Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    Remington Industrial Sales Corp. v. Castaneda, G.R. Nos. 169295-96, Nov. 20, 2006

    Uploaded by

    Matthew Evan Esteves
    Erlinda worked as a cook for Remington Industrial Sales Corporation from 1983 to 1998. She claims she was illegally dismissed without notice when Remington transferred locations. Remington argues Erlinda was a domestic helper, not a regular employee. The court ruled that Erlinda was a regular employee based on her working at the company premises, cooking for employees, and not exclusively for the owner's family. As a regular employee, Erlinda was entitled to security of tenure and employee benefits.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Remington Industrial Sales Corp. v. Castaneda, G.R. Nos. 169295-96, Nov. 20, 2006

    Uploaded by

    Matthew Evan Esteves
    27 views2 pages
    Erlinda worked as a cook for Remington Industrial Sales Corporation from 1983 to 1998. She claims she was illegally dismissed without notice when Remington transferred locations. Remington argues Erlinda was a domestic helper, not a regular employee. The court ruled that Erlinda was a regular employee based on her working at the company premises, cooking for employees, and not exclusively for the owner's family. As a regular employee, Erlinda was entitled to security of tenure and employee benefits.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    98. Remington Industrial Sales Corp. v. Castaneda, G.R. Nos. 169295-96, Nov. 20, 2006

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Erlinda worked as a cook for Remington Industrial Sales Corporation from 1983 to 1998. She claims she was illegally dismissed without notice when Remington transferred locations. Remington argues Erlinda was a domestic helper, not a regular employee. The court ruled that Erlinda was a regular employee based on her working at the company premises, cooking for employees, and not exclusively for the owner's family. As a regular employee, Erlinda was entitled to security of tenure and employee benefits.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    27 views2 pages

    Remington Industrial Sales Corp. v. Castaneda, G.R. Nos. 169295-96, Nov. 20, 2006

    Uploaded by

    Matthew Evan Esteves
    Erlinda worked as a cook for Remington Industrial Sales Corporation from 1983 to 1998. She claims she was illegally dismissed without notice when Remington transferred locations. Remington argues Erlinda was a domestic helper, not a regular employee. The court ruled that Erlinda was a regular employee based on her working at the company premises, cooking for employees, and not exclusively for the owner's family. As a regular employee, Erlinda was entitled to security of tenure and employee benefits.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs.

    ERLINDA CASTANEDA, Respondent


    G.R. Nos. 169295-96
    November 20, 2006

    Prepared by: Ghreshier SG Santos


    Topic: Kasambahay

    FACTS:
    Erlinda alleged that she started working in August 1983 as company cook with a
    salary of Php 4,000.00 for Remington, a corporation engaged in the trading business; she
    continuously worked with Remington until she was unceremoniously prevented from
    reporting for work when Remington transferred to a new site in Edsa, Caloocan City. She
    averred that she reported for work at the new site in Caloocan City on January 15, 1998,
    only to be informed that Remington no longer needed her services. Erlinda believed that
    her dismissal was illegal because she was not given the notices required by law; hence, she
    filed her complaint for reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, salary differentials,
    service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay and 10% attorney’s fees.
    Meanwhile, Remington denied that it dismissed Erlinda illegally. It posited that
    Erlinda was a domestic helper, not a regular employee; Erlinda worked as a cook and this
    job had nothing to do with Remington’s business of trading in construction or hardware
    materials, steel plates and wire rope products.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Erlinda is a househelper.
    RULING:
    No, Erlinda is not a househelper, but a regular employee of Remington Corporation.
    In Apex Mining Company, Inc. v. NLRC, this Court held that a househelper in the
    staff houses of an industrial company was a regular employee of the said firm.
    Under Rule XIII, Section 1(b), Book 3 of the Labor Code, as amended, the terms
    "househelper" or "domestic servant" are defined as follows:
    "The term ‘househelper’ as used herein is synonymous to the term ‘domestic
    servant’ and shall refer to any person, whether male or female, who renders services in and/
    about the employer’s home and which services are usually necessary or desirable for the

    Page 1 of 2
    maintenance and enjoyment thereof, and ministers exclusively to the personal comfort and
    enjoyment of the employer’s family."
    The foregoing definition clearly contemplates such househelper or domestic
    servant who is employed in the employer’s home to minister exclusively to the personal
    comfort and enjoyment of the employer’s family. Such definition covers family drivers,
    domestic servants, laundry women, yayas, gardeners, houseboys and similar househelps.
    In the case at bar, the petitioner itself admits in its position paper that respondent
    worked at the company premises and her duty was to cook and prepare its employees’
    lunch and merienda. Clearly, the situs, as well as the nature of respondent’s work as a cook,
    who caters not only to the needs of Mr. Tan and his family but also to that of the petitioner’s
    employees, makes her fall squarely within the definition of a regular employee under the
    doctrine enunciated in the Apex Mining case. That she works within company premises,
    and that she does not cater exclusively to the personal comfort of Mr. Tan and his family,
    is reflective of the existence of the petitioner’s right of control over her functions, which is
    the primary indicator of the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
    Therefore, Erlinda is a regular employee of the company and is entitled to security
    of tenure and other benefits of a regular employee.

    Page 2 of 2

    You might also like