Labor laws of the philippines - Chan Robles and Associates Law Firm

Pre-Week Guide on Labor Law 2006 Bar Examinations Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan 

STATEMENT OF COVERAGE 

This Pre-Week Guide is presented in the form of an outline of basic principles which bar reviewees may use as 

a quick guide on the significant areas of labor law in the 2006 Bar Examinations. This is presented in three (3) 

parts. PART ONE covers Books 1 to 4 of the Labor Code and some important social legislations. PART TWO 

covers Book 5 and PART THREE covers Books 6 and 7 of the Labor Code. 

LABOR LAWS OF THE PHILIPPINES 

PART ONE 

LAW ON LABOR STANDARDS 

1. What is the protection-to-labor clause in the Constitution? 

“The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, 

organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of 

employment opportunities for all. It shall guarantee the rights of all 

workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and 

peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with 

law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, 

and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making 

processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law. 

“The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility 

between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes 

in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual 

compliance therewith to foster industrial peace. 

“The State shall regulate the relations between workers and 

employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of 

production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on 

investments, and to expansion and growth.” (Section 3 (Labor), Article XIII 

[Social Justice and Human Rights] of the 1987 Constitution) 

2. What are the basic principles enunciated in the Labor Code on protection to labor? 

a. The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work 

opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and regulate the relations between 

workers and employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to selforganization, 

collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane 

conditions of work. 

b. Labor contracts are not ordinary contracts as the relation between capital and labor is 

impressed with public interest. 

c. In case of doubt, labor laws and rules shall be interpreted in favor of labor. 

d. Labor Code applies to all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural. 

e. Applicability of Labor Code to government-owned or controlled corporations: 

• When created with original or special charter - Civil Service laws, rules and 

regulations; 

• When created under the Corporation Code - Labor Code applies. 

RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT OF WORKERS: 

1


3. What is the relevant law on recruitment for overseas employment? 

Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (R. A. No. 8042). 

4. What are the entities authorized to engage in recruitment and placement? 

a. public employment offices; 

b. Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA); 

c. private recruitment entities; 

d. private employment agencies; 

e. shipping or manning agents or representatives; 

f. such other persons or entities as may be authorized by the Secretary of Labor and 

Employment; and 

g. construction contractors. 

5. Money claims of OFWs. 

(SEE PART TWO OF THIS 3-PART PRE-WEEK SERIES FOR MORE 

EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION OF THIS TOPIC) 

6. What is the nature of the liability of local recruitment agency and foreign principal? 

1. Local Agency is solidarily liable with foreign principal. 

2. Severance of relations between local agent and foreign principal does not affect liability 

of local recruiter. 

7. Who has jurisdiction over claims for death and other benefits of OFWs? 

Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction over claims for death, disability and other benefits arising 

from employment of OFWs. Work-connection is required. 

8. What is the basis of compensation for death benefits of OFWs? 

Basis of compensation for death generally is whichever is greater between Philippine law 

or foreign law. 

9. Which has jurisdiction over disciplinary action cases of OFWs? 

The POEA retains jurisdiction over disciplinary action cases. 

10. Is direct-hiring of OFWs allowed? Why? 

No. Employers cannot directly hire workers for overseas employment except through 

authorized entities (see enumeration above). 

The reason for the ban is to ensure full regulation of employment in order to avoid 

exploitation. 

(Note: Any non-resident foreign corporation directly hiring Filipino workers is doing business in 

the Philippines and may be sued in the Philippines). 

11. What is illegal recruitment? 

1. Illegal recruitment under Article 38 applies to both local and overseas employment. 

2. Illegal recruitment may be committed by any person whether licensees or nonlicensees 

or holders or non-holders of authority. 

3. Elements of illegal recruitment: 

a. First element: Recruitment and placement activities. 

2


Any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, 

or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or 

advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when 

undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority: Provided, That any 

such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a 

fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed as engaged 

in such act. 

b. Second element: Non-licensee or non-holder of authority - means any 

person, corporation or entity which has not been issued a valid license or 

authority to engage in recruitment and placement by the Secretary of Labor 

and Employment, or whose license or authority has been suspended, revoked 

or canceled by the POEA or the Secretary of Labor and Employment. 

Some relevant principles: 

� Mere impression that recruiter is capable of providing work abroad is sufficient. 

� "Referral" of recruits also constitutes recruitment activity. 

� Absence of receipt to prove payment is not essential to prove recruitment. 

� Only one (1) person recruited is sufficient to constitute recruitment. 

� Non-prosecution of another suspect is not material. 

� A person convicted for illegal recruitment may still be convicted for estafa. 

12. When is illegal recruitment considered economic sabotage? 

Illegal recruitment is considered economic sabotage - when the commission thereof is 

attended by the qualifying circumstances as follows: 

a. By a syndicate - if carried out by a group of 3 or more persons conspiring and 

confederating with one another; 

b. In large scale - if committed against 3 or more persons individually or as a 

group. 

13. What is the prescriptive period of illegal recruitment cases? 

Under R. A. 8042, the prescriptive period of illegal recruitment cases is five (5) years 

except illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage which prescribes in twenty (20) years. 

14. What are the requirements before a non-resident alien may be employed in the Philippines? 

Any alien seeking admission to the Philippines for employment purposes and any 

domestic or foreign employer who desires to engage an alien for employment in the Philippines 

shall obtain an employment permit from the Department of Labor. 

The employment permit may be issued to a non-resident alien or to the applicant 

employer after a determination of the non-availability of a person in the Philippines who is 

competent, able and willing at the time of application to perform the services for which the alien 

is desired. 

For an enterprise registered in preferred areas of investments, said employment permit 

may be issued upon recommendation of the government agency charged with the supervision of 

said registered enterprise. 

15. May an alien employee transfer his employment after issuance of permit? 

After the issuance of an employment permit, the alien shall not transfer to another job or 

change his employer without prior approval of the Secretary of Labor. 

TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT OF SPECIAL WORKERS 

3


APPRENTICE: 

16. What is an apprenticeship? Who is an apprentice? 

“Apprenticeship” means any training on the job supplemented by related theoretical 

instruction involving apprenticeable occupations and trades as may be approved by the Secretary 

of Labor and Employment. 

17. Who is an apprentice? 

An “apprentice” is a worker who is covered by a written apprenticeship agreement with 

an employer. 

18. What are the qualifications of an apprentice? 

a. be at least fifteen (15) years of age, provided those who are at least fifteen (15) years of 

age but less than eighteen (18) may be eligible for apprenticeship only in non-hazardous 

occupation; 

b. be physically fit for the occupation in which he desires to be trained; 

c. possess vocational aptitude and capacity for the particular occupation as established 

through appropriate tests; and 

d. possess the ability to comprehend and follow oral and written instructions. 

19. What are the important principles related to apprenticeship? 

a. Wage rate of apprentices - 75% of the statutory minimum wage. 

b. Apprentices become regular employees if program is not approved by DOLE. 

c. Ratio of theoretical instructions and on-the-job training - 100 hours of theoretical 

instructions for every 2,000 hours of practical training on-the-job. 

LEARNERS: 

20. Who is a learner? 

A “learner” is a person hired as a trainee in industrial occupations which are nonapprenticeable 

and which may be learned through practical training on the job for a period not 

exceeding three (3) months, whether or not such practical training is supplemented by theoretical 

instructions. 

Wage rate of learners is 75% of the statutory minimum wage. 

21. What are the pre-requisites before learners may be hired? 

Pre-requisites before learners may be validly employed: 

a. when no experienced workers are available; 

b. the employment of learners is necessary to prevent curtailment of employment 

opportunities; and 

c. the employment does not create unfair competition in terms of labor costs or 

impair or lower working standards. 

HANDICAPPED WORKERS: 

22. Who is a handicapped worker? 

A “handicapped worker” is one whose earning capacity is impaired: 

a. by age; or 

b. physical deficiency; or 

c. mental deficiency; or 

d. injury. 

4


• If disability is not related to the work for which he was hired, he should not be so 

considered as handicapped worker. He may have a disability but since the same 

is not related to his work, he cannot be considered a handicapped worker insofar 

as that particular work is concerned. 

• Wage rate - 75% of the statutory minimum wage. 

WORKING CONDITIONS: 

23. What are the provisions of the Labor Code on working conditions? 

The following provisions are covered under Book III of the Labor Code: 

Article 83 - Normal hours of work; 

Article 84 - Hours worked; 

Article 85 - Meal periods; 

Article 86 - Night shift differential; 

Article 87 - Overtime work; 

Article 88 - Undertime not offset by overtime; 

Article 89 - Emergency overtime work; 

Article 90 - Computation of additional compensation; 

Article 91 - Right to weekly rest period; 

Article 92 - When employer may require work on a rest day; 

Article 93 - Compensation for rest day, Sunday or holiday work; 

Article 94 - Right to holiday pay; 

Article 95 - Right to service incentive leave; and 

Article 96 - Service charges. 

24. Who are covered (and not covered) by the said provisions on working conditions? 

1. Employees covered - applicable to all employees in all establishments whether 

operated for profit or not. 

2. Employees not covered: 

a. Government employees; 

b. Managerial employees; 

c. Other officers or members of a managerial staff; 

d. Domestic servants and persons in the personal service of another; 

e. Workers paid by results; 

f. Non-agricultural field personnel; and 

g. Members of the family of the employer. 

25. What is the most important requirement in order for the Labor Code provisions on 

working conditions to apply? 

The existence of employer-employee relationship is necessary. Without this relationship, 

the Labor Code does not apply. 

26. What is the test of employment relationship? 

There is no uniform test of employment relationship but the four (4) elements of an 

employer-employee relationship are as follows: 

(a) Selection and engagement of employee; 

(b) Payment of wages; 

(c) Power of dismissal; and 

(d) Power of control (the most important test). 

27. What is the quantum of evidence required to prove employment relationship? 

5


The quantum of evidence required to prove employment relationship is mere substantial 

evidence (e.g., I. D. card, Cash Vouchers for salaries, inclusion in payroll, reporting to SSS). 

NORMAL HOURS OF WORK: 

28. What is meant by “normal hours of work”? 

1. "Normal" hours of work of employees -eight (8) hours per day. 

2. "Work day" means 24 consecutive-hour period which commences from the time the 

employee regularly starts to work. It does not necessarily mean the ordinary calendar 

day from 12:00 midnight to 12:00 midnight unless the employee starts to work at this 

unusual hour. 

3. "Work week" is a week consisting of 168 consecutive hours or 7 consecutive 24hour 

work days beginning at the same hour and on the same calendar day each 

calendar week. 

4. Reduction of eight-hour working day - not prohibited by law provided there is no 

reduction in pay of workers. 

5. Shortening of work week - allowed provided employees voluntarily agree thereto; 

there is no diminution in pay; and only on temporary duration. 

6. Hours of work of part-time workers - payment of wage should be in proportion 

only to the hours worked. 

7. Hours of work of hospital and clinic personnel - The Supreme Court has voided 

Policy Instructions No. 54 in San Juan de Dios Hospital Employees Association vs. 

NLRC (G. R. No. 126383, Nov. 28, 1997). Consequently, the rule that hospital 

employees who worked for only 40 hours/5 days in any given workweek should be 

compensated for full weekly wage for 7 days is no longer applicable. 

Prerogative to change working hours. 

Well-settled is the rule that management retains the prerogative, whenever exigencies of 

the service so require, to change the working hours of its employees. (Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. 

vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 119205, 15 April 1998, 289 SCRA 86). 

The employer has the prerogative to control all aspects of employment in his business 

organization such as hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place and manner of 

work, tools to be used, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, 

transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and 

recall of workers. (Consolidated Food Corporation, et al. vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 118647, 

Sept. 23, 1999). 

In the 2001 case of Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-FFW vs. Interphil 

Laboratories, Inc., [G. R. No. 142824, December 19, 2001], the parties to the CBA stipulated: 

“Section 1. Regular Working Hours - A normal workday shall consist of not 

more than eight (8) hours. The regular working hours for the Company shall be 

from 7:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. The schedule of shift work shall be maintained; 

however the company may change the prevailing work time at its discretion, 

should such change be necessary in the operations of the Company. All 

employees shall observe such rules as have been laid down by the company for 

the purpose of effecting control over working hours.” (Article VI of the CBA). 

According to the Supreme Court, it is evident from the foregoing provision that the 

working hours may be changed, at the discretion of the company, should such change be 

necessary for its operations, and that the employees shall observe such rules as have been laid 

down by the company. In the instant case, the Labor Arbiter found that respondent company had 

to adopt a continuous 24-hour work daily schedule by reason of the nature of its business and the 

demands of its clients. It was established that the employees adhered to the said work schedule 

since 1988. The employees are deemed to have waived the eight-hour schedule since they 

followed, without any question or complaint, the two-shift schedule while their CBA was still in 

force and even prior thereto. The two-shift schedule effectively changed the working hours 

stipulated in the CBA. As the employees assented by practice to this arrangement, they cannot 

6


now be heard to claim that the overtime boycott is justified because they were not obliged to 

work beyond eight hours. As the Labor Arbiter elucidated in his report: 

“Respondents' attempt to deny the existence of such regular overtime 

schedule is belied by their own awareness of the existence of the regular 

overtime schedule of 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. of the 

following day that has been going on since 1988. Proof of this is the case 

undisputedly filed by the union for and in behalf of its members, wherein it is 

claimed that the company has not been computing correctly the night premium 

and overtime pay for work rendered between 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. of the 

6:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. shift. xxx In fact, the union Vice-President Carmelo C. 

Santos, demanded that the company make a recomputation of the overtime 

records of the employees from 1987 xxx. Even their own witness, union Director 

Enrico C. Gonzales, testified that when in 1992 he was still a Quality Control 

Inspector at the Sucat Plant of the company, his schedule was sometime at 6:00 

A.M. to 6:00 P.M., sometime at 6:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M., at 2:00 P.M. to 10:00 

P.M. and sometime at 6:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M., and when on the 6 to 6 shifts, he 

received the commensurate pay xxx. Likewise, while in the overtime permits, 

dated March 1, 6, 8, 9 to 12, 1993, which were passed around daily for the 

employees to sign, his name appeared but without his signatures, he, however, 

had rendered overtime during those dates and was paid because unlike in other 

departments, it has become a habit to them to sign the overtime schedule weekly 

xxx.” 

29. May workdays be reduced on account of losses? 

Yes, in situations where the reduction in the number of regular working days is resorted 

to by the employer to prevent serious losses due to causes beyond his control, such as when there 

is a substantial slump in the demand for his goods or services or when there is lack of raw 

materials. This is more humane and in keeping with sound business operations than the outright 

termination of the services or the total closure of the enterprise. (Explanatory Bulletin on the 

Effect of Reduction of Workdays on Wages/Living Allowances issued by the DOLE on July 23, 

1985). 

40. What is the effect of reduction of workdays on wages/living allowances? 

In situations where there is valid reduction of workdays, the employer may deduct the 

wages and living allowances corresponding to the days taken off from the workweek, in the 

absence of an agreement specifically providing that a reduction in the number of workdays will 

not adversely affect the remuneration of the employees. This view is consistent with the principle 

of “no-work-no-pay.” Furthermore, since the reduction of workdays is resorted to as a costsaving 

measure, it would be unfair to require the employer to pay the wages and living 

allowances even on unworked days that were taken off from the regular workweek. (Explanatory 

Bulletin on the Effect of Reduction of Workdays on Wages/Living Allowances issued by the DOLE 

on July 23, 1985). 

41. What is meant by “hours worked”? 

1. The following are the compensable hours worked: 

a. All time during which an employee is required to be on duty or to be at the 

employer’s premises or to be at a prescribed workplace; and 

b. All time during which an employee is suffered or permitted to work. 

2. Coffee breaks and rest period of short duration - considered compensable hours 

worked. 

3. Waiting time - considered compensable if waiting is an integral part of the 

employee's work or he is required or engaged by the employer to wait. 

4. Sleeping while on duty is compensable if the nature of the employee’s work allows 

sleeping without interrupting or prejudicing work or when there is an agreement 

between the employee and his employer to that effect. For example, a truck helper 

7


may sleep after performing his task and while his truck is traveling on its way to its 

assignment. But the same may not be done by the driver. 

5. Working while on call - compensable if employee is required to remain on call in 

the employer’s premises or so close thereto that he cannot use the time effectively 

and gainfully for his own purpose. 

7. Travel time: 

a. Travel from home to work -not compensable working time 

b. Travel that is all in the day’s work - compensable hours worked. 

c. Travel away from home - compensable hours worked. 

8. Attendance in lectures, meetings, and training periods sanctioned by employer - 

considered hours worked. 

9. Power interruptions or brown-outs, basic rules: 

- Brown-outs of short duration not exceeding twenty (20) minutes - compensable 

hours worked. 

- Brown-outs running for more than twenty (20) minutes may not be treated as 

hours worked provided any 

of the following conditions are present: 

a. The employees can leave their workplace or go elsewhere whether 

within or without the work premises; or 

b. The employees can use the time effectively for their own interest. 

10. Attendance in CBA negotiations or grievance meeting - compensable hours worked. 

11. Attendance in hearings in cases filed by employee - not compensable hours worked. 

12. Participation in strikes - not compensable working time. 

MEAL PERIOD: 

42. What is “meal period”? 

1. Every employee is entitled to not less than one (1) hour (or 60 minutes) time-off for 

regular meals. Being time-off, it is not compensable hours worked and employee is 

free to do anything he wants, except to work. If he is required to work while eating, 

he should be compensated therefor. 

2. If meal time is shortened to not less than twenty (20) minutes - compensable hours 

worked. If shortened to less than 20 minutes, it is considered coffee break or rest 

period of short duration and, therefore, compensable. 

NIGHT-SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL: 

43. What is “night-shift differential”? 

1. Night shift differential is equivalent to 10% of employee's regular wage for each hour 

of work performed between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following day. 

2. Night shift differential and overtime pay, distinguished - When the work of an 

employee falls at nighttime, the receipt of overtime pay shall not preclude the right to 

receive night differential pay. The reason is, the payment of the night differential pay 

is for the work done during the night; while the payment of the overtime pay is for 

work in excess of the regular eight (8) working hours. 

3. Computation of Night Shift Differential Pay: 

a. Where night shift (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) work is regular work. 

1. On an ordinary day: Plus 10% of the basic hourly rate or a total of 

110% of the basic hourly rate. 

2. On a rest day, special day or regular holiday: Plus 10% of the regular 

hourly rate on a rest day, special day or regular holiday or a total of 

110% of the regular hourly rate. 

b. Where night shift (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) work is overtime work. 

8


OVERTIME WORK: 

44. What is “overtime work”? 

1. On an ordinary day: Plus 10% of the overtime hourly rate on an 

ordinary day or a total of 110% of the overtime hourly rate on an 

ordinary day. 

2. On a rest day or special day or regular holiday: Plus 10% of the 

overtime hourly rate on a rest day or special day or regular holiday. 

c. For overtime work in the night shift. Since overtime work is not usually 

eight (8) hours, the compensation for overtime night shift work is also 

computed on the basis of the hourly rate. 

1. On an ordinary day. Plus 10% of 125% of basic hourly rate or a total 

of 110% of 125% of basic hourly rate. 

2. On a rest day or special day or regular holiday. Plus 10% of 130% of 

regular hourly rate on said days or a total of 110% of 130% of the 

applicable regular hourly rate. 

1. Work rendered after normal eight (8) hours of work is called overtime work. 

2. In computing overtime work, "regular wage" or "basic salary" means "cash" wage 

only without deduction for facilities provided by the employer. 

3. "Premium pay" means the additional compensation required by law for work 

performed within 8 hours on non-working days, such as rest days and special days. 

4. "Overtime pay" means the additional compensation for work performed beyond 8 

hours. Every employee entitled to premium pay is also entitled to the benefit of 

overtime pay. 

5. Illustrations on how overtime is computed: 

a. For overtime work performed on an ordinary day, the overtime pay 

is plus 25% of the basic hourly rate. 

b. For overtime work performed on a rest day or on a special day, the 

overtime pay is plus 30% of the basic hourly rate which includes 30% 

additional compensation as provided in Article 93 [a] of the Labor 

Code. 

c. For overtime work performed on a rest day which falls on a special 

day, the overtime pay is plus 30% of the basic hourly rate which 

includes 50% additional compensation as provided in Article 93 [c] of 

the Labor Code. 

d. For overtime work performed on a regular holiday, the overtime 

pay is plus 30% of the basic hourly rate which includes 100% 

additional compensation as provided in Article 94 [b] of the Labor 

Code. 

e. For overtime work performed on a rest day which falls on a regular 

holiday, the overtime pay is plus 30% of the basic hourly rate which 

includes 160% additional compensation. 

Judicial admission by employer of overtime work, effect. 

In the 2000 case of Damasco vs. NLRC, [G. R. No. 115755, December 4, 2000], the 

employer admitted in his pleadings that the employee’s work starts at 8:30 in the morning and 

ends up at 6:30 in the evening daily, except holidays and Sundays. However, the employer claims 

that the employee’s basic salary of P140.00 a day is more than enough to cover the “one hour 

excess work” which is the compensation they allegedly agreed upon. The Supreme Court ruled 

that in view of the employer’s formal admission that the employee worked beyond eight hours 

daily, the latter is entitled to overtime compensation. No further proof is required. The employer 

already admitted she worked an extra hour daily. Judicial admissions made by parties in the 

9


pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case are conclusive, no 

further evidence being required to prove the same, and cannot be contradicted unless previously 

shown to have been made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. (Citing 

Philippine American General Insurance Inc. vs. Sweet Lines Inc., 212 SCRA 194, 204 [1992]). 

Premium and overtime pay, distinguished. 

“Premium pay” refers to the additional compensation required by law for work 

performed within eight (8) hours on non-working days, such as rest days and special days. (No. 

III, DOLE Handbook on Workers Statutory Monetary Benefits). 

“Overtime pay” refers to the additional compensation for work performed beyond eight 

(8) hours a day. Every employee who is entitled to premium pay is likewise entitled to the benefit 

of overtime pay. (No. IV, Ibid.). 

UNDERTIME NOT OFFSET BY OVERTIME: 

45. What is meant by “undertime not offset by overtime”? 

1. Undertime work on any particular day shall not be offset by overtime on any other 

day. 

2. Permission given to the employee to go on leave on some other day of the week shall 

not exempt the employer from paying the additional compensation required by law 

such as overtime pay or night shift differential pay. 

EMERGENCY OVERTIME WORK: 

46. When may an employee be compelled to perform overtime work? 

1. The general rule remains that no employee may be compelled to render overtime 

work against his will. 

2. Exceptions when employee may be compelled to render overtime work: 

a. When the country is at war or when any other national or local emergency has 

been declared by the National Assembly or the Chief Executive; 

b. When overtime work is necessary to prevent loss of life or property or in case 

of imminent danger to public safety due to actual or impending emergency in 

the locality caused by serious accident, fire, floods, typhoons, earthquake, 

epidemic or other disasters or calamities; 

c. When there is urgent work to be performed on machines, installations or 

equipment, or in order to avoid serious loss or damage to the employer or some 

other causes of similar nature; 

d. When the work is necessary to prevent loss or damage to perishable goods; 

e. When the completion or continuation of work started before the 8th hour is 

necessary to prevent serious obstruction or prejudice to the business or 

operations of the employer; and 

f. When overtime work is necessary to avail of favorable weather or 

environmental conditions where performance or quality of work is dependent 

thereon. 

47. May an employee validly refuse to render overtime work under any of the afore-said 

circumstances? 

An employee cannot validly refuse to render overtime work if any of the aforementioned 

circumstances is present. When an employee refuses to render emergency 

overtime work under any of the foregoing conditions, he may be dismissed on the ground 

of insubordination or willful disobedience of the lawful order of the employer. 

WEEKLY REST PERIOD: 

48. What is “weekly rest period”? 

10


1. Every employer shall give his employees a rest period of not less than 24 consecutive 

hours after every 6 consecutive normal work days. 

2. If business is open on Sundays/holidays, rest day may be scheduled on another day. 

3. Preference of employee as to his rest day should be respected if based on religious 

grounds. 

4. Waiver of compensation for work on rest days and holidays is not valid. 

49. When may an employer compel his employees to render work on a rest day? 

Under any of the following circumstances: 

a. In case of actual or impending emergencies caused by serious accident, fire, 

flood, typhoon, earthquake, epidemic or other disaster or calamity, to prevent 

loss of life and property, or in case of force majeure or imminent danger to 

public safety; 

b. In case of urgent work to be performed on machineries, equipment, or 

installations, to avoid serious loss which the employer would otherwise suffer; 

c. In the event of abnormal pressure of work due to special circumstances, where 

the employer cannot ordinarily be expected to resort to other measures; 

d. To prevent serious loss of perishable goods; 

e. Where the nature of the work is such that the employees have to work 

continuously for seven (7) days in a week or more, as in the case of the crew 

members of a vessel to complete a voyage and in other similar cases; and 

f. When the work is necessary to avail of favorable weather or environmental 

conditions where performance or quality of work is dependent thereon. 

