DOCTRINE

1. FOUR-FOLD TEST
a. Selection and engagement of the
employee;
b. Payment of wages or salaries;
c. Exercise of the power of
dismissal; or
d. Exercise of the power to control
the employees conduct.1
2. CONTROL TEST THE
CONTROLLING TEST
The control test is the controlling test. It
addresses the issue of whether the
employee controls or has reserved the
right to control the employee not only
as to the result of the work to be done
but also as to the means and methods
by which the same is to be
accomplished.2
3. SOME PRINCIPLES ON
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
RELAYIONSHIP.
a. There is no uniform test prescribe by
law or jurisprudence to determine the
existence of the employer-employee
relationship.3
b. The existence of the employeremployee relationship is essential in
that it comprises as the jurisdictional
basis for recovery under the law. Only
cases arising from said relationship are
cognizable by the labor courts. 4
c. The relationship of employer and
employee is contractual in nature. It
may be an oral or written contract is
not necessary for the creation and
validity of the relationship.5
d. stipulation in a contract is not
controlling in determining existence of
the relationship. The employment
status of a person is defined and
prescribed by law and not by what the
parties say it should be.6
e. The mode of paying the salary or

CASES

Philippine Global Communications, Inc.

v. De Vera, G.R. No 157214, June 7,
2005.

Galego v. Bayer Philippines, Inc. G.R.

No. 179807, July 31, 2009 , 594 SCRA
736.

Caurdanetaan Piece Workers Union v.

Laguesma, G.R. No. 113542. Feb. 24,
1998, 266 SCRA401, 426.
4

Madrigal shipping Co. v. Melad, G.R.

Nos. L-17362 & L-17367 69, Feb. 28,
1963, 7 SCRA 330.

Compania Martima v. Emesta Cabagnot

Vda. De Hio, G.R. No. L-10575, April 29,
1960, 107 Phil. 873

Chavez v. NLCR, G.R. No. 146536, Jan.

17, 2005.

Lazaro v. Social Security Commission,

G.R. No. 138254, July 30, 2004.
2
Lambo v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111042, Oct.
26, 1999, 317 SCRA 420.

compensation of a worker does not

preclude existence of employeremployee relationship. Thus, payment
by commission1 or on a piece-rate2 basis
or no pay3 basis does not affect
existence of employment relationship4
f. Retainer fee arrangement does not
give rise to employment relationship.4
4. CASES WHERE EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONSHIP EXIST.
Following the right-of-control test, the
Supreme court has found that employment
relationship exist in the following cases:
a. Dispatchers of a transportation
company.5
b. Persons paid on boundary system
basis relation to the transport
operator such as jeepney drivers
and conductors6, taxi drivers,7 autocalesa driver,8 and bus driver.9 Under
the boundary system the
relationship between the driver and
conductor of a bus and the owner
thereof is not that of leese and
lessor but that of employee and
employer.10

CRC Agricultural trading v. NLRC, G.R.

No. 177664, Dec. 23, 2009.
4
Philippine Global Communications, Inc.
v. De Vera, G.R. No. 157214, June 7,
2005.

Tu v. NLRC, GR No. 95845, Feb. 21,

1996
6
National Labor Union v. Dinglasan, 52,
O.G. No. 4, p. 1933, 98 Phil 648 [1986];
See also Gabriel v. Bion, G.R. No.
146989.
7
Jarfen v. NLRC, G.R. No. 119268, Feb.
23, 2000.
8
Citizens League of Freeworkers v.
Abbas, G.R. No. L-20946. Sept. 23, 1966,
18 SCRA 71, 73.
9
R. Transport Corporation v. Ejandra,
G.R. no. 148508, May 20, 2004.
10
Paguio Transport Corporation v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 119500, Aug. 28. 1998
11

c. Musicians employed by a company

producing motion prictures for
purposes of making music
recordings for title music,
background music, musical
numbers, finale music and other
forms of music without which a
motion picture is not complete.11
d. Fishermen-crew whom rendered
services in various capacities
(patron/pilot, master fishermen,
second fishermen, chief engineer,
and fishermen) abroad the fishing
vessels of a company engaged in
trawl fishing and whose
compensation was paid in cash on
percent commission basis.12

LVN Pictures, Inc. v. Philippine

Musicians Guild, G.R. Nos. L-12582 and
L-12598, Jan. 28, 1951, 1 SCSRA 132.

12

Ruga v. NLRC, G.R. No. 7265461, Jan.

22, 1990; See also Teng v. Pahagad, G.R
No. 169704, Nov. 17, 2010; Mercidar
Fishing Corporation v. NLRC , G.R. No.
112574, Oct. 8, 1998, 297 SCRA 440.

