Employer-employee relationship

G.R. No. 87098 November 4, 1996

G.R. No. 91307 January 24, 1991

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA (PHILIPPINES), INC vs.

NLRC, HON. LABOR ARBITER TEODORICO L. ROGELIO and BENJAMIN
LIMJOCO

SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY vs.

HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, MED-ARBITER FELIX B. CHAGUILE, JR., and
SINGER MACHINE COLLECTORS UNION-BAGUIO (SIMACUB)
- collectors
The present case mainly calls for the application of the control test, which if not
satisfied, would lead us to conclude that no employer-employee relationship exists.
Hence, if the union members are not employees, no right to organize for purposes of
bargaining, nor to be certified as such bargaining agent can ever be recognized. The
following elements are generally considered in the determination of the employeremployee relationship; "(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 although the latter is the most important element"
The court finds that since private respondents are not employees of the company,
they are not entitled tothe constitutional right to form or join a labor organization for
the purposes of collective bargaining. There isno constitutional and legal basis for
their union to be granted their petition for direct certification

G.R. No. 64948 September 27, 1994

MANILA GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and FERMIN LLAMAR
- caddy
In the case before the SSC, the respondent Club filed answer praying for the
dismissal of the petition, alleging in substance that the petitioners, caddies by
occupation, were allowed into the Club premises to render services as such to the
individual members and guests playing the Club's golf course and who themselves
paid for such services; that as such caddies, the petitioners were not subject to the
direction and control of the Club as regards the manner in which they performed their
work; and hence, they were not the Club's employees.
- payment of wages and control test absent

- independent dealer
"the element of control is absent; where a person who works for another does so
more or less at his own pleasure and is not subject to definite hours or conditions of
work, and in turn is compensated according to the result of his efforts and not the
amount thereof, we should not find that the relationship of employer and employee
7
exists. In fine, there is nothing in the records to show or would "indicate that
complainant was under the control of the petitioner" in respect of the means and
8
methods in the performance of complainant's work.
he is free to conduct his work, and free to engage in other means of
livelihood
independent dealer, president of the bank

G.R. No. 118086 December 15, 1997

SUSAN G. CARUNGCONG vs.
NLRC, SUN LIFE ASSURANCE CO. OF CANADA, LANCE KEMP and MERTON
DEVEZA
- sun life agent
Moreover, it is true that complainant Carungcong's duties and functions derived from
her then existing agreements/contracts were made subject to rules and regulations
issued by respondent company, and for that matter, have likewise been made subject
of certain limitations imposed by said respondent company. Nonetheless, these are
not sufficient to accord the effect of establishing employer-employee relationship
absent in this case. This is so because the insurance business is not just any other
ordinary business. It is one that is imbued with public interest hence, it must be
governed by the rules and regulations of the state. The controls adverted to by
complainant are latent in the kind of business she is into and are mainly aimed at
promoting the results the parties so desire and do not necessarily create any
employer-employee relationships, where the employers' controls have to interfere in
the methods and means by which the employee would like to employ to arrive at the
desired results

- The contracts she had willingly and knowingly signed with Sun Life repeatedly and
clearly provided that said agreements were terminable by either party by written
notice with or without cause.
- Noteworthy is that this last agreement, it was emphasized, like the "Career Agent's
(or Unit Manager's) Agreement" first signed by her, that in the performance of her
duties defined herein. Carungcong would be considered an independent contractor
and not . . an employee of Sun Life," and that "(u)nder no circumstance shall the New
Business Manager and/or his employees be considered employees of Sun Life."

G.R. No. 138051

June 10, 2004

JOSE Y. SONZA vs.

