Foreign Employer: Liable for engaging in illegal recruitment practices and failing to protect workers’ rights. ○ 3. Solidary Liability: Both local agencies and foreign employers can be held jointly liable for illegal recruitment activities. h. Pre-termination of Contract of Migrant Worker: Involves the premature ending of a migrant worker’s contract, often due to illegal recruitment practices or violations of contract terms. 3. Direct Hiring Definition: Employers directly hire workers without the involvement of recruitment agencies. This practice is regulated to ensure workers’ rights and protections are upheld. New Section 1 Page 23  practice is regulated to ensure workers’ rights and protections are upheld. 4. Regulation and Enforcement a. Suspension or Cancellation of License or Authority (Art. 35, Labor Code): The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) has the power to suspend or cancel the licenses or authorities of recruitment agencies for violations of labor laws. b. Regulatory and Visitorial Powers of the DOLE Secretary: The DOLE Secretary has the authority to inspect and regulate recruitment agencies to ensure compliance with labor laws. c. Remittance of Foreign Exchange Earnings: Regulations require migrant workers to remit a portion of their earnings to their home country, ensuring economic benefits for their families and the national economy. d. Prohibited Activities: Recruitment agencies are prohibited from engaging in activities such as charging excessive fees, misrepresentation, and coercion. 1. Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. et al. (G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009) Doctrine: The clause in Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 limiting the benefits of illegally dismissed overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) to their salaries for the unexpired portion of their employment contracts or three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, violates the equal protection clause. Facts: Antonio Serrano, a Filipino seafarer, was employed by Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd. under a Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)-approved twelve- month contract as a Chief Officer. On March 19, 1998, Serrano departed for employment but had to accept a downgraded contract as Second Officer at a reduced salary upon respondents’ assurance of promotion to Chief Officer by April 1998. This promotion did not materialize, leading to Serrano’s repatriation on May 26, 1998. Serrano had served only two months and seven days of his contract, leaving an unexpired period of nine months and twenty-three days. Serrano filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and sought monetary claims totaling US$26,442.73 before the Labor Arbiter (LA). The LA found Serrano’s dismissal illegal and awarded him US$8,770.00, limited to three months’ salary, based on Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, Section 10. Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed illegal dismissal and awarded Serrano US$4,245.00. Serrano’s motion for reconsideration raised constitutional issues. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the NLRC’s decision but did not address the constitutional challenge. Serrano petitioned for review to the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether the clause in Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 limiting the benefits of illegally dismissed OFWs to their salaries for the unexpired portion of their employment contracts or three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, violates the equal protection clause. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the clause in Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 violates the equal protection clause. The Court held that the clause was discriminatory against OFWs with unexpired contracts of one year or more by unfairly limiting their claims, unlike local workers or OFWs with shorter contracts. This also affects substantive due process since there is no valid government interest served by this clause. Summary: The Court declared the clause in Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause. Application: This case is significant in protecting the rights of OFWs and ensuring they receive fair compensation for illegal dismissal. 2. SAMEER vs. Cabiles (G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014) Doctrine: The employer’s failure to comply with the procedural requirements of due process in terminating an employee results in the payment of indemnity. Facts: Cabiles was employed by SAMEER Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. as a domestic helper in Kuwait. She was terminated from her employment without being given the opportunity to be heard. Cabiles filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that her termination was without just cause and due process. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Cabiles, awarding her back wages and separation pay. New Section 1 Page 24  process. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Cabiles, awarding her back wages and separation pay. SAMEER appealed to the NLRC, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The CA upheld the NLRC’s decision, leading SAMEER to petition the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether Cabiles was illegally dismissed without due process. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Cabiles was illegally dismissed without due process. The Court held that the employer’s failure to comply with the procedural requirements of due process in terminating an employee results in the payment of indemnity. Summary: The Court emphasized the importance of due process in termination proceedings and awarded indemnity to Cabiles for the employer’s failure to comply with procedural requirements. Application: This case is relevant in ensuring that employers comply with due process requirements in termination proceedings. 3. People vs. Cagalingan (G.R. No. 198664, November 23, 2016) Doctrine: The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale include the recruitment of three or more persons without the necessary license or authority. Facts: Cagalingan was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale for recruiting several individuals for overseas employment without the necessary license or authority. The victims testified that they paid placement fees to Cagalingan, who promised them jobs abroad. However, the promised employment did not materialize, and Cagalingan failed to refund the fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Cagalingan guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. Cagalingan appealed to the CA, which affirmed the RTC’s decision. Cagalingan then petitioned the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether Cagalingan was guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Cagalingan was guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. The Court held that the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale were present, including the recruitment of three or more persons without the necessary license or authority. Summary: The Court affirmed Cagalingan’s conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale, emphasizing the protection of individuals from unauthorized recruitment activities. Application: This case is significant in combating illegal recruitment and protecting individuals from fraudulent recruitment practices. 4. People vs. Gasacao (G.R. No. 168445, November 11, 2005) Doctrine: The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when a person, without the necessary license or authority, undertakes recruitment activities. Facts: Gasacao was charged with illegal recruitment for recruiting individuals for overseas employment without the necessary license or authority. The victims testified that they paid placement fees to Gasacao, who promised them jobs abroad. However, the promised employment did not materialize, and Gasacao failed to refund the fees. The RTC found Gasacao guilty of illegal recruitment. Gasacao appealed to the CA, which affirmed the RTC’s decision. Gasacao then petitioned the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether Gasacao was guilty of illegal recruitment. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Gasacao was guilty of illegal recruitment. The Court held that the crime of illegal recruitment is committed when a person, without the necessary license or authority, undertakes recruitment activities. New Section 1 Page 25  undertakes recruitment activities. Summary: The Court affirmed Gasacao’s conviction for illegal recruitment, emphasizing the protection of individuals from unauthorized recruitment activities. Application: This case is relevant in combating illegal recruitment and protecting individuals from fraudulent recruitment practices. 5. People vs. Manungas (231 SCRA 1) Doctrine: The elements of illegal recruitment include the act of recruiting individuals for employment without the necessary license or authority. Facts: Manungas was charged with illegal recruitment for recruiting individuals for overseas employment without the necessary license or authority. The victims testified that they paid placement fees to Manungas, who promised them jobs abroad. However, the promised employment did not materialize, and Manungas failed to refund the fees. The RTC found Manungas guilty of illegal recruitment. Manungas appealed to the CA, which affirmed the RTC’s decision. Manungas then petitioned the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether Manungas was guilty of illegal recruitment. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Manungas was guilty of illegal recruitment. The Court held that the elements of illegal recruitment include the act of recruiting individuals for employment without the necessary license or authority. Summary: The Court affirmed Manungas’s conviction for illegal recruitment, emphasizing the protection of individuals from unauthorized recruitment activities. Application: This case is significant in combating illegal recruitment and protecting individuals from fraudulent recruitment practices. 6. General Milling Corporation and Earl Timothy Cone vs. Hon. Ruben D. Torres et al. (G.R. No. 93666, April 22, 1991) Doctrine: The Secretary of Labor has the authority to assume jurisdiction over labor disputes involving industries indispensable to the national interest. Facts: General Milling Corporation (GMC) and its employee union were involved in a labor dispute. The union declared a strike, which GMC argued would paralyze its operations and affect the national interest. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and issued a return-to-work order. GMC and Earl Timothy Cone challenged the Secretary’s authority to assume jurisdiction and issue the order. The RTC ruled in favor of GMC, but the CA reversed the decision. GMC and Cone then petitioned the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether the Secretary of Labor had the authority to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute and issue a return-to-work order. