Sara

vs.
Agarrado and NLRC
G.R. No. 73199 October 26, 1988
By Richard Troy A. Colmenares
USA College of Law
Start: 6/26/14 11:41:06 PM
Finish: 6/27/14 12:03:33 AM
Nature of the Case
A petition for certiorari challenging the jurisdiction of the labor tribunal, claim for unpaid commissions, and reimbursement of sums of money.

Facts
Agarrado was a former attendant in the clinic of Dr. Sara. Years later, Agarrado, Dr. Sara and Arabia entered into a verbal agreement for
Agarado to buy and sell palay, paid on commission for every sack mill rice sold and for every kilo of palay purchased. Agarrado was to
spend her own money to carry out the task, but may borrow money subject to reimbursement by petitioners. Later, private respondent filed a
complaint before the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch for unpaid commissions and reimbursements. Petitioners contend that the labor
arbiter had no jurisdiction on the premise that there was no employer-employee (E2e) relationship between the private parties so that claims
were cognizable by the regular courts. The labor arbiter ordered petitioner to pay all claims. On appeal, labor arbiters decision was affirmed.
Thus, this petition.

Issue(s)
(1). Does E2e relationship exist between the parties?

Held
(1). No.

In determining E2e, the four-fold test applis, to wit: [1] the selection and engagement of the employee; [2] the payment of wages; [3]
the power of dismissal; and [4] the power to control the employee's conduct. Indeed, the first requisite was present but the verbal
agreement negates the four others. Noticeably absent is the most important test, the power of control, for the means and methods
carried out by Agarrado were totally independent of the petitioners. Agarrado relied on her own resources to effectuate her
obligations. She was not subject to definite hours of work. She could delegate her responsibilities to others and at the same time
engage in other means of livelihood. It can only be said that Agarrado was an independent contractor. By virtue of which, Agarrado
is not an employee of the petitioners, and thus no E2e relationship exists between the parties. The absence of which therefore
deprives the labor arbiter of any jurisdiction.