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
- host
There was no employer-employee relationship that existed, but that of an
independent contractor.
Case law has consistently held that the elements of an employer-employee
relationship are:
(a) The selection and engagement of the employee - ABS-CBN engaged
SONZAs services to co-host its television and radio programs because of
SONZAs peculiar skills, talent and celebrity status. 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.
(b) The payment of wages - ABS-CBN directly paid SONZA his monthly talent
fees with no part of his fees going to MJMDC. All the talent fees and benefits
paid to SONZA were the result of negotiations that led to the Agreement. If
SONZA were ABS-CBNs employee, there would be no need for the parties to
stipulate on benefits such as "SSS, Medicare, x x x and 13th month pay" which
the law automatically incorporates into every employer-employee contract.
(c) The power of dismissal - For violation of any provision of the Agreement,
either party may terminate their relationship. During the life of the Agreement,
ABS-CBN agreed to pay SONZAs talent fees as long as "AGENT and Jay
Sonza shall faithfully and completely perform each condition of this Agreement."
Even if it suffered severe business losses, ABS-CBN could not retrench SONZA
because ABS-CBN remained obligated to pay SONZAs talent fees during the
life of the Agreement.

(d) The employers power to control the employee on the means and methods
by which the work is accomplished - The control test is the most important
test. 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, ABS-CBN engaged SONZAs services specifically to co-host 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-CBNs
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 SONZAs 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.
Second, 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.
Lastly, 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 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.

G.R. No. 164156

September 26, 2006

G.R. No. 138254

July 30, 2004

ABS-CBN vs. NAZARENO et al

LAZARO, Proprietor of Royal Star Marketing vs. SSS, Laudato & CA

- production assistant
Respondents are considered regular employees of ABS-CBN and are entitled to the
benefits granted to all regular employees.
The employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondents has been
proven by the ff:

- sales supervisor of the sales agents

First. In the selection and engagement of respondents, no peculiar or unique

skill, talent or celebrity status was required from them because they were
merely hired through petitioners personnel department just like any ordinary
employee.
Second. The so-called talent fees of respondents correspond to wages
given as a result of an employer-employee relationship. Respondents did not
have the power to bargain for huge talent fees, a circumstance negating
independent contractual relationship.
Third. Petitioner could always discharge respondents should it find their work
unsatisfactory, and respondents are highly dependent on the petitioner for
continued work.
Fourth. The degree of control and supervision exercised by petitioner over
respondents through its supervisors negates the allegation that respondents
are independent contractors.
The presumption is that when the work done is an integral part of the regular
business of the employer and when the worker, relative to the employer, does
not furnish an independent business or professional service, such work is a
regular employment of such employee and not an independent contractor.

Laudato is an employee of Royal Star and as such is entitled to the coverage of

Social Security Law.
It is an accepted doctrine that for the purposes of coverage under the Social Security
Act, the determination of employer-employee relationship warrants the application of
the control test, that is, whether the employer controls or has reserved the right to
control the employee, not only as to the result of the work done, but also as to the
means and methods by which the same is accomplished.
The fact that Laudato was paid by way of commission does not preclude the
establishment of an employer-employee relationship. In Grepalife v. Judico, the
Court upheld the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the
insurance company and its agents, despite the fact that the compensation that the
agents on commission received was not paid by the company but by the investor or
the person insured. The relevant factor remains, as stated earlier, whether the
"employer" controls or has reserved the right to control the "employee" not only as to
the result of the work to be done but also as to the means and methods by which the
same is to be accomplished. It should also be emphasized that the SSC, also as
upheld by the Court of Appeals, found that Laudato was a sales supervisor and not a
mere agent. As such, Laudato oversaw and supervised the sales agents of the
company, and thus was subject to the control of management as to how she
implements its policies and its end results.
The finding of the SSC that Laudato was an employee of Royal Star is supported by
substantial evidence. The SSC examined the cash vouchers issued by Royal Star to
Laudato, calling cards of Royal Star denominating Laudato as a Sales Supervisor of
the company, and Certificates of Appreciation issued by Royal Star to Laudato in
recognition of her unselfish and loyal efforts in promoting the company.
A piece of documentary evidence appreciated by the SSC is Memorandum dated 3
May 1980 of Teresita Lazaro, General Manager of Royal Star, directing that no
commissions were to be given on all main office sales from walk-in customers and
enjoining salesmen and sales supervisors to observe this new policy. The
Memorandum evinces the fact that Royal Star exercised control over its sales
supervisors or agents such as Laudato as to the means and methods through which
these personnel performed their work.