COMPENSATION FOR WORK ON REST DAY, SUNDAY OR HOLIDAY: 

50. How is premium computed for work rendered on a rest day, Sunday or holiday? 

a. Premium pay for work on scheduled rest day. 

A covered employee who is made or permitted to work on his scheduled rest day shall 

be paid with an additional compensation of at least thirty percent (30%) of his regular 

wage. 

b. Premium pay for work on Sunday when it is employee’s rest day. 

A covered employee shall be entitled to such additional compensation of thirty percent 

(30%) of his regular wage for work performed on a Sunday only when it is his 

established rest day. 

c. Premium pay for work performed on Sundays and holidays when employee has 

no regular workdays and no scheduled regular rest days. 

Where the nature of the work of the employee is such that he has no regular workdays 

and no regular rest days can be scheduled, he shall be paid an additional compensation 

of at least thirty percent (30%) of his regular wage for work performed on Sundays 

and holidays. 

d. Premium pay for work performed on special holidays (now special days) which 

fall on employee’s scheduled rest day. 

Work performed on any special holiday (now special day) shall be paid with an 

additional compensation of at least thirty percent (30%) of the regular wage of the 

employee. Where such holiday work falls on the employee’s scheduled rest day, he 

shall be entitled to additional compensation of at least fifty percent (50%) of his 

regular wage. 

e. Higher rate provided in agreements. 

Where the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable employment contract 

stipulates the payment of higher premium pay than that prescribed by law, the 

employer shall pay such higher rate. 

HOLIDAY PAY: 

51. What is holiday pay? 

11


Holiday pay is a premium given to employees pursuant to law even if he is not 

suffered to work on a regular holiday. 

- If worker did not work on regular holiday, he is entitled to 100% of his basic pay; 

- If he worked, he is entitled to 200% thereof. 

Entitlement of monthly-paid employees to regular holiday pay. 

The Labor Code does not exclude monthly-paid employees from the benefits of holiday 

pay. However, the implementing rules on holiday pay excluded monthly-paid employees from 

the said benefits by inserting under Rule IV, Book III of the said rules, Section 2 which provides 

that monthly-paid employees are presumed to be paid for all days in the month, whether worked 

or not. In Policy Instructions No. 9, the Secretary of Labor categorically declared that the benefit 

is intended primarily for daily-paid employees when the law clearly states that every worker 

should be paid their regular holiday pay. This is a flagrant violation of the mandatory directive of 

Article 4 of the Labor Code which states that doubts in the implementation and interpretation of 

the Code, including its implementing rules, shall be resolved in favor of labor. Moreover, it shall 

always be presumed that the legislature intended to enact a valid and permanent statute which 

would have the most beneficial effect that its language permits. (Insular Bank of Asia and 

America Employees Union [IBAAEU] vs. Inciong, et al., G. R. No. L-52415, Oct. 23, 1984). 

An administrative interpretation which diminishes the benefits of labor more than what 

the statute delimits or withholds is obviously ultra vires. (The Chartered Bank Employees 

Association vs. Ople, et al., G. R. No. L-44717, Aug. 28, 1985). 

But in the 2004 case of Odango vs. NLRC, (G. R. No. 147420, June 10, 2004), both the 

petitioners and respondent firm anchored their respective arguments on the validity of Section 2, 

Rule IV of Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. Indeed, it is 

deplorable, said the Supreme Court, that both parties (the petitioners and the respondent 

employer) premised their arguments on an implementing rule that the Court had declared void 

twenty years ago in Insular Bank of Asia vs. Inciong, [supra]. This case is cited prominently in 

basic commentaries. And yet, counsel for both parties failed to consider this. This does not speak 

well of the quality of representation they rendered to their clients. This controversy should have 

ended long ago had either counsel first checked the validity of the implementing rule on which 

they based their contentions. The High Court declared: 

“We have long ago declared void Section 2, Rule IV of Book III of the 

Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. In Insular Bank of Asia v. 

Inciong, [G. R. No. L-52415, October 23, 1984; 217 Phil. 629 (1984)], we ruled 

as follows: 

‘Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Implementing Rules and Policy 

Instructions No. 9 issued by the Secretary (then Minister) of Labor are 

null and void since in the guise of clarifying the Labor Code’s provisions 

on holiday pay, they in effect amended them by enlarging the scope of 

their exclusion. 

‘The Labor Code is clear that monthly-paid employees are not 

excluded from the benefits of holiday pay. However, the implementing 

rules on holiday pay promulgated by the then Secretary of Labor 

excludes monthly-paid employees from the said benefits by inserting, 

under Rule IV, Book III of the implementing rules, Section 2 which 

provides that monthly-paid employees are presumed to be paid for all 

days in the month whether worked or not.’ 

“Thus, Section 2 cannot serve as basis of any right or claim. Absent any 

other legal basis, petitioners’ claim for wage differentials must fail. 

“Even assuming that Section 2, Rule IV of Book III is valid, petitioners’ 

claim will still fail. The basic rule in this jurisdiction is “no work, no pay.” The 

right to be paid for un-worked days is generally limited to the ten legal holidays 

in a year. (See Article 94 of the Labor Code and Executive Order No. 223). 

12


Petitioners’ claim is based on a mistaken notion that Section 2, Rule IV of Book 

III gave rise to a right to be paid for un-worked days beyond the ten legal 

holidays. In effect, petitioners demand that ANTECO should pay them on 

Sundays, the un-worked half of Saturdays and other days that they do not work at 

all. Petitioners’ line of reasoning is not only a violation of the “no work, no pay” 

principle, it also gives rise to an invidious classification, a violation of the equal 

protection clause. Sustaining petitioners’ argument will make monthly-paid 

employees a privileged class who are paid even if they do not work. 

“The use of a divisor less than 365 days cannot make ANTECO 

automatically liable for underpayment. The facts show that petitioners are 

required to work only from Monday to Friday and half of Saturday. Thus, the 

minimum allowable divisor is 287, which is the result of 365 days, less 52 

Sundays and less 26 Saturdays (or 52 half Saturdays). Any divisor below 287 

days means that ANTECO’s workers are deprived of their holiday pay for some 

or all of the ten legal holidays. The 304 days divisor used by ANTECO is clearly 

above the minimum of 287 days. 

“Finally, petitioners cite Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople, 

[G.R. No. L-44717, 28 August 1985, 138 SCRA 273], as an analogous situation. 

Petitioners have misread this case. 

“In Chartered Bank, the workers sought payment for un-worked legal 

holidays as a right guaranteed by a valid law. In this case, petitioners seek 

payment of wages for un-worked non-legal holidays citing as basis a void 

implementing rule. The circumstances are also markedly different. In Chartered 

Bank, there was a collective bargaining agreement that prescribed the divisor. 

No CBA exists in this case. In Chartered Bank, the employer was liable for 

underpayment because the divisor it used was 251 days, a figure that clearly fails 

to account for the ten legal holidays the law requires to be paid. Here, the divisor 

ANTECO uses is 304 days. This figure does not deprive petitioners of their right 

to be paid on legal holidays.” (Odango vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 147420, June 

10, 2004). 

52. What are the regular holidays and special days? 

List of eleven (11) regular holidays and two (2) special days under R.A . No. 9177 

(November 13, 2002): 

(a) 

REGULAR HOLIDAYS 

New Year's Day - January 1 

Maundy Thursday - Movable Date 

Good Friday - Movable Date 

Eidul Fitr - Movable Date 

Araw ng Kagitingan 

(Bataan and Corregidor Day) 

- April 9 

Labor Day - May 1 

Independence Day - June 12 

National Heroes Day 

- Last Sunday of 

August 

Bonifacio Day - November 30 

Christmas Day - December 25 

Rizal Day - December 30 

13


(b) 

NATIONWIDE SPECIAL HOLIDAYS 

All Saints Day - November 1 

Last Day of the Year - December 31 

[NOTE: R.A. No. 9177 declares the first day of Shawwal, the tenth month of the Islamic 

calendar, a national holiday for the observance of Eidul Fitr, and the tenth day of Zhul Hijja, the 

twelfth month of the Islamic calendar, a regional holiday in the Autonomous Region in Muslim 

Mindanao (ARMM) for the observance of Eidul Adha. Eidul Fitr is the first day marking the end 

of the thirty (30)-day fasting period of Ramadhan Eidul Adha is a tenth day in the month of Hajj 

or Islamic Pilgrimage to Mecca wherein Muslims pay homage to Abraham's supreme act of 

sacrifice and signifies mankind's obedience to God. 

The approximate date of these Islamic holidays may be determined in accordance with the 

Islamic calendar (Hijra) or the lunar calendar, or upon Islamic astronomical calculations, 

whichever is possible or convenient.] 

53. What are the distinctions between “regular holidays” and “special days”? 

The following are the distinctions between “regular holidays” and “special days”: 

a. A covered employee who does not work during regular holidays is paid 100% 

of his regular daily wage; while a covered employee who does not work during a 

special day does not receive any compensation under the principle of “no work, no 

pay.” 

b. A covered employee who works during regular holidays is paid 200% of his 

regular daily wage; while a covered employee who works during special days is only 

paid an additional compensation of not less than 30% of the basic pay or a total of 

130% and at least 50% over and above the basic pay or a total of 150%, if the worker 

is permitted or suffered to work on special days which fall on his scheduled rest day. 

54. What is the distinction between “special holidays” and “special days”? 

There is none. “Special holidays” are now known as “special days.” (NOTE: R. A. 9177 

uses “Special Holidays” instead of “Special Days” in describing All Saints Day and Last Day of 

the Year which were described as such under Executive Order No. 203 [June 30, 1987]). 

55. What is the application of the principle of “no work, no pay” to entitlement to holiday pay? 

The principle of “no work, no pay” applies to special days but not to unworked 

regular holidays where the employees are always paid the equivalent of 100% of their 

basic pay. 

56. What are the premium pay for working on holidays? 

1. Premium pay for work performed during special days - 30% on top of basic pay. 

2. Premium pay for work performed during special days falling on scheduled rest day - 

50% over and above the basic pay. 

57. What are the effects of absences on entitlement to regular holiday pay? 

The following are the effect of absences on entitlement to regular holiday pay: 

a. Employees on leave of absence with pay - entitled to regular holiday pay. 

b. Employees on leave of absence without pay on the day immediately 

preceding a regular holiday - may not be paid the required holiday pay if he 

has not worked on such regular holiday. 

14


c. Employees on leave while on SSS or employee's compensation benefits- 

Employers shall grant the same percentage of the holiday pay as the benefit 

granted by competent authority in the form of employee’s compensation or 

social security payment, whichever is higher, if they are not reporting for work 

while on such benefits. 

d. When the day preceding regular holiday is a non-working day or 

scheduled rest day - Employee shall not be deemed to be on leave of absence 

on that day, in which case, he shall be entitled to the regular holiday pay if he 

worked on the day immediately preceding the non-working day or rest day. 

58. What is the rule in case of absence during successive regular holidays? 

The rule in case of successive regular holidays is as follows: An employee may 

not be paid for both holidays if he absents himself from work on the day immediately 

preceding the first holiday, unless he works on the first holiday, in which case, he is 

entitled to his holiday pay on the second holiday. 

59. What is the rule in case two regular holidays falling on the same day? 

DOLE Explanatory Bulletin on Workers’ Entitlement to Holiday Pay on 9 April 

1993, Araw ng Kagitingan and Good Friday enunciated the following rule in case of two 

regular holidays falling on the same day (e.g., Araw ng Kagitingan and Good Friday 

falling on April 9, 1993): 

1. If employee did not work: 200% of basic pay; 

2. If employee worked: 300% of basic pay. 

Said bulletin dated March 11, 1993, including the manner of computing the holiday pay, 

was reproduced on January 23, 1998, when April 9, 1998 was both Maundy Thursday and Araw 

ng Kagitingan. 

In the 2004 case of Asian Transmission Corporation vs. CA, [G. R. No. 144664, 

March 15, 2004], the petitioner sought the nullification of the said March 11, 1993 Explanatory 

Bulletin. The Supreme Court, in affirming the validity thereof, ruled that Article 94 of the Labor 

Code, as amended, affords a worker the enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays. The provision is 

mandatory, regardless of whether an employee is paid on a monthly or daily basis. 

Unlike a bonus, which is a management prerogative, holiday pay is a statutory benefit 

demandable under the law. Since a worker is entitled to the enjoyment of ten paid regular 

holidays, the fact that two holidays fall on the same date should not operate to reduce to nine the 

ten holiday pay benefits a worker is entitled to receive. 

It is elementary, under the rules of statutory construction, that when the language of the 

law is clear and unequivocal, the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says. (Insular Bank of 

Asia and America Employees Union (IBAAEU) vs. Inciong, G.R. No. L-52415, Oct. 23, 1984, 132 

SCRA 663, 673). 

In the case at bar, there is nothing in the law which provides or indicates that the 

entitlement to ten days of holiday pay shall be reduced to nine when two holidays fall on the same 

day. 

60. What is the rule in case of regular Muslim holidays? 

In the 2002 case of San Miguel Corporation vs. The Hon. CA, [G. R. No. 146775, 

January 30, 2002], a routine inspection conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment 

in the premises of San Miguel Corporation (SMC) in Sta. Filomena, Iligan City revealed that 

there was underpayment by SMC of regular Muslim holiday pay to its employees. Petitioner 

SMC asserts that Article 3(3) of Presidential Decree No. 1083 provides that “(t)he provisions of 

this Code shall be applicable only to Muslims x x x.” 

15


The Supreme Court, however, ruled that there should be no distinction between Muslims 

and non-Muslims as regards payment of benefits for Muslim holidays. The Court of Appeals did 

not err in sustaining Undersecretary Español who stated: 

“Assuming arguendo that the respondent’s position is correct, then by the 

same token, Muslims throughout the Philippines are also not entitled to holiday 

pays on Christian holidays declared by law as regular holidays. We must remind 

the respondent-appellant that wages and other emoluments granted by law to the 

working man are determined on the basis of the criteria laid down by laws and 

certainly not on the basis of the worker’s faith or religion.” 

At any rate, Article 3(3) of Presidential Decree No. 1083 also declares that “x x x nothing 

herein shall be construed to operate to the prejudice of a non-Muslim.” 

SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE: 

61. What are the basic principles governing the grant of service incentive leave? 

1. Every covered employee who has rendered at least one (1) year of service shall be 

entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five (5) days with pay. 

2. Meaning of "one year of service" - service within twelve (12) months, whether 

continuous or broken, reckoned from the date the employee started working, 

including authorized absences and paid regular holidays, unless the number of 

working days in the establishment as a matter of practice or policy, or that provided 

in the employment contract, is less than twelve (12) months, in which case, said 

period shall be considered as one (1) year for the purpose of determining entitlement 

to the service incentive leave. 

3. Service incentive leave is commutable to cash if unused at the end of the year. 

4. The basis of computation of service incentive leave is the salary rate at the date of 

commutation. 

5. Grant of vacation leave or sick leave may be considered substitute for service 

incentive leave. (Note: there is no provision in the Labor Code granting vacation or 

sick leave). 

In the 2000 case of Imbuido vs. NLRC, [G. R. No. 114734, March 31, 2000], where 

one of the issues pertained to the entitlement of an illegally dismissed employee to service 

incentive leave pay, it was held that having already worked for more than three (3) years at the 

time of her unwarranted dismissal, petitioner is undoubtedly entitled to service incentive leave 

benefits, computed from 1989 until the date of her actual reinstatement. As ruled in Fernandez vs. 

NLRC, [285 SCRA 149, 176 (1998)] “[s]ince a service incentive leave is clearly demandable after 

one year of service - whether continuous or broken - or its equivalent period, and it is one of the 

‘benefits’ which would have accrued if an employee was not otherwise illegally dismissed, it is 

fair and legal that its computation should be up to the date of reinstatement as provided under 

Section [Article] 279 of the Labor Code, as amended.” 

This Imbuido ruling was cited in the 2005 case of Integrated Contractor and Plumbing 

Works, Inc. vs. NLRC, [G. R. No. 152427, August 9, 2005] which involves a project employee 

who later on became a regular employee after a series of re-hiring. Accordingly, it was held that 

private respondent’s service incentive leave credits of five (5) days for every year of service, based 

on the actual service rendered to the petitioner in accordance with each contract of employment, 

should be computed up to the date of reinstatement pursuant to Article 279. 

But in another 2005 case, JPL Marketing Promotions vs. CA, [G. R. No. 151966, July 

8, 2005], where an employee was never paid his service incentive leave during all the time he was 

employed, it was held that the same should be computed not from the start of employment but a 

year after commencement of service, for it is only then that the employee is entitled to said 

benefit. This is because the entitlement to said benefit accrues only from the time he has rendered 

at least one year of service to his employer. It must be noted that this benefit is given by law on 

the basis of the service actually rendered by the employee, and in the particular case of the service 

incentive leave, it is granted as a motivation for the employee to stay longer with the employer. 

Moreover, the computation thereof should only be up to the date of termination of employment. 

16


There is no cause for granting said incentive to one who has already terminated his relationship 

with the employer. 

Rationale for leave credit accumulation and cash conversion. 

In a case involving the accumulation of leave credits and their conversion into cash, as 

provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Supreme Court observed that the 

conversion of leave credits into their cash equivalent is aimed primarily to encourage workers to 

work continuously and with dedication for the company. Companies offer incentives, such as the 

conversion of the accumulated leave credits into their cash equivalent, to lure employees to stay 

with the company. Leave credits are normally converted into their cash equivalent based on the 

last prevailing salary received by the employee. (Republic Planters Bank, now known as PNB- 

Republic Bank, vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 117460, Jan. 6, 1997). 

In the 2005 case of Auto Bus Transport System, Inc. vs. Bautista, [G. R. No. 156367, 

May 16, 2005], the Supreme Court observed that the service incentive leave is a curious animal in 

relation to other benefits granted by the law to every employee. In the case of service incentive 

leave, the employee may choose to either use his leave credits or commute it to its monetary 

equivalent if not exhausted at the end of the year. Furthermore, if the employee entitled to 

service incentive leave does not use or commute the same, he is entitled upon his resignation or 

separation from work to the commutation of his accrued service incentive leave. 

As enunciated by the Supreme Court in Fernandez vs. NLRC, [G.R. No. 105892, 

January 28, 1998, 349 Phil 65], the clear policy of the Labor Code is to grant service incentive 

leave pay to workers in all establishments, subject to a few exceptions. Section 2, Rule V, Book 

III of the Implementing Rules and Regulations provides that “[e]very employee who has rendered 

at least one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five days with 

pay.” Service incentive leave is a right which accrues to every employee who has served “within 

12 months, whether continuous or broken reckoned from the date the employee started working, 

including authorized absences and paid regular holidays unless the working days in the 

establishment as a matter of practice or policy, or that provided in the employment contracts, is 

less than 12 months, in which case said period shall be considered as one year.” It is also 

“commutable to its money equivalent if not used or exhausted at the end of the year.” In other 

words, an employee who has served for one year is entitled to it. He may use it as leave days or 

he may collect its monetary value. To limit the award to three years, as the solicitor general 

recommends, is to unduly restrict such right. 

SERVICE CHARGES: 

62. What are service charges? 

The rule on service charges applies only to establishments collecting service 

charges, such as hotels, restaurants, lodging houses, night clubs, cocktail lounges, 

massage clinics, bars, casinos and gambling houses, and similar enterprises, including 

those entities operating primarily as private subsidiaries of the government. It applies to 

all employees of covered employers, regardless of their positions, designations or 

employment status, and irrespective of the method by which their wages are paid. 

63. How is service charge distributed? 

Service charges are distributed in accordance with the following percentage of sharing: 

a. eighty-five percent (85%) for the employees to be distributed equally among 

them; and 

b. fifteen percent (15%) for the management to answer for losses and breakages 

and distribution to managerial employees. 

• The P2,000.00 salary ceiling for entitlement thereto is no longer applicable. 

• The shares shall be distributed to employees not less often than once every 2 

weeks or twice a month at intervals not exceeding 16 days. 

17


Service charge is not profit share and may thus not be deducted from wage. 

In the 2005 case of Mayon Hotel & Restaurant vs. Adana, [G. R. No. 157634, May 16, 

2005], the employer alleged that the five (5) percent of the gross income of the establishment 

being given to the respondent-employees can be considered as part of their wages. The Supreme 

Court was not persuaded. It quoted with approval the Labor Arbiter on this matter, to wit: 

WAGES: 

“While complainants, who were employed in the hotel, receive[d] 

various amounts as profit share, the same cannot be considered as part of their 

wages in determining their claims for violation of labor standard benefits. 

Although called profit share[,] such is in the nature of share from service charges 

charged by the hotel. This is more explained by [respondents] when they 

testified that what they received are not fixed amounts and the same are paid not 

on a monthly basis (pp. 55, 93, 94, 103, 104; vol. II, rollo). Also, [petitioners] 

failed to submit evidence that the amounts received by [respondents] as profit 

share are to be considered part of their wages and had been agreed by them prior 

to their employment. Further, how can the amounts receive[d] by [respondents] 

be considered as profit share when the same [are] based on the gross receipt of 

the hotel[?] No profit can as yet be determined out of the gross receipt of an 

enterprise. Profits are realized after expenses are deducted from the gross 

income.” 

64. What are the attributes of wage? 

1. Attributes of wage: 

a. it is the remuneration or earnings, however designated, for work done or to be done 

or for services rendered or to be rendered; 

b. it is capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained 

on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or other method of calculating the 

same; 

c. it is payable by an employer to an employee under a written or unwritten contract 

of employment for work done or to be done, or for services rendered or to be 

rendered; and 

d. it includes the fair and reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor 

and Employment, of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by 

the employer to the employee. “Fair and reasonable value” shall not include any 

profit to the employer, or to any person affiliated with the employer. 

2. “Wage”, “salary” and “pay”; distinction - they are synonymous in meaning and 

usage. 

3. Commission - may or may not be treated as part of wage depending on the 

circumstances. 

4. Actual work is the basis of claim for wages ("No work, no pay"). 

FACILITIES AND SUPPLEMENTS: 

65. What are “facilities”? 

1. “Facilities” shall include articles or services for the benefit of the employee or his 

family but shall not include tools of the trade or articles or services primarily for the 

benefit of the employer or necessary to the conduct of the employer’s business. 

2. Value of facilities - the fair and reasonable value of board, lodging and other facilities 

customarily furnished by an employer to his employees both in agricultural and nonagricultural 

enterprises. 

66. What are “supplements”? 

1. “Supplements” means extra remuneration or special privileges or benefits given to or 

received by the laborers over and above their ordinary earnings or wages. 

18


In the same 2005 case of Mayon Hotel & Restaurant vs. Adana, [G. R. No. 157634, 

May 16, 2005] it was noted by the Supreme Court the uncontroverted testimony of respondents 

on record that they were required to eat in the hotel and restaurant so that they will not go home 

and there is no interruption in the services of Mayon Hotel & Restaurant. As ruled in Mabeza 

[infra], food or snacks or other convenience provided by the employers are deemed as 

supplements if they are granted for the convenience of the employer. The criterion in making a 

distinction between a supplement and a facility does not so much lie in the kind (food, lodging) 

but the purpose. Considering, therefore, that hotel workers are required to work different shifts 

and are expected to be available at various odd hours, their ready availability is a necessary 

matter in the operations of a small hotel, such as petitioners’ business. The deduction of the cost 

of meals from respondents’ wages, therefore, should be removed. 

Legal requirements must be complied with before deducting facilities from wages. 

As stated in Mabeza vs. NLRC, [G.R. No. 118506, April 18, 1997 (271 SCRA 670)], the 

employer simply cannot deduct the value from the employee's wages without satisfying the 

following: (a) proof that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade; (b) the provision 

of deductible facilities is voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee; and (c) the facilities are 

charged at fair and reasonable value. 

Consequently, as held in Mayon Hotel & Restaurant [supra], even granting that meals 

and snacks were provided by the hotel to its employees and indeed constituted facilities, such 

facilities could not be deducted without compliance with certain legal requirements. The records 

are clear that petitioners failed to comply with these requirements. There was no proof of 

respondents’ written authorization. Indeed, the Labor Arbiter found that while the respondents 

admitted that they were given meals and merienda, the quality of food served to them was not 

what was provided for in the Facility Evaluation Orders and it was only when they filed the cases 

that they came to know of this supposed Facility Evaluation Orders. Considering the failure to 

comply with the above-mentioned legal requirements, the Labor Arbiter therefore erred when he 

ruled that the cost of the meals actually provided to respondents should be deducted as part of 

their salaries, on the ground that respondents have availed themselves of the food given by 

petitioners. The law is clear that mere availment is not sufficient to allow deductions from 

employees’ wages. 

