1. Aquinas School v. Inton
Facts:
Respondent Yamyamin in this case is a religion teacher sent
by the congregation of sisters with the task of providing
catechesis to the students. Respondent Inton was among of the
grade three students in Yamyamin’s class.
The case was instituted on account of an incident which took
place when, during Yamyamin’s class, Inton left his
designated seat and approached his classmate and played a
joke on the latter. Yamyamin thereafter demanded Inton to go
back to his seat. Inton approached his classmate for the
second time, causing respondent Yamyamin to lose her
temper. Yamyamin allegedly kicked Inton on his legs a
number of times, pulled, and shoved the latter’s head on the
seat of his classmate. Yamyamin ordered Inton to stay on the
same spot and to continue writing his notes whilst sitting on
the floor.
Issue:
W/N Aquinas School is the employer of Sister Margarita
Yamyamin
Ruling:
No. The Court, in applying the “Four-fold test”, held that the
Congregation is the employer, not Aquinas School.
The “Four-fold” test was applied to determine whether there is
an employer-employee relationship through the following
qualifications: “if the employer (a) selects and engages the
employee; (b) pays his wages; (c) has power to dismiss him;
and (d) has control over his work.” Considered to be the most
1. Aquinas School v. Inton
Facts:
Respondent Yamyamin in this case is a religion teacher sent
by the congregation of sisters with the task of providing
catechesis to the students. Respondent Inton was among of the
grade three students in Yamyamin’s class.
The case was instituted on account of an incident which took
place when, during Yamyamin’s class, Inton left his
designated seat and approached his classmate and played a
joke on the latter. Yamyamin thereafter demanded Inton to go
back to his seat. Inton approached his classmate for the
second time, causing respondent Yamyamin to lose her
temper. Yamyamin allegedly kicked Inton on his legs a
number of times, pulled, and shoved the latter’s head on the
seat of his classmate. Yamyamin ordered Inton to stay on the
same spot and to continue writing his notes whilst sitting on
the floor.
Issue:
W/N Aquinas School is the employer of Sister Margarita
Yamyamin
Ruling:
No. The Court, in applying the “Four-fold test”, held that the
Congregation is the employer, not Aquinas School.
The “Four-fold” test was applied to determine whether there is
an employer-employee relationship through the following
qualifications: “if the employer (a) selects and engages the
employee; (b) pays his wages; (c) has power to dismiss him;
and (d) has control over his work.” Considered to be the most
crucial factor is the element of “control” which refers to the
right of the employer, to exercise control over the work and
provide for the means and method on how the employee can
accomplish his/her work. Such control may be “actually
exercised or reserved.”
It is evident that Aquinas did not exercise the kind of control,
as provided in the above definition, overe Yamyamin’s means
and methods of teaching. Aquinas merely provides the
guidelines, not the detailed method on how to conduct her
class.
The Court found, in its application of the “Four-fold test,” that
there was no employer-employee relationship between
Aquinas School and Respondent Yamyamin. Aquinas merely
entered into an agreement with the congregation of sisters, in
the latter’s pursuit of fulfilling its ministry, that the same
would send teachers to provide catechesis to the students.
Hence, Aquinas may not be held solidarily liable since it was
found that the Congregation is the employer, not Aquinas
School.
2. Jose Bernarte v. PBA
Facts:
Complainants Jose Bernarte and Renato Guevarra were
invited by PBA to join as referees, of which said complainants
were to be in a supposed contract with on a yearly basis.
Some time During term of the next commissioner, Bernarte
was informed that his contract would no longer be renewed on
account of his unsatisfactory performance in and outside of
the court. Complainant Guevarra, on the other hand, received
a Memorandum from respondent Martinez stating the latter’s
dissatisfaction on account of the former’s questioning w/
regard to the assigning of referrees in out-of-tonwn games.
Guevarra was no longer asked to sign the contract the year
after said Memorandum was sent to him.
