Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. PROSPERO A. ABALLA

This case has been cited 23 times or more.

	GR No. 172349 2012-06-13	POLYFOAM-RGC INTERNATIONAL v. EDGARDO CONCEPCION PERALTA, J.
The test of independent contractorship is "whether one claiming to be an independent contractor has contracted to do the work according to his own methods and without being subject to the control of the employer, except only as to the results of the work."[43] In San Miguel Corporation v. Semillano,[44] the Court laid down the criteria in determining the existence of an independent and permissible contractor relationship, to wit: x x x [W]hether or not the contractor is carrying on an independent business; the nature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term and duration of the relationship; the right to assign the performance of a specified piece of work; the control and supervision of the work to another; the employer's power with respect to the hiring, firing and payment of the contractor's workers; the control of the premises; the duty to supply the premises, tools, appliances, materials, and labor; and the mode, manner and terms of payment.[45]
	GR No. 164257 2010-07-05	SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. VICENTE B. SEMILLANO MENDOZA, J.
The test to determine the existence of independent contractorship is whether or not the one claiming to be an independent contractor has contracted to do the work according to his own methods and without being subject to the control of the employer, except only as to the results of the work.[15]
	GR No. 160506 2010-03-09	JOEB M. ALIVIADO v. PROCTER DEL CASTILLO, J.
"Where `labor-only' contracting exists, the Labor Code itself establishes an employer-employee relationship between the employer and the employees of the `labor-only' contractor."[39] The statute establishes this relationship for a comprehensive purpose: to prevent a circumvention of labor laws. The contractor is considered merely an agent of the principal employer and the latter is responsible to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if such employees had been directly employed by the principal employer.[40]
	GR No. 165199 2009-11-27	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. INOCENCIO B. BERBANO CARPIO, J.
Finally, we find no error in the award of attorney's fees. In San Miguel Corporation v. Aballa,[34] we held that in actions for recovery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and thus incur expenses to protect his rights and interests, a maximum of 10% of the total monetary award by way of attorney's fees is justifiable under Article 111 of the Labor Code;[35] Section 8, Rule VIII of Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code;[36] and paragraph 7, Article 2208 of the Civil Code.[37] The award of attorney's fees is proper and there need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages. There need only be a showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly.[38]
	GR No. 170891 2009-11-24	MANUEL C. ESPIRITU v. PETRON CORPORATION ABAD, J.
But, while procedural requirements such as that of submittal of a certificate of non-forum shopping cannot be totally disregarded, they may be deemed substantially complied with under justifiable circumstances.[7] One of these circumstances is where the petitioners filed a collective action in which they share a common interest in its subject matter or raise a common cause of action. In such a case, the certification by one of the petitioners may be deemed sufficient.[8]
	GR No. 178520 2009-06-23	AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-EAST RIZAL v. ALLAN RAYMOND R. IGNACIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The general rule, no doubt, is that findings of fact of an administrative agency, which has acquired expertise in the particular field of its endeavor, are accorded great weight on appeal. The rule is not absolute and admits of certain well-recognized exceptions, however. Thus, when the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are not supported by substantial evidence or their judgment was based on a misapprehension of facts, the appellate court may make an independent evaluation of the facts of the case, which procedure the Court of Appeals adopted in this case.[25] Moreover, where the party's contention appears to be clearly tenable, or where the broader interest of justice and public policy so requires, the court may, in a certiorari proceeding, correct the error committed. The Court of Appeals, in view of its expanded jurisdiction over labor cases elevated to it through a petition for certiorari such as in this case, may look into the records of the case and re-examine the questioned findings if it considers the same to be necessary to arrive at a just decision.[26]
	GR No. 160240 2008-10-29	WOODRIDGE SCHOOL v. JOANNE C. PE BENITO NACHURA, J.
