Corporal SR vs. NLRC

054 CORPORAL, SR. vs.
NLRC
G.R. No. 129315
October 2, 2000
Digest by: KAYELYN LAT
Petitioners: Osias Corporal, Sr., Pedro Tolentino, Manuel Caparas, Elpidio
Lacap, Simplicio Pedelos, Patricia Nas, Teresita Flores
Respondent: NLRC, Lao Enteng Company, Inc., and/or Trinidad Lao Ong
Petition/Nature of the case: Special Civil Action for Certiorari
Ponente: J. Quisumbing
FACTS:
1. Five male petitioners worked as barbers, while the 2 female
petitioners worked as manicurists in New Look Barber Shop in
Quiapo, Manila, owned by respondent Lao Enteng Co., Inc.
2. Petitioners:
- at the start of their employment with the barber shop, it was a
single proprietorship owned and managed by Mr. Vicente Lao
- children of Lao organized a corporation which was registered
with SEC as Lao Enteng Co., Inc. with Trinidad Ong as
President
- Upon its incorporation, the respondent company took over the
assets, equipment, and properties of the New Look Barber Shop
and continued the business
- All petitioners were allowed to continue working with the new
company until April 15, 1995 when respondent Trinidad Ong
informed them that the building where the New Look barber
shop was located had been sold and their services were no longer
needed
- NLRC was wrong when it concluded that petitioners were
independent contractors simply because they supplied their own
working implements, shared in the earnings of the barber shop
with the owner and chose the manner of performing their work.
They stressed that as far as the result of their work was
concerned the barber shop owner controlled them.
3. Petitioner filed with the Arbitration Branch of NLRC, a

complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction, separation pay,
non-payment of the 13th month pay, and salary differentials
4. Private respondent Lao Enteng Co., Inc.:
- Petitioners were joint venture partners and were receiving 50%
commission of the amount charged to customers
- There was no employer-employee relationship between them and
petitioners
- And assuming arguendo that there was, still petitioners are not
entitled to separation pay because the cessation of operations of
the barber shop was due to serious business losses
- Trinidad Ong: Lao Enteng Co., Inc. did not take over the
management of the New Look Barber Shop, that after the death
of Lao Enteng, petitioners were verbally informed that the
partnership may fold up anytime because nobody in the family
had the time to be at the shop
- The New Look Barber Shop had always been a joint venture
partnership and the operation and management was left entirely
to petitioners
5. LA Caizares, Jr.:
- ordered dismissal of complaint on the basis of petitioners and
respondents being engaged in a joint venture and there existed
NO employer-employee relation between them
- barber shop was closed due to serious business losses or
financial reverses and consequently declared that the law does
not compel the establishment to pay separation pay to whoever
were its employees
6. On appeal, NLRC affirmed the findings of LA and dismissed
complaint for want of merit
- Petitioners failed to show the existence of employer-employee
relationship under the four-way test established by SC
- Barbers may be characterized as independent contractors
because they are under the control of the barber shop owner only
with respect to the result of the work, but not with respect to
details or manner of performance
- Barbers are engaged in an independent calling requiring special
skills available to the public at large
7. Petitioners MR was denied
8. Hence, this instant petition.

IN THE CASE AT BAR:
ISSUE: Whether or not there existed an employer-employee relationship
between the petitioners and respondent thus, can be considered as
illegally dismissed
RULING/RATIO: YES
The Labor Arbiters findings that the parties were engaged in a joint
venture is UNSUPPORTED by any documentary evidence. It should be
noted that aside from the self-serving affidavit of Trinidad Ong, there
were no other evidentiary documents, nor written partnership agreements
presented. We have ruled that even the sharing of proceeds for every job
of petitioners in the barber shop does not mean they were not employees
of the respondent company.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: one who undertakes job

contracting, i.e., a person who (a) carries on an independent business
and undertakes the contract work on his own account under his own
responsibility according to his own manner and method, free from the
control and direction of his employer or principal in all matters
connected with the performance of the work except as to the results
thereof, and (b) has substantial capital or investment in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries, work premises, and other materials which are
necessary in the conduct of the business.
ELEMENTS FOR AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

TO EXIST:
(a) The selection and management of the workers;
(b) Power of dismissal;
(c) Payment of wages by whatever means;
(d) Power to control the workers conduct, with the latter assuming
primacy in the overall consideration
Power to control: existence of the power and not necessarily to the

actual exercise thereof, nor is it essential for the employer to actually
supervise the performance of duties of the employee; it is enough that the
employer has the right to wield that power
ALL THE ELEMENTS FOR AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE

RELATIONSHIP TO EXIST ARE PRESENT:
o Records of the case show that the late Vicente Lao engaged
the services of the petitioners to work as barbers and
manicurists in the New Look Barber Shop, then a single
proprietorship owned by him; that in January 1982, his
children organized a corporation which they registered with
the Securities and Exchange Commission as Lao Enteng
Company, Inc.; that upon its incorporation, it took over the
assets, equipment, and properties of the New Look Barber
Shop and continued the business; that the respondent
company retained the services of all the petitioners and
continuously paid their wages. Clearly, all three elements
exist in petitioners' and private respondent's working
arrangements.
o Respondent company wielded control over the work
performance of petitioners, in that: (1) they worked in the
barber shop owned and operated by the respondents; (2) they
were required to report daily and observe definite hours of
work; (3) they were not free to accept other employment
elsewhere but devoted their full time working in the New
Look Barber Shop for all the fifteen (15) years they have
worked until April 15, 1995; (4) that some have worked with
respondents as early as in the 1960's; (5) that petitioner
Patricia Nas was instructed by the respondents to watch the
other six (6) petitioners in their daily task.
We hold that the seven petitioners are employees of the private
respondent company; as such, they are to be accorded the benefits
provided under the Labor Code, specifically Article 283 which
mandates the grant of separation pay in case of closure or cessation
of employer's business which is equivalent to one (1) month pay for
every year of service
They are entitled to the protection of minimum wage statutes
Hence, the separation pay due them may be computed on the basis of
the minimum wage prevailing at the time their services were
terminated by the respondent company. The same is true with respect
to the 13th month pay
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: Petitioners won.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The public
respondent's Decision dated October 17, 1996 and Resolution dated March
05, 1997 are SETASIDE. Private respondents are hereby ordered to pay,
severally and jointly, the seven (7) petitioners their (1) 13 th month pay and (2)
separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service, to be
computed at the then prevailing minimum wage at the time of their actual
termination which was April 15, 1995.
DOCTRINE: The following elements are necessary for the employeremployee relationship to exist:
(1) The selection and management of the workers;
(2) Power of dismissal;
(3) Payment of wages by whatever means;
(4) Power to control the workers conduct, with the latter assuming
primacy in the overall consideration

Corporal SR vs. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corporal SR vs. NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corporal SR vs. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

054 CORPORAL, SR. vs.

3. Petitioner filed with the Arbitration Branch of NLRC, a

8. Hence, this instant petition.

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: one who undertakes job

ELEMENTS FOR AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

Power to control: existence of the power and not necessarily to the

ALL THE ELEMENTS FOR AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: Petitioners won.

You might also like