LVN PICTURES, INC. vs.
PHILIPPINE MUSICIANS Guild
Facts: 95% of the musicians playing for all the
musical recordings of the film companies, LVN
and Sampaguita Pictures, are members of the
Philippine Musicians Guild (PMG). PMG
applied for certification as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agency for all musicians
working with said companies. LVN opposed
the application stating that PMG members are
not their employees because they are merely
furnished by independent contractors of the
company.
Issue: Whether or not the PMG musicians are
employees of the film companies.
Held: Yes. The work of the musicians is an
integral part of the entire motion picture.
The Musical directors of LVN are analogous to
that of the alleged independent contractor.
The musical directors have no such control
over the musicians involved in the present
case.
The right of control of the film company over
the musicians is shown (1) by calling the
musicians through 'call slips' in 'the name of
the company; (2) by arranging schedules in its
studio for recording sessions; (3) by furnishing
transportation and meals to musicians; and (4)
by supervising and directing in detail, through
the motion picture director, the performance of
the musicians before the camera, in order to
suit the music they are playing to the picture
which is being flashed on the screen.
Notwithstanding that the employees are
furnished by independent contractors, where
the extent of the employer's control (company)
over them indicates that the relationship is in
reality one of employment.
It is well settled that an employer-employee
relationship exists 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.
DY KEH BENG vs.
INTERNATIONAL LABOR
Facts: Dy Keh Beng, proprietor of a basket
factory, dismissed respondents Solano and
Tudla for their union activities. Dy Keh Beng
contended that he did not know Tudla and that
Solano was not his employee because the
latter came to the establishment only when
there was work which he did on pakiaw basis,
each piece of work being done under a
separate contract.
Issue: Whether or not there existed
Employer-Employee relation between Dy Keh
Beng and the two respondents.
Held: Yes. Court upholds the control test
under which an employer-employee
relationship exists "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.
At the establishment of Dy Keh Beng is
"engaged in the manufacture of baskets
known as kaing, it is natural to expect that
those working under Dy would have to
observe, among others, Dy's requirements of
size and quality of the kaing. Some control
would necessarily be exercised by Dy as the
making of the kaing would be subject to Dy's
specifications. Parenthetically, since the work
on the baskets is done at Dy's establishments,
it can be inferred that the proprietor Dy could
easily exercise control on the men he
employed.
"pakyaw" system mentioned in this case as
generally practiced in our country, is, in fact, a
labor contract -between employers and
employees, between capitalists and laborers.
 CORPORAL vs. NLRC
341 SCRA 658

Facts: Five (5) male barbers and Two (2)

female manicurists (petitioners) worked at
New Look Barbershop, now taken over by Lao
Enteng Co., Inc., (respondent corporation).
The petitioners were allowed to work there
until April 1985 when they were told that the
barbershop building was sold and their
services are no longer needed. Petitioners
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and
separation pay. Respondent Corporation
alleged that petitioners were Joint Venture
(JV) partners receiving 50% commission;
therefore no employer-employee relationship
existed. And assuming arguendo that
employer-employee relationship existed,
petitioners were not entitled to separation pay
since cessation of the business was due to
serious business losses. Also, they allege that
the barbershop had always been a JV
partnership with the operation and
management left entirely to petitioners and
that the former had no control over the latter
who could freely come and go as they wish.

Issue: Whether or not an employer-employee

relationship existed between petitioners and
Respondent Corporation.

Held: Yes. No documentary evidence of the

existence of Joint Venture other than the self-
serving affidavit of the company president.
The petitioners worked in the barbershop
owned and operated by respondents, and that
they were required to report daily, observing
definite hours of work, they were not free to
accept employment elsewhere and devoted
their full time working in the barbershop
proves the existence of the power of control.