Title
Corporal, Sr. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 129315
Decision Date
Oct 2, 2000
Barbers and manicurists claimed illegal dismissal and unpaid benefits; Supreme Court ruled they were regular employees, not independent contractors, entitled to separation and 13th month pay.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 233846)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Employment Background
    • Petitioners: Osias I. Corporal, Sr., Pedro Tolentino, Manuel Caparas, Elpidio Lacap, Simplicio Pedelos (barbers) and Patricia Nas, Teresita Flores (manicurists) employed at New Look Barber Shop, Quiapo, Manila.
    • Private respondent: Lao Enteng Company, Inc. (incorporated January 1982, Trinidad Lao Ong as President) successor to Vicente Lao’s single proprietorship.
  • Termination of Services
    • Upon incorporation, the respondent company took over the assets and continued the barber shop business. Petitioners remained in service until April 15, 1995.
    • Petitioners were informed of shop closure due to sale of the building and serious business losses; their services were “no longer needed.”
  • Labor Proceedings
    • April 28, 1995: Petitioners filed with the NLRC complaint for illegal dismissal, separation pay, nonpayment of 13th month pay, salary differentials (only Nas), illegal deductions, and refund of P1.00 daily sweeper fee.
    • Labor Arbiter (Sept. 28, 1996): Dismissed complaint, finding a joint venture and no employer-employee relationship.
    • NLRC First Division (Oct. 17, 1996; Mar. 5, 1997): Affirmed dismissal, ruling petitioners were independent contractors.
    • Petitioners elevated to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

Issues:

  • Existence of Employer-Employee Relationship
    • Whether petitioners were independent contractors/joint-venture partners or employees of Lao Enteng Co., Inc. under the four-element and control tests.
  • Entitlement to Statutory Benefits
    • Whether petitioners are entitled to separation pay under Labor Code Article 283 for cessation of business.
    • Whether petitioners are entitled to 13th month pay under applicable law and guidelines.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.