Voluntary acceptance of facilities required. 

In order that the cost of facilities furnished by the employer may be charged against an 

employee, his acceptance of such facilities must be voluntary. (Section 7, Rule VII, Book III, 

Rules to Implement the Labor Code). 

67. What is the distinction between “facilities” and “supplements”? 

“Facilities" and "supplements”, distinction: The benefit or privilege given to the 

employee which constitutes an extra remuneration over and above his basic or 

ordinary earning or wage, is supplement; and when said benefit or privilege is part of 

the laborer’s basic wage, it is a facility. The criterion is not so much with the kind of 

the benefit or item (food, lodging, bonus or sick leave) given but its purpose. Thus, 

free meals supplied by the ship operator to crew members, out of necessity, cannot be 

considered as facilities but supplements which could not be reduced having been given 

not as part of wages but as a necessary matter in the maintenance of the health and 

efficiency of the crew personnel during the voyage. 

68. What is the rule on deductibility of “facilities” or “supplements” from wages? 

Facilities may be charged to or deducted from wages. Supplements, on the other hand, 

may not be so charged. Thus, when meals are freely given to crew members of a vessel while 

they were on the high seas, not as part of their wages but as a necessary matter in the maintenance 

of the health and efficiency of the crew personnel during the voyage, the deductions made 

therefrom for the meals should be returned to them, and the operator of the coastwise vessels 

affected should continue giving the same benefit. (State Marine Cooperation and Royal Line, Inc. 

vs. Cebu Seamen’s Association, Inc., G. R. No. L-12444, Feb. 28, 1963). 

19


In another case where the company used to pay to its drivers and conductors, who were 

assigned outside of the city limits, aside from their regular salary, a certain percentage of their 

daily wage, as allowance for food, it was ruled that the company should continue granting the 

said privilege. (Cebu Autobus Company vs. United Cebu Autobus Employees Association, G. R. 

No. L-9742, Oct. 27, 1955). 

GRATUITY AND ALLOWANCES: 

69. What is a gratuity? 

“Gratuity” is a gift freely given by the employer in appreciation of certain favors 

or services rendered. It is not part of wages since, strictly speaking, it is not intended 

as compensation for actual work. It is further not demandable as a matter of right. 

70. Are allowances part of wage? 

BONUS: 

"Allowances" are not part of wages. Therefore, in the computation of the amount 

of retirement and other benefits, allowances shall not be included therein. 

71. What is bonus? Is it demandable? 

“Bonus” is an amount granted and paid ex gratia to the employee for his industry or 

loyalty, hence, generally not demandable or enforceable. If there is no profit, there 

should be no bonus. If profit is reduced, bonus should likewise be reduced, absent any 

agreement making such bonus part of the compensation of the employees. 

72. When is bonus demandable and enforceable? 

On the basis of equitable considerations, long practice, agreement (e.g., CBA) 

and other peculiar circumstances, bonus may become demandable and enforceable. 

Consequently, if bonus is given as an additional compensation which the employer 

agreed to give without any condition such as success of business or more efficient or 

more productive operation, it is deemed part of wage or salary, hence, demandable. 

Unlike 13 th month pay, bonus may be forfeited in case employee is found guilty 

of an administrative charge. 

Bonus, when considered a company practice. 

To be considered a “regular practice,”, the giving of the bonus should have been done 

over a long period of time, and must be shown to have been consistent and deliberate. (Globe 

Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. NLRC, G.R. No. L-74156, 163 SCRA 71). 

The test or rationale of this rule on long practice requires an indubitable showing that the 

employer agreed to continue giving the benefits knowing fully well that said employees are not 

covered by the law requiring payment thereof. (National Sugar Refineries Corporation v. NLRC, 

G.R. No. 101761, 220 SCRA 452). 

Thus, even if the bonus has been given for quite some time or since “time-immemorial” 

as asserted by the union, in an amount equivalent to two (2) months gross pay for mid-year bonus 

and three (3) months gross pay for the year-end bonus, the employer may validly reduce it to two 

(2) months basic pay for mid-year bonus, and two-months for year-end bonus, without violating 

the non-diminution clause in the law since bonuses are not part of labor standards in the same 

class as salaries, cost-of-living allowances, holiday pay and leave benefits, provided under the 

Labor Code. The contention of the union that the granting of said bonuses had ripened into a 

company practice that may no longer be adjusted to the prevailing condition of the bank has no 

legal and moral bases. Its fiscal condition having declined, the bank may not be forced to 

distribute bonuses which it can no longer afford to pay and, in effect, be penalized for its past 

20


generosity to its employees. (Traders Royal Bank vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 88168, Aug. 30, 

1990, 189 SCRA 274). 

13 th MONTH PAY: 

73. What is 13 th month pay? 

“Thirteenth-month pay” shall mean one-twelfth (1/12) of the basic salary of an employee 

within a calendar year. 

The “basic salary” of an employee for the purpose of computing the 13 th -month pay 

shall include all remunerations or earnings paid by the employer for services rendered but does 

not include allowances and monetary benefits which are not considered or integrated as part of 

the regular or basic salary, such as the cash equivalent of unused vacation and sick leave credits, 

overtime, premium, night differential and holiday pay and cost-of-living allowances. However, 

these salary-related benefits should be included as part of the basic salary in the computation of 

the 13 th -month pay if by individual or collective agreement, company practice or policy, the same 

are treated as part of the basic salary of the employees. (No. 4 [a], Revised Guidelines on the 

Implementation of the 13 th -Month Pay Law; No. X [C], DOLE Handbook on Workers Statutory 

Monetary Benefits). 

Premium pay is not included in the computation of the 13 th -month pay. (Davao Fruits 

Corporation vs. Associated Labor Union, G. R. No. 85073, Aug. 24, 1993, 225 SCRA 562). 

In the 2005 case of Honda Phils., Inc. vs. Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa 

Honda, [G. R. No. 145561, June 15, 2005], it was ruled that for employees receiving regular 

wage, “basic salary” has been interpreted to mean, not the amount actually received by an 

employee, but 1/12 of their standard monthly wage multiplied by their length of service within a 

given calendar year. Thus, excluded from the computation of “basic salary” are payments for 

sick, vacation and maternity leaves, night differentials, regular holiday pay and premiums for 

work done on rest days and special holidays as held previously in San Miguel Corporation 

[Cagayan Coca-Cola Plant] vs. Inciong, et al., [103 SCRA 139 (1981)]. 

In Hagonoy Rural Bank vs. NLRC, [349 Phil. 220 (1998)], St. Michael Academy vs. 

NLRC, [354 Phil. 491 (1998)], Consolidated Food Corporation vs. NLRC, [373 Phil. 751 

(1999)] and similar cases, the 13 th month pay due an employee was computed based on the 

employee’s basic monthly wage multiplied by the number of months worked in a calendar year 

prior to separation from employment. (Honda Phils., Inc. vs. Samahan ng 

Malayang Manggagawa sa Honda, G. R. No. 145561, June 15, 2005). 

But in a case where the employer, from 1975 to 1981, freely, voluntarily and 

continuously included in the computation of its employees’ thirteenth-month pay, payments for 

sick, vacation and maternity leaves, regular holiday pay and premiums for work done on rest days 

and special holidays, despite the fact that the law and the government issuances expressly 

excluded the same, it was ruled that such act of the employer, being favorable to the employees, 

had ripened into a practice and, therefore, they can no longer be withdrawn, reduced, diminished, 

discontinued or eliminated. (Davao Fruits Corporation vs. Associated Labor Unions, et al., G. R. 

No. 85073, Aug. 24, 1993, 225 SCRA 562). 

And the same holding was made in the 2004 case of Sevilla Trading Company vs. A. V. 

A. Semana, G. R. No. 152456, April 28, 2004], where the employer, for two to three years prior 

to 1999, added to the base figure, in its computation of the 13 th -month pay of its employees, the 

amount of other benefits received by the employees which are beyond the basic pay. These 

benefits included overtime premium for regular overtime, legal and special holidays; legal 

holiday pay, premium pay for special holidays; night premium; bereavement leave pay; union 

leave pay; maternity leave pay; paternity leave pay; company vacation and sick leave pay; and 

cash conversion of unused company vacation and sick leave. Petitioner-employer claimed that it 

entrusted the preparation of the payroll to its office staff, including the computation and payment 

of the 13 th -month pay and other benefits. When it changed its person in charge of the payroll in 

the process of computerizing its payroll, and after audit was conducted, it allegedly discovered 

the error of including non-basic pay or other benefits in the base figure used in the computation of 

the 13 th -month pay of its employees. 

21


The Supreme Court, however, was unconvinced. It affirmed the ruling of the Voluntary 

Arbitrator that petitioner’s stance of mistake or error in the computation of the thirteenth month 

pay is unmeritorious. Petitioner’s submission of financial statements every year requires the 

services of a certified public accountant to audit its finances. It is quite impossible to suggest that 

they have discovered the alleged error in the payroll only in 1999. This implies that in previous 

years it does not know its cost of labor and operations. This is merely basic cost accounting. 

Also, petitioner failed to adduce any other relevant evidence to support its contention. Aside 

from its bare claim of mistake or error in the computation of the thirteenth month pay, petitioner 

merely appended to its petition a copy of the 1997-2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement and an 

alleged “corrected” computation of the thirteenth month pay. There was no explanation 

whatsoever why its inclusion of non-basic benefits in the base figure in the computation of their 

13 th -month pay in the prior years was made by mistake, despite the clarity of statute and 

jurisprudence at that time. (Sevilla Trading Company vs. A. V. A. Semana, et al., G. R. No. 

152456, April 28, 2004). 

74. Who are entitled to 13 th month pay? 

All rank-and-file employees are entitled to a 13th-month pay regardless of the 

amount of basic salary that they receive in a month and regardless of their designation 

or employment status, and irrespective of the method by which their wages are paid, 

provided that they have worked for at least one (1) month during a calendar year. 

13 th -month pay of resigned or separated employee. 

An employee who has resigned or whose services were terminated at any time before the 

time for payment of the 13 th -month pay is entitled to this monetary benefit in proportion to the 

length of time he worked during the year, reckoned from the time he started working during the 

calendar year up to the time of his resignation or termination from service. Thus, if he worked 

only from January up to September, his proportionate 13 th -month pay should be the equivalent of 

1/12 of his total basic salary which he earned during that period. (No. 6, Revised Guidelines on 

the Implementation of the 13 th -Month Pay Law; No. X [G], DOLE Handbook on Workers 

Statutory Monetary Benefits; International School of Speech vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 112658, 

March 18, 1995; Villarama vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 106341, Sept. 2, 1994, 236 SCRA 280). 

In the 2005 case of Clarion Printing House, Inc. vs. NLRC, [G. R. No. 148372, June 

27, 2005], an employee who was receiving P6,500.00 in monthly salary and who had worked for 

at least six (6) months at the time of her retrenchment, was held to be entitled to her proportionate 

13 th month pay computed as follows: 

(Monthly Salary x 6 ) / 12 = Proportionate 13 th month pay 

(P6,500.00 x 6) / 12 = P3,250.00 

The payment of the 13 th -month pay may be demanded by the employee upon the 

cessation of employer-employee relationship. This is consistent with the principle of equity that 

as the employer can require the employee to clear himself of all liabilities and property 

accountability, so can the employee demand the payment of all benefits due him upon the 

termination of the relationship. (No. 6, Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of the 13 th - 

Month Pay Law). 

Regarding pro-ration of the 13 th month pay, the Supreme Court in Honda Phils., Inc. vs. 

Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Honda, [G. R. No. 145561, June 15, 2005], took 

cognizance of the fact that the said Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of the 13 th Month 

Pay Law provided for a pro-ration of this benefit only in cases of resignation or separation from 

work. As the rules state, under these circumstances, an employee is entitled to a pay in 

proportion to the length of time he worked during the year, reckoned from the time he started 

working during the calendar year. (Section 6 thereof). The Court of Appeals thus held that: 

“Considering the foregoing, the computation of the 13 th month pay should be 

based on the length of service and not on the actual wage earned by the worker. 

In the present case, there being no gap in the service of the workers during the 

22


calendar year in question, the computation of the 13 th month pay should not be 

pro-rated but should be given in full.” (Emphasis supplied) 

More importantly, it has not been refuted that Honda has not implemented any pro-rating of 

the 13 th month pay before the instant case. Honda did not adduce evidence to show that the 13 th 

month, 14 th month and financial assistance benefits were previously subject to deductions or prorating 

or that these were dependent upon the company’s financial standing. As held by the 

Voluntary Arbitrator: 

“The Company (Honda) explicitly accepted that it was the strike held that 

prompt[ed] them to adopt a pro-rata computation, aside [from] being in [a] state 

of rehabilitation due to 227M substantial losses in 1997, 114M in 1998 and 215M 

lost of sales in 1999 due to strike. This is an implicit acceptance that prior to the 

strike, a full month basic pay computation was the “present practice” intended to 

be maintained in the CBA.” 

The memorandum dated November 22, 1999 which Honda issued shows that it was the 

first time a pro-rating scheme was to be implemented in the company. It was a convenient 

coincidence for the company that the work stoppage held by the employees lasted for thirty-one 

(31) days or exactly one month. This enabled them to devise a formula using 11/12 of the total 

annual salary as base amount for computation instead of the entire amount for a 12-month period. 

That a full month payment of the 13 th month pay is the established practice at Honda is 

further bolstered by the affidavits executed by Feliteo Bautista and Edgardo Cruzada. Both 

attested that when they were absent from work due to motorcycle accidents, and after they have 

exhausted all their leave credits and were no longer receiving their monthly salary from Honda, 

they still received the full amount of their 13 th month, 14 th month and financial assistance pay. 

The case of Davao Fruits Corporation vs. Associated Labor Unions, et al. [G.R. No. 

85073, August 24, 1993, 225 SCRA 562] presented an example of a voluntary act of the 

employer that has ripened into a company practice. In that case, the employer, from 1975 to 

1981, freely and continuously included in the computation of the 13 th month pay those items that 

were expressly excluded by the law. It was held that this act, which was favorable to the 

employees though not conforming to law, has ripened into a practice and, therefore, can no longer 

be withdrawn, reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated. Furthermore, in Sevilla Trading 

Company vs. Semana, [G.R. No. 152456, 28 April 2004, 428 SCRA 239], it was stated: 

“With regard to the length of time the company practice should have been 

exercised to constitute voluntary employer practice which cannot be unilaterally 

withdrawn by the employer, we hold that jurisprudence has not laid down any 

rule requiring a specific minimum number of years. In the above quoted case of 

Davao Fruits Corporation vs. Associated Labor Unions, the company practice 

lasted for six (6) years. In another case, Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring 

Services vs. Abarquez, the employer, for three (3) years and nine (9) months, 

approved the commutation to cash of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave with 

pay benefits of its intermittent workers. While in Tiangco vs. Leogardo, Jr. the 

employer carried on the practice of giving a fixed monthly emergency allowance 

from November 1976 to February 1980, or three (3) years and four (4) months. 

In all these cases, this Court held that the grant of these benefits has ripened into 

company practice or policy which cannot be peremptorily withdrawn. In the 

case at bar, petitioner Sevilla Trading kept the practice of including non-basic 

benefits such as paid leaves for unused sick leave and vacation leave in the 

computation of their 13 th -month pay for at least two (2) years. This, we rule 

likewise constitutes voluntary employer practice which cannot be unilaterally 

withdrawn by the employer without violating Art. 100 of the Labor Code.” 

(Emphasis supplied) 

Lastly, the foregoing interpretation of law and jurisprudence is more in keeping with the 

underlying principle for the grant of this benefit. It is primarily given to alleviate the plight of 

workers and to help them cope with the exorbitant increases in the cost of living. To allow the 

pro-ration of the 13 th month pay in this case is to undermine the wisdom behind the law and the 

mandate that the workingman’s welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration. 

23


[Citing Santos vs. Velarde, 450 Phil. 381, 390-391 [2003]). What is more, the factual milieu of 

this case is such that to rule otherwise inevitably results to dissuasion, if not a deterrent, for 

workers from the free exercise of their constitutional rights to self-organization and to strike in 

accordance with law. (Section 3, Article XIII-Social Justice and Human Rights, Philippine 

Constitution; Honda Phils., Inc. vs. Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Honda, G. R. No. 

145561, June 15, 2005). 

But the rule is different if an employee was never paid his 13 th month pay during his 

employment. A case in point is JPL Marketing Promotions vs. CA, [G. R. No. 151966, July 8, 

2005], where the Supreme Court ruled that, in such a case, the computation for the 13 th month pay 

should properly begin from the first day of employment up to the last day of work of the 

employee. This benefit is given by law on the basis of the service actually rendered by the 

employee. 

75. Who are exempted employers from the coverage of 13 th month pay? 

The following are exempted employers: 

a. The government and any of its political subdivisions, including governmentowned 

and controlled corporations, except those corporations operating 

essentially as private subsidiaries of the government. 

b. Employers already paying their employees 13th-month pay or more in a 

calendar year or its equivalent at the time of this issuance. 

c. Employers of household helpers and persons in the personal service of another 

in relation to such workers. 

d. Employers of those who are paid on purely commission, boundary, or task 

basis, and those who are paid a fixed amount for performing a specific work, 

irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof, except where the 

workers are paid on piece-rate basis in which case, the employer shall be 

covered by the 13 th month pay law insofar as such workers are concerned. 

76. What is meant by the phrase “its equivalent” in the 13 th month pay law? 

The term “its equivalent” shall include Christmas bonus, mid-year bonus, profit-sharing 

payments and other cash bonuses amounting to not less than 1/12th of the basic salary but shall 

not include cash and stock dividends, cost of living allowances and all other allowances regularly 

enjoyed by the employee, as well as non-monetary benefits. Where an employer pays less than 

1/12th of the employee’s basic salary, the employer shall pay the difference. 

In the 2005 case of JPL Marketing Promotions vs. CA, [G. R. No. 151966, July 8, 

2005], the petitioner-employer contends that the employees are no longer entitled to the payment 

of 13 th month pay as well as service incentive leave pay because they were provided salaries 

which were over and above the minimum wage. Admittedly, private respondent-employees were 

not given their 13 th month pay and service incentive leave pay while they were under the employ 

of JPL. The Supreme Court ruled that the difference between the minimum wage and the actual 

salary received by private respondents cannot be deemed as their 13 th month pay and service 

incentive leave pay as such difference is not equivalent to or of the same import as the said 

benefits contemplated by law. Thus, as properly held by the Court of Appeals and by the NLRC, 

private respondents are entitled to the 13 th month pay and service incentive leave pay. 

77. When should the 13 th month pay be paid? 

The required 13th month pay shall be paid not later than December 24 of each year. 

78. What is the rule in case an employee has multiple employers? 

Government employees working part-time in a private enterprise, including 

private educational institutions, as well as employees working in two or more private 

firms, whether on full or part-time basis, are entitled to the required 13th-month pay 

from all their private employers regardless of their total earnings from each or all 

their employers. 

24


79. Is 13 th month pay tax-exempt? 

Yes. The 13 th month pay is tax exempt (R.A. 7833). 

80. May payment of bonus be credited as payment of 13 th month pay? 

a. Marcopper Mining Corp. vs. Ople, et al. case - No 

b. NFSW vs. Ovejera, et al. case - Yes 

c. DOLE Philippines vs. Leogardo, et al. case - Yes 

d. Brokenshire Memorial Hospital, Inc. vs. NLRC, et al. case - Yes 

e. United CMC Textile Workers Union vs. Valenzuela, et al. case - No 

f. Universal Corn Products vs. NLRC, et al. case - Yes 

g. FEU Employees Labor Union vs. FEU case (involving transportation allowance 

which was treated as compliance with 13 th month pay) 

h. Framanlis Farms, Inc. vs. Minister of Labor, et al. case - No 

i. Kamaya Point Hotel vs. NLRC, et al. case - Yes 

j. UST Faculty Union vs. NLRC, et al. case - No 

14 th MONTH PAY: 

81. What is a 14 th month pay? 

There is no law mandating the payment of 14th-month pay. It is, therefore, in the 

nature of a bonus which may not be imposed upon the employer. It is a gratuity to which 

the recipient has no right to make a demand. (Kamaya Point Hotel vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. 

No. 75289, August 31, 1989, 177 SCRA 160). 

MINIMUM WAGE: 

82. What is meant by “statutory minimum wage”? 

The term “statutory minimum wages” refers simply to the lowest basic wage rate 

fixed by law that an employer can pay his workers. 

83. How is the minimum wage fixed? 

The minimum wage rates for agricultural and non-agricultural workers and 

employees in every region shall be those prescribed by the Regional Tripartite Wages and 

Productivity Boards (RTWPB) which shall in no case be lower than the statutory 

minimum wage rates. 

84. What is the basis of the computation of the “statutory minimum wage”? 

The basis of the minimum wage rates prescribed by law shall be the normal 

working hours which shall not be more than eight (8) hours a day. 

85. What is the principle of non-elimination or non-diminution of benefits? 

This principle mandates that the reduction or diminution or withdrawal by 

employers of any benefits, supplements or payments as provided in existing laws, 

individual agreements or collective bargaining agreements between workers and 

employers or voluntary employer practice or policy, is not allowed. 

86. What is a “Wage Order”? 

“Wage order” refers to the Order promulgated by the Regional Tripartite Wages 

and Productivity Board (RTWPB) pursuant to its wage fixing authority. 

87. When is a “Wage Order” necessary? 

25


Whenever conditions in a particular region so warrant, the RTWPB shall 

investigate and study all pertinent facts and based on the standards and criteria herein 

prescribed, shall proceed to determine whether a Wage Order should be issued. 

88. When does a “Wage Order” become effective? 

Any Wage Order shall take effect after fifteen (15) days from its complete 

publication in at least one (1) newspaper of general circulation in the region. 

89. What is the mode of appeal from a “Wage Order” issued by the RTWPB? 

Any party aggrieved by the Wage Order issued by the RTWPB may appeal such 

order to the National Wages and Productivity Commission within ten (10) calendar days 

from the publication of such order. The filing of the appeal does not stay the order or 

suspend the effectivity thereof unless the person appealing such order shall file with the 

Commission, an undertaking with a surety or sureties satisfactory to the Commission for 

the payment to the employees affected by the order of the corresponding increase, in the 

event such order is affirmed. 

90. What are the standards/criteria for minimum wage fixing? 

In the determination of regional minimum wages, the Regional Board shall, 

among other relevant factors, consider the following: 

(a) The demand for living wages; 

(b) Wage adjustment vis-à-vis the consumer price index; 

(c) The cost of living and changes or increases therein; 

(d) The needs of workers and their families; 

(e) The need to induce industries to invest in the countryside; 

(f) Improvements in standards of living; 

(g) The prevailing wage levels; 

(h) Fair return of the capital invested and capacity to pay of employers; 

(i) Effects on employment generation and family income; and 

(j) The equitable distribution of income and wealth along the imperatives of 

economic and social development. 

91. What is “wage distortion”? 

"Wage distortion" is a situation where an increase in prescribed wage rates results in the 

elimination or severe contraction of intentional quantitative differences in wage or salary rates 

between and among employee groups in an establishment as to effectively obliterate the 

distinctions embodied in such wage structure based on skills, length of service, or other logical 

bases of differentiation. 

The issue of whether or not a wage distortion exists is a question of fact that is within the 

jurisdiction of the quasi-judicial tribunals. 

PAYMENT OF WAGES: 

92. What are the forms of payment of wages? 

1. Under the Civil Code, it is mandated that the laborer’s wages shall be paid in legal 

currency. Under the Labor Code and its implementing rules, as a general rule, wages 

shall be paid in legal tender and the use of tokens, promissory notes, vouchers, 

coupons or any other form alleged to represent legal tender is prohibited even when 

expressly requested by the employee. 

2. Exceptions : 

A. Payment through automated teller machine (ATM) of banks provided the 

following conditions are met: 

26


1. the ATM system of payment is with the written consent of the employees 

concerned; 

2. The employees are given reasonable time to withdraw their wages from the 

bank facility which time, if done during working hours, shall be considered 

compensable hours worked; 

3. The system shall allow workers to receive their wages within the period or 

frequency and in the amount prescribed under the Labor Code, as amended; 

4. There is a bank or ATM facility within a radius of one (1) kilometer to the 

place of work; 

5. Upon request of the concerned employee/s, the employer shall issue a record 

of payment of wages, benefits and deductions for a particular period; 

6. There shall be n additional expenses and no diminution of benefits and 

privileges as a result of the ATM system of payment; 

7. The employer shall assume responsibility in case the wage protection 

provisions of law and regulations are not complied with under the 

arrangement. (Explanatory Bulletin issued by DOLE Secretary Leonardo 

Quisumbing dated November 25, 1996). 

B. Payment by check or money order, (the foregoing conditions on existence of 

bank facility and other factors should also concur). 

