Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 53 views

    #14 - Bautista vs. Inciong

    Uploaded by

    Kê Milan
    This case involved whether Reynaldo Bautista could be considered an employee of the Associated Labor Union (ALU), which is a labor union. The Supreme Court ruled that yes, he is an employee. It found that ALU selected and hired Bautista, paid his wages, had the power to dismiss him, and controlled his work. The key factor is the 'control test' - whether the employer controls the employee's work. This case established that a labor union can be considered an employer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    #14 - Bautista vs. Inciong

    Uploaded by

    Kê Milan
    53 views1 page
    This case involved whether Reynaldo Bautista could be considered an employee of the Associated Labor Union (ALU), which is a labor union. The Supreme Court ruled that yes, he is an employee. It found that ALU selected and hired Bautista, paid his wages, had the power to dismiss him, and controlled his work. The key factor is the 'control test' - whether the employer controls the employee's work. This case established that a labor union can be considered an employer.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    #14_bautista vs. inciong

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involved whether Reynaldo Bautista could be considered an employee of the Associated Labor Union (ALU), which is a labor union. The Supreme Court ruled that yes, he is an employee. It found that ALU selected and hired Bautista, paid his wages, had the power to dismiss him, and controlled his work. The key factor is the 'control test' - whether the employer controls the employee's work. This case established that a labor union can be considered an employer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    53 views1 page

    #14 - Bautista vs. Inciong

    Uploaded by

    Kê Milan
    This case involved whether Reynaldo Bautista could be considered an employee of the Associated Labor Union (ALU), which is a labor union. The Supreme Court ruled that yes, he is an employee. It found that ALU selected and hired Bautista, paid his wages, had the power to dismiss him, and controlled his work. The key factor is the 'control test' - whether the employer controls the employee's work. This case established that a labor union can be considered an employer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    RAQUEL CANDELARIA JD2B /+63917-717-5119

    CASE #14
    REYNALDO BAUTISTA vs. HON. AMADO C. INCIONG, No. L-52824, March 16, 1988

    ISSUE: Whether or not Bautista can be considered as employee of Associated Labor Union
    (ALU), considering that the latter is a labor union.

    SC RULING: Yes, he is an employee.

    RATIO: “The mere fact that the respondent is a labor union does not mean that it cannot be
    considered as employer of the persons who work for it. Much less should it be exempted
    from the very labor laws which it espouses as a labor organization. In the case at bar, he
    Regional director correctly found that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent
    union as reflected in the latter's individual payroll sheets and shown by the petitioner's
    membership with the Social Security System (SSS) and the respondent union's share of
    remittances in the petitioner's favor. Even more significant, is the respondent union's act
    of filing a clearance application with the MOL to terminate the petitioner's services.
    Bautista was selected and hired by the Union. He was paid wages by the Union. ALU had
    the power to dismiss him as indeed it dismissed him. And definitely, the Union tightly
    controlled the work of Bautista as one of its organizers. There is absolutely no factual or
    legal basis got deputy Minister Inciong's decision.”

    INSTRUCTION LEARNED: The following are generally considered in determination of the


    existence of an amployer-employee relationship: (a) the selection and engagement of the
    employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's
    power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work
    is to be accomplished. It is the so-called 'control test' that is the most important element
    -------------------------------------------oOo-----------------------------------------

    You might also like