G.R. No. 170087 August 31, 2006

FRANCISCO vs. NLRC
- petitioner was hired by Kasei Corporation during its incorporation stage. She was
designated as Accountant and Corporate Secretary
Petitioner is an employee of Kasei Corporation.
The court held that in this jurisdiction, there has been no uniform test to determine
the existence of an employer-employee relation. Generally, courts have relied on the
so-called right of control test where the person for whom the services are performed
reserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be
used in reaching such end. In addition to the standard of right-of-control, the existing
economic conditions prevailing between the parties, like the inclusion of the
employee in the payrolls, can help in determining the existence of an employeremployee relationship.
The better approach would therefore be to adopt a two-tiered test involving:
(1) Control test the putative employers power to control the employee with
respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished;
and
(2) Economic reality test a the underlying economic realities of the activity or
relationship.
Thus, the determination of the relationship between employer and employee
depends upon the circumstances of the whole economic activity, such as:
(1) the extent to which the services performed are an integral part of the employers
business;
(2) the extent of the workers investment in equipment and facilities;
(3) the nature and degree of control exercised by the employer;
(4) the workers opportunity for profit and loss;
(5) the amount of initiative, skill, judgment or foresight required for the success of the
claimed independent enterprise;
(6) the permanency and duration of the relationship between the worker and the
employer; and
(7) the degree of dependency of the worker upon the employer for his continued
employment in that line of business. The proper standard of economic dependence is
whether the worker is dependent on the alleged employer for his continued
employment in that line of business.

By applying the control test, there is no doubt that petitioner is an employee of Kasei
Corporation because she was under the direct control and supervision of Seiji
Kamura, the corporations Technical Consultant. It is therefore apparent that
petitioner is economically dependent on respondent corporation for her continued
employment in the latters line of business.
There can be no other conclusion that petitioner is an employee of respondent Kasei
Corporation. She was selected and engaged by the company for compensation, and
is economically dependent upon respondent for her continued employment in that
line of business. Her main job function involved accounting and tax services
rendered to Respondent Corporation on a regular basis over an indefinite period of
engagement.
Respondent Corporation hired and engaged petitioner for
compensation, with the power to dismiss her for cause. More importantly,
Respondent Corporation had the power to control petitioner with the means and
methods by which the work is to be accomplished.

G.R. No. 157214

June 7, 2005

PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC vs. DE VERA

- respondent company physician
The SC has pronounced that a physician engaged under a retainer contract renewed
yearly by the parties is not an employee. the records are replete with evidence
19
showing that respondent had to bill petitioner for his monthly professional fees. It
simply runs against the grain of common experience to imagine that an ordinary
employee has yet to bill his employer to receive his salary. Finally, remarkably absent
from the parties arrangement is the element of control, whereby the employer has
reserved the right to control the employee not only as to the result of the work done
but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished.
Here, petitioner had no control over the means and methods by which respondent
went about performing his work at the company premises. He could even embark in
the private practice of his profession, not to mention the fact that respondents work
hours and the additional compensation therefor were negotiated upon by the
22
parties. In fine, the parties themselves practically agreed on every terms and
conditions of respondents engagement, which thereby negates the element of
control in their relationship. For sure, respondent has never cited even a single
instance when petitioner interfered with his work.