Payslips as evidence of payment. 

Ideally, according to the Supreme Court in Kar Asia, Inc., et al. vs. Corona, (G. R. No. 

154985, Aug. 24, 2004), the signatures of the employees should appear in the payroll as evidence 

of actual payment. However, the absence of such signatures does not necessarily lead to the 

conclusion that the amount due the employees was not received. More so in a case where it 

appears that the payslips for the same period bear the signatures of the employees plus a 

certification that they received the full compensation for the services rendered. While ordinarily 

a payslip is only a statement of the gross monthly income of the employee, his signature therein 

coupled by an acknowledgement of full compensation alter the legal complexion of the 

document. The payslip becomes a substantial proof of actual payment. Moreover, there is no 

hard-and-fast rule requiring that the employee’s signature in the payroll is the only acceptable 

proof of payment. By implication, the employees, in signing the payslips with their 

acknowledgement of full compensation, unqualifiedly admitted the receipt thereof. 

In the 2005 case of G & M [Phils.], Inc. vs. Cruz, (G. R. No. 140495, April 15, 2005), 

the Supreme Court affirmed the finding of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC on the 

admissibility as evidence of the pay slips. As a general rule, the Court is not duty-bound to delve 

into the accuracy of the NLRC’s factual findings in the absence of a clear showing that these 

were arbitrary and bereft of any rational basis. In the present case, petitioner failed to demonstrate 

any arbitrariness or lack of rational basis on the part of the NLRC. 

Article 221 of the Labor Code provides that proceedings before the NLRC are not 

covered by the technical rules of evidence and procedure. The probative value of the copy of the 

pay slips is aptly justified by the NLRC, as follows: 

“… the payslips are original duplicates of computerized payslips issued by 

the employer, Salim Al Yami Est., to its workers which contain entries such as 

pay date, employee’s I.D. number, employee name, category, basic rate, overtime 

hours and other relevant information, including an itemization of earnings (basic 

pay, overtime pay, meal allowance for the period covered) and deductions. The 

fact that the payslips are not authenticated will not militate against complainant’s 

claim, considering that in presenting the payslips, complainant has established 

the fact of underpayment, and the burden has shifted to the respondent to prove 

that complainant was totally compensated for actual services rendered.” 

Payroll. 

Under Section 6[a], Rule X, Book III of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code, every 

employer is required to pay his employees by means of payroll. The payroll should show, among 

other things, the employee’s rate of pay, deductions made, and the amount actually paid to the 

27


employee. Interestingly, the failure of the employer to present the payroll to support his claim 

that the petitioner was not his employee, raises speculation whether this omission proves that its 

presentation would be adverse to his case. (Chavez vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 146530, Jan. 17, 

2005 citing Tan vs. Lagrama, 387 SCRA 393 [2002]). 

93. What is the time of payment of wages? 

1. Time of payment; exception. - The general rule is, wages shall be paid not less often 

than once every two (2) weeks or twice a month at intervals not exceeding sixteen (16) days. No 

employer shall make payment with less frequency than once a month. The exception to above 

rule is when payment cannot be made with such regularity due to force majeure or circumstances 

beyond the employer’s control, in which case, the employer shall pay the wages immediately 

after such force majeure or circumstances have ceased. 

94. What is the place of payment of wages? 

1. As a general rule, the place of payment shall be at or near the place of undertaking. 

2. Exceptions: 

a. When payment cannot be effected at or near the place of work by reason of the 

deterioration of peace and order conditions, or by reason of actual or impending 

emergencies caused by fire, flood, epidemic or other calamity rendering payment 

thereat impossible; 

b. When the employer provides free transportation to the employees back and forth; 

and 

c. Under any other analogous circumstances, provided that the time spent by the 

employees in collecting their wages shall be considered as compensable hours 

worked. 

3. Payment of wages in bars, massage clinics or nightclubs is prohibited except in the 

case of employees thereof. 

4. Payment through banks - allowed in businesses and other entities with twenty five 

(25) or more employees and located within one (1) kilometer radius to a commercial, 

savings or rural bank. 

95. To whom should wages be paid? 

1. General rule: payment of wages shall be made directly to the employee entitled 

thereto and to nobody else. 

2. Exceptions. 

a. Where the employer is authorized in writing by the employee to pay his wages to 

a member of his family; 

b. Where payment to another person of any part of the employee’s wages is 

authorized by existing law, including payments for the insurance premiums of the 

employee and union dues where the right to check-off has been recognized by the 

employer in accordance with a collective agreement or authorized in writing by 

the individual employees concerned; or 

c. In case of death of the employee, in which case, the same shall be paid to his 

heirs without necessity of intestate proceedings. 

Payment of wages and other monetary claims, burden of proof. 

In Jimenez vs. NLRC, [G.R. No. 116960, April 2, 1996, 256 SCRA 84] which involves 

a claim for unpaid wages/commissions, separation pay and damages against an employer, the 

Supreme Court ruled that where a person is sued for a debt admits that the debt was originally 

owed, and pleads payment in whole or in part, it is incumbent upon him to prove such payment. 

This is based on the principle of evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegations. 

Since petitioner asserts that respondent has already been fully paid of his stipulated salary, the 

burden is upon petitioner to prove such fact of full payment. (See also National Semiconductor 

[HK] vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 123520, June 26, 1998), 

Thus, it was stated in the Jimenez case that: 

28


“As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. 

Even where the plaintiff must allege non-payment, the general rule is that the 

burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to 

prove non-payment. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty 

that the obligation has been discharged by payment. 

“When the existence of a debt is fully established by the evidence contained 

in the record, the burden of proving that it has been extinguished by payment 

devolves upon the debtor who offers such a defense to the claim of the creditor. 

Where the debtor introduces some evidence of payment, the burden of going 

forward with the evidence - as distinct from the general burden of proof - shifts 

to the creditor, who is then under a duty of producing some evidence to show 

non-payment.” 

In the 2005 case of G & M [Phils.], Inc. vs. Cruz, [G. R. No. 140495, April 15, 2005], 

petitioner merely denied respondent’s claim of underpayment. It did not present any 

controverting evidence to prove full payment. Hence, the findings of the Labor Arbiter, the 

NLRC and the Court of Appeals that respondent was not fully paid of his wages stand. 

The positive testimony of a creditor may be sufficient of itself to show non-payment, 

even when met by indefinite testimony of the debtor. Similarly, the testimony of the debtor may 

also be sufficient to show payment, but, where his testimony is contradicted by the other party or 

by a disinterested witness, the issue may be determined against the debtor since he has the burden 

of proof. The testimony of the debtor creating merely an inference of payment will not be 

regarded as conclusive on that issue. 

Hence, for failure to present evidence to prove payment, petitioners defaulted in their 

defense and in effect admitted the allegations of private respondents. (G & M [Phils.], Inc. vs. 

Cruz, G. R. No. 140495, April 15, 2005). 

The reason for the rule, according to the 2000 case of Villar vs. NLRC, [G.R. No. 130935, 

11 May 2000], is that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar 

documents – which will show that overtime, differentials, service incentive leave and other 

claims of workers have been paid – are not in the possession of the worker but in the custody and 

absolute control of the employer 

RULE ON CONTRACTING OR SUBCONTRACTING: 

96. What is contracting or subcontracting? 

Contracting or subcontracting - It refers to an arrangement whereby a principal 

agrees to put out or farm out with a contractor or subcontractor the performance or 

completion of a specific job, work or service within a definite or predetermined 

period, regardless of whether such job, work or service is to be performed or 

completed within or outside the premises of the principal. 

Employment and independent contracting, distinguished. 

The 2005 case of Chavez vs. NLRC, [G. R. No. 146530, January 17, 2005], is 

instructive as far as the distinction between employment and independent contracting is 

concerned. In debunking the contention of the employer that the truck driver is an independent 

contractor and not an employee, the Supreme Court ruled: 

“Fourth. As earlier opined, of the four elements of the employer-employee 

relationship, the ‘control test’ is the most important. Compared to an employee, 

an independent contractor is one who carries on a distinct and independent 

business and undertakes to perform the job, work, or service on its own account 

and under its own responsibility according to its own manner and method, free 

from the control and direction of the principal in all matters connected with the 

performance of the work except as to the results thereof. Hence, while an 

independent contractor enjoys independence and freedom from the control and 

supervision of his principal, an employee is subject to the employer’s power to 

29


control the means and methods by which the employee’s work is to be performed 

and accomplished. 

“Although the respondents denied that they exercised control over the 

manner and methods by which the petitioner accomplished his work, a careful 

review of the records shows that the latter performed his work as truck driver 

under the respondents’ supervision and control. Their right of control was 

manifested by the following attendant circumstances: 

1. The truck driven by the petitioner belonged to respondent company; 

2. There was an express instruction from the respondents that the truck 

shall be used exclusively to deliver respondent company’s goods; 

3. Respondents directed the petitioner, after completion of each delivery, to 

park the truck in either of two specific places only, to wit: at its office in 

Metro Manila at 2320 Osmeña Street, Makati City or at BEPZ, 

Mariveles, Bataan; and 

4. Respondents determined how, where and when the petitioner would 

perform his task by issuing to him gate passes and routing slips. 

a. The routing slips indicated on the column REMARKS, the 

chronological order and priority of delivery such as 1 st drop, 2 nd drop, 

3 rd drop, etc. This meant that the petitioner had to deliver the same 

according to the order of priority indicated therein. 

b. The routing slips, likewise, showed whether the goods were to be 

delivered urgently or not by the word RUSH printed thereon. 

c. The routing slips also indicated the exact time as to when the goods 

were to be delivered to the customers as, for example, the words 

‘tomorrow morning’ was written on slip no. 2776. 

“These circumstances, to the Court’s mind, prove that the respondents 

exercised control over the means and methods by which the petitioner 

accomplished his work as truck driver of the respondent company. On the other 

hand, the Court is hard put to believe the respondents’ allegation that the 

petitioner was an independent contractor engaged in providing delivery or 

hauling services when he did not even own the truck used for such services. 

Evidently, he did not possess substantial capitalization or investment in the form 

of tools, machinery and work premises. Moreover, the petitioner performed the 

delivery services exclusively for the respondent company for a continuous and 

uninterrupted period of ten years. 

“The contract of service to the contrary notwithstanding, the factual 

circumstances earlier discussed indubitably establish the existence of an 

employer-employee relationship between the respondent company and the 

petitioner. It bears stressing that the existence of an employer-employee 

relationship cannot be negated by expressly repudiating it in a contract and 

providing therein that the employee is an independent contractor when, as in this 

case, the facts clearly show otherwise. Indeed, the employment status of a person 

is defined and prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it should be.” 

(Chavez vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 146530, Jan. 17, 2005). 

In the 2002 case of Tan vs. Lagrama, [G. R. No. 151228, August 15, 2002], the 

Supreme Court distinguished employment from independent contracting. According to the Court, 

compared to an employee, an independent contractor is one who carries on a distinct and 

independent business and undertakes to perform the job, work, or service on its own account and 

under its own responsibility according to its own manner and method, free from the control and 

direction of the principal in all matters connected with the performance of the work except as to 

the results thereof. (Citing De los Santos v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121327, Dec. 20, 2001). Hence, 

while an independent contractor enjoys independence and freedom from the control and 

supervision of his principal, an employee is subject to the employer’s power to control the means 

and methods by which the employee’s work is to be performed and accomplished. 

Following the control test, the High Court held in Tan vs. Lagrama [supra] that albeit 

petitioner Tan claims that private respondent Lagrama was an independent contractor and never 

30


his employee, the evidence shows that the latter performed his work as a painter, making ad 

billboards and murals for the motion pictures shown at the Empress, Supreme, and Crown 

Theaters for more than 10 years, under the supervision and control of petitioner. Lagrama worked 

in a designated work area inside the Crown Theater of petitioner, for the use of which petitioner 

prescribed rules. The rules included the observance of cleanliness and hygiene and a prohibition 

against urinating in the work area and any place other than the toilet or the rest rooms. 

Petitioner’s control over Lagrama’s work extended not only to the use of the work area, but also 

to the result of Lagrama’s work, and the manner and means by which the work was to be 

accomplished. 

The Supreme Court further ruled: 

“Moreover, it would appear that petitioner not only provided the workplace, 

but supplied as well the materials used for the paintings, because he admitted 

that he paid Lagrama only for the latter’s services. 

“Private respondent Lagrama claimed that he worked daily, from 8 o’clock in 

the morning to 5 o’clock in the afternoon. Petitioner disputed this allegation and 

maintained that he paid Lagrama P1,475.00 per week for the murals for the three 

theaters which the latter usually finished in 3 to 4 days in one week. Even 

assuming this to be true, the fact that Lagrama worked for at least 3 to 4 days a 

week proves regularity in his employment by petitioner. 

“Second. That petitioner had the right to hire and fire was admitted by him 

in his position paper submitted to the NLRC, the pertinent portions of which 

stated: 

‘Complainant did not know how to use the available comfort rooms 

or toilets in and about his work premises. He was urinating right at the 

place where he was working when it was so easy for him, as everybody 

else did and had he only wanted to, to go to the comfort rooms. But no, 

the complainant had to make a virtual urinal out of his work place! The 

place then stunk to high heavens, naturally, to the consternation of 

respondents and everyone who could smell the malodor. 

. . . 

‘Given such circumstances, the respondents had every right, nay all 

the compelling reason, to fire him from his painting job upon discovery 

and his admission of such acts. Nonetheless, though thoroughly scolded, 

he was not fired. It was he who stopped to paint for respondents. 

“By stating that he had the right to fire Lagrama, petitioner in effect 

acknowledged Lagrama to be his employee. For the right to hire and fire is 

another important element of the employer-employee relationship. Indeed, the 

fact that, as petitioner himself said, he waited for Lagrama to report for work but 

the latter simply stopped reporting for work reinforces the conviction that 

Lagrama was indeed an employee of petitioner. For only an employee can 

nurture such an expectancy, the frustration of which, unless satisfactorily 

explained, can bring about some disciplinary action on the part of the employer. 

“Third. Payment of wages is one of the four factors to be considered in 

determining the existence of employer-employee relation. Wages are defined as 

‘remuneration or earnings, however designated, capable of being expressed in 

terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or 

commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by 

an employer to an employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment 

for work done or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered.’ That 

Lagrama worked for Tan on a fixed piece-work basis is of no moment. Payment 

by result is a method of compensation and does not define the essence of the 

relation. It is a method of computing compensation, not a basis for determining 

the existence or absence of employer-employee relationship. One may be paid 

on the basis of results or time expended on the work, and may or may not acquire 

31


an employment status, depending on whether the elements of an employeremployee 

relationship are present or not. 

“The Rules Implementing the Labor Code require every employer to pay his 

employees by means of payroll. (Book III, Rule X, Sec. 6[a]). The payroll should 

show among other things, the employee’s rate of pay, deductions made, and the 

amount actually paid to the employee. In the case at bar, petitioner did not 

present the payroll to support his claim that Lagrama was not his employee, 

raising speculations whether his failure to do so proves that its presentation 

would be adverse to his case. (Citing Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 131, 

Section 3(e). See (Tan vs. Lagrama, et al., G. R. No. 151228, Aug. 15, 2002; 

Villaruel vs. NLRC, 284 SCRA 399 [1998]). 

“The primary standard for determining regular employment is the reasonable 

connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation 

to the usual trade or business of the employer. In this case, there is such a 

connection between the job of Lagrama painting billboards and murals and the 

business of petitioner. To let the people know what movie was to be shown in a 

movie theater requires billboards. Petitioner in fact admits that the billboards are 

important to his business. 

“The fact that Lagrama was not reported as an employee to the SSS is not 

conclusive on the question of whether he was an employee of petitioner. (Citing 

Lambo vs. NLRC, 317 SCRA 420 [1999]). Otherwise, an employer would be 

rewarded for his failure or even neglect to perform his obligation. (See Santos vs. 

NLRC, 293 SCRA 113 [1998]). 

“Neither does the fact that Lagrama painted for other persons affect or alter 

his employment relationship with petitioner. That he did so only during 

weekends has not been denied by petitioner. On the other hand, Samuel Villalba, 

for whom Lagrama had rendered service, admitted in a sworn statement that he 

was told by Lagrama that the latter worked for petitioner.” (Tan vs. Lagrama, et 

al., G. R. No. 151228, Aug. 15, 2002). 

Moreover, in Escario, et al. vs. NLRC, [G. R. No. 124055, June 8, 2000], the Supreme 

Court also used the so-called “four-fold test” in determining employer-employee relationship, to 

establish that the legitimate independent contractor is the true employer of petitioners. The 

elements of this test are (1) the selection and engagement of employee; (2) the payment of wages; 

(3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct. 

Case of independent contractor [Sonza vs. ABS-CBN case]. 

The 2004 case of Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, [G. R. No. 138051, 

June 10, 2004] is one of first impression. Although Philippine labor laws and jurisprudence define 

clearly the elements of an employer-employee relationship, this is the first time that the Supreme 

Court has resolved the nature of the relationship between a television and radio station and one of 

its “talents.” There is no case law stating that a radio and television program host is an employee 

of the broadcast station. 

In May 1994, respondent ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (“ABS-CBN”) signed an 

Agreement (“Agreement”) with the Mel and Jay Management and Development Corporation 

(“MJMDC”). ABS-CBN was represented by its corporate officers while MJMDC was 

represented by Sonza, as President and General Manager, and Carmela Tiangco (“TIANGCO”), 

as EVP and Treasurer. Referred to in the Agreement as “AGENT,” MJMDC agreed to provide 

SONZA’s services exclusively to ABS-CBN as talent for radio and television. The Agreement 

listed the services Sonza would render to ABS-CBN, as follows: 

a. Co-host for Mel & Jay radio program, 8:00 to 10:00 a.m., Mondays to Fridays; 

b. Co-host for Mel & Jay television program, 5:30 to 7:00 p.m., Sundays. 

32


ABS-CBN agreed to pay for Sonza’s services a monthly talent fee of P310,000 for the 

first year and P317,000 for the second and third year of the Agreement. ABS-CBN would pay 

the talent fees on the 10 th and 25 th days of the month. 

On 30 April 1996, Sonza filed a complaint against ABS-CBN before the Department of 

Labor and Employment, National Capital Region in Quezon City. Sonza complained that ABS- 

CBN did not pay his salaries, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13 th month pay, signing 

bonus, travel allowance and amounts due under the Employees Stock Option Plan (“ESOP”). 

On 10 July 1996, ABS-CBN filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that no employeremployee 

relationship existed between the parties. Sonza filed an Opposition to the motion on 19 

July 1996. 

Meanwhile, ABS-CBN continued to remit Sonza’s monthly talent fees through his 

account at PCIBank, Quezon Avenue Branch, Quezon City. In July 1996, ABS-CBN opened a 

new account with the same bank where ABS-CBN deposited Sonza’s talent fees and other 

payments due him under the Agreement. 

The Labor Arbiter rendered his Decision dated 8 July 1997 dismissing the complaint for 

lack of jurisdiction. The NLRC, on appeal, affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. On certiorari, the 

Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s finding that no employer-employee relationship existed 

between Sonza and ABS-CBN. 

The basic issue presented here is whether Sonza is an employee or an independent 

contractor. 

In affirming the said decision of the Court of Appeals and holding that Sonza was not an 

employee but an independent contractor, the Supreme Court used the four-fold test of 

determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, more particularly, the control 

test. 

A. Selection and Engagement of Employee 

Independent contractors often present themselves to possess unique skills, expertise or 

talent to distinguish them from ordinary employees. The specific selection and hiring of Sonza, 

because of his unique skills, talent and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees, 

is a circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an independent contractual relationship. If 

Sonza did not possess such unique skills, talent and celebrity status, ABS-CBN would not have 

entered into the Agreement with Sonza but would have hired him through its personnel 

department just like any other employee. 

B. Payment of Wages 

All the talent fees and benefits paid to Sonza were the result of negotiations that led to the 

Agreement. If Sonza were ABS-CBN’s employee, there would be no need for the parties to 

stipulate on benefits such as “SSS, Medicare, x x x and 13 th month pay” which the law 

automatically incorporates into every employer-employee contract. Whatever benefits Sonza 

enjoyed arose from contract and not because of an employer-employee relationship. 

Sonza’s talent fees, amounting to P317,000 monthly in the second and third year, are so 

huge and out of the ordinary that they indicate more an independent contractual relationship 

rather than an employer-employee relationship. ABS-CBN agreed to pay Sonza such huge talent 

fees precisely because of Sonza’s unique skills, talent and celebrity status not possessed by 

ordinary employees. 

C. Power of Dismissal 

For violation of any provision of the Agreement, either party may terminate their 

relationship. Sonza failed to show that ABS-CBN could terminate his services on grounds other 

than breach of contract, such as retrenchment to prevent losses as provided under labor laws. 

During the life of the Agreement, ABS-CBN agreed to pay Sonza’s talent fees as long as 

“AGENT and Jay Sonza shall faithfully and completely perform each condition of this 

33


Agreement.” Even if it suffered severe business losses, ABS-CBN could not retrench Sonza 

because ABS-CBN remained obligated to pay Sonza’s talent fees during the life of the 

Agreement. This circumstance indicates an independent contractual relationship between Sonza 

and ABS-CBN. 

D. Power of Control 

Since there is no local precedent on whether a radio and television program host is an 

employee or an independent contractor, reference to foreign case law in analyzing the present 

case is necessary. The United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, recently held in Alberty- 

Vélez vs. Corporación De Puerto Rico Para La Difusión Pública (“WIPR”), [361 F.3d 1, 2 March 

2004] that a television program host is an independent contractor, thus: 

First, a television actress is a skilled position requiring talent and training not available 

on-the-job. 

Second, the actress provided the “tools and instrumentalities” necessary for her to 

perform. 

Third, WIPR could not assign the actress work in addition to filming “Desde Mi Pueblo.” 

Applying the control test, Sonza is not an employee but an independent contractor. The 

control test is the most important test the courts apply in distinguishing an employee from an 

independent contractor. This test is based on the extent of control the hirer exercises over a 

worker. The greater the supervision and control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is 

deemed an employee. The converse holds true as well - the less control the hirer exercises, the 

more likely the worker is considered an independent contractor. 

First, Sonza contends that ABS-CBN exercised control over the means and methods of 

his work. 

Sonza’s argument is misplaced. ABS-CBN engaged Sonza’s services specifically to cohost 

the “Mel & Jay” programs. ABS-CBN did not assign any other work to Sonza. To perform 

his work, Sonza only needed his skills and talent. How Sonza delivered his lines, appeared on 

television, and sounded on radio were outside ABS-CBN’s control. Sonza did not have to render 

eight hours of work per day. The Agreement required Sonza to attend only rehearsals and tapings 

of the shows, as well as pre- and post-production staff meetings. ABS-CBN could not dictate the 

contents of Sonza’s script. However, the Agreement prohibited Sonza from criticizing in his 

shows ABS-CBN or its interests. The clear implication is that Sonza had a free hand on what to 

say or discuss in his shows provided he did not attack ABS-CBN or its interests. Moreover, 

ABS-CBN was not involved in the actual performance that produced the finished product of 

Sonza’s work. ABS-CBN did not instruct Sonza how to perform his job. ABS-CBN merely 

reserved the right to modify the program format and airtime schedule “for more effective 

programming.” ABS-CBN’s sole concern was the quality of the shows and their standing in the 

ratings. Clearly, ABS-CBN did not exercise control over the means and methods of performance 

of Sonza’s work. 

Sonza claims that ABS-CBN’s power not to broadcast his shows proves ABS-CBN’s 

power over the means and methods of the performance of his work. Although ABS-CBN did 

have the option not to broadcast Sonza’s show, ABS-CBN was still obligated to pay Sonza’s 

talent fees. Thus, even if ABS-CBN was completely dissatisfied with the means and methods of 

Sonza’s performance of his work, or even with the quality or product of his work, ABS-CBN 

could not dismiss or even discipline Sonza. All that ABS-CBN could do is not to broadcast 

Sonza’s show but ABS-CBN must still pay his talent fees in full. 

Clearly, ABS-CBN’s right not to broadcast Sonza’s show, burdened as it was by the 

obligation to continue paying in full Sonza’s talent fees, did not amount to control over the means 

and methods of the performance of Sonza’s work. ABS-CBN could not terminate or discipline 

Sonza even if the means and methods of performance of his work - how he delivered his lines and 

appeared on television - did not meet ABS-CBN’s approval. This proves that ABS-CBN’s 

control was limited only to the result of Sonza’s work, whether to broadcast the final product or 

34


not. In either case, ABS-CBN must still pay Sonza’s talent fees in full until the expiry of the 

Agreement. 

In Vaughan, et al. vs. Warner, et al., [157 F.2d 26, 8 August 1946], the United States 

Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that vaudeville performers were independent contractors although 

the management reserved the right to delete objectionable features in their shows. Since the 

management did not have control over the manner of performance of the skills of the artists, it 

could only control the result of the work by deleting objectionable features. 

