Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANGELINA FRANCISCO v. NLRC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AM No. 10-9-15-SC 2013-02-12	RE: REQUEST OF CHIEF JUSTICE ARTEMIO v. PANGANIBAN FOR RE-COMPUTATION OF HIS CREDITABLE SERVICE FOR PURPOSE OF RE-COMPUTING HIS RETIREMENT BENEFITS. PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Recent jurisprudence adds another test, applied in conjunction with the control test, in determining the existence of employment relations.[37] The two-tiered test involves an inquiry into: "(1) the putative employer's power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished [control test]; and (2) the underlying economic realities of the activity or relationship [broader economic reality test]."[38]
	GR No. 185251 2009-10-02	RAUL G. LOCSIN v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY VELASCO JR., J.
Such power of control has been explained as the "right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end."[10] With the conclusion that respondent directed petitioners to remain at their posts and continue with their duties, it is clear that respondent exercised the power of control over them; thus, the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
	GR No. 155207 2008-08-13	WILHELMINA S. OROZCO v. FIFTH DIVISION OF CA NACHURA, J.
Aside from the control test, this Court has also used the economic reality test. The economic realities prevailing within the activity or between the parties are examined, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances surrounding the true nature of the relationship between the parties.[37] This is especially appropriate when, as in this case, there is no written agreement or contract on which to base the relationship. In our jurisdiction, the benchmark of economic reality in analyzing possible employment relationships for purposes of applying the Labor Code ought to be the economic dependence of the worker on his employer.[38]
	GR No. 154974 2008-02-04	KAUNLARAN LENDING INVESTORS v. LORETA UY CARPIO MORALES, J.
x x x [C]ourts do not generally look with favor on any retraction or recanted testimony, for it could have been secured by considerations other than to tell the truth and would make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of the truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. A recantation does not necessarily cancel an earlier declaration, but like any other testimony the same is subject to the test of credibility and should be received with caution.[38]