G.R. No. 146881

February 5, 2007

COCA COLA BOTTLERS vs. DR. CLIMACO

- respondent- company physician
- the same issue if whether employment relationship exists between petitioner and
respondent under a Retainership Agreement was resolved. In holding that there was
none, the High Court used the four-fold test and concluded that petitioner company
lacked the power of control over the performance by respondent of his duties. The
Comprehensive Medical Plan, which contains the respondents objectives, duties and
obligations, does not tell respondent how to conduct his physical examination, how
to immunize, or how to diagnose and treat his patients, employees of petitioner
Company. In effect, the petitioner company, through the said Comprehensive Medical
Plan, provided guidelines merely to ensure that the end result was achieved, but did
not control the means and methods by which respondent performed this assigned
tasks. In addition, the schedule of work and the requirement to be on call for
emergency cases do not amount to such control but are necessary incidents to the
Retainership Agreement. Moreover, the Retainership Agreement granted to both
parties the power to terminate their relationship upon giving a 30-day notice. Hence,
petitioner company did not wield the sole power of dismissal or termination

G.R. No. 124354

April 11, 2002

RAMOS vs. CA, DE LOS SANTOS MEDICAL CENTER, DR. HOSAKA and DR.
GUTIERREZ
- kato ning namatay na asawa kay dugay na operahan 9 ang schedule niabot 12
No employer-employee between the doctors and hospital.
Private Hospitals hire, fire and exercise real control over their attending and
visiting consultant staff. While consultants are not technically employees, the
control exercised, the hiring and the right to terminate consultants fulfill the
hallmarks of an employer-employee relationship with the exception of payment
of wages. The control test is determining.
The hospital does not hire consultants but it accredits and grants him the
privilege of maintaining a clinic and/or admitting patients. It is the patient who
pays the consultants. The hospital cannot dismiss the consultant but he may
lose his privileges granted by the hospital. The hospitals obligation is limited to

providing the patient with the preferred room accommodation and other things
that will ensure that the doctors orders are carried out.
The court finds that there is no employer-employee relationship between the
doctors and the hospital.

G.R. No. 142625

December 19, 2006

NOGALES vs. CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER, ESTRADA, et al

- respondent doctor to petitioner OB GYN
- doctrine of apparent authority
CMC is vicariously liable.
In Ramos v. Court of Appeals, Court had the occasion to determine the relationship
between a hospital and a consultant or visiting physician and the liability of such
hospital for that physician's negligence:
While "consultants" are not, technically employees, a point which respondent
hospital asserts in denying all responsibility for the patient's condition, the
control exercised, the hiring, and the right to terminate consultants all fulfill
the important hallmarks of an employer-employee relationship, with the
exception of the payment of wages. In assessing whether such a relationship
in fact exists, the control test is determining. Accordingly, on the basis of the
foregoing, we rule that for the purpose of allocating responsibility in medical
negligence cases, an employer-employee relationship in effect exists
between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians.
While the Court in Ramos did not expound on the control test, such test essentially
determines whether an employment relationship exists between a physician and a
hospital based on the exercise of control over the physician as to details. Specifically,
the employer (or the hospital) must have the right to control both the means and the
details of the process by which the employee (or the physician) is to accomplish his
task
In the present case, the Court finds no single evidence pointing to CMC's exercise of
control over Dr. Estrada's treatment and management of Corazon's condition. It is
undisputed that throughout Corazon's pregnancy, she was under the exclusive
prenatal care of Dr. Estrada. At the time of Corazon's admission at CMC and during
her delivery, it was Dr. Estrada, assisted by Dr. Villaflor, who attended to Corazon.

