Labor Law Case Digest Index (Mercader)

I.
JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES

A. Exitnc of Employr-Employ Rlationhip

1. Javier v. Fly Ace Corporation G.R. NO. 192558 February 15, 2012
No particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of such employer-employee relationship. Any
competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted. The rule of thumb remains: the onus
probandi falls on petitioner to establish or substantiate such claim by the requisite quantum of evidence. Whoever
claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his or her right thereto x x x.
2. Southeast International Rattan, Inc v. Coming G.R. NO. 126297 February 11, 2008
To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship jurisprudence has invariably adhered to the
four-fold test, to wit:
(1) the selection and engagement of the employee;
(2) the payment of wages;
(3) the power of dismissal; and
(4) the power to control the employee’s conduct, or the so-called "control test."
In resolving the issue of whether such relationship exists in a given case, substantial evidence – that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion – is sufficient.
Although no particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of the relationship, and any competent
and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted, a finding that the relationship exists must
nonetheless rest on substantial evidence.
3. Tenazas v. R. Villegas Taxi Transportation GR NO. 192998 April 2, 2014

There is no hard and fast rule designed to establish the aforesaid elements. Any competent and relevant evidence
to prove the relationship may be admitted. Identification cards, cash vouchers, social security registration,
appointment letters or employment contracts, payrolls, organization charts, and personnel lists, serve as evidence
of employee status. "[T]he burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue."
4. Sagun v. ANZ Global GR NO. 220399 August 22, 2016

An employment contract, like any other contract, is perfected at the moment the parties come to agree upon its
terms and conditions, and thereafter, concur in the essential elements thereof. In this relation, the contracting
parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms, and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided
they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.
Accordingly, petitioner's employment with ANZ depended on the outcome of his background check, which
partakes of the nature of a suspensive condition, and hence, renders the obligation of the would-be employer, i.e.,
ANZ in this case, conditional. While a contract may be perfected in the manner of operation described above, the
efficacy of the obligations created thereby may be held in suspense pending the fulfillment of particular conditions
agreed upon. In other words, a perfected contract may exist, although the obligations arising therefrom if
premised upon a suspensive condition would yet to be put into effect. Thus, until and unless petitioner complied
with the satisfactory background check, there exists no obligation on the part of ANZ to recognize and fully accord
him the rights under the employment contract.
Labor Law 2 (Labor Relations) | Atty. Mercader Case Doctrines ib3g

ib3g
18. Jardin v. NLRC GR NO. 119268 February 23, 2000
Case Doctrines ib3g
continued employment in that line of business.
24. WPP Marketing v. Galera GR NO. 169207 March 25, 2010

1997.

jurisdiction over private respondent's complaint for illegal dismissal and damages arising therefrom.

32. San Miguel Corporation Employees Union v. Bersamira GR NO. 87700 June 13, 1990
A "labor dispute" as defined in Article 212 (1) of the Labor Code includes "any controversy or matter concerning
terms and conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,
maintaining, changing, or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants
stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee." A labor dispute can nevertheless exist "regardless of
whether the disputants stand in the proximate relationship of employer and employee" (Article 212 [1], Labor
that the NLRC does not have original jurisdiction over the cases enumerated in paragraph (a) and that if a claim

or enforcement of company personnel policies,” under Article 261. The voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary
deadlocks.
The labor disputes referred to in the same Article 262 [of the Labor Code] can include all those disputes
mentioned in Article 217 over which the Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction.” From the above
discussion, it is clear that voluntary arbitrators may, by agreement of the parties, assume jurisdiction over a
termination dispute such as the present case, contrary to the assertion of petitioner that they may not.
In ruling that VA assumed jurisdiction in deciding the issue of the legality of dismissal of Albarico, the
circumstances of the case lead to no other conclusion that the claim for separation pay was premised on his
allegation of illegal dismissal. Then, VA properly assumed jurisdiction over the issue of the legality of his
dismissal. To think otherwise would lead to absurdity, because the voluntary arbitrator would then be deciding that
issue in a vacuum. The arbitrator would have no basis whatsoever for saying that respondent was entitled to
separation pay or not if the issue of the legality of Albarico’s dismissal was not resolved first.

ib3g
trial courts the SEC’s jurisdiction over all cases listed in Section 5 of PD 902-A.
48. Wesleyan University v. Maglaya GR NO. 212774 January 23, 2017