Visayan Stevedone Transportation

Company CIR, G.R. No. L-21696, Feb. 25,
1967, 19 SCRA 426.

e. Stevedores, although supplied to the

company by the labor organization
composed of various labor unions,
are employees of the company.1
f. Resident physicians. There is
employee relationship between
resident physicians and the training
hospitals unless:
1. There is a training agreement
between them; and
2. The training program is duly
accredited or approved by the
appropriate government agency.2
g. Employees of cooperatives, but not
its members unless the members
are also employees thereof.3
h. Insurance agent.4
SOME PRINCIPLES ON PROBATIONARY
EMPLOYMENT.
The probationary period may be
extended but only upon the mutual
agreement by the employer and the
probationary employee.2
Purpose and not length of the
probationary period is material.3
An employee who is allowed to work
after a probationary period is
considered a regular employee.4

Employment is deemed regular if

the employment contract has no
stipulation on probationary period.5
Employee is deemed regular absent
any contract to prove probationary
employment.6
Repetitive rehiring of a probationary
employee means he has become a
regular employee.7
Regular workers of previous owner
of business may be hired as
probationary employees of new
owner.8
Probationary employment cannot be

Section 15, Rule X, Book III, Rules to

implement the Labor Code; Felix v.
Buenaseda, G.R. No. 109704 Jan 17,
1995, 240 SCRA 139.
3
Perpetual Help Credit Cooperative, Inc.
v. Faburada, G.R No. 121948, Oct. 8,
2001
4

Investment Planning Corporation v. SSS,

G.R. No. L-19124, Nov. 18, 1967, 21
SCRA 294.

Mariwasa Manufacturing, Inc. v.

Leogardo, G.R. No. 74246, Jan. 26, 1989;
Dust Hotel Nikko v. Gabondon, G.R No.
161654, May 5, 2006
3
International Catholic Migration
Commission v. NLRC, G.R. No. 72222,
Jan. 30, 1989.
4
Article 281, Labor Code; Philippine
National Bank v. Cabansag, G.R No.
157010, June 21, 2005; Servidad v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 128682, March 18, 1999.
5
ATCI Overseas Corporation v. C.A, G.R.
No. 143949, Aug. 9, 2001; A.M. Oreta &
Co. Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 74004, Aug.
10, 1989.
6

San Miguel Corp. v. Del Rosario, G.R.

Nos. 168194 and 168603, Dec 13, 2005.
7

Octaviano, v. NLRC, G.R. No. 88536,

Oct. 3 1991.
8

Espina v. Hon. CA, G.R. No. 164582,

March 28, 2007.
9
Voyeu Visage Studio, Inc. v. CA, G.R.
No. 144939, March 18, 2005.

ad infinitum.9
C. Some principles on termination of
employment of probationary
employees.
1. Procedural due process is required
only in the case of the first and second
grounds (dismissal due to just or
authorized cause0. The third ground
(failure to qualify as a regular
employee) does not require notice and
hearing. Due process of law for the third
ground consists of making the
reasonable standards expected of the
employee during his probationary
employment known to him at the time
of his engagement.4
2. Termination to be valid must be done
prior to lapse of probationary period.5
3. Termination a few days after lapse of
probationary period cannot be done
without due process as he has already
become a regular employee by that
time.6
4. Peremptory and arbitrary termination
of probationary employees is not
allowed.7
5. No obligation to pay unexpired
portion in case of valid termination prior
to lapse of probationary period.1
6. Agabon doctrine2 applies a dismissal
of probationary employee for a just
cause is without due process. Thus the
termination is considered legal but the
employee will be awarded an indemnity
in the form of nominal damages of
P30,000.3
7. Jaka doctrine4
3. Some Principles on Regular
Employment.
a. Law presumes regularity of

Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. v.

Magtibay, Jr., G.R. No. 164532 July 24,
2007; Sameer Overseas Placement
Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 132564,
Oct. 20, 1999, Woodridge school (now
known as Woodridge College, Inc. v.
Benito, G.R. No. 160240, Oct. 29, 2008.

Pasamba v. NLRC, G.R. No. 168421,

June 8,2007; See also Manila Electric
Company v. NLRC, G.R. No. 83751, Sept.
29,1989, 178 SCRA 198, 203.
6
San Miguel Corp. v. Del Rosario, G.R.
Nos. 168194 and 168603, Dec. 13, 2005,
Cebu Royal Plant [San Miguel
Corporation] v. Hon. Deputy Minister of
Labor, G.R. No. L-58639, Aug. 12,1986.
7
Cebu Marine Beach Resort v. NLRC, G.R.
No. 143252, Oct. 23, 2003.

International Catholic Migration

Commission v. NLRC, G.R. No. 72222,
Jan. 30, 1989.
2
Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, Nov.
17, 2004.
3
Aberdeen Court Inc. v. Agustin, Jr., G.R.
No. 149371, April 13, 2005.

Jaka Food Processing Corporation v.

Pacot, G.R. No. 151378, March 28, 2005.

employment. The
presumption having been
made by law itself, it follows
that an employee is deemed
regular by operation of law
the moment the fact is
established that the nature of
his work is directly related to
the principal business of the
employer.3s