Respondents believe that there was no illegal dismissal that
took place since complainants were allegedly not employees
of PBA.
Issue:
W/N complainant referees are employees of PBA
Ruling:
No.
In determining the existence of employer-employee
relationship, the Court applied a “Four-fold” test and check if
the following qualifications are present: “: (a) the selection
and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages;
(c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to
control the employee on the means and methods by which the
work is accomplished.” The "control test" is considered as the
most important indicator of whether or not there exists an
employer-employee relationship.
The Court found that petitioner Bernarte is merely an
independent contractor and not an employee, on account of
the following findings:
(1) That referees report for work only when there is a
scheduled PBA game;
(2) That withholding taxes are the only deductions made
from the fees paid to the referees; and
(3) That referees hold the absolute and final authority when
in the playing field.
Additionally, PBA officers do not have the power to make
calls and/or controlthe referees on how and when he blows the
whistle during the game. The nature of a referee’s job
evidently shows freedom of control. Furthermore, repeated
rehiring by PBA is not an indicator of employer-employee
relationship. The most most important element of “control”
must be present, whereby the hiring party must have authority
“over the means and methods” on how the hired party
performs his work. Such element is lacking in this case.
Hence, petitioner cannot be considered as an employee of
PBA.
3. Orozco v. Court of Appeals
Facts:
Sometime around March 1990, peitioner Orozco began
providing services for PDI (Philippine Daily Inquirer) by
writing a weekly column for the latter’s Lifestyle section.
Petitioner conscientiously tendered her articles as scheduled
per week, except for that time when she flew to New York for
six months. Even so, petitioner continued to provide several
articles submitted through mail.
Petitioner’s article was allegedly published by PDI for the last
time on November 17,1992, since the former claimed that Ms.
Logarta, her then-editor, informed her that their Editor-inChief- Magsanoc, ought to stop publishing her articles for no
reason at all. PDI claimed that when Magsanoc and their
Lifestyle editor met to discuss ways to improve their section,
they came to an agreement to cut back on the number of
columnists, retaining only those who provided well-written
articles. They likewise believed that petitioner failed to
improve as her articles were poorly written and that she was
unable to meet the standards required of which resulted to her
subsequent termination.
Issue:
W/N a newspaper columnist is an employee of the newspaper
which publishes the column
Ruling:
No, because the case failed to pass the “Four-fold” test which
the Court consistenly applied when determining whether there
exists an employer-employee relationship through the
following qualifications: “(a) the selection and engagement of
the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of
dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the
employee's conduct.
The ultimate determinant for proving such relationship is the
presence of “control” not only w/ regard to the results but on
the means and methods of achieving the same.
In the case at bar, petitioner failed to prove that PDI exercised
control over the means and methods on how she is to conduct
her work and how she should write and produce her weekly
articles. The Court finds that the constraints applied by PDI in
regard to the space allocation of petitioner’s column is not
enough to satisfy the element of control since petitioner was
free to write based on her own manner and style, thus, were
no restraints on her creativity.
Additionally, petitioner was hired on account of her unique
stance as a feminist advocate, her skill, talent, and experience.
Moreover, petiitoner was not supplied with any tools or
instumentalities, or dictated with any means and methods on
how to perform her task. Failing the so-called “Four-fold”
test, Court held that petitioner is not an employee of PDI.
4. Joaquin Lu v. Enopia
Facts:
This case is about a petition for review oncertiorari filed by
Joaquin Lu seeking for a reversal on the Decision made by the
Court of Appeals.
Respondents were hired by petitioner Joaquin Lu to become
crew members of the latter’s fishing motor boat F/B MG-28.
Petitioner is allegedly the sole proprietor of MGTR (Mommy
Gina Tuna Resources located in General Santos City.
