PERPETUAL HELP CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC. (PHCCI) V.FABURADA

Posted: May 1, 2015 in case digests, labor relations
Tags: , , ,

PERPETUAL HELP CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC. (PHCCI) V.FABURADA

October 8, 2001

By:  Aurea I. Gruyal

FACTS:

  1. Private respondents Faburada et. al. filed a complaint

against   PHCCI for illegal dismissal, premium pay, separation pay, wage differential, moral damages and attorney’s fees.

  1. PHCCI filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that noemployer-employee relationship exists since privaterespondents are all members and co-owners of thecooperative. Also, private respondents have not exhausted the remedies provided in the coop by laws.

PHCCI also filed a supplemental motion to dismiss

alledging that RA 6939, the Cooperative Development Authority Law, requires conciliation or mediation within the cooperative before a resort to judicial proceeding.

3.The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the private respondents, holding that the case is impressed with employer-employee relationship and that the laws on cooperatives is subservient to the Labor Code. The NLRC affirmed.

 

ISSUE: WON there is an employer-employee relationship between the parties and WON private respondents were regular employees

 HELD: YES.

RATIO:

Elements in determining existence of employer-employee relationship:

1) Selection and engagement of the worker or the power to hire

2) The power to dismiss

3) Payment of wages by whatever means

4) Power to control the worker’s conduct The   above elements are present here. PHCCI through its Manager Mr. Edilberto Lantaca, Jr. hired respondents as

Computer   programmer and clerks. They worked regular working hours, were assigned specific duties, were paid regular wages, and made to accomplish regular time records, and worked under the supervision of the manager.

Art. 280, Labor Code comprehends 3 kinds of employees:

1)REGULAR EMPLOYEES or those whose work is necessary or desirable to the usual business of the employer

2)PROJECT EMPLOYEES or those whoseemployment has been fixed for a specificproject or undertaking the completion ortermination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season

3)CASUAL EMPLOYEES or those who are neither regular nor project employees

There are 2 separate instances whereby it can be determined that an employment is regular:

1)If the particular activity performed by the employee is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer

2)If the employee has been performing the job for at least a year

Private respondents were rendering services necessary to the day-to-day operations of PHCCI. This alone qualified them as regular employees. Moreover, all of them except one worked with PHCCI for more than 1 year.

That Faburada worked only on a part-time basis does not mean that he is not a regular employee .Regularity of employment is not determined by the number of hours one works but by the nature and length of time one has been in that particular job.

LABREL CASE DIGEST POOL / ATTORNEY JHONELLE ESTRADA / MONDAYS / 5:30 PM TO 8:30 PM / NEW ERA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s