EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

Parties and Employers Work of Period of Type of Reason

Case No. nature of complainant service employment
business
1. G.R. No. Insurance Basiao was granted 25 years Commission The Court held that under the contract invoked by Basiao,, he was not an employee of the petitioner,
84484, Business an Agency Agent but a commission agent, an independent contractor whose claim for unpaid commissions should
November 15, Managers Contract. have been litigated in an ordinary civil action. The Labor Arbiter erred in taking cognizance of, and
1989 He was "authorized adjudicating, said claim, being without jurisdiction to do so, as did the respondent NLRC in affirming
Insular Life to solicit within the the Arbiter's decision.
Assurance Co. Philippines
Ltd. v applications What is controlling is Basiao's status under the contract of July 2, 1968, not the length of his
MelecioBasiao, relationship with the Company.

2. G.R. No. Insurance De losReyes was 2 years Acting Unit

119930, March Business appointed Acting Manager Private respondent Pantaleon de los Reyes was an employee of herein petitioner. Exclusivity of
12, 1998 Unit Manager. service, control of assignments and removal of agents under private respondents unit, collection of
Insular Life premiums, furnishing of company facilities and materials as well as capital described as Unit
Assurance Co. De los Reyes was Development Fund are but hallmarks of the management system in which herein private respondent
Ltd. v obliged to work worked.
Pantaleondelos exclusively for
Reyes, petitioner in life
insurance solicitation
and was imposed
premium
production quotas.
3. G.R. No. Publishing Write a weekly 1 year Newspaper Petitioner was engaged as a columnist for her talent, skill, experience, and her unique viewpoint as a
155207, Company/ column for its Columnist feminist advocate. How she utilized all these in writing her column was not subject to dictation by
August 13, Newspaper Lifestyle section respondent. As in Sonza, respondent PDI was not involved in the actual performance that produced
2008 business the finished product. It only reserved the right to shorten petitioners articles based on the newspapers
Wilhelmina capacity to accommodate the same. This fact, we note, was not unique to petitioners column. It is a
Orozco v CA & reality in the newspaper business that space constraints often dictate the length of articles and
PDI columns, even those that regularly appear therein.

Furthermore, respondent PDI did not supply petitioner with the tools and instrumentalities she
needed to perform her work. Petitioner only needed her talent and skill to come up with a column
every week. As such, she had all the tools she needed to perform her work.

Considering that respondent PDI was not petitioners employer, it cannot be held guilty of illegal
dismissal
 EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
4. G.R. No. Broadcasting Co-host of Mel & Jay 2 years Independent ABS-CBN was not involved in the actual performance that produced the finished product of SONZAs
138051, June Company radio program contractor/Radio work. ABS-CBN did not instruct SONZA how to perform his job. ABS-CBN merely reserved the right
10, 2004 Broadcaster to modify the program format and airtime schedule for more effective programming. ABS-CBNs sole
Jose Sonza v concern was the quality of the shows and their standing in the ratings. Clearly, ABS-CBN did not
ABS-CBN, exercise control over the means and methods of performance of SONZAs work.

In any event, not all rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party indicate that the latter is an
employee of the former. In this case, SONZA failed to show that these rules controlled his
performance. We find that these general rules are merely guidelines towards the achievement of the
mutually desired result, which are top-rating television and radio programs that comply with
standards of the industry.

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.