50. Paredes v. Feed the Children Philippines GR NO. 184397 September 9, 2015
The money claims within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of labor arbiters are those which have some
reasonable causal connection with the employer-employee relationship. By the designating clause "arising from
the employer-employee relations," Article 217 applies with equal force to the claim of an employer for actual
damages against its dismissed employee, where the basis for the claim arises from or is necessarily connected
with the fact of termination, and should be entered as a counterclaim in the illegal dismissal case.
This claim is distinguished from cases of actions for damages where the employer-employee relationship is
merely incidental and the cause of action proceeds from a different source of obligation. Thus, the regular courts
have jurisdiction where the damages claimed for were based on: tort, malicious prosecution, or breach of contract,
as when the claimant seeks to recover a debt from a former employee or seeks liquidated damages in the
enforcement of a prior employment contract. The fact that the transaction happened at the time they were
employer and employee did not negate the civil jurisdiction of trial court. Hence, it is erroneous for the LA and the
CA to rule on such claim arising from a different source of obligation and where the employer-employee
relationship was merely incidental, moreso when the claim does not arise from or is necessarily connected with
the fact of termination.
51. Lunzaga v. Albar Shipping GR NO. 200476 April 18, 2012

A review of the records of the case reveals that the main issue in the complaint before the Labor Arbiter was
whether the heirs of Romeo are entitled to receive his death benefits from Albar. Clearly, the Labor Arbiter has
jurisdiction over this issue and the case itself, involving as it does a claim arising from an employer-employee

source of obligation.
Director will have to endorse the case to the appropriate Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.
an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondent, the Court rules that the NLRC has jurisdiction over
petitioner’s complaint.

Case Doctrines ib3g
Case Doctrines ib3g
and

exclusive and original jurisdiction; and NLRC can only issue injunction in labor disputes before it.

B. Ptition for Injunction in trik and lockout
C. Crtifid Ca (Rul VIII, NLRC Rul of Procdur)

3. Exclusiv Appllat Jurisdiction
A. Appal in Contmpt Ca bfor th Labor Arbitr
B. Appal in mall mony claim rolvd by th DOLE Rional Dirctor or harin officr
C. Appal in ca dcidd by th Labor Arbitr

4. Ground for Appal

5. Rquisits or prctin an appal
A. Fild within th rlmntary priod

102. Calipay v. NLRC GR NO. 166411 August 3, 2010
It is doctrinally entrenched that appeal is not a constitutional right, but a mere statutory privilege. Hence, parties
who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it.Procedural rules setting the
period for perfecting an appeal or filing a petition for review are generally inviolable. The perfection of an appeal in
the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional. Failure to perfect

Case Doctrines ib3g
compliance with the appeal bond requirement.
shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.

first NLRC resolution, it cannot validly claim that it was deprived of due process. In limiting its motion for
her part.
-end of midterms.

Labor Law Case Digest Index (Mercader)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor Law Case Digest Index (Mercader)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor Law Case Digest Index (Mercader)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I.

JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES

3. Tenazas v. R. Villegas Taxi Transportation GR NO. 192998 April 2, 2014

4. Sagun v. ANZ Global GR NO. 220399 August 22, 2016

Labor Law 2 (Labor Relations) | Atty. Mercader Case Doctrines ib3g

24. WPP Marketing v. Galera GR NO. 169207 March 25, 2010

Labor Law 2 (Labor Relations) | Atty. Mercader Case Doctrines ib3g

Labor Law 2 (Labor Relations) | Atty. Mercader Case Doctrines ib3g

Labor Law 2 (Labor Relations) | Atty. Mercader Case Doctrines ib3g

48. Wesleyan University v. Maglaya GR NO. 212774 January 23, 2017

Labor Law 2 (Labor Relations) | Atty. Mercader Case Doctrines ib3g

51. Lunzaga v. Albar Shipping GR NO. 200476 April 18, 2012

Labor Law 2 (Labor Relations) | Atty. Mercader Case Doctrines ib3g

Labor Law 2 (Labor Relations) | Atty. Mercader Case Doctrines ib3g

Labor Law 2 (Labor Relations) | Atty. Mercader Case Doctrines ib3g

Labor Law 2 (Labor Relations) | Atty. Mercader Case Doctrines ib3g

Labor Law 2 (Labor Relations) | Atty. Mercader Case Doctrines ib3g

Labor Law 2 (Labor Relations) | Atty. Mercader Case Doctrines ib3g

Labor Law 2 (Labor Relations) | Atty. Mercader Case Doctrines ib3g

You might also like