Scribd
Upload
82 views2 pages

Religious of The Virgin Mary vs. NLRC Facts: On July 18, 1983, CDSPB (A School Owned by The Diocese

Religious of the Virgin Mary vs. NLRC CDSPB entered into an agreement with Religious of the Virgin Mary (RVM) whereby RVM would run and operate the girls department of CDSPB school for 10 years. The Bishop of Malolos pre-terminated the agreement. Teachers hired by RVM continued working but were not paid their salaries for May 1987. The Court ruled that CDSPB, through its director, exercised control over the administration of the school based on the agreement. While RVM administered the girls department, CDSPB maintained substantial supervision and control as evidenced by terminating the agreement. Therefore, RVM was an agent of CDSPB and CDSPB was ordered to pay the unpaid teacher salaries.

Uploaded by

Alexandra Nicole Sugay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
82 views2 pages

Religious of The Virgin Mary vs. NLRC Facts: On July 18, 1983, CDSPB (A School Owned by The Diocese

Religious of the Virgin Mary vs. NLRC CDSPB entered into an agreement with Religious of the Virgin Mary (RVM) whereby RVM would run and operate the girls department of CDSPB school for 10 years. The Bishop of Malolos pre-terminated the agreement. Teachers hired by RVM continued working but were not paid their salaries for May 1987. The Court ruled that CDSPB, through its director, exercised control over the administration of the school based on the agreement. While RVM administered the girls department, CDSPB maintained substantial supervision and control as evidenced by terminating the agreement. Therefore, RVM was an agent of CDSPB and CDSPB was ordered to pay the unpaid teacher salaries.

Uploaded by

Alexandra Nicole Sugay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2

Religious of the Virgin Mary vs.

NLRC

Facts: On July 18, 1983, CDSPB (a school owned by the Diocese


of Malolos), represented by the Bishop of Malolos, entered into an
Agreement with petitioner Religious of the Virgin Mary (RVM), a
religious congregation, whereby the latter was designated to run,
administer and operate the [CDSPB] Girls Department. The
Agreement was for a term of 10 years, commencing in the school
year 1983-1984.

The Bishop of Malolos pre-terminated the Agreement. As a result,


petitioner moved out of the school premises, and CDSPB, through
the Bishop of Malolos and his representatives, took over the
school. Apparently, the teaching and non-teaching personnel
hired by petitioner for school year 1986-1987 continued to render
services even after the Agreement was terminated, but they were
not paid their salaries for the month of May 1987. Hence, the
complaint for unpaid salaries with the NLRC-Regional Arbitration
Branch, naming CDSPB and petitioner as respondents. The Labor
Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the complainant-teachers
and ordered CDSPB to pay them their claim for salaries. RVM was
absolved from any liability. On appeal, the NLRC adopted the
findings of the labor arbiter and affirmed his decision.

Issue: Whether or not the Religious of the Virgin Mary is an


independent contractor and therefore solely liable for the salaries
of the teachers.

Held: No. The Court held that the agreement leaves no room for
doubt that CDSPB, as represented by the director, exercised
absolute control and supervision over the school's administration.
Under it, the authority to hire, discipline and terminate the
employment of personnel is vested in the director, as academic
and administrative head of the school. As the Court has
consistently ruled, the power of control is the most decisive factor
in determining the existence of an employer-employee
relationship.

In this case, CDSPB reserved the right to control and supervise


the operations of the Girls Department. As noted by the labor
arbiter and affirmed by the NLRC, although CDSPB actually
exercised minimal supervision over petitioner, [it] could exercise
substantial supervision and control as it did when [it] pre-
terminated the Agreement. There was, therefore, no basis in
finding that petitioner had a greater degree of autonomy and
independence in running the affairs of the school. The presence of
the school director, whose vast powers have already been noted,
negates any suggestion or semblance of autonomy.

Based on the Agreement and other evidence on record, it thus


appears that petitioner was merely the agent or administrator of
CDSPB, and that private respondents are its employees. Colegio
de San Pascual Baylon was ordered to pay private respondents
their salaries.

You might also like