Sonza further contends that ABS-CBN exercised control over his work by supplying all 

equipment and crew. No doubt, ABS-CBN supplied the equipment, crew and airtime needed to 

broadcast the “Mel & Jay” programs. However, the equipment, crew and airtime are not the 

“tools and instrumentalities” Sonza needed to perform his job. What Sonza principally needed 

were his talent or skills and the costumes necessary for his appearance. Even though ABS-CBN 

provided Sonza with the place of work and the necessary equipment, Sonza was still an 

independent contractor since ABS-CBN did not supervise and control his work. ABS-CBN’s sole 

concern was for Sonza to display his talent during the airing of the programs. 

A radio broadcast specialist who works under minimal supervision is an independent 

contractor. Sonza’s work as television and radio program host required special skills and talent, 

which Sonza admittedly possesses. The records do not show that ABS-CBN exercised any 

supervision and control over how Sonza utilized his skills and talent in his shows. 

Second, Sonza urges the Court to rule that he was ABS-CBN’s employee because ABS- 

CBN subjected him to its rules and standards of performance. Sonza claims that this indicates 

ABS-CBN’s control “not only [over] his manner of work but also the quality of his work.” 

The Agreement stipulates that Sonza shall abide with the rules and standards of 

performance “covering talents” of ABS-CBN. The Agreement does not require Sonza to comply 

with the rules and standards of performance prescribed for employees of ABS-CBN. The code of 

conduct imposed on Sonza under the Agreement refers to the “Television and Radio Code of the 

Kapisanan ng mga Broadcaster sa Pilipinas (KBP), which has been adopted by the COMPANY 

(ABS-CBN) as its Code of Ethics.” The KBP code applies to broadcasters, not to employees of 

radio and television stations. Broadcasters are not necessarily employees of radio and television 

stations. Clearly, the rules and standards of performance referred to in the Agreement are those 

applicable to talents and not to employees of ABS-CBN. 

In any event, not all rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party indicate that the 

latter is an employee of the former. (AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 

102199, 28 Jan. 1997, 267 SCRA 47). In this case, Sonza failed to show that these rules 

controlled his performance. We find that these general rules are merely guidelines towards the 

achievement of the mutually desired result, which are top-rating television and radio programs 

that comply with standards of the industry. 

The Vaughan case also held that one could still be an independent contractor although the 

hirer reserved certain supervision to insure the attainment of the desired result. The hirer, 

however, must not deprive the one hired from performing his services according to his own 

initiative. 

Lastly, Sonza insists that the “exclusivity clause” in the Agreement is the most extreme 

form of control which ABS-CBN exercised over him. 

This argument is futile. Being an exclusive talent does not by itself mean that Sonza is an 

employee of ABS-CBN. Even an independent contractor can validly provide his services 

exclusively to the hiring party. In the broadcast industry, exclusivity is not necessarily the same 

as control. 

The hiring of exclusive talents is a widespread and accepted practice in the entertainment 

industry. This practice is not designed to control the means and methods of work of the talent, but 

simply to protect the investment of the broadcast station. The broadcast station normally spends 

substantial amounts of money, time and effort “in building up its talents as well as the programs 

they appear in and thus expects that said talents remain exclusive with the station for a 

35


commensurate period of time.” Normally, a much higher fee is paid to talents who agree to work 

exclusively for a particular radio or television station. In short, the huge talent fees partially 

compensates for exclusivity, as in the present case. (Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting 

Corporation, G. R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004). 

Individuals as independent contractors. 

The law does not preclude individuals from engaging as independent contractors. 

Individuals with special skills, expertise or talent enjoy the freedom to offer their services as 

independent contractors. The right to life and livelihood guarantees this freedom to contract as 

independent contractors. The right of labor to security of tenure cannot operate to deprive an 

individual, possessed with special skills, expertise and talent, of his right to contract as an 

independent contractor. An individual like an artist or talent has a right to render his services 

without any one controlling the means and methods by which he performs his art or craft. The 

Supreme Court will not interpret the right of labor to security of tenure to compel artists and 

talents to render their services only as employees. If radio and television program hosts can 

render their services only as employees, the station owners and managers can dictate to the radio 

and television hosts what they say in their shows. This is not conducive to freedom of the press. 

(Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, G. R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004). 

Consequently, a television program host is deemed an independent contractor. (Alberty- 

Vélez vs. Corporación De Puerto Rico Para La Difusión Pública [361 F.3d 1, 2 March 2004] 

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit). 

In another case, it was ruled by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals that vaudeville 

performers are independent contractors. (Vaughan, et al. vs. Warner, et al., [157 F.2d 26, 8 Aug. 

1946]). 

In Zhengxing vs. Nathanson, [215 F.Supp.2d 114, 5 August 2002], the plaintiff 

Zhengxing, a Chinese language broadcaster and translator was deemed an independent contractor 

because she worked under minimal supervision. 

In the insurance industry, an insurance adjuster or a commission agent of insurance firms 

is not considered an employee thereof but an independent contractor in the light of the absence of 

control by the latter over the work of the former except as to the results of such work. (AFP 

Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 102199, Jan. 28, 1997; Insular Life 

Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 84484, Nov. 15, 1989). 

In case of doubt, one must be classified as employee, not as independent contractor. 

In the 2000 case of SSS vs. CA, [G. R. No. 100388, December 14, 2000], the Supreme 

Court reiterated its ruling in the case of Dy Keh Beng vs. International Labor, [90 SCRA 161 

(1979)], where the long-standing ruling in Sunripe Coconut Products Co. vs. Court of 

Industrial Relations, [83 Phil. 518, 523, L-2009, April 30, 1949], was cited, to wit: 

“When a worker possesses some attributes of an employee and others of 

an independent contractor, which make him fall within an intermediate area, he 

may be classified under the category of an employee when the economic facts of 

the relations make it more nearly one of employment than one of independent 

business enterprise with respect to the ends sought to be accomplished.” 

Employment of security guards in the security service industry. 

The Supreme Court had occasion to discuss once again the issue of employment status of 

security guards in the 2005 case of Manila Electric Company vs. Benamira, [G. R. No. 145271, 

July 14, 2005]. In emphasizing the fact that there was no employer-employee relationship 

between petitioner Meralco and the security guards assigned to it by the security agency 

employing them, it cited the case of Social Security System vs. Court of Appeals, [No. L- 

28134, June 30, 1971, 39 SCRA 629] that: 

“...The guards or watchmen render their services to private respondent by 

allowing themselves to be assigned by said respondent, which furnishes them 

36


arms and ammunition, to guard and protect the properties and interests of private 

respondent's clients, thus enabling that respondent to fulfill its contractual 

obligations. Who the clients will be, and under what terms and conditions the 

services will be rendered, are matters determined not by the guards or watchmen, 

but by private respondent. On the other hand, the client companies have no hand 

in selecting who among the guards or watchmen shall be assigned to them. It is 

private respondent that issues assignment orders and instructions and exercises 

control and supervision over the guards or watchmen, so much so that if, for one 

reason or another, the client is dissatisfied with the services of a particular guard, 

the client cannot himself terminate the services of such guard, but has to notify 

private respondent, which either substitutes him with another or metes out to him 

disciplinary measures. That in the course of a watchman's assignment the client 

conceivably issues instructions to him, does not in the least detract from the fact 

that private respondent is the employer of said watchman, for in legal 

contemplation such instructions carry no more weight than mere requests, the 

privity of contract being between the client and private respondent, not between 

the client and the guard or watchman. Corollarily, such giving out of instructions 

inevitably spring from the client's right predicated on the contract for services 

entered into by it with private respondent. 

“In the matter of compensation, there can be no question at all that the 

guards or watchmen receive compensation from private respondent and not from 

the companies or establishments whose premises they are guarding. The fee 

contracted for to be paid by the client is admittedly not equal to the salary of a 

guard or watchman; such fee is arrived at independently of the salary to which 

the guard or watchman is entitled under his arrangements with private 

respondent. 

Said ruling in SSS was reiterated in American President Lines vs. Clave, [No. L-51641, 

June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 826], thus: 

“In the light of the foregoing standards, We fail to see how the complaining 

watchmen of the Marine Security Agency can be considered as employees of the 

petitioner. It is the agency that recruits, hires, and assigns the work of its 

watchmen. Hence, a watchman can not perform any security service for the 

petitioner's vessels unless the agency first accepts him as its watchman. With 

respect to his wages, the amount to be paid to a security guard is beyond the 

power of the petitioner to determine. Certainly, the lump sum amount paid by 

the petitioner to the agency in consideration of the latter's service is much more 

than the wages of any one watchman. In point of fact, it is the agency that 

quantifies and pays the wages to which a watchman is entitled. 

“Neither does the petitioner have any power to dismiss the security guards. 

In fact, We fail to see any evidence in the record that it wielded such a power. It 

is true that it may request the agency to change a particular guard. But this, 

precisely, is proof that the power lies in the hands of the agency. 

“Since the petitioner has to deal with the agency, and not the individual 

watchmen, on matters pertaining to the contracted task, it stands to reason that 

the petitioner does not exercise any power over the watchmen's conduct. 

Always, the agency stands between the petitioner and the watchmen; and it is the 

agency that is answerable to the petitioner for the conduct of its guards.” 

And as held in said Meralco case: 

“Under the security service agreement, it was ASDAI which (a) selected, 

engaged or hired and discharged the security guards; (b) assigned them to 

MERALCO according to the number agreed upon; (c) provided the uniform, 

firearms and ammunition, nightsticks, flashlights, raincoats and other 

paraphernalia of the security guards; (d) paid them salaries or wages; and, (e) 

disciplined and supervised them or principally controlled their conduct. The 

agreement even explicitly provided that “[n]othing herein contained shall be 

understood to make the security guards under this Agreement, employees of the 

COMPANY, it being clearly understood that such security guards shall be 

37


considered as they are, employees of the AGENCY alone.” Clearly, the 

individual respondents are the employees of ASDAI. 

“As to the provision in the agreement that MERALCO reserved the right to 

seek replacement of any guard whose behavior, conduct or appearance is not 

satisfactory, such merely confirms that the power to discipline lies with the 

agency. It is a standard stipulation in security service agreements that the client 

may request the replacement of the guards to it. Service-oriented enterprises, 

such as the business of providing security services, generally adhere to the 

business adage that “the customer or client is always right” and, thus, must 

satisfy the interests, conform to the needs, and cater to the reasonable impositions 

of its clients. 

“Neither is the stipulation that the agency cannot pull out any security guard 

from MERALCO without its consent an indication of control. It is simply a 

security clause designed to prevent the agency from unilaterally removing its 

security guards from their assigned posts at MERALCO’s premises to the latter’s 

detriment. 

“The clause that MERALCO has the right at all times to inspect the guards of 

the agency detailed in its premises is likewise not indicative of control as it is not 

a unilateral right. The agreement provides that the agency is principally 

mandated to conduct inspections, without prejudice to MERALCO’s right to 

conduct its own inspections. 

“Needless to stress, for the power of control to be present, the person for 

whom the services are rendered must reserve the right to direct not only the end 

to be achieved but also the means for reaching such end. [26] Not all rules imposed 

by the hiring party on the hired party indicate that the latter is an employee of the 

former. [27] Rules which serve as general guidelines towards the achievement of 

the mutually desired result are not indicative of the power of control. [28] 

“Verily, the security service agreements in the present case provided that all 

specific instructions by MERALCO relating to the discharge by the security 

guards of their duties shall be directed to the agency and not directly to the 

individual respondents. The individual respondents failed to show that the rules 

of MERALCO controlled their performance. 

xxx 

“The individual respondents can not be considered as regular employees of 

the MERALCO for, although security services are necessary and desirable to the 

business of MERALCO, it is not directly related to its principal business and may 

even be considered unnecessary in the conduct of MERALCO’s principal 

business, which is the distribution of electricity.” 

97. Who are the parties to a contracting or subcontracting arrangement? 

Parties. - There are 3 parties: principal, the contractor or subcontractor, and the 

workers engaged by the latter. The principal and the contractor or subcontractor may 

be a natural or juridical person. 

- “Principal” refers to any employer who puts out or farms out a job, service, or 

work to a contractor or subcontractor, whether or not the arrangement is covered 

by a written contract. 

- “Contractor" or "subcontractor” refers to any person or entity engaged in a 

legitimate contracting or subcontracting arrangement. 

- "Contractual employee” includes one employed by a contractor or subcontractor 

to perform or complete a job, work or service pursuant to an arrangement between 

the latter and a principal called “contracting” or “subcontracting”. 

98. When is contracting or subcontracting legitimate? 

Contracting or subcontracting shall be legitimate if the following circumstances 

concur: 

38


(i) The contractor or subcontractor carries on a distinct and independent 

business and undertakes to perform the job, work or service on its own 

account and under its own responsibility, according to its own manner and 

method, and free from the control and directions of the principal in all 

matters connected with the performance of the work except as to the results 

thereof; 

(ii) The contractor or subcontractor has substantial capital or investment; and 

(iii) The agreement between the principal and the contractor or subcontractor 

assures the contractual employees' entitlement to all labor and occupational 

safety and health standards, free exercise of the right to self-organization, 

security of tenure, and social and welfare benefits. 

99. What is permissible contracting or subcontracting arrangement? 

The principal may engage the services of a contractor or subcontractor for the 

performance of any of the following: 

(a) Works or services temporarily or occasionally needed to meet abnormal increase in 

the demand of products or services, provided that the normal production capacity or 

regular workforce of the principal cannot reasonably cope with such demands; 

(b) Works or services temporarily or occasionally needed by the principal for 

undertakings requiring expert or highly technical personnel to improve the 

management or operations of an enterprise; 

(c) Services temporarily needed for the introduction or promotion of new products, only 

for the duration of the introductory or promotional period; 

(d) Works or services not directly related or not integral to the main business or 

operation of the principal, including casual work, janitorial, security, landscaping, 

and messengerial services and work not related to manufacturing processes in 

manufacturing establishments; 

(e) Services involving the public display of manufacturers’ products which do not 

involve the act of selling or issuance of receipts or invoices; 

(f) Specialized works involving the use of some particular, unusual or peculiar skills, 

expertise, tools or equipment the performance of which is beyond the competence of 

the regular workforce or production capacity of the principal; and 

(g) Unless a reliever system is in place among the regular workforce, substitute services 

for absent regular employees provided that the period of service shall be coextensive 

with the period of absence and the same is made clear to the substitute employee at 

the time of engagement. The phrase “absent regular employees” includes those who 

are serving suspensions or other disciplinary measures not amounting to termination 

of employment meted out by the principal but excludes those on strike where all the 

formal requisites for the legality of the strike have been prima facie complied with 

based on the records filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. 

(Section 6, Rule VIII-A, Book III, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended 

by Department Order No. 10, Series of 1997). 

100. What are the prohibited acts in the law on contracting and subcontracting? 

The following are hereby declared prohibited for being contrary to law or public policy: 

(a) Labor-only contracting; 

(b) Contracting out of work which will either displace employees of the principal from 

their jobs or reduce their regular working hours; 

(c) Contracting out of work with a “cabo”. [A "cabo" refers to a person or group of 

persons or to a labor group which, in the guise of a labor organization, supplies 

workers to an employer, with or without any monetary or other consideration 

39


whether in the capacity of an agent of the employer or as an ostensible independent 

contractor.] 

(d) Taking undue advantage of the economic situation or lack of bargaining strength of 

the contractual employee, or undermining his security of tenure or basic rights, or 

circumventing the provisions of regular employment in any of the following 

instances: 

(i) In addition to his assigned function, requiring the contractual employee to 

perform functions which are currently being performed by the regular 

employee of the principal or of the contractor or subcontractor; 

(ii) Requiring him to sign as a precondition to employment or continued 

employment, an antedated resignation letter; a blank payroll; a waiver of 

labor standards including minimum wages and social or welfare benefits; 

or a quitclaim releasing the principal, contractor or subcontractor from any 

liability as to payment of the future claims; and 

(iii) Requiring him to sign a contract fixing the period of employment to a term 

shorter than the term of the contract between the principal and the 

contractor or subcontractor, unless the latter contract is divisible into 

phases for which substantially different skills are required and this is made 

known to the employee at the time of engagement. 

(e) Contracting out of a job, work or service through an in-house agency as defined 

herein; 

(f) Contracting out of a job, work or service directly related to the business or operation 

of the principal by reason of a strike or lockout whether actual or imminent; and 

(g) Contracting out of a job, work or service when not justified by the exigencies of the 

business and the same results in the reduction or splitting of the bargaining unit. 

101. What is labor-only contracting? 

Labor-only contracting is hereby declared prohibited. For this purpose, labor-only 

contracting shall refer to an arrangement where the contractor or subcontractor merely recruits, 

supplies or places workers to perform a job, work or service for a principal, and any of the 

following elements are present: 

i) the contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or investment which 

relates to the job, work or service to be performed and the employees recruited, 

supplied or placed by such contractor or subcontractor are performing activities 

which are directly related to the main business of the principal; or 

ii) the contractor does not exercise the right to control over the performance of the work 

of the contractual employee. (Article 106, Labor Code; (No. 9, DOLE Primer on 

Contracting and Subcontracting, Effects of Department Order No. 3, Series of 2001; 

Manila Water Co., Inc. vs. Pena, et al., G. R. No. 158255, July 8, 2004). 

Effects of a labor-only contracting arrangement. 

In summary, the following are the effects of a labor-only contracting arrangement: 

a. The subcontractor will be treated as the agent or intermediary of the principal. Since 

the act of an agent is the act of the principal, representations made by the 

subcontractor to the employees will bind the principal. 

b. The principal will become the employer as if it directly employed the workers engaged 

to undertake the subcontracted job or service. It will be responsible to them for all 

their entitlements and benefits under the labor laws. 

c. The principal and the subcontractor will be solidarily treated as the employer. 

d. The employees will become employees of the principal, subject to the classifications of 

employees under Article 28 of the Labor Code. (See Manila Electric Company vs. 

Benamira, G. R. No. 145271, July 14, 2005). 

40


If the labor-only contracting activity is undertaken by a legitimate labor organization, a 

petition for cancellation of union registration may be filed against it, pursuant to Article 239(e) of 

the Labor Code. (No. 13, DOLE Primer on Contracting and Subcontracting, Effects of 

Department Order No. 3, Series of 2001). 

Substantial capital or investment, meaning. 

“Substantial capital or investment” refers to capital stocks and subscribed capitalization 

in the case of corporations, tools, equipment, implements, machineries and work premises, 

actually and directly used by the contractor or subcontractor in the performance or completion of 

the job, work or service contracted out. (Section 5, Department Order No. 18-02, Series of 2002, 

[Feb. 21, 2002]; No. 8, DOLE Primer on Contracting and Subcontracting, Effects of Department 

Order No. 3, Series of 2001). 

Right of control, meaning. 

The “right to control” shall refer to the right reserved to the person for whom the 

services of the contractual workers are performed, to determine not only the end to be achieved, 

but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end. (Section 5, Department Order No. 

18-02, Series of 2002, [Feb. 21, 2002]). 

Substantial capital without investment in tools, equipment, machineries, etc.; effect. 

In Neri vs. NLRC, [G. R. Nos. 97008-09, July 23, 1993, 224 SCRA 7171], the Supreme 

Court ruled that the labor contractor is not engaged in labor-only contracting because it has 

sufficiently proved that it has substantial capital. Having substantial capital in the amount of P1 

Million fully subscribed and paid for and is a big firm which services, among others, a university, 

an international bank, a big local bank, a hospital center, government agencies, etc., it is a highly 

capitalized venture and cannot be deemed engaged in labor-only contracting. It is a qualified 

independent contractor. Further, it need not prove that it made investments in the form of tools, 

equipment, machineries, work premises, among others. The law does not require both substantial 

capital and investment in such tools, equipment, etc. This is clear from the use of the conjunction 

“or” in the provision of fourth paragraph of Article 106 of the Labor Code. 

If the intention was to require the contractor to prove that he has both capital and the 

requisite investment, then the conjunction “and” should have been used. But having established 

that it has substantial capital, it was no longer necessary for the labor contractor to further adduce 

evidence to prove that it does not fall within the purview of “labor-only” contracting. There is 

even no need for it to refute petitioners’ contention that the activities they perform are directly 

related to the principal business of respondent bank (FEBTC). (Neri vs. NLRC, G. R. Nos. 97008- 

09, July 23, 1993, 224 SCRA 7171). 

In another similar case, Filipinas Synthetic Fiber Corporation [FILSYN] vs. NLRC, 

et al., [G. R. No. 113347, June 14, 1996], the Supreme Court ruled that a contractor which is a 

going-concern duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission with substantial 

capitalization of P1.6 Million, P400,000 of which is actually subscribed, cannot be considered as 

engaged in labor-only contracting being a highly capitalized venture. Moreover, while the 

janitorial services performed by the employee pursuant to the agreement between the indirect 

employer and the contractor may be considered directly related to the principal business of the 

indirect employer which is the manufacture of polyester fiber, nevertheless, they are not 

necessary in its operation. (See also Baguio vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. Nos. 79004-08, Oct. 4, 1991, 

202 SCRA 465, 470). 

On the contrary, they are merely incidental thereto, as opposed to being integral, without 

which production and company sales will suffer. (Ecal vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. Nos. 92777-78, 

March 13, 1991, 195 SCRA 224, 223). 

In the 2005 case of Wack Wack Golf & Country Club vs. NLRC, [G. R. No. 149793, 

April 15, 2005], the Supreme Court ruled that there is indubitable evidence showing that Business 

Staffing and Management, Inc. (BSMI), a corporation engaged in the business as Management 

Service Consultant, is an independent contractor, engaged in the management of projects, 

business operations, functions, jobs and other kinds of business ventures, and has sufficient 

41


capital and resources to undertake its principal business. It had provided management services to 

various industrial and commercial business establishments. Its Articles of Incorporation proves its 

sufficient capitalization. Moreover, in December 1993, Labor Secretary Bienvenido Laguesma, 

in the case of In re Petition for Certification Election Among the Regular Rank-and-File 

Employees Workers of Byron-Jackson (BJ) Services International Incorporated, Federation of 

Free Workers (FFW)-Byron Jackson Services Employees Chapter, recognized BSMI as an 

independent contractor. 

In the 2004 case of Manila Water Co., Inc. vs. Pena, [G. R. No. 158255, July 8, 2004], 

the Supreme Court, in holding that the entity is not an independent contractor but a labor-only 

contractor, ratiocinated: 

“First, [Association Collectors Group, Inc.] (ACGI), [which was contracted 

by petitioner Manila Water Company, Inc. to collect charges for the Balara 

Branch], does not have substantial capitalization or investment in the form of 

tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, and other materials, to qualify as 

an independent contractor. While it has an authorized capital stock of 

P1,000,000.00, only P62,500.00 is actually paid-in, which cannot be considered 

substantial capitalization. The 121 collectors [composing ACGI] subscribed to 

four shares each and paid only the amount of P625.00 in order to comply with the 

incorporation requirements. Further, private respondents reported daily to the 

branch office of the petitioner because ACGI has no office or work premises. In 

fact, the corporate address of ACGI was the residence of its president, Mr. 

Herminio D. Peña. Moreover, in dealing with the consumers, private respondents 

used the receipts and identification cards issued by petitioner. 

“Second, the work of the private respondents was directly related to the 

principal business or operation of the petitioner. Being in the business of 

providing water to the consumers in the East Zone, the collection of the charges 

therefor by private respondents for the petitioner can only be categorized as 

clearly related to, and in the pursuit of the latter’s business. 

“Lastly, ACGI did not carry on an independent business or undertake the 

performance of its service contract according to its own manner and method, free 

from the control and supervision of its principal, petitioner. Prior to private 

respondents’ alleged employment with ACGI, they were already working for 

petitioner, subject to its rules and regulations in regard to the manner and method 

of performing their tasks. This form of control and supervision never changed 

although they were already under the seeming employ of ACGI. Petitioner 

issued memoranda regarding the billing methods and distribution of books to the 

collectors; it required private respondents to report daily and to remit their 

collections on the same day to the branch office or to deposit them with Bank of 

the Philippine Islands; it monitored strictly their attendance as when a collector 

cannot perform his daily collection, he must notify petitioner or the branch office 

in the morning of the day that he will be absent; and although it was ACGI which 

ultimately disciplined private respondents, the penalty to be imposed was 

dictated by petitioner as shown in the letters it sent to ACGI specifying the 

penalties to be meted on the erring private respondents. These are indications that 

ACGI was not left alone in the supervision and control of its alleged employees. 

Consequently, it can be concluded that ACGI was not an independent contractor 

since it did not carry a distinct business free from the control and supervision of 

petitioner. 