The parties initially has an “incoming-sharing arrangement”
until Lu proposed a Joint Venture Fishing Agreement of
which the respondents refused to sign because said agreement
stipulated a one-year term only. As a result of the
disagreement between the parties, herein respondents aver that
Lu terminated their services on account of their rejection of
the proposed agreement.
Herein respondents believed that their refusal to sign cannot
justify their termination Herein petitioner, on the other hand,
denied the alleged dismissal, further claiming that his
relationship with herein respondents was a Joint Venture
where the former provided the vessel, while the latter
provided the labor. Lu added that there was no employeremployee relationship based on the following grounds: (1) the
piado was the one tasked to hire herein respondents; (2)
payment was not in the form of wages but shares based on the
catch, determined by herein petitioners themselves; (3) no
disciplinary action was employed; and (4) herein petitioner
does not have any control on the day-to-day fishing
operations.
Issue:
W/N an employer-employee relationship exists between
petitioner and respondents
Ruling:
Yes.
Case law consistently applies the “Four-fold” test to
determine w/n there exists an employer-employee relationship
through the following elements: “(1) the selection and
engagement of the workers; (2) the power to control the
worker's conduct; (3) the payment of wages by whatever
means; and (4) the power of dismissal.”
The Court finds that all aforementioned elements were present
in the case based on the following grounds:
(1) That herein petitioner registered herein respondents
with SSS, the coverage of such is considerable proof of
an employer-employee relationship;
(2) That petitioner had the right to control herein
respondents. Actual supervision by the employer is not a
essential to passong the “control test.” It is enough that
the petitioner holds the right to exercise control or wield
the power of control;
(3) That the payment of wages based on shares in the fish
catch is not enough reason to invalidate a possible
existence of employer-employee relationship; and
(4) That petitioner has the power of dismissal, evidenced by
the time when he dismissed the respondents after the
latter’s refusal to sign the proposed Joint Venture
Agreement.
Additionally, the Court adds that the highest standard used in
the determination of the existence of “regular employment” is
the “reasonable connection between the particular activity
performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or
business of the employer.” It is evident that the job of
respondents, being crew members of petitioner’s vessel, is
both reated and necessary to the contuation of petitioner’s
business.
5. Jesus Reyes v. Glaucoma Research Foundation
Facts:
On August 1, 2003, herein petitioner was hired by Glaucoma
Research Foundation (respondent corporation) as an
administrator for the corporation’s Eye Referral Center
(ERC). Petitioner, as administrator, diligently performed his
duties and consistently received his monthly wages, up until
the end of January 2005. Petitioner alleged that in the
subsequent months,
respondent corporation began to
withhold his salary without notice. Nonetheless, petitioner
continued to report for work and perform his duties. On April
11 on the same year, petitioner sent a letter to Manuel Agulto
(Executive Director of said corporation) to inform the latter
on the non-payment of his (petitioner) salary, including his
14th month pay. On April 21, Agulto’s assistant informed
petitioner that he has been removed from his position as
Administrator of ERC. Petitioner further claimed that his
office was then made inaccessible to him since it has been
padlocked and closed, yet he continued to report for work
until the respondent corporation’s security guard no longer
allowed him to enter the ERC’s premises.
Respondents admit that they engaged in the services of
petitioner but that the latter set himself up on a trial basis.
Respondents further contend that there is no employeremployee relationship since they did not exercise control over
petitioner, his working hours, as well as the manner in which
he chooses to execute his duty as a consultant.
Issue:
W/N petitioner is an employee of ERC
Ruling:
No.
The Court consistently holds unto 4 standards when trying to
determine whether there exists an employer-employee
relationship: “(a) the manner of selection and engagement of
the putative employee; (b) the mode of payment of wages; (c)
the presence or absence of power of dismissal; and, (d) the
presence or absence of control of the putative employee's
conduct.” The most important of which is the so-called
"control test."
The Court held that there exists no employer-employee
relationship in this case because petitioner was not subject to
the rules and regulations w/ respect to to the performance of
his work. Additionally, respondent company did not require
petitioner to report for work at a controlled and specific time,
much less, offer his exclusive time and attention to the former.
