Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 599 views

    Royale Homes v. Alcantara (TAN)

    Uploaded by

    Clyde Tan
    Fidel Alcantara worked as a Marketing Director for Royale Homes, a real estate company. In November 2003, Royale Homes executives impliedly dismissed Alcantara without just cause. Alcantara argued he was an employee and thus entitled to protection against unjust termination. However, Royale Homes claimed Alcantara was an independent contractor based on their employment contract which stated no employer-employee relationship existed. The court examined the contract terms and found they clearly indicated the parties' intention to not form an employer-employee relationship. Additionally, Royale Homes exercised little control over the means and methods of Alcantara's work. Therefore, the court ruled Alcantara was an independent contractor, not an employee

    Copyright:

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

    Royale Homes v. Alcantara (TAN)

    Uploaded by

    Clyde Tan
    599 views2 pages
    Fidel Alcantara worked as a Marketing Director for Royale Homes, a real estate company. In November 2003, Royale Homes executives impliedly dismissed Alcantara without just cause. Alcantara argued he was an employee and thus entitled to protection against unjust termination. However, Royale Homes claimed Alcantara was an independent contractor based on their employment contract which stated no employer-employee relationship existed. The court examined the contract terms and found they clearly indicated the parties' intention to not form an employer-employee relationship. Additionally, Royale Homes exercised little control over the means and methods of Alcantara's work. Therefore, the court ruled Alcantara was an independent contractor, not an employee

    Original Description:

    .

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Fidel Alcantara worked as a Marketing Director for Royale Homes, a real estate company. In November 2003, Royale Homes executives impliedly dismissed Alcantara without just cause. Alcantara argued he was an employee and thus entitled to protection against unjust termination. However, Royale Homes claimed Alcantara was an independent contractor based on their employment contract which stated no employer-employee relationship existed. The court examined the contract terms and found they clearly indicated the parties' intention to not form an employer-employee relationship. Additionally, Royale Homes exercised little control over the means and methods of Alcantara's work. Therefore, the court ruled Alcantara was an independent contractor, not an employee

    Copyright:

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

    Royale Homes v. Alcantara (TAN)

    Uploaded by

    Clyde Tan
    Fidel Alcantara worked as a Marketing Director for Royale Homes, a real estate company. In November 2003, Royale Homes executives impliedly dismissed Alcantara without just cause. Alcantara argued he was an employee and thus entitled to protection against unjust termination. However, Royale Homes claimed Alcantara was an independent contractor based on their employment contract which stated no employer-employee relationship existed. The court examined the contract terms and found they clearly indicated the parties' intention to not form an employer-employee relationship. Additionally, Royale Homes exercised little control over the means and methods of Alcantara's work. Therefore, the court ruled Alcantara was an independent contractor, not an employee

    Copyright:

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

    Employment Contract

    Royale Homes Mktg. Corp. v.


    Fidel P. Alcantara
    Facts:
    Fidel Alcantara worked as a Marketing Director for Royale homes, which
    is a corporation engaged in marketing real estates.
    On November 2003, the executive officers of Royale Homes told him
    that they were wondering why he still had the gall to come to office
    and sit at his table which to him amounted to a dismissal without just
    cause.
    Royale Homes:
    o Alcantara is not an employee but an independent sales. He
    didnt receive salary (commission basis only). Royale had no
    control on how alcantara would accomplish his tasks (he was
    free to solicit sales at any time and by any manner; even free to
    recruit his own sales personnel)
    o Alcantara decided to leave company to join his wife who formed
    her own brokerage company that directly competed with its
    business. Even threw a despedida party in his favor.
    LA Alcantara is an employee
    NLRC Alcantara is not an employee but an independent contractor so
    LA has no jurisdiction
    CA reversed NLRC
    Issue: Whether Alcantara was an independent contractor or an employee of
    Royale Homes?
    Ruling:
    While the existence of employer-employee relationship is a matter of
    law, the characterization made by the parties in their contract as to the
    nature of their juridical relationship cannot be simply ignored.
    The contract, duly signed and not disputed by the parties
    conspicuously provides that no employer-employee relationship exists
    between Royale Homes and Alcantara. It is clear that they did not
    want to be bound by employer-employee relationship at the time of the
    signing of the contract.
    o Contract states: It is understood, however that no employeremployee relationship exists between us, that of your sales
    personnel/agents, and that you shall hold our company, its
    officers and directors, free and harmless from any and all claims
    of liability and damages arising from and/or incident to the
    marketing of our real estate inventories
    Since the terms of the contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the
    intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its
    stipulations should control.

    Control test also used to prove that no ER-EE relationship exists. The
    rules, regulations, code of ethics, and periodic evaluation of Royale do
    not involve control over the means and methods by which Acantara
    was to perform his job (e.g. no working hours, no other tasks than
    soliciting sales, he had full control of how to accomplish tasks)
    Other grounds:
    o Repeated hiring does not prove existence. Only signifies
    renewal of contract and highlights satisfactory services
    o Exclusivity clause does not necessarily result in ER-EE
    relationship.
    o Payment of wages Alcantara had no fixed monthly salary. On
    commission basis only.

    Conclusion: Alcantara is not an employee but a mere independent contractor.


    LA has no jurisdiction over the case and the same is cognizable by the regular
    courts.

    You might also like