“Under this factual milieu, there is no doubt that ACGI was engaged in 

labor-only contracting, and as such, is considered merely an agent of the 

petitioner. xxx.” (Manila Water Co., Inc. vs. Pena., G. R. No. 158255, July 8, 

2004). 

In the case of Philippine Fuji Xerox Corporation, vs. NLRC, [G. R. No. 111501, 

March 5, 1996], the Supreme Court ruled that the manpower agency is a labor-only contractor 

notwithstanding the latter’s invocation of the ruling in the Neri case (supra) that it is a highlycapitalized 

business venture, registered as an “independent employer” with the Securities and 

Exchange Commission as well as the Department of Labor and Employment; that it is a member 

of the Social Security System; that in 1984, it had assets exceeding P5 Million and at least 20 

42


typewriters, office equipment and service vehicles; and that it had employees of its own and a 

pool of 25 clerks assigned to clients on a temporary basis. 

In distinguishing the Philippine Fuji Xerox Corporation case [supra] from the Neri case, 

the Supreme Court cited the following: 

In the Neri case, the High Court considered not only the capitalization of the contractor 

but also the fact that it was providing specific special services (radio/telex operator and janitor) to 

the employer; that in another case (Associated Labor Union-TUCP vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 

101784, October 21, 1991), the Supreme Court had already found that the said contractor was an 

independent contractor; that the contractor retained control over the employees and the employer 

was actually just concerned with the end-result; that the contractor had the power to re-assign the 

employees and their deployment was not subject to the approval of the employer; and that the 

contractor was paid in lump sum for the services it rendered. 

These features of the Neri case make it distinguishable from the Philippine Fuji Xerox 

Corporation case where the service being rendered by the private respondent (contractor’s 

employee) was not a specific or special skill that the contractor was in the business of providing. 

Although in the Neri case, the telex machine operated by the employee belonged to the employer, 

the service was deemed permissible because it was specific and technical. This cannot be said of 

the service rendered by the private respondent (contractor’s employee) in the Philippine Fuji 

Xerox Corporation case. 

The argument in the Philippine Fuji Xerox Corporation case that the contractor had 

typewriters and service vehicles for the conduct of its business independently of the employer 

does not make it a legitimate job contractor because typewriters and vehicles bear no direct 

relationship to the job for which the contractor contracted its service of operating copier machines 

and offering copying services to the public. The fact is that the contractor did not have copying 

machines of its own. What it did was simply to supply manpower to Fuji Xerox. The phrase 

“substantial capital and investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises 

and other materials which are necessary in the conduct of his business” in the Implementing 

Rules, clearly contemplates tools, equipment, etc., which are directly related to the service it is 

being contracted to render. One who does not have an independent business for undertaking the 

job contracted for is just an agent of the employer. (Philippine Fuji Xerox Corporation, et al. vs. 

NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 111501, March 5, 1996). 

The 2003 case of San Miguel Corporation vs. Maerc Integrated Services, Inc.., [G. R. 

No. 144672, July 10, 2003], where the contractor was adjudged to have engaged in labor-only 

contracting, further explained the principles of labor-only contracting. The Supreme Court said: 

“Petitioner also ascribes as error the failure of the Court of Appeals to apply 

the ruling in Neri vs. NLRC, [G.R. Nos. 97008-09, July 23, 1993, 224 SCRA 

717]. In that case, it was held that the law did not require one to possess both 

substantial capital and investment in the form of tools, equipment, machinery, 

work premises, among others, to be considered a job contractor. The second 

condition to establish permissible job contracting was sufficiently met if one 

possessed either attribute. 

“Accordingly, petitioner alleged that the appellate court and the NLRC erred 

when they declared MAERC a labor-only contractor despite the finding that 

MAERC had investments amounting to P4,608,080.00 consisting of buildings, 

machinery and equipment. 

“However, in Vinoya vs. NLRC, [G.R. No. 126586, February 2, 2000, 324 

SCRA 469], we clarified that it was not enough to show substantial capitalization 

or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machinery and work premises, 

etc., to be considered an independent contractor. In fact, jurisprudential holdings 

were to the effect that in determining the existence of an independent contractor 

relationship, several factors may be considered, such as, but not necessarily 

confined to, whether the contractor was carrying on an independent business; the 

nature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term and duration of the 

relationship; the right to assign the performance of specified pieces of work; the 

control and supervision of the workers; the power of the employer with respect to 

the hiring, firing and payment of the workers of the contractor; the control of the 

43


premises; the duty to supply premises, tools, appliances, materials and labor; and 

the mode, manner and terms of payment. (Citing Ponce v. NLRC, G.R. No. 

124643, July 30, 1998, 293 SCRA 366). 

“In Neri, the Court considered not only the fact that respondent Building 

Care Corporation (BBC) had substantial capitalization but noted that BCC 

carried on an independent business and performed its contract according to its 

own manner and method, free from the control and supervision of its principal in 

all matters except as to the results thereof. The Court likewise mentioned that the 

employees of BCC were engaged to perform specific special services for their 

principal. The status of BCC had also been passed upon by the Court in a 

previous case where it was found to be a qualified job contractor because it was 

‘a big firm which services among others, a university, an international bank, a big 

local bank, a hospital center, government agencies, etc.’ Furthermore, there were 

only two (2) complainants in that case who were not only selected and hired by 

the contractor before being assigned to work in the Cagayan de Oro branch of 

FEBTC but the Court also found that the contractor maintained effective 

supervision and control over them. 

“In comparison, MAERC, as earlier discussed, displayed the characteristics 

of a labor-only contractor. Moreover, while MAERC’s investments in the form 

of buildings, tools and equipment amounted to more than P4 Million, we cannot 

disregard the fact that it was the SMC which required MAERC to undertake such 

investments under the understanding that the business relationship between 

petitioner and MAERC would be on a long term basis. Nor do we believe 

MAERC to have an independent business. Not only was it set up to specifically 

meet the pressing needs of SMC which was then having labor problems in its 

segregation division, none of its workers was also ever assigned to any other 

establishment, thus convincing us that it was created solely to service the needs 

of SMC. Naturally, with the severance of relationship between MAERC and 

SMC followed MAERC’s cessation of operations, the loss of jobs for the whole 

MAERC workforce and the resulting actions instituted by the workers. (San 

Miguel Corporation vs. Maerc Integrated Services, Inc., et al., G. R. No. 144672, 

July 10, 2003). 

Stipulation in the contract; effect. 

The existence of employer-employee relationship cannot be made subject of an 

agreement or contract. The “labor only” contractor is considered merely an agent of the 

employer. Any liability shall devolve upon the “labor only” contractor and the employer, jointly 

and severally. (Tabas vs. California Marketing Co., Inc., 169 SCRA 497). 

As held in the 2001 case of De los Santos vs. NLRC, [G. R. No. 121327, December 20, 

2001], the parties cannot dictate, by the mere expedient of a unilateral declaration in a contract, 

the character of its business, i.e., whether as “labor-only” contractor, or job contractor, it being 

crucial that its character be measured in terms of and determined by the criteria set by statute. 

Thus, notwithstanding that the agreement or contract between the principal employer and 

the contractor states that the latter is an “independent contractor” and that the workers hired by it 

“shall not, in any manner and under any circumstances, be considered employees of the 

Company, and that the Company has no control or supervision whatsoever over the conduct of 

the Contractor or any of its workers in respect to how they accomplish their work or perform the 

Contractor’s obligations under this Agreement,” the contractor may still be considered a laboronly 

contractor. This was the holding of the Supreme Court in the case of Philippine Fuji Xerox 

Corporation [supra]. The Court cited the analogous case of Tabas vs. California Manufacturing 

Company, Inc., [169 SCRA 497 (1989)], thus: 

“There is no doubt that in the case at bar, Livi performs ‘manpower services,’ 

meaning to say, it contracts out labor in favor of clients. We hold that it is one 

notwithstanding its vehement claims to the contrary, and notwithstanding the 

provision of the contract that it is ‘an independent contractor.’ The nature of 

one’s business is not determined by self-serving appellations one attaches thereto 

but by the tests provided by statute and prevailing case law. The bare fact that 

Livi maintains a separate line of business does not extinguish the equal fact that it 

44


has provided California with workers to pursue the latter’s own business. In this 

connection, we do not agree that the petitioners had been made to perform 

activities ‘which are not directly related to the general business of manufacturing,’ 

California’s purported ‘principal operation activity.’ The petitioners had been 

charged with ‘merchandizing [sic] promotion or sale of the products of 

[California] in the different sales outlets in Metro Manila including task and 

occasional [sic] price tagging,’ an activity that is doubtless, an integral part of the 

manufacturing business. It is not, then, as if Livi had served as its [California’s] 

promotions or sales arm or agents, or otherwise, rendered a piece of work it 

[California] could not have itself done; Livi as a placement agency, had simply 

supplied it with the manpower necessary to carry out its [California’s] 

merchandising activities, using its [California’s] premises and equipment. 

“xxx. 

“The fact that the petitioners have allegedly admitted being Livi’s ‘direct 

employees’ in their complaints is nothing conclusive. For one thing, the fact that 

the petitioners were [are], will not absolve California since liability has been 

imposed by legal operation. For another, and as we indicated, the relations of 

parties must be judged from case to case and the decree of law, and not by 

declaration of parties.” (Philippine Fuji Xerox Corporation, et al. vs. NLRC, et al., 

G. R. No. 111501, March 5, 1996). 

But in the 2000 case of Escario vs. NLRC, [G. R. No. 124055, June 8, 2000], petitioners 

who were likewise agency-supplied workers in the same company (California Manufacturing Co., 

Inc. or “CMC”) were not similarly fortunate as those in Tabas [supra]. Petitioners here relied on 

the Tabas case in claiming that they are employees of said company. The Supreme Court 

considered such reliance on Tabas as misplaced. For in Tabas, the Supreme Court ruled that 

therein contractor Livi Manpower Services was a mere placement agency and had simply 

supplied CMC with the manpower necessary to carry out the company’s merchandising activity. 

It was, however, further stated in said case that: 

“It would have been different, we believe, had Livi been discretely a 

promotions firm, and that California had hired it to perform the latter’s 

merchandising activities. For then, Livi would have been truly the employer of its 

employees and California, its client. x x x.” 

In other words, CMC can validly farm out its merchandising activities to a legitimate 

independent contractor. In declaring that D. L. Admark (petitioners’ employer) is a legitimate 

independent contractor, the Supreme Court cited the following circumstances that tend to 

establish it as such: 

1) The SEC registration certificate of D.L. Admark states that it is a firm engaged in 

promotional, advertising, marketing and merchandising activities. 

2) The service contract between CMC and D.L. Admark clearly provides that the 

agreement is for the supply of sales promoting merchandising services rather than 

one of manpower placement. 

3) D.L. Admark was actually engaged in several activities, such as advertising, 

publication, promotions, marketing and merchandising. It had several merchandising 

contracts with companies like Purefoods, Corona Supply, Nabisco Biscuits, and 

Licron. It was likewise engaged in the publication business as evidenced by it 

magazine the “Phenomenon.” 

4) It had its own capital assets to carry out its promotion business. It then had current 

assets amounting to P6 million and is therefore a highly capitalized venture. It had an 

authorized capital stock of P500,000.00. It owned several motor vehicles and other 

tools, materials and equipment to service its clients. It paid rentals of P30,020 for the 

office space it occupied. 

In the 2003 case of San Miguel Corporation vs. Maerc Integrated Services, Inc., [G. 

R. No. 144672, July 10, 2003], it was stipulated in the contract of services between MAERC and 

SMC that MAERC was an independent contractor and that the workers hired by it “shall not, in 

any manner and under any circumstances, be considered employees of the Company, and that the 

45


Company has no control or supervision whatsoever over the conduct of the Contractor or any of 

its workers in respect to how they accomplish their work or perform the Contractor's obligations 

under the Contract.” 

The Supreme Court, however, following the “control test,” disregarded the said 

stipulation in the contract. It ratiocinated, thus: 

“In deciding the question of control, the language of the contract is not 

determinative of the parties' relationship; rather, it is the totality of the facts and 

surrounding circumstances of each case. 

“Despite SMC’s disclaimer, there are indicia that it actively supervised the 

complainants. SMC maintained a constant presence in the workplace through its 

own checkers. Its asseveration that the checkers were there only to check the end 

result was belied by the testimony of Carlito R. Singson, head of the Mandaue 

Container Service of SMC, that the checkers were also tasked to report on the 

identity of the workers whose performance or quality of work was not according 

to the rules and standards set by SMC. According to Singson, ‘it (was) necessary 

to identify the names of those concerned so that the management [referring to 

MAERC] could call the attention to make these people improve the quality of 

work.’ 

“Viewed alongside the findings of the Labor Arbiter that the MAERC 

organizational set-up in the bottle segregation project was such that the 

segregators/cleaners were supervised by checkers and each checker was also 

under a supervisor who was in turn under a field supervisor, the responsibility of 

watching over the MAERC workers by MAERC personnel became superfluous 

with the presence of additional checkers from SMC.” (San Miguel Corporation 

vs. Maerc Integrated Services, Inc., et al., G. R. No. 144672, July 10, 2003). 

In the June 2005 decision in the case of Abella vs. PLDT, [G. R. No. 159469, June 8, 

2005], the Supreme Court ruled that the security guards supplied by People’s Security, Inc. (PSI) 

to PLDT are the employees of PSI and not of PLDT. In holding that PSI is a legitimate job 

contractor, the High Court declared: 

“We hasten to add on this score that the Labor Arbiter as well as the NLRC 

and the Court of Appeals found that PSI is a legitimate job contractor pursuant to 

Section 8, Rule VII, Book II of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor 

Code. It is a registered corporation duly licensed by the Philippine National 

Police to engage in security business. It has substantial capital and investment in 

the form of guns, ammunitions, communication equipments, vehicles, office 

equipments like computer, typewriters, photocopying machines, etc., and above 

all, it is servicing clients other than PLDT like PCIBank, Crown Triumph, and 

Philippine Cable, among others. Here, the security guards which PSI had 

assigned to PLDT are already the former’s employees prior to assignment and if 

the assigned guards to PLDT are rejected by PLDT for reasons germane to the 

security agreement, then the rejected or terminated guard may still be assigned to 

other clients of PSI as in the case of Jonathan Daguno who was posted at PLDT 

on 21 February 1996 but was subsequently relieved therefrom and assigned at 

PCIBank Makati Square effective 10 May 1996. Therefore, the evidence as it 

stands is at odds with petitioners’ assertion that PSI is an “in-house” agency of 

PLDT so as to call for a piercing of veil of corporate identity as what the Court 

has done in De leon, et al. vs. NLRC and Fortune Tobacco Corporation, et al. 

[G.R. No. 112661, May 30, 2001].” 

Nature of liability of employer and labor-only contractor. 

In a labor-only contract, there are three parties involved: (1) the “labor-only” contractor; 

(2) the employee who is ostensibly under the employ of the “labor-only” contractor; and (3) the 

principal who is deemed the real employer. Under this scheme, the “labor-only” contractor is the 

agent of the principal. The law makes the principal responsible to the employees of the “laboronly” 

contractor as if the principal itself directly hired or employed the employees. (Sonza vs. 

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, G. R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004; Sandoval Shipyards, 

Inc., et al. vs. Pepito, et al., G. R. No. 143428, June 25, 2001). 

46


It has been consistently held in our jurisdiction that since the “labor-only” contractor 

does not have substantial capital investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work 

premises and other materials, the workers supplied by him are employees of the owner of the 

project to whom said labor was supplied. (Vinoya vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 126586, Feb. 2, 

2000; Industrial Timber Corporation vs. NLRC, et al., 169 SCRA 341). 

The reason is, the labor-only contractor is treated as mere agent or intermediary of the 

employer. Consequently, the nature of the liability of the employer is more direct, the labor-only 

contractor is treated as agent and the former, the principal. (Manila Electric Company vs. 

Benamira, G. R. No. 145271, July 14, 2005; Manila Water Co., Inc. vs. Pena, et al., G. R. No. 

158255, July 8, 2004; San Miguel Corporation v. MAERC Integrated Services, Inc., G.R. No. 

144672, 10 July 2003). 

The employer is made by the statute responsible to the employees of the labor-only 

contractor as if such employees had been directly employed by the employer. Thus, where laboronly 

contracting exists in a given case, the statute itself implies or establishes an employeremployee 

relationship between the employer (the owner of the project) and the employees of the 

labor-only contractor, this time for a comprehensive purpose: employer for purposes of the 

Labor Code, to prevent any violation or circumvention of any provision of said Code. The law, in 

effect, holds both the employer and the labor-only contractor responsible to the latter’s employees 

for the more effective safeguarding of the employees’ rights under the Labor Code. (Philippine 

Bank of Communications vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. L-66598, Dec. 19, 1986, 146 SCRA 347). 

The statute creates an employer-employee relationship for a comprehensive purpose: to 

prevent a circumvention of labor laws. (Manila Water Co., Inc. vs. Pena, et al., G. R. No. 158255, 

July 8, 2004). 

In a case, a service agency supplied 11 messengers to its client, a bank. The messengers 

worked in the premises of the client and were paid their salaries through the service agency. The 

client company controlled the performance of the duties of the messenger. The Supreme Court 

declared that the service agency is engaged in “labor-only” contracting. Consequently, the client 

was held liable to the complainant messenger as if the latter had been directly employed not only 

by the agency but also by said client. (Philippine Bank of Communications vs. NLRC, et al. 146 

SCRA 347). 

Liability of legitimate contractor and labor-only contractor, distinguished. 

There is a wide gulf of distinction between the liability of a legitimate independent 

contractor and the liability of a labor-only contractor. 

In legitimate job contracting, the law creates an employer-employee relationship for a 

limited purpose, i.e., to ensure that the employees are paid their wages. The principal employer 

becomes jointly and severally liable with the job contractor only for the payment of the 

employees' wages whenever the contractor fails to pay the same. Other than that, the principal 

employer is not responsible for any claim made by the employees. (San Miguel Corporation vs. 

Maerc Integrated Services, Inc., et al., G. R. No. 144672, July 10, 2003). 

On the other hand, in labor-only contracting, the statute creates an employer-employee 

relationship for a comprehensive purpose: to prevent a circumvention of labor laws. The 

contractor is considered merely an agent of the principal employer and the latter is responsible to 

the employees of the labor-only contractor as if such employees had been directly employed by 

the principal employer. The principal employer, therefore, becomes solidarily liable with the 

labor-only contractor for all the rightful claims of the employees. (San Miguel Corporation vs. 


Duty to comply with legal requirements for valid termination in 

labor-only contracting situations. 

Having made the distinction between the liability of a job contractor and that of a laboronly 

contractor, it is clear that if there is a finding of labor-only contracting, the duty to comply 

47


with the requirements of the law for terminating employees as well as payment of monetary 

claims of the latter would necessarily devolve on the principal which is deemed the real, direct 

employer, in solidum with the labor-only contractor. 

In a case involving retrenchment of workers effected by the labor-only contractor 

consequent to the termination of the labor-only contract, it was ruled that the principal was not 

discharged from paying the separation benefits of the workers inasmuch as the contractor was 

shown to be a labor-only contractor. Resultantly, the principal should have complied with the 

requirement of written notice to both the employees concerned and the Department of Labor and 

Employment (DOLE) which must be given at least one (1) month before the intended date of 

retrenchment. Hence, the principal should be held liable for the separation pay of said workers, 

including the fines imposed for violations of the notice requirement. (San Miguel Corporation vs. 


Illustrative cases of labor-only contracting. 

a. An employee who hires dispatchers for the operator of a transportation company, is a 

labor-only contractor and, therefore, a mere agent of the petitioner-employer. (Tiu vs. NLRC, et 

al., G. R. No. 95845, Feb. 21, 1996). 

b. A company which supplies a considerable workforce totaling 120 mechanics, janitors, 

gardeners, firemen and grasscutters to a garment manufacturer, was declared a labor-only 

contractor for its failure to prove that it had substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, 

equipment, machineries, work premises and other materials. Moreover, the work assigned to 

them are directly related to the business of the latter. (Guarin, et al. vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 

86010, Oct. 3, 1989). 

c. In accordance with the provisions of Article 106 of the Labor Code, the workers 

supplied by three manpower agencies to a supermarket to work as merchandisers, cashiers, 

baggers, check-out personnel, sales ladies, warehousemen and so forth were declared employees 

of the supermarket and the manpower agencies, labor-only contractors. Their work was directly 

related, necessary and vital to the day-to-day operations of the supermarket; their jobs involved 

normal and regular functions in the ordinary business of the petitioner corporation and given the 

nature of their functions and responsibilities, it is improbable that petitioners did not exercise 

direct control over their work. Moreover, there is no evidence - as in fact, petitioners do not even 

allege - that aside from supplying the manpower, the labor agencies have “substantial capital or 

investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among others.” 

Resultingly, the supermarket is deemed the direct employer of the labor-only contractor’s 

employees and thus liable for all benefits to which such workers are entitled, like wages, 

separation benefits and so forth. (Shoppers Gain Supermart, et al. vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 

110731, July 26, 1996). 

d. A search company which supplies messengers to a bank is a labor-only contractor 

considering that the messengers rendered services to the bank, within the premises of the bank 

and alongside other people also rendering services to the bank. Its argument that it is not so 

engaged as labor-only contractor since it is possessed of substantial capital or investment in the 

form of office equipment, tools and trained service personnel was not accepted by the Supreme 

Court. Said company is not a parcel delivery company, as its name indicates. Messengerial work 

- the delivery of documents to designated persons whether within or without the bank premises - 

is directly related to the day-to-day operations of the bank. It is a recruitment and placement 

corporation placing bodies, as it were, in different client-companies for longer or shorter periods 

of time. It is this factor that distinguishes this case from American President Lines vs. Clave, et 

al. [114 SCRA 826 (1982)] if indeed such distinguishing way is needed. (Philippine Bank of 

Communications vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. L-66598, Dec. 19, 1986, 146 SCRA 347). 

e. The person who agreed with a motor company under the terms of their Work Contract 

to supply only labor and supervision over his contractual workers in doing automotive bodypainting 

work and to hire or bring in additional workers as may be required by the company and 

to handle additional work load or to accelerate or facilitate completion of work in process is a 

labor-only contractor in the light of the following circumstances, among others: the company 

supplied all the tools, equipment, machinery and materials necessary for the performance by the 

former and his men of the contracted job within the premises of the company; their compensation 

48


was paid in lump sum; they were required to observe regular working hours and render overtime 

services when needed; defects in the workmanship of their jobs while in progress, are subject to 

correction by the company’s supervisors; and they are required to observe company rules, 

regulations and policies such as the wearing of identification cards and uniforms. (Broadway 

Motors, Inc. vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 98382, Dec. 14, 1987, 156 SCRA 522). 

Principal distinctions between legitimate job contracting and labor-only contracting. 

The principal distinctions between legitimate, permissible job contracting, on the one 

hand, and the prohibited labor-only contracting, on the other. 

a. In the former, no employer-employee relationship exists between the employees of 

the job contractor and the principal employer (indirect employer); while in the latter, 

an employer-employee relationship is created by law between the principal employer 

and the employees of the labor-only contractor. 

b. In the former, the principal employer is considered only an “indirect employer”, as 

this term is understood under Article 107 of the Labor Code; while in the latter, the 

principal employer is considered the “direct employer” of the employees in 

accordance with the last paragraph of Article 106 of the Labor Code. 

c. In the former, the joint and several obligation of the principal employer and the 

legitimate job contractor is only for a limited purpose, that is, to ensure that the 

employees are paid their wages. Other than this obligation of paying the wages, the 

principal employer is not responsible for any claim made by the employees; while in 

the latter, the principal employer becomes solidarily liable with the labor-only 

contractor for all the rightful claims of the employees. 

d. In the former, the legitimate job contractor provides specific services; while in the 

latter, the labor-only contractor provides only manpower. 

e. In the former, the legitimate job contractor undertakes to perform a specific job for 

the principal employer; while in the latter, the labor-only contractor merely provides 

the personnel to work for the principal employer. 

102. What is “in-house agency”? 

Similarly prohibited under the law is the operation of an “in-house agency” whereby a 

contractor or subcontractor is engaged in the supply of labor which: 

(i) is owned, managed or controlled by the principal; and 

(ii) operates solely for the principal owning, managing, or controlling it. 

A finding that a contractor is a “labor-only” contractor is equivalent to a finding that 

there exists an employer-employee relationship between the owner of the project and the 

employees of the “labor-only” contractor since that relationship is defined and prescribed by law 

itself. 

103. Who is an indirect employer in a contracting or subcontracting arrangement? 

The principal is considered the indirect employer of the workers supplied by independent 

contractor or subcontractor. 

104. What is the nature of the liability of an indirect employer? 

The nature of the liability of the principal is joint and solidary with the contractor or 

subcontractor for any violation of any provision of the Labor Code. For purposes of determining 

the extent of their civil liability for the payment of wages, the indirect employer shall be 

considered as direct employer. (Article 109, Labor Code). 