Moreover, the Court likewise applied the Economic Reality
test to determine W/N there is economic dependence on the
employer. The Court found no compelling reason to allow the
case to pass the aforementioned tests. Hence, petitioner cannot
be considered as an employee of ERC.
6. Geraldo v. The Bill Sender Corporation
Facts:
Petitioner Reynaldo Geraldo was hired by The Bill Sender
Corporation as a delivery man, of which has the business of
sending out the bills and mails for and on behalf of their their
client,
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT).
Petitioner was paid on a “per-piece” basis which was
dependent on the number of bills that he was able to deliver.
On August 7, 2011, petitioner Geraldo was allegedly illegally
dismissed by respondent company’s manager, Mr.
Constantino, when the later informed him that his
employment is to be terminated due to his (petitioner) failure
to deliver some bills to the customers. Petitioner defended
himself, saying that he was not the assigned messenger of the
said bills. The manager allegedly refused to believe and
reconsider the explanation. Petitioner’s termination was
pushed through, hence the instant petition.
Issue:
W/N petitioner is an employee of the Bill Sender Corporation
Ruling:
Yes, petitioner is an employee of the Bill Sender Corporation.
It cannot be denied that petitioner Geraldo’s duty was
necessary and desirable in the usual course of business of
respondent company. Without his services, the primary
purpose of the company which is the delivering of bills cannot
be attained. Setting aside all other bases, the Court finds that
petitioner Geraldo is a regular employee of the Bill Sender
Corporation.
It was held in Hacienda Leddy/Ricardo Gamboa, Jr. v.
Villegas, that “the payment on a piece-rate basis does not
negate regular employment.” Additionally, Article 97 of the
Labor Code provides that "wage" is the “remuneration or
earnings, capable of being expressed in terms of money
whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece or
commission basis.”
Payment by the piece is merely a mode of compensation.
Even if Geraldo is merely paid on a “per piece” basis does not
mean his employment is just contractual. Furthermore, the
ultimate test determining whether an employment is regular is
based on the nature of activities that are to be performed w/
respect to the specific business or trade.
7. Martinez v. NLRC
Facts:
Raul Martinez was an owner and operator of two (2) taxi units
under the name PAMA TX and two (2) more units under the
name P.J. TIGER TX. Dominador Corro, Pastor Corro,
Celestino Corro, Luis Corro, Ereberto Corro, Jaime Cruz,
Wenceslao Delve, Gregorio Delvo, Hermejias Colibao, Jose
Ogana and Alonso Albao (private respondents) were hired by
petitioner as drivers of aforementioned units. In 1992,
petitioner Martinez died and his mother, Nelly Martinez was
left as the sole heir.
After the death of Raul Martinez, petitioner Nelly Martinez
took over and managed the business operations herself.
Around June of 1992, petitioner informed private respondents
that there has been a difficulty in maintaining the business and
that the was compelled to sell the units along with the
corresponding franchises. The plan did not materialise, and
petitioner went on to assign the units to other drivers.
Subsequently after that, private respondents filed a complaint
against Raul Martinez and herein petitioner Nelly Martinez
for the alleged violation of P.D. 851-1 and for illegal
dismissal. The complaint was filed before the Labor Arbiter
but said complaint was dismissed. Herein respondent NLRC,
however, held an opposing view on the matter.
Issue:
W/N there is an employer-employee relationship between
petitioner and respondents
Ruling:
No. Case law provides that in order to prove the existence of
employer-employee relationship, competent and relevant
evidence must be provided. In the case at bar, the Court found
that private respondents merely assumed that there was a
continuation of an employer-employee relationship when
petitioner Nelly Martinez took over the management of the
business subsequently after her son died, and that substantial
and supporting evidence was lacking. Hence, respondents
cannot be said to have established an employer-employee
relationship with petitioner Nelly Martinez.