As to the certification against forum shopping, the CA correctly relaxed the Rules in order to serve the ends of justice. While the general rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient, this Court has stressed that the rules on forum shopping, which were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not be interpreted with absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective. Strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certificate of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded. It does not, however, interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.[28]
	GR No. 177785 2008-09-03	RANDY ALMEDA v. ASAHI GLASS PHILIPPINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Equally unavailing is respondent's stance that its relationship with petitioners should be governed by the Accreditation Agreement stipulating that petitioners were to remain employees of SSASI and shall not become regular employees of the respondent. To permit respondent to disguise the true nature of its transactions with SSASI by the terms of its contract, for the purpose of evading its liabilities under the law, would seriously impair the administration of justice. A party cannot dictate, by the mere expedient of a unilateral declaration in a contract, the character of its business, i.e., whether as labor-only contractor or as job contractor, it being crucial that its character be measured in terms of and determined by the criteria set by statute.[19]
	GR No. 146408 2008-02-29	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. ENRIQUE LIGAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
More significantly, however, is that respondents worked alongside petitioner's regular employees who were performing identical work.[23] As San Miguel Corporation v. Aballa[24] and Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Esteva, et al.[25] teach, such is an indicium of labor-only contracting.
	GR No. 159730 2008-02-11	NORKIS TRADING CO. v. MELVIN GNILO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Finally, we find no error committed by the NLRC in awarding attorney's fees. In San Miguel Corporation v. Aballa,[29] we held that in actions for recovery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and thus incur expenses to protect his rights and interests, a maximum of 10% of the total monetary award by way of attorney's fees is justifiable under Article 111 of the Labor Code,[30] Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules;[31] and paragraph 7, Article 2208 of the Civil Code.[32] The award of attorney's fees is proper and there need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages. There need only be a showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly.[33]
	GR No. 157673 2007-10-15	ROLANDO ANGELES v. POLYTEX DESIGN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Finally, petitioners bewail respondents' failure to furnish the DOLE of the prior termination notice, as required by Article 283 of the Labor Code. On this score, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA, unanimously ruled that there was substantial compliance. Records confirm this conclusions. The fire occurred on April 26, 1999. Admittedly, respondents filed an Establishment Termination Report only on July 12, 1999. However, as early as May 6, 1999, negotiations between the company's union, KAMAPI, and respondents were already being made regarding the separation package to be given to the employees. The employees were also informed by respondents that they intended to file a temporary closure with the DOLE. It should be stressed that the purpose of previous notice is to give the employee some time to prepare for the eventual loss of his job, as well as the DOLE the opportunity to ascertain the verity of the alleged authorized cause of termination.[14] The fact that the company's union, KAMAPI, of which petitioners are members, sat down and talked over with the management as regards their separation package, meant that they acknowledged the existence of a valid cause for the company's closure.
	GR NO. 159919 2007-08-08	COMPOSITE ENTERPRISES v. EMILIO M. CAPAROSO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As regards retrenchment, it is a management prerogative consistently recognized and affirmed by this Court. It is, however, subject to faithful compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements laid down by law and jurisprudence.[42] For retrenchment to be considered valid, the following substantial requirements must be met: (a) the losses expected should be substantial and not merely de minimis in extent; (b) the substantial losses apprehended must be reasonably imminent such as can be perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer; (c) the retrenchment must be reasonably necessary and likely to effectively prevent the expected losses; and (d) the alleged losses, if already incurred, and the expected imminent losses sought to be forestalled, must be proved by sufficient and convincing evidence.[43]
	GR NO. 159919 2007-08-08	COMPOSITE ENTERPRISES v. EMILIO M. CAPAROSO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In the discharge of these requirements, it is the employer who has the onus, this being in the nature of an affirmative defense.[44] In other words, it is not enough for a company to merely declare that it has implemented a retrenchment program. It must produce adequate proof that such is the actual situation to justify the retrenchment of employees. Normally, the condition of business losses is shown by audited financial documents like yearly balance sheets, profit and loss statements and annual income tax returns. The financial statements must be prepared and signed by independent auditors, failing which these can be assailed as self-serving documents.[45]
	GR NO. 169600 2007-06-26	MARIVAL TRADING v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court held in San Miguel Corporation v. Aballa[40] that in actions for recovery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and thus incurred expenses to protect his rights and interests, a maximum of 10% of the total monetary award by way of attorney's fees is justifiable under Article 111 of the Labor Code, Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules; and paragraph 7, Article 2208 of the Civil Code.
	GR NO. 164582 2007-03-28	PILAR ESPINA v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the case of San Miguel Corporation v. Aballa,[22] the dismissed employees filed with the NLRC a complaint for declaration as regular employees of San Miguel Corporation (SMC) and for an illegal dismissal case, following SMC's closure of its Bacolod Shrimp Processing Plant. After an unfavorable ruling from the NLRC, the dismissed employees filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Only three out of the 97 named petitioners signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping. This Court ruled that given the collective nature of the petition filed before the appellate court, which raised only one common cause of action against SMC, the execution by the three petitioners, in behalf of all the other petitioners, of the certificate of non-forum shopping constitutes substantial compliance with the Rules.