Radio and television program hosts are independent contractor otherwise, the station owners and
managers can dictate to the radio and television hosts what they say in their shows. This is not
conducive to freedom of the press.
5. G.R. No. Rice Milling Truck driver 17 years Truck driver The overwhelming documentary evidences presented by said respondent strongly negated
96520, June complainant's charges that he had been under the employ of Rolando O. Tan who appeared to be the
28, 1996 registered proprietor/owner of R. S. Rice Mill, (an) entity which started to operate in 1986 as per
Restituto Certificate of Registration issued by the Bureau of Domestic Trade dated April 11, 1986 and which
Palomado v was never interpleaded (sic) by herein complainant as party-respondent in this case. Respondent
NLRC & Rolando Tan, whom complainant alluded to as the manager/operator of Marling Rice Mill after
Rolando Tan respondent Mario Tan Ten (sic) Kuan suffered (a) stroke sometime in 1973 was nothing more than a
mere employee of Marling Rice Mill as shown by the payrolls submitted to the Social Security System
by respondent Marling Rice Mill. Complainant's allegation that Rolando Tan managed, operated and
transacted business for Marling Rice Mill is of no moment and wanting in evidence since it is even
clear from the said payrolls that it was one Guillermo Tan who was the manager of Marling Rice
Mill.Complainant's documentary, exhibits (Annexes "I", I-1 to "I-16", inclusive, and Annex "J") failed to
serve their purpose as they are in themselves mere scraps of paper, irrelevant and immaterial.
6. G.R. No. Lending and Insurance 14 years Sales Agent Although petitioner could have, theoretically, disapproved any of private respondent's transactions,
102199, Insurance underwriter what could be disapproved was only the result of the work, and not the means by which it was
January 28, Company accomplished.
1997 The "control" which the above factors indicate did not sum up to the power to control private
AFP Mutual respondent's conduct in and mode of soliciting insurance. On the contrary, they clearly indicate that
Benefit Assoc. the juridical element of control had been absent in this situation. Thus, the Court is constrained to
Inc. v NLRC rule that no employment relationship had ever existed between the parties.
 EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
7. 514 SCRA Manufacturing Retained medical 7 years Company doctor The Court agrees with the finding of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the circumstances of this
164, February company doctor case show that no employer-employee relationship exists between the parties. The Labor Arbiter and
5, 2007 the NLRC correctly found that petitioner company lacked the power of control over the performance
Coca Cola by respondent of his duties. The Labor Arbiter reasoned that the Comprehensive Medical Plan, which
Bottler Inc v Dr. contains the respondents objectives, duties and obligations, does not tell respondent how to conduct
Dean Climaco, his physical examination, how to immunize, or how to diagnose and treat his patients, employees of
[petitioner] company, in each case.
8. GR No. Corporation Accountant and 6 years Accountant and Petitioner is an employee of respondent Kasei Corporation. She was selected and engaged by the
170087 August Corporate Secretary/ Corporate company for compensation, and is economically dependent upon respondent for her continued
31, 2006 Acting Manager Secretary/ employment in that line of business. Her main job function involved accounting and tax services
Acting Manager rendered to respondent corporation on a regular basis over an indefinite period of
Angelina engagement. Respondent corporation hired and engaged petitioner for compensation, with the power
Francisco v to dismiss her for cause. More importantly, respondent corporation had the power to control petitioner
NLRC with the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished.
9. G.R. No. Insurance District Manager 2 years District Manager
80750, July 23, Company
1990 It cannot be gainsaid that Grepalife had control over private respondents' performance as well as the
result of their efforts. A cursory reading of their respective functions as enumerated in their contracts
Great Pacific reveals that the company practically dictates the manner by which their jobs are to be carried out.
Life Assurance
Corp v NLRC &
Ernesto &
Rodrigo Ruiz
10. 463 SCRA Electric Licensed security Security Guards The security service agreements in the present case provided that all specific instructions by
331 July 14, Company guards formerly MERALCO relating to the discharge by the security guards of their duties shall be directed to the
2005 employed by agency and not directly to the individual respondents. The individual respondents failed to show that
Meralco v Peoples Security Inc the rules of MERALCO controlled their performance.
Benamira and deployed as
such at Meralcos The individual respondents cannot be considered as regular employees of the MERALCO for,
head office although security services are necessary and desirable to the business of MERALCO, it is not
directly related to its principal business and may even be considered unnecessary in the conduct of
MERALCOs principal business, which is the distribution of electricity.
11. G.R. No. Agricultural Tractor operators Tractor Petitioners claim that Abueva has worked with respondents for more than a year already and was allowed to
175532, April business and laborer operators and stay inside the hacienda.As such, he is a regular employee entitled to monetary claims. However, petitioners
19, 2010 devoted for laborer have not presented competent proof that respondents engaged the services of Abueva; that respondents paid
sugar crane his wages or that respondents could dictate what his conduct should be while at work. In other words, Abuevas
Basay v allegations did not establish that his relationship with respondents has the attributes of employer-employee on
Hacienda the basis of the above-mentioned four-fold test. Therefore, Abueva was not able to discharge the burden of
Consolacion, proving the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Moreover, Abueva was not able to refute
respondents assertions that he hires other men to perform weeding job in the hacienda and that he is not
 EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
exclusively working for respondents.
12. G.R. No. Airline It must be stressed that respondents, having been declared to be regular employees of petitioner,
146408, Company Synergy being a mere agent of the latter, had acquired security of tenure. As such, they could only be
February 29, dismissed by petitioner, the real employer, on the basis of just or authorized cause, and with
2008 observance of procedural due process.