8.
DITIANGKIN
PHILIPPINES, INC.
v.
LAZADA
E-
SERVICES
Facts:
In this case, Ditiangkin along with the co-petitioners were
allegedly hired by Lazada E- Services Philippines, Inc. to
pick-up stocks from sellers and to deliver them to the latter’s
warehouse. Petitioners were said to have signed a contract
which stipulates the amount of service fee paid to them and
the duration of their employment, which was one (1) year.
Around January of 2017, petitioner riders were informed by a
dispatcher that they were removed from their usual routes and
schedules. Nonetheless, petitioners continued to report for
work for 3 days but they were still not given any assignments.
Petitioners subsequently learned that their usual routes were
assigned to other employees already.
Petitioner riders aver that they are regularly employed to
Lazada because the means and methods on how they should
conduct their work are under the control of Lazada.
Issue:
W/N petitioners are regular employees of respondent Lazada
Ruling:
Yes. The Court applied a two-tiered test to determine whether
there exists an employer-employee relationship between
petitioner riders and Lazada: (1) Four-fold test; and (2)
Economic dependence test.
The qualifications that are needed to pass the Four-fold test
are: “(a) the employer's selection and engagement of the
employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power to dismiss;
and (d) the power to control the employee's conduct.” The
power of control is considered as the most important element.
The case passed the Four-fold test when the Court found that:
(1) Petitioners were employed by Lazada, proof of which
were the contracts that the former had signed;
(2) It was stipulated in the contract that petitioners would
be paid by Lazada;
(3) Lazada exercises the power to dismiss petitioners when
it stated that the latter would be terminated should there
be a breach of contract; and
(4) Lazada had control over the means and methods on how
petitioners should perform their duties.
Additionally, the case passed the Economic Dependence test
when it was proved that the petitioners depended on Lazada
for their continued employment and livelihood. Hence,
petitioners are regular employees of Lazada.
9. Bulanon v. Mendco
Facts:
Petitioner Bulanon claimed that he was hired by respondent
Mendoza as a welder/fabricator for the latter’s furniture
business. The present case was initiated by petitioner when he
filed a complaint against respondents Eric, Mendco, Pinnacle,
Mastercraft, and Jacquer (respondents collectively), because
he has not been paid overtime pay, legal holiday pay, 13th
month may, holiday and rest day premium pay, and also him
not being included in SSS, PhilHealth and Pag-IBIG
coverage.
Some time in January 14, 2006, petitioner claimed he went to
work but respondent’s HR representative merely gave him his
salary and informed him that he may not report to work
anymore. Petitioner continued to report for work on the 16th
of the same month, but the security guard allegedly
disallowed petitioner to enter the premises. On account of the
foregoing facts, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal and illegal suspension.
Issue:
W/N petitioner Bulanon is an employee of Mendco
Ruling:
No. In cases involving illegal dismissal, an employeremployee relationship must initially be established and proved
by the petitioner, and the onus probandi rests on the employer
in proving that such dismissal or suspension was legal/valid.
In the case at bar, the appellate court used the “Four-fold” test
to determine whether an employer-employee relationship
exists between petitioner and respondents through the
following elements, to wit: “(a) the selection and engagement
of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power to
discipline and dismiss; and (d) the employer's power to
control the employee with respect to the means and methods
by which the work is to be accomplished.”
The Court finds that there exists no employer-employee
relationship between Bulanon and Mendco. Hence, there can
be no illegal dismissal in this case.
10. Gesolgon v. Cyberzone PH
Facts:
In a Complaint, Gesolgon and Santos alleged that they were
hired as part-time home-based remote Customer Service
Representatives of CyberOne Pty. Ltd. (CyberOne AU) by
Mikrut (CEO), on March 3, 2008 and April 5, 2008,
respectively. Petitioners subsequently became permanent
employees of respondent company and thereafter, promoted
as Supervisors.
