Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 485 views

    Chaves vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 146530, January 17, 2005

    Uploaded by

    Lizzy Liezel
    1) Chavez worked as a truck driver for Supreme Packaging, Inc. for 10 years, delivering the company's products from its factory to customers. 2) Chavez requested regular employee benefits from the company but was denied and later terminated. He filed a complaint for regularization and illegal dismissal. 3) The Supreme Court found an employer-employee relationship existed based on the control test, as the company controlled key aspects of Chavez's work like the truck used, delivery routes, and exclusive work for the company over 10 years. The contract calling Chavez an independent contractor did not negate this relationship established by the facts.

    Copyright:

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

    Chaves vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 146530, January 17, 2005

    Uploaded by

    Lizzy Liezel
    485 views2 pages
    1) Chavez worked as a truck driver for Supreme Packaging, Inc. for 10 years, delivering the company's products from its factory to customers. 2) Chavez requested regular employee benefits from the company but was denied and later terminated. He filed a complaint for regularization and illegal dismissal. 3) The Supreme Court found an employer-employee relationship existed based on the control test, as the company controlled key aspects of Chavez's work like the truck used, delivery routes, and exclusive work for the company over 10 years. The contract calling Chavez an independent contractor did not negate this relationship established by the facts.

    Original Description:

    10. Chaves vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 146530, January 17, 2005

    Original Title

    10. Chaves vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 146530, January 17, 2005

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Chavez worked as a truck driver for Supreme Packaging, Inc. for 10 years, delivering the company's products from its factory to customers. 2) Chavez requested regular employee benefits from the company but was denied and later terminated. He filed a complaint for regularization and illegal dismissal. 3) The Supreme Court found an employer-employee relationship existed based on the control test, as the company controlled key aspects of Chavez's work like the truck used, delivery routes, and exclusive work for the company over 10 years. The contract calling Chavez an independent contractor did not negate this relationship established by the facts.

    Copyright:

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

    Chaves vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 146530, January 17, 2005

    Uploaded by

    Lizzy Liezel
    1) Chavez worked as a truck driver for Supreme Packaging, Inc. for 10 years, delivering the company's products from its factory to customers. 2) Chavez requested regular employee benefits from the company but was denied and later terminated. He filed a complaint for regularization and illegal dismissal. 3) The Supreme Court found an employer-employee relationship existed based on the control test, as the company controlled key aspects of Chavez's work like the truck used, delivery routes, and exclusive work for the company over 10 years. The contract calling Chavez an independent contractor did not negate this relationship established by the facts.

    Copyright:

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

    Chavez vs.

    NLRC,
    G.R. No. 146530, January 17, 2005
    Facts Chavez was hired by herein private respondent-employer Supreme
    Packaging, Inc. as a truck driver on October !, "#$%. &he company
    'urnished Chavez with a truck, and Chavez was tasked to deliver the
    company(s products 'rom its 'actory in )ataan to various customers in *etro
    *anila. *ost o' Chavez(s delivery trips were made in the nighttime, starting
    at the 'actory on +P*, and returning thereto in the a'ternoon two or three
    days later. &he company gave Chavez ,routing slips-, which indicated the
    chronological order in which the deliveries were to be made. Some deliveries
    were printed with the words ./S0, which indicated that Chavez had to give
    1rst priority in delivering these products to certain customers. Initially, the
    company paid him P2!34trip 'or his services, which was later increased to
    P%$3, then P#33. In "##, Chavez talked to the company(s plant manager
    and e5pressed his desire to avail o' the regular bene1ts that the regular
    employees o' the company were receiving, such as overtime pay, night shi't
    di6erential, and "2
    th
    month pay, among others. &he plant manager, herein
    co-respondent 7lvin 8ee, promised to give these bene1ts to Chavez, but
    subse9uently 'ailed to do so. On :ebruary 3, "##!, Chavez 1led a complaint
    'or regularization with the .egional 7rbitration )ranch ;o. III o' the ;8.C in
    San :ernando, Pampanga. )e'ore the case could be heard, however,
    Supreme Packaging, Inc. terminated Chavez(s services as truck driver.
    Conse9uently, on *ay !, "##!, Chavez 1led an amended complaint against
    the respondents 'or illegal dismissal, un'air labor practice, and non-payment
    o' overtime pay, night shi't di6erential pay, "2
    th
    month pay, and other
    bene1ts. &he company 'or its part denied the e5istence o' an employer-
    employee relationship between it and Chavez, averring that Chavez was an
    independent contractor as evidenced by the ,Contract o' Service- that
    Chavez and the company entered into. Said Contract o' Service stated, inter
    alia, that <a= Chavez is designated as a Contractor, <b= due to the volume o'
    the products, the Contractor is 'ree to hire his own two helpers, over whom
    he shall have absolute control and disciplinary power, <c= the Contractor shall
    e5ercise direct control over his work, but accountable to the Principal <the
    company= 'or any damaged or lost goods, and <d= that ,the Contractor shall
    hold the Principal 'ree and harmless 'rom any liability or claim that may arise
    by virtue o' the Contractor(s non-compliance to the e5isting provisions o' the
    *inimum >age 8aw, the ?mployees Compensation 7ct, the Social Security
    System 7ct 555 it being clearly understood that any truck drivers, helpers or
    men working with and 'or the Contractor, are not employees who will be
    indemni1ed by the Principal 'or any such claim.- &here'ore, said the
    company, since Chavez had sole control over the means and methods by
    which his work was to be accomplished and even e5ercised control over his
    helpers and paid their wages, Chavez was not a regular worker sub@ect to
    regularization.
    !ssue &he core issue is whether or not there was employer-employee
    relationship.
    Ru"#n$ Aes there was. &he Supreme Court applied the 'our-'old test in this
    wiseB <"= the company undeniably engaged the services o' Chavez as a truck
    driver, <= Chavez(s being paid on a per delivery4trip basis was merely a
    method o' computing compensation, and thus Chavez was de1nitely paid
    wages in contemplation o' 7rticle #C<'= o' the 8abor Code, <2= the company(s
    power o' dismissal over Chavez was inherent in the 'act that they engaged
    his services, and the company e5ercised this power when they terminated
    Chavez. 7s to the 'ourth and all-important ,control test-, the Court compared
    an independent contractor to an employee, and de1ned an independent
    contractor as ,one who carries on a distinct and independent business and
    undertakes to per'orm the @ob, work, or service on its own account and under
    its own responsibility according to its own manner and method, 'ree 'rom the
    control and direction o' the principal in all matters connected with the
    per'ormance o' the work e5cept as to the results thereo'.- In this case, the
    Court said that Chavez per'ormed his work as a truck driver not as an
    independent contractor but an employee 'or and under the company(s
    supervision and control, 'or the reasons thatB <a= Chavez did not have
    substantial capitalization 'or his own tools, machinery, or work premises, in
    that even the truck driven by Chavez belonged to the company, <b= Chavez
    was speci1cally ordered by the company to use the truck 'or the delivery
    only o' the company(s products, and even to park the truck only at two
    parking spaces designated by the company, <c= the manner and method in
    which the delivery itsel' was to be made was directed by the company
    through the ,routing slips-, and <d= Chavez per'ormed his services
    e5clusively 'or the company 'or an uninterrupted period o' ten years. &hese
    'acts show that notwithstanding the ,Contract o' Service-, an employer-
    employee relationship e5isted, and ,cannot be negated by e5pressly
    repudiating it in a contract and providing therein that the employee is an
    independent contractor when, as in this case, the 'acts clearly show
    otherwise. Indeed, the employment status o' a person is de1ned and
    prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it should be.-

    You might also like