G.R. No.

196426, August 15, 2011
MARTICIO SEMBLANTE AND DUBRICK PILAR,
PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 19 TH
DIVISION, NOW SPECIAL FORMER 19 TH DIVISION,
GALLERA DE MANDAUE / SPOUSES VICENTE AND
MARIA LUISA LOOT, RESPONDENTS.
Facts: Semblante and Pilar assert that they were hired by respondents-
spouses Vicente and Maria Luisa Loot, the owners of Gallera de Mandaue
(the cockpit), as the official masiador and sentenciador, respectively, of the
cockpit sometime in 1993.
engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of
dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct, which is the
most important element.
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.

As the masiador, Semblante calls and takes the bets from the gamecock Respondents, not being petitioners’ employers, could never have dismissed,
owners and other bettors and orders the start of the cockfight. He also legally or illegally, petitioners, since respondents were without power or
distributes the winnings after deducting the arriba, or the commission for the prerogative to do so in the first place. The rule on the posting of an appeal
cockpit. Meanwhile, as the sentenciador, Pilar oversees the proper gaffing of bond cannot defeat the substantive rights of respondents to be free from an
fighting cocks, determines the fighting cocks’ physical condition and unwarranted burden of answering for an illegal dismissal for which they were
capabilities to continue the cockfight, and eventually declares the result of never responsible.
the cockfight.
Strict implementation of the rules on appeals must give way to the factual
For their services as masiador and sentenciador, Semblante receives PhP and legal reality that is evident from the records of this case. The primary
2,000 per week or a total of PhP 8,000 per month, while Pilar gets PhP 3,500 objective of our laws is to dispense justice and equity, not the contrary.
a week or PhP 14,000 per month. They work every Tuesday, Wednesday,
Saturday, and Sunday every week, excluding monthly derbies and cockfights
held on special holidays. Their working days start at 1:00 p.m. and last until
12:00 midnight, or until the early hours of the morning depending on the
needs of the cockpit. Petitioners had both been issued employees’
identification cards that they wear every time they report for duty. They
alleged never having incurred any infraction and/or violation of the cockpit
rules and regulations.

On November 14, 2003, however, petitioners were denied entry into the
cockpit upon the instructions of respondents and were informed of the
termination of their services effective that date. This prompted petitioners to
file a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents.

Issue: whether or not semblante and pilar are employees of the said cockpit

Ruling: Petitioners are NOT employees of respondents, since their

relationship fails to pass muster the four-fold test of employment We have
repeatedly mentioned in countless decisions: (1) the selection and
G.R. No. L-48645 January 7, 1987
"BROTHERHOOD" LABOR UNITY MOVEMENT OF THE
PHILIPPINES, ANTONIO CASBADILLO, PROSPERO TABLADA,
ERNESTO BENGSON, PATRICIO SERRANO, ANTONIO B. BOBIAS,
VIRGILIO ECHAS, DOMINGO PARINAS, NORBERTO GALANG,
JUANITO NAVARRO, NESTORIO MARCELLANA, TEOFILO B.
CACATIAN, RUFO L. EGUIA, CARLOS SUMOYAN, LAMBERTO
RONQUILLO, ANGELITO AMANCIO, DANILO B. MATIAR, ET
AL., petitioners,
vs.
HON. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, PRESIDENTIAL ASSISTANT FOR
LEGAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, HON. AMADO G.
INCIONG, UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR, SAN MIGUEL
CORPORATION, GENARO OLIVES, ENRIQUE CAMAHORT,
FEDERICO OÑATE, ERNESTO VILLANUEVA, ANTONIO BOCALING
and GODOFREDO CUETO, respondents
Facts: On July 11, 1969, BLUM filed a complaint with the now defunct
Court of Industrial Relations, charging San Miguel Corporation, and the
following officers: Enrique Camahort, Federico Ofiate Feliciano Arceo,
Melencio Eugenia Jr., Ernesto Villanueva, Antonio Bocaling and Godofredo
Cueto of unfair labor practice as set forth in Section 4 (a), sub-sections (1)
and (4) of Republic Act No. 875 and of Legal dismissal. It was alleged that
respondents ordered the individual complainants to disaffiliate from the
complainant union; and that management dismissed the individual
complainants when they insisted on their union membership.
Applying the above criteria, the evidence strongly indicates the existence of
an employer-employee relationship between petitioner workers and
respondent San Miguel Corporation. The respondent asserts that the
petitioners are employees of the Guaranteed Labor Contractor, an
independent labor contracting firm. The facts and evidence on record negate
respondent SMC's claim.
The existence of an independent contractor relationship is generally
established by the following criteria: "whether or not the contractor is
carrying on an independent business; the nature and extent of the work; the
skill required; the term and duration of the relationship; the right to assign the
performance of a specified piece of work; the control and supervision of the
work to another; the employer's power with respect to the hiring, firing and
payment of the contractor's workers; the control of the premises; the duty to
supply the premises tools, appliances, materials and labor; and the mode,
manner and terms of payment" (56 CJS Master and Servant, Sec. 3(2), 46;
See also 27 AM. Jur. Independent Contractor, Sec. 5, 485 and Annex 75
ALR 7260727)
None of the above criteria exists in the case at bar.