	GR NO. 161115 2006-11-30	DOLE PHILIPPINES v. MEDEL ESTEVA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Third, petitioner exercised control over the CAMPCO members, including respondents. Petitioner attempts to refute control by alleging the presence of a CAMPCO supervisor in the work premises. Yet, the mere presence within the premises of a supervisor from the cooperative did not necessarily mean that CAMPCO had control over its members. Section 8(1), Rule VIII, Book III of the implementing rules of the Labor Code, as amended, required for permissible job contracting that the contractor undertakes the contract work on his account, under his own responsibility, according to his own manner and method, free from the control and direction of his employer or principal in all matters connected with the performance of the work except as to the results thereof. As alleged by the respondents, and unrebutted by petitioner, CAMPCO members, before working for the petitioner, had to undergo instructions and pass the training provided by petitioner's personnel. It was petitioner who determined and prepared the work assignments of the CAMPCO members. CAMPCO members worked within petitioner's plantation and processing plants alongside regular employees performing identical jobs, a circumstance recognized as an indicium of a labor-only contractorship.[38]
	GR NO. 148490 2006-11-22	7K CORPORATION v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The fact that the service contract entered into by petitioner and Universal stipulated that private respondents shall be the employees of Universal, would not help petitioner, as the language of a contract is not determinative of the relationship of the parties. [26] Petitioner and Universal cannot dictate, by the mere expedient of a declaration in a contract, the character of Universal's business, i.e., whether as labor-only contractor, or job contractor, it being crucial that Universal's character be measured in terms of and determined by the criteria set by statute.[27]
	GR NO. 156536 2006-10-31	JOSEPH CUA v. GLORIA A. VARGAS AZCUNA, J.
The general rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient.[31] Nevertheless, the rules on forum shopping, which were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert their own ultimate and legitimate objective. Strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certificate of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded.[32] Under justifiable circumstances, the Court has relaxed the rule requiring the submission of such certification considering that although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.[33]
	GR NO. 148261 2006-10-09	NENUCA A. VELEZ v. SHANGRI-LA'S EDSA PLAZA HOTEL GARCIA, J.
With the reality that the petitioner was not illegally dismissed, she is not entitled to backwages. Backwages may be granted only when there is a finding that the dismissal is illegal.[20]
	GR NO. 169652 2006-10-09	ASIAN INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The award of attorney's fees is sustained. In actions for recovery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and thus incurred expenses to protect his rights and interests, a maximum of ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award by way of attorney's fees is justified under Article 111 of the Labor Code, Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules, and paragraph 7, Article 2208 of the Civil Code. There need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages. There need only be a showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly and that the employee was forced to file a case, as in the instant case.[16]
	GR NO. 148247 2006-08-07	AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. ENRICO E. ZAMORA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As a general rule, a petition lacking copies of essential pleadings and portions of the case record may be dismissed.[28] This rule, however, is not petrified. As the exact nature of the pleadings and parts of the case record which must accompany a petition is not specified, much discretion is left to the appellate court to determine the necessity for copies of pleading and other documents. [29]There are, however, guideposts it must follow.
	GR NO. 164518 2006-01-25	INDUSTRIAL TIMBER CORPORATION v. VIRGILIO ABABON YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Where the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under Article 283 of the Labor Code but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiff as the dismissal process was initiated by the employer's exercise of his management prerogative, as opposed to a dismissal based on a just cause under Article 282 with the same procedural infirmity where the sanction to be imposed upon the employer should be tempered as the dismissal process was, in effect, initiated by an act imputable to the employee.[39]
	GR NOS. 168194 & 168603 2005-12-13	SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. CAROLINE C. DEL ROSARIO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Anent attorney's fees, we held in San Miguel Corporation v. Aballa, et al.,[34] that in actions for recovery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and thus incurred expenses to protect his rights and interests, a maximum of 10% of the total monetary award by way of attorney's fees is justifiable under Article 111 of the Labor Code,[35] Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules,[36] and paragraph 7, Article 2208 of the Civil Code.[37] The award of attorney's fees is proper and there need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages. There need only be a showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly, as in the instant controversy.