There was no showing that CMC had a part in diagnosing Corazon's condition. While
Dr. Estrada enjoyed staff privileges at CMC, such fact alone did not make him an
employee of CMC. CMC merely allowed Dr. Estrada to use its facilities when Corazon
was about to give birth, which CMC considered an emergency. Considering these
circumstances, Dr. Estrada is not an employee of CMC, but an independent
contractor.
In general, a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractorphysician. There is, however, an exception to this principle. The hospital may be
liable if the physician is the "ostensible" agent of the hospital. This exception is also
known as the "doctrine of apparent authority." In Gilbert v. Sycamore Municipal
Hospital, the Illinois Supreme Court explained the doctrine of apparent authority in
this wise:
Under the doctrine of apparent authority a hospital can be held vicariously
liable for the negligent acts of a physician providing care at the hospital,
regardless of whether the physician is an independent contractor, unless the
patient knows, or should have known, that the physician is an independent
contractor. The elements of the action have been set out as follows:
"For a hospital to be liable under the doctrine of apparent authority, a
plaintiff must show that:
(1) the hospital, or its agent, acted in a manner that would lead a reasonable
person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was
an employee or agent of the hospital;
(2) where the acts of the agent create the appearance of authority, the
plaintiff must also prove that the hospital had knowledge of and acquiesced
in them; and
(3) the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its agent,
consistent with ordinary care and prudence."
The element of "holding out" on the part of the hospital does not require an
express representation by the hospital that the person alleged to be negligent
is an employee. Rather, the element is satisfied if the hospital holds itself out
as a provider of emergency room care without informing the patient that the
care is provided by independent contractors.
The doctrine of apparent authority essentially involves two factors to
determine the liability of an independent-contractor physician.
The first factor focuses on the hospital's manifestations and is sometimes
described as an inquiry whether the hospital acted in a manner which would lead a
reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent

was an employee or agent of the hospital. In this regard, the hospital need not
make express representations to the patient that the treating physician is an
employee of the hospital; rather a representation may be general and implied.
In the instant case, CMC impliedly held out Dr. Estrada as a member of its medical
staff. Through CMC's acts, CMC clothed Dr. Estrada with apparent authority thereby
leading the Spouses Nogales to believe that Dr. Estrada was an employee or agent
of CMC. CMC cannot now repudiate such authority.
The second factor focuses on the patient's reliance. It is sometimes
characterized as an inquiry on whether the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the
conduct of the hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary care and prudence.
The records show that the Spouses Nogales relied upon a perceived employment
relationship with CMC in accepting Dr. Estrada's services. Rogelio testified that he
and his wife specifically chose Dr. Estrada to handle Corazon's delivery not only
because of their friend's recommendation, but more importantly because of Dr.
Estrada's "connection with a reputable hospital, the [CMC]." In other words, Dr.
Estrada's relationship with CMC played a significant role in the Spouses Nogales'
decision in accepting Dr. Estrada's services as the obstetrician-gynecologist for
Corazon's delivery. Moreover, as earlier stated, there is no showing that before and
during Corazon's confinement at CMC, the Spouses Nogales knew or should have
known that Dr. Estrada was not an employee of CMC.
Even simple negligence is not subject to blanket release in favor of establishments
like hospitals but may only mitigate liability depending on the circumstances. When a
person needing urgent medical attention rushes to a hospital, he cannot bargain on
equal footing with the hospital on the terms of admission and operation. Such a
person is literally at the mercy of the hospital. There can be no clearer example of a
contract of adhesion than one arising from such a dire situation. Thus, the release
forms of CMC cannot relieve CMC from liability for the negligent medical treatment of
Corazon.

G.R. No. 176484

November 25, 2008

CALAMBA MEDICAL CENTER vs. NLRC

petitioner or its medical director, no operations can be undertaken in those areas. For
control test to apply, it is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the
performance of duties of the employee, it being enough that it has the right to wield
the power.

- spouses resident physician to the hospital

- operation should be with approval sa medical director
Drs. Lanzanas are declared employee by the petitioner hospital.

G.R. No. 155731

Under the "control test," an employment relationship exists between a physician

and a hospital if the hospital controls both the means and the details of the process
by which the physician is to accomplish his task.

LOPEZ vs. BODEGA CITY

That petitioner exercised control over respondents gains light from the undisputed
fact that in the emergency room, the operating room, or any department or ward for
that matter, respondents' work is monitored through its nursing supervisors, charge
nurses and orderlies. Without the approval or consent of petitioner or its medical
director, no operations can be undertaken in those areas. For control test to apply, it
is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of
the employee, it being enough that it has the right to wield the power.

