23

Allan Bazar vs Carlos Ruizol

G.R. No. 198782, October 19, 2016

DOCTRINE: The four-fold test used in determining the, existence of employer employee
relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of
wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee
with respect to the means and. method by which the work is to be accomplished.

FACTS: Carlos A. Ruizol was a mechanic at Norkis Distributors and assigned at the
Surigao City branch. He was terminated effective 27 March 2002. At the time of his
termination, respondent was receiving a monthly salary of P2,050 and was working from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with a one-hour meal break for six (6) days in a week. Ruizol
claimed that he was dismissed by Allan Bazar(new manager) because the latter wanted
to appoint his protege as a mechanic. Because of this, Ruizol filed a complaint before
Regional Arbitration Branch No. XIII of the (NLRC) in Butuan City for illegal dismissal
and other monetary claims. Whereas, Allan, alleged that Ruizol is not an employee but
a franchised mechanic of NDI pursuant to a retainership agreement. Petitioner averred
that respondent, being the owner of a motor repair shop, performed repair warranty
service, back repair of Yamaha units, and ordinary repair at his own shop. Petitioner
maintained that NDI terminated the retainership contract with respondent because they
were no longer satisfied with the latter's services. Labor Arbiter ruled in fabor of Ruizol.
NLRC reversed the ruling. CA granted the petition of Ruizol.

ISSUE: Whether or not Carlos was an employee of Norkis.

RULING: Yes, A retainership agreement is not indicative of his employment status. It is

the law that defines and governs an employment relationship, whose terms are not
restricted by those fixed in the written contract, for other factors, like the nature of the
work the employee has been called upon to perform, are also considered. The law
affords protection to an employee, and does not countenance any attempt to subvert its
spirit and intent. Any stipulation in writing can be ignored when the employer utilizes the
stipulation to deprive the employee of his security of tenure. The four-fold test used in
determining the, existence of employer employee relationship are: (a) the selection and
engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and
(d) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the means and.
method by which the work is to be accomplished. The control test is the most crucial
and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee
relationship. Under the control test, an employer-employee relationship exists where the
person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the
end achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end. It was
shown that respondent had to abide by the standards sets by NDI in conducting repair
work on Yamaha motorbikes done in NDI's service shop. As a matter of fact, on
allegations that respondent failed to live up to the demands of the work, he was sent
several memoranda by NDI.
 24
JMM PROMOTIONS & MANAGEMENT, INC., vs. CA
G.R. No. 109835. November 22, 1993

DOCTRINE: Overseas recruiters are subject to more stringent requirements because of

the special risks to which our workers abroad are subjected by their foreign employers,
against whom there is usually no direct or effective recourse. The overseas recruiter is
solidarily liable with the foreign employer.

FACTS: JMM contends that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing the petitioner’s appeal from a decision of the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration on the ground of failure to post the required appeal bond,
cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the
Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed
from. JMM insists that the appeal bond is not necessary in the case of licensed
recruiters for overseas employment because they are already required under Section 4,
Rule II, Book II of the POEA Rules not only to pay a license fee of P30,000.00 but also
to post a cash bond of P100,000.00 and a surety bond of P50,000.00,

ISSUE: Whether or not JMM is required to post additional bond in order to perfect an
appeal.

RULING: Yes, an appeal bond in an amount equivalent to the monetary award is

required to perfect an appeal from a decision of the POEA. Obviously, the appeal bond
is intended to further insure the payment of the monetary award in favor of the
employee if it is eventually affirmed on appeal to the NLRC. These standby guarantees
are not imposed on local employers, but on overseas recruiters. Overseas recruiters are
subject to more stringent requirements because of the special risks to which our
workers abroad are subjected by their foreign employers, against whom there is usually
no direct or effective recourse. The overseas recruiter is solidarily liable with the foreign
employer. The bonds and the escrow money are intended to insure more care on the
part of the local agent in its choice of the foreign principal to whom our overseas
workers are to be sent. Every intendment of the law must be interpreted in favor of the
working class, conformably to the mandate of the Constitution. By sustaining rather than
annulling the appeal bond as a further protection to the claimant employee, this Court
affirms once again its commitment to the interests of labor.
 57
SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC., v. JOY C. CABILES,
G.R. No. 170139, August 05, 2014