The best illustration of these principles is the 2005 case of Manila Electric Company vs. 

Benamira, [G. R. No. 145271, July 14, 2005] where it was held, thus: 

“The fact that there is no actual and direct employer-employee relationship 

between MERALCO and the individual respondents does not exonerate 

MERALCO from liability as to the monetary claims of the individual 

49


respondents. When MERALCO contracted for security services with ASDAI as 

the security agency that hired individual respondents to work as guards for it, 

MERALCO became an indirect employer of individual respondents pursuant to 

Article 107 of the Labor Code. 

xxx 

“When ASDAI as contractor failed to pay the individual respondents, 

MERALCO as principal becomes jointly and severally liable for the individual 

respondents’ wages, under Articles 106 and 109 of the Labor Code. 

xxx 

“ASDAI is held liable by virtue of its status as direct employer, while 

MERALCO is deemed the indirect employer of the individual respondents for 

the purpose of paying their wages in the event of failure of ASDAI to pay them. 

This statutory scheme gives the workers the ample protection consonant with 

labor and social justice provisions of the 1987 Constitution. 

“However, as held in Mariveles Shipyard Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, [G.R. 

No. 144134, November 11, 2003, 415 SCRA 573], the solidary liability of 

MERALCO with that of ASDAI does not preclude the application of Article 

1217 of the Civil Code on the right of reimbursement from his co-debtor by the 

one who paid, which provides: 

‘ART. 1217. Payment made by one of the solidary debtors 

extinguishes the obligation. If two or more solidary debtors offer to pay, 

the creditor may choose which offer to accept. 

‘He who made the payment may claim from his co-debtors only the 

share which corresponds to each, with the interest for the payment 

already made. If the payment is made before the debt is due, no interest 

for the intervening period may be demanded. 

‘When one of the solidary debtors cannot, because of his insolvency, 

reimburse his share to the debtor paying the obligation, such share shall 

be borne by all his co-debtors, in proportion to the debt of each.’ 

“ASDAI may not seek exculpation by claiming that MERALCO’s payments 

to it were inadequate for the individual respondents’ lawful compensation. As an 

employer, ASDAI is charged with knowledge of labor laws and the adequacy of 

the compensation that it demands for contractual services is its principal concern 

and not any other’s.” 

105. What is meant by worker preference in case of bankruptcy? 

1. The right to preference given to workers under Article 110 cannot exist in any 

effective way prior to the time of its presentation in distribution proceedings. Article 

110 applies only in case of bankruptcy or judicial liquidation of the employer. 

2. Judicial proceedings in rem is required for creditors’ claims against debtors to become 

operative. 

3. To contend that Article 110 of the Labor Code is applicable also to extrajudicial 

proceedings would be putting the worker in a better position than the State which 

could only assert its own prior preference in case of a judicial proceeding. 

4. The right of preference as regards unpaid wages recognized by Article 110 of the 

Labor Code does not constitute a lien on the property of the insolvent debtor in favor 

of the workers but a right to a first preference in the discharge of the funds of the 

judgment debtor. 

5. Article 110 of the Labor Code does not purport to create a lien in favor of workers or 

employees for unpaid wages either upon all of the properties or upon any particular 

property owned by their employer. Claims for unpaid wages do not, therefore, fall at 

all within the category of specially preferred claims established under Articles 2241 

50


and 2242 of the Civil Code, except to the extent that such claims for unpaid wages are 

already covered by Article 2241, number 6: “claims for laborer’s wages, on the goods 

manufactured or the work done;” or by Article 2242, number 3: “claims of laborers 

and other workers engaged in the construction, reconstruction or repair of buildings, 

canals and other works, upon said buildings, canals or other works.” To the extent 

that claims for unpaid wages fall outside the scope of Article 2241, number 6 and 

2242, number 3, they would come within the ambit of the category of ordinary 

preferred credits under Article 2244. 

6. Mortgage credit. - A mortgage credit is a special preferred credit under Article 2241 

of the Civil Code while workers’ preference is an ordinary preferred credit. 

7. Preference of taxes. In one case, it was held that there is no merit in the contention 

of the NLRC that taxes are also absolutely preferred claims only with respect to 

movable and immovable properties on which they are due. The claim of the 

government predicated on a tax lien is superior to the claim of a private litigant 

predicated on a judgment. The tax lien attaches not only from the service of the 

warrant of distraint of personal property but from the time the tax became due and 

payable. 

REHABILITATION RECEIVERSHIP: 

106. What is the effect of rehabilitation receivership on monetary claims of employees? 

RUBBERWORLD (PHILS.), INC. VS. NLRC, ET AL., (G. R. NO. 128003, JULY 

26, 2000) 

ALEMAR’S SIBAL AND SONS, INC. VS. NLRC, ET AL. (G. R. NO. 114761, 

JANUARY 19, 2000) 

(SEE ALSO RUBBERWORLD (PHILS.), INC. VS. NLRC, ET AL., (G. R. NO. 

126773, APRIL 14, 1999) where the same issue is discussed and further 

PREFERENCE IN CASE OF BANKRUPTCY OR LIQUIDATION UNDER 

ARTICLE 110 OF THE LABOR CODE. 

ATTORNEY’S FEES: 

[SEE DISCUSSION IN PART TWO OF THIS PRE-WEEK SERIES] 

107. What is the amount of attorney’s fees that may be allowed by law? 

1. In cases of unlawful withholding of wages, the employer may be assessed attorney’s 

fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the amount of wages recovered. 

2. It shall be unlawful for any person to demand or accept, in any judicial or 

administrative proceedings for the recovery of wages, attorney’s fees which exceed 

ten percent (10%) of the amount of wages recovered. 

3. The attorney’s fees may be awarded only when the withholding of wages is declared 

unlawful. 

4. The basis of the 10% attorney’s fees is the amount of wages recovered. Should there 

be any other monetary awards given in the proceedings, the same may not be assessed 

or subjected to the 10% attorney’s fees. 

PROHIBITIONS REGARDING WAGES: 

108. What is meant by the principle of non-interference in disposal of wages? 

Employers are not allowed to interfere in the disposal of wages of employees. 

109. What are allowable wage deductions? 

Deductions from the wages of the employees may be made by the employer in any of 

the following cases: 

51


a. When the deductions are authorized by law, (e.g., SSS, Pag-IBIG), including 

deductions for the insurance premiums advanced by the employer in behalf of the 

employee as well as union dues where the right to check-off has been recognized 

by the employer or authorized in writing by the individual employee himself; 

b. When the deductions are with the written authorization of the employees for 

payment to a third person and the employer agrees to do so, provided that the 

latter does not receive any pecuniary benefit, directly or indirectly, from the 

transaction; 

c. Withholding tax mandated under the National Internal Revenue Code; 

d. Withholding of wages because of employee’s debt to the employer which is 

already due; 

e. Deductions made pursuant to a judgment against the worker under circumstances 

where the wages may be the subject of attachment or execution but only for debts 

incurred for food, clothing, shelter and medical attendance. 

f. When deductions from wages are ordered by the court; 

g. Deductions made for agency fee from non-union members who accept the benefits 

under the CBA negotiated by the bargaining union. This form of deduction does 

not require the written authorization of the non-union member. 

110. What are deposits for loss or damage? 

No employer shall require his worker to make deposits from which deductions shall be 

made for the reimbursement of loss of or damage to tools, materials, or equipment supplied by the 

employer, except when the employer is engaged in such trades, occupations or business where 

the practice of making deductions or requiring deposits is a recognized one, or is necessary or 

desirable as determined by the Secretary of Labor and Employment in appropriate rules and 

regulations. 

111. Is withholding of wages and kickback allowed? 

No. It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to withhold any amount 

from the wages of a worker or induce him to give up any part of his wages by force, stealth, 

intimidation, threat or by any other means whatsoever without the worker’s consent. 

112. May deduction be allowed to ensure employment or retention of employment? 

It shall be unlawful to make any deduction from the wages of any employee for the 

benefit of the employer or his representative or intermediary as consideration of a promise of 

employment or retention in employment. 

113. What are the retaliatory measures prohibited under the law? 

It shall be unlawful for an employer to refuse to pay or reduce the wages and benefits, 

discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee who has filed any complaint or 

instituted any proceeding or has testified or is about to testify in such proceedings. 

ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LABOR LAWS: 

114. What is the legal basis for the exercise by the Secretary of Labor of his visitorial and 

enforcement powers? 

The legal basis is Article 128 which involves the exercise by the Secretary of Labor and 

Employment or his duly authorized representatives, of the visitorial and enforcement powers 

provided therein. Article 128 applies to inspection cases involving findings of the labor 

employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers regarding violations of labor 

standards provisions of the Labor Code and other labor legislation. 

Article 128 contemplates situations where the case for violation of labor standards laws 

and other labor legislations, arose from the routine inspection conducted by the labor employment 

and enforcement officer or industrial safety engineers of the Department of Labor and 

Employment, with or without a complaint initiated by an interested party. Here, it is generally 

the Department of Labor and Employment which initiates the action. 

52


EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN: 

115. What is nightwork prohibition? 

Regardless of age, no woman shall be employed or permitted or suffered to work, with or 

without compensation: 

(a) In any industrial undertaking or branch thereof between 10:00 o’clock at night and 6 

o’clock in the morning of the following day; or 

(b) In any commercial or non-industrial undertaking or branch thereof, other than 

agricultural, between midnight and 6 o’clock in the morning of the following day; or 

(c) In any agricultural undertaking at nighttime unless she is given a period of rest of not 

less than nine (9) consecutive hours. 

116. What are the exceptions to nightwork prohibition? 

The nightwork prohibition shall not apply in any of the following cases: 

(a) In cases of actual or impending emergencies caused by serious accident, fire, 

flood, typhoon, earthquake, epidemic or other disasters or calamity, to prevent 

loss of life or property, or in cases of force majeure or imminent danger to 

public safety; 

(b) In case of urgent work to be performed on machineries, equipment or 

installation, to avoid serious loss which the employer would otherwise suffer; 

(c) Where the work is necessary to prevent serious loss of perishable goods; 

(d) Where the woman employee holds a responsible position of managerial or 

technical nature, or where the woman employee has been engaged to provide 

health and welfare services; 

(e) Where the nature of the work requires the manual skill and dexterity of women 

workers and the same cannot be performed with equal efficiency by male 

workers; 

(f) Where the women employees are immediate members of the family operating 

the establishment or undertaking; and 

(g) Under other analogous cases exempted by the Secretary of Labor and 

Employment in appropriate regulations. 

117. What are the required facilities for women? 

Employers are required to: 

(a) Provide seats proper for women and permit them to use such seats when they are free 

from work and during working hours, provided they can perform their duties in this 

position without detriment to efficiency; 

(b) To establish separate toilet rooms and lavatories for men and women and provide at 

least a dressing room for women; 

(c) To establish a nursery in a workplace for the benefit of the women employees 

therein; and 

(d) To determine appropriate minimum age and other standards for retirement or 

termination in special occupations such as those of flight attendants and the like. 

118. What are the acts of discrimination against women expressly prohibited under R. A. 6725 

(May 12, 1989)? 

It shall be unlawful for any employer to discriminate against any woman employee with 

respect to terms and conditions of employment solely on account of her sex. 

The following are acts of discrimination: 

(a) Payment of a lesser compensation, including wage, salary or other form of 

remuneration and fringe benefits, to a female employee as against a male employee, for 

work of equal value; and 

53


(b) Favoring a male employee over a female employee with respect to promotion, 

training opportunities, study and scholarship grants solely on account of their sexes. 

There is criminal liability for the willful commission of any of the foregoing unlawful act. 

(R. A. 6725, id.). 

MATERNITY LEAVE BENEFITS: 

119. What are maternity leave benefits? 

A covered female employee who has paid at least three monthly maternity contributions in the 

twelve-month period preceding the semester of her childbirth, abortion or miscarriage and who is 

currently employed shall be paid a daily maternity benefit equivalent to one hundred percent 

(100%) of her present basic salary, allowances and other benefits or the cash equivalent of such 

benefits for sixty (60) days subject to the following conditions: 

(a) That the employee shall have notified her employer of her pregnancy and the probable 

date of her childbirth which notice shall be transmitted to the SSS in accordance with 

the rules and regulations it may provide; 

(b) That the payment shall be advanced by the employer in two equal installments within 

thirty (30) days from the filing of the maternity leave application; 

(c) That in case of caesarian delivery, the employee shall be paid the daily maternity benefit 

for 78 days; 

(d) That payment of daily maternity benefits shall be a bar to the recovery of sickness 

benefits provided by this Act for the same compensable period of sixty (60) days for the 

same childbirth, abortion or miscarriage; 

(e) That the maternity benefits shall be paid only for the first four deliveries after March 13, 

1973; 

(f) That the SSS shall immediately reimburse the employer of one hundred percent (100%) 

of the amount of maternity benefits advanced to the employee by the employer upon 

receipt of satisfactory proof of such payment and legality thereof; and 

(g) That if an employee should give birth or suffer abortion or miscarriage without the 

required contributions having been remitted for her by her employer to the SSS, or 

without the latter having been previously notified by the employer of the time of the 

pregnancy, the employer shall pay to the SSS damages equivalent to the benefits which 

said employee would otherwise have been entitled to, and the SSS shall in turn pay such 

amount to the employee concerned. (R. A. 7322, March 3, 1992). 

120. Is an unmarried pregnant woman entitled to maternity leave benefits? 

Every pregnant woman in the private sector, whether married or unmarried, is entitled to 

the maternity leave benefits. 

121. Are maternity leave benefits included in the computation of 13 th month pay? 

Maternity benefits, like other benefits granted by the SSS, are granted to employees in 

lieu of wages and, therefore, may not be included in computing the employee’s 13th-month pay 

for the calendar year. 

122. Are voluntary or self-employed members of the SSS entitled to maternity leave benefits? 

Voluntary or self-employed members are not entitled to the maternity benefit because to 

be entitled thereto, corresponding maternity contributions should be paid by employers. 

Voluntary or self-employed members have no employers so they do not have maternity 

contributions. 

PATERNITY LEAVE: 

123. What is paternity leave? 

54


“Paternity leave” refers to the benefit granted to a married male employee allowing him 

not to report for work for seven (7) days (for each delivery for the first 4 deliveries) but continues 

to earn the compensation therefor, on the condition that his spouse has delivered a child or 

suffered miscarriage for purposes of enabling him to effectively lend support to his wife in her 

period of recovery and/or in the nursing of the newly-born child. If paternity leave is not availed 

of, it is not convertible to cash. 

124. What is “delivery”? 

“Delivery” shall include childbirth or any miscarriage. 

125. What is meant by “spouse”? 

“Spouse” refers to the lawful wife. For this purpose, lawful wife refers to a woman who 

is legally married to the male employee concerned. 

126. What is meant by “cohabiting”? 

“Cohabiting” refers to the obligation of the husband and wife to live together. 

THE SOLO PARENTS' WELFARE ACT OF 2000: 

127. What is parental leave? 

Republic Act No. 8972 (An Act Providing for Benefits and Privileges to Solo Parents and 

Their Children, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes), otherwise known as “The 

Solo Parents’ Welfare Act of 2000,” was approved on November 7, 2000 providing for parental 

leave of seven (7) days. It is defined as follows: 

“(d) ‘Parental leave’ - shall mean leave benefits granted to a solo parent to 

enable him/her to perform parental duties and responsibilities where physical 

presence is required.” 

It bears noting that this leave privilege is an additional leave benefit which is separate and 

distinct from any other leave benefits provided under existing laws or agreements. Thus, under 

Section 8 thereof, it is provided: 

“Sec. 8. Parental Leave. - In addition to leave privileges under existing 

laws, parental leave of not more than seven (7) working days every year shall be 

granted to any solo parent employee who has rendered service of at least one (1) 

year.” 

128. What is meant by flexible work schedule under R. A. No. 8972? 

thus: 

Under Republic Act No. 8972, solo parents are allowed to work on a flexible schedule, 

“Sec. 6. Flexible Work Schedule. – The employer shall provide for a flexible 

working schedule for solo parents: Provided, That the same shall not affect 

individual and company productivity: Provided, further, That any employer may 

request exemption from the above requirements from the DOLE on certain 

meritorious grounds.” (Section 6, Republic Act No. 8972). 

The phrase “flexible work schedule” is defined in the same law as follows: 

(e) “Flexible work schedule” - is the right granted to a solo parent 

employee to vary his/her arrival and departure time without affecting the core 

work hours as defined by the employer. (Section 3[e], Republic Act No. 8972). 

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN: 

129. What are the acts considered discriminatory against women under the law? 

55


It shall be unlawful for any employer: 

(1) To deny any woman employee the benefits provided for in the law or to discharge any 

woman employed by him for the purpose of preventing her from enjoying any of the 

benefits provided under the Labor Code. 

(2) To discharge such woman on account of her pregnancy, or while on leave or 

in confinement due to her pregnancy; 

(3) To discharge or refuse the admission of such woman upon returning to her work for 

fear that she may again be pregnant; 

(4) To pay lesser compensation to a female employee as against a male employee for 

work of equal value. 

(3) To favor a male employee over a female employee with respect to promotion, 

training opportunities, study and scholarship grants solely on account of their sexes. 

130. What are stipulations against marriage? 

It shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a condition of employment or 

continuation of employment that a woman employee shall not get married, or to stipulate 

expressly or tacitly that upon getting married, a woman employee shall be deemed resigned 

or separated, or to actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman 

employee merely by reason of her marriage. 

131. What is the status of women working in nightclubs, massage clinics, and similar 

establishments? 

Any woman who is permitted or suffered to work, with or without compensation, in any 

night club, cocktail lounge, massage clinic, bar or similar establishments under the effective 

control or supervision of the employer for a substantial period of time as determined by the 

Secretary of Labor and Employment, shall be considered as an employee of such establishment 

for purposes of labor and social legislation. 

They are considered regular employees of said establishments except when the night club 

operator does not control nor direct the details and manner of their work in the entertainment of 

night club patrons and, having no fixed hours of work, they may come and go as they please. 

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN: 

132. What are the relevant terms defined in the law? 

(a) “Child” refers to any person under 18 years of age. 

(b) “Child labor” refers to any work or economic activity performed by a child that 

subjects him/her to any form of exploitation or is harmful to his/her health and safety 

or physical, mental or psychosocial development. 

(c) “Working Child” refers to any child engaged as follows: 

i. when the child is below eighteen (18) years of age, in work or economic 

activity that is not child labor as defined in the immediately preceding subparagraph, 

and 

ii. when the child below fifteen (15) years of age, (i) in work where he/she is 

directly under the responsibility of his/her parents or legal guardian and where 

only members of the child’s family are employed; or (ii)in public 

entertainment or information. 

(d) “Hours of work” include (1) all time during which a child is required to be at a 

prescribed workplace, and (2) all time during which a child is suffered or permitted to 

work. Rest periods of short duration during working hours shall be counted as hours 

worked. 

56


(e) “Workplace” refers to the office, premises or worksite where a child is temporarily or 

habitually assigned. Where there is no fixed or definite workplace, the term shall 

include the place where the child actually performs work to render service or to take an 

assignment, to include households employing children. 

(f) “Public entertainment or information” refers to artistic, literary, and cultural 

performances for television show, radio program, cinema or film, theater, commercial 

advertisement, public relations activities or campaigns, print materials, internet, and 

other media. 

(g) “Forced labor and slavery” refers to the extraction of work or services from any 

person by means of enticement, violence, intimidation or threat, use of force or 

coercion, including deprivation of freedom, abuse of authority or moral ascendancy, 

debt bondage or deception. 

(h) “Child pornography” refers to any representation of a child engaged in real or 

simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a child 

for primarily sexual purposes. 

133. What is the minimum employable age of children? 

Children below fifteen (15) years of age shall not be employed except: 

(1) When a child works directly under the sole responsibility of his/her parents or legal 

guardian and where only members of his/her family are employed: Provided, however, 

That his/her employment neither endangers his/her life, safety, health, and morals, nor 

impairs his/her normal development: Provided, further, That the parent or legal 

guardian shall provide the said child with the prescribed primary and/or secondary 

education; or 

(2) Where a child's employment or participation in public entertainment or information 

through cinema, theater, radio, television or other forms of media is essential: 

Provided, That the employment contract is concluded by the child's parents or legal 

guardian, with the express agreement of the child concerned, if possible, and the 

approval of the Department of Labor and Employment: Provided, further, That the 

following requirements in all instances are strictly complied with: 

(a) The employer shall ensure the protection, health, safety, morals and normal 

development of the child; 

(b) The employer shall institute measures to prevent the child's exploitation or 

discrimination taking into account the system and level of remuneration, and the 

duration and arrangement of working time; and 

(c) The employer shall formulate and implement, subject to the approval and 

supervision of competent authorities, a continuing program for training and skills 

acquisition of the child. 

In the above exceptional cases where any such child may be employed, the employer shall 

first secure, before engaging such child, a work permit from the Department of Labor and 

Employment which shall ensure observance of the above requirements. (Section 12, R.A. 

No. 7610, as amended by R. A. No. 9231, December 19, 2003). 

[NOTE: The term "child" shall apply to all persons under eighteen (18) years of age.] 

134. What is the working hours of a working child? 

(1) A child below fifteen (15) years of age may be allowed to work for not more than 

twenty (20) hours a week: Provided, That the work shall not be more than four (4) 

hours at any given day; 

57


(2) A child fifteen (15) years of age but below eighteen (18) shall not be allowed to work 

for more than eight (8) hours a day, and in no case beyond forty (40) hours a week; 

(3) No child below fifteen (15) years of age shall be allowed to work between eight 

o'clock in the evening and six o'clock in the morning of the following day and no child 

fifteen (15) years of age but below eighteen (18) shall be allowed to work between ten 

o'clock in the evening and six o'clock in the morning of the following day. (Section 

12-A, R.A. No. 7610, as amended by R. A. No. 9231, December 19, 2003). 

135. How is the working child’s income be used or administered? 

The wages, salaries, earnings and other income of the working child shall belong to 

him/her in ownership and shall be set aside primarily for his/her support, education or skills 

acquisition and secondarily to the collective needs of the family: Provided, That not more than 

twenty percent (20%) of the child's income may be used for the collective needs of the family. 

The income of the working child and/or the property acquired through the work of the 

child shall be administered by both parents. In the absence or incapacity of either of the parents, 

the other parent shall administer the same. In case both parents are absent or incapacitated, the 

order of preference on parental authority as provided for under the Family Code shall apply. 

(Section 12-B, R.A. No. 7610, as amended by R. A. No. 9231, December 19, 2003). 

Trust Fund to Preserve Part of the Working Child's Income. - The parent or legal 

guardian of a working child below eighteen (18) years of age shall set up a trust fund for at least 

thirty percent (30%) of the earnings of the child whose wages and salaries from work and other 

income amount to at least two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) annually, for which he/she 

shall render a semi-annual accounting of the fund to the Department of Labor and Employment, 

in compliance with the provisions of this Act. The child shall have full control over the trust fund 

upon reaching the age of majority. (Section 12-C, R.A. No. 7610, as amended by R. A. No. 9231, 

December 19, 2003). 

136. What is meant by “worst form of child labor” under R. A. No. 9231 (December 19, 2003)? 

No child shall be engaged in the worst forms of child labor. The phrase "worst forms of 

child labor" shall refer to any of the following: 

(1) All forms of slavery, as defined under the "Anti-trafficking in Persons Act of 2003", or 

practices similar to slavery such as sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and 

serfdom and forced or compulsory labor, including recruitment of children for use in 

armed conflict; or 

(2) The use, procuring, offering or exposing of a child for prostitution, for the production 

of pornography or for pornographic performances; or 

(3) The use, procuring or offering of a child for illegal or illicit activities, including the 

production and trafficking of dangerous drugs and volatile substances prohibited 

under existing laws; or 

(4) Work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is hazardous 

or likely to be harmful to the health, safety or morals of children, such that it: 

(a) Debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a 

human being; or 

(b) Exposes the child to physical, emotional or sexual abuse, or is found to be 

highly stressful psychologically or may prejudice morals; or 

58


(c) Is performed underground, underwater or at dangerous heights; or 

(d) Involves the use of dangerous machinery, equipment and tools such as powerdriven 

or explosive power-actuated tools; or 

(e) Exposes the child to physical danger such as, but not limited to the dangerous 

feats of balancing, physical strength or contortion, or which requires the manual 

transport of heavy loads; or 

(f) Is performed in an unhealthy environment exposing the child to hazardous 

working conditions, elements, substances, co-agents or processes involving 

ionizing, radiation, fire, flammable substances, noxious components and the 

like, or to extreme temperatures, noise levels, or vibrations; or 

(g) Is performed under particularly difficult conditions; or 

(h) Exposes the child to biological agents such as bacteria, fungi, viruses, 

protozoans, nematodes and other parasites; or 

(i) Involves the manufacture or handling of explosives and other pyrotechnic 

products. 