Payment of wages
She presented a petty cash voucher showing that she received an allowance for five
(5) days.
However, this solitary petty cash voucher did not prove that she had been receiving
salary from respondents or that she had been respondents' employee for 10 years. If
she was really an employee of respondents for that length of time, she should have
been able to present salary vouchers or pay slips and not just a single petty cash
voucher.

With respect to respondents' sharing in some hospital fees, this scheme does not
sever the employment tie between them and petitioner as this merely mirrors
additional form or another form of compensation or incentive similar to what
commission-based employees receive as contemplated in Article 97 (f) of the Labor
Code.
Moreover, respondents were made subject to petitioner-hospital's Code of Ethics, the
provisions of which cover administrative and disciplinary measures on negligence of
duties, personnel conduct and behavior, and offenses against persons, property and
the hospital's interest.
More importantly, petitioner itself provided incontrovertible proof of the employment
status of respondents, namely, the identification cards it issued them, the
payslips and BIR W-2 (now 2316) Forms which reflect their status as employees, and
the classification as "salary" of their remuneration. Moreover, it enrolled respondents
in the SSS and Medicare (Philhealth) program. It bears noting at this juncture that
mandatory coverage under the SSS Law is premised on the existence of an
employer-employee relationship, except in cases of compulsory coverage of the selfemployed.
------That petitioner exercised control over respondents gains light from the
undisputed fact that in the emergency room, the operating room, or any department
or ward for that matter, respondents' work is monitored through its nursing
supervisors, charge nurses and orderlies. Without the approval or consent of

September 3, 2007

- lady keeper

Lastly, the Court finds that the elements of selection and engagement as well as the
power of dismissal are not present in the instant case.

G.R. No. 196426

August 15, 2011

SEMBLANTE vs. CA
- masiador
- no element of control

As found by both the NLRC and the CA, respondents had no part in petitioners
selection and management; petitioners compensation was paid out of the arriba
(which is a percentage deducted from the total bets), not by petitioners; and
petitioners performed their functions as masiador and sentenciador free from the
direction and control of respondents. In the conduct of their work, petitioners relied
mainly on their "expertise that is characteristic of the cockfight gambling," and were
never given by respondents any tool needed for the performance of their work.

G.R. No. 178827

March 4, 2009

G.R. No. 179428

January 26, 2011

ESCASINAS vs. SHANGRI-LA'S MACTAN ISLAND RESORT

CAONG vs. REGUALOS.

- petitioner nurse hired by Dr Pepito under Retainership Agreement of Shangri-la

- jeepney drivers

- Art 280 presupposes the existence of er-ee relationship

- there is er-ee relationship

The term "full-time" in Art. 157 cannot be construed as referring to the type of
employment of the person engaged to provide the services, for Article 157 must not
9
be read alongside Art. 280 in order to vest employer-employee relationship on the
employer and the person so engaged. So De Vera teaches:

Under a boundary scheme, the driver remits the "boundary," which is a fixed amount,
to the owner/operator and gets to earn the amount in excess thereof. Thus, on a day
when there are many passengers along the route, it is the driver who actually
benefits from it. It would be unfair then if, during the times when passengers are
scarce, the owner/operator will be made to suffer by not getting the full amount of the
boundary. Unless clearly shown or explained by an event that irregularly and
negatively affected the usual number of passengers within the route, the scarcity of
passengers should not excuse the driver from paying the full amount of the
boundary.

x x x For, we take it that any agreement may provide that one party shall render
services for and in behalf of another, no matter how necessary for the latters
business, even without being hired as an employee. This set-up is precisely true in
the case of an independent contractorship as well as in an agency agreement.
Indeed, Article 280 of the Labor Code, quoted by the appellate court, is not the
yardstick for determining the existence of an employment relationship. As it is, the
provision merely distinguishes between two (2) kinds of employees, i.e., regular and
10
casual. x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