On October 2009, the Mikrut, CEO of CyberOne AU and
CyberOne PH approached petitioners to act as dummy
directors and/or incorporators of CyberOne PH. Petitioners
then consented to the offer. On account of this, petitioners got
promoted as Managers, their salaries were also increased yet
were made to appear as if it came from CyberOne PH. In the
payroll, however, the CEO appeared to have decreased the
petitioner's salaries, and were made to choose between options
to save their jobs. Hence, the instant petition for illegal
dismissal.
Issue:
W/N petitioners are employees of Cyberone PH
Ruling:
No. The Court found that petitioners were merely asked to be
stockholders of CyberonePH. Petitioners likewise failed to
prove that means and modes by which Cyberone PH
controlled the performance of their work, and ultimately,
failed to mention their respective functions and duties as
workers of Cyberone PH since they only depended on the
allegations that they were hired and paid by respondent
corporation. The Court held that petitioners are not employees
of Cyberone PH, but merely stockholders.
11. Fernandez v. Kalookan Slaughterhouse, Inc.,
Facts:
In 1994, Kalookoan Slaughterhouse hired petitioner
Fernandez as a butcher. Petitioner claimed that he worked
seven (7) days a week from 6:30pm to 7:30am with an
average daily wage of P700, which was then reduced to P500.
Sometime in December 2013, petitioner got into an accident
whilst driving the Kalookan Slaughterhouse truck, which
resulted to further reduction of his salary. When petitioner
questioned the reductions, he was met with unreasonable
treatment by the slaughterhouse owner, Ernesto Cunanan. On
July 21, 2014, petitioner was forced to be absent for work as
he suffered from a headache. When the same reported for
work on the next day, petitioner was shocked to have received
P200 as his daily wage on account of his undertime and was
subsequently informed that he cannot report for work
anymore on account of his old age.
On the other hand, Kalookan Slaughterhouse claimed that
petitioner is merely an independent butcher and received
payment on the basis of the number of hogs he was able to
butcher.
Issue:
W/N there exists an employer-employee relationship between
petitioner and respondents
Ruling:
Yes. The Court has consistently applied the Four-fold test in
determining whether there exists an employer-employee
relationship through the following elements: “(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.”
The Court was convinced of the existence of an employeremployee relationship between petitioner and respondents
when the former was able to show proof of his ID, gate
passes, log sheets, as well as a trip ticket. It was even admitted
by respondent through De Guzaman that all personnel were
required to wear uniforms to work, including herein petitioner.
Additionally, it was shown that Kalookan Slaughterhouse was
the one who engaged herein petitioner, paid his salaries, and
exercised the power to dismiss him.
12. Civil Service Commission v. Roselle Annang
Facts:
In 2005, respondent Dr. Annang became a part-time faculty
member at Cagayan State University (CSU) with a six-month
contract. In said contract, it was stipulated that: (1) there will
be no employer-employee relationship between the parties; (2)
that respondent’s services will not be considered as
government service; (3) that respondent will not have the
same benefits as that of regular personnel; and (4) that said
contract will not be under the coverage of the laws of the Civil
Service.
Said contract was allegedly renewed five times, and
respondent Dr. Annang was subsequently promoted to
Assistant Professor II which was a permanent position held by
the same until she retired on 2012. On the following year,
respondent requested for an accreditation, which was rejected
by the CSC Central Office, citing the stipulation on the
contract that respondent’s services were not considered as
government service.
CA reversed CSC’s decision on appeal and held that
respondent was an employer of CSU.
Issue:
W/N CA was correct in its application of the four-fold test in
determining whether there is an employer-employee
relationship e
Ruling:
No. The Court explained that civil service laws, rules and
regulations are the determining factor of whether there exists
an employer-employee relationship between the government
and its employees. In this case, it was clearly stipulated in the
contract that the aforementioned laws is not applicable to
respondent Dr. Annang.