Topic: Employee-Employer Relationship

LOLITA LOPEZ vs. BODEGA CITY (Video-Disco Kitchen of the Philippines) and/or ANDRES C.
TORRES-YAP
G.R. No. 155731. September 3, 2007

Facts:
 Lopez: was the “lady keeper” of Bodega City tasked with manning its ladies’ comfort
room.
 Yap (owner/manager): asked the petitioner to explain why the concessionaire
agreement between her and respondents should not be terminated or suspended in
view of an incident that happened wherein petitioner was seen to have acted in a
hostile manner against a lady customer of Bodega City who informed the management
that she saw petitioner sleeping while on duty.
 Yap: terminated the concessionaire agreement.
 Lopez: filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
 Respondents: there’s no EE-ER relationship; Lolita’s services rendered was by virtue of a
concessionaire agreement she entered into with respondents.
 LA: dismissed the case for lack of merit
 NLRC: remanded the cases for further proceeding
 LA: petitioner was an employee of the respondents
 NLRC: ruled that there was no EE-ER relationship
 CA: ruled that there was no EE-ER relationship

Issue: Whether there was EE-ER relationship

Held: NO. Petition is DENIED
Ratio:
 The test for determining on whom the burden of proof lies is found in the result of an
inquiry as to which party would be successful if no evidence of such matters were given;
It is incumbent upon a party, in filing a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal
dismissal based on the premise that she was an employee, to prove the employee-
employer relationship by substantial evidence.
 The so-called “control test” is commonly regarded as the most crucial and determinative
indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship. Under the
control test, an employer- employee relationship exists where the person for whom the
services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved, but also
the manner and means to be used in reaching that end. To prove the element of
payment of wages, petitioner presented a petty cash voucher showing that she
received an allowance for five (5) days. The CA did not err when it held that a solitary
petty cash voucher did not prove that petitioner had been receiving salary from
respondents or that she had been respondents’ employee for 10 years.
 ID cards where the words “EMPLOYEE’S NAME” appear printed therein do not prove
employer-employee relationship where said ID cards are issued for the purpose of
enabling certain “contractors,” such as singers and band performers, to enter the
premises of an establishment
 Logically, the line should be drawn between rules that merely serve as guidelines towards
the achievement of the mutually desired result without dictating the means or methods
to be employed in attaining it, and those that control or fix the methodology and bind or
restrict the party hired to the use of such means—the first, which aim only to promote the
result, create no employer-employee relationship unlike the second, which address both
the result and the means used to achieve it.