DECISION: The burden of proof to show that the dismissal was based on a just or valid
cause belongs to the employer

FACTS: Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc., is a recruitment and placement

agency. Joy Cabiles was accepted as a quality control job officer for a one-year
employment contract at Taiwan Wacoal, Co. Ltd. A month thereafter, Sameer claimed
that a certain Mr. Huwang from Wacoal informed Joy, without prior notice, that she was
terminated and that “she should immediately report to their office to get her salary and
passport.” Joy filed a complaint with the NLRC against petitioner and Wacoal. She
claimed that she was illegally dismissed and asked for the return of her placement fee,
the withheld amount for repatriation costs, payment of her salary for 23 months as well
as moral and exemplary damages.She identified Wacoal as Sameer Overseas
Placement Agency’s foreign principal. Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. NLRC
reversed the decision of LA. CA affirmed the decision of NLRC.

ISSUE: Whether or not Joy was illegally dismissed.

RULING: Yes, the doctrine that the burden of proof to show that the dismissal was
based on a just or valid cause belongs to the employer. It found that Sameer Overseas
Placement Agency failed to prove that there were just causes for termination. There
was no sufficient proof to show that respondent was inefficient in her work and that she
failed to comply with company requirements. Furthermore, procedural due process was
not observed in terminating respondent.
 58
CLAUDIO S. YAP, vs.
THENAMARIS SHIP'S MANAGEMENT and INTERMARE MARITIME AGENCIES

DECISION: Illegally dismissed local workers are guaranteed under the Labor Code of
reinstatement with full backwages computed from the time compensation was withheld
from them up to their actual reinstatement

FACTS: Yap was employed as electrician of the vessel, M/T SEASCOUT by Intermare
Maritime Agencies, Inc. in behalf of its principal, Vulture Shipping Limited. The contract
of employment was for a duration of 12 months Yap boarded M/T SEASCOUT and
commenced his job as electrician. However, the vessel was sold. Yap, along with the
other crewmembers, was informed that the same was sold and will be scrapped. Yap
received his seniority bonus, vacation bonus, extra bonus along with the scrapping
bonus. However, with respect to the payment of his wage, he refused to accept the
payment of one-month basic wage. He insisted that he was entitled to the payment of
the unexpired. portion of his contract since he was illegally dismissed from employment.
He alleged that he opted for immediate transfer but none was made. [Respondents], for
their part, contended that Yap's employment contract was validly terminated due to the
sale of the vessel and no arrangement was made for Yap's transfer to Thenamaris'
other vessels. Thus, Yap filed a complaint for Illegal Dismissal with Damages before the
Labor Arbiter (LA) and claimed that he was entitled to the salaries corresponding to the
unexpired portion of his contract. LA rendered a decision of Yap. NLRC affirmed the
decision. But later revised it granting only three (3) months salary for every year of the
unexpired term instead of the full unexpired term. CA affirm the decision of the NLRC.

ISSUE: Whether or not Section 10 of R.A. [No.] 8042, to the extent that it affords an
illegally dismissed migrant worker the lesser benefit of - "salaries for [the] unexpired
portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every... year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less constitutional

RULING: Unconstitutional, 5th paragraph of Section 10, R.A. No. 8042, is violative of
Section 1,[22] Article III and Section 3,[23] Article XIII of the Constitution to the extent
that it gives an erring employer the option to pay an illegally dismissed migrant worker
only three months for every year of the unexpired term of his contract; that said
provision of law has long been a source of abuse by callous employers against migrant
workers; and that said provision violates the equal protection clause under the
Constitution because, while illegally dismissed local workers are guaranteed under the
Labor Code of reinstatement with full backwages computed from the time compensation
was withheld from them up to their actual reinstatement, migrant workers, by virtue of
Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, have to waive nine months of their collectible backwages
every time they have a year of unexpired term of contract to reckon with.