G.R. No. 169510

August 8, 2011

ATOK BIG WEDGE COMPANY vs. GISON

G.R. No. 167622

January 25, 2011

TONGKO vs. MANUFACTURERS

- petitioner is insurance agent
No employer-employee relationship
In the case at bar, the absence of evidence showing Manulifes control over Tongkos
contractual duties points to the absence of any employer-employee relationship
between Tongko and Manulife. In the context of the established evidence, Tongko
remained an agent all along; although his subsequent duties made him a lead agent
with leadership role, he was nevertheless only an agent whose basic contract yields
no evidence of means-and-manner control. Claimant clearly failed to substantiate his
claim of employment relationship by the quantum of evidence the Labor Code
requires. Tongkos failure to comply with the guidelines of de Dios letter, as a ground
for termination of Tongkos agency, is a matter that the labor tribunals cannot rule
upon in the absence of an employer-employee relationship. Jurisdiction over the
matter belongs to the courts applying the laws of insurance, agency and contracts.

- respondent Gison was engaged as part-time consultant on retainer basis by

petitioner Atok through its then Asst. Vice-President and Acting Resident Manager,
Torres
Applying the aforementioned test, an employer-employee relationship is apparently
absent in the case at bar. Among other things, respondent was not required to report
everyday during regular office hours of petitioner. Respondent's monthly retainer fees
were paid to him either at his residence or a local restaurant. More importantly,
petitioner did not prescribe the manner in which respondent would accomplish any of
the tasks in which his expertise as a liaison officer was needed; respondent was left
alone and given the freedom to accomplish the tasks using his own means and
method. Respondent was assigned tasks to perform, but petitioner did not control the
manner and methods by which respondent performed these tasks. Verily, the
absence of the element of control on the part of the petitioner engenders a
conclusion that he is not an employee of the petitioner.
Hence, respondent's length of service and petitioner's repeated act of assigning
respondent some tasks to be performed did not result to respondent's entitlement to
the rights and privileges of a regular employee.
Furthermore, despite the fact that petitioner made use of the services of respondent
for eleven years, he still cannot be considered as a regular employee of petitioner.

Article 280 of the Labor Code, in which the lower court used to buttress its findings
that respondent became a regular employee of the petitioner, is not applicable in the
case at bar. Indeed, the Court has ruled that said provision is not the yardstick for
determining the existence of an employment relationship because it merely
distinguishes between two kinds of employees, i.e., regular employees and casual
employees, for purposes of determining the right of an employee to certain benefits,
to join or form a union, or to security of tenure; it does not apply where the existence
of an employment relationship is in dispute.[24] It is, therefore, erroneous on the part
of the Court of Appeals to rely on Article 280 in determining whether an employeremployee relationship exists between respondent and the petitioner.
Considering that there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties, the
termination of respondent's services by the petitioner after due notice did not
constitute illegal dismissal warranting his reinstatement and the payment of full
backwages, allowances and other benefits.

G.R. No. 169757

November 23, 2011

LIRIO, doing business under the name and style of CELKOR AD SONICMIX
vs.GENOVIA
- respondent hired as studio manager by petitioner
Petitioner wielded the power to dismiss as respondent stated that he was verbally
dismissed by petitioner, and respondent, thereafter, filed an action for illegal
dismissal against petitioner. The power of control refers merely to the existence of
33
the power. It is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance
of duties of the employee, as it is sufficient that the former has a right to wield the
34
power. Nevertheless, petitioner stated in his Position Paper that it was agreed that
he would help and teach respondent how to use the studio equipment. In such case,
petitioner certainly had the power to check on the progress and work of respondent.
On the other hand, petitioner failed to prove that his relationship with respondent was
one of partnership

G.R. No. 192084

September 14, 2011

BERNARTE vs. PBA, EALA, and MARTINEZ

Based on the foregoing, the Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the evidence
presented by the parties showed that an employer-employee relationship existed
between petitioner and respondent.

