Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 109 views

    Perpetual Help Credit Vs Paburada

    Uploaded by

    Christian Rivera
    1. Private respondents filed a complaint against PHCCI for illegal dismissal and other claims. PHCCI filed a motion to dismiss arguing there was no employer-employee relationship as the private respondents were members and co-owners of the cooperative. 2. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the private respondents, finding an employer-employee relationship existed. The NLRC affirmed this ruling. 3. The Supreme Court also found an employer-employee relationship, as the elements were present - PHCCI selected and engaged the workers, had the power to dismiss them, paid their wages, and controlled their conduct. Being members of the cooperative did not preclude this relationship. The private respondents were also considered regular employees as

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Perpetual Help Credit Vs Paburada

    Uploaded by

    Christian Rivera
    109 views2 pages
    1. Private respondents filed a complaint against PHCCI for illegal dismissal and other claims. PHCCI filed a motion to dismiss arguing there was no employer-employee relationship as the private respondents were members and co-owners of the cooperative. 2. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the private respondents, finding an employer-employee relationship existed. The NLRC affirmed this ruling. 3. The Supreme Court also found an employer-employee relationship, as the elements were present - PHCCI selected and engaged the workers, had the power to dismiss them, paid their wages, and controlled their conduct. Being members of the cooperative did not preclude this relationship. The private respondents were also considered regular employees as

    Original Title

    Perpetual Help Credit vs Paburada

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Private respondents filed a complaint against PHCCI for illegal dismissal and other claims. PHCCI filed a motion to dismiss arguing there was no employer-employee relationship as the private respondents were members and co-owners of the cooperative. 2. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the private respondents, finding an employer-employee relationship existed. The NLRC affirmed this ruling. 3. The Supreme Court also found an employer-employee relationship, as the elements were present - PHCCI selected and engaged the workers, had the power to dismiss them, paid their wages, and controlled their conduct. Being members of the cooperative did not preclude this relationship. The private respondents were also considered regular employees as

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    109 views2 pages

    Perpetual Help Credit Vs Paburada

    Uploaded by

    Christian Rivera
    1. Private respondents filed a complaint against PHCCI for illegal dismissal and other claims. PHCCI filed a motion to dismiss arguing there was no employer-employee relationship as the private respondents were members and co-owners of the cooperative. 2. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the private respondents, finding an employer-employee relationship existed. The NLRC affirmed this ruling. 3. The Supreme Court also found an employer-employee relationship, as the elements were present - PHCCI selected and engaged the workers, had the power to dismiss them, paid their wages, and controlled their conduct. Being members of the cooperative did not preclude this relationship. The private respondents were also considered regular employees as

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    1 PERPETUAL HELP CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC. (PHCCI) V. FABURADAFACTS: 1. Private respondents Faburada et. al.

    filed a complaint against PHCCI for illegal dismissal, premium pay, separation pay, wage differential, moral damages and attys fees. 2. PHCCI filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that no employer-employee relationship exists since privaterespondents are all members and co-owners of the cooperative. Also, private respondents have not exhausted theremedies provided in the coop by-laws. PHCCI also filed a supplemental motion to dismiss alleging that RA 6939, theCooperative Development Authority Law, requires conciliation or mediation within the cooperative before a resort to judicial proceeding.3. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the private respondents, holding that the case is impressed withemployer-employee relationship and that the laws on cooperatives is subservient to the Labor Code. The NLRC affirmed.ISSUE: WON there is an employer-employee relationship between the parties and WON private respondents wereregular employees HELD: YES. YES. RATIO:

    Elements in determining existence of employer employee relationship:1) Selection and engagement of the worker or the power to hire2) The power to dismiss3) Payment of wages by whatever means 4) Power to control the workers conduct The above elements are present here. PHCCI through its Manager Mr. Edilberto Lantaca, Jr. hired respondents ascomputer programmer and clerks. They worked regular working hours, were assigned specific duties, were paid regularwages, and made to accomplish regular time records, and worked under the supervision of the manager.Art. 280, Labor Code comprehends 3 kinds of employees:1) REGULAR EMPLOYEES or those whose work is necessary or desirable to the usual business of the employer2) PROJECT EMPLOYEES or those whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completionor termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work orservices to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season3) CASUAL EMPLOYEES or those who are neither regular nor project employeesThere are 2 separate instances whereby it can be determined that an employment is regular:1) If the particular activity performed by the employee is necessary or desirable

    in the usual business or trade of theemployer2) If the employee has been performing the job for at least a year !!! Private respondents were rendering services necessary to the day-to-day operations of PHCCI. This alone qualifiedthem as regular employees. Moreover, all of them except one worked with PHCCI for more than 1 year.That Faburada worked only on a part-time basis does not mean that he is not a regular employee.Regularity of employment is not determined by the number of hours one works but by the nature and length of time onehas been in that particular job

    You might also like