8/10/2019 Cases for Labor

1/5

[G.R. No. 145443. March 18, 2005]RAQUEL P. CONSULTA , petitioner, vs . COURT OF APPEALS ,

PAMANA PHILIPPINES,INC., RAZUL Z. REQUESTO, and ALETA TOLENTINO, respondents.

FACTS:

Consulta was Managing Associate of Pamana. On 1987 she was issued a certificationauthorizing herto negotiate for and in behalf of PAMANA with the Federation of Filipino CivilianEmployeesAssociation. Consulta was able to secure an account with FFCEA in behalf of PAMANA. However,

Consulta claimed that PAMANA did not pay her commission for the PPCEAaccount and filed acomplaint for unpaid wages or commission.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Consulta was an employee of PAMANA.

HELD:

The SC held that Pamana was an independent agent and not an employee. The power of control inthe four fold test is missing. The manner in which Consulta was to pursue her tasked activities wasnot subject to the control of PAMANA. Consulta failed to show that she worked definite hours. Theamount of time, the methods and means, the management and maintenance of her sales divisionwere left to her sound judgment. Finally, Pamana paid Consulta not for labor she performed but only

for the results of her labor. Without resu lts, Consulta s labor was her own burden and loss. Her rightto compensation, or to commission, depended on the tangible results of her work - whether shebrought in paying recruits. The fact that the appointment required Consulta to solicit business

exclusively for Pamana did not mean Pamana exercised control over the means and methods of

Cons ulta s work as the term control is understood in labor jurisprudence. Neither did it makeConsulta an employee of Pamana. Pamana did not prohibit Consulta from engaging in any other

business, or from being connected with any other company, for as long as the business or companydid not compete with Pamana s business. The exclusivity clause was a reasonable restriction toprevent similar acts prejudicial to Pamana s business interest. Article 1306 of the Civil Code provides

that the contracting parties may establish such stipulation, clauses, terms and conditions as theymay deem convenient, provided that they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, publicorder, or public policy. There being no employer-employee relationship between Pamana andConsulta, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had no jurisdiction to entertain and rule on Consulta s

money cla im. Consulta s remedy is to file an ordinary civil action to litigate her claim.

Petition is dismissed.

8/10/2019 Cases for Labor

2/5

CALALANG v. WILLIAMS , 70 PHIL 726, GR No. 47800, December 2, 1940

FACTS: The National Traffic Commission resolved that animal-drawn vehicles be prohibitedfrom passing along some major streets such a Rizal Ave. in Manila for a period of one year fromthe date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge to traffic. The Secretary of Public Works approved

the resolution on August 10,1940. The Mayor of Manila and the Acting Chief of Police of Manilahave enforced the rules and regulation. As a consequence, all animal-drawn vehicles are notallowed to pass and pick up passengers in the places above mentioned to the detriment not onlyof their owners but of the riding public as well.

ISSUE: Does the rule infringe upon the constitutional precept regarding the promotion of social justice? What is Social Justice?

HELD: No. The regulation aims to promote safe transit and avoid obstructions on national roadsin the interest and convenience of the public. Persons and property may be subject to all kinds of

restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State.To this fundamental aims of the government, the rights of the individual are subordinated.Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but thehumanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that

justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government ofmeasures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society,through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of themembers of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable,or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of allgovernments on the time-honored principles of Salus Populi est Suprema Lex .(Justice Laurel)

8/10/2019 Cases for Labor

3/5

Filamer Christian Institute vs IAC and KapunanNOTE: This case reversed Filamer vs IAC (October 16, 1990)

Daniel Funtecha was a working student of Filamer. He was assigned as the school janitor to clean the

school 2 hours every morning. Allan Masa was the son of the school president and at the same timehe was the schools jeepney service driver. On October 20, 1977 at about 6:30pm, after driving the

students to their homes, Masa returned to the school to report and thereafter have to go home with

the jeep so that he could fetch the students early in the morning. Masa and Funtecha live in the same

place so they usually go home together. Funtecha had a studen t drivers license so Masa let him take

the drivers seat. While Funtecha was driving, he accidentally hit an elderly Kapunan which led to his

hospitalization for 20 days. Kapunan filed a criminal case and an independent civil action based on

Article 2180 against Funtecha.

In the independent civil action, the lower court ruled that Filamer is subsidiarily liable for the tortious

act of Funcheta and was compelled to pay for damages based on Article 2180 which provides that

employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting

within the scope of their assigned tasks. Filamer assailed the decision and it argued that under

Section 14, Rule X, Book III of the Labor Code IRR, working scholars are excluded from the

employment coverage hence there is no employer-employee relations between Filamer and Funcheta;

that the negligent act of Funcheta was due to negligence only attributable to him alone as it is

outside his assigned task of being the school janitor. The CA denied Filamers appeal but the SupremeCourt agreed with Filamer. Kapunan filed for a motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE: Whether or not Filamer should be held subsidiarily liable.

HELD: Yes. This time, the SC ruled in favor of Kapunan (actually his heirs cause by this time

Kapunan was already dead). The provisions of Section 14, Rule X, Book III of the Labor Code IRR

was only meant to provide guidelines as compliance with labor provisions on working conditions, rest

periods, and wages is concerned. This does not in any way affect the provisions of any other laws like

the civil code. The IRR cannot defeat the provisions of the Civil Code. In other words, Rule X ismerely a guide to the enforcement of the substantive law on labor. There is a distinction hence

Section 14, Rule X, Book III of the Rules is not the decisive law in a civil suit for damages instituted

by an injured person during a vehicular accident against a working student of a school and against

the school itself.

The present case does not deal with a labor dispute on conditions of employment between an alleged

employee and an alleged employer. It invokes a claim brought by one for damages for injury caused

by the patently negligent acts of a person, against both doer-employee and his employer. Hence, the

reliance on the implementing rule on labor to disregard the primary liability of an employer under

http://www.uberdigests.info/2012/11/filamer-vs-iac-1990/http://www.uberdigests.info/2012/11/filamer-vs-iac-1990/http://www.uberdigests.info/2012/11/filamer-vs-iac-1990/http://www.uberdigests.info/2012/11/filamer-vs-iac-1990/

8/10/2019 Cases for Labor

4/5

8/10/2019 Cases for Labor

5/5