Issue: whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists between

petitioners-members of the "Brotherhood Labor Unit Movement of the
Philippines" (BLUM) and respondent San Miguel Corporation

Ruling: In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship,

the elements that are generally considered are the following: (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 with respect
to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. It. is the
called "control test" that is the most important element (Investment Planning
Corp. of the Phils. v. The Social Security System, 21 SCRA 924; Mafinco
Trading Corp. v. Ople, supra, and Rosario Brothers, Inc. v. Ople, 131 SCRA
72).
G.R. No. L-55674 July 25, 1983
LA SUERTE CIGAR AND CIGARETTE FACTORY, petitioner,
vs.
DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, THE LA
SUERTE CIGAR AND CIGARETTE FACTORY PROVINCIAL (Luzon)
AND METRO MANILA SALES FORCE ASSOCIATION-NATU, and THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS, respondents.
Ruling: where the workers are not employees of the company, they are not
entitled to the constitutional right to join or form labor unions for purposes of
collective bargaining. The question of whether or not an employer-employee
relationship exists is a primordial consideration before extending labor
benefits under the labor relations law. It is a condition sine qua non for a
bargaining unit that it be composed of employees, failing which affects the
legality of the union itself and means the ineligibility of union members to
present a petition for certification election, as well as to vote therein.

Facts: On April 7, 1979, the La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory Provincial
(Luzon) and Metro Manila Sales Force Association (herein referred to as the
local union) applied for and was granted chapter status by the National
Association of Trade Unions (hereinafter referred to as NATU).

On April 16, 1979, some thirty-one (31) local union members signed a joint
letter withdrawing their membership from NATU.

Nonetheless, on April 18, 1979, the local union and NATU filed a petition
for direct certification or certification election which alleged among others,
that forty-eight of the sixty sales personnel of the Company were members of
the local union; that the petition is supported by no less than 75% of the sales
force; that there is no existing recognized labor union in the Company
representing the said sales personnel; that there is likewise no existing
collecting bargaining agreement; and that there had been no certification
election in the last twelve months preceding the filing of the petition.

The Company then filed a motion to dismiss the petition on June 13, 1979 on
the ground that it is not supported by at least 30% of the members of the
proposed bargaining unit because (a) of the alleged forty-eight (48) members
of the local union, thirty-one (31) had withdrawn prior to the filing of the
petition; and (b) fourteen (14) of the alleged members of the union were not
employees of the Company but were independent contractors.

NATU and the local union opposed the Company's motion to dismiss
alleging that the fourteen dealers are actually employees of the Company
because they are subject to its control and supervision.

Issue: Whether or not the 14 dealers are employees or independent

contractors
G.R. No. 84484 November 15, 1989
INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MELECIO
BASIAO, respondents.
Facts: In April 1972, the parties entered into another contract an Agency
Manager's Contract and to implement his end of it Basiao organized an
agency or office to which he gave the name M. Basiao and Associates, while
concurrently fulfilling his commitments under the first contract with the
Company.
Ruling: insurance agents are not employees of the insurance companies, in
the absence of rules or regulations were promulgated or issued which
effectively controlled or restricted the agent’s choice of methods or the
methods themselves of selling insurance. The company simply bound the
agent to observe and conform to such rules and regulations already fixed by
the insurance code and enforced by the insurance commissioner, as well as
such rules and regulations that the company might prescribe from time to
time. None of these really invades the agent’s contractual prerogative to
adopt his own selling methods or to sell insurance at his own time and
convenience. Hence, the existence of said rules and regulations cannot
justifiably be said to establish an employer-employee relationship between
him and the company.

In May, 1979, the Company terminated the Agency Manager's Contract.

After vainly seeking a reconsideration, Basiao sued the Company in a civil
action and this, he was later to claim, prompted the latter to terminate also his
engagement under the first contract and to stop payment of his commissions
starting April 1, 1980.

Basiao thereafter filed with the then Ministry of Labor a complaint against
the Company and its president. Without contesting the termination of the first
contract, the complaint sought to recover commissions allegedly unpaid
thereunder, plus attorney's fees. The respondents disputed the Ministry's
jurisdiction over Basiao's claim, asserting that he was not the Company's
employee, but an independent contractor and that the Company had no
obligation to him for unpaid commissions under the terms and conditions of
his contract.

The Labor Arbiter to whom the case was assigned found for Basiao. He ruled
that the underwriting agreement had established an employer-employee
relationship between him and the Company, and this conferred jurisdiction
on the Ministry of Labor to adjudicate his claim. Said official's decision
directed payment of his unpaid commissions "... equivalent to the balance of
the first year's premium remaining unpaid, at the time of his termination, of
all the insurance policies solicited by (him) in favor of the respondent
company " plus 10% attorney's fees.

This decision was, on appeal by the Company

Issue: Whether or not insurance agents are employees of the insurance

companies