Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    17zanotte Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    john ryan anatan
    Private respondents filed a complaint against petitioners for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. They worked long hours for piece-rate pay and were prevented from entering work premises when requesting a pay increase. Petitioners claimed the business was seasonal and respondents were contractual. The Labor Arbiter found an employer-employee relationship existed and ordered payment of separation pay and attorney's fees. The NLRC affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the finding of an employer-employee relationship based on the right of petitioners to control respondents and the nature of the work being in pursuit of petitioners' business. However, the separation pay award was set aside as petitioners declared a willingness to rehire respondents.

    Copyright:

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

    17zanotte Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    john ryan anatan
    48 views2 pages
    Private respondents filed a complaint against petitioners for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. They worked long hours for piece-rate pay and were prevented from entering work premises when requesting a pay increase. Petitioners claimed the business was seasonal and respondents were contractual. The Labor Arbiter found an employer-employee relationship existed and ordered payment of separation pay and attorney's fees. The NLRC affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the finding of an employer-employee relationship based on the right of petitioners to control respondents and the nature of the work being in pursuit of petitioners' business. However, the separation pay award was set aside as petitioners declared a willingness to rehire respondents.

    Original Description:

    labor

    Original Title

    17zanotte vs NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Private respondents filed a complaint against petitioners for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. They worked long hours for piece-rate pay and were prevented from entering work premises when requesting a pay increase. Petitioners claimed the business was seasonal and respondents were contractual. The Labor Arbiter found an employer-employee relationship existed and ordered payment of separation pay and attorney's fees. The NLRC affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the finding of an employer-employee relationship based on the right of petitioners to control respondents and the nature of the work being in pursuit of petitioners' business. However, the separation pay award was set aside as petitioners declared a willingness to rehire respondents.

    Copyright:

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

    17zanotte Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    john ryan anatan
    Private respondents filed a complaint against petitioners for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. They worked long hours for piece-rate pay and were prevented from entering work premises when requesting a pay increase. Petitioners claimed the business was seasonal and respondents were contractual. The Labor Arbiter found an employer-employee relationship existed and ordered payment of separation pay and attorney's fees. The NLRC affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the finding of an employer-employee relationship based on the right of petitioners to control respondents and the nature of the work being in pursuit of petitioners' business. However, the separation pay award was set aside as petitioners declared a willingness to rehire respondents.

    Copyright:

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

    ZANOTTE SHOES/LEONARDO LORENZO, petitioners,

    vs.
    NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. BENIGNO C. VILLARENTE,
    JR., JOSEPH LLUZ, LOLITO LLUZ, NOEL ADARAYAN, ROGELIO SIRA, VIRGINIA
    HERESANO, GENELITO HERESANO and CARMELITA DE DIOS, respondents.
    FACTS:
    Private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and for various monetary
    claims, including the recovery of damages and attorney's fees, against petitioners.
    Private respondents averred that they started to work for petitioners on,
    respectively, the following dates: 1 Joseph Lluz, March, 1985, 2 Noel Adarayan, Feb.
    17, 1980, 3 Rogelio Sira, January, 1982, 4 Lolito Lluz, March, 1982, 5 Virginia
    Heresano, May, 1987M, 6 Genelito Heresano, 20-Oct-87, 7 Carmelita de Dios,
    January, 1975 1. they worked for a minimum of twelve hours daily, including
    Sundays and holidays when needed; that they were paid on piece-work basis; that it
    "angered" petitioner Lorenzo when they requested to be made members of the
    Social Security System ("SSS"); and that, when they demanded an increase in their
    pay rates, they were prevented (starting 24 October 1988) from entering the work
    premises. Petitioners, in turn, claimed that their business operations were only
    seasonal, normally twice a year, one in June (coinciding with the opening of school
    classes) and another in December (during the Christmas holidays), when heavy job
    orders would come in. Private respondents, according to petitioners, were engaged
    on purely contractual basis and paid the rates conformably with their respective
    agreements. On 16 October 1989, Labor Arbiter Benigno C. Villarente, Jr., rendered
    judgment in favor of the complainants declaring that there was an employeremployee relationship between complainants and respondents and that the former
    were regular employees of the latter. Accordingly, respondents are hereby directed
    to pay all complainants their respective separation pay and attorneys fees. On
    appeal to NLRC decision was affirmed and motion for consideration is denied.
    Hence, this petition for certiorari.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship existed between
    the parties.
    HELD:
    Yes. Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the NLRC, particularly when they
    coincide with that of the Labor Arbiter, are accorded respect, if not finality, and will
    not be disturbed absent any showing that substantial evidence which might
    otherwise affect the result of the case has been discarded. We see no reason, in this
    case at bench, for disturbing the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC on the
    existence of an employer-employee relationship between herein private parties. The
    work of private respondents is clearly related to, and in the pursuit of, the principal
    business activity of petitioners. The indicia used for determining the existence of an
    employer-employee relationship, all extant in the case at bench, include (a) the
    selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the
    power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee with
    respect to the result of the work to be done and to the means and methods by

    which the work to be done and to the means and methods by which the work is to
    be accomplished. The requirement, so herein posed as an issue, refers to the
    existence of the right to control and not necessarily to the actual exercise of the
    right. However, the grant of separation pay should be set aside for there was no
    abandonment or dismissal for the express declaration by the petitioners company
    to welcome back the employees, however, they are the ones who refuses for
    unknown reason or for lack of legal and justifiable reasons.
    WHEREFORE, the questioned findings and resolutions of respondents Labor Arbiter
    and NLRC are MODIFIED by deleting the award of separation pay and the
    corresponding attorney's fees. No costs

    You might also like