137. Who may file a complaint in case of unlawful acts committed against children? 

Complaints on cases of unlawful acts committed against children as enumerated herein 

may be filed by the following: 

(a) Offended party; 

(b) Parents or guardians; 

(c) Ascendant or collateral relative within the third degree of consanguinity; 

(d) Officer, social worker or representative of a licensed child-caring institution; 

(e) Officer or social worker of the Department of Social Welfare and Development; 

(f) Barangay chairman of the place where the violation occurred, where the child is 

residing or employed; or 

(g) At least three (3) concerned, responsible citizens where the violation occurred. 

138. Is the employment of children in advertisements prohibited? 

No child shall be employed as a model in any advertisement directly or indirectly 

promoting alcoholic beverages, intoxicating drinks, tobacco and its byproducts, gambling or any 

form of violence or pornography. (Section 14, R.A. No. 7610, as amended by R. A. No. 9231, 

December 19, 2003). 

EMPLOYMENT OF HOUSEHELPERS: 

139. Who is a “househelper” or “domestic servant”? 

“Househelper” or “domestic servant” shall refer to any person, whether male or female, 

who renders services in and about the employer’s home and which services are usually necessary 

or desirable for the maintenance and enjoyment thereof, and ministers exclusively to the personal 

comfort and enjoyment of the employer’s family. 

Household services include the services of family drivers, cooks, nursemaids or family 

servants, but not the services of laborers in a commercial or industrial enterprise. 

The original contract of domestic service shall not last for more than two (2) years but it 

may be mutually renewed for such periods by the parties. 

59


140. What should be paid by way of compensation to the househelper? 

The minimum wage rates of househelpers shall be the basic cash wages which shall be 

paid to the househelpers in addition to lodging, food and medical attendance. 

141. What is the time and manner of payment of wages? 

Wages shall be paid directly to the househelper to whom they are due at least once a 

month. No deductions therefrom shall be made by the employer unless authorized by the 

househelper himself or by existing laws. 

142. May a househelper be assigned to non-household work? 

No. Househelper shall be assigned to work in a commercial, industrial or agricultural 

enterprise at a wage or salary rate lower than that provided for agricultural or non-agricultural 

workers as prescribed herein. 

143. Is an employer obligated to provide a househelper the opportunity for education? 

If the househelper is under the age of eighteen (18) years, the employer shall give him or 

her an opportunity for at least elementary education. The cost of education shall be part of the 

househelper’s compensation, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary. 

144. Is an employer obligated to provide board and lodging to a househelper? 

The employer shall furnish the househelper, free of charge, suitable and sanitary living 

quarters as well as adequate food and medical attendance. 

145. How should a househelper be treated? 

A househelper should be treated in a just and humane manner and no physical violence 

should be inflicted on him. 

146. What is the indemnity for unjust termination of services of a househelper? 

If the period of household service is fixed, neither the employer nor the househelper may 

terminate the contract before the expiration of the term, except for a just cause. If the 

househelper is unjustly dismissed, he or she shall be paid the compensation already earned plus 

that for fifteen (15) days by way of indemnity. If the househelper leaves without justifiable 

reason, he or she shall forfeit any unpaid salary due him or her not exceeding fifteen (15) days. 

EMPLOYMENT OF HOMEWORKERS & FIELD PERSONNEL: 

147. Who is an “industrial homeworker”? 

An industrial homeworker is a worker who is engaged in industrial homework, a system 

of production under which work for an employer or contractor is carried out by a homeworker at 

his/her home. The materials may or may not be furnished by the employer or contractor. 

148. Who is a “field personnel”? 

A field personnel is a non-agricultural employee who regularly performs his duties away 

from the principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual hours of 

work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. 

THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS): 

149. Definition of terms under the SSS Law (R. A. No. 8282). 

(a) Employer- Any person, natural or juridical, domestic or foreign, who carries on in the 

Philippines any trade, business, industry, undertaking, or activity of any kind and uses 

the services of another person who is under his orders as regards the employment, 

60


except the Government and any of its political subdivisions, branches or 

instrumentalities, including corporations owned or controlled by the Government: 

Provided, That a self-employed person shall be both employee and employer at the 

same time. 

(b) Employee - Any person who performs services for an employer in which either or both 

mental or physical efforts are used and who receives compensation for such services, 

where there is an employer-employee relationship: Provided, That a self-employed 

person shall be both employee and employer at the same time. 

(c) Dependents - The dependents shall be the following: 

(1) The legal spouse entitled by law to receive support from the member; 

(2) The legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and illegitimate child who is 

unmarried, not gainfully employed, and has not reached twenty-one (21) years of 

age, or if over twenty-one (21) years of age, he is congenitally or while still a 

minor has been permanently incapacitated and incapable of self-support, 

physically or mentally; and 

(3) The parent who is receiving regular support from the member. 

(d) Compensation - All actual remuneration for employment, including the mandated 

cost-of-living allowance, as well as the cash value of any remuneration paid in any 

medium other than cash except that part of the remuneration in excess of the 

maximum salary credit as provided under Section Eighteen of this Act. 

(e) Monthly salary credit - The compensation base for contributions and benefits as 

indicated in the schedule in Section Eighteen of this Act. 

(f) Monthly - The period from one end of the last payroll period of the preceding month 

to the end of the last payroll period of the current month if compensation is on hourly, 

daily or weekly basis; if on any other basis, ‘monthly’ shall mean a period of one (1) 

month. 

(g) Contribution - The amount paid to the SSS by and on behalf of the members in 

accordance with Section Eighteen of this Act. 

(h) Employment - Any service performed by an employee for his employer except: 

(1) Employment purely casual and not for the purpose of occupation or business of 

the employer; 

(2) Service performed on or in connection with an alien vessel by an employee if he 

is employed when such vessel is outside the Philippines; 

(3) Service performed in the employ of the Philippine Government or instrumentality 

or agency thereof; 

(4) Service performed in the employ of a foreign government or international 

organization, or their wholly-owned instrumentality: Provided, however, That 

this exemption notwithstanding, any foreign government, international 

organization or their wholly-owned instrumentality employing workers in the 

Philippines or employing Filipinos outside of the Philippines, may enter into an 

agreement with the Philippine Government for the inclusion of such employees in 

the SSS except those already covered by their respective civil service retirement 

systems: Provided, further, That the terms of such agreement shall conform with 

the provisions of this Act on coverage and amount of payment of contributions 

and benefits: Provided, finally, That the provisions of this Act shall be 

supplementary to any such agreement; and 

(5) Such other services performed by temporary and other employees which may be 

excluded by regulation of the Commission. Employees of bona fide independent 

contractors shall not be deemed employees of the employer engaging the service 

of said contractors. 

(i) Beneficiaries - The dependent spouse until he or she remarries, the dependent 

legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and illegitimate children, who shall be the 

61


primary beneficiaries of the member: Provided, That the dependent illegitimate 

children shall be entitled to fifty percent (50%) of the share of the legitimate, 

legitimated or legally adopted children: Provided, further, That in the absence of the 

dependent legitimate, legitimated children of the member, his/her dependent 

illegitimate children shall be entitled to one hundred percent (100%) of the benefits. In 

their absence, the dependent parents who shall be the secondary beneficiaries of the 

member. In the absence of all the foregoing, any other person designated by the 

member as his/her secondary beneficiary. 

(j) Contingency - The retirement, death, disability, injury or sickness and maternity of the 

member. 

(k) Average monthly salary credit - The result obtained by dividing the sum of the last 

sixty (60) monthly salary credits immediately preceding the semester of contingency 

by sixty (60), or the result obtained by dividing the sum of all the monthly salary 

credits paid prior to the semester of contingency by the number of monthly 

contributions paid in the same period, whichever is greater: Provided, That the injury 

or sickness which caused the disability shall be deemed as the permanent disability for 

the purpose of computing the average monthly salary credit. 

(l) Average daily salary credit - The result obtained by dividing the sum of the six (6) 

highest monthly salary credits in the twelve-month period immediately preceding the 

semester of contingency by one hundred eighty (180). 

(m) Credited years of service - For a member covered prior to January nineteen hundred 

and eighty five (1985) minus the calendar year of coverage plus the number of 

calendar years in which six (6) or more contributions have been paid from January 

nineteen hundred and eighty five (1985) up to the calendar year containing the 

semester prior to the contingency. For a member covered in or after January nineteen 

hundred and eighty five (1985), the number of calendar years in which six (6) or more 

contributions have been paid from the year of coverage up to the calendar year 

containing the semester prior to the contingency: Provided, That the Commission may 

provide for a different number of contributions in a calendar year for it to be 

considered as a credited year of service. 

(n) Member - The worker who is covered under Section Nine and Section Nine-A of this 

Act. 

(o) Self-employed - Any person whose income is not derived from employment, as 

defined under this Act, as well as those workers enumerated in Section Nine-A hereof. 

(p) Net earnings - Net income before income taxes plus non-cash charges such as 

depreciation and depletion appearing in the regular financial statement of the issuing 

or assuming institution. 

150. Who are covered by the SSS? 

(a) Coverage in the SSS shall be compulsory upon all employees not over sixty (60) 

years of age and their employers: Provided, That in the case of domestic helpers, 

their monthly income shall not be less than One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) a month: 

Provided, further, That any benefit already earned by the employees under private 

benefit plans existing at the time of the approval of this Act shall not be discontinued, 

reduced or otherwise impaired: Provided, further, That private plans which are 

existing and in force at the time of compulsory coverage shall be integrated with the 

plan of the SSS in such a way where the employer’s contribution to his private plan is 

more than that required of him in this Act, he shall pay to the SSS only the 

contribution required of him and he shall continue his contribution to such private plan 

less his contribution to the SSS so that the employer’s total contribution to his benefit 

plan and to the SSS shall be the same as his contribution to his private benefit plan 

before the compulsory coverage: Provided, further, That any changes, adjustments, 

modifications, eliminations or improvements in the benefits to be available under the 

62


remaining private plan, which may be necessary to adopt by reason of the reduced 

contributions thereto as a result of the integration, shall be subject to agreements 

between the employers and employees concerned: Provided, further, That the private 

benefit plan which the employer shall continue for his employees shall remain under 

the employer’s management and control unless there is an existing agreement to the 

contrary: Provided, finally, That nothing in this Act shall be construed as a limitation 

on the right of employers and employees to agree on and adopt benefits which are 

over and above those provided under this Act. 

(b) Spouses who devote full time to managing the household and family affairs, unless 

they are also engaged in other vocation or employment which is subject to mandatory 

coverage, may be covered by the SSS on a voluntary basis. 

(c) Filipinos recruited by foreign-based employers for employment abroad may be 

covered by the SSS on a voluntary basis. 

151. Are self-employed persons covered? 

Coverage in the SSS shall also be compulsory upon such self-employed persons as may 

be determined by the Commission under such rules and regulations as it may prescribe, including 

but not limited to the following: 

1. All self-employed professionals; 

2. Partners and single proprietors of businesses; 

3. Actors and actresses, directors, scriptwriters and news correspondents who do not fall 

within the definition of the term "employee" in Section 8 (d) of this Act; 

4. Professional athletes, coaches, trainers and jockeys; and 

5. Individual farmers and fishermen. 

Unless otherwise specified in the law, all provisions of the SSS LAW applicable to 

covered employees shall also be applicable to the covered self-employed persons. 

152. When does coverage take effect? 

Compulsory coverage of the employer shall take effect on the first day of his operation 

and that of the employee on the day of his employment: Provided, That the compulsory 

coverage of the self-employed person shall take effect upon his registration with the SSS. 

153. What is the effect of separation from employment? 

When an employee under compulsory coverage is separated from employment, his 

employer’s contribution on his account and his obligation to pay contributions arising from that 

employment shall cease at the end of the month of separation, but said employee shall be 

credited with all contributions paid on his behalf and entitled to benefits according to the 

provisions of this Act. He may, however, continue to pay the total contributions to maintain his 

right to full benefit. 

154. What is the effect of interruption of business or professional income? 

If the self-employed realizes no income in any given month, he shall not be required to 

pay contributions for that month. He may, however, be allowed to continue paying contributions 

under the same rules and regulations applicable to a separated employee member: Provided, That 

no retroactive payment of contributions shall be allowed other than as prescribed under Section 

22-A of the SSS Law. 

155. What are the benefits under the SSS Law? 

(1) Monthly pension; (2) Dependents’ pension ;(3) Retirement benefits; (4) Death benefits; (5) 

Permanent disability benefits; (6) Funeral benefit; (7) Sickness benefit; (8) Maternity leave 

benefit. 

THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS): 

63


156. Definition of terms under the GSIS Law (R. A. No. 8291). 

(a) Employer- The national government, its political subdivisions, branches, agencies or 

instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and 

financial institutions with original charters, the constitutional commissions and the 

judiciary; 

(b) Employee or Member- Any person receiving compensation while in the service of an 

employer as defined herein, whether by election or appointment, irrespective of status 

of appointment, including barangay and Sanggunian officials; 

(c) Active Member- A member who is not separated from the service; 

(d) Dependents- Dependents shall be the following: (a) the legitimate spouse dependent 

for support upon the member or pensioner; (b) the legitimate, legitimated, legally 

adopted child, including the illegitimate child, who is unmarried, not gainfully 

employed, not over the age of majority, or is over the age of majority but incapacitated 

and incapable of self-support due to a mental or physical defect acquired prior to age 

of majority; and (c) the parents dependent upon the member for support; 

(e) Primary beneficiaries- The legal dependent spouse until he/she remarries and the 

dependent children; 

(f) Secondary beneficiaries- The dependent parents and, subject to the restrictions on 

dependent children, the legitimate descendants; 

(g) Compensation- The basic pay or salary received by an employee, pursuant to his 

election/appointment, excluding per diems, bonuses, overtime pay, honoraria, 

allowances and any other emoluments received in addition to the basic pay which are 

not integrated into the basic pay under existing laws; 

(h) Contribution- The amount payable to the GSIS by the member and the employer in 

accordance with Section 5 of this Act; 

(i) Current Daily Compensation- The actual daily compensation or the actual monthly 

compensation divided by the number of working days in the month of contingency but 

not to exceed twenty-two (22) days; 

(j) Average Monthly Compensation (AMC)- The quotient arrived at after dividing the 

aggregate compensation received by the member during his last thirty-six (36) months 

of service preceding his separation/retirement/ disability/death by thirty-six (36), or by 

the number of months he received such compensation if he has less than thirty-six (36) 

months of service: Provided, That the average monthly compensation shall in no case 

exceed the amount and rate as may be respectively set by the Board under the rules 

and regulations implementing this Act as determined by the actuary of the GSIS: 

Provided, further, That initially the average monthly compensation shall not exceed 

Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00), and premium shall be nine percent (9%) and twelve 

percent (12%) for employee and employer covering the AMC limit and below and two 

percent (2%) and twelve percent (12%) for employee and employer covering the 

compensation above the AMC limit; 

(k) Revalued average monthly compensation- An amount equal to one hundred seventy 

percent (170%) of the first One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) of the average monthly 

compensation plus one hundred percent (100%) of the average monthly compensation 

in excess of One thousand pesos (P1,000.00); 

(l) Lump sum- The basic monthly pension multiplied by sixty (60); 

(m) Pensioner- Any person receiving old-age permanent total disability pension or any 

person who has received the lump sum excluding one receiving survivorship pension 

benefits as defined in Section 20 of this Act; 

64


(n) Gainful Occupation- Any productive activity that provided the member with income 

at least equal to the minimum compensation of government employees; 

(o) Disability- Any loss or impairment of the normal functions of the physical and/or 

mental faculty of a member which reduces or eliminates his/her capacity to continue 

with his/her current gainful occupation or engage in any other gainful occupation; 

(p) Total Disability- Complete incapacity to continue with his present employment or 

engage in any gainful occupation due to the loss or impairment of the normal 

functions of the physical and/or mental faculties of the member; 

(q) Permanent Total Disability- Accrues or arises when recovery from the impairment 

mentioned in Section 2 (Q) is medically remote; 

(r) Temporary Total Disability- Accrues or arises when the impaired physical and/or 

mental faculties can be rehabilitated and/or restored to their normal functions; 

(s) Permanent Partial Disability- Accrues or arises upon the irrevocable loss or 

impairment of certain portion/s of the physical faculties, despite which the member is 

able to pursue a gainful occupation. 

157. Compulsory membership in the GSIS. 

Membership in the GSIS shall be compulsory for all employees receiving compensation 

who have not reached the compulsory retirement age, irrespective of employment status, except 

members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, subject to the 

condition that they must settle first their financial obligation with the GSIS, and contractuals who 

have no employer and employee relationship with the agencies they serve. 

Except for the members of the judiciary and constitutional commissions who shall have 

life insurance only, all members of the GSIS shall have life insurance, retirement, and all other 

social security protections such as disability, survivorship, separation, and unemployment 

benefits. 

158. Effect of Separation from the Service. 

A member separated from the service shall continue to be a member, and shall be entitled 

to whatever benefits he has qualified to in the event of any contingency compensable under this 

Act. 

159. Contributions. 

It shall be mandatory for the member and employer to pay the monthly contributions 

specified in the GSIS Law. 

160. GSIS benefits. 

Monthly Pension; Separation Benefits; Unemployment or Involuntary Separation Benefits; 

Retirement Benefits; Permanent Disability Benefits; Temporary Total Disability Benefits; 

Survivorship Benefits; Funeral Benefits; Compulsory Life Insurance Benefit; Optional Insurance 

and/or pre-need coverage embracing life, health, hospitalization, education, memorial plans, and 

such other plans as may be designed by the GSIS, for the member and/or his dependents. 

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM (R.A. 7875, as amended by R. A. 9241): 

161. Definition of Terms. 

(a) Beneficiary - Any person entitled to health care benefits under R. A. 7875. 

(b) Benefit Package - Services that the Program offers to its members. 

65


(c) Capitation - A payment mechanism where a fixed rate, whether per person, family, 

household or group, is negotiated with a health care provider who shall be responsible 

in delivering or arranging for the delivery of health services required by the covered 

person under the conditions of a health care provider contract. 

(d) Contribution - The amount paid by or in behalf of a member to the Program for 

coverage, based on salaries or wages in the case of formal sector employees, and on 

household earnings and assets, in the case of self-employed, or on other criteria as may 

be defined by the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (“Corporation”). 

(e) Coverage - The entitlement of an individual, as a member or as a dependent, to the 

benefits of the program. 

(f) Dependent - The legal dependents of a member are: 1) the legitimate spouse who is not 

a member; 2) the unmarried and unemployed legitimate, legitimated, illegitimate, 

acknowledged children as appearing in the birth certificate; legally adopted or stepchildren 

below twenty-one (21) years of age; 3) children who are twenty-one (21) years 

old and above but suffering from congenital disability, either physical or mental, or any 

disability acquired that renders them totally dependent on the member of our support; 4) 

the parents who are sixty (60) years old or above whose monthly income is below an 

amount to be determined by the Corporation in accordance with the guiding principles 

set forth in Article I of this Act. 

(g) Diagnostic Procedure - Any procedure to identify a disease or condition through 

analysis and examination. 

(h) Emergency - An unforeseen combination of circumstances which calls for immediate 

action to preserve the life of a person or to preserve the sight of one or both eyes; the 

hearing of one or both ears; or one or two limbs at or above the ankle or wrist. 

(i) Employee - Any person who performs services for an employer in which either or both 

mental and physical efforts are used and who receives compensation for such services, 

where there is an employer-employee relationship. 

(j) Employer - A natural or juridical person who employs the services of an employee. 

(k) Enrollment - The process to be determined by the Corporation in order to enlist 

individuals as members or dependents covered by the Program. 

(l) Fee for Service - A reasonable and equitable health care payment system under which 

physicians and other health care providers receive a payment that does not exceed their 

billed charge for each unit of service provided. 

(m) Global Budget - An approach to the purchase of medical services by which health care 

provider negotiations concerning the costs of providing a specific package of medical 

benefits is based solely on a predetermined and fixed budget. Purchase of medical 

services by which health care provider negotiations concerning the costs of providing a 

specific package of medical benefits is based solely on a predetermined and fixed 

budget. 

(n) Health Care Provider - Refers to: 

(1) a health care institution, which is duly licensed and accredited devoted primarily to 

the maintenance and operation of facilities for health promotion, prevention, 

diagnosis, injury, disability, or deformity, drug addiction or in need of obstetrical 

or other medical and nursing care. It shall also be construed as any institution, 

building, or place where there are installed beds, cribs, or bassinets for twenty-four 

hour use or longer by patients in the treatment of diseases, injuries, deformities, or 

abnormal physical and mental states, maternity cases or sanitarial care; or 

infirmaries, nurseries, dispensaries, rehabilitation centers and such other similar 

names by which they may be designated; or 

66


(2) a health care professional, who is any doctor of medicine, nurse, midwife, dentist, 

or other health care professional or practitioner duly licensed to practice in the 

Philippines and accredited by the Corporation; or 

(3) a health maintenance organization, which is entity that provides, offers, or arranges 

for coverage of designated health services needed by plan members for a fixed 

prepaid premium; or 

(4) a community-based health organization, which is an association of indigenous 

members of the community organized for the purpose of improving the health 

status of that community through preventive, promotive and curative health 

services. 

(o) Health Insurance Identification (ID) Card - The document issued by the Corporation to 

members and dependents upon their enrollment to serve as the instrument for proper 

identification, eligibility verification, and utilization recording. 

(p) Indigent - A person who has no visible means of income, or whose income is 

insufficient for the subsistence of his family, as identified by the Local Health Insurance 

Office and based on specific criteria set by the Corporation in accordance with the 

guiding principles set forth in Article I of this Act. 

(q) Inpatient Education Package - A set of informational services made available to an 

individual who is confined in a hospital to afford him with knowledge about his illness 

and its treatment, and of the means available, particularly lifestyle changes, to prevent 

the recurrence or aggravation of such illness and to promote his health in general. 

(r) Member - Any person whose premiums have been regularly paid to the National Health 

Insurance Program. He may be a paying member, or a pensioner/retiree member. 

(s) Means Test - A protocol administered at the barangay level to determine the ability of 

individuals or households to pay varying levels of contributions to the Program, ranging 

from the indigent in the community whose contributions should be totally subsidized by 

the government, to those who can afford to subsidize part but not all the required 

contributions for the Program. 

162. Who are covered by the Philhealth Program? 

All citizens of the Philippines shall be covered by the National Health Insurance 

Program. 

163. Benefit package. 

The following categories of personal health services granted to the member or his 

dependents as medically necessary or appropriate, shall include: 

(a) Inpatient hospital care: 

1) room and board; 

2) services of health care professionals; 

3) diagnostic, laboratory, and other medical examination services; 

4) use of surgical or medical equipment and facilities; 

5) prescription drugs and biologicals; subject to the limitations stated in Section 37 of 

this Act; 

6) inpatient education packages; 

(b) Outpatient care: 

1) services of health care professionals; 

2) diagnostic, laboratory, and other medical examination services; 

3) personal preventive services; and 

4) prescription drugs and biologicals, subject to the limitations described in Section 37 

of this Act; 

67


(c) Emergency and transfer services; and 

(d) Such other health care services that the Corporation shall determine to be 

appropriate and cost-effective.. 

164. Excluded personal health services. 

The benefits granted under the law shall not cover expenses for the services enumerated 

hereunder except when the Corporation, after actuarial studies, recommends their inclusion 

subject to the approval of the Board: 

(a) non-prescription drugs and devices; 

(b) alcohol abuse or dependency treatment; 

(c) cosmetic surgery; 

(d) optometric services; 

(e) fifth and subsequent normal obstetrical deliveries; and 

(f) cost-ineffective procedures, which shall be defined by the Corporation. 

Provided, That, such actuarial studies must be done within a period of three (3) years, and 

then periodically reviewed, to determine the financial sustainability of including the foregoing 

personal health services in the benefit package. 

165. Who are entitled to the benefits? 

A member whose premium contributions for at least three (3) months have been paid 

within six (6) months prior to the first day of his or his availment, shall be entitled to the benefits 

of the Program: Provided, That such member can show that he contributes thereto with sufficient 

regularity, as evidenced in his health insurance ID card: and Provided, further, That he is not 

currently subject to legal penalties as provided for in Section 44 of the law. 

166. Who are not required to pay monthly contributions to be entitled to the benefits? 

The following need not pay the monthly contributions to be entitled to the Program’s benefits: 

(a) Retirees and pensioners of the SSS and GSIS prior to the effectivity of R. A. 7875; 

(b) Members who reach the age of retirement as provided for by law and have paid at least 

one hundred twenty (120) contributions; and 

(c) Enrolled indigents. 

-END OF PART ONE- 

68

Labor laws of the philippines - Chan Robles and Associates Law Firm

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?