19. APEX MINING CO., INC.

versus NLRC
FACTS:
Private respondent Sinclita Candida was employed by petitioner Apex Mining Company, Inc to
perform laundry services at its staff house.
n !ecember "#, "$#%, while she was attending to her assigned tas& and she was hanging her
laundry, she accidentally slipped and hit her bac& on a stone. As a result of the accident she was
not able to continue with her wor&. She was permitted to go on leave for medication.
!e la 'osa offered her the amount of P (,))).)) which was eventually increased to P*,))).)) to
persuade her to +uit her ,ob, but she refused the offer and preferred to return to wor&.
Petitioner did not allow her to return to wor& and dismissed her on -ebruary ., "$##.
Private respondent filed a re+uest for assistance with the !epartment of /abor and 0mployment,
which the latter rendered its !ecision by ordering the Apex Mining Co. to pay Candida the total
amount of P**,"1"..( for salary differential, emergency living allowance, "2th month pay
differential and separation pay.
Petitioner appealed the case before the 3/'C, which was subse+uently dismissed for lac& of
merit.
ISSUE:
4hether or not the private respondent should be treated as househelper or domestic servant or a
regular employee.
HELD:
5nder 'ule 6III, Section l7b8, 9oo& 2 of the /abor Code, as amended, the term :househelper: as
used herein is synonymous to the term :domestic servant: and 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 en,oyment thereof, and ministers
exclusively to the personal comfort and en,oyment of the employer;s family.
<he definition cannot be interpreted to include househelper or laundrywomen wor&ing in
staffhouses of a company, li&e private respondent who attends to the needs of the company;s
guest and other persons availing of said facilities.
<he mere fact that the househelper or domestic servant is wor&ing within the premises of the
business of the employer and in relation to or in connection with its business, as in its staffhouses
for its guest or even for its officers and employees, warrants the conclusion that such househelper
or domestic servant is and should be considered as a regular employee.
4=0'0-'0, the petition is !ISMISS0! and the appealed decision and resolution of public respondent
3/'C are hereby A--I'M0!. 3o pronouncement as to costs