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the Secretary of Labor had the authority to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute and issue a return-to-work order. The Court held that the Secretary’s authority to assume jurisdiction over labor disputes involving industries indispensable to the national interest is provided by law. Summary: The Court affirmed the Secretary of Labor’s authority to assume jurisdiction over labor disputes involving industries indispensable to the national interest. Application: This case is relevant in disputes involving the assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor over labor disputes affecting the national interest. New Section 1 Page 26 5. TESDA Law (Republic Act No. 7796) Overview: The Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) Act of 1994 aims to provide relevant, accessible, high-quality, and efficient technical education and skills development to support the development of high-quality Filipino middle-level manpower. TESDA is responsible for formulating policies, plans, and programs for technical education and skills development. Apprentices and Learners: TESDA oversees apprenticeship and learnership programs, which provide opportunities for individuals to gain practical experience and skills in various trades and occupations. These programs are designed to enhance employability and meet the demands of the labor market. Handicapped Workers (RA 7277): TESDA also ensures that technical education and skills development programs are inclusive and accessible to handicapped workers, in line with the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons (RA 7277). This includes providing appropriate training and support to enhance their employability and integration into the workforce. IV. Labor Standards 1. Hours of Work a. Coverage/Exclusions (Art. 82, Labor Code): The Labor Code defines the coverage and exclusions for hours of work, specifying which employees are covered by standard working hours and which are exempt (e.g., managerial employees, field personnel). b. Normal Hours of Work: The standard working hours are eight hours a day, excluding meal breaks. c. Compressed Work Week: This arrangement allows employees to work longer hours on some days and shorter hours on others, provided the total weekly working hours do not exceed the standard. d. Meal Break: Employees are entitled to a meal break of at least one hour, which is not included in the computation of working hours. e. Waiting Time: Time spent waiting for work is considered working time if the employee is required to remain on the employer’s premises or at a prescribed workplace. f. Overtime Work, Overtime Pay: Work performed beyond the normal working hours is considered overtime and must be compensated with an additional pay rate, typically 25% more than the regular hourly rate. g. Night Work (R.A. No. 10151), Night Shift Differential: Employees who work between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM are entitled to a night shift differential, which is an additional compensation of at least 10% of their regular wage. h. Part-time Work: Part-time employees work fewer hours than the standard full-time hours and are compensated proportionately. i. Contract for Piece Work (see Civil Code): Employees paid on a piece-rate basis are compensated according to the amount of work completed, rather than the time spent working. 2. Rest Periods a. Coverage, Exclusions: The Labor Code specifies which employees are entitled to rest periods and which are exempt. b. Weekly Rest Day: Employees are entitled to at least one rest day per week, typically Sunday, unless otherwise agreed upon. c. Emergency Rest Day Work: Employees may be required to work on their rest day in emergencies, with appropriate compensation. 3. Holiday Pay/Premium Pay a. Coverage, Exclusions: The Labor Code defines which employees are entitled to holiday pay and premium pay, and which are exempt. b. Teachers, Piece Workers, Seasonal Workers, Seafarers: Specific provisions apply to these categories of workers regarding holiday pay and premium pay. 4. Service Charge (R.A. No. 11360) Definition: Service charges collected by establishments such as hotels and restaurants must be distributed equitably among employees. New Section 1 Page 27  distributed equitably among employees. 5. Leaves a. Service Incentive Leave: Employees who have rendered at least one year of service are entitled to five days of service incentive leave annually. b. Maternity Leave (R.A. No. 7322): Female employees are entitled to maternity leave benefits for childbirth or miscarriage. c. Maternity Leave (R.A. No. 11210): Extends maternity leave benefits to 105 days, with an option for an additional 30 days without pay. d. Paternity Leave (R.A. No. 8187): Male employees are entitled to seven days of paternity leave for the birth of a legitimate child. e. Parental Leave (R.A. No. 8972): Solo parents are entitled to seven days of parental leave annually. f. Leave Benefits for Women Workers Under Magna Carta of Women (RA 9710) and Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children of 2004 (RA 9262): Provides additional leave benefits for women workers, including those who are victims of violence. g. Compassionate Leaves: Employers may grant compassionate leaves for personal emergencies or family matters, though these are not mandated by law. Book 1 and Book 2 of Labor Code of the Philippines Book 1: Pre-Employment 1. What are the basic policies declared by the State in the Labor Code? ○ The State aims