Scribd
Upload
122 views2 pages

Chavez Vs NLRC Et Al Digest: Chavez Vs NLRC, Supreme Packaging Inc, and Alvin Lee GR No. 146530 January 17, 2005 Facts

Pedro Chavez worked as a truck driver for Supreme Packaging Inc. from 1984 to 1995, delivering the company's products to customers. While Chavez received wages and followed the company's routing instructions, Supreme Packaging denied him benefits given to regular employees. Chavez filed a complaint claiming he was illegally terminated without cause and denied overtime pay, night pay, and 13th month pay. The Supreme Court ruled Chavez was an employee, not an independent contractor, as Supreme Packaging controlled his work and could dismiss him. The elements of employer-employee relationship were present despite any contract terms to the contrary.

Uploaded by

fendy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
122 views2 pages

Chavez Vs NLRC Et Al Digest: Chavez Vs NLRC, Supreme Packaging Inc, and Alvin Lee GR No. 146530 January 17, 2005 Facts

Pedro Chavez worked as a truck driver for Supreme Packaging Inc. from 1984 to 1995, delivering the company's products to customers. While Chavez received wages and followed the company's routing instructions, Supreme Packaging denied him benefits given to regular employees. Chavez filed a complaint claiming he was illegally terminated without cause and denied overtime pay, night pay, and 13th month pay. The Supreme Court ruled Chavez was an employee, not an independent contractor, as Supreme Packaging controlled his work and could dismiss him. The elements of employer-employee relationship were present despite any contract terms to the contrary.

Uploaded by

fendy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Chavez vs NLRC ET AL DIGEST

DECEMBER 21, 2016 ~ VBDIAZ

Chavez vs NLRC, Supreme Packaging Inc, and Alvin Lee


GR No. 146530 January 17, 2005
Facts:
 The respondent company, Supreme Packaging Inc., is in the business of

manufacturing cartons and other packaging materials for export and distribution.
 The petitioner, Pedro Chavez, was a truck driver (from October 25, 1984) tasked
to deliver the respondent company’s products to its various customers.
 The respondent furnished petitioner with a truck that all deliveries were made in
accordance with the routing slips issued by the respondent company indicating the
order, time and urgency of delivery.
 On 1992, the petitioner expressed his desire to avail the benefits that a regular
employee were receiving such as overtime pay, nightshift differential pay, and
13th month pay, among others but nothing was complied.
 On February 20, 1995, petitioner filed a complaint for regularization with the
Regional Arbitration Branch No. III of NLRC in San Fernando, Pampanga. Before
the case could be heard, respondent terminated the services of the petitioner.
 Hence, the petitioner filed an amended complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor
practice and non-payment of overtime pay, nightshift differential, and 13th month
pay, among others.
Issue: Whether there exists an employer-employee relationship?
Held:
 Yes an employer-employee do exist. The elements to determine the existence of
an employment relationship are: (1) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the
employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct. The most important element
is the employer’s control of the employee’s conduct, not only as to the result of
the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it. First.
Undeniably, it was the respondents who engaged the services of the petitioner
without the intervention of a third party. Second. Wages are defined as
“remuneration or earnings, however designated, capable of being expressed in
terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece or commission
basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to
an employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done
or to be done, or for service rendered or to be rendered. The petitioner is paid on a
per trip basis is not significant. This is merely a method of computing
compensation. Third. The respondent’s power to dismiss the petitioner was
inherent in the fact that they engaged the services of the petitioner as truck driver.
They exercised this power by terminating the petitioner’s services albeit in the
guise of severance of contractual relation due allegedly to the latter’s breach of his
contractual obligation. Fourth. Compared to an employee, an independent
contractor is one who carries on a distinct and independent business and
undertakes to perform the job, work or service on its own account and under its
own responsibility according to its own manner and method, free from the control
and direction of the principal in all matters connected with the performance of the
work except as to the results thereof. Hence while an independent contractor
enjoys independence and freedom from the control and supervision of his
principal. An employee is subject to the employer’s power to control the means
and methods by which the employee’s work is to be performed and accomplished.
A careful review of the records shows that the latter performed his work under the
respondents’ supervision and control. The existence of an employer-employee
relationship cannot be negated by expressly repudiating it in a contract and
providing therein that the employee is an independent contractor when the facts
clearly show otherwise. Employment status is defined by law and not by what the
parties say it should be.

You might also like