Aaaaaaaaaaaede

Indophil Textile Mills Inc. vs. Engr.
Adviento
Facts:
Petitioner Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing
thread for weaving. On August 21, 1990, petitioner hired respondent Engr.
Salvador Adviento as Civil Engineer to maintain its facilities in Lambakin, Marilao, Bulacan. On
August 7, 2002, respondent consulted a physician due to recurring weakness and dizziness. Few days later,
he was diagnosed with Chronic Poly Sinusitis, and thereafter, with moderate, severe and persistent Allergic
Rhinitis. Accordingly, respondent was advised by his doctor to totally avoid house dust mite and textile dust
as it will transmute into health problems. Distressed, respondent filed a complaint against petitioner with
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), San Fernando, Pampanga, for alleged illegal
dismissal and for the payment of backwages, separation pay, actual damages and attorney's
fees. Subsequently, respondent filed another Complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aparri,
Cagayan, alleging that he contracted such occupational disease by reason of the gross negligence of
petitioner to provide him with a safe, healthy and workable environment
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of respondent's complaint anchored on
petitioner's alleged gross negligence in failing to provide a safe and healthy working environment for
respondent.
Held:
Here, we find that jurisdiction rests on the regular courts. The fact of respondent’s employment with
petitioner as a civil engineer is a necessary element of his cause of action because without the same,
respondent cannot claim to have a right to a safe, healthy and workable environment. Indeed,
jurisprudence has evolved the rule that claims for damages under Article 217 (a) (4) of the Labor Code, to
be cognizable by the LA, must have a reasonable causal connection with any of the claims provided for in
that article. Only if there is such a connection with the other claims can a claim for damages be considered
as arising from employer-employee relations. In the case at bench, we find that such connection is nil. True,
the maintenance of a safe and healthy workplace is ordinarily a subject of labor cases. More, the acts
complained of appear to constitute matters involving employee-employer relations since respondent used
to be the Civil Engineer of petitioner. However, it should be stressed that respondent's claim for damages
is specifically grounded on petitioner's gross negligence to provide a safe, healthy and workable
environment for its employees — a case of quasi-delict. In the case at bar, respondent alleges that due to
the continued and prolonged exposure to textile dust seriously inimical to his health, he suffered work-
contracted disease which is now irreversible and incurable, and deprived him of job opportunities.
52 Clearly, injury and damages were allegedly suffered by respondent, an element of quasi-delict. Secondly,
the previous contract of employment between petitioner and respondent cannot be used to counter the
element of "no pre-existing contractual relation" since petitioner's alleged gross negligence in
maintaining a hazardous work environment cannot be considered a mere breach of such contract of
employment, but falls squarely within the elements of quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code since
the negligence is direct, substantive and independent. It also bears stressing that respondent is not praying
for any relief under the Labor Code of the Philippines. He neither claims for reinstatement
nor backwages or separation pay resulting from an illegal termination. The cause of action herein pertains
to the consequence of petitioner's omission which led to a work-related disease suffered by respondent,
causing harm or damage to his person. Such cause of action is within the realm of Civil Law, and jurisdiction
over the controversy belongs to the regular courts.
South East International Rattan Inc v. Jesus J. Coming (G.R. No. 186621)
Facts:
Petitioner South East International Rattan is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of
manufacturing and exporting furniture to various countries. Respondent Coming was hired by petitioner as
Sizing Machine Operator whose work is initially compensated on ‘pakiao basis’ but sometime was fixed per
day and a work schedule of 8:00am to 5:00pm. Without any apparent reason, his employment was
interrupted as he was told by petitioners to resume work in 2 months time but was never called back.
Respondent thus filed a complaint before the regional arbitration branch. The Labor Arbiter ruled
respondent as a regular employee of petitioner SEIRI but on appeal, was reversed by the NLRC. CA then
reversed the NLRC decision and ruled that there existed an employer-employee relationship between
petitioners and respondent.
Issue: Whether or not there is employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondent.
Ruling: YES.
We affirm the CA.
To ascertain the existence of employer-employee relationship jurisprudence has invariably adhered to the
four-fold test, to wit: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the
power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct, or the so-called “control test.”
x x x As to the “control test”, the following facts indubitably reveal that respondents wielded control over
the work performance of petitioner, to wit: (1) they required him to work within the company premises;
(2) they obliged petitioner to report every day of the week and tasked him to usually perform the same job;
(3) they enforced the observance of definite hours of work from 8 o’clock in the morning to 5 o’clock in the
afternoon; (4) the mode of payment of petitioner’s salary was under their discretion, at first paying him on
pakiao basis and thereafter, on daily basis; (5) they implemented company rules and regulations; (6)
[Estanislao] Agbay directly paid petitioner’s salaries and controlled all aspects of his employment and (7)
petitioner rendered work necessary and desirable in the business of the respondent company.
Moises De Leon v. NLRC and La Tondeña (G.R. No. 70705)
Facts:
Petitioner De Leon was employed by respondent company La Tondeña as maintenance man whose work
consisted mainly of painting company building and equipment, and other odd jobs relating to maintenance.
After having worked for respondent for more than a year, petitioner requested that he be included in the
payroll of regular employees, to which the former responded by dismissing petitioner from his
employment. Petitioner having been refused reinstatement filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter.
Petitioner asserts that he is a regular employee performing similar functions as of a regular maintenance
and was rehired by respondent company’s labor agency to perform the same tasks. Respondent company
meanwhile claims petitioner was a casual worker hired only to paint a certain building in the premises and
that his work as painter terminated upon completion of the job. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of
petitioner but was reversed on appeal by the NLRC tribunal.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner De Leon is a regular employee of respondent.
Ruling: YES.
The primary standard, therefore, of determining a regular employment is the reasonable connection
between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the
employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer.
It is not tenable to argue that the painting and maintenance work of petitioner are not necessary in
respondent’s business of manufacturing liquors and wines, just as it cannot be said that only those who are
directly involved in the process of producing wines and liquors may be considered as necessary employees.
Otherwise, there would have been no need for the regular Maintenance Section of respondent company’s
Engineering Department, manned by regular employees whom petitioner often worked with.
The law demands that the nature and entirety of the activities performed by the employee be considered.
In the case of petitioner, the painting and maintenance work given him manifest a treatment consistent
with a maintenance man and not just a painter, for if his job was truly only to paint a building there would
have been no basis for giving him other work assignments in between painting activities.
Furthermore, the petitioner performed his work of painting and maintenance activities during his
employment in respondent’s business which lasted for more than one year. Certainly, by this fact alone he
is entitled by law to be considered a regular employee. And considering further that weeks after his
dismissal, petitioner was rehired by the company through a labor agency and was returned to his post in
the Maintenance Section and made to perform the same activities that he used to do, it cannot be denied
that as activities as a regular painter and maintenance man still exist.

Aaaaaaaaaaaede

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aaaaaaaaaaaede

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Aaaaaaaaaaaede

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indophil Textile Mills Inc. vs. Engr.

We affirm the CA.

Moises De Leon v. NLRC and La Tondeña (G.R. No. 70705)

Whether or not petitioner De Leon is a regular employee of respondent.

You might also like