- petitioner - basketball referree

We agree with respondents that once in the playing court, the referees exercise their
own independent judgment, based on the rules of the game, as to when and how a
call or decision is to be made. The referees decide whether an infraction was
committed, and the PBA cannot overrule them once the decision is made on the
playing court. The referees are the only, absolute, and final authority on the playing
court. Respondents or any of the PBA officers cannot and do not determine which
calls to make or not to make and cannot control the referee when he blows the
whistle because such authority exclusively belongs to the referees. The very nature
of petitioners job of officiating a professional basketball game undoubtedly calls for
freedom of control by respondents.
In other words, unlike regular employees who ordinarily report for work eight hours
per day for five days a week, petitioner is required to report for work only when PBA
games are scheduled or three times a week at two hours per game. In addition, there
are no deductions for contributions to the Social Security System, Philhealth or PagIbig, which are the usual deductions from employees salaries. These undisputed
circumstances buttress the fact that petitioner is an independent contractor, and not
an employee of respondents.

G.R. No. 163700

April 18, 2012

JAO vs.BCC PRODUCTS SALES INC., and TY

- respondents countered that petitioner was not their employee in BCC but the
employee of Sobien Food Corporation (SFC), the major creditor and supplier of BCC;
and that SFC had posted him as its comptroller in BCC to oversee BCCs finances
and business operations and to look after SFCs interests or investments in BCC
- there is er-ee relationship

G.R. No. 153511

July 18, 2012

LEGEND HOTEL (MANILA) vs. REALUYO

- respondent pianist hotel
- employer-employee relationship exist
Respondent averred that he had worked as a pianist at the Legend Hotels Tanglaw
Restaurant from September 1992 with an initial rate of P400.00/night that was given
to him after each nights performance; that his rate had increased to P750.00/night;
and that during his employment, he could not choose the time of performance, which
had been fixed from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm for three to six times/week. He added that
the Legend Hotels restaurant manager had required him to conform with the venues
motif; that he had been subjected to the rules on employees representation checks
and chits, a privilege granted to other employees; that on July 9, 1999, the
management had notified him that as a cost-cutting measure his services as a pianist
would no longer be required effective July 30, 1999; that he disputed the excuse,
insisting that Legend Hotel had been lucratively operating as of the filing of his
2
complaint; and that the loss of his employment made him bring his complaint.

G.R. No. 118506 April 18, 1997

MABEZA vs. NLRC
- hotel employee
Granting that meals and lodging were provided and indeed constituted facilities, such
facilities could not be deducted without the employer complying first with certain legal
requirements. Without satisfying these requirements, the employer simply cannot
deduct the value from the employee's ages.
First, proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade.
Second, the provision of deductible facilities must be voluntarily accepted in writing
by the employee. Finally, facilities must be charged at fair and reasonable value.
These requirements were not met in the instant case. Private respondent "failed to
present any company policy or guideline to show that the meal and lodging . . . (are)
28
part of the salary;" he failed to provide proof of the employee's written
authorization; and, he failed to show how he arrived at the valuations.
Curiously, in the case at bench, the only valuations relied upon by the labor arbiter in
his decision were figures furnished by the private respondent's own accountant,

without corroborative evidence. On the pretext that records prior to the July 16, 1990
earthquake were lost or destroyed, respondent failed to produce payroll records,
receipts and other relevant documents, where he could have, as has been pointed
out in the Solicitor General's manifestation, "secured certified copies thereof from the
30
nearest regional office of the Department of Labor, the SSS or the BIR."
More significantly, the food and lodging, or the electricity and water consumed by the
petitioner were not facilities but supplements. A benefit or privilege granted to an
employee for the convenience of the employer is not a facility. The criterion in making
a distinction between the two not so much lies in the kind (food, lodging) but the
31
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 the private
respondent's hotel.

Millares et al., vs NLRC () 305 SCRA 501

When an employer customarily furnishes his employee board, lodging or other
facilities, the fair and reasonable value thereof, as determined by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment, is included in "wage." Customary is founded on longestablished and constant practice connoting regularity. The receipt of an allowance
on a monthly basis does not ipso facto characterize it as regular and forming part of
salary because the nature of the grant is a factor worth considering
In determining whether a privilege is a facility, the criterion is not so much its kind but
its purpose