PAL v Enrique
Ligan,
13.GR No. Lady keeper of Lady keeper The concessionaire agreement merely stated that petitioner shall maintain the cleanliness of the
155731, Sept. Bodega City tasked ladies comfort room and observe courtesy guidelines that would help her obtain the results they
3, 2007 with manning its wanted to achieve. There is nothing in the agreement which specifies the methods by which
ladies comfort room petitioner should achieve these results. Respondents did not indicate the manner in which she should
Lolita Lopez v go about in maintaining the cleanliness of the ladies comfort room. Neither did respondents
Bodega City determine the means and methods by which petitioner could ensure the satisfaction of respondent
companys customers. In other words, petitioner was given a free hand as to how she would perform
her job as a lady keeper. In fact, the last paragraph of the concessionaire agreement even allowed
petitioner to engage persons to work with or assist her in the discharge of her functions.
14. 744 SCRA Television News Regular There is no question that Arlene rendered services to Fuji. However, Fuji alleges that Arlene was an
31, Dec. 3, Network correspondent/ Employee independent contractor, while Arlene alleges that she was a regular employee. he Court of Appeals
2014 producer tasked to affirmed the finding of the National Labor Relations Commission that the successive renewals of
report Philippine Arlenes contract indicated the necessity and desirability of her work in the usual course of Fujis
Fuji Television news to Fuji through business. Because of this, Arlene had become a regular employee with the right to security of tenure.
v Arlene its Manila Bureau
Espiritu field office Arlenes contract indicating a fixed term did not automatically mean that she could never be a regular
employee. This is precisely what Article 280 seeks to avoid. The ruling in Brent remains as the
exception rather than the general rule. The law does not preclude the possibility that a regular
employee may opt to have a fixed-term contract for valid reasons. This was recognized in Brent: For
as long as it was the employee who requested, or bargained, that the contract have a definite date
of termination, or that the fixed-term contract be freely entered into by the employer and the
employee, then the validity of the fixed-term contract will be upheld.
15. 657 SCRA Sports Referees / Trainee 2 years Independent Unlike regular employees who ordinarily report for work eight hours per day for five days a week,
745, Association Contractor petitioner is required to report for work only when PBA games are scheduled or three times a week at
September 14, two hours per game. In addition, there are no deductions for contributions to the Social Security
2011 System, Philhealth or Pag-Ibig, which are the usual deductions from employees salaries. These
undisputed circumstances buttress the fact that petitioner is an independent contractor, and not an
Jose Mel employee of respondents.
Bernarte v
Philippine In addition, the fact that PBA repeatedly hired petitioner does not by itself prove that petitioner is an
Basketball employee of the former. For a hired party to be considered an employee, the hiring party must have
Association control over the means and methods by which the hired party is to perform his work, which is absent
 EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
in this case. The continuous rehiring by PBA of petitioner simply signifies the renewal of the contract
between PBA and petitioner, and highlights the satisfactory services rendered by petitioner
warranting such contract renewal. Conversely, if PBA decides to discontinue petitioners services at
the end of the term fixed in the contract, whether for unsatisfactory services, or violation of the terms
and conditions of the contract, or for whatever other reason, the same merely results in the non-
renewal of the contract, as in the present case. The non-renewal of the contract between the parties
does not constitute illegal dismissal of petitioner by respondents.
16. Viana v Owner of Member of the crew Member of the In the interest of justice and equity, and considering that a decision on the merits of the issue before
Alejo fishing of the sailboat crew of the us may establish an important precedent, it would be better to remand the case to the Workmens
ALagadan, 99 sailboat sailboat Compensation Commission for further evidence and findings on the following questions:c (1) who
Phil 408 Magkapatid selected the crew of the Magkapatid and engaged their services; (2) if selected and engaged by the
patron, did the latter act in his own name and for his own account, or on behalf and for the account
of Viaa; (3) could Viaa have refused to accept any of the crew members chosen and engaged by
the patron; (4) did Petitioner have authority to determine the time when, the place where and/or the
manner or conditions in or under which the crew would work; (5) who could dismiss its members.