Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 814 views

    Alejandro Maraguinot vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Nina Castillo
    Petitioners Alejandro Maraguinot, Jr. and Paulino Enero worked for private respondents' film crew, with Maraguinot serving as an electrician and Enero as a member of the shooting crew. When petitioners requested a salary increase in accordance with minimum wage law, they were asked to sign blank employment contracts. Both refused and Enero was put on leave then denied return, while Maraguinot's services were terminated. Petitioners sued for illegal dismissal. Private respondents claimed petitioners were project employees of associate producers acting as independent contractors, so no employer-employee relationship existed. The court determined an employment relationship did exist between petitioners and private respondent VIVA Films based on the circumstances,

    Copyright:

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

    Alejandro Maraguinot vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Nina Castillo
    814 views2 pages
    Petitioners Alejandro Maraguinot, Jr. and Paulino Enero worked for private respondents' film crew, with Maraguinot serving as an electrician and Enero as a member of the shooting crew. When petitioners requested a salary increase in accordance with minimum wage law, they were asked to sign blank employment contracts. Both refused and Enero was put on leave then denied return, while Maraguinot's services were terminated. Petitioners sued for illegal dismissal. Private respondents claimed petitioners were project employees of associate producers acting as independent contractors, so no employer-employee relationship existed. The court determined an employment relationship did exist between petitioners and private respondent VIVA Films based on the circumstances,

    Original Description:

    Labor Standards

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners Alejandro Maraguinot, Jr. and Paulino Enero worked for private respondents' film crew, with Maraguinot serving as an electrician and Enero as a member of the shooting crew. When petitioners requested a salary increase in accordance with minimum wage law, they were asked to sign blank employment contracts. Both refused and Enero was put on leave then denied return, while Maraguinot's services were terminated. Petitioners sued for illegal dismissal. Private respondents claimed petitioners were project employees of associate producers acting as independent contractors, so no employer-employee relationship existed. The court determined an employment relationship did exist between petitioners and private respondent VIVA Films based on the circumstances,

    Copyright:

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

    Alejandro Maraguinot vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Nina Castillo
    Petitioners Alejandro Maraguinot, Jr. and Paulino Enero worked for private respondents' film crew, with Maraguinot serving as an electrician and Enero as a member of the shooting crew. When petitioners requested a salary increase in accordance with minimum wage law, they were asked to sign blank employment contracts. Both refused and Enero was put on leave then denied return, while Maraguinot's services were terminated. Petitioners sued for illegal dismissal. Private respondents claimed petitioners were project employees of associate producers acting as independent contractors, so no employer-employee relationship existed. The court determined an employment relationship did exist between petitioners and private respondent VIVA Films based on the circumstances,

    Copyright:

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

    ALEJANDRO MARAGUINOT, JR.

    and PAULINO ENERO vs NLRC


    GRN 120969 January 22, 1998
    Facts:
    Petitioner Alejandro Maraguinot, Jr. maintains that he was employed by
    private respondents filming crew and was was promoted to the rank of Electrician.
    Petitioner Paulino Enero, on his part, claims that private respondents employed him
    as a member of the shooting crew . Petitioners' tasks consisted of loading,
    unloading and arranging movie equipment in the shooting area as instructed by the
    cameraman, returning the equipment to Viva Films' warehouse, assisting in the
    "fixing" of the lighting system, and performing other tasks that the cameraman
    and/or director may assign.
    Petitioners sought the assistance of their supervisor, Mrs. Alejandria Cesario,
    to facilitate their request that private respondents adjust their salary in accordance
    with the minimum wage law. Mrs. Cesario informed petitioners that Mr. Vic del
    Rosario would agree to increase their salary only if they signed a blank employment
    contract. As petitioners refused to sign, private respondents forced Enero to go on
    leave, then refused to take him back when he reported for work. Meanwhile,
    Maraguinot was again asked to sign a blank employment contract, and when he still
    refused, private respondents terminated his services. Petitioners thus sued for
    illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter.
    On the other hand, private respondents claim that Viva Films (hereafter VIVA)
    that it is primarily engaged in the distribution and exhibition of movies - but not in
    the business of making movies; in the same vein, private respondent Vic del Rosario
    is merely an executive producer, i.e., the financier who invests a certain sum of
    money for the production of movies distributed and exhibited by VIVA.
    Private respondents assert that they contract persons called "producers" also referred to as "associate producers" to "produce" or make movies for private
    respondents; and contend that petitioners are project employees of the associate
    producers who, in turn, act as independent contractors. As such, there is no
    employer-employee relationship between petitioners and private respondents.
    Issue:
    The determination of whether an employer-employee relationship existed
    between petitioners and private respondents or any one of private respondents.
    Held:
    All the circumstances indicate an employment relationship between
    petitioners and VIVA alone, thus the inevitable conclusion is that petitioners are
    employees only of VIVA. In respect to the respondents allegation that the
    petitioners are project employees, it is a settled rule that contracting out of labor is
    allowed only in case of job contracting. In the case at bar, the associate producers
    cannot be considered as job contractors but only agents because they are not
    engaged in the business of making motion pictures. The movie making equipment
    are supplied to the producers and owned by VIVA. In addition, the associate

    producers cannot be considered as labor only contractors as they did not supply,
    recruit nor hire workers.
    It may not be ignored, however, that private respondents expressly admitted
    that petitioners were part of a work pool; 31 and, while petitioners were initially
    hired possibly as project employees, they had attained the status of regular
    employees in view of VIVA's conduct.
    A project employee or a member of a work pool may acquire the status of a
    regular employee when the following concur:
    1) There is a continuous rehiring of project employees even after cessation of a
    project; 32 and
    2) The tasks performed by the alleged "project employee" are vital, necessary and
    indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer. 33

    You might also like