G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008 People of the Philippines vs. Beth Temporada Facts:
Beth Temporada is an accused for the crime of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment in which the prosecution alleged that the accused recruited and promised overseas employment, for a fee, to complainants Rogelio Legaspi, Jr. as technician in Singapore, and Soledad Atle, Luz Minkay, Evelyn Estacio and Dennis Dimaano as factory workers in Hongkong. After collecting the alleged placement fees amounting to P282,160, it was also noted that such placement fees are in excess of or greater than that specified in the scheduled of allowable fees prescribed of the POEA and without reasons and without fault of the said complainants, failed to actually deploy them and failed to reimburse them the expenses they incurred in connection with the documentation and processing of their papers for purposes purposes of their deployment. deployment. The accused-apellan accused-apellantt now contends contends that the prosecution prosecution failed to establish all the elements of the offense that were charged to them. Issue:
What constitutes the crime of Illegal Recruitment? Held
Article 13(b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement thusly: ART. 13. Definitions. – x x x (b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transp transport orting ing,, utili utilizing zing,, hiring hiring or procur procuring ing worker workers, s, and includ includes es referr referrals als,, contra contract ct services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee, employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. It was held that to constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, three (3) elements must concur: (a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the said Code (now Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042); and, (c) the offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group. In the case at bar, all the elements were present thus the SC convicted the accused for the crime of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment.
G.R. No. 172295, December 23, 2008 Lilia Labadan vs. Forest Hills Academy Facts:
In this case the petitioner, Lilia Labadan was hired by private respondent, Forest Hills Academy. The petitioner, in light of the study of Labor Standards not only ask for her illegal dismissal but also for the illegal deduction made by the academy in view of tithes given to the Seventh Day Adventist church. The petitioner alleged that such deduction is unlawful. The defense contends that Seventh Day Adventist Church requires its members to pay tithes equivalent to 10% of their salaries, and petitioner was hired on account of her being a member thereof, and petitioner never questioned the deduction of the tithe from her salary. Issue:
Whether or not such deduction made by the academy is unlawful. Held
It was held by the Supreme Court that such deduction was unlawful. Article 113 of the Labor Code instructs: No employer, in his own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make any deduction from the wages of his employees, except: (a) In cases where the worker is insured with his consent by the employer, and the deduction is to recompense the employer for the amount paid by him as premium on the insurance; (b) For union dues, in cases where the right of the worker or his union to check-off has been recognized by the employer or authorized in writing by the individual worker concerned; and (c) In cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor, as does Rule VIII, Section 10 of the Rules Implementing Book III of the Labor Code reading:
SEC. 10. Deductions from the wages of the employees may be made by the employer in any of the following cases: (a) When the deductions are authorized by law, including deductions for the insurance premiums advanced by the employer in behalf of the employee as well as union dues where the right to check-off has been recognized by the employer or authorized in writing by the individual employee himself; (b) When the deductions are with the written authorization of the employees for payment to a third person and the employer agrees to do so, provided that the latter does not receive any pecuniary benefit, directly or indirectly, from the transaction. In the absence then of petitioner’s written conformity to the deduction of the 10% tithe from her salary, the deduction made by Forest Hills was illegal.
G.R. No. 168537, December 11, 2008 Damian Aklan et al. vs. San Miguel Corporation, BMA Phil Asia Inc. Facts:
This labor case the dichotomy between impermissible labor-only contracting and legitimate job contracting. Respondent BMA Philasia, Inc. (BMA) is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of transporting and hauling of cargoes, goods, and commodities of all kinds.. Petitioners, numbering forty-seven (47) in all, are the former employees of respondent BMA at respondent San Miguel Corporation’s (SMC) warehouse in Pasig City. They were hired under fixed-term contracts. On July 31, 2001, a number of petitioners went to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) District Office to file a complaint against BMA and Eusebio for underpayment of wages and non-payment of premium pay for rest day, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay. The Labor Arbiter and finds that the SMC and BMA are jointly and severally liable for the non-payment of the said incentives. Private respondent SMC maintained that it had no employer-employee relationship with petitioners who were hired and supervised exclusively by BMA pursuant to a warehousing and delivery agreement in consideration of a fixed monthly fee. SMC argued that BMA is a legitimate and independent contractor, duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a separate and distinct corporation with substantial capitalization, investment, equipment, and tools. It submitted documentary evidence proving that BMA engaged the services of petitioners, paid for their wages and benefits, and exercised exclusive control and supervision over them. The NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter, CA reversed and set aside the decisions of the NLRC hence this case. Issue:
Whether or not SMC have an employee-employer relationship with the petitioners. Held:
It was held by the Supreme Court that SMC showed that under their contract, BMA provided delivery trucks, drivers, and helpers in the storage and distribution of SMC products. On a day-to-day basis, after the routes were made by SMC salesmen, they would book the orders they obtained. In turn, BMA’s Schedular Planner, detailed at the
Pasig Warehouse, downloaded these booked orders from the computer and processed the necessary documents to be forwarded to the Warehouse Checker, also an employee of BMA. SMC contended that petitioners were dismissed by BMA for staging a two-hour strike without complying with the mandatory requirements for a valid strike. As a result, BMA had to come up with ways and means in order to avoid the disruption of delivery operations. A finding that a contractor is a "labor-only" contractor, as opposed to permissible job contracting, is equivalent to declaring that there is an employer-employee relationship between the principal and the employees of the supposed contractor, and the "labor-only" contractor is considered as a mere agent of the principal, the real employer. Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found that the employment contracts of petitioners duly prove that an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioners and BMA. SC hasten to add that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is ultimately a question of fact and the findings by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC on that score shall be accorded not only respect but even finality when supported by ample evidence.16 In its ruling, the NLRC considered the following elements to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship: (1) the selection and engagement of the workers; (2) power of dismissal; (3) the payment of wages by whatever means; and (4) the power to control the worker’s conduct.17 All four elements were found by the NLRC to be vested in BMA. Petitioners argue mainly that their employer is, in fact, respondent SMC, not respondent BMA. They contend that BMA is a labor-only contractor and SMC, as their true employer, should be held directly liable for their money claims, but the facts of the case belies the contention of the petitioner thus the SC held that SMC should not be held